Thoracic radiation in combination with erlotinib-results from a phase 2 randomized trial.

Background: Radiotherapy (RT) can be used to reduce symptoms and maintain open airways for patients with non-small cell lung cancer when systemic treatment is not sufficient. For some patients, tumor control is not achieved due to radioresistance. Concurrent inhibition of epidermal growth factor receptors has been proposed as a strategy to overcome radioresistance but may increase toxicity. We performed a randomized trial to assess the efficacy, tolerance, and quality of life of concurrent erlotinib and palliative thoracic RT for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to RT alone (arm A) or in combination with erlotinib (arm B). A computed tomography (CT) scan at baseline and one at 4-12 weeks after inclusion was used to evaluate treatment response. Adverse events were registered during treatment and the subsequent 30 days. Health-related quality-of-life questionnaires were completed by the patients at baseline, weeks 2, 6, and 20. Results: A total of 114 patients were included. Of the 74 patients with CT scans available for evaluation of treatment effect, there were no significant differences in tumor size reduction between the two groups: median 14.5% reduction in the control arm A and 17.0% in the erlotinib arm B (p = 0.68). Overall survival was not significantly different between the two treatment arms: 7.0 and 7.8 months in arm A and arm B, respectively (log-rank p = 0.32). There was no significant increase in adverse events in the experimental arm, other than what is expected from erlotinib treatment alone. Overall, patients reported similar quality of life in both treatment arms. Conclusion: Concurrent erlotinib and palliative thoracic RT for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer was well tolerated but did not improve the efficacy of the RT. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT02714530.

Geriatric assessment with management for older patients with cancer receiving radiotherapy: a cluster-randomised controlled pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Geriatric assessment and management (GAM) improve outcomes in older patients with cancer treated with surgery or chemotherapy. It is unclear whether GAM may provide better function and quality of life (QoL), or be cost-effective, in a radiotherapy (RT) setting. METHODS: In this Norwegian cluster-randomised controlled pilot study, we assessed the impact of a GAM intervention involving specialist and primary health services. It was initiated in-hospital at the start of RT by assessing somatic and mental health, function, and social situation, followed by individually adapted management plans and systematic follow-up in the municipalities until 8 weeks after the end of RT, managed by municipal nurses as patients' care coordinators. Thirty-two municipal/city districts were 1:1 randomised to intervention or conventional care. Patients with cancer ≥ 65 years, referred for RT, were enrolled irrespective of cancer type, treatment intent, and frailty status, and followed the allocation of their residential district. The primary outcome was physical function measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 (QLQ-C30). Secondary outcomes were overall quality of life (QoL), physical performance, use and costs of health services. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. Study registration at ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT03881137. RESULTS: We included 178 patients, 89 in each group with comparable age (mean 74.1), sex (female 38.2%), and Edmonton Frail Scale scores (mean 3.4 [scale 0-17], scores 0-3 [fit] in 57%). More intervention patients received curative RT (76.4 vs 61.8%), had higher irradiation doses (mean 54.1 vs 45.5 Gy), and longer lasting RT (mean 4.4 vs 3.6 weeks). The primary outcome was completed by 91% (intervention) vs 88% (control) of patients. No significant differences between groups on predefined outcomes were observed. GAM costs represented 3% of health service costs for the intervention group during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: In this heterogeneous cohort of older patients receiving RT, the majority was fit. We found no impact of the intervention on patient-centred outcomes or the cost of health services. Targeting a more homogeneous group of only pre-frail and frail patients is strongly recommended in future studies needed to clarify the role and organisation of GAM in RT settings.

Small Cell Lung Cancer in Norway: Patterns of Care by Health Region and Survival Trends.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: There has been a marked survival improvement for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. We describe the national trends in characteristics and survival, and geographical differences in diagnostic workup, treatment, and survival for patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients registered with SCLC at the Cancer Registry of Norway in 2002 to 2022 were included. Trends in overall survival were estimated for all SCLC patients, patients with limited stage SCLC, patients undergoing surgery, and by health region. Adjusting for case-mix, a multivariable Cox regression was performed examining the association between health region and death. RESULTS: The study included 8374 patients. The stage distribution remained unchanged during the study period. The 5-year overall survival increased from 7.7% to 22.8% for patients with limited stage. The use of multidisciplinary team meetings varied from 62.5% to 85.7%, and the use of positron emission tomography-computer tomography varied from 70.4% to 86.2% between the health regions. Treatment patterns differed markedly between the health regions, with the proportion dying without any registered treatment ranging from 1.2% to 10.9%. For limited stage patients in 2018 to 2022, the median overall survival ranged from 16.5 to 25.5 months across health regions, and the 5-year overall survival ranged from 18.7% to 28.7% (P = .019). CONCLUSION: The survival for patients with SCLC remains poor. The use of diagnostic procedures, treatment modalities, and survival differed between regions, warranting investigations to further explore the reasons.

Evaluation of Radiation Therapy Treatment Plans in a Randomized Phase 2 Trial Comparing 2 Schedules of Twice-Daily Thoracic Radiation Therapy in Limited Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: There is limited clinical data for recommendations on how to deliver thoracic radiation therapy (TRT) concurrently with chemotherapy in limited-stage small cell lung cancer. We reviewed radiation therapy treatment plans in a randomized phase 2 trial comparing high-dose with standard-dose twice-daily TRT to assess treatment planning techniques, dose-volume data for target volumes and organs at risk (OARs), evaluate compliance with the protocol, associations with radiation-induced toxicity, and whether an imbalance in treatment planning parameters might be a reason for the large survival benefit of the higher dose (median overall survival 43.6 vs 22.6 months). METHODS AND MATERIALS: In the study, 170 patients were to receive 4 courses of platinum/etoposide and were randomized to receive twice-daily TRT of 60 Gy/40 fractions (fx) or 45 Gy/30 fx. TRT treatment plans for those who received 1 or more fx of TRT (n = 166) were analyzed. RESULTS: The most common treatment planning technique was 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (67%). The 75th percentile of the reported dose-volume parameters for the OARs were within the protocol-recommended limits for both groups. Mean doses to the esophagus of 25.5 Gy (IQR, 20.2-31.3; 60 Gy/40 fx) and 24.3 Gy (IQR, 20.3-27.5; 45 Gy/30 fx) were associated with 21% and 18% ≥ grade 3 acute esophagitis, respectively. In the 60 Gy/40 fx group, a mean dose to the lungs of 16.5 Gy (IQR, 15.8-16.9), V20 Gy of 29.5% (IQR, 28.8-30.4), and V5 Gy of 65.6% (IQR, 61.5-68.7) led to ≥ grade 3 pneumonitis in 4% of the patients. There was no ≥ grade 3 pneumonitis in the 45 Gy/30 fx group. The treatment planning techniques, the percentage change in volumes between original and redelineated OARs, planning target volumes, relative doses, and laterality were well balanced between the randomly assigned groups. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the incidences of severe radiation-induced toxicities were within the range of other recent trials, the reported doses to the OARs appear to be safe. Treatment planning parameters were well balanced between the randomly assigned groups, supporting that the survival benefit of the twice-daily 60 Gy/40 fx TRT schedule was due to the higher dose.

The association between age and long-term quality of life after curative treatment for prostate cancer: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the associations between age at radical prostate cancer treatment and long-term global quality of life (QoL), physical function (PF), and treatment-related side effects. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This single-center, cross-sectional study included men treated for localized prostate cancer with robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in 2014-2018. Global QoL and PF were assessed by the European Organisation of Research and Treatment in Cancer Quality of life Questionnaire-C30 (QLQ-C30), side effects by the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26). Adjusted linear regression models were estimated to assess associations between age (continuous variable) at treatment and outcomes. QLQ-C30 scores were compared to normative data after dividing the cohort in two groups, <70 years and ≥70 years at treatment. RESULTS: Of 654 men included, 516 (79%) had undergone RARP, and 138 (21%) had undergone EBRT combined with androgen deprivation therapy for 93%. Mean time since treatment was 57 months. Median age at treatment was 68 (min-max 44-84) years. We found no statistically significant independent association between age at treatment and global QoL, PF or side effects, except for sexual function (regression coefficient [RC] -0.77; p < 0.001) and hormonal/vitality (RC 0.30; p = 0.006) function. Mean QLQ-C30 scores were slightly poorer than age-adjusted normative scores, for men <70 years (n = 411) as well as for men ≥70 years (n = 243) at treatment, but the differences were not beyond clinical significance. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of prostate cancer survivors, age at treatment had little impact on long-term QoL and function. Due to the cross-sectional design, short term impact or variation over time cannot be ruled out.