Long-Term Prospective Outcomes of Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy for Locally Advanced Lung Cancer: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The 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. Objective: To 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 Participants: A 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 Measures: Long-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). Results: Of 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 Relevance: These 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 Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00533949.

The Inherited KRAS-variant as a Biomarker of Cetuximab Response in NSCLC.

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.

Effect of Lymphopenia on Tumor Response and Clinical Outcomes Following Chemoradiotherapy in Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Background: Prior studies suggest lymphopenia, systemic immune-inflammatory index, and tumor response all impact clinical outcomes in Stage III NSCLC. We hypothesized that tumor response after CRT would be associated with hematologic metrics and might predict clinical outcomes. Materials and Methods: Patients with stage III NSCLC treated at a single institution between 2011 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Pre-treatment gross tumor volume (GTV) was recorded then reassessed at 1-4 months post-CRT. Complete blood counts before, during and after treatment were recorded. Systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) was defined as neutrophil × platelet/lymphocyte. Overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) were calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates, and compared with Wilcoxon tests. A multivariate analysis of hematologic factors impacting restricted mean survival was then performed using pseudovalue regression, accounting for other baseline factors. Results: 106 patients were included. After median follow-up of 24 months, median PFS and OS were 16 and 40 months, respectively. Within the multivariate model, baseline SII was associated with OS (p = 0.046) but not PFS (p = 0.09), and baseline ALC correlated with both PFS and OS (p = 0.03 and p = 0.02, respectively). Nadir ALC, nadir SII, and recovery SII were not associated with PFS or OS. Conclusion: In this cohort of patients with stage III NSCLC, baseline hematologic factors were associated with clinical outcomes including baseline ALC, baseline SII and recovery ALC. Disease response was not well correlated with hematologic factors or clinical outcomes.

High-Dose Once-Daily Thoracic Radiotherapy in Limited-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer: CALGB 30610 (Alliance)/RTOG 0538.

PURPOSE: Although level 1 evidence supports 45-Gy twice-daily radiotherapy as standard for limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, most patients receive higher-dose once-daily regimens in clinical practice. Whether increasing radiotherapy dose improves outcomes remains to be prospectively demonstrated. METHODS: This phase III trial, CALGB 30610/RTOG 0538 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00632853), was conducted in two stages. In the first stage, patients with limited-stage disease were randomly assigned to receive 45-Gy twice-daily, 70-Gy once-daily, or 61.2-Gy concomitant-boost radiotherapy, starting with either the first or second (of four total) chemotherapy cycles. In the second stage, allocation to the 61.2-Gy arm was discontinued following planned interim toxicity analysis, and the study continued with two remaining arms. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: Trial accrual opened on March 15, 2008, and closed on December 1, 2019. All patients randomly assigned to 45-Gy twice-daily (n = 313) or 70-Gy once-daily radiotherapy (n = 325) are included in this analysis. After a median follow-up of 4.7 years, OS was not improved on the once-daily arm (hazard ratio for death, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.17; P = .594). Median survival is 28.5 months for twice-daily treatment, and 30.1 months for once-daily treatment, with 5-year OS of 29% and 32%, respectively. Treatment was tolerable, and the frequency of severe adverse events, including esophageal and pulmonary toxicity, was similar on both arms. CONCLUSION: Although 45-Gy twice-daily radiotherapy remains the standard of care, this study provides the most robust information available to help guide the choice of thoracic radiotherapy regimen for patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer.

Positron Emission Tomography-Adapted Therapy in Bulky Stage I/II Classic Hodgkin Lymphoma: CALGB 50801 (Alliance).

PURPOSE: Patients with bulky stage I/II classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) are typically treated with chemotherapy followed by radiation. Late effects associated with radiotherapy include increased risk of second cancer and cardiovascular disease. We tested a positron emission tomography (PET)-adapted approach in patients with bulky, early-stage cHL, omitting radiotherapy in patients with interim PET-negative (PET-) disease and intensifying treatment in patients with PET-positive (PET+) disease. METHODS: Eligible patients with bulky disease (mass > 10 cm or 1/3 the maximum intrathoracic diameter on chest x-ray) received two cycles of doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) followed by interim fluorodeoxyglucose PET (PET2). Patients with PET2-, defined as 1-3 on the 5-point scale, received four additional cycles of doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine. Patients with PET2+ received four cycles of escalated bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone followed by 30.6 Gy involved-field radiation. RESULTS: Of 94 evaluable patients, 53% were female with median age 30 years (range, 18-58 years). Eight-five (90%) had stage II disease, including 48 (51%) with stage IIB/IIBE. Seventy-eight (78%) were PET2- and 21 (22%) were PET2+. The predominant toxicity was neutropenia, with 9% of patients developing febrile neutropenia and one developing sepsis. The primary end point of 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 93.1% in PET2- and 89.7% in PET2+ patients. Three-year overall survival was 98.6% and 94.4%, respectively. The estimated hazard ratio comparing PFS of patients with PET2+ and patients with PET2- was 1.03 (85% upper bound 2.38) and was significantly less than the null hypothesis of 4.1 (one-sided P = .04). CONCLUSION: Our study of PET-adapted therapy in bulky stage I/II cHL met its primary goal and was associated with an excellent 3-year PFS rate of 92.3% in all patients, with the majority being spared radiotherapy and exposure to intensified chemotherapy.

Systemic Cancer Therapy Does Not Significantly Impact Early Vaccine-Elicited SARS-CoV-2 Immunity in Patients with Solid Tumors.

mRNA vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective in individuals with cancer. It is unclear, however, if systemic anti-cancer therapy impacts the coordinated cellular and humoral immune responses elicited by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines. To fill this knowledge gap, we assessed SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine-elicited immunity in a cohort of patients with advanced solid tumors either under observation or receiving systemic anti-cancer therapy. This analysis revealed that SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine-elicited cellular and humoral immunity was not significantly different in individuals with cancer receiving systemic anti-cancer therapy relative to individuals under observation. Furthermore, even though some patients exhibited suboptimal antibody titers after vaccination, SARS-CoV-2 specific cellular immune responses were still detected. These data suggest that antibody titers offer an incomplete picture of vaccine-elicited SARS-CoV-2 immunity in cancer patients undergoing active systemic anti-cancer therapy, and that vaccine-elicited cellular immunity exists even in the absence of significant quantities of SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies.

Radiation and Systemic Therapy for Limited-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

Progress in the overall treatment of small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) has moved at a slower pace than non-small-cell lung cancer. In fact, the standard treatment regimen for limited stage SCLC has not appreciably shifted in more than 20 years, consisting of four to six cycles of cisplatin and etoposide chemotherapy concurrent with thoracic radiotherapy (TRT) followed by prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) for responsive disease. Nevertheless, long-term outcomes have improved with median survival approaching 25-30 months, and approximately one third of patients now survive 5 years. This is likely attributable in part to improvements in staging, including use of brain magnetic resonance imaging and fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography imaging, advances in radiation treatment planning, and supportive care. The CONVERT and CALGB 30610 phase III trials failed to demonstrate a survival advantage for high-dose, once-daily TRT compared with standard 45 Gy twice-daily TRT, although high-dose, once-daily TRT remains common in practice. A phase III comparison of high-dose 60 Gy twice-daily TRT versus 45 Gy twice-daily TRT aims to confirm the provocative outcomes reported with 60 Gy twice daily in the phase II setting. Efforts over time have shifted from intensifying PCI, to attempting to reduce treatment-related neurotoxicity, to more recently questioning whether careful magnetic resonance imaging surveillance may obviate the routine need for PCI. The addition of immunotherapy has resulted in mixed success in extensive-stage SCLC with modest benefit observed with programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitors, and several ongoing trials assess programmed death-ligand 1 inhibition concurrent or adjuvant to chemoradiotherapy in limited-stage SCLC. Major advances in future treatment will likely depend on a better understanding and exploiting of molecular characteristics of SCLC with increasing personalization of therapy.

Higher Radiation Dose to the Immune Cells Correlates with Worse Tumor Control and Overall Survival in Patients with Stage III NSCLC: A Secondary Analysis of RTOG0617.

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.

A Principal Component of Quality-of-Life Measures Is Associated with Survival: Validation in a Prospective Cohort of Lung Cancer Patients Treated with Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy.

The association between HRQOL metrics and survival has not been studied in early stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients undergoing SBRT. The cohort was derived via a post-hoc analysis of a prospective randomized clinical trial examining definitive SBRT for peripheral, early-stage NSCLC with a single or multi-fraction regimen. Patients completed HRQOL questionnaires prior to and 3 months after treatment. Using principal component analysis (PCA), changes in each HRQOL scale following treatment were reduced to two eigenvectors, PC1 and PC2. Cox regression was employed to analyze associations with survival-based endpoints. A total of 70 patients (median age 75.6 years; median follow-up 41.1 months) were studied. HRQOL and symptom comparisons at baseline and 3 months were vastly unchanged except for improved coughing (p = 0.02) and pain in the chest at 3 months (p = 0.033). PC1 and PC2 explained 21% and 9% of variance, respectively. When adjusting for covariates, PC1 was significantly correlated with progression-free (PFS) (HR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.67-0.92, p = 0.003) and overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.46, p = 0.041). Changes in global health status, functional HRQOL performance, and/or symptom burden as described by PC1 values are significantly associated with PFS and OS. The PC1 quartile may facilitate the identification of at-risk patients for additional interventions.

Veliparib in combination with carboplatin/paclitaxel-based chemoradiotherapy in patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Veliparib is a potent poly(ADP)-ribose polymerase (PARP) 1 and 2 inhibitor that impedes repair of DNA damage induced by cytotoxic and radiation therapies. This phase 1 study evaluated veliparib in combination with chemoradiotherapy in patients with unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients received veliparib orally twice daily (BID) in escalating doses (60-240 mg, Day -3 to 1 day after last dose of radiation) combined with weekly carboplatin (area under the curve [AUC] 2 mg/mL/min), paclitaxel (45 mg/m2), and daily radiation therapy (60 Gy in 30 fractions), followed by two cycles of veliparib (120-240 mg BID, Days -2 through 5 of each 21-day cycle), carboplatin (AUC 6 mg/mL/min, Day 1 of each cycle), and paclitaxel (200 mg/m2, Day 1 of each cycle) consolidation. Endpoints included veliparib maximum tolerated dose (MTD), recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients were enrolled. The MTD/RP2D of veliparib was 240 mg BID with chemoradiotherapy followed by 120 mg BID with consolidation. The most common any-grade adverse events (AEs) in this cohort for the whole treatment period were nausea (83%), esophagitis (75%), neutropenia (75%), and thrombocytopenia (75%). Dose-proportional pharmacokinetics of veliparib were observed. Median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 19.6 months (95% CI: 9.7-32.6). Median overall survival was estimated to be 32.6 months (95% CI: 15.0-not reached). In patients treated with the RP2D, mPFS was 19.6 months (95% CI: 3.0-not reached). CONCLUSIONS: When combined with standard concurrent chemoradiotherapy and consolidation chemotherapy in patients with stage III NSCLC, veliparib demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and antitumor activity with an mPFS of 19.6 months.

Short Communication: Interim toxicity analysis for patients with limited stage small cell lung cancer (LSCLC) treated on CALGB 30610 (Alliance) / RTOG 0538.

INTRODUCTION: The CALGB 30610/RTOG 0538 randomized trial was designed to test whether high-dose thoracic radiotherapy (TRT) would improve survival compared with 45 Gy twice-daily (BID) TRT in limited stage small cell lung cancer (LSCLC). Two piloted experimental TRT regimens were of interest to study, 70 Gy daily (QD) and 61.2 Gy concomitant boost (CB). Driven by concerns about adequate patient accrual, a study design was employed that eliminated one experimental TRT arm based on early interim toxicity and tolerability, with the study then continuing as a traditional 2-arm phase III study. METHODS: Patients with LSCLC were assigned to receive four cycles of cisplatin and etoposide chemotherapy with one of 3 TRT regimens starting with either the first or second cycle of chemotherapy. The interim endpoint was the cumulative highest toxicity calculated from a scoring system based on treatment-related grade 3 and higher toxicity and the ability to complete therapy in the experimental arms. RESULTS: The final interim analysis was performed after 70 patients accrued to each experimental cohort, and a difference in treatment related toxicity scoring was not found (p = 0.739). Severe esophageal toxicity was comparable in both cohorts. Pulmonary toxicity was low overall, though 4 patients (5.7 %) on the 61.2 Gy arm developed grade 4 dyspnea, which was not observed in the 70 Gy arm. A protocol mandated decision was made to discontinue the 61.2 Gy arm following review of toxicity with the Data and Safety Monitoring Board. CONCLUSION: A randomized trial design using a planned early interim toxicity analysis to discriminate between experimental treatment arms is feasible in a phase III setting. Refinement of the design could increase the likelihood of detecting clinically meaningful differences in toxicity in future studies.

Heterogeneous Versus Homogeneous Radiation Dose Calculations of Twice-Daily Fractionation in Small Cell Lung Carcinoma.

Purpose The standard radiotherapy regimen for small cell lung cancer (SCLC) was determined using dose calculations without corrections for tissue heterogeneity, while modern treatments are planned using algorithms accounting for tissue heterogeneity. We assessed differences in dose delivered using heterogeneous and homogeneous dose calculations in a cohort of patients treated for limited-stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC). Methods This is a retrospective analysis of 35 patients (three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT), n = 22; intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), n = 13) with LS-SCLC treated with chemoradiotherapy from 2011 to 2017. Treatment plans were developed in the Eclipse Treatment Planning System (TPS) version 13.6 using the Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA). Two plans were generated for each patient with one using the unit relative electron density and the other maintaining the same monitor units (MUs) with tissue density corrections. The prescription was 45 Gy in 30 fractions of 1.5 Gy delivered twice daily. Individuals who underwent replanning within the same treatment course were evaluated using a separate corrected and uncorrected plan sum. Variations greater than 5% in dose to the tumor or organs at risk were considered clinically relevant. A two-sided paired t-test was used to evaluate the statistical significance of the dosimetric differences. Results The percent dose difference between plans without tissue heterogeneity corrections to those with corrections resulted in an overall median difference of -3% (range: -15.1% to 9.6%; p < 0.01) for the dose covering 95% of the planning target volume (PTV D95) and was -5.6% (range: -17.3% to 5.4%; p < 0.01) for lung volume receiving ≥20 Gy (lung V20). For 3D-CRT, the median difference for the PTV D95 was -0.1% (range: -4.7% to 9.6%; p = 0.62) and the lung V20 was -4.2% (range: -9.4 to 5.4; p < 0.01). For IMRT, the median difference for the PTV D95 was -10.0% (range: -15.1% to -5.3%; p < 0.01) and the lung V20 was -8.9% (range: -17.3 to -3.5; p < 0.01). Conclusion Traditional planning without tissue heterogeneity corrections results in an overall decrease in the dose delivered to the target compared with those that incorporate tissue heterogeneity corrections. These differences are modest for 3D treatment plans but may result in clinically relevant differences for the IMRT cohort (>5% deviation).

Modeling the Impact of Cardiopulmonary Irradiation on Overall Survival in NRG Oncology Trial RTOG 0617.

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.

Evaluation of radiation treatment volumes for unknown primaries of the head and neck in the era of FDG PET.

OBJECTIVES: Positron-emission tomography (PET) has improved identification of the primary tumor as well as occult nodal burden in cancer of the head and neck. Nevertheless, there are still patients where the primary tumor cannot be located. In these situations, the standard of care is comprehensive head and neck radiation therapy however it is unclear whether this is necessary. This study examines the effects of radiation treatment volume on outcomes among using data from two cancer centers in unknown primary carcinoma of the head and neck. METHODS: Patients received unilateral (n = 34), or bilateral radiation (n = 28). Patient factors such as age, gender, smoking history, and patterns of failure were compared using Mann Whitney U and Chi Square. Overall survival (OS) and disease free survival (DFS) trends were estimated using Kaplan-Meier survival curves. Effect of treatment volume on survival was examined using multivariate cox proportional hazard regression model. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed in the frequency of local (p = 0.32), regional (p = 0.50), or distant (p = 0.76) failures between unilateral and bilateral radiation therapy. By Kaplan-Meier estimates, OS (3-year OS bilateral = 71.67%, unilateral = 77.90%, p = 0.50) and DFS (3-year DFS bilateral = 77.92%, unilateral = 69.43%, p = 0.63) were similar between the two treatment approaches. Lastly, multivariate analysis did not demonstrate any significant differences in outcome by treatment volumes (OS: HR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.31, 1.81, p = 0.51; DFS: HR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.24, 1.93, p = 0.47). CONCLUSIONS: Unilateral radiation therapy compared with bilateral produced similar survival.

Radiation Therapy for Small Cell Lung Cancer: An ASTRO Clinical Practice Guideline.

PURPOSE: Several sentinel phase III randomized trials have recently been published challenging traditional radiation therapy (RT) practices for small cell lung cancer (SCLC). This American Society for Radiation Oncology guideline reviews the evidence for thoracic RT and prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) for both limited-stage (LS) and extensive-stage (ES) SCLC. METHODS: The American Society for Radiation Oncology convened a task force to address 4 key questions focused on indications, dose fractionation, techniques and timing of thoracic RT for LS-SCLC, the role of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) compared with conventional RT in stage I or II node negative SCLC, PCI for LS-SCLC and ES-SCLC, and thoracic consolidation for ES-SCLC. Recommendations were based on a systematic literature review and created using a consensus-building methodology and system for grading evidence quality and recommendation strength. RESULTS: The task force strongly recommends definitive thoracic RT administered once or twice daily early in the course of treatment for LS-SCLC. Adjuvant RT is conditionally recommended in surgically resected patients with positive margins or nodal metastases. Involved field RT delivered using conformal advanced treatment modalities to postchemotherapy volumes is also strongly recommended. For patients with stage I or II node negative disease, SBRT or conventional fractionation is strongly recommended, and chemotherapy should be delivered before or after SBRT. In LS-SCLC, PCI is strongly recommended for stage II or III patients who responded to chemoradiation, conditionally not recommended for stage I patients, and should be a shared decision for patients at higher risk of neurocognitive toxicities. In ES-SCLC, radiation oncologist consultation for consideration of PCI versus magnetic resonance surveillance is strongly recommended. Lastly, the use of thoracic RT is strongly recommended in select patients with ES-SCLC after chemotherapy treatment, including a conditional recommendation in those responding to chemotherapy and immunotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: RT plays a vital role in both LS-SCLC and ES-SCLC. These guidelines inform best clinical practices for local therapy in SCLC.

Who Benefits From a Prostate Rectal Spacer? Secondary Analysis of a Phase III Trial.

PURPOSE: Previously a phase III trial of a hydrogel rectal spacer during prostate radiation therapy found decreased toxicity and a clinically significant improvement in bowel quality of life (QOL) at 3 years by the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index. We performed a secondary analysis to identify men less likely to benefit. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Clinical and dosimetric data for the 222 patients enrolled on the SpaceOAR phase III trial were analyzed. The volume of rectum treated to 70 Gy (V70) and the quantitative analysis of normal tissue effects in the clinic (QUANTEC) rectal dose goals were used as surrogates for clinical benefit and plan quality. Mean bowel QOL was assessed at 15 and 36 months posttreatment and the likelihood of 1× (5 points) or 2× (10 points) minimally important difference changes were assessed. RESULTS: Rectal V70 was correlated with physician scored toxicity (P = .033) and was used as a surrogate for plan quality. There was no correlation between prostate volume and rectal V70 (r = 0.077). Rectal V70 pre- and post-hydrogel was 13% and 3% for the smallest prostates (<40 mL) and 12% and 2% for the largest (>80 mL). The relative reduction in rectal V70 of 78% did not vary by prespacer V70, but the absolute reduction was greater for a higher V70. All spacer plans met the 5 QUANTEC rectal dose constraints, although 92% of control plans met all constraints. At 3 years, those not meeting all QUANTEC goals had a 15.0-point (standard deviation 15.1) decline, control patients meeting QUANTEC goals had a 4.0-point (9.5) decline, and spacer had >0.5 (7.6; P < .01). Previous surgery was not correlated with QOL (P = .8). Across prognostic groups, including age, body mass index, previous surgery, target volume, or quality of radiation plans, there was no statistically significant heterogeneity in the relative benefit of spacer in decreasing the risk of 1× or 2× the minimally important difference declines. CONCLUSIONS: There was little heterogeneity in the likelihood of spacer reducing the risk of declines in bowel QOL across clinical and dosimetric variables. Even for the >95% of plans meeting QUANTEC rectal criteria, hydrogel spacer provided potentially meaningful benefits.

Long-Term Results of NRG Oncology RTOG 0617: Standard- Versus High-Dose Chemoradiotherapy With or Without Cetuximab for Unresectable Stage III Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

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.

One Versus Three Fractions of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Peripheral Stage I to II Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Randomized, Multi-Institution, Phase 2 Trial.

PURPOSE: Stereotactic body radiation therapy for early stage non-small cell lung cancer is a standard of care for medically inoperable patients. Our aim was to compare Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events thoracic grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs) of 30 Gy in 1 fraction (arm 1) versus 60 Gy in 3 fractions (arm 2). METHODS AND MATERIALS: This was a randomized multi-institutional, phase 2, 2-arm clinical trial. Medically inoperable patients with biopsy-proven peripheral T1/T2N0M0 non-small cell lung cancer were enrolled. Patients were randomized to arm 1 or arm 2 and stratified by performance status. The primary endpoint was Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events thoracic grade 3 or higher AEs. Secondary endpoints were local control (LC), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and quality of life. RESULTS: Between September 2008 and April 2015, 98 patients were randomized. Median follow-up was 53.8 months. Ten patients were lost to follow-up, 1 in arm 1 and 9 in arm 2. Thoracic grade 3 AEs were experienced by 8 (16%) patients on arm 1 and 6 (12%) patients on arm 2. There were no grade 4 or 5 AEs. There were no differences in LC, PFS, or OS (P = .68, .86, and .94, respectively). Arm 1 reported better social functioning (P = .006) with less dyspnea (P = .016) in follow-up at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized phase 2 study demonstrated that 30 Gy in 1 fraction was equivalent to 60 Gy in 3 fractions in terms of toxicity, LC, PFS, and OS. Quality of life measures of social functioning and dyspnea favored single-fraction SBRT.