A phase II clinical trial of frameless, fractionated stereotactic radiation therapy for brain metastases.

Stereotactic radiation therapy yields high rates of local control for brain metastases, but patients in rural or suburban areas face geographic and socioeconomic barriers to its access. We conducted a phase II clinical trial of frameless, fractionated stereotactic radiation therapy for brain metastases in an integrated academic satellite network for patients 18 years of age or older with 4 or fewer brain metastases. Dose was based on gross tumor volume: less than 3.0 cm, 27 Gy in 3 fractions and 3.0 to 3.9 cm, 30 Gy in 5 fractions. Median follow-up was 10 months for 73 evaluable patients, with a median age of 68 years. Median intracranial progression-free survival was 7.1 months (95% confidence interval = 5.3 to not reached), and median survival was 7.2 months (95% confidence interval = 5.4 to not reached); there were no serious adverse events. Outcomes of this trial compare favorably with contemporary trials, and this treatment strategy provides opportunities to expand stereotactic radiation therapy access to underserved populations.

Optimizing Preventive Adjuvant Linac-Based (OPAL) Radiation: A Phase 2 Trial of Daily Partial Breast Irradiation.

PURPOSE: Evidence supports use of partial-breast irradiation (PBI) in the management of early breast cancer, but the optimal dose-fractionation remains unsettled. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We conducted a phase 2 clinical trial (OPAL trial) to evaluate a novel PBI dosing schedule of 35 Gy in 10 daily fractions. Patients with close (<2 mm) margins also received a boost of 9 Gy in 3 fractions. Eligible patients underwent margin-negative lumpectomy for ductal carcinoma in situ or estrogen receptor-positive invasive breast cancer, up to 3 cm, pTis-T2 N0. The primary outcome was any grade ≥2 toxic effect occurring from the start of radiation through 6 months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported cosmesis, breast pain, and functional status, measured using the Breast Cancer Treatment Outcomes Scale, and physician-reported cosmesis, measured using the Radiation Therapy and Oncology Group scale. The Cochran-Armitage trend test and multivariable mixed-effects longitudinal growth curve models compared outcomes for the OPAL study population with those for a control group of similar patients treated with whole-breast irradiation (WBI) plus boost. RESULTS: All 149 patients enrolled on the OPAL trial received the prescribed dose, and 17.4% received boost. The median age was 64 years; 83.2% were White, and 73.8% were overweight or obese. With median follow-up of 2.0 years, 1 patient (0.7%) experienced in-breast recurrence. Prevalence of the primary toxicity outcome was 17.4% (26 of 149 patients) in the OPAL trial compared with 72.7% (128 of 176 patients) in the control WBI-plus-boost cohort (P < .001). In longitudinal multivariable analysis, treatment on the OPAL trial was associated with improved patient-reported cosmesis (P < .001), functional status (P = .004), breast pain (P = .004), and physician-reported cosmesis (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with daily PBI was associated with substantial reduction in early toxicity and improved patient- and physician-reported outcomes compared with WBI plus boost. Daily external-beam partial-breast irradiation with 13 or fewer fractions merits further prospective evaluation.

Prospective Comparison of Toxicity and Cosmetic Outcome After Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation With Conformal External Beam Radiotherapy or Single-Entry Multilumen Intracavitary Brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to prospectively characterize toxicity and cosmesis after accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) with 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (CRT) or single-entry, multilumen, intracavitary brachytherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 281 patients with pTis, pT1N0, or pT2N0 (≤3.0 cm) breast cancer treated with segmental mastectomy were prospectively enrolled from December 2008 through August 2014. APBI was delivered using 3-dimensional CRT (n = 29) or with SAVI (n = 176), Contura (n = 56), or MammoSite (n = 20) brachytherapy catheters. Patients were evaluated at protocol-specified intervals, at which time the radiation oncologist scored cosmetic outcome, toxicities, and recurrence status using a standardized template. RESULTS: The median follow-up time is 41 months. Grade 1 seroma and fibrosis were more common with brachytherapy than with 3-dimensional CRT (50.4% vs 3.4% for seroma; P < .0001 and 66.3% vs 44.8% for fibrosis; P = .02), but grade 1 edema was more common with 3-dimensional CRT than with brachytherapy (17.2% vs 5.6%; P = .04). Grade 2 to 3 pain was more common with 3-dimensional CRT (17.2% vs 5.2%; P = .03). Actuarial 5-year rates of fair or poor radiation oncologist-reported cosmetic outcome were 9% for 3-dimensional CRT and 24% for brachytherapy (P = .13). Brachytherapy was significantly associated with inferior cosmesis on mixed model analysis (P = .003). Significant predictors of reduced risk of adverse cosmetic outcome after brachytherapy were D0.1cc (skin) ≤102%, minimum skin distance >5.1 mm, dose homogeneity index >0.54, and volume of nonconformance ≤0.89 cc. The 5-year ipsilateral breast recurrence was 4.3% for brachytherapy and 4.2% for 3-dimensional CRT APBI patients (P = .95). CONCLUSIONS: Brachytherapy APBI is associated with higher rates of grade 1 fibrosis and seroma than 3-dimensional CRT but lower rates of grade 1 edema and grade 2 to 3 pain than 3-dimensional CRT. Rates of radiation oncologist-reported fair or poor cosmetic outcomes are higher with brachytherapy. We identified dosimetric parameters that predict reduced risk of adverse cosmetic outcome after brachytherapy-based APBI. Ipsilateral breast recurrence was equivalent for brachytherapy and 3-dimensional CRT.

Randomized Trial of Hypofractionated, Dose-Escalated, Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) Versus Conventionally Fractionated IMRT for Localized Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Hypofractionated radiotherapy delivers larger daily doses of radiation and may increase the biologically effective dose delivered to the prostate. We conducted a randomized trial testing the hypothesis that dose-escalated, moderately hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (HIMRT) improves prostate cancer control compared with conventionally fractionated IMRT (CIMRT) for men with localized prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men were randomly assigned to 75.6 Gy in 1.8-Gy fractions delivered over 8.4 weeks (CIMRT) or 72 Gy in 2.4 Gy fractions delivered over 6 weeks (HIMRT, biologically equivalent to 85 Gy in 1.8-Gy fractions assuming prostate cancer α-to-ß ratio of 1.5). Failure was defined as prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure (nadir plus 2 ng/mL) or initiation of salvage therapy. Modified Radiation Therapy Oncology Group criteria were used to grade late (≥ 90 days after completion of radiotherapy) GI and genitourinary toxicity. RESULTS: Most of the 206 men (72%) had cT1, Gleason score 6 or 7 (99%), and PSA level ≤ 10 ng/mL (90%) disease. Androgen deprivation therapy was received by 24%. With a median follow-up of 8.5 years, men treated with HIMRT experienced fewer treatment failures (n = 10) than men treated with CIMRT (n = 21; P = .036). The 8-year failure rate was 10.7% (95% CI, 5.8% to 19.1%) with HIMRT and 15.4% (95% CI, 9.1% to 25.4%) with CIMRT. There was no difference in overall survival ( P = .39). There was a nonsignificant increase in late grade 2 or 3 GI toxicity with HIMRT (8-year 5.0% v 12.6%; P = .08). However, GI toxicity was only 8.6% when rectal volume receiving 65 Gy of HIMRT was ≤ 15%. Late genitourinary toxicity was similar ( P = .84). There was no grade 4 toxicity. CONCLUSION: The results of this randomized trial demonstrate superior cancer control for men with localized prostate cancer who receive dose-escalated moderately hypofractionation radiotherapy while shortening treatment duration.

Association of Transforming Growth Factor ß Polymorphism C-509T With Radiation-Induced Fibrosis Among Patients With Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Whether genetic factors can identify patients at risk for radiation-induced fibrosis remains unconfirmed. Objective: To assess the association between the C-509T variant allele in the promoter region of TGFB1 and breast fibrosis 3 years after radiotherapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is an a priori-specified, prospective, cohort study nested in an open-label, randomized clinical trial, which was conducted in community-based and academic cancer centers to compare hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation (WBI) (42.56 Gy in 16 fractions) with conventionally fractionated WBI (50 Gy in 25 fractions) after breast-conserving surgery. In total, 287 women 40 years or older with pathologically confirmed stage 0 to IIA breast cancer treated with breast-conserving surgery were enrolled from February 2011 to February 2014. Patients were observed for a minimum of 3 years. Outcomes were compared using the 1-sided Fisher exact test and multivariable logistic regression. Exposures: A C-to-T single-nucleotide polymorphism at position -509 relative to the first major transcription start site (C-509T) of the TGFB1 gene. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was grade 2 or higher breast fibrosis as assessed using the Late Effects Normal Tissue/Subjective, Objective, Medical Management, Analytic scale (range, 0 to 3) three years after radiotherapy. Results: Among 287 women enrolled in the trial, TGFB1 genotype and 3-year radiotherapy-induced toxicity data were available for 174 patients, of whom 89 patients (51%) with a mean (SD) age of 60 (8) years had at least 1 copy of C-509T. Grade 2 or higher breast fibrosis was present in 12 of 87 patients with C-509T (13.8%) compared with 3 of 80 patients without the allele variant (3.8%) (absolute difference, 10.0%; 95% CI, 1.7%-18.4%; P = .02). The results of multivariable analyses indicated that only C-509T (odds ratio, 4.47; 95% CI, 1.25-15.99; P = .02) and postoperative cosmetic outcome (odds ratio, 7.09; 95% CI, 2.41-20.90; P < .001) were significantly associated with breast fibrosis risk. Conclusions and Relevance: To date, this study seems to be the first prospective validation of a genomic marker for radiation fibrosis. The C-509T allele in TGFB1 is a key determinant of breast fibrosis risk. Assessing TGFB1 genotype may facilitate a more personalized approach to locoregional treatment decisions in breast cancer. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01266642.

Patient-reported Urinary, Bowel, and Sexual Function After Hypofractionated Intensity-modulated Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Results From a Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Hypofractionated prostate radiotherapy may increase biologically effective dose delivered while shortening treatment duration, but information on patient-reported urinary, bowel, and sexual function after dose-escalated hypofractionated radiotherapy is limited. We report patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from a randomized trial comparing hypofractionated and conventional prostate radiotherapy. METHODS: Men with localized prostate cancer were enrolled in a trial that randomized men to either conventionally fractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (CIMRT, 75.6 Gy in 1.8 Gy fractions) or to dose-escalated hypofractionated IMRT (HIMRT, 72 Gy in 2.4 Gy fractions). Questionnaires assessing urinary, bowel, and sexual function were completed pretreatment and at 2, 3, 4, and 5 years after treatment. RESULTS: Of 203 eligible patients, 185 were evaluable for PROs. A total of 173 completed the pretreatment questionnaire (82 CIMRT, 91 HIMRT) and 102 completed the 2-year questionnaire (46 CIMRT, 56 HIMRT). Patients who completed PROs were similar to those who did not complete PROs (all P>0.05). Patient characteristics, clinical characteristics, and baseline symptoms were well balanced between the treatment arms (all P>0.05). There was no difference in patient-reported bowel (urgency, control, frequency, or blood per rectum), urinary (dysuria, hematuria, nocturia, leakage), or sexual symptoms (erections firm enough for intercourse) between treatment arms at 2, 3, 4, and 5 years after treatment (all P>0.01). Concordance between physician-assessed toxicity and PROs varied across urinary and bowel domains. DISCUSSION: We did not detect an increase in patient-reported urinary, bowel, and sexual symptom burden after dose-escalated intensity-modulated prostate radiation therapy using a moderate hypofractionation regimen (72 Gy in 2.4 Gy fractions) compared with conventionally fractionated radiation.

Long-term economic value of hypofractionated prostate radiation: Secondary analysis of a randomized trial.

PURPOSE: Moderately hypofractionated intensity modulated radiation therapy (HIMRT) for prostate cancer shortens the treatment course while providing outcomes comparable with those of conventional intensity modulated radiation therapy (CIMRT). To determine the long-term economic value of HIMRT, including the costs of managing long-term radiation toxicities, a cost minimization analysis compared CIMRT with dose-escalated HIMRT using patient-level data from a randomized trial. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Men with localized prostate cancer were randomized to CIMRT (75.6 Gy in 42 fractions over 8.4 weeks) or HIMRT (72 Gy in 30 fractions over 6 weeks). A decision tree modeled trial probabilities of maximum late bowel and urinary toxicities using patient-level data with a median follow-up of 6 years. Costs were estimated from the healthcare perspective using the 2014 national reimbursement rates for services received. Patient-level institutional costs, adjusted to 2014 dollars, verified reimbursements. A sensitivity analysis assessed model uncertainty. RESULTS: The cost for HIMRT and toxicity management was $22,957, saving $7,000 compared with CIMRT ($30,241). CIMRT was the common factor among the 5 most influential scenarios that contributed to total costs. Toxicity represented a small part (<10%) of the average total cost for patients with either grade 2-3 bowel toxicity or grade 2-3 urinary toxicity. However, toxicity management reached up to 26% of the total cost for patients with both high-grade bowel and urinary toxicities. There was no threshold at which CIMRT became the less costly regimen. Institutional costs confirmed the economic value of HIMRT ($6,000 in savings). CONCLUSIONS: HIMRT is more cost-efficient than CIMRT for treating prostate cancer, even when taking into account the costs related to late radiation toxicities. HIMRT enhances the value of prostate radiation when compared with CIMRT.

Longitudinal analysis of patient-reported outcomes and cosmesis in a randomized trial of conventionally fractionated versus hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation.

BACKGROUND: The authors compared longitudinal patient-reported outcomes and physician-rated cosmesis with conventionally fractionated whole-breast irradiation (CF-WBI) versus hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation (HF-WBI) within the context of a randomized trial. METHODS: From 2011 to 2014, a total of 287 women with American Joint Committee on Cancer stage 0 to stage II breast cancer were randomized to receive CF-WBI (at a dose of 50 grays in 25 fractions plus a tumor bed boost) or HF-WBI (at a dose of 42.56 grays in 16 fractions plus a tumor bed boost) after breast-conserving surgery. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed using the Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale (BCTOS), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast, and the Body Image Scale and were recorded at baseline and 0.5, 1, 2, and 3 years after radiotherapy. Physician-rated cosmesis was assessed at the same time points. Outcomes by treatment arm were compared at each time point using a 2-sided Student t test. Multivariable mixed effects growth curve models assessed the effects of treatment arm and time on longitudinal outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 287 patients enrolled, 149 were randomized to CF-WBI and 138 were randomized to HF-WBI. At 2 years, the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Trial Outcome Index score was found to be modestly better in the HF-WBI arm (mean 79.6 vs 75.9 for CF-WBI; P = .02). In multivariable mixed effects models, treatment arm was not found to be associated with longitudinal outcomes after adjusting for time and baseline outcome measures (P≥.14). The linear effect of time was significant for BCTOS measures of functional status (P = .001, improved with time) and breast pain (P = .002, improved with time). CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized trial, longitudinal outcomes did not appear to differ by treatment arm. Patient-reported functional and pain outcomes improved over time. These findings are relevant when counseling patients regarding decisions concerning radiotherapy. Cancer 2016. © 2016 American Cancer Society. Cancer 2016;122:2886-2894. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Implementing a Real-Time Electronic Data Capture System to Improve Clinical Documentation in Radiation Oncology.

PURPOSE: Electronic health records (EHRs) often store information as unstructured text, whereas electronic data capture (EDC) using structured fields is common in clinical trials. We implemented a web-based EDC system for routine clinical care, and describe our experience piloting this system for breast cancer patients receiving radiation therapy. METHODS: Our institution uses dictation for clinical documentation in a centralized EHR; a separate radiation therapy-specific record-and-verify system contains prescriptions, schedules, and treatment documentation. The implemented EDC system collects patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics using structured data fields and merges it with data from the radiation therapy system to generate template-based notes in the EHR. Mean times to create notes using dictation versus EDC were compared. Users were surveyed about their experience. Acute toxicities were captured using the EDC system, and reported. RESULTS: The EDC system has been used by 25 providers for 1,296 patients. In the most recent month, 978 clinical notes were generated. The average clinician documentation time over a typical course of radiation was reduced from 22.4 minutes per patient with dictation, to 7.1 minutes with EDC. The user survey response rate was 100%, with 92% of respondents being either satisfied or very satisfied with their experience. The worst acute toxicities were mostly grade 1 (51%) or grade 2 (43%), with rare grade 3 (3%) events. CONCLUSIONS: We implemented an EDC system for routine clinical use in the breast radiation therapy service that resulted in significant time-savings for clinical documentation and prospective population of a database to facilitate outcomes reporting.

Acute and Short-term Toxic Effects of Conventionally Fractionated vs Hypofractionated Whole-Breast Irradiation: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: The most appropriate dose fractionation for whole-breast irradiation (WBI) remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To assess acute and 6-month toxic effects and quality of life (QOL) with conventionally fractionated WBI (CF-WBI) vs hypofractionated WBI (HF-WBI). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Unblinded randomized trial of CF-WBI (n = 149; 50.00 Gy/25 fractions + boost [10.00-14.00 Gy/5-7 fractions]) vs HF-WBI (n = 138; 42.56 Gy/16 fractions + boost [10.00-12.50 Gy/4-5 fractions]) following breast-conserving surgery administered in community-based and academic cancer centers to 287 women 40 years or older with stage 0 to II breast cancer for whom WBI without addition of a third field was recommended; 76% of study participants (n = 217) were overweight or obese. Patients were enrolled from February 2011 through February 2014 and observed for a minimum of 6 months. INTERVENTIONS: Administration of CF-WBI or HF-WBI. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Physician-reported acute and 6-month toxic effects using National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria, and patient-reported QOL using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy for Patients with Breast Cancer (FACT-B). All analyses were intention to treat, with outcomes compared using the χ2 test, Cochran-Armitage test, and ordinal logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 287 participants, 149 were randomized to CF-WBI and 138 to HF-WBI. Treatment arms were well matched for baseline characteristics, including FACT-B total score (HF-WBI, 120.1 vs CF-WBI, 118.8; P = .46) and individual QOL items such as somewhat or more lack of energy (HF-WBI, 38% vs CF-WBI, 39%; P = .86) and somewhat or more trouble meeting family needs (HF-WBI, 10% vs CF-WBI, 14%; P = .54). Maximum physician-reported acute dermatitis (36% vs 69%; P < .001), pruritus (54% vs 81%; P < .001), breast pain (55% vs 74%; P = .001), hyperpigmentation (9% vs 20%; P = .002), and fatigue (9% vs 17%; P = .02) during irradiation were lower in patients randomized to HF-WBI. The rate of overall grade 2 or higher acute toxic effects was less with HF-WBI than with CF-WBI (47% vs 78%; P < .001). Six months after irradiation, physicians reported less fatigue in patients randomized to HF-WBI (0% vs 6%; P = .01), and patients randomized to HF-WBI reported less lack of energy (23% vs 39%; P < .001) and less trouble meeting family needs (3% vs 9%; P = .01). Multivariable regression confirmed the superiority of HF-WBI in terms of patient-reported lack of energy (odds ratio [OR], 0.39; 95% CI, 0.24-0.63) and trouble meeting family needs (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.16-0.75). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Treatment with HF-WBI appears to yield lower rates of acute toxic effects than CF-WBI as well as less fatigue and less trouble meeting family needs 6 months after completing radiation therapy. These findings should be communicated to patients as part of shared decision making. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01266642.

Prospective peer review quality assurance for outpatient radiation therapy.

PURPOSE: We implemented a peer review program that required presentation of all nonpalliative cases to a weekly peer review conference. The purpose of this review is to document compliance and determine how this program impacted care. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 2988 patients were eligible for peer review. Patient data were presented to a group of physicians, physicists, and dosimetrists, and the radiation therapy plan was reviewed. Details of changes made were documented within a quality assurance note dictated after discussion. Changes recommended by the peer review process were categorized as changes to radiation dose, target, or major changes. RESULTS: Breast cancer accounted for 47.9% of all cases, followed in frequency by head-and-neck (14.8%), gastrointestinal (9.9%), genitourinary (9.3%), and thoracic (6.7%) malignancies. Of the 2988 eligible patients, 158 (5.3%) were not presented for peer review. The number of missed presentations decreased over time; 2007, 8.2%; 2008, 5.7%; 2009, 3.8%; and 2010, 2.7% (P < .001). The reason for a missed presentation was unknown but varied by disease site and physician. Of the 2830 cases presented for peer review, a change was recommended in 346 cases (12.2%) and categorized as a dose change in 28.3%, a target change in 69.1%, and a major treatment change in 2.6%. When examined by year of treatment the number of changes recommended decreased over time: 2007, 16.5%; 2008, 11.5%; 2009, 12.5%; and 2010, 7.8% (P < .001). The number of changes recommended varied by disease site and physician. The head-and-neck, gynecologic, and gastrointestinal malignancies accounted for the majority of changes made. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with this weekly program was satisfactory and improved over time. The program resulted in decreased treatment plan changes over time reflecting a move toward treatment consensus. We recommend that peer review be considered for patients receiving radiation therapy as it creates a culture where guideline adherence and discussion are part of normal practice.

Radiotherapy alone for lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin's disease.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to analyze the results with radiotherapy alone in a select group of asymptomatic adults with nonbulky, early-stage lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin's disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1963 and 1995, 36 patients with nonbulky stage IA (N = 27) or IIA (N = 9) supradiaphragmatic (N = 27) or subdiaphragmatic (N = 9) lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin's disease were treated with radiotherapy alone. Eleven of the patients underwent laparotomy. Limited-field radiotherapy involving only one side of the diaphragm and extended-field radiotherapy encompassing both sides of the diaphragm were used in 28 and 8 cases, respectively. Median dose to involved areas was 40.0 Gy given daily in 20 2.0-Gy fractions. Salvage treatmentconsisted of MOPP (mechlorethamine, vincristine, prednisone, procarbazine), CVPP/ABDIC (cyclophosphamide, vinblastine, procarbazine and prednisone/doxorubicin, bleomycin, dacarbazine, lomustine, and prednisone), or ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine) chemotherapy and/or involved-field radiotherapy. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 8.8 years (range, 3.0-34.4 years). None of the 15 patients with supradiaphragmatic disease who received limited-field radiotherapy to regions that did not include the mediastinal or hilar nodes subsequently experienced relapse there. Only one of 20 patients who received supradiaphragmatic limited-field radiotherapy alone experienced relapse in the paraaortic nodes or spleen. The 5-year relapse-free and overall survival rates for the 20 patients with stage IA lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin's disease treated with involved-field or regional radiotherapy were 95% and 100%, respectively. There were no cases of severe or life-threatening cardiac toxicity. No solid tumors have been observed in-field in patients treated with limited-field radiotherapy, even though they have been followed up longer than those treated with extended-field radiotherapy (median follow-up, 11.6 vs 5.5 years); two solid tumors have developed in-field in patients who received extended-field radiotherapy. DISCUSSION: Involved-field or regional radiotherapy alone may be adequate in stage IA lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin's disease patients. Longer follow-up will help to more clearly define the risks of cardiac toxicity and solid tumors that result from involved-field or regional radiotherapy, which appear to be low based on follow-up to date.

European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and Groupe d'Etude des Lymphomes de l'Adulte very favorable and favorable, lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin disease.

BACKGROUND: Lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin disease (LPHD) is rare and has a natural history different from that of classic Hodgkin disease. There is little information in the literature regarding the role of chemotherapy in patients with early-stage LPHD. The objective of this study was to examine recurrence free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS), and patterns of first recurrence in patients with LPHD who were treated with radiotherapy alone or with chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy. METHODS: From 1963 to 1996, 48 consecutive patients ages 16-49 years (median, 28 years) with Ann Arbor Stage I (n = 30 patients) or Stage II (n = 18 patients), very favorable (VF; n = 5 patients) or favorable (F; n = 43 patients) LPHD, according to the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and Groupe d'Etude des Lymphomes de l'Adulte (EORTC-GELA) criteria, received radiotherapy alone (n = 37 patients) or received chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy (n = 11 patients). The percentages of patients with VF disease (11% vs. 9% in the radiotherapy group vs. the chemotherapy plus radiotherapy group, respectively) or F disease (89% vs. 91%, respectively) within the two treatment groups were similar (P = 1.00). A median of three cycles of chemotherapy with mechlorethamine, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (MOPP) or with mitoxantrone, vincristine, vinblastine, and prednisone (NOVP) was given initially to six patients and five patients, respectively. A median total radiotherapy dose of 40 grays (Gy) given in daily fractions of 2.0 Gy was delivered to both treatment groups. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 9.3 years, and 98% of patients were observed for > or = 3.0 years. RFS was similar for patients who were treated with radiotherapy alone and patients who were treated with chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy (10-year survival rates: 77% and 68%, respectively; P = 0.89). The OS rate also was similar for the two groups (10-year survival rates: 90% and 100%, respectively; P = 0.43). MOPP or NOVP chemotherapy did not reduce the risk of recurrence outside of the radiotherapy fields. CONCLUSIONS: MOPP or NOVP chemotherapy did not improve RFS or OS significantly in patients with VF or F LPHD, although the statistical power was limited. Ongoing clinical trials will help to clarify the role of a watch-and-wait strategy or systemic therapy, including anthracycline (epirubicin or doxorubicin), bleomycin, and vinblastine-based chemotherapy or antibody-based approaches, in the treatment of these patients.