Palliative chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for dysphagia in advanced oesophageal cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled trial (TROG 03.01).

BACKGROUND: A short course of radiotherapy is commonly prescribed for palliative relief of malignant dysphagia in patients with incurable oesophageal cancer. We compared chemoradiotherapy with radiotherapy alone for dysphagia relief in the palliative setting. METHODS: This multicentre randomised controlled trial included patients with advanced or metastatic oesophageal cancer who were randomly assigned (1:1) through a computer-generated adaptive biased coin design to either palliative chemoradiotherapy or radiotherapy alone for treatment of malignant dysphagia at 22 hospitals in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the UK. Eligible patients had biopsy-proven oesophageal cancer that was unsuitable for curative treatment, symptomatic dysphagia, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, and adequate haematological and renal function. Patients were stratified by hospital, dysphagia score (Mellow scale 1-4), and presence of metastases. The radiotherapy dose was 35 Gy in 15 fractions over 3 weeks for patients in Australia and New Zealand and 30 Gy in ten fractions over 2 weeks for patients in Canada and the UK. Chemotherapy consisted of one cycle of intravenous cisplatin (either 80 mg/m2 on day 1 or 20 mg/m2 per day on days 1-4 of radiotherapy at clinician's discretion) and intravenous fluorouracil 800 mg/m2 per day on days 1-4 of radiotherapy in week 1. Patients were assessed weekly during treatment. The primary endpoint was dysphagia relief (defined as ≥1 point reduction on the Mellow scale at 9 weeks and maintained 4 weeks later), and key secondary endpoints were dysphagia progression-free survival (defined as a worsening of at least 1 point on the Mellow scale from baseline or best response) and overall survival. These endpoints were analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00193882. This trial is closed. FINDINGS: Between July 7, 2003, and March 21, 2012, 111 patients were randomly assigned to chemoradiotherapy and 109 patients to radiotherapy. One patient in the chemoradiotherapy group was omitted from analysis because of ineligibility. 50 (45%, 95% CI 36-55) patients in the chemoradiotherapy group and 38 (35%, 26-44) in the radiotherapy group obtained dysphagia relief (difference 10·6%, 95% CI -2 to 23; p=0·13). Median dysphagia progression-free survival was 4·1 months (95% CI 3·5-4·8) versus 3·4 months (3·1-4·3) in the chemoradiotherapy and radiotherapy groups, respectively (p=0·58), and median overall survival was 6·9 months (95% CI 5·1-8·3) versus 6·7 months (4·9-8·0), respectively (p=0·88). Of the 211 patients who commenced radiotherapy, grade 3-4 acute toxicity occurred in 38 (36%) patients in the chemoradiotherapy group and in 17 (16%) patients in the radiotherapy group (p=0·0017). Anaemia, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, oesophagitis, diarrhoea, nausea and vomiting, and mucositis were significantly worse in patients who had chemoradiotherapy than in patients who had radiotherapy. INTERPRETATION: Palliative chemoradiotherapy showed a modest, but not statistically significant, increase in dysphagia relief compared with radiotherapy alone, with minimal improvement in dysphagia progression-free survival and overall survival with chemoradiotherapy but at a cost of increased toxicity. A short course of radiotherapy alone should be considered a safe and well tolerated treatment for malignant dysphagia in the palliative setting. FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, Canadian Cancer Trials Group, Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group, and Cancer Australia.

The complex relationship between lung tumor volume and survival in patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated by definitive radiotherapy: a prospective, observational prognostic factor study of the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (TROG 99.05).

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To investigate the hypothesis that primary tumor volume is prognostic independent of T and N stages in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated by definitive radiotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multicenter prospective observational study. Patient eligibility: pathologically proven stage I-III non-small cell lung cancer planned for definitive radiotherapy (minimum 50 Gy in 20 fractions) using CT-based contouring. Volumes of the primary tumor and enlarged nodes were measured according to a standardized protocol. Survival was adjusted for the effect of T and N stage. RESULTS: There were 509 eligible patients. Five-year survival rates for tumor volume grouped by quartiles were, for increasing tumor volume, 22%, 14%, 15% and 21%. Larger primary tumor volume was associated with shorter survival (HR=1.060 (per doubling); 95% CI 1.01-1.12; P=0.029). However, after adjusting for the effects of T and N stage, there was no evidence for an association (HR=1.029, 95% CI, 0.96-1.10, P=0.39). There was evidence, however, that larger primary tumor volume was associated with an increased risk of dying, independently of T and N stage, in the first 18 months but not beyond. CONCLUSIONS: In patients treated by non-surgical means we were unable to show that lung tumor volume, overall, provides additional prognostic information beyond the T and N stage (TNM, 6th edition). There is evidence, however, that larger primary tumor volume adversely affects outcome only within the first 18 months. Larger tumor size alone should not by itself exclude patients from curative (chemo)radiotherapy.

Evidence for efficacy without increased toxicity of hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate carcinoma: early results of a Phase III randomized trial.

PURPOSE: We performed a randomized trial to compare the GI and urogenital toxicity of radiotherapy (RT) for localized (confined to the organ), early-stage (T1-T2N0M0, TNM classification) carcinoma of the prostate, using a conventional (64 Gy in 32 fractions within 6.5 weeks) vs. a hypofractionated (55 Gy in 20 fractions within 4 weeks) schedule and to determine the efficacy of the respective treatment schedules. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This report is based on an interim analysis of the first 120 consecutive patients in this Phase III trial after a median follow-up of 43.5 months (range 23-62). RT planning was based on two-dimensional CT data, and the treatment was delivered using a three- or four-field 6-23-MV photon technique. GI and urogenital toxicity (symptom questionnaires incorporating the subjective elements of the late effects of normal tissues-subjective, objective, management, analytic classification of late effects and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer sexual function questionnaire) were evaluated before RT and 1 month, 1 year, and 2 years after RT completion. The efficacy of RT was assessed clinically (digital rectal examination and radiologic imaging) and biochemically (prostate-specific antigen assay) at baseline, and every 3 months for 2 years after RT and every 6 months subsequently. RESULTS: RT, whether conventional or hypofractionated, resulted in an increase in all six symptom categories used to characterize GI toxicity and in four of five symptom categories used to document urinary morbidity 1 month after therapy completion. Sexual dysfunction (based on limited data), which existed in more than one-third of patients before RT, also increased to just more than one-half of patients 1 month after RT. The increase in urinary toxicity after RT was not sustained (diurnal urinary frequency had decreased significantly at 2 years). In contrast, all six symptom categories of GI toxicity remained increased 1 year after RT. Four of the six GI symptom categories (rectal pain, mucous discharge, urgency of defecation, and rectal bleeding) were still increased at 2 years compared with baseline. Except for a slightly greater percentage of patients experiencing mild rectal bleeding at 2 years among those who received hypofractionated RT, no differences were noted in toxicity between the conventional and hypofractionated RT schedule. The mean prostate-specific antigen level was 14.0 +/- 1.0 ng/mL at baseline and declined to a nadir of 1.3 +/- 0.2 ng/mL at a median of 16.8 months (range 0.8-28.3) after RT completion. However, it then rose in 17 patients (8 in the hypofractionated and 9 in the conventional treatment group). Only 8 of these 17 patients were found to have signs of clinical relapse (5 local, 1 regional lymph node, and 2 systemic [bony metastases]) after histopathologic and radiologic reassessment). The remaining 9 patients had biochemical relapse only (defined as three consecutive rises in prostate-specific antigen after nadir). The 4-year biochemical relapse-free survival rate was 85.8% for all patients and did not differ significantly between the two radiation dose schedules (86.2% for the hypofractionated and 85.5% for the conventional fractionation group). CONCLUSION: RT for prostate carcinoma, using a three- or four-field 6-23-MV photon technique without posterior shielding of the lateral fields, is an underestimated cause of persistent GI morbidity. The incidence of clinically significant GI and urogenital toxicity after conventional and hypofractionated RT appears to be similar. Hypofractionated RT for carcinoma of the prostate seems just as effective as conventional RT after a median follow-up approaching 4 years.