Iyengar, Puneeth

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

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Small Cell Lung Cancer (SCLC) provide recommended management for patients with SCLC, including diagnosis, primary treatment, surveillance for relapse, and subsequent treatment. This selection for the journal focuses on metastatic (known as extensive-stage) SCLC, which is more common than limited-stage SCLC. Systemic therapy alone can palliate symptoms and prolong survival in most patients with extensive-stage disease. Smoking cessation counseling and intervention should be strongly promoted in patients with SCLC and other high-grade neuroendocrine carcinomas. The “Summary of the Guidelines Updates” section in the SCLC algorithm outlines the most recent revisions for the 2022 update, which are described in greater detail in this revised Discussion text.

Background: We hypothesized that the Effective radiation Dose to the Immune Cells (EDIC) in circulating blood is a significant factor for the treatment outcome in patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: This is a secondary study of a phase III trial, NRG/RTOG 0617, in patients with stage III NSCLC treated with radiation-based treatment. The EDIC was computed as equivalent uniform dose to the entire blood based on radiation doses to all blood-containing organs, with consideration of blood flow and fractionation effect. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and the secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and local progression-free survival (LPFS). The EDIC–survival relationship was analyzed with consideration of clinical significant factors. Results: A total of 456 patients were eligible. The median EDIC values were 5.6 Gy (range, 2.1–12.2 Gy) and 6.3 Gy (2.1–11.6 Gy) for the low- and high-dose groups, respectively. The EDIC was significantly associated with OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.12, p = 0.005) and LPFS (HR = 1.09, p = 0.02) but PFS (HR = 1.05, p = 0.17) after adjustment for tumor dose, gross tumor volume and other factors. OS decreased with an increasing EDIC in a non-linear pattern: the two-year OS decreased first with a slope of 8%/Gy when the EDIC < 6 Gy, remained relatively unchanged when the EDIC was 6–8 Gy, and followed by a further reduction with a slope of 12%/Gy when the EDIC > 8 Gy. Conclusions: The EDIC is a significant independent risk factor for poor OS and LPFS in RTOG 0617 patients with stage III NSCLC, suggesting that radiation dose to circulating immune cells is critical for tumor control. Organ at risk for the immune system should be considered during RT plan.

Abstract Purpose: To quantitatively predict the impact of cardiopulmonary dose on overall survival (OS) after radiotherapy for locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer. Experimental Design: We used the NRG Oncology/RTOG 0617 dataset. The model building procedure was preregistered on a public website. Patients were split between a training and a set-aside validation subset (N = 306/131). The 191 candidate variables covered disease, patient, treatment, and dose-volume characteristics from multiple cardiopulmonary substructures (atria, lung, pericardium, and ventricles), including the minimum dose to the hottest x% volume (Dx%[Gy]), mean dose of the hottest x% (MOHx%[Gy]), and minimum, mean (Mean[Gy]), and maximum dose. The model building was based on Cox regression and given 191 candidate variables; a Bonferroni-corrected P value threshold of 0.0003 was used to identify predictors. To reduce overreliance on the most highly correlated variables, stepwise multivariable analysis (MVA) was repeated on 1000 bootstrapped replicates. Multivariate sets selected in ≥10% of replicates were fit to the training subset and then averaged to generate a final model. In the validation subset, discrimination was assessed using Harrell c-index, and calibration was tested using risk group stratification. Results: Four MVA models were identified on bootstrap. The averaged model included atria D45%[Gy], lung Mean[Gy], pericardium MOH55%[Gy], and ventricles MOH5%[Gy]. This model had excellent performance predicting OS in the validation subset (c = 0.89). Conclusions: The risk of death due to cardiopulmonary irradiation was accurately modeled, as demonstrated by predictions on the validation subset, and provides guidance on the delivery of safe thoracic radiotherapy.

PURPOSE RTOG 0617 compared standard-dose (SD; 60 Gy) versus high-dose (HD; 74 Gy) radiation with concurrent chemotherapy and determined the efficacy of cetuximab for stage III non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS The study used a 2 × 2 factorial design with radiation dose as 1 factor and cetuximab as the other, with a primary end point of overall survival (OS). RESULTS Median follow-up was 5.1 years. There were 3 grade 5 adverse events (AEs) in the SD arm and 9 in the HD arm. Treatment-related grade ≥3 dysphagia and esophagitis occurred in 3.2% and 5.0% of patients in the SD arm v 12.1% and 17.4% in the HD arm, respectively ( P = .0005 and < .0001). There was no difference in pulmonary toxicity, with grade ≥3 AEs in 20.6% and 19.3%. Median OS was 28.7 v 20.3 months ( P = .0072) in the SD and HD arms, respectively, 5-year OS and progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 32.1% and 23% and 18.3% and 13% ( P = .055), respectively. Factors associated with improved OS on multivariable analysis were standard radiation dose, tumor location, institution accrual volume, esophagitis/dysphagia, planning target volume and heart V5. The use of cetuximab conferred no survival benefit at the expense of increased toxicity. The prior signal of benefit in patients with higher H scores was no longer apparent. The progression rate within 1 month of treatment completion in the SD arm was 4.6%. For comparison purposes, the resultant 2-year OS and PFS rates allowing for that dropout rate were 59.6% and 30.7%, respectively, in the SD arms. CONCLUSION A 60-Gy radiation dose with concurrent chemotherapy should remain the standard of care, with the OS rate being among the highest reported in the literature for stage III NSCLC. Cetuximab had no effect on OS. The 2-year OS rates in the control arm are similar to the PACIFIC trial.

PURPOSE Patients with centrally located early-stage non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are at a higher risk of toxicity from high-dose ablative radiotherapy. NRG Oncology/RTOG 0813 was a phase I/II study designed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), efficacy, and toxicity of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for centrally located NSCLC. MATERIALS AND METHODS Medically inoperable patients with biopsy-proven, positron emission tomography–staged T1 to 2 (≤ 5 cm) N0M0 centrally located NSCLC were accrued into a dose-escalating, five-fraction SBRT schedule that ranged from 10 to 12 Gy/fraction (fx) delivered over 1.5 to 2 weeks. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was defined as any treatment-related grade 3 or worse predefined toxicity that occurred within the first year. MTD was defined as the SBRT dose at which the probability of DLT was closest to 20% without exceeding it. RESULTS One hundred twenty patients were accrued between February 2009 and September 2013. Patients were elderly, there were slightly more females, and the majority had a performance status of 0 to 1. Most cancers were T1 (65%) and squamous cell (45%). Organs closest to planning target volume/most at risk were the main bronchus and large vessels. Median follow-up was 37.9 months. Five patients experienced DLTs; MTD was 12.0 Gy/fx, which had a probability of a DLT of 7.2% (95% CI, 2.8% to 14.5%). Two-year rates for the 71 evaluable patients in the 11.5 and 12.0 Gy/fx cohorts were local control, 89.4% (90% CI, 81.6% to 97.4%) and 87.9% (90% CI, 78.8% to 97.0%); overall survival, 67.9% (95% CI, 50.4% to 80.3%) and 72.7% (95% CI, 54.1% to 84.8%); and progression-free survival, 52.2% (95% CI, 35.3% to 66.6%) and 54.5% (95% CI, 36.3% to 69.6%), respectively. CONCLUSION The MTD for this study was 12.0 Gy/fx; it was associated with 7.2% DLTs and high rates of tumor control. Outcomes in this medically inoperable group of mostly elderly patients with comorbidities were comparable with that of patients with peripheral early-stage tumors.

Purpose: Socioeconomic status (SES) influences health care outcomes, but the influence of primary payer on cancer-associated wasting is unknown. We hypothesized that primary payer as an indicator of SES would influence pretreatment cancer-associated weight loss and treatment outcomes. Materials and Methods: Retrospective review of medical records identified 1,366 patients with non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) consecutively treated at a tertiary care health system between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2013. Insurance status was obtained from an institutional tumor registry. Cancer-associated weight loss was based on the validated international consensus definition of cachexia. Multivariable regression analyses were used to identify prognostic factors of pretreatment cancer-associated weight loss and survival. Results: The cohort included a representative group of patients with a median age at diagnosis of 64 years, 47% females, and 33% patients of nonwhite race. Pretreatment cancer-associated weight loss was present at the time of NSCLC diagnosis in 17%, 14%, 32%, and 38% of patients with stage I, II, III, and IV disease, respectively. Pretreatment cancer-associated weight loss was associated with increasing age at diagnosis, black race, single marital status, tobacco use, and disease stage. Compared with private insurance, Medicaid insurance (odds ratio, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.42 to 3.30) and lack of insurance (odds ratio, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.50 to 3.58) were associated with pretreatment cancer-associated weight loss. Among cachectic patients, comorbidity, histology, tumor grade, and disease stage were prognostic of survival on multivariable analysis; however, primary payer was not. Conclusion: Pretreatment cancer-associated weight loss is common in patients with NSCLC, and its presence is significantly associated with lower SES. However, among patients with pretreatment cancer-associated weight loss, SES was not predictive of survival. Early use of cancer cachexia–directed therapies may improve outcomes, and further study on the biologic mechanisms of cancer cachexia will provide novel therapeutic avenues.

Purpose: Cancer-associated weight loss is associated with poor prognosis in advanced malignancy; however, its pretreatment prevalence and survival impact are inadequately described in large cohorts. Such data, stratified by tumor type and stage, may facilitate the optimal and timely allocation of complementary care, leading to improvements in patient survival and quality of life. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 3,180 consecutively treated adult patients with lung or GI (including colorectal, liver, and pancreatic) cancer. Pretreatment cancer-associated weight loss was based on the international consensus definition of cachexia. Prevalence and survival impact of pretreatment cancer-associated weight loss were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank test. Results: Cancer-associated weight loss was observed at the time of cancer diagnosis in 34.1% of patients. Pretreatment weight loss was documented in 17.6%, 25.8%, 36.6%, and 43.3% of stage I, II, III, and IV cancers, respectively. Wasting was common regardless of tumor type, with prevalence at diagnosis ranging from 27.3% in patients with colorectal cancer to 53.4% in patients with gastroesophageal cancer. Pretreatment weight loss was associated with reduced overall survival after adjusting for stage, size, grade, comorbidity, age, sex, and tobacco history (hazard ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.39). Conclusion: Pretreatment cancer-associated weight loss is common, even in early-stage disease, and is independently associated with reduced survival. Minimal weight loss represents a clinically distinct entity with an associated overall survival intermediate to that of no weight loss and overt wasting. Early diagnosis and treatment of cancer-associated wasting offers a novel therapeutic avenue for reducing cancer mortality.

101 Background: Socioeconomic status (SES) influences healthcare outcomes, but the influence of SES on cancer cachexia is unknown. We identify components of SES associated with pre-treatment cachexia in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and assess their prognostic significance on survival. Methods: A prospectively maintained institutional tumor registry identified 1,365 patients with NSCLC consecutively treated at a tertiary care health system from 1/1/06 to 12/31/13. Insurance status was abstracted from the registry. Educational attainment and household income were estimated from census data using location of primary residence. Cancer cachexia was defined retrospectively using the international consensus definition. Multivariable regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors of pre-treatment cancer cachexia and survival. Results: Cachexia was present at the time of NSCLC diagnosis in 30% of all patients including 17% of patients with stage I disease. Patients with Medicaid or no insurance were more likely to have pre-treatment cachexia compared to those with private insurance (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.9, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.2-3.1; OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.2-3.4, respectively). Attainment of a high school diploma was inversely associated with pre-treatment cachexia (OR: 0.1, 95% CI 0.02-0.2). On multivariable analysis, comorbidity, histology, tumor grade, and disease stage were prognostic of survival among cachectic patients; however, insurance status, educational attainment, and household income were not. Conclusions: Lower SES is associated with pre-treatment cachexia in patients with NSCLC, but pre-treatment cachexia is detrimental to survival regardless of SES. Together, these findings suggest early intervention for patients with cancer cachexia may improve outcomes.