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.
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.
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.
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 Although intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is increasingly used to treat locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), IMRT and three-dimensional conformal external beam ...radiation therapy (3D-CRT) have not been compared prospectively. This study compares 3D-CRT and IMRT outcomes for locally advanced NSCLC in a large prospective clinical trial. Patients and Methods A secondary analysis was performed to compare IMRT with 3D-CRT in NRG Oncology clinical trial RTOG 0617, in which patients received concurrent chemotherapy of carboplatin and paclitaxel with or without cetuximab, and 60- versus 74-Gy radiation doses. Comparisons included 2-year overall survival (OS), progression-free survival, local failure, distant metastasis, and selected Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 3) ≥ grade 3 toxicities. Results The median follow-up was 21.3 months. Of 482 patients, 53% were treated with 3D-CRT and 47% with IMRT. The IMRT group had larger planning treatment volumes (median, 427 v 486 mL; P = .005); a larger planning treatment volume/volume of lung ratio (median, 0.13 v 0.15; P = .013); and more stage IIIB disease (30.3% v 38.6%, P = .056). Two-year OS, progression-free survival, local failure, and distant metastasis-free survival were not different between IMRT and 3D-CRT. IMRT was associated with less ≥ grade 3 pneumonitis (7.9% v 3.5%, P = .039) and a reduced risk in adjusted analyses (odds ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.171 to 0.986; P = .046). IMRT also produced lower heart doses ( P < .05), and the volume of heart receiving 40 Gy (V40) was significantly associated with OS on adjusted analysis ( P < .05). The lung V5 was not associated with any ≥ grade 3 toxicity, whereas the lung V20 was associated with increased ≥ grade 3 pneumonitis risk on multivariable analysis ( P = .026). Conclusion IMRT was associated with lower rates of severe pneumonitis and cardiac doses in NRG Oncology clinical trial RTOG 0617, which supports routine use of IMRT for locally advanced NSCLC.
Summary Background We aimed to compare overall survival after standard-dose versus high-dose conformal radiotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy and the addition of cetuximab to concurrent ...chemoradiation for patients with inoperable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. Methods In this open-label randomised, two-by-two factorial phase 3 study in 185 institutions in the USA and Canada, we enrolled patients (aged ≥18 years) with unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer, a Zubrod performance status of 0–1, adequate pulmonary function, and no evidence of supraclavicular or contralateral hilar adenopathy. We randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) patients to receive either 60 Gy (standard dose), 74 Gy (high dose), 60 Gy plus cetuximab, or 74 Gy plus cetuximab. All patients also received concurrent chemotherapy with 45 mg/m2 paclitaxel and carboplatin once a week (AUC 2); 2 weeks after chemoradiation, two cycles of consolidation chemotherapy separated by 3 weeks were given consisting of paclitaxel (200 mg/m2 ) and carboplatin (AUC 6). Randomisation was done with permuted block randomisation methods, stratified by radiotherapy technique, Zubrod performance status, use of PET during staging, and histology; treatment group assignments were not masked. Radiation dose was prescribed to the planning target volume and was given in 2 Gy daily fractions with either intensity-modulated radiation therapy or three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy. The use of four-dimensional CT and image-guided radiation therapy were encouraged but not necessary. For patients assigned to receive cetuximab, 400 mg/m2 cetuximab was given on day 1 followed by weekly doses of 250 mg/m2 , and was continued through consolidation therapy. The primary endpoint was overall survival. All analyses were done by modified intention-to-treat. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00533949. Findings Between Nov 27, 2007, and Nov 22, 2011, 166 patients were randomly assigned to receive standard-dose chemoradiotherapy, 121 to high-dose chemoradiotherapy, 147 to standard-dose chemoradiotherapy and cetuximab, and 110 to high-dose chemoradiotherapy and cetuximab. Median follow-up for the radiotherapy comparison was 22·9 months (IQR 27·5–33·3). Median overall survival was 28·7 months (95% CI 24·1–36·9) for patients who received standard-dose radiotherapy and 20·3 months (17·7–25·0) for those who received high-dose radiotherapy (hazard ratio HR 1·38, 95% CI 1·09–1·76; p=0·004). Median follow-up for the cetuximab comparison was 21·3 months (IQR 23·5–29·8). Median overall survival in patients who received cetuximab was 25·0 months (95% CI 20·2–30·5) compared with 24·0 months (19·8–28·6) in those who did not (HR 1·07, 95% CI 0·84–1·35; p=0·29). Both the radiation-dose and cetuximab results crossed protocol-specified futility boundaries. We recorded no statistical differences in grade 3 or worse toxic effects between radiotherapy groups. By contrast, the use of cetuximab was associated with a higher rate of grade 3 or worse toxic effects (205 86% of 237 vs 160 70% of 228 patients; p<0·0001). There were more treatment-related deaths in the high-dose chemoradiotherapy and cetuximab groups (radiotherapy comparison: eight vs three patients; cetuximab comparison: ten vs five patients). There were no differences in severe pulmonary events between treatment groups. Severe oesophagitis was more common in patients who received high-dose chemoradiotherapy than in those who received standard-dose treatment (43 21% of 207 patients vs 16 7% of 217 patients; p<0·0001). Interpretation 74 Gy radiation given in 2 Gy fractions with concurrent chemotherapy was not better than 60 Gy plus concurrent chemotherapy for patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer, and might be potentially harmful. Addition of cetuximab to concurrent chemoradiation and consolidation treatment provided no benefit in overall survival for these patients. Funding National Cancer Institute and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
To assess the impact of prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) on self-reported cognitive functioning (SRCF), a functional scale on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core ...Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30).
Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) protocol 0214 randomized patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer to PCI or observation; RTOG 0212 randomized patients with limited-disease small cell lung cancer to high- or standard-dose PCI. In both trials, Hopkins Verbal Learning Test (HVLT)-Recall and -Delayed Recall and SRCF were assessed at baseline (after locoregional therapy but before PCI or observation) and at 6 and 12 months. Patients developing brain relapse before follow-up evaluation were excluded. Decline was defined using the reliable change index method and correlated with receipt of PCI versus observation using logistic regression modeling. Fisher's exact test correlated decline in SRCF with HVLT decline.
Of the eligible patients pooled from RTOG 0212 and RTOG 0214, 410 (93%) receiving PCI and 173 (96%) undergoing observation completed baseline HVLT or EORTC QLQ-C30 testing and were included in this analysis. Prophylactic cranial irradiation was associated with a higher risk of decline in SRCF at 6 months (odds ratio 3.60, 95% confidence interval 2.34-6.37, P<.0001) and 12 months (odds ratio 3.44, 95% confidence interval 1.84-6.44, P<.0001). Decline on HVLT-Recall at 6 and 12 months was also associated with PCI (P=.002 and P=.002, respectively) but was not closely correlated with decline in SRCF at the same time points (P=.05 and P=.86, respectively).
In lung cancer patients who do not develop brain relapse, PCI is associated with decline in HVLT-tested and self-reported cognitive functioning. Decline in HVLT and decline in SRCF are not closely correlated, suggesting that they may represent distinct elements of the cognitive spectrum.
Objective The purpose of the present study was to compare the selection criteria and short-term outcomes among 3 prospective clinical trials using stereotactic body radiotherapy (Radiation Therapy ...Oncology Group RTOG trial 0236), sublobar resection (American College of Surgeons Oncology Group ACOSOG trial Z4032), and radiofrequency ablation (ACOSOG trial Z4033). Methods The selection criteria and outcomes were compared among RTOG 0236 (n = 55), ACOSOG Z4032 (n = 211), and ACOSOG Z4033 (n = 51). Age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, percentage of predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second, and percentage of predicted carbon monoxide diffusing capacity of the lung were used to perform a propensity-matched analysis among patients with clinical stage 1A in RTOG 0236 and ACOSOG Z4032. Results The patients in ACOSOG Z4033 undergoing radiofrequency ablation were older (75.6 ± 7.5 years) than those in RTOG 0236 (72.5 ± 8.8 years) and ACOSOG Z4032 (70.2 ± 8.5 years; P = .0003). The pretreatment percentage of predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second was 61.3% ± 33.4% for RTOG 0236, 53.8% ± 19.6% for ACOSOG Z4032, and 48.8% ± 20.3% for ACOSOG Z4033 ( P = .15). The pretreatment percentage of predicted carbon monoxide diffusing capacity of the lung was 61.6% ± 30.2% for RTOG 0236, 46.4% ± 15.6% for ACOSOG Z4032, and 43.7% ± 18.0% for ACOSOG Z4033 ( P = .001). The overall 90-day mortality for stereotactic body radiotherapy, surgery, and radiofrequency ablation was 0%, 2.4% (5/211), and 2.0% (1/51), respectively ( P = .5). Overall, the unadjusted 30-day grade 3+ adverse events were more common with surgery than with stereotactic body radiotherapy (28% vs 9.1%, P = .004), although no difference was between the 2 groups at 90 days. Among the patients with clinical stage IA in ACOSOG Z4032, 29.3% had a more advanced pathologic stage at surgery. A propensity-matched comparison showed no difference between stereotactic body radiotherapy and surgery for 30-day grade 3+ adverse events (odds ratio, 2.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-9.90; P = .18). Conclusions Among appropriately matched patients, no difference was seen in early morbidity between sublobar resection and stereotactic body radiotherapy. These results underscore the need for a randomized trial to delineate the relative survival benefit of each modality and to help stratify patients considered high risk.
The previous individual patient data meta-analyses of chemotherapy in locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) showed that adding sequential or concomitant chemotherapy to radiotherapy ...improved survival. The NSCLC Collaborative Group performed a meta-analysis of randomized trials directly comparing concomitant versus sequential radiochemotherapy.
Systematic searches for trials were undertaken, followed by central collection, checking, and reanalysis of updated individual patient data. Results from trials were combined using the stratified log-rank test to calculate pooled hazard ratios (HRs). The primary outcome was overall survival; secondary outcomes were progression-free survival, cumulative incidences of locoregional and distant progression, and acute toxicity.
Of seven eligible trials, data from six trials were received (1,205 patients, 92% of all randomly assigned patients). Median follow-up was 6 years. There was a significant benefit of concomitant radiochemotherapy on overall survival (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.95; P = .004), with an absolute benefit of 5.7% (from 18.1% to 23.8%) at 3 years and 4.5% at 5 years. For progression-free survival, the HR was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.79 to 1.01; P = .07). Concomitant treatment decreased locoregional progression (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.95; P = .01); its effect was not different from that of sequential treatment on distant progression (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.25; P = .69). Concomitant radiochemotherapy increased acute esophageal toxicity (grade 3-4) from 4% to 18% with a relative risk of 4.9 (95% CI, 3.1 to 7.8; P < .001). There was no significant difference regarding acute pulmonary toxicity.
Concomitant radiochemotherapy, as compared with sequential radiochemotherapy, improved survival of patients with locally advanced NSCLC, primarily because of a better locoregional control, but at the cost of manageable increased acute esophageal toxicity.
Patients treated with chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced non-small-cell lung carcinoma (LA-NSCLC) were analyzed for local-regional failure (LRF) and overall survival (OS) with respect to ...radiotherapy dose intensity.
This study combined data from seven Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) trials in which chemoradiotherapy was used for LA-NSCLC: RTOG 88-08 (chemoradiation arm only), 90-15, 91-06, 92-04, 93-09 (nonoperative arm only), 94-10, and 98-01. The radiotherapeutic biologically effective dose (BED) received by each individual patient was calculated, as was the overall treatment time-adjusted BED (tBED) using standard formulae. Heterogeneity testing was done with chi-squared statistics, and weighted pooled hazard ratio estimates were used. Cox and Fine and Gray's proportional hazard models were used for OS and LRF, respectively, to test the associations between BED and tBED adjusted for other covariates.
A total of 1,356 patients were analyzed for BED (1,348 for tBED). The 2-year and 5-year OS rates were 38% and 15%, respectively. The 2-year and 5-year LRF rates were 46% and 52%, respectively. The BED (and tBED) were highly significantly associated with both OS and LRF, with or without adjustment for other covariates on multivariate analysis (p < 0.0001). A 1-Gy BED increase in radiotherapy dose intensity was statistically significantly associated with approximately 4% relative improvement in survival; this is another way of expressing the finding that the pool-adjusted hazard ratio for survival as a function of BED was 0.96. Similarly, a 1-Gy tBED increase in radiotherapy dose intensity was statistically significantly associated with approximately 3% relative improvement in local-regional control; this is another way of expressing the finding that the pool-adjusted hazard ratio as a function of tBED was 0.97.
Higher radiotherapy dose intensity is associated with improved local-regional control and survival in the setting of chemoradiotherapy.
Using a retrospective analysis of treatment plans submitted from multiple institutions accruing patients to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0236 non-small-cell stereotactic body ...radiotherapy protocol, the present study determined the dose prescription and critical structure constraints for future stereotactic body radiotherapy lung protocols that mandate density-corrected dose calculations.
A subset of 20 patients from four institutions participating in the RTOG 0236 protocol and using superposition/convolution algorithms were compared. The RTOG 0236 protocol required a prescription dose of 60 Gy delivered in three fractions to cover 95% of the planning target volume. Additional requirements were specified for target dose heterogeneity and the dose to normal tissue/structures. The protocol required each site to plan the patient's treatment using unit density, and another plan with the same monitor units and applying density corrections was also submitted. These plans were compared to determine the dose differences. Two-sided, paired Student's t tests were used to evaluate these differences.
With heterogeneity corrections applied, the planning target volume receiving >/=60 Gy decreased, on average, 10.1% (standard error, 2.7%) from 95% (p = .001). The maximal dose to any point >/=2 cm away from the planning target volume increased from 35.2 Gy (standard error, 1.7) to 38.5 Gy (standard error, 2.2).
Statistically significant dose differences were found with the heterogeneity corrections. The information provided in the present study is being used to design future heterogeneity-corrected RTOG stereotactic body radiotherapy lung protocols to match the true dose delivered for RTOG 0236.
NRG Oncology RTOG 0937 is a randomized phase II trial evaluating 1-year overall survival (OS) with prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) or PCI plus consolidative radiation therapy (PCI+cRT) to ...intrathoracic disease and extracranial metastases for extensive-disease SCLC.
Patients with one to four extracranial metastases were eligible after a complete response or partial response to chemotherapy. Randomization was to PCI or PCI+cRT to the thorax and metastases. Original stratification included partial response versus complete response after chemotherapy and one versus two to four metastases; age younger than 65 years versus 65 years or older was added after an observed imbalance. PCI consisted of 25 Gy in 10 fractions. cRT consisted of 45 Gy in 15 fractions. To detect an improvement in OS from 30% to 45% with a 34% hazard reduction (hazard ratio = 0.66) under a 0.1 type 1 error (one sided) and 80% power, 154 patients were required.
A total of 97 patients were randomized between March 2010 and February 2015. Eleven patients were ineligible (nine in the PCI group and two in the PCI+cRT group), leaving 42 randomized to receive PCI and 44 to receive PCI+cRT. At planned interim analysis, the study crossed the futility boundary for OS and was closed before meeting the accrual target. Median follow-up was 9 months. The 1-year OS was not different between the groups: 60.1% (95% confidence interval CI: 41.2–74.7) for PCI and 50.8% (95% CI: 34.0–65.3) for PCI+cRT (p = 0.21). The 3- and 12-month rates of progression were 53.3% and 79.6% for PCI and 14.5% and 75% for PCI+cRT, respectively. Time to progression favored PCI+cRT (hazard ratio = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.32–0.87, p = 0.01). One patient in each arm had grade 4 therapy-related toxicity and one had grade 5 therapy-related pneumonitis with PCI+cRT.
OS exceeded predictions for both arms. cRT delayed progression but did not improve 1-year OS.
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.
We performed an individual patient data meta-analysis in patients with nonmetastatic lung cancer, which included trials comparing modified radiotherapy with conventional radiotherapy.
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.
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.
PDF
