McAvoy, Sarah

Abstract Background This secondary image analysis of a randomized trial of proton radiotherapy (PT) versus photon intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) compares tumor progression based on clinical radiological assessment versus Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO). Methods Eligible patients were enrolled in the randomized trial and had MR imaging at baseline and follow-up beyond 12 weeks from completion of radiotherapy. “Clinical progression” was based on a clinical radiology report of progression and/or change in treatment for progression. Results Of 90 enrolled patients, 66 were evaluable. Median clinical progression-free survival (PFS) was 10.8 (range: 9.4–14.7) months; 10.8 months IMRT versus 11.2 months PT (P = .14). Median RANO-PFS was 8.2 (range: 6.9, 12): 8.9 months IMRT versus 6.6 months PT (P = .24). RANO-PFS was significantly shorter than clinical PFS overall (P = .001) and for both the IMRT (P = .01) and PT (P = .04) groups. There were 31 (46.3%) discrepant cases of which 17 had RANO progression more than a month prior to clinical progression, and 14 had progression by RANO but not clinical criteria. Conclusions Based on this secondary analysis of a trial of PT versus IMRT for glioblastoma, while no difference in PFS was noted relative to treatment technique, RANO criteria identified progression more often and earlier than clinical assessment. This highlights the disconnect between measures of tumor response in clinical trials versus clinical practice. With growing efforts to utilize real-world data and personalized treatment with timely adaptation, there is a growing need to improve the consistency of determining tumor progression within clinical trials and clinical practice.

Abstract Background To determine if proton radiotherapy (PT), compared to intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), delayed time to cognitive failure in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM). Methods Eligible patients were randomized unblinded to PT vs IMRT. The primary endpoint was time to cognitive failure. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), intracranial progression-free survival (PFS), toxicity, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Results A total of 90 patients were enrolled and 67 were evaluable with median follow-up of 48.7 months (range 7.1-66.7). There was no significant difference in time to cognitive failure between treatment arms (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.45-1.75; P = .74). PT was associated with a lower rate of fatigue (24% vs 58%, P = .05), but otherwise, there were no significant differences in PROs at 6 months. There was no difference in PFS (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.44-1.23; P = .24) or OS (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.49-1.50; P = .60). However, PT significantly reduced the radiation dose for nearly all structures analyzed. The average number of grade 2 or higher toxicities was significantly higher in patients who received IMRT (mean 1.15, range 0-6) compared to PT (mean 0.35, range 0-3; P = .02). Conclusions In this signal-seeking phase II trial, PT was not associated with a delay in time to cognitive failure but did reduce toxicity and patient-reported fatigue. Larger randomized trials are needed to determine the potential of PT such as dose escalation for GBM and cognitive preservation in patients with lower-grade gliomas with a longer survival time.

Abstract Background We investigated differences in radiation-induced grade 3+ lymphopenia (G3+L), defined as an absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) nadir of <500 cells/µL, after proton therapy (PT) or X-ray (photon) therapy (XRT) for patients with glioblastoma (GBM). Methods Patients enrolled in a randomized phase II trial received PT (n = 28) or XRT (n = 56) concomitantly with temozolomide. ALC was measured before, weekly during, and within 1 month after radiotherapy. Whole-brain mean dose (WBMD) and brain dose-volume indices were extracted from planned dose distributions. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify independent predictive variables. The resulting model was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Results Rates of G3+L were lower in men (7/47 [15%]) versus women (19/37 [51%]) (P < 0.001), and for PT (4/28 [14%]) versus XRT (22/56 [39%]) (P = 0.024). G3+L was significantly associated with baseline ALC, WBMD, and brain volumes receiving 5‒40 Gy(relative biological effectiveness [RBE]) or higher (ie, V5 through V40). Stepwise multivariate logistic regression analysis identified being female (odds ratio [OR] 6.2, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.95‒22.4, P = 0.003), baseline ALC (OR 0.18, 95% CI: 0.05‒0.51, P = 0.003), and whole-brain V20 (OR 1.07, 95% CI: 1.03‒1.13, P = 0.002) as the strongest predictors. ROC analysis yielded an area under the curve of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.79–0.94) for the final G3+L prediction model. Conclusions Sex, baseline ALC, and whole-brain V20 were the strongest predictors of G3+L for patients with GBM treated with radiation and temozolomide. PT reduced brain volumes receiving low and intermediate doses and, consequently, reduced G3+L.

Abstract BACKGROUND While glioblastoma (GBM) is more prevalent in males, studies show that females with GBM tend to have longer overall survival (OS) than males. Pretreatment neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) has also proven to be prognostic in GBM, with lower NLR having favorable outcomes. This secondary analysis of a prospective randomized trial of proton vs. photon intensity modulated radiotherapy aims to explore the interaction of gender and NLR on GBM outcomes. METHODS Analysis was performed on the full patient population. Kaplan-Meier methods estimated OS with censoring at last follow-up for those who were alive. Univariate (UVA) and multivariate (MVA)Cox proportional hazards models assessed predictors of OS. RESULTS Of 90 patients, 77 were included (43 males; 34 females) with median age of 52 years (range: 26–82 years). Median OS was longer for females than males (30.7 vs 18.2 months, p=0.004). On UVA, patients with NLR below median value (NLR= 3.1) tended to have longer OS than those above median, though not meeting statistical significance (23.1 vs. 17.9 months, p=0.051). Difference in OS was statistically significant in females (OS 36.4 months NLR >median vs. 16.7 months NLR< median, p=0.002), but not in males (OS 17.8 months NLR >median vs. 19.1 NLR< median, p=0.95). MVA analysis was consistent, with female gender predicting reduced hazard ratio (HR) (0.28, p=0.034) and females with below median NLR showing a reduced HR over those with above median (0.28, p=0.005). Again, males did not benefit (HR 0.90, p=0.77). CONCLUSION Consistent with prior publications, females and all patients with lower pre-treatment NLR with newly diagnosed GBM had longer OS. However, combining these two factors revealed that the benefits from lower pre-treatment NLR were conferred only in females with no impact on males. This different impact of NLR between genders may suggest innate immune differences in gender during response to malignancy.

Abstract PURPOSE To compare tumor progression based on clinical radiological assessment and on Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria between GBM patients treated with proton radiotherapy (PT) vs. photon intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). METHODS Eligible patients were enrolled on the described prospective phase II trial and had MR imaging at baseline and follow-up beyond 12 weeks from treatment completion. ‘Clinical’ progression was based on a radiology report of progression in combination with changes in treatment due to suspected disease progression. A single blinded observer applied RANO criteria to determine the RANO-based tumor progression. RESULTS Of 90 enrolled patients, 66 were evaluable, with median follow-up of 19.8 (Range: 3.2–65.1) months; median of 22.6 months for PT (n=25) vs. 18.9 months for IMRT (n=41). Median time to progression (TTP) was 7.9 months based on clinical progression criteria (8.1 months IMRT, 6.3 months PT) and 7.2 months (7.3 months IMRT, 5.7 months PT) by RANO criteria (p=ns for all). Median ‘clinical’ progression-free survival (PFS) was 8.7 (Range: 6.4–11.1) months; 8.9 months IMRT vs. 8.7 months PT (p=0.065). Median RANO PFS was 8.3 (range, 5.8–11.6) months: 8.3 months IMRT vs. 6.9 months PT (p=0.226). There were 14 discrepant cases: 3 had progression based on ‘clinical’ but not RANO criteria, and 11 had progression based on RANO but not ‘clinical’ criteria. CONCLUSION Based on this secondary analysis of a randomized trial of PT vs. IMRT for GBM, there was no difference in tumor progression relative to treatment technique used. There was no statistical difference in PFS noted between clinical and RANO-based assessments, but RANO criteria identified progression more often than clinical assessment, and TTP was shortened with the use of RANO criteria alone. Further development of tumor assessment tools that improve consistency and accuracy of determining tumor progression are needed to guide therapeutic trials in GBM.