Citations

Importance Preoperative and perioperative nivolumab improve event-free survival in resectable non–small cell lung cancer. The role of adjuvant nivolumab after upfront surgery is unknown. Objective To determine whether adjuvant nivolumab improves disease-free survival and overall survival in patients with resected non–small cell lung cancer with any tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression and in those with at least 50% PD-L1 expression. Design, Setting, and Participants This open-label, randomized phase 3 study enrolled participants from May 2016 through September 2019, with median follow-up of 72.6 months at the data cutoff in December 2025. The study was conducted at 378 centers in the US National Clinical Trials Network. Patients were identified through a screening trial. Those with resected tumors at least 4 cm and/or who were lymph node positive (N1/N2) were eligible for inclusion after completion of planned standard adjuvant therapy if the tumor was adenocarcinoma without sensitizing sequence variants in EGFR and ALK or squamous cell carcinoma. Intervention Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive nivolumab 480 mg intravenously every 4 weeks for up to 1 year or standard care observation. Main Outcomes and Measures Co–primary end points were disease-free survival in the intention-to-treat population and in those with tumoral PD-L1 expression at least 50%. Overall survival was examined if the corresponding test of disease-free survival was statistically significant. Results A total of 466 patients (median age, 66 years; 241 [52%] male) were assigned to receive nivolumab and 469 (median age, 67 years; 245 [52%] male) to undergo standard care observation. The median duration of follow-up was 72.6 months. The trial was stopped for futility at 75% information. In the intention-to-treat population, median disease-free survival was 71.3 months with nivolumab and 68.8 months with observation (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.97 [97% CI, 0.79-1.20]; [95% CI, 0.81-1.17]; 1-sided P = .39). In the subset of participants with PD-L1 of at least 50%, median disease-free survival was 89.8 months with nivolumab and 78.5 months with observation (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.86 [98% CI, 0.55-1.34]; [95% CI, 0.59-1.25]; 1-sided P = .22). Conclusions and Relevance Adjuvant nivolumab was not associated with improved disease-free survival in patients with resected non–small cell lung cancer without sensitizing EGFR and ALK alterations when given after planned adjuvant chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02595944

8000 Background: The NCI’s ALCHEMIST program has screened thousands of patients with resected lung adenocarcinoma for mutations in EGFR and ALK. EA5142 studied the efficacy of adjuvant nivolumab after standard of care adjuvant therapy in patients with resected lung adenocarcinoma without sensitizing EGFR and ALK alterations and squamous cell carcinoma. Methods: Patients enrolled in the ALCHEMIST screening trial (A151216) with resected NSCLC tumors at least 4 cm and/or lymph node positive (N1/2) (for lung adenocarcinoma, without sensitizing EGFR and ALK alterations), were centrally tested for tumor cell PD-L1 expression using the DAKO 28-8 clone. After completion of all planned adjuvant therapy (chemotherapy and/or post-operative radiation) patients were randomized 1:1 to adjuvant nivolumab 480 mg IV every 4 weeks for up to 1 year or best supportive care. Patients were stratified by tumor histology, stage (AJCC 7 th edition IB/IIA vs IIB/IIIA), prior adjuvant treatment, and PD-L1 status (<1% vs ≥1%). The primary study endpoints were disease free survival (DFS) in all patients and in patients with high tumor PD-L1 expression (≥50%). Overall survival was powered to be tested hierarchically, if DFS was positive. Results: Between July 2016 and October 2019, 935 patients were randomized across 378 sites. The treatment arms were balanced for age (median 66 years), sex (52% male), smoking status (10% never smoked), histology (29% squamous), stage and PD-L1 expression (29% PD-L1 high). With a median follow-up of 72.6 months, nivolumab did not improve DFS in the intention to treat population (median DFS 71.3 months vs. 68.8 months in observation arm), hazard ratio (HR) 0.97 (95% CI 0.81-1.17, p=0.78) or the PD-L1 ≥50% subset (median DFS 89.8 months vs. 78.5 months in observation arm), HR 0.86 (95% CI 0.59-1.25, p=0.43). In multivariate analysis, adjusting for age, gender, and smoking history, the DFS HR was 0.99 (95% CI 0.82-1.19, p=0.89) in all randomized patients and 0.82 (95% CI 0.56-1.2, p=0.31) in the PD-L1 ≥50% subset. As the primary recurrence endpoint included any lung cancer, including new primaries, a sensitivity analysis was performed excluding new primary lung cancers, DFS HR 0.97 (95% CI 0.80-1.18, p=0.76) in all patients and HR 0.88 (95% CI 0.60-1.30, p=0.52 in the ≥50% subset. The median duration of treatment with adjuvant nivolumab was 9.4 months (range 0-12.7 months). The most common reasons for nivolumab discontinuation were adverse event (29%), patient withdrawal (11%), and disease progression while on treatment (10%). Treatment related grade 3-5 toxicities were reported in 25% of patients: Grade 3: 23%, Grade 4: 2%, Grade 5: <1%. Conclusions: In patients with resected NSCLC (≥4cm or LN+, EGFR/ALK -) adjuvant nivolumab did not improve DFS, irrespective of tumor PD-L1 expression. Clinical trial information: NCT02595944 .

Background/Objectives: Proton therapy delivers highly conformal doses to the target area without producing an exit dose, minimizing cumulative doses to healthy liver tissue. This study aims to evaluate current practices, challenges, and variations in the implementation of proton stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and hypofractionated therapy for liver malignancies, with the goal of providing a technical assessment to promote broader adoption and support future clinical trials. Methods and Materials: An extensive survey was conducted by NRG Oncology across North American proton treatment centers to assess the current practices of proton liver SBRT and hypofractionated therapy. The survey focused on key aspects, including patient selection, prescription and normal tissue constraints, simulation and motion management, treatment planning, quality assurance (QA), treatment delivery, and the use of image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT). Results: This survey captures the current practice patterns and status of proton SBRT and hypofractionated therapy in liver cancer treatment. Proton therapy is increasingly preferred for treating inoperable liver malignancies due to its ability to minimize healthy tissue exposure. However, the precision required for proton therapy presents challenges, particularly in managing uncertainties and target motion during high-dose fractions and short treatment courses. Survey findings revealed significant variability in clinical practices across centers, highlighting differences in motion management, dose fractionation schedules, and QA protocols. Conclusion: Proton SBRT and hypofractionated therapy offer significant potential for treating liver malignancies. A comprehensive approach involving precise patient selection, treatment planning, and QA is essential for ensuring safety and effectiveness. This survey provides valuable insights into current practices and challenges, offering a foundation for technical recommendations to optimize the use of proton therapy and guide future clinical trials.

Abstract Introduction: Radiotherapy (RT)-induced acute esophagitis (AE) is a common side effect in lung cancer patients receiving RT, which can significantly impact their quality of life. This highlights the need for a predictive model that can estimate AE risk in advance using pretreatment imaging data. However, collecting sufficient data for model development is often resource-intensive and costly. Additionally, acquiring a homogeneous training dataset (e.g., from a single center or modality) is not always feasible. This study aimed to develop an automated artificial intelligence-based 3D vision foundation model (VFM) combining standard-of-care planning computed tomography (pCT) and planned radiation dose maps to predict grade II or higher AE. Materials and methods: This study included 246 patients with non-small cell lung cancer who underwent either image-guided radiation treatment (IMRT) or proton-beam radiation therapy. The endpoint was grade two or higher AE (33% positive and 67% negative). The IMRT group consisted of 182 patients from a single center, whereas the proton therapy group included 64 patients from the Proton Collaborative Group trial from 11 different institutions. For each patient, pCT, dose maps, and radiotherapy segmentations were available. The VFM was created using a transformer pretrained using a large number of unlabeled volumetric 3D CTs from patients with varied diseases through a self-supervised learning approach, which extracts useful features directly from images. Next, the pretrained encoder was combined with fully connected classification layers and fine-tuned using stratified 5-fold cross-validation with 20 patients set aside for testing. We developed two models: a CT only and CT + dose model. Model performance was assessed using the area under the curve (AUC), specificity, and sensitivity. Results: In cross-validation, adding dose information to CT (CT+Dose) improved model performance, increasing AUC from 0.72 ± 0.08 to 0.76 ± 0.10 and specificity from 0.82 ± 0.09 to 0.87 ± 0.04, while sensitivity remained the same. On the independent test set, CT+Dose showed a marked improvement over CT only (AUC: 0.82 vs. 0.59; sensitivity: 0.57 vs. 0.14), with a slight decrease in specificity (0.77 vs. 1.00). Conclusion: A VFM model combining CT and radiation dose showed the capability to predict AE more accurately with higher specificity. Further studies on larger cohorts of testing patients are planned to assess model generalization. Citation Format: Chloe Min Seo Choi, Jue Jiang, Nikhil Mankuzhy, John Chang, Jing Zeng, Carlos Vargas, James Urbanic, Isabella Choi, Mark Mcdonald, James Gray, Joseph Deasy, Maria Thor, Charles Simone, Harini Veeraraghavan. Prediction of radiotherapy-Induced esophagitis in non-small cell lung cancer using a 3D vision foundation model [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference in Cancer Research: Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning; 2025 Jul 10-12; Montreal, QC, Canada. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2025;31(13_Suppl):Abstract nr B022.

Objectives: Esophageal cancer (EC) often presents with dysphagia due to tumor obstruction. Esophageal stenting has the potential of palliating dysphagia, improving nutrition, preventing aspiration, and improving quality of life (QoL) but may be associated with risks. The present systematic review and guidelines are intended to assist treatment decision-making when considering stent placement in patients with EC based on the available evidence. Methods: Using the population, intervention, comparator, outcome, timing and study design framework, the evidence was assessed using Cochrane and PRISMA 2020 methodology. Eligible studies included prospective phase II-III trials and retrospective analyses published between January 1, 2010 and December 3, 2024 in the Ovid Medline database. These references were assessed by American Radium Society (ARS) Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) methodology. RAND-UCLA consensus methodology was used to rate the appropriateness of the use of stents. Results: ARS AUC recommendations include (1) esophageal stenting is usually not appropriate in patients with early-stage EC in whom upfront surgery is planned; (2) esophageal stenting is usually not appropriate in patients with locally-advanced EC in whom neoadjuvant/perioperative therapy and esophagectomy or definitive chemoradiation is planned; (3) esophageal stenting may be appropriate in the setting of metastatic EC, especially in patients with short life expectancy with limited treatment options; (4) esophageal stenting is usually not appropriate for benign stricture following curative-intent therapy; (5) esophageal stenting is usually not appropriate for locally recurrent tumor in the setting of prior radiation; and (6) esophageal stenting is usually appropriate for management of tracheoesophageal fistula before curative-intent treatment. Conclusions: This ARS AUC summary provides guidelines for the use of esophageal stents in patients with EC provides based on available evidence.

Abstract BACKGROUND Standard of care treatment for recurrent malignant glioma after prior radiotherapy (RT) is not well established. Proton therapy (PT) is increasingly used for reirradiation (ReRT) at the time of recurrence; however, treatment outcomes, toxicity, and prognostic factors for patients treated with PT-ReRT remain poorly defined. METHODS The prospective, multi-institutional Proton Collaborative Group (PCG) registry was queried for patients with malignant glioma who previously received RT and underwent PT-ReRT between 7/2011-12/2023. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and Cox proportional hazards regression was used for uni- and multivariate analysis (UVA and MVA). Dose was calculated using equivalent dose in 2-Gy fractions (EQD2). RESULTS 143 consecutive patients were identified. Median follow-up was 11.2 months and median time interval (TI) from prior RT (median 58.5 Gy) to PT-ReRT (median 44.6 Gy) was 42.4 months. Primary histology was glioblastoma (n=74), astrocytoma (n=35), and oligodendroglioma (n=34). Median PFS and OS were 8.1 and 11.2 months, respectively. On UVA, improved OS was associated with oligodendroglioma (HR 0.37) and astrocytoma histology (HR 0.53) compared to glioblastoma, TI &gt;60 months (HR 0.2), CNS WHO Grade 2 compared to 4 (HR 0.42), and ECOG performance status 0 (HR 0.47). On MVA, improved OS remained associated only with oligodendroglioma (HR 0.42) and TI &gt;60 months (HR 0.49). Acute and Late Grade 3 toxicity occurred in 7% and 4% of patients. Acute Grade 3 toxicity was associated with poor performance status (HR 16.15). CONCLUSIONS In the largest series of glioma PT-ReRT reported to date, retreatment appears well tolerated with variable outcomes based on clinical prognostic factors. Toxicity rates were acceptable compared to historical photon-based literature despite a high median prescription dose.

AbstractBackgroundData for proton therapy in high‐risk prostate cancer (HRPC) are limited. Using the Proton Collaborative Group prospective registry, we evaluated outcomes for HRPC patients treated with proton therapy.MethodsA totsl of 605 men with localized HRPC treated with proton therapy from 8/2009 to 3/2019 at nine institutions were selected. Outcomes examined included freedom from progression (FFP), metastasis free survival (MFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity. Multivariable cox/binomial regression models were used to assess predictors of FFP and toxicity.ResultsMedian age was 71 years. Gleason grade groups 4 (49.4%) and 5 (31.7%) were most common, as were clinical stage T1c (46.1%) and cT2 (41.3%). The median pretreatment prostate specific antigen (PSA) was 9.18 and median International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) was 6. Androgen deprivation therapy was given in 63.6%. Median dose was 79.2 GyE in 44 fractions. Pelvic lymph nodes were treated in 58.2% of cases. Pencil beam scanning was used in 54.5%, uniform scanning in 38.8%, and a rectal spacer in 14.2%. At a median followup of 22 months, the 3‐ and 5‐year FFP were 90.7% and 81.4%, respectively. Five‐year MFS and OS were 92.8% and 95.9%, respectively. Independent correlates of FFP included Gleason ≥8, PSA > 10, and cT2 (all p < 0.05). No grade 4 or 5 adverse events were reported. There were 23 (5%) grade 2 and 0 grade 3 gastrointestinal events. Prevalence of late grade 3, late grade 2, acute grade 3, and acute grade 2 genitourinary toxicity was 1.7%, 5.8%, 0%, and 21.8%, respectively. Prevalence of grade 2 and 3 erectile dysfunction at 2 years was 48.4% and 8.4%, respectively.ConclusionsIn the largest series published to date, our results suggest early outcomes using proton therapy for HRPC are encouraging for both safety and efficacy. Further evaluation is needed to determine if an advantage exists to use protons over other radiation techniques in this population.

Radiation-induced brain injury (RIBI) is a debilitating sequela after radiotherapy to treat head and neck cancer, and 20 to 30% of patients with RIBI fail to respond to or have contraindications to the first-line treatments of bevacizumab and corticosteroids. Here, we reported a Simon’s minmax two-stage, single-arm, phase 2 clinical trial (NCT03208413) to assess the efficacy of thalidomide in patients with RIBI who were unresponsive to or had contraindications to bevacizumab and corticosteroid therapies. The trial met its primary endpoint, with 27 of 58 patients enrolled showing ≥25% reduction in the volume of cerebral edema on fluid-attenuated inversion recovery–magnetic resonance imaging (FLAIR-MRI) after treatment (overall response rate, 46.6%; 95% CI, 33.3 to 60.1%). Twenty-five (43.1%) patients demonstrated a clinical improvement based on the Late Effects Normal Tissues–Subjective, Objective, Management, Analytic (LENT/SOMA) scale, and 36 (62.1%) experienced cognitive improvement based on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores. In a mouse model of RIBI, thalidomide restored the blood-brain barrier and cerebral perfusion, which were attributed to the functional rescue of pericytes secondary to elevation of platelet-derived growth factor receptor β (PDGFRβ) expression by thalidomide. Our data thus demonstrate the therapeutic potential of thalidomide for the treatment of radiation-induced cerebral vasculature impairment.

Abstract Purpose: The optimal salvage treatment for malignant glioma after prior radiotherapy (RT) is not well established. Proton therapy (PT) is an attractive treatment modality for reirradiation (ReRT) of recurrent disease; however, data are limited.Methods: The prospective, multi-institutional Proton Collaborative Group (PCG) registry was queried for patients with malignant glioma who previously received RT and underwent PT-ReRT between 7/2011-10/2018. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis. Results: 109 consecutive patients were identified. Median follow-up was 11.2 months and median time interval (TI) from prior RT (median 59.3 Gy) to PT-ReRT (median 49.6 Gy) was 45.7 months. Primary histology was glioblastoma (n=62), oligodendroglioma (n=26), and astrocytoma (n=20). Median PFS and OS was 6.1 and 11.1 months, respectively. On UVA, improved PFS was associated with oligodendroglioma (HR 0.39) and astrocytoma (HR 0.55) histologies, WHO Grade III (HR 0.36), TI (HR 0.989), surgical resection (HR 0.39), and PT-ReRT dose ≥50 Gy (HR 0.59) (all p<0.03), while improved OS was associated with oligodendroglioma histology (HR 0.35), WHO grade III (HR 0.33), ECOG 0 (HR 0.47), TI (HR 0.985), and PT-ReRT dose ≥50 Gy (HR 0.58) (all p<0.04). Late Grade 3 toxicities occurred in 5.6% of patients with no attributable acute or late Grade 4-5 events.Conclusion: In the largest series of glioma PT-ReRT reported to date, retreatment appears well tolerated with acceptable outcomes and favorable toxicities compared to photon historical controls. Dose escalation achievable with PT may improve outcomes for well-selected patients.

Abstract Background: A range pull-back device, such as a machine-related range shifter (MRS) or a universal patient-related range shifter (UPRS), is needed in pencil beam scanning technique to treat shallow tumors. Methods: three UPRS made by QFix (Avondale, PA, USA) allow treating targets across the body: U-shaped bolus (UB), anterior lateral bolus (ALB) and couch top bolus (CTB). HN patients who used the UPRS were tested. The in-air spot sizes were measured and compared in this study at snout positions: 15 cm, 25 cm, and 35 cm. A solid water phantom with the ALB placed at 0, 10 and 20 cm air gaps to the phantom surface was also measured using a single-field optimized pencil beam scanning field. The two dimensional dose maps at the middle of the spread-out Bragg peak were measured using ion chamber array MatriXX PT (IBA-Dosimetry, Schwarzenbruck, Germany) located at iso-center and compared with the treatment planning system. Results: A UPRS can be consistently placed close to the patient and maintains a relatively small spot size resulting in improved dose distributions. However, when a UPRS is non-removable (e.g. thick couch top), the quality of volumetric imaging is degraded due to their high Z material construction, hindering the value of Image-Guided Radiation Therapy (IGRT). Limitations of using UPRS with small air gaps include reduced couch weight limit, potential collision with patient or immobilization devices and challenges using non-coplanar fields with certain UPRS. Our experience showed the combination of a U-shaped bolus exclusively for a head-and-neck target and an MRS as complimentary for head-and-neck targets as well as for all other treatment sites may be ideal to preserve the dosimetric advantages of pencil beam scanning proton treatments across the body. Conclusion: We have described how to implement UPRS and MRS for various clinical indications using the PBS technique, and comprehensively reviewed the advantage and disadvantages of URPS and MRS. We recommend the removable UB to be employed for the brain and HN treatments only while an automated MRS is used for all proton beams that require RS but not convenient or feasible to UB.