Bosch, Walter

Abstract Objectives: In the RadComp randomized trial, we compared radiation dose to cardiac substructures in patients treated with proton versus photon radiation therapy (RT) ; evaluated changes in cardiac-specific health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes from baseline to 6 months following RT; and determined associations between radiation dose volume histogram (DVH) parameters and changes in cardiac-specific HRQOL. Methods: The study cohort included patients with locally advanced breast cancer enrolled on RadComp who completed treatment per protocol, had available radiation DVH metrics for all cardiac substructures, and completed both the baseline and at least one follow-up cardiac-specific HRQOL over the 6 months post-RT. Cardiac-specific HRQOL measures included PROMIS fatigue, PRO-CTCAE shortness of breath (SOB) (severity and interference with daily activities), and PRO-CTCAE chest pain, chest tightness, and angina (frequency, severity, and interference). Detailed dose volume histograms (DVH) for cardiac substructures included the whole heart, left ventricle (LV), right ventricle (RV), left atrium (LA), right atrium (RA), and left anterior descending artery (LAD) were derived. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare dose distributions between photon and proton RT. Associations between DVH metrics and HRQOL outcomes were evaluated using repeated-measures linear regression via generalized estimating equations with an independent working correlation structure. All models were adjusted for RT type, age, cardiovascular risk factors, surgery type, laterality, ethnicity, education, timepoint, and race. Additional stratified analyses was performed according to laterality (right versus left + bilateral). Results: Across 1160 RadComp participants, RT exposure to cardiac substructures differed significantly between proton and photon RT and by laterality. Median mean heart dose was lower with protons, 0.9 Gy (Q1, Q3 0.49, 1.46), compared to photons 2.83 Gy (Q1, Q3 1.49, 4.52) (p< 0.001), and lower for right-sided disease, 0.91 Gy (Q1, Q3 0.44, 1.55), compared to left and bilateral 1.99 Gy (Q1, Q3 1.11, 3.63) (p<0.001). Similarly, for the LAD, LA, LV, and RA, mean proton dose was significantly lower (p<0.001). However, for the whole heart, RA, and RV, maximum doses to small-volume parameters and dose to 0.03cc were higher with proton RT. PRO-CTCAE measures of HRQOL were generally favorable at all timepoints across all participants, and grade ≥3 toxicity was rare (≤5.5%) for all measures. The PROMIS Fatigue T-Score increased from baseline (median 49 [Q1, Q3 46, 57]) to end of RT (55 [Q1, Q3 49, 63]), and returned to baseline levels at 6 months (p<0.001). While there were no significant differences in PRO-CTCAE SOB severity (p=0.24) and interference (p=0.11) over time, PRO-CTCAE chest pain worsened compared to pre-RT with respect to frequency (p<0.001), severity (p<0.001), and interference (p=0.008). However, the absolute changes were small. No DVH metrics were significantly associated with any cardiac-specific HRQOL outcomes. Stratification by laterality yielded similar results. Conclusions: Proton RT generally conferred significantly lower doses to the heart and cardiac substructures compared to photon RT. HRQOL outcomes were favorable across all participants, with fatigue returning to baseline, no change in SOB parameters, and a slight worsening of chest pain outcomes over 6 months following RT. Cardiac-specific HRQOLs appear not to be significantly affected by RT dose to cardiac substructures within the first 6 months post-RT. Other organs at risk that could also impact cardiac HRQOL endpoints, longer follow-up, and major cardiac events will be evaluated in future analyses. Citation Format: J. L. Wright, K. Ko, W. Kenworthy, W. Bosch, L. Braunstein, G. Freedman, E. Gillespie, R. Jimenez, S. Pugh, H. Lu, M. Pankuch, N. Remmes, W. Straube, W. Zou, E. Berlin, L. Fang, S. MacDonald, N. Taunk, J. Kim, A. Thukral, A. Taghian, M. Mishra, R. Mutter, V. Croog, D. Boggs, J. Urbanic, N. Ohri, A. Chawla, T. Meier, L. Rosen, M. Fegundes, O. Cahlon, K. Hoffman, A. Ferriozzi, J. Bekelman, A. Lin, B. Ky. Associations Between Cardiac Radiation Dose Volume Metrics and Cardiac Specific Health Related Quality of Life for Patients with Breast Cancer Randomized to Proton versus Photon Radiation on the RadComp Trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2025; 2025 Dec 9-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2026;32(4 Suppl):Abstract nr RF6-04.

ImportanceThe optimal radiotherapy technique for unresectable locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is controversial, so evaluating long-term prospective outcomes of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is important.ObjectiveTo compare long-term prospective outcomes of patients receiving IMRT and 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) with concurrent carboplatin/paclitaxel for locally advanced NSCLC.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsA secondary analysis of a prospective phase 3 randomized clinical trial NRG Oncology–RTOG 0617 assessed 483 patients receiving chemoradiotherapy (3D-CRT vs IMRT) for locally advanced NSCLC based on stratification.Main Outcomes and MeasuresLong-term outcomes were analyzed, including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), time to local failure, development of second cancers, and severe grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs) per Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3. The percentage of an organ volume (V) receiving a specified amount of radiation in units of Gy is reported as V(radiation dose).ResultsOf 483 patients (median [IQR] age, 64 [57-70] years; 194 [40.2%] female), 228 (47.2%) received IMRT, and 255 (52.8%) received 3D-CRT (median [IQR] follow-up, 5.2 [4.8-6.0] years). IMRT was associated with a 2-fold reduction in grade 3 or higher pneumonitis AEs compared with 3D-CRT (8 [3.5%] vs 21 [8.2%]; P = .03). On univariate analysis, heart V20, V40, and V60 were associated with worse OS (hazard ratios, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.04-1.09]; 1.09 [95% CI, 1.05-1.13]; 1.16 [95% CI, 1.09-1.24], respectively; all P < .001). IMRT significantly reduced heart V40 compared to 3D-CRT (16.5% vs 20.5%; P < .001). Heart V40 (<20%) had better OS than V40 (≥20%) (median [IQR], 2.5 [2.1-3.1] years vs 1.7 [1.5-2.0] years; P < .001). On multivariable analysis, heart V40 (≥20%), was associated with worse OS (hazard ratio, 1.34 [95% CI, 1.06-1.70]; P = .01), whereas lung V5 and age had no association with OS. Patients receiving IMRT and 3D-CRT had similar rates of developing secondary cancers (15 [6.6%] vs 14 [5.5%]) with long-term follow-up.Conclusions and RelevanceThese findings support the standard use of IMRT for locally advanced NSCLC. IMRT should aim to minimize lung V20 and heart V20 to V60, rather than constraining low-dose radiation bath. Lung V5 and age were not associated with survival and should not be considered a contraindication for chemoradiotherapy.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00533949

300 Background: The National Radiation Oncology Registry (NROR) is developing an IT infrastructure to support the efficient collection, aggregation, and analysis of data concerning cancer patients treated with radiotherapy across the United States. Methods: Detailed requirements were developed to emphasize the following distinguishing goals for the system: 1) streamline the process of data collection by minimizing manual data entry; 2) support the collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and their linkage with clinician-observed outcomes; 3) facilitate data integration within the NROR and between the NROR and other registries; 4) allow for evolution of the system in response to new learning; and 5) promote sustainability and ongoing improvement through an open standard of interoperability. Results: An innovative technical architecture has been designed to meet the goals described. The system maximizes efficiency through automated extraction and electronic transfer of data from radiation oncology information systems. PROs are collected directly from patients via a web-based portal and linked to data submitted from participating institutions. A data dictionary has been developed based on national standards and controlled vocabularies to facilitate data integration. Contemporary forms-based database technology is used in combination with traditional relational technology to permit both flexible evolution of the system and efficient data analysis. A unique “gateway” architecture and open transmission standard makes it possible for commercial products to interoperate with the registry in the future. Conclusions: The NROR prototype system will be launched later this year to collect data for a pilot registry of prostate cancer patients. Its performance and usability will be important factors in the success of the pilot. If effective, the platform will support the expansion of the NROR to benefit patients, clinicians, researchers, payors, device manufacturers, and policy-makers by capturing reliable, population-based information on radiation treatment delivery and health outcomes.