Stereotactic vs Hypofractionated Radiotherapy for Inoperable Stage I Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: The LUSTRE Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is widely used for stage I medically inoperable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), yet varied results from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and concerns in treating centrally located tumors persist. Objective: To examine whether SBRT would improve local control (LC) compared with hypofractionated conventional radiotherapy (CRT). Design, Setting, and Participants: This phase 3 RCT was conducted in 16 Canadian centers. Patients with medically inoperable stage I (≤5 cm) NSCLC were randomized 2:1 to SBRT of 48 Gy in 4 fractions (peripheral NSCLC) or 60 Gy in 8 fractions (central NSCLC) vs CRT of 60 Gy in 15 fractions. Data were collected from May 2014 to January 2020, and data were analyzed from July 2022 to July 2023. Interventions: SBRT or CRT. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary objective was to determine the effectiveness of SBRT compared with CRT based on LC at 3 years. Secondary outcomes included event-free survival, overall survival, and toxic effects. All radiation plans were subject to real-time/final review. Local failures were centrally adjudicated. The study was designed to detect a 3-year LC improvement of SBRT from 75% to 87.5%. The target sample size was 324 patients. Results: Of 233 included patients, 119 (51.1%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 75.4 (7.7) years; the median (IQR) follow-up was 36.1 (26.4-52.8) months. A total of 154 patients received SBRT and 79 received CRT. The 3-year LC was 87.6% (95% CI, 81.9%-93.4%) for SBRT and 81.2% (95% CI, 71.9%-90.5%) for CRT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.31-1.20; P = .15). The HR was 1.02 (95% CI, 0.72-1.45; P = .87) for event-free survival and 1.18 (95% CI, 0.80-1.76; P = .40) for overall survival. Minimal acute toxic effects were observed. Among those randomized to SBRT, late grade 3 or 4 toxic effects occurred in 5 of 45 (11%) with central NSCLC and 2 of 109 (1.8%) with peripheral NSCLC; among those randomized to CRT, in 1 of 19 (5%) with central NSCLC and 1 of 60 (2%) with peripheral NSCLC. One patient who received SBRT for an ultracentral lesion (target overlapping proximal bronchus) experienced a possible treatment-related grade 5 event (hemoptysis). Conclusions and Relevance: This RCT compared lung SBRT with hypofractionated CRT that included central/ultracentral tumors. No difference was detected in LC between groups. Severe toxic effects were limited, including patients with central tumors. The trial provides important prospective data evaluating SBRT; however, further research is necessary to determine if SBRT is more effective than CRT for peripheral and central NSCLC. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03924869.

What is the predictive value of RECIST criteria following stereotactic lung radiation?

PURPOSE: Response EvaluationCriteriain Solid Tumors (RECIST) is commonly used to assess response to anti-cancer therapies. However, its application after lung stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is complicated by radiation-induced lung changes. This study assesses the frequency of progressive disease (PD) by RECIST following lung SABR and correlates this with actual treatment outcomes as determined by longitudinal follow-up. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We reviewed patients treated with lung SABR for primary lung tumors or oligometastases between 2010 and 2015. Patients were treated with SABR doses of 54-60 Gy in 3-8 fractions. All follow-up scans were assessed and the treated lesion was serially measured over time, with the maximum diameter on axial CT slices used for RECIST calculations. Lesions demonstrating PD by RECIST criteria were identified and subsequently followed for long-term outcomes. The final 'gold-standard' assessment of response was based on size changes after PD and, as available, positron emission tomography scan and/or biopsy. RESULTS: Eighty-eight lesions met inclusion criteria. Seventy-five were lung primaries and thirteen were lung metastases. Median follow-up was 52 months (interquartile range: 33-68). Two-thirds (66 %, 58/88) of treated lesions met RECIST criteria for PD; however, local recurrence was only confirmed in 16 % (9/58) of cases. Most lesions that triggered PD by RECIST (47/58, 81 %) were ultimately found not to represent recurrence, while a minority (2/58, 3 %) had an uncertain response. The positive predictive value [PPV] of a RECIST defined PD event was 0.16. If PD was triggered within 12-months post-treatment, PPV was 0.08, compared to 0.21 for lesions triggering PD after 12-months. CONCLUSION: Using RECIST criteria, two-thirds of patients treated with lung SABR met criteria for PD. However, only a minority had recurrence, leading to a poor PPV of RECIST. This highlights the limitations of RECIST in this setting and provides context for physicians when interpreting post-lung SABR imaging.

PET/MRI Assessment of Acute Cardiac Inflammation 1 Month After Left-Sided Breast Cancer Radiation Therapy.

Our purpose was to investigate the utility of 18F-FDG PET/MRI and serial blood work to detect early inflammatory responses and cardiac functionality changes at 1 mo after radiation therapy (RT) in patients with left-sided breast cancer. Methods: Fifteen left-sided breast cancer patients who enrolled in the RICT-BREAST study underwent cardiac PET/MRI at baseline and 1 mo after standard RT. Eleven patients received deep-inspiration breath-hold RT, whereas the others received free-breathing RT. A list-mode 18F-FDG PET scan with glucose suppression was acquired. Myocardial inflammation was quantified by the change in 18F-FDG SUVmean (based on body weight) and analyzed on the basis of the myocardial tissue associated with the left anterior descending, left circumflex, or right coronary artery territories. MRI assessments, including left ventricular functional and extracellular volumes (ECVs), were extracted from T1 (before and during a constant infusion of gadolinium) and cine images, respectively, acquired simultaneously during the PET acquisition. Cardiac injury and inflammation biomarker measurements of high-sensitivity troponin T, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate were measured at the 1-mo follow-up and compared with preirradiation values. Results: At the 1-mo follow-up, a significant increase (10%) in myocardial SUVmean in left anterior descending segments (P = 0.04) and ECVs in slices at the apex (6%) and base (5%) was detected (P ≤ 0.02). Further, a significant reduction in left ventricular stroke volume (-7%) was seen (P < 0.02). No significant changes in any circulating biomarkers were seen at follow-up. Conclusion: Myocardial 18F-FDG uptake and functional MRI, including stroke volume and ECVs, were sensitive to changes at 1 mo after breast cancer RT, with findings suggesting an acute cardiac inflammatory response to RT.

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy before resection to avoid delay for early-stage lung cancer or oligometastases during the COVID-19 pandemic: Pathologic outcomes from the SABR-BRIDGE protocol.

BACKGROUND: During coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related operating room closures, some multidisciplinary thoracic oncology teams adopted a paradigm of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) as a bridge to surgery, an approach called SABR-BRIDGE. This study presents the preliminary surgical and pathological results. METHODS: Eligible participants from four institutions (three in Canada and one in the United States) had early-stage presumed or biopsy-proven lung malignancy that would normally be surgically resected. SABR was delivered using standard institutional guidelines, with surgery >3 months following SABR with standardized pathologic assessment. Pathological complete response (pCR) was defined as absence of viable cancer. Major pathologic response (MPR) was defined as ≤10% viable tissue. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients underwent SABR. Most common SABR regimens were 34 Gy/1 (29%, n = 21), 48 Gy/3-4 (26%, n = 19), and 50/55 Gy/5 (22%, n = 16). SABR was well-tolerated, with one grade 5 toxicity (death 10 days after SABR with COVID-19) and five grade 2-3 toxicities. Following SABR, 26 patients underwent resection thus far (13 pending surgery). Median time-to-surgery was 4.5 months post-SABR (range, 2-17.5 months). Surgery was reported as being more difficult because of SABR in 38% (n = 10) of cases. Thirteen patients (50%) had pCR and 19 (73%) had MPR. Rates of pCR trended higher in patients operated on at earlier time points (75% if within 3 months, 50% if 3-6 months, and 33% if ≥6 months; p = .069). In the exploratory best-case scenario analysis, pCR rate does not exceed 82%. CONCLUSIONS: The SABR-BRIDGE approach allowed for delivery of treatment during a period of operating room closure and was well-tolerated. Even in the best-case scenario, pCR rate does not exceed 82%.

Lung SBRT credentialing in the Canadian OCOG-LUSTRE randomized trial.

Purpose: To report on the Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) credentialing experience during the Phase III Ontario Clinical Oncology Group (OCOG) LUSTRE trial for stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Methods: Three credentialing requirements were required in this process: (a) An institutional technical survey; (b) IROC (Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core) thoracic phantom end-to-end test; and (c) Contouring and completion of standardized test cases using SBRT for one central and one peripheral lung cancer, compared against the host institution as the standard. The main hypotheses were that unacceptable variation would exist particularly in OAR definition across all centres, and that institutions with limited experience in SBRT would be more likely to violate per-protocol guidelines. Results: Fifteen Canadian centres participated of which 8 were new, and 7 were previously established (≥2 years SBRT experience), and all successfully completed surveys and IROC phantom testing. Of 30 SBRT test plans, 10 required replanning due to major deviations, with no differences in violations between new and established centres (p = 0.61). Mean contouring errors were highest for brachial plexus in the central (C) case (12.55 ± 6.62 mm), and vessels in the peripheral (P) case (13.01 ± 12.55 mm), with the proximal bronchial tree (PBT) (2.82 ± 0.78 C, 3.27 ± 1.06 P) as another variable structure. Mean dice coefficients were lowest for plexus (0.37 ± 0.2 C, 0.37 ± 0.14 P), PBT (0.77 ± 0.06 C, 0.75 ± 0.09 P), vessels (0.69 ± 0.29 C, 0.64 ± 0.31 P), and esophagus (0.74 ± 0.04 C, 0.76 ± 0.04 P). All plans passed per-protocol planning target volume (PTV) coverage and maximum/volumetric organs-at-risk constraints, although variations existed in dose gradients within and outside the target. Conclusions: Clear differences exist in both contouring and planning with lung SBRT, regardless of centre experience. Such an exercise is important for studies that rely on high precision radiotherapy, and to ensure that implications on trial quality and outcomes are as optimal as possible.

Circulating tumor cells detected in follow-up predict survival outcomes in tri-modality management of advanced non-metastatic esophageal cancer: a secondary analysis of the QUINTETT randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to establish if presence of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) predicted worse outcome in patients with non-metastatic esophageal cancer undergoing tri-modality therapy. METHODS: We prospectively collected CTC data from patients with operable non-metastatic esophageal cancer from April 2009 to November 2016 enrolled in our QUINTETT esophageal cancer randomized trial (NCT00907543). Patients were randomized to receive either neoadjuvant cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) plus radiotherapy followed by surgical resection (Neoadjuvant) or adjuvant cisplatin, 5-FU, and epirubicin chemotherapy with concurrent extended volume radiotherapy following surgical resection (Adjuvant). CTCs were identified with the CellSearch® system before the initiation of any treatment (surgery or chemoradiotherapy) as well as at 6-, 12-, and 24-months post-treatment. The threshold for CTC positivity was one and the findings were correlated with patient prognosis. RESULTS: CTC data were available for 74 of 96 patients and identified in 27 patients (36.5%) at a median follow-up of 13.1months (interquartile range:6.8-24.1 months). Detection of CTCs at any follow-up visit was significantly predictive of worse disease-free survival (DFS;hazard ratio [HR]: 2.44; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.41-4.24; p=0.002), regional control (HR: 6.18; 95% CI: 1.18-32.35; p=0.031), distant control (HR: 2.93; 95% CI: 1.52-5.65;p=0.001) and overall survival (OS;HR: 2.02; 95% CI: 1.16-3.51; p=0.013). After adjusting for receiving neoadjuvant vs. adjuvant chemoradiotherapy, the presence of CTCs at any follow-up visit remained significantly predictive of worse OS ([HR]:2.02;95% [Cl]:1.16-3.51; p=0.013) and DFS (HR: 2.49;95% Cl: 1.43-4.33; p=0.001). Similarly, any observed increase in CTCs was significantly predictive of worse OS (HR: 3.14; 95% CI: 1.56-6.34; p=0.001) and DFS (HR: 3.34; 95% CI: 1.67-6.69; p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The presence of CTCs in patients during follow-up after tri-modality therapy was associated with significantly poorer DFS and OS regardless of timing of chemoradiotherapy.

Stereotactic Radiation for the Comprehensive Treatment of Oligometastases (SABR-COMET): Extended Long-Term Outcomes.

PURPOSE: Long-term randomized data assessing the effect of ablative therapies in patients with oligometastases are lacking. The Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy for the Comprehensive Treatment of Oligometastases (SABR-COMET) randomized phase 2 trial was originally designed with 5 years of follow-up, but the trial was amended in 2016 to extend follow-up to 10 years. Herein we report oncologic outcomes beyond 5 years. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients were eligible if they had a controlled primary tumor and 1 to 5 metastases, with all metastases amenable to SABR. Patients were randomized in a 1:2 ratio between palliative standard-of-care treatment (control arm) versus SABR to all metastases plus standard of care (SABR arm). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) and secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), toxicity, quality of life (using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy: General [FACT-G]), and time to new metastases. RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients were randomized between 2012 and 2016 (n = 33 in arm 1 vs n = 66 in arm 2). Primary tumor sites included lung (n = 18), breast (n = 18), colon (n = 18), prostate (n = 16), and other (n = 29). Eight-year OS was 27.2% in the SABR arm versus 13.6% in the control arm (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.84; P = .008). Eight-year PFS estimates were 21.3% versus 0.0%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.72; P < .001). Rates of grade ≥ 2 acute or late toxic effects were 30.3% versus 9.1% (P = .019), with no new grade 3 to 5 toxic effects. FACT-G quality of life scores declined over time in both arms, but there were no differences in quality of life scores between arms. The use of systemic therapy overall was similar between arms, but patients in the SABR arm were less likely to require cytotoxic chemotherapy (33.3% vs 54.6%, respectively, P = .043). CONCLUSIONS: SABR achieved durable improvements in OS and PFS, with no new major toxicity signals with extended follow-up. A minority of patients randomized to the SABR arm (21.3%) achieved > 5 years of survival without recurrence.

Functional Lung Avoidance for Individualized Radiation Therapy: Results of a Double-Masked, Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: To determine whether functional lung avoidance based on 3He magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) improves quality of life (QOL) for patients undergoing concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer (or oligometastatic disease treated with curative intent) undergoing CCRT with at least a 10 pack-year smoking history were eligible. Patients underwent pretreatment 3He MRI to measure lung ventilation and had 2 radiation therapy (RT) plans created before randomization: a standard plan, which did not make use of the 3He MRI, and an avoidance plan, preferentially sparing well-ventilated lung. All participants were masked to assignment except the physicist responsible for exporting the selected plan. The primary end point was patient-reported QOL measured at 3-months post-RT by the FACT-L lung cancer subscale (LCS); secondary end points included other QOL metrics, toxicity, and survival outcomes. Target accrual was 64. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients were randomized before the trial was closed due to slower-than-expected accrual, with 11 randomized to the standard arm and 16 to the avoidance arm. Baseline patient characteristics were well-balanced. At 3 months post-RT, the mean ± SD LCS scores were 17.4 ± 2.8 versus 17.3 ± 6.1 for the standard and avoidance arms, respectively (P = .485). A clinically meaningful, prespecified decline of ≥3 points in the LCS score was observed in 50% (4/8) in the standard arm and 33% (4/12) in the avoidance arm (P = .648). Two patients in each arm developed grade ≥2 radiation pneumonitis, with no grade ≥4 toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: Although this trial did not reach full accrual, QOL scores were very similar between arms. Due to the scarcity of 3He MRI, other, more commonly available methods to measure functional lung, such as 4-dimensional computed tomography ventilation mapping, may be considered in the assessment of functional lung avoidance RT, and a larger, multicenter approach would be needed to accrue sufficient patients to test such approaches.

The quality of life in neoadjuvant versus adjuvant therapy of esophageal cancer treatment trial (QUINTETT): Randomized parallel clinical superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: We compared the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients undergoing trimodality therapy for resectable stage I-III esophageal cancer. METHODS: A total of 96 patients were randomized to standard neoadjuvant cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy plus radiotherapy (neoadjuvant) followed by surgical resection or adjuvant cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and epirubicin chemotherapy with concurrent extended volume radiotherapy (adjuvant) following surgical resection. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the functional assessment of cancer therapy-esophageal (FACT-E) total scores between arms at 1 year (p = 0.759) with 36% versus 41% (neoadjuvant vs. adjuvant), respectively, showing an increase of ≥15 points compared to pre-treatment (p = 0.638). The HRQOL was significantly inferior at 2 months in the neoadjuvant arm for FACT-E, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-OG25), and EuroQol 5-D-3 L in the dysphagia, reflux, pain, taste, and coughing domains (p < 0.05). Half of patients were able to complete the prescribed neoadjuvant arm chemotherapy without modification compared to only 14% in the adjuvant arm (p < 0.001). Chemotherapy related adverse events of grade ≥2 occurred significantly more frequently in the neoadjuvant arm (100% vs. 69%, p < 0.001). Surgery related adverse events of grade ≥2 were similar in both arms (72% vs. 86%, p = 0.107). There were no 30-day mortalities and 2% vs. 10% 90-day mortalities (p = 0.204). There were no significant differences in either overall survival (OS) (5-year: 35% vs. 32%, p = 0.409) or disease-free survival (DFS) (5-year: 31% vs. 30%, p = 0.710). CONCLUSION: Trimodality therapy is challenging for patients with resectable esophageal cancer regardless of whether it is given before or after surgery. Newer and less toxic protocols are needed.

Cost Minimization Analysis of Hypofractionated Radiotherapy.

Early-stage breast cancer patients comprise a large proportion of patients treated with radiotherapy in Canada. Proponents have suggested that five-fraction hypofractionated radiotherapy for these patients would result in significant cost savings. An assessment of this argument is thus warranted. The FAST-Forward and UK FAST clinical trials each demonstrated that their respective hypofractionated regimens provided equivalent outcomes compared with standard regimens. Thus, a cost-minimization analysis was performed to quantify the potential savings associated with these regimens, which were designated as FAST-Forward 1 (26 Gy/5 fractions/1 week) and FAST-Forward 2 (27 Gy/5 fractions/1 week), and UK FAST 1 (28.5 Gy/5 fractions/5 weeks) and UK FAST 2 (30 Gy/5 fractions/5 weeks). A standard regimen of 42.5 Gy/16 fractions/5 weeks was also included. A comprehensive model of radiotherapy costs for a Canadian cancer centre was created. Time, labour costs, and capital costs were calculated for each regimen and applied using established measures. The total costs per patient for the FAST-Forward trials were $851.77 for FAST-Forward 1 and $874.77 for FAST-Forward 2, providing a total savings of $487.99 and $464.99, respectively. Similarly, the total costs per patient for the FAST trials were $979.75 for UK FAST 1 and $1017.70 for UK FAST 2, providing savings of $360.01 and $322.06, respectively. Following the FAST-Forward 1 regimen results in the greatest reduction of infrastructure and human resources costs at 36.42% compared with the standard. Sensitivity analysis shows a maximum per-patient costs savings ranging from $474.60 to $508.53 for the FAST-Forward 1 trial, which translates to an annual savings of $174,700/year locally and $2.06 million/year province-wide, based on a moderate-to-large size department workload. Compared with a standard radiotherapy regimen, all FAST-Forward and UK FAST hypofractionated regimens provide cost savings for the treatment of early-stage breast cancer. The cost savings associated with each of these equivalent regimens can be directly calculated; activities in this model can easily be adjusted to account for cost variations, allowing other centres to calculate cost impacts specific to their own centres.

Intrafraction motion monitoring to determine PTV margins in early stage breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant partial breast SABR.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To quantify intra-fraction tumor motion using imageguidance and implanted fiducial markers to determine if a 5 mm planning-target-volume (PTV) margin is sufficient for early stage breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A HydroMark© (Mammotome) fiducial was implanted at the time of biopsy adjacent to the tumor. Sixty-one patients with 62 tumours were treated prone using a 5 mm PTV margin. Motion was quantified using two methods (separate patient groups): 1) difference in 3D fiducial position pre- and post-treatment cone-beam CTs (CBCTs) in 18 patients receiving 21 Gy/1fraction (fx); 2) acquiring 2D triggered-kVimages to quantify 3D intra-fraction motion using a 2D-to-3D estimation method for 44 tumours receiving 21 Gy/1fx (n = 22) or 30 Gy/3fx (n = 22). For 2), motion was quantified by calculating the magnitude of intra-fraction positional deviation from the pretreatment CBCT. PTV margins were derived using van Herkian analysis. RESULTS: The average ± standard deviation magnitude of motion across patients was 1.3 ± 1.15 mm Left/Right (L/R), 1.0 ± 0.9 mm Inferiorly/Superiorly (I/S), and 1.8 ± 1.5 mm Anteriorly/Posteriorly (A/P). 85/105 (81%) treatment fractions had dominant anterior motion. 6/62patients (9.7%) had mean intra-fraction motion during any fraction > 5 mm in any direction, with 4 in the anterior direction. Estimated PTV margins for single and three-fx patients in the L/R, I/S, and A/P directions were 6.0x4.1x5.9 mm and 4.5x2.9x4.3 mm, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that a 5 mm PTV margin is sufficient for the I/S and A/P directions if a lateral kV image is acquired immediately before treatment. For the L/R direction, either further immobilization or a larger margin is required.

Predicting pathological complete response (pCR) after stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) of lung cancer using quantitative dynamic [18F]FDG PET and CT perfusion: a prospective exploratory clinical study.

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) is effective in treating inoperable stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but imaging assessment of response after SABR is difficult. This prospective study aimed to develop a predictive model for true pathologic complete response (pCR) to SABR using imaging-based biomarkers from dynamic [18F]FDG-PET and CT Perfusion (CTP). METHODS: Twenty-six patients with early-stage NSCLC treated with SABR followed by surgical resection were included, as a pre-specified secondary analysis of a larger study. Dynamic [18F]FDG-PET and CTP were performed pre-SABR and 8-week post. Dynamic [18F]FDG-PET provided maximum and mean standardized uptake value (SUV) and kinetic parameters estimated using a previously developed flow-modified two-tissue compartment model while CTP measured blood flow, blood volume and vessel permeability surface product. Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) was used to establish a predictive model with the measured PET and CTP imaging biomarkers for predicting pCR. The model was compared to current RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1) and PERCIST (PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.0) criteria. RESULTS: RPA identified three response groups based on tumour blood volume before SABR (BVpre-SABR) and change in SUVmax (ΔSUVmax), the thresholds being BVpre-SABR = 9.3 mL/100 g and ΔSUVmax = - 48.9%. The highest true pCR rate of 92% was observed in the group with BVpre-SABR < 9.3 mL/100 g and ΔSUVmax < - 48.9% after SABR while the worst was observed in the group with BVpre-SABR ≥ 9.3 mL/100 g (0%). RPA model achieved excellent pCR prediction (Concordance: 0.92; P = 0.03). RECIST and PERCIST showed poor pCR prediction (Concordance: 0.54 and 0.58, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we developed a predictive model based on dynamic [18F]FDG-PET and CT Perfusion imaging that was significantly better than RECIST and PERCIST criteria to predict pCR of NSCLC to SABR. The model used BVpre-SABR and ΔSUVmax which correlates to tumour microvessel density and cell proliferation, respectively and warrants validation with larger sample size studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: MISSILE-NSCLC, NCT02136355 (ClinicalTrials.gov). Registered May 8, 2014, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02136355.

Development of Best Practices of Peer Review for Lung Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: Peer review (PR) is an important component in ensuring high-quality lung radiotherapy (RT) plans. However, there are inconsistencies in the extent, timing, and minimum requirements for PR. We sought to develop guidelines of best practices for PR in curative lung RT through an expert consensus process. METHODS: A modified Delphi process was conducted that consisted of an initial review by a dedicated steering committee followed by a pan-Canadian, multidisciplinary Delphi panel with 3 rounds (premeeting survey, face-to-face meeting, and postmeeting ratification survey). Candidate PR elements were ranked by importance and stratified by treatment of locally advanced (LA) disease with conventional RT or stereotactic ablative body RT (SABR) for early-stage disease. RESULTS: For the LA case, 6 elements (indications for RT, gross tumor volume [GTV], clinical target volume [CTV], internal target volume [ITV], dose/fractionation, and normal lung dosimetry) were considered as essential PR elements. Of these, 90%-100% of the panel endorsed them to be important to PR, and 80% believed that the PR should be done by a second radiation oncologist (RO). In the SABR case, 6 PR elements (indications for RT, GTV, CTV/ITV, organs at risk contours, dose/fractionation, and composite plan review) were deemed essential. Of these, 90%-100% of panel members believed these elements to be important to PR and unanimously agreed that PR should be done by a second RO. CONCLUSION: A suite of PR elements for lung RT has been developed and endorsed with high consensus. This suite should serve as a basis to help to harmonize PR practices across centers and to help to develop novel PR approaches going forward.

Genetic and clinical predictors of arthralgia during letrozole or anastrozole therapy in breast cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Female patients with breast cancer frequently develop arthralgia when treated with aromatase inhibitors (AI). Although the mechanism of AI-induced arthralgia is unknown, potential biomarkers have been identified. The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical and genetic predictors of AI-induced arthralgia in a prospective cohort of patients with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. METHODS: One hundred and ninety-six patients were enrolled at initiation of AI therapy with either letrozole or anastrozole. Patients completed two validated self-report questionnaires assessing pain, stiffness, and physical function at baseline, and repeated the questionnaires at two and at six months after the initiation of treatment with an AI. Germline DNA of all patients was genotyped for seven single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) previously identified by genetic screens and genome-wide association studies as associated with AI-induced arthralgia. RESULTS: More than 50% of the study group experienced arthralgia symptoms. Genetic analysis revealed that four SNPs, in CYP19A1 (rs4775936) and ESR1 (rs9322336, rs2234693, rs9340799), were associated with the development of arthralgia (adjusted P = 0.016, 0.018, 0.017, 0.047). High body mass index (BMI) was also associated with the development of arthralgia symptoms (adjusted P = 0.001). Patients prescribed letrozole were significantly more likely to develop arthralgia than patients on anastrozole (P = 0.018), and also more likely to discontinue AI therapy due to arthralgia. The CYP19A1 (rs4775936) SNP was significantly associated with discontinuation of therapy due to intolerable arthralgia. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggested that BMI and AI drug (letrozole versus anastrozole) were clinical predictors of arthralgia, while genetic variants rs4775936, rs9322336, rs2234693, and rs9340799 were genetic predictors of AI-induced arthralgia. Significantly, rs4775936 was also a predictor of discontinuation of therapy.

Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy for the Comprehensive Treatment of Oligometastatic Cancers: Long-Term Results of the SABR-COMET Phase II Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: The oligometastatic paradigm hypothesizes that patients with a limited number of metastases may achieve long-term disease control, or even cure, if all sites of disease can be ablated. However, long-term randomized data that test this paradigm are lacking. METHODS: We enrolled patients with a controlled primary malignancy and 1-5 metastatic lesions, with all metastases amenable to stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). We stratified by the number of metastases (1-3 v 4-5) and randomized in a 1:2 ratio between palliative standard-of-care (SOC) treatments (arm 1) and SOC plus SABR (arm 2). We used a randomized phase II screening design with a primary end point of overall survival (OS), using an α of .20 (wherein P < .20 indicates a positive trial). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), toxicity, and quality of life (QOL). Herein, we present long-term outcomes from the trial. RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2016, 99 patients were randomly assigned at 10 centers internationally. The most common primary tumor types were breast (n = 18), lung (n = 18), colorectal (n = 18), and prostate (n = 16). Median follow-up was 51 months. The 5-year OS rate was 17.7% in arm 1 (95% CI, 6% to 34%) versus 42.3% in arm 2 (95% CI, 28% to 56%; stratified log-rank P = .006). The 5-year PFS rate was not reached in arm 1 (3.2%; 95% CI, 0% to 14% at 4 years with last patient censored) and 17.3% in arm 2 (95% CI, 8% to 30%; P = .001). There were no new grade 2-5 adverse events and no differences in QOL between arms. CONCLUSION: With extended follow-up, the impact of SABR on OS was larger in magnitude than in the initial analysis and durable over time. There were no new safety signals, and SABR had no detrimental impact on QOL.

DCE-MRI assessment of response to neoadjuvant SABR in early stage breast cancer: Comparisons of single versus three fraction schemes and two different imaging time delays post-SABR.

PURPOSE: To determine the effect of dose fractionation and time delay post-neoadjuvant stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) on dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI parameters in early stage breast cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: DCE-MRI was acquired in 17 patients pre- and post-SABR. Five patients were imaged 6-7 days post-21 Gy/1fraction (group 1), six 16-19 days post-21 Gy/1fraction (group 2), and six 16-18 days post-30 Gy/3 fractions every other day (group 3). DCE-MRI scans were performed using half the clinical dose of contrast agent. Changes in the surrounding tissue were quantified using a signal-enhancement threshold metric that characterizes changes in signal-enhancement volume (SEV). Tumour response was quantified using Ktrans and ve (Tofts model) pre- and post-SABR. Significance was assessed using a Wilcoxin signed-rank test. RESULTS: All group 1 and 4/6 group 2 patients' SEV increased post-SABR. All group 3 patients' SEV decreased. The mean Ktrans increased for group 1 by 76% (p = 0.043) while group 2 and 3 decreased 15% (p = 0.028) and 34% (p = 0.028), respectively. For ve, there was no significant change in Group 1 (p = 0.35). Groups 2 showed an increase of 24% (p = 0.043), and Group 3 trended toward an increase (23%, p = 0.08). CONCLUSION: Kinetic parameters measured 2.5 weeks post-SABR in both single fraction and three fraction groups were indicative of response but only the single fraction protocol led to enhancement in the surrounding tissue. Our results also suggest that DCE-MRI one-week post-SABR may be too early for response assessment, at least for single fraction SABR, whereas 2.5 weeks appears sufficiently long to minimize confounding acute effects.

Improvement in Patient-Reported Outcomes With Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy (RT) Compared With Standard RT: A Report From the NRG Oncology RTOG 1203 Study.

PURPOSE: In oncology trials, the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) is the standard tool for reporting adverse events (AEs), but it may underreport symptoms experienced by patients. This analysis of the NRG Oncology RTOG 1203 compared symptom reporting by patients and clinicians during radiotherapy (RT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with cervical or endometrial cancer requiring postoperative RT were randomly assigned to standard 4-field RT or intensity-modulated RT (IMRT). Patients completed the 6-item patient-reported outcomes version of the CTCAE (PRO-CTCAE) for GI toxicity assessing abdominal pain, diarrhea, and fecal incontinence at various time points. Patients reported symptoms on a 5-point scale. Clinicians recorded these AEs as CTCAE grades 1 to 5. Clinician- and patient-reported AEs were compared using McNemar's test for rates > 0%. RESULTS: Of 278 eligible patients, 234 consented and completed the PRO-CTCAE. Patients reported high-grade abdominal pain 19.1% (P < .0001), high-grade diarrhea 38.5% (P < .0001), and fecal incontinence 6.8% more frequently than clinicians. Similar effects were seen between grade ≥ 1 CTCAE toxicity and any-grade patient-reported toxicity. Between-arm comparison of patient-reported high-grade AEs revealed that at 5 weeks of RT, patients who received IMRT experienced fewer GI AEs than patients who received 4-field pelvic RT with regard to frequency of diarrhea (18.2% difference; P = .01), frequency of fecal incontinence (8.2% difference; P = .01), and interference of fecal incontinence (8.5% difference; P = .04). CONCLUSION: Patient-reported AEs showed a reduction in symptoms with IMRT compared with standard RT, whereas clinician-reported AEs revealed no difference. Clinicians also underreported symptomatic GI AEs compared with patients. This suggests that patient-reported symptomatic AEs are important to assess in this disease setting.

Assessment of precision irradiation in early non-small cell lung cancer and interstitial lung disease (ASPIRE-ILD): study protocol for a phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) has become an established treatment option for medically-inoperable early-stage (Stage I-IIA) non-small cell lung cancer (ES-NSCLC). SABR is able to obtain high rates of local control with low rates of symptomatic toxicity in this patient population. However, in a subset of patients with fibrotic interstitial lung disease (ILD), elevated rates of SABR-related toxicity and mortality have been described. The Assessment of Precision Irradiation in Early Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and Interstitial Lung Disease (ASPIRE-ILD) study will conduct a thorough prospective evaluation of the clinical outcomes, toxicity, changes in diagnostic test parameters and patient-related outcomes following SABR for ES-NSCLC for patients with fibrotic ILD. METHODS: ASPIRE-ILD is a single-arm Phase II prospective study. The accrual target is 39 adult patients with T1-2N0M0 non-small cell lung cancer with co-existing ILD who are not candidates for surgical excision. Pathological confirmation of diagnosis is strongly recommended but not strictly required. Enrolled patients will be stratified by ILD-related mortality risk. The starting SABR dose will be 50 Gy in 5 fractions every other day (biologically effective dose: 100 Gy10 or 217 Gy3), but the radiation dose can be de-escalated up to two times to 50 Gy in 10 fractions daily (75 Gy10 or 133 Gy3) and 45 Gy in 15 fractions daily (58 Gy10 or 90 Gy3). Dose de-escalation will occur if 2 or more of the first 7 patients in a cohort experiences grade 5 toxicity within 6 months of treatment. Similarly, dose de-escalation can also occur if 2 or more of the first 7 patients with a specific subtype of ILD experiences grade 5 toxicity within 6 months of treatment. The primary endpoint is overall survival. Secondary endpoints include toxicity (CTC-AE 4.0), progression-free survival, local control, patient-reported outcomes (cough severity and quality of life), rates of ILD exacerbation and changes in pulmonary function tests/high-resolution computed tomography findings post-SABR. DISCUSSION: ASPIRE-ILD will be the first prospective study specifically designed to comprehensively evaluate the effectiveness and safety of SABR for ES-NSCLC in patients with co-existing ILD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03485378. Date of registration: April 2, 2018.

Quality of Life Outcomes After Stereotactic Ablative Radiation Therapy (SABR) Versus Standard of Care Treatments in the Oligometastatic Setting: A Secondary Analysis of the SABR-COMET Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: Randomized data assessing the longitudinal quality of life (QoL) impact of stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) in the oligometastatic setting are lacking. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We enrolled patients who had a controlled primary malignancy with 1 to 5 metastatic lesions, with good performance status and life expectancy >6 months. We randomized in a 1:2 ratio between standard of care (SOC) treatment (SOC arm) and SOC plus SABR to all metastatic lesions (SABR arm). QoL was measured using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General. QoL changes over time and between groups were assessed with linear mixed modeling. RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients were randomized. Median age was 68 years (range, 43-89), and 60% were male. The most common primary tumor types were breast (n = 18), lung (n = 18), colorectal (n = 18), and prostate (n = 16). Most patients (n = 92) had 1 to 3 metastases. Median follow-up was 26 months. Because of the previously reported inferior survival of the SOC arm, the time for attrition in QoL respondents to <10% of subjects was shorter in the SOC versus SABR arm (30 vs 42 months). In the whole cohort, QoL declined over time after randomization: There were significant declines in total Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General score over time compared with baseline (P < .001) owing to declines in physical and functional subscales (both P < .001), with no declines in social and emotional subscales. However, the magnitudes of decline were small, and clinically meaningful changes were not seen at most time points. Comparison between arms showed no differences in QoL between the SABR and SOC arms in total score (P = .42) or in the physical (P = .98), functional (P = .59), emotional (P = .82), or social (P = .17) subscales. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with oligometastases, average QoL declines slowly over time regardless of treatment approach, although the changes are small in magnitude. The use of SABR, compared with SOC, was not associated with a QoL detriment.

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for the comprehensive treatment of 4-10 oligometastatic tumors (SABR-COMET-10): study protocol for a randomized phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) has emerged as a new treatment option for patients with oligometastatic disease. SABR delivers precise, high-dose, hypofractionated radiotherapy, and achieves excellent rates of local control for primary tumors or metastases. A recent randomized phase II trial evaluated SABR in a group of patients with a small burden of oligometastatic disease (mostly with 1-3 metastatic lesions), and found that SABR was associated with benefits in progression-free survival and overall survival. The goal of this phase III trial is to assess the impact of SABR in patients with 4-10 metastatic cancer lesions. METHODS: One hundred and fifty-nine patients will be randomized in a 1:2 ratio between the control arm (consisting of standard of care palliative-intent treatments), and the SABR arm (consisting of standard of care treatment + SABR to all sites of known disease). Randomization will be stratified by two factors: histology (Group 1: prostate, breast, or renal; Group 2: all others), and type of pre-specified systemic therapy (Group 1: immunotherapy/targeted; Group 2: cytotoxic; Group 3: observation). SABR is to be completed within 2 weeks, allowing for rapid initiation of systemic therapy. Recommended SABR doses are 20 Gy in 1 fraction, 30 Gy in 3 fractions, or 35 Gy in 5 fractions, chosen to minimize risks of toxicity. The primary endpoint is overall survival, and secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, time to development of new metastatic lesions, quality of life, and toxicity. Translational endpoints include assessment of circulating tumor cells, cell-free DNA, and tumor tissue as prognostic and predictive markers, including assessment of immunological predictors of response and long-term survival. DISCUSSION: This study will provide an assessment of the impact of SABR on clinical outcomes and quality of life, to determine if long-term survival can be achieved for selected patients with 4-10 oligometastatic lesions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03721341 . Date of registration: October 26, 2018.