Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Outcomes for Patients with Lung Cancer Receiving Curative-intent Radiotherapy in the UK.

AIMS: Previous work found that during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, 34% of patients with lung cancer treated with curative-intent radiotherapy in the UK had a change to their centre's usual standard of care treatment (Banfill et al. Clin Oncol 2022;34:19-27). We present the impact of these changes on patient outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The COVID-RT Lung database was a prospective multicentre UK cohort study including patients with stage I-III lung cancer referred for and/or treated with radical radiotherapy between April and October 2020. Data were collected on patient demographics, radiotherapy and systemic treatments, toxicity, relapse and death. Multivariable Cox and logistic regression were used to assess the impact of having a change to radiotherapy on survival, distant relapse and grade ≥3 acute toxicity. The impact of omitting chemotherapy on survival and relapse was assessed using multivariable Cox regression. RESULTS: Patient and follow-up forms were available for 1280 patients. Seven hundred and sixty-five (59.8%) patients were aged over 70 years and 603 (47.1%) were female. The median follow-up was 213 days (119, 376). Patients with stage I-II non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had a change to their radiotherapy had no significant increase in distant relapse (P = 0.859) or death (P = 0.884); however, they did have increased odds of grade ≥3 acute toxicity (P = 0.0348). Patients with stage III NSCLC who had a change to their radiotherapy had no significant increase in distant relapse (P = 0.216) or death (P = 0.789); however, they did have increased odds of grade ≥3 acute toxicity (P < 0.001). Patients with stage III NSCLC who had their chemotherapy omitted had no significant increase in distant relapse (P = 0.0827) or death (P = 0.0661). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that changes to radiotherapy and chemotherapy made in response to the COVID-19 pandemic did not significantly affect distant relapse or survival. Changes to radiotherapy, namely increased hypofractionation, led to increased odds of grade ≥3 acute toxicity. These results are important, as hypofractionated treatments can help to reduce hospital attendances in the context of potential future emergency situations.

Real-World Assessment of Cancer Drugs Using Local Data Uploaded to the Systemic Anti-Cancer Therapy Dataset in England.

AIMS: In England, not all cancer drugs are routinely funded; new medicines are first appraised by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Funding can be temporarily given through the Cancer Drugs Fund while further information is collected. The Systemic Anti-Cancer Therapy (SACT) dataset collects information on all patients receiving chemotherapy in England. To date, little has been published, despite concerns that real-world effectiveness of medicines may be inferior to that seen in clinical trials. The aim of the present study was to establish the feasibility of using our local copy of routinely collected SACT data for the evaluation of outcomes, using the data within the context of gastrointestinal cancers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used our local SACT dataset submissions from three National Health Service trusts, with a reproducible method of data linkage, to undertake a cohort analysis of treatment duration and overall survival for cetuximab, panitumumab, trifluridine/tipiracil (all three in colorectal cancer), sorafenib (in hepatocellular cancer) and nab-paclitaxel (nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel) with gemcitabine (in pancreatic cancer) for all patients treated from May 2016 to March 2021. RESULTS: In our population, epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors and trifluridine/tipiracil and sorafenib performed similarly to expected but nab-paclitaxel with gemcitabine in pancreatic cancer seemed to be no better than gemcitabine alone, when given within the current funding arrangements in England. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the publication of national outcome data. If these results are confirmed on a larger cohort, it would support the reappraisal of certain drugs and provide further evidence to clinicians and patients when deciding the best treatment.

Changes in the Management of Patients having Radical Radiotherapy for Lung Cancer during the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic in the UK.

AIMS: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, guidelines on reduced fractionation for patients treated with curative-intent radiotherapy were published, aimed at reducing the number of hospital attendances and potential exposure of vulnerable patients to minimise the risk of COVID-19 infection. We describe the changes that took place in the management of patients with stage I-III lung cancer from April to October 2020. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Lung Radiotherapy during the COVID-19 Pandemic (COVID-RT Lung) is a prospective multicentre UK cohort study. The inclusion criteria were: patients with stage I-III lung cancer referred for and/or treated with radical radiotherapy between 2nd April and 2nd October 2020. Patients who had had a change in their management and those who continued with standard management were included. Data on demographics, COVID-19 diagnosis, diagnostic work-up, radiotherapy and systemic treatment were collected and reported as counts and percentages. Patient characteristics associated with a change in treatment were analysed using multivariable binary logistic regression. RESULTS: In total, 1553 patients were included (median age 72 years, 49% female); 93 (12%) had a change to their diagnostic investigation and 528 (34%) had a change to their treatment from their centre's standard of care as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Age ≥70 years, male gender and stage III disease were associated with a change in treatment on multivariable analysis. Patients who had their treatment changed had a median of 15 fractions of radiotherapy compared with a median of 20 fractions in those who did not have their treatment changed. Low rates of COVID-19 infection were seen during or after radiotherapy, with only 21 patients (1.4%) developing the disease. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in changes to patient treatment in line with national recommendations. The main change was an increase in hypofractionation. Further work is ongoing to analyse the impact of these changes on patient outcomes.

Long-term Overall Survival Outcomes in Patients with Early Stage, Peripherally Located, Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Treated with Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy in a Non-academic Cancer Centre.

AIMS: To report long-term outcomes of patients treated with stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) for early stage, peripherally located non-small cell lung cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively between September 2009 and May 2019. Electronic medical records were reviewed for baseline characteristics, treatment details and outcomes. All patients were treated according to local protocol based on the national UK SABR Consortium guidelines. Risk-adapted treatment schedules were used depending on the size and the location of the tumour (54 Gy in three fractions, 55 Gy in five fractions, 60 Gy in eight fractions or 50 Gy in 10 fractions). Overall survival outcomes were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: In total, 412 patients were included in the analysis. The median age was 76 years (range 48-93 years). Histological confirmation was obtained in 233 cases (56.6%). The median overall survival for all patients was 42.3 months (95% confidence interval 37.3-47.3 months), with 3- and 5-year overall survival of 52.8% and 37.3%, respectively. For biopsy-proven patients (56.6%), 3- and 5-year overall survival was 57.3% and 40.1%, respectively. With respect to overall survival, univariate and multivariate analysis revealed no significant difference in survival by technique (volume-modulated arc therapy versus conformal; three-dimensional computed tomography versus four-dimensional computed tomography), tumour location, smoking status at first contact, pre-treatment tumour stage or pre-treatment standardised uptake value. Survival was poorer for patients who received the 50 Gy in 10 fractions schedule. Treatment was very well tolerated with very low rates of grade 3-4 toxicity (1%). CONCLUSIONS: SABR for peripherally located, medically inoperable non-small cell lung cancer can be safely and effectively implemented in a non-academic institution with appropriate equipment and training. Overall survival outcomes and toxicity rates are comparable with internationally published studies. Patients treated with 50 Gy in 10 fractions had a poorer survival outcome.

Reduced Fractionation in Lung Cancer Patients Treated with Curative-intent Radiotherapy during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Patients treated with curative-intent lung radiotherapy are in the group at highest risk of severe complications and death from COVID-19. There is therefore an urgent need to reduce the risks associated with multiple hospital visits and their anti-cancer treatment. One recommendation is to consider alternative dose-fractionation schedules or radiotherapy techniques. This would also increase radiotherapy service capacity for operable patients with stage I-III lung cancer, who might be unable to have surgery during the pandemic. Here we identify reduced-fractionation for curative-intent radiotherapy regimes in lung cancer, from a literature search carried out between 20/03/2020 and 30/03/2020 as well as published and unpublished audits of hypofractionated regimes from UK centres. Evidence, practical considerations and limitations are discussed for early-stage NSCLC, stage III NSCLC, early-stage and locally advanced SCLC. We recommend discussion of this guidance document with other specialist lung MDT members to disseminate the potential changes to radiotherapy practices that could be made to reduce pressure on other departments such as thoracic surgery. It is also a crucial part of the consent process to ensure that the risks and benefits of undergoing cancer treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic and the uncertainties surrounding toxicity from reduced fractionation have been adequately discussed with patients. Furthermore, centres should document all deviations from standard protocols, and we urge all colleagues, where possible, to join national/international data collection initiatives (such as COVID-RT Lung) aimed at recording the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on lung cancer treatment and outcomes.

Adding abiraterone or docetaxel to long-term hormone therapy for prostate cancer: directly randomised data from the STAMPEDE multi-arm, multi-stage platform protocol.

Background: Adding abiraterone acetate with prednisolone (AAP) or docetaxel with prednisolone (DocP) to standard-of-care (SOC) each improved survival in systemic therapy for advanced or metastatic prostate cancer: evaluation of drug efficacy: a multi-arm multi-stage platform randomised controlled protocol recruiting patients with high-risk locally advanced or metastatic PCa starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). The protocol provides the only direct, randomised comparative data of SOC + AAP versus SOC + DocP. Method: Recruitment to SOC + DocP and SOC + AAP overlapped November 2011 to March 2013. SOC was long-term ADT or, for most non-metastatic cases, ADT for ≥2 years and RT to the primary tumour. Stratified randomisation allocated pts 2 : 1 : 2 to SOC; SOC + docetaxel 75 mg/m2 3-weekly×6 + prednisolone 10 mg daily; or SOC + abiraterone acetate 1000 mg + prednisolone 5 mg daily. AAP duration depended on stage and intent to give radical RT. The primary outcome measure was death from any cause. Analyses used Cox proportional hazards and flexible parametric models, adjusted for stratification factors. This was not a formally powered comparison. A hazard ratio (HR) <1 favours SOC + AAP, and HR > 1 favours SOC + DocP. Results: A total of 566 consenting patients were contemporaneously randomised: 189 SOC + DocP and 377 SOC + AAP. The patients, balanced by allocated treatment were: 342 (60%) M1; 429 (76%) Gleason 8-10; 449 (79%) WHO performance status 0; median age 66 years and median PSA 56 ng/ml. With median follow-up 4 years, 149 deaths were reported. For overall survival, HR = 1.16 (95% CI 0.82-1.65); failure-free survival HR = 0.51 (95% CI 0.39-0.67); progression-free survival HR = 0.65 (95% CI 0.48-0.88); metastasis-free survival HR = 0.77 (95% CI 0.57-1.03); prostate cancer-specific survival HR = 1.02 (0.70-1.49); and symptomatic skeletal events HR = 0.83 (95% CI 0.55-1.25). In the safety population, the proportion reporting ≥1 grade 3, 4 or 5 adverse events ever was 36%, 13% and 1% SOC + DocP, and 40%, 7% and 1% SOC + AAP; prevalence 11% at 1 and 2 years on both arms. Relapse treatment patterns varied by arm. Conclusions: This direct, randomised comparative analysis of two new treatment standards for hormone-naïve prostate cancer showed no evidence of a difference in overall or prostate cancer-specific survival, nor in other important outcomes such as symptomatic skeletal events. Worst toxicity grade over entire time on trial was similar but comprised different toxicities in line with the known properties of the drugs. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00268476.

SOCCAR: A randomised phase II trial comparing sequential versus concurrent chemotherapy and radical hypofractionated radiotherapy in patients with inoperable stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and good performance status.

BACKGROUND: Cure of lung cancer is impossible without local tumour control. This can be compromised by accelerated repopulation of tumour cells during radiotherapy and chemotherapy. A strategy to minimise accelerated repopulation might improve local control. We investigated whether concurrent chemo-radiotherapy could be given safely over four weeks. METHODS: We conducted a randomised phase II trial in which patients with inoperable Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) received a radical radiation dose over four weeks rather than conventional fractionation. Treatment was given either sequentially or concurrently with three to four cycles of cisplatinum and vinorelbine. 130 patients with inoperable stage III NSCLC and PS 0-1 were randomised to receive cisplatinum and vinorelbine with either sequential or concurrent chemo-radiation using 55Gy in 20 fractions over four weeks. The primary end-point was treatment related mortality. Secondary end-points were toxicity and survival. FINDINGS: Treatment related mortality was: 2.9% (exact 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36-10.2%) and 1.7% (exact 95% CI 0.043-9.1%) for the Concurrent and Sequential group respectively; relative risk (RR) 1.25; (95% CI 0.55, 2.84). Toxicity was similar between arms; grade 3 or worse oesophagitis was 8.8% versus 8.5%; RR 1.02 (95% CI 0.58, 1.79). OS HR was 0.92; 95% CI (0.60-1.39; p=0.682). The 2 year overall survival rates were: 50% versus 46%; RR 1.06 (95% CI 0.77, 1.46) for Concurrent versus Sequential. INTERPRETATION: A strategy to minimise the effects of accelerated repopulation using accelerated hypofractionated radiotherapy with chemotherapy is feasible, and reasonably safe for patients with stage III NSCLC. The reported two year survival is promising and suggests that a four week regime of radiotherapy should be compared with conventionally fractionated radiotherapy in an adequately powered randomised controlled phase III trial.

Positioning accuracy for lung stereotactic body radiotherapy patients determined by on-treatment cone-beam CT imaging.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy for early stage non-small cell lung cancer is an emerging treatment option in the UK. Since relatively few high-dose ablative fractions are delivered to a small target volume, the consequences of a geometric miss are potentially severe. This paper presents the results of treatment delivery set-up data collected using Elekta Synergy (Elekta, Crawley, UK) cone-beam CT imaging for 17 patients immobilised using the Bodyfix system (Medical Intelligence, Schwabmuenchen, Germany). Images were acquired on the linear accelerator at initial patient treatment set-up, following any position correction adjustments, and post-treatment. These were matched to the localisation CT scan using the Elekta XVI software. In total, 71 fractions were analysed for patient set-up errors. The mean vector error at initial set-up was calculated as 5.3 ± 2.7 mm, which was significantly reduced to 1.4 ± 0.7 mm following image guided correction. Post-treatment the corresponding value was 2.1 ± 1.2 mm. The use of the Bodyfix abdominal compression plate on 5 patients to reduce the range of tumour excursion during respiration produced mean longitudinal set-up corrections of -4.4 ± 4.5 mm compared with -0.7 ± 2.6 mm without compression for the remaining 12 patients. The use of abdominal compression led to a greater variation in set-up errors and a shift in the mean value.

Dosimetric evaluation of a conformal seven-field coplanar technique for planning lung stereotactic body radiotherapy.

AIMS: To assess the effectiveness of a seven-field coplanar planning technique in producing dosimetrically acceptable treatment plans when measured against the dose constraints of the ROSEL trial quality assurance working party. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nineteen patients with non-small cell lung cancer staged at T1-T2 underwent computed tomography scanning in preparation for lung stereotactic body radiotherapy treatment. Planning target volumes ranged from 17 to 100 cm(3). Dose plans were created with the enhanced collapsed cone algorithm on the Oncentra Masterplan treatment planning system using an open-field conformal coplanar technique. The plan acceptance criteria in the ROSEL study protocol were used for critical evaluation of the plans to determine their suitability for clinical use. RESULTS: Clinically acceptable plans were produced for 17 of the 19 patients with no more than two minor dosimetric deviations from protocol. The two patients where conflicts between adequate tumour coverage and unacceptably high doses to surrounding tissue could not be reconciled were characterised by low average Hounsfield Unit values in the planning target volume, i.e. less than about -700 Hounsfield Units. This tissue density was comparable with that of the surrounding healthy lung tissue. CONCLUSION: This planning technique produces clinically acceptable plans for most lung stereotactic body radiotherapy patients without the need to resort to more complex methods of treatment planning and delivery.

Is there a standard of care for the radical management of non-small cell lung cancer involving the apical chest wall (Pancoast tumours)?

The term Pancoast tumour encompasses a wide range of tumours that invade the apical chest wall. Although less than 5% of non-small cell lung cancers are Pancoast tumours, they still account for most cases. They often pose a formidable challenge to the multidisciplinary lung cancer team due to their relative rarity, anatomical proximity to vital structures, differing stages of presentation, and their association with smoking-related illnesses. A lack of clinical trials makes comparisons between different treatment modalities very difficult and the management of Pancoast tumours has been largely based on the published retrospective experience of large single institutions. The bimodality approach of induction radiotherapy followed by surgical resection has been the accepted standard of care for the last 50 years, with reported 5-year survival rates of 30% in selected patients. However, two recent prospective multicentre phase II studies using a trimodality approach of induction concurrent chemoradiotherapy followed by surgical resection (followed by two further cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy in one of the studies), have reported 5-year survival rates of 44-56%. This has led to some authorities advocating the trimodality approach as the new standard of care for the management of Pancoast tumours. In this overview, the historical evolution of the management of Pancoast tumours and recent published studies on the trimodality approach are discussed. This is followed by a discussion of whether the trimodality approach should be seen as a new standard of care. Finally, other potential treatment options and the possibilities for future research are deliberated.