Citations

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

Abstract PURPOSE Previous analysis of NRG-CC001 suggested pre-treatment WMI volume was a significant imaging-biomarker predictor of post-treatment neurocognitive decline at 4-and 12-months following HA-WBRT+Memantine. This suggested patients with greater pre-treatment WMI were more susceptible to neurocognitive decline, specifically when undergoing HA-WBRT, but not standard-WBRT. The current analysis examined the relationship between changes in MR-determined WMI and NCF 6-months following WBRT+memantine+/-HA. METHODS NCF-testing was performed at baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months post-WBRT, and included Hopkins Verbal Learning Test–Revised (HVLT-R), Trail Making Test (TMT) Parts A and B, and Controlled Oral Word Association (COWA). Pre-treatment WMI was measured by FLAIR-volume corrected for whole brain volume and corrected for the FLAIR volume associated with metastases (met vol) (FLAIR-volume/(whole brain volume–met-vol). Pearson correlation coefficients were used to assess the correlation between pre-treatment WMI and change from baseline to 6-months for each standardized NCF score. RESULTS Of the 518 randomized patients, 443 (217 patients WBRT+Memantine and 226 HA-WBRT+Memantine) had WMI data available at baseline, and of those, 162 patients (89 patients WBRT+Memantine and 73 HA-WBRT+Memantine) had both baseline and 6-month imaging available. For these patients, there was only a trend toward significance for change in corrected FLAIR-volume from baseline to 6-months (p = 0.174) but no significant change in met-vol (p = 0.438) or whole brain volume (p = 0.977). The change in standardized TMT Part A and B and the change in composite 6-month change scores were moderately correlated with change in corrected FLAIR volume adjusted for met-vol but only in the WBRT+Memantine arm (rho=-0.35, -0.34, -0.39 and p-value = 0.003, 0.006, 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Despite an increase in post-WBRT MR-WMI at 6-months, analysis did not show strong correlation between NCF and MR-WMI as determined by FLAIR-volume change between baseline and 6-months. Similar analyses are underway for the NRG-CC003 imaging data.

Abstract Purpose: RTOG 0617 was a phase III randomized trial for patients with unresectable stage IIIA/IIIB non–small cell lung cancer comparing standard-dose (60 Gy) versus high-dose (74 Gy) radiotherapy and chemotherapy, plus or minus cetuximab. Although the study was negative, based on prior evidence that patients with the KRAS-variant, an inherited germline mutation, benefit from cetuximab, we evaluated KRAS-variant patients in RTOG 0617. Experimental Design: From RTOG 0617, 328 of 496 (66%) of patients were included in this analysis. For time-to-event outcomes, stratified log-rank tests and multivariable Cox regression models were used. For binary outcomes, Cochran—Mantel–Haenzel tests and multivariable logistic regression models were used. All statistical tests were two sided, and a P value <0.05 was considered significant. Results: A total of 17.1% (56/328) of patients had the KRAS-variant, and overall survival rates were similar between KRAS-variant and non-variant patients. However, there was a time-dependent effect of cetuximab seen only in KRAS-variant patients—while the hazard of death was higher in cetuximab-treated patients within year 1 [HR = 3.37, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.13–10.10, P = 0.030], death was lower from year 1 to 4 (HR = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.11–0.97, P = 0.043). In contrast, in non-variant patients, the addition of cetuximab significantly increased local failure (HR = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.11–2.28, P = 0.012). Conclusions/Discussion: Although an overall survival advantage was not achieved in KRAS-variant patients, there is potential impact of cetuximab for this genetic subset of patients. In contrast, cetuximab seems to harm non-variant patients. These findings further support the importance of genetic patient selection in trials studying the addition of systemic agents to radiotherapy. Significance: The KRAS-variant is the first functional, inherited miRNA-disrupting variant identified in cancer. Our findings support that cetuximab has a potentially beneficial impact on KRAS-variant patients treated with radiation. The work confirms prior evidence that KRAS-variant patients are a subgroup who are especially sensitive to radiation. These findings further support the potential of this class of variants to enable true treatment personalization, considering the equally important endpoints of response and toxicity.

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.

7501 Background: The first objective of RTOG 0617 was to compare the overall survival(OS) of patients(pts) treated with standard-dose(SD)(60Gy) versus high-dose(HD)(74Gy) radiotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy(CT). Methods: This Phase III Intergroup trial randomized 464 pts with Stage III NSCLC to the SD(60Gy) vs. HD(74Gy) arms prior to closure of the HD arm. Concurrent CT included weekly paclitaxel(45 mg/m2) and carboplatin(AUC=2). Pts randomized to cetuximab received a 400 mg/m2 loading dose on Day 1 followed by weekly doses of 250 mg/m2. All pts were to receive consolidation CT. We are reporting the final results on radiation dose. Results: 464 pts were accrued prior to closure of the HD arm in 6/11, of which 419 were eligible for analysis. Median follow up was 17.2 months. There were 2 and 10 grade 5 treatment-related adverse events(AEs) on the SD and HD arms, respectively. Grade 3+AEs were 74.2% and 78.2% on SD and HD arms, respectively (p=0.34). The median survival times and 18-month OS rates for the SD and HD arms were 28.7 vs 19.5 months, and 66.9% vs 53.9% respectively (p=0.0007). The primary cause of death was lung cancer (72.2% vs 73.5%)(p=0.84). Local failure rates at 18 months were 25.1% vs 34.3% for SD and HD patients, respectively(p=0.03). Local-regional and distant failures at 18 months were 35.3% vs 44%(p=0.04) and 42.4% vs 47.8%(p=0.16) for SD and HD arms, respectively. Factors predictive of less favorable OS on multivariate analysis were higher radiation dose, higher esophagitis/dysphagia grade, greater gross tumor volume, and heart volume >5 Gy. Conclusions: In this setting of chemoradiation for locally-advanced Stage III NSCLC, 60 Gy is superior to 74 Gy in terms of OS and local-regional control. The effect of the anti-EGFR antibody (cetuximab) awaits further follow up. This project was supported by RTOG grant U10 CA21661, CCOP grant U10 CA37422, and ATC U24 CA 81647 from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and Eli Lilly and Company. Clinical trial information: NCT00533949.

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.

1 Background: To determine whether the efficacy of a hypofractionated (H) schedule is no worse than a conventional (C) schedule in men with low-risk prostate cancer. Methods: From April 2006 to December 2009, one thousand one hundred fifteen men with low-risk prostate cancer (clinical stage T1-2a, Gleason ≤ 6, PSA < 10) were randomly assigned 1:1 to a conventional (C) schedule (73.8 Gy in 41 fractions over 8.2 weeks) or to a hypofractionated (H) schedule (70 Gy in 28 fractions over 5.6 weeks). The trial was designed to establish with 90% power and alpha = 0.05 that (H) results in 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) that is not lower than (C) by more than 7% (hazard ratio (HR) < 1.52). Secondary endpoints include freedom from biochemical recurrence (FFBR) and overall survival. At the third planned interim analysis (July 2015), the NRG Oncology Data Monitoring Committee recommended that the results of the trial be reported. Results: One thousand one hundred and one protocol eligible men were randomized: 547 to C and 554 to H. Median follow-up is 5.9 years. Baseline characteristics are not different according to treatment arm. At the time of analysis 185 DFS events have been observed; 99 in the C arm and 86 in the H arm. The estimated 7-year disease-free survival is 75.6% (95% CI 70.3, 80.1) in the C arm and 81.8% (77.5, 85.3) in the H arm. The DFS HR (C/H) is 0.85 (0.64, 1.14). Comparison of biochemical recurrence (HR = 0.77, (0.51, 1.17)) and overall survival (HR = 0.95, (0.65, 1.41)) also met protocol non-inferiority criteria. Grade ≥ 3 GI toxicity is 3.0% (C) vs. 4.6% (H), Relative risk (RR) for H vs. C 1.53, (95% CI 0.86, 2.83); grade ≥ 3 GU toxicity is 4.5% (C) vs. 6.4% (H), RR = 1.43 (0.86,2.37). Conclusions: In men with low-risk prostate cancer, 70 Gy in 28 fractions over 5.6 weeks is non-inferior to 73.8 Gy in 41 fractions over 8.2 weeks. Clinical trial information: NCT00331773.

Purpose In lung cancer, randomized trials assessing hyperfractionated or accelerated radiotherapy seem to yield conflicting results regarding the effects on overall (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS). The Meta-Analysis of Radiotherapy in Lung Cancer Collaborative Group decided to address the role of modified radiotherapy fractionation. Material and Methods We performed an individual patient data meta-analysis in patients with nonmetastatic lung cancer, which included trials comparing modified radiotherapy with conventional radiotherapy. Results In non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC; 10 trials, 2,000 patients), modified fractionation improved OS as compared with conventional schedules (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.88, 95% CI, 0.80 to 0.97; P = .009), resulting in an absolute benefit of 2.5% (8.3% to 10.8%) at 5 years. No evidence of heterogeneity between trials was found. There was no evidence of a benefit on PFS (HR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.03; P = .19). Modified radiotherapy reduced deaths resulting from lung cancer (HR = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.98; P = .02), and there was a nonsignificant reduction of non–lung cancer deaths (HR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.15; P = .33). In small-cell lung cancer (SCLC; two trials, 685 patients), similar results were found: OS, HR = 0.87, 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.02, P = .08; PFS, HR = 0.88, 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.03, P = .11. In both NSCLC and SCLC, the use of modified radiotherapy increased the risk of acute esophageal toxicity (odds ratio [OR] = 2.44 in NSCLC and OR = 2.41 in SCLC; P < .001) but did not have an impact on the risk of other acute toxicities. Conclusion Patients with nonmetastatic NSCLC derived a significant OS benefit from accelerated or hyperfractionated radiotherapy; a similar but nonsignificant trend was observed for SCLC. As expected, there was increased acute esophageal toxicity.