RESUMEN
Ultra-high dose-rate 'FLASH' radiotherapy may be a pivotal step forward for cancer treatment, widening the therapeutic window between radiation tumour killing and damage to neighbouring normal tissues. The extent of normal tissue sparing reported in pre-clinical FLASH studies typically corresponds to an increase in isotoxic dose-levels of 5-20%, though gains are larger at higher doses. Conditions currently thought necessary for FLASH normal tissue sparing are a dose-rate ≥40 Gy s-1, dose-per-fraction ≥5-10 Gy and irradiation duration ≤0.2-0.5 s. Cyclotron proton accelerators are the first clinical systems to be adapted to irradiate deep-seated tumours at FLASH dose-rates, but even using these machines it is challenging to meet the FLASH conditions. In this review we describe the challenges for delivering FLASH proton beam therapy, the compromises that ensue if these challenges are not addressed, and resulting dosimetric losses. Some of these losses are on the same scale as the gains from FLASH found pre-clinically. We therefore conclude that for FLASH to succeed clinically the challenges must be systematically overcome rather than accommodated, and we survey physical and pre-clinical routes for achieving this.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The multi-centre two-stage SCALOP-2 trial (ISRCTN50083238) assessed whether dose escalation of consolidative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) or concurrent sensitization using the protease inhibitor nelfinavir improve outcomes in locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) following four cycles of gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel. METHODS: In stage 1, the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of nelfinavir concurrent with standard-dose CRT (50.4 Gy in 28 fractions) was identified from a cohort of 27 patients. In stage 2, 159 patients were enrolled in an open-label randomized controlled comparison of standard versus high dose (60 Gy in 30 fractions) CRT, with or without nelfinavir at MTD. Primary outcomes following dose escalation and nelfinavir use were respectively overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included health-related quality of life (HRQoL). RESULTS: High dose CRT did not improve OS (16.9 (60 % confidence interval, CI 16.2-17.7) vs. 15.6 (60 %CI 14.3-18.2) months; adjusted hazard ratio, HR 1.13 (60 %CI 0.91-1.40; p = 0.68)). Similarly, median PFS was not improved by nelfinavir (10.0 (60 %CI 9.9-10.2) vs. 11.1 (60 %CI 10.3-12.8) months; adjusted HR 1.71 (60 %CI 1.38-2.12; p = 0.98)). Local progression at 12 months was numerically lower with high-dose CRT than with standard dose CRT (n = 11/46 (23.9 %) vs. n = 15/45 (33.3 %)). Neither nelfinavir nor radiotherapy dose escalation impacted on treatment compliance or grade 3/4 adverse event rate. There were no sustained differences in HRQoL scores between treatment groups over 28 weeks post-treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Dose-escalated CRT may improve local tumour control and is well tolerated when used as consolidative treatment in LAPC but does not impact OS. Nelfinavir use does not improve PFS.
Asunto(s)
Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica , Quimioradioterapia , Nelfinavir , Neoplasias Pancreáticas , Humanos , Nelfinavir/uso terapéutico , Nelfinavir/administración & dosificación , Nelfinavir/efectos adversos , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/terapia , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/patología , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/mortalidad , Masculino , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Quimioradioterapia/efectos adversos , Quimioradioterapia/métodos , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/efectos adversos , Adulto , Paclitaxel/administración & dosificación , Paclitaxel/efectos adversos , Dosis Máxima Tolerada , Desoxicitidina/análogos & derivados , Desoxicitidina/administración & dosificación , Desoxicitidina/efectos adversos , Desoxicitidina/uso terapéutico , Gemcitabina , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Calidad de Vida , Albúminas/administración & dosificación , Albúminas/uso terapéutico , Albúminas/efectos adversos , Supervivencia sin Progresión , Inhibidores de Proteasas/efectos adversos , Inhibidores de Proteasas/uso terapéutico , Inhibidores de Proteasas/administración & dosificaciónRESUMEN
PURPOSE: Adding immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) to concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT) has improved overall survival (OS) for inoperable locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Trials of cCRT-ICB are heterogeneous for factors such as tumor stage and histology, programmed cell death ligand-1 (PDL-1) status, and cCRT-ICB schedules. We therefore aimed to determine the ICB contribution to survival across studies and identify factors associated with survival gain. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Data were collated from cCRT-ICB clinical studies published 2018 to 2022 that treated 2196 patients with non-small cell lung cancer (99% stage 3). Associations between 2-year OS and ICB, CRT, patient and tumor factors were investigated using metaregression. A published model of survival after radiation therapy (RT) or CRT was extended to include ICB effects. The model was fitted simultaneously to the cCRT-ICB data and data previously compiled for RT/CRT treatments alone. The net ICB contribution (OS gain) and its associations with factors were described by fitted values of ICB terms added to the model. Statistical significance was determined by likelihood-ratio testing. RESULTS: The gain in 2-year OS from ICB was 9.9% overall (95% CI, 7.6%, 12.2%; P = .018). Both OS gain and 2-year OS itself rose with increasing planned ICB duration (P = .008, .002, respectively) and with tumor PDL-1 ≥ 1% (P = .034, .023). Fitted OS gains were also greater for patients with stage 3B/C disease (P = .021). OS gain was not associated with tumor histology, patient performance status, radiation therapy dose, ICB drug type (anti-PDL-1 vs anti-programmed cell death-1), or whether ICB began concurrently with or after cCRT. CONCLUSIONS: Fitted gains in 2-year OS due to ICB were higher in cohorts with greater fractions of stage 3B/C patients and patients with tumor PDL-1 ≥ 1%. OS gain was also significantly higher in a single cohort with a planned ICB duration of 2 years rather than 1, but was not associated with whether ICB treatment began during versus after CRT.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: External beam radiation therapy (EBRT) is a highly effective treatment in select patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer system does not recommend the use of EBRT in HCC due to a lack of sufficient evidence and intends to perform an individual patient level meta-analysis of ablative EBRT in this population. However, there are many types of EBRT described in the literature with no formal definition of what constitutes "ablative." Thus, we convened a group of international experts to provide consensus on the parameters that define ablative EBRT in HCC. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Fundamental parameters related to dose, fractionation, radiobiology, target identification, and delivery technique were identified by a steering committee to generate 7 Key Criteria (KC) that would define ablative EBRT for HCC. Using a modified Delphi (mDelphi) method, experts in the use of EBRT in the treatment of HCC were surveyed. Respondents were given 30 days to respond in round 1 of the mDelphi and 14 days to respond in round 2. A threshold of ≥70% was used to define consensus for answers to each KC. RESULTS: Of 40 invitations extended, 35 (88%) returned responses. In the first round, 3 of 7 KC reached consensus. In the second round, 100% returned responses and consensus was reached in 3 of the remaining 4 KC. The distribution of answers for one KC, which queried the a/b ratio of HCC, was such that consensus was not achieved. Based on this analysis, ablative EBRT for HCC was defined as a BED10 ≥80 Gy with daily imaging and multiphasic contrast used for target delineation. Treatment breaks (eg, for adaptive EBRT) are allowed, but the total treatment time should be ≤6 weeks. Equivalent dose when treating with protons should use a conversion factor of 1.1, but there is no single conversion factor for carbon ions. CONCLUSIONS: Using a mDelphi method assessing expert opinion, we provide the first consensus definition of ablative EBRT for HCC. Empirical data are required to define the a/b of HCC.
Asunto(s)
Carcinoma Hepatocelular , Neoplasias Hepáticas , Humanos , Carcinoma Hepatocelular/radioterapia , Consenso , Neoplasias Hepáticas/radioterapia , Instituciones de Atención Ambulatoria , CarbonoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: A uniform definition and treatment for oligometastatic esophagogastric cancer is currently lacking. However, a comprehensive definition of oligometastatic esophagogastric cancer is necessary to initiate studies on local treatment strategies (e.g. metastasectomy or stereotactic radiotherapy) and new systemic therapy agents in this group of patients. For this purpose, the OligoMetastatic Esophagogastric Cancer (OMEC) project was established. The OMEC-project aims to develop a multidisciplinary European consensus statement on the definition, diagnosis, and treatment for oligometastatic esophagogastric cancer and provide a framework for prospective studies to improve outcomes of these patients. METHODS: The OMEC-project consists of five studies, including 1) a systematic review on definitions and outcomes of oligometastatic esophagogastric cancer; 2) real-life clinical scenario discussions in multidisciplinary expert teams to determine the variation in the definition and treatment strategies; 3) Delphi consensus process through a starting meeting, two Delphi questionnaire rounds, and a consensus meeting; 4) publication of a multidisciplinary European consensus statement; and 5) a prospective clinical trial in patients with oligometastatic esophagogastric cancer. DISCUSSION: The OMEC project aims to establish a multidisciplinary European consensus statement for oligometastatic esophagogastric cancer and aims to initiate a prospective clinical trial to improve outcomes for these patients. Recommendations from OMEC can be used to update the relevant guidelines on treatment for patients with (oligometastatic) esophagogastric cancer.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Esofágicas , Neoplasias Gástricas , Humanos , Neoplasias Esofágicas/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Esofágicas/terapia , Estudios Prospectivos , Neoplasias Gástricas/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Gástricas/terapia , Revisiones Sistemáticas como Asunto , Ensayos Clínicos como AsuntoRESUMEN
Background: Effective surveillance strategies are required for patients diagnosed with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) or adenocarcinoma (OAC) for whom chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is used as a potentially-curative, organ-sparing, alternative to surgery. In this study, we evaluated the safety, acceptability and tolerability of a non-endoscopic immunocytological device (the Cytosponge™) to assess treatment response following CRT. Methods: This multicentre, single-arm feasibility trial took place in 10 tertiary cancer centres in the UK. Patients aged at least 16 years diagnosed with OSCC or OAC, and who were within 4-16 weeks of completing definitive or neo-adjuvant CRT, were included. Participants were required to have a Mellow-Pinkas dysphagia score of 0-2 and be able to swallow tablets. All patients underwent a single Cytosponge™ assessment in addition to standard of care (which included post-treatment endoscopic evaluation with biopsy for patients undergoing definitive CRT; surgery for those who received neo-adjuvant CRT). The primary outcome was the proportion of consented, evaluable patients who successfully underwent Cytosponge™ assessment. Secondary and tertiary outcomes included safety, study consent rate, acceptance rate, the suitability of obtained samples for biomarker analysis, and the comparative efficacy of Cytosponge™ to standard histology (endoscopy and biopsy or post-resection specimen) in assessing for residual disease. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03529669. Findings: Between 18th April 2018 and 16th January 2020, 41 (42.7%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 32.7-53.2) of 96 potentially eligible patients consented to participate. Thirty-nine (95.1%, 95% CI 83.5-99.4) successfully carried out the Cytosponge™ procedure. Of these, 37 (95%) would be prepared to repeat the procedure. There were only two grade 1 adverse events attributed to use of the Cytosponge™. Thirty-five (90%) of the completed Cytosponge™ samples were suitable for biomarker analysis; 29 (83%) of these were concordant with endoscopic biopsies, three (9%) had findings suggestive of residual cancer on Cytosponge™ not found on endoscopic biopsies, and three (9%) had residual cancer on endoscopic biopsies not detected by Cytosponge™. Interpretation: Use of the CytospongeTM is safe, tolerable, and acceptable for the assessment of treatment response following CRT in OAC and OSCC. Further evaluation of Cytosponge™ in this setting is warranted. Funding: Cancer Research UK, National Institute for Health Research, Medical Research Council.
RESUMEN
(1) Purpose: We analysed overall survival (OS) rates following radiotherapy (RT) and chemo-RT of locally-advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) to investigate whether tumour repopulation varies with treatment-type, and to further characterise the low α/ß ratio found in a previous study. (2) Materials and methods: Our dataset comprised 2-year OS rates for 4866 NSCLC patients (90.5% stage IIIA/B) belonging to 51 cohorts treated with definitive RT, sequential chemo-RT (sCRT) or concurrent chemo-RT (cCRT) given in doses-per-fraction ≤3 Gy over 16-60 days. Progressively more detailed dose-response models were fitted, beginning with a probit model, adding chemotherapy effects and survival-limiting toxicity, and allowing tumour repopulation and α/ß to vary with treatment-type and stage. Models were fitted using the maximum-likelihood technique, then assessed via the Akaike information criterion and cross-validation. (3) Results: The most detailed model performed best, with repopulation offsetting 1.47 Gy/day (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.36, 2.57 Gy/day) for cCRT but only 0.30 Gy/day (95% CI: 0.18, 0.47 Gy/day) for RT/sCRT. The overall fitted tumour α/ß ratio was 3.0 Gy (95% CI: 1.6, 5.6 Gy). (4) Conclusion: The fitted repopulation rates indicate that cCRT schedule durations should be shortened to the minimum in which prescribed doses can be tolerated. The low α/ß ratio suggests hypofractionation should be efficacious.
RESUMEN
We present a novel classification system of the parenchymal features of radiation-induced lung damage (RILD). We developed a deep learning network to automate the delineation of five classes of parenchymal textures. We quantify the volumetric change in classes after radiotherapy in order to allow detailed, quantitative descriptions of the evolution of lung parenchyma up to 24 months after RT, and correlate these with radiotherapy dose and respiratory outcomes. Diagnostic CTs were available pre-RT, and at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months post-RT, for 46 subjects enrolled in a clinical trial of chemoradiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer. All 230 CT scans were segmented using our network. The five parenchymal classes showed distinct temporal patterns. Moderate correlation was seen between change in tissue class volume and clinical and dosimetric parameters, e.g., the Pearson correlation coefficient was ≤0.49 between V30 and change in Class 2, and was 0.39 between change in Class 1 and decline in FVC. The effect of the local dose on tissue class revealed a strong dose-dependent relationship. Respiratory function measured by spirometry and MRC dyspnoea scores after radiotherapy correlated with the measured radiological RILD. We demonstrate the potential of using our approach to analyse and understand the morphological and functional evolution of RILD in greater detail than previously possible.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Consensus about the definition and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To assess the definition and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer across multidisciplinary tumour boards (MDTs) in Europe. MATERIAL AND METHODS: European expert centers (n = 49) were requested to discuss 15 real-life cases in their MDT with at least a medical, surgical, and radiation oncologist present. The cases varied in terms of location and number of metastases, histology, timing of detection (i.e. synchronous versus metachronous), primary tumour treatment status, and response to systemic therapy. The primary outcome was the agreement in the definition of oligometastatic disease at diagnosis and after systemic therapy. The secondary outcome was the agreement in treatment strategies. Treatment strategies for oligometastatic disease were categorised into upfront local treatment (i.e. metastasectomy or stereotactic radiotherapy), systemic therapy followed by restaging to consider local treatment or systemic therapy alone. The agreement across MDTs was scored to be either absent/poor (<50%), fair (50%-75%), or consensus (≥75%). RESULTS: A total of 47 MDTs across 16 countries fully discussed the cases (96%). Oligometastatic disease was considered in patients with 1-2 metastases in either the liver, lung, retroperitoneal lymph nodes, adrenal gland, soft tissue or bone (consensus). At follow-up, oligometastatic disease was considered after a median of 18 weeks of systemic therapy when no progression or progression in size only of the oligometastatic lesion(s) was seen (consensus). If at restaging after a median of 18 weeks of systemic therapy the number of lesions progressed, this was not considered as oligometastatic disease (fair agreement). There was no consensus on treatment strategies for oligometastatic disease. CONCLUSION: A broad consensus on definitions of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer was found among MDTs of oesophagogastric cancer expert centres in Europe. However, high practice variability in treatment strategies exists.
Asunto(s)
Metastasectomía , Neoplasias , Radiocirugia , Europa (Continente) , Humanos , Ganglios Linfáticos , Metástasis de la NeoplasiaRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: In 'IDEAL-6' patients (N = 78) treated for locally-advanced non-small-cell lung cancer using isotoxically dose-escalated radiotherapy, overall survival (OS) was associated more strongly with VLAwall-64-73-EQD2, the left atrial (LA) wall volume receiving 64-73 Gy equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions (EQD2), than with whole-heart irradiation measures. Here we test this in an independent cohort 'OX-RT' (N = 64) treated routinely. METHODS: Using Cox regression analysis we assessed how strongly OS was associated with VLAwall-64-73-EQD2, with whole-heart volumes receiving 64-73 Gy EQD2 or doses above 10-to-70 Gy thresholds, and with principal components of whole-heart dose-distributions. Additionally, we tested associations between OS and volumes of cardiac substructures receiving dose-ranges described by whole-heart principal components significantly associated with OS. RESULTS: In univariable analyses of OX-RT, OS was associated more strongly with VLAwall-64-73-EQD2 than with whole-heart irradiation measures, but more strongly still with VAortV-29-38-EQD2, the volume of the aortic valve region receiving 29-38 Gy EQD2. The best multivariable OS model included LA wall and aortic valve region mean doses, and the aortic valve volume receiving ≥38 Gy EQD2, VAortV-38-EQD2. In a subsidiary analysis of IDEAL-6, the best multivariable model included VLAwall-64-73-EQD2, VAortV-29-38-EQD2, VAortV-38-EQD2 and mean aortic valve dose. CONCLUSION: We propose reducing heart mean doses to the lowest levels possible while meeting protocol dose-limits for lung, oesophagus, proximal bronchial tree, cord and brachial plexus. This in turn achieves large reductions in VAortV-29-38-EQD2 and VLAwall-64-73-EQD2, and we plan to closely monitor patients with values of these measures still >0% (their median value in OX-RT) following reduction.
Asunto(s)
Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas , Neoplasias Pulmonares , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/radioterapia , Atrios Cardíacos , Humanos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/radioterapia , Dosificación Radioterapéutica , Planificación de la Radioterapia Asistida por ComputadorRESUMEN
Radiation resistance is a significant clinical problem in rectal cancer treatment, the mechanisms of which are poorly understood. NRF2 signalling is known to contribute to chemo/radioresistance in some cancers, but its role in therapeutic resistance in colorectal cancer (CRC) is unexplored. Using siRNA and CRiSPR/Cas9 isogenic CRC cell lines, we investigated the effect of the knockdown and upregulation of the NRF2 pathway on chemo-radiosensitivity. Poly (A) enriched RNA sequencing and geneset enrichment analysis (GSEA) were carried out on both sensitive and resistant cell models for mechanistic insights. Finally, a cohort of rectal patient samples was profiled to understand the clinical relevance of NRF2 signalling. Radioresistant cell lines were significantly radiosensitised by siRNA knockdown (SW1463, SER10 1.22, ANOVA p < 0.0001; HT55, SER10 1.17, ANOVA p < 0.01), but not the (already) radiosensitive HCT116. The constitutive activation of NRF2 via a CRISPR Cas9 NFE2L2 mutation, E79K, induced radioresistance in HCT116 (SER10 0.71, ANOVA, p < 0.0001). GSEA demonstrated significant opposing metabolic dependencies in NRF2 signalling, specifically, the downregulation of amino acid and protein synthesis with low levels of NRF2 and upregulation with over expression. In a clinical cohort of 127 rectal patients, using a validated mRNA signature, higher baseline NRF2 signalling was associated with incomplete responses to radiation higher final neoadjuvant rectal (NAR) score (OR 1.34, 95% C.I. 1.01-1.80, LRT p-value = 0.023), where high NAR indicates poor radiation response and poor long-term prognosis. This is the first demonstration of NRF2-mediated radiation resistance in colorectal cancer. NRF2 appears to regulate crucial metabolic pathways, which could be exploited for therapeutic interventions.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy (SABR) is increasingly used to treat metastatic oligorecurrence and locoregional recurrences but limited evidence/guidance exists in the setting of pelvic re-irradiation. An international Delphi study was performed to develop statements to guide practice regarding patient selection, pre-treatment investigations, treatment planning, delivery and cumulative organs at risk (OARs) constraints. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-one radiation oncologists were invited to participate in three online surveys. In Round 1, information and opinion was sought regarding participants' practice. Guidance statements were developed using this information and in Round 2 participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each statement. Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement. In Round 3, any statements without consensus were re-presented unmodified, alongside a summary of comments from Round 2. RESULTS: Twenty-three radiation oncologists participated in Round 1 and, of these, 21 (91%) and 22 (96%) completed Rounds 2 and 3 respectively. Twenty-nine of 44 statements (66%) achieved consensus in Round 2. The remaining 15 statements (34%) did not achieve further consensus in Round 3. Consensus was achieved for 10 of 17 statements (59%) regarding patient selection/pre-treatment investigations; 12 of 13 statements (92%) concerning treatment planning and delivery; and 7 of 14 statements (50%) relating to OARs. Lack of agreement remained regarding the minimum time interval between irradiation courses, the number/size of pelvic lesions that can be treated and the most appropriate cumulative OAR constraints. CONCLUSIONS: This study has established consensus, where possible, in areas of patient selection, pre-treatment investigations, treatment planning and delivery for pelvic SABR re-irradiation for metastatic oligorecurrence and locoregional recurrences. Further research into this technique is required, especially regarding aspects of practice where consensus was not achieved.
Asunto(s)
Radiocirugia , Reirradiación , Consenso , Técnica Delphi , Humanos , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
AIM: This is the first randomised study to evaluate toxicity and survival outcomes of two neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) regimens for patients with localised oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) or gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ) adenocarcinoma. The initial results showed comparable toxicity between regimens and pathological complete response (pCR) rate favouring CarPacRT. Herein, we report survival, progression patterns, and long-term toxicity after a median follow-up of 40.7 months. METHODS: NeoSCOPE was an open-label, UK multicentre, randomised, phase II trial. Eighty-five patients with resectable OAC or GOJ adenocarcinoma, ≥cT3 and/or ≥cN1 (TNM v7), suitable for neoadjuvant CRT, were recruited between October 2013 and February 2015. Patients were randomised to OxCapRT (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 on Days 1, 15, and 29; capecitabine 625 mg/m2 orally twice daily on days of radiotherapy [RT]) or CarPacRT (carboplatin AUC2; paclitaxel 50 mg/m2 on Days 1, 8, 15, 22, and 29). RT dose was 45 Gy/25 fractions/5 weeks. Both arms received induction chemotherapy (two cycles oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on Day 1, capecitabine 625 mg/m2 orally twice daily on Days 1-21) before CRT. Surgery was performed 6-8 weeks after CRT. The primary end-point was pCR. Secondary end-points were toxicity, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and patterns of progression. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients were recruited from 17 UK centres. The median OS was 41.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 19.6 to not reached) in the OxCapRT arm and was not reached in the CarPacRT arm (multivariable hazard ratio [HR] = 0.48, 95% CIs: 0.24-0.95, P = 0.035). The median PFS was 32.6 months (95% CIs: 17.1 to not reached) in the OxCapRT arm and was not reached in the CarPacRT arm (multivariable HR = 0.54, 95% CIs: 0.29-1.01, P = 0.053). In both arms, the distant progression was twice as common as locoregional progression. CONCLUSIONS: OS and PFS favoured neoadjuvant CarPacRT over OxCapRT. Distant was more common than locoregional progression; therefore, priority should be given to optimising the systemic treatment component. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION: EudraCT Number: 2012-000640-10; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01843829.