Delphi consensus on stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for oligometastatic and oligoprogressive renal cell carcinoma-a European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology study endorsed by the European Association of Urology.

The purpose of this European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) project, endorsed by the European Association of Urology, is to explore expert opinion on the management of patients with oligometastatic and oligoprogressive renal cell carcinoma by means of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) on extracranial metastases, with the aim of developing consensus recommendations for patient selection, treatment doses, and concurrent systemic therapy. A questionnaire on SABR in oligometastatic renal cell carcinoma was prepared by a core group and reviewed by a panel of ten prominent experts in the field. The Delphi consensus methodology was applied, sending three rounds of questionnaires to clinicians identified as key opinion leaders in the field. At the end of the third round, participants were able to find consensus on eight of the 37 questions. Specifically, panellists agreed to apply no restrictions regarding age (25 [100%) of 25) and primary renal cell carcinoma histology (23 [92%] of 25) for SABR candidates, on the upper threshold of three lesions to offer ablative treatment in patients with oligoprogression, and on the concomitant administration of immune checkpoint inhibitor. SABR was indicated as the treatment modality of choice for renal cell carcinoma bone oligometatasis (20 [80%] of 25) and for adrenal oligometastases 22 (88%). No consensus or major agreement was reached regarding the appropriate schedule, but the majority of the poll (54%-58%) retained the every-other-day schedule as the optimal choice for all the investigated sites. The current ESTRO Delphi consensus might provide useful direction for the application of SABR in oligometastatic renal cell carcinoma and highlight the key areas of ongoing debate, perhaps directing future research efforts to close knowledge gaps.

Single vs. multiple fraction non-inferiority trial of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for the comprehensive treatment of oligo-metastases/progression: SIMPLIFY-SABR-COMET.

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy delivery regimens can vary between a single fraction (SF) and multiple fractions (MF) given daily for up to several weeks depending on the location of the cancer or metastases. With limited evidence comparing fractionation regimens for oligometastases, there is support to explore toxicity levels to nearby organs at risk as a primary outcome while using SF and MF stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) as well as explore differences in patient-reported quality of life and experience. METHODS: This study will randomize 598 patients in a 1:1 ratio between the standard arm (MF SABR) and the experimental arm (SF SABR). This trial is designed as two randomized controlled trials within one patient population for resource efficiency. The primary objective of the first randomization is to determine if SF SABR is non-inferior to MF SABR, with respect to healthcare provider (HCP)-reported grade 3-5 adverse events (AEs) that are related to SABR. Primary endpoint is toxicity while secondary endpoints include lesional control rate (LCR), and progression-free survival (PFS). The second randomization (BC Cancer sites only) will allocate participants to either complete quality of life (QoL) questionnaires only; or QoL questionnaires and a symptom-specific survey with symptom-guided HCP intervention. The primary objective of the second randomization is to determine if radiation-related symptom questionnaire-guided HCP intervention results in improved reported QoL as measured by the EuroQoL-5-dimensions-5levels (EQ-5D-5L) instrument. The primary endpoint is patient-reported QoL and secondary endpoints include: persistence/resolution of symptom reporting, QoL, intervention cost effectiveness, resource utilization, and overall survival. DISCUSSION: This study will compare SF and MF SABR in the treatment of oligometastases and oligoprogression to determine if there is non-inferior toxicity for SF SABR in selected participants with 1-5 oligometastatic lesions. This study will also compare patient-reported QoL between participants who receive radiation-related symptom-guided HCP intervention and those who complete questionnaires alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT05784428. Date of Registration: 23 March 2023.

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%.

Endoscopic nodal staging in oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) being treated with stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (ENDO-SABR).

BACKGROUND: Research in treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has shown promising results with stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) of oligometastatic disease, wherein distant disease may be limited to one or a few distant organs by host factors. Traditionally, PET/CT has been used in detecting metastatic disease and avoiding futile surgical intervention, however, sensitivity and specificity is limited to only 81 and 79%, respectively. Mediastinal staging still identifies occult nodal disease in up to 20% of NSCLC patients initially thought to be operative candidates. Endobronchial ultrasound and transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is a minimally invasive tool for the staging and diagnosis of thoracic malignancy. When EBUS is combined with endoscopic ultrasound using the same bronchoscope (EUS-B), the diagnostic sensitivity and negative predictive value increase to 84 and 97%, respectively. Endoscopic staging in patients with advanced disease has never been studied, but may inform treatment if a curative SABR approach is being taken. METHODS: This is a multi-centre, prospective, cohort study with two-stage design. In the first stage, 10 patients with oligometastatic NSCLC (lung tumour ± hilar/mediastinal lymphadenopathy) with up to 5 synchronous metastases will be enrolled An additional 19 patients will be enrolled in the second stage if rate of treatment change is greater than 10% in the first stage. Patients will be subject to EBUS or combined modality EBUS/EUS-B to assess bilateral lymph node stations using a N3 to N2 to N1 progression. Primary endpoint is defined as the rate of change to treatment plan including change from SABR to conventional dose radiation, change in mediastinal radiation field, and change from curative to palliative intent treatment. DISCUSSION: If a curative approach with SABR for oligometastatic disease is being explored, invasive mediastinal staging may guide treatment and prognosis. This study will provide insight into the use of endoscopic mediastinal staging in determining changes in treatment plan of NSCLC. Results will inform the design of future phase II trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT04852588. Date of registration: April 19, 2021. PROTOCOL VERSION: 1.1 on December 9, 2021.

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.

DART: diagnostic-CT-enabled planning: a randomized trial in palliative radiation therapy (study protocol).

BACKGROUND: Palliative radiotherapy (PRT) is an effective treatment for managing symptoms of advanced cancer. At least half of all radiation treatments are delivered with palliative intent, aimed at relieving symptoms, such as pain or shortness of breath. Symptomatic patients must receive PRT quickly, therefore expeditious treatment planning is essential. Standard radiation planning requires a dedicated CT scan acquired at the cancer centre, called a 'CT simulation', which facilitates treatment planning (i.e. tumor delineation, placement of radiation beams and dose calculation). However, the CT simulation process creates a bottleneck and often leads to delays in starting treatment. Other researchers have indicated that CT simulation can be replaced by the use of standard diagnostic CT scans for target delineation and planning, which are normally acquired through the radiology department as part of standard patient workup. The goals of this feasibility study are to assess the efficacy, acceptability and scalability of diagnostic-CT-enabled planning, compared to conventional CT simulation planning, for patients receiving PRT to bone, soft tissue and lung disease. METHODS: This is a randomized, phase II study, with 33 PRT patients to be randomized in a 1:2 ratio between conventional CT simulation (Arm 1), and the diagnostic CT enabled planning workflow (Arm 2). Patients will be stratified by treatment target volume (bone and soft tissue metastasis vs. primary or metastatic intrathoracic disease targets). The primary endpoint is the amount of time the patient spends at the cancer centre. Secondary endpoints include efficacy (rate of plan deliverability and rate of plan acceptability on blinded dose distribution review), stakeholder acceptability (based on patient and clinician perception of acceptability questionnaires) and scalability. DISCUSSION: This study will investigate the efficacy, acceptability and scalability of a "sim-free" PRT pathway compared to conventional CT simulation. The workflow may provide opportunity for resource optimization by using pre-existing diagnostic imaging and requires minimal investment due to its similarity to current PRT models. It also offers potential benefit to patients by eliminating an imaging procedure, reducing the amount of time spent at the cancer centre, and expediting time to treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT05233904. Date of registration: February 10, 2022; current version: 1.4 on April 29, 2022.

Ablative radiation therapy to restrain everything safely treatable (ARREST): study protocol for a phase I trial treating polymetastatic cancer with stereotactic radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Patients with polymetastatic cancer are most often treated with systemic therapy to improve overall survival and/or delay progression, with palliative radiotherapy reserved for sites of symptomatic disease. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) has shown promise in the treatment of oligometastatic disease, but the utility of SABR in treating all sites of polymetastatic disease has yet to be evaluated. This study aims to evaluate the maximally tolerated dose (MTD) of SABR in patients with polymetastatic disease. METHODS: Up to 48 patients with polymetastatic cancer (> 10 sites) will be enrolled on this phase I, modified 3 + 3 design trial. Eligible patients will have exhausted (or refused) standard systemic therapy options. SABR will be delivered as an escalating number of weekly fractions of 6 Gy, starting at 6 Gy × 2 weekly fractions (dose level 1). The highest dose level (dose level 4) will be 6 Gy × 5 weekly fractions. Feasibility and safety of SABR will be evaluated 6 weeks following treatment using a composite endpoint of successfully completing treatment as well as toxicity outcomes. DISCUSSION: This study will be the first to explore delivering SABR in patients with polymetastatic disease. SABR will be planned using the guiding principles of: strict adherence to dose constraints, minimization of treatment burden, and minimization of toxicity. As this represents a novel use of radiotherapy, our phase I study will allow for careful selection of the MTD for exploration in future studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was prospectively registered in ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT04530513 on August 28, 2020.

Opioid therapy vs. multimodal analgesia in head and neck Cancer (OPTIMAL-HN): study protocol for a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Radiation-induced mucositis (RIM) pain confers substantial morbidity for head and neck cancer (HNC) patients undergoing radiotherapy alone (RT) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT), often reducing treatment compliance. However, no standard currently exists for the treatment of RIM, and high dose opioid therapy, with its associated side effects and increased risk for chronic opioid use, remains the cornerstone of HNC pain management. The goal of this randomized clinical trial is to compare multimodal analgesia using analgesic medications with different mechanisms of action, to the institutional standard of opioid analgesia alone, in order to ascertain the optimal analgesic regimen for the management of RIM pain in HNC patients. METHODS: In this open-label, single-institution, non-inferiority, randomized clinical trial, sixty-two patients with mucosal head and neck malignancies treated with curative-intent radiation will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by RT or CRT, between Arm 1: opioid analgesia alone as per the institutional standard, or Arm 2: multimodal analgesia using Pregabalin, Acetaminophen, and Naproxen, in addition to opioids, if required. The primary endpoint is the average 11-Numeric Rating Scale (11-NRS) score for pain during the last week of radiation treatment. Secondary endpoints include: average weekly opioid use, duration of opioid requirement, average daily 11-NRS score for pain, average weekly opioids dispensed, quality of life, hospitalizations for analgesic medication-induced complications, time to feeding tube insertion, weight loss, toxicity, treatment interruptions, and death within 3 months of completing RT treatment. Patients are eligible once analgesia is required for moderate 4/10 pain. DISCUSSION: This study will assess the efficacy and safety of multimodal analgesia and its impact on opioid requirements, clinical outcomes, and quality of life, as a potential new standard treatment for RIM pain in HNC patients undergoing definitive RT or CRT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04221165 . Date of registration: January 9, 2020. Appendix 2 reports the World Health Organization trial registration dataset.

Artificial Intelligence in Lung Cancer: Bridging the Gap Between Computational Power and Clinical Decision-Making.

Lung cancer remains the most common cause of cancer death worldwide. Recent advances in lung cancer screening, radiotherapy, surgical techniques, and systemic therapy have led to increasing complexity in diagnosis, treatment decision-making, and assessment of recurrence. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based prediction models are being developed to address these issues and may have a future role in screening, diagnosis, treatment selection, and decision-making around salvage therapy. Imaging plays an essential role in all components of lung cancer management and has the potential to play a key role in AI applications. Artificial intelligence has demonstrated value in prognostic biomarker discovery in lung cancer diagnosis, treatment, and response assessment, putting it at the forefront of the next phase of personalized medicine. However, although exploratory studies demonstrate potential utility, there is a need for rigorous validation and standardization before AI can be utilized in clinical decision-making. In this review, we will provide a summary of the current literature implementing AI for outcome prediction in lung cancer. We will describe the anticipated impact of AI on the management of patients with lung cancer and discuss the challenges of clinical implementation of these techniques.

Utilizing Artificial Intelligence for Head and Neck Cancer Outcomes Prediction From Imaging.

Artificial intelligence (AI)-based models have become a growing area of interest in predictive medicine and have the potential to aid physician decision-making to improve patient outcomes. Imaging and radiomics play an increasingly important role in these models. This review summarizes recent developments in the field of radiomics for AI in head and neck cancer. Prediction models for oncologic outcomes, treatment toxicity, and pathological findings have all been created. Exploratory studies are promising; however, validation studies that demonstrate consistency, reproducibility, and prognostic impact remain uncommon. Prospective clinical trials with standardized procedures are required for clinical translation.

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus standard of care palliative treatment in patients with oligometastatic cancers (SABR-COMET): a randomised, phase 2, open-label trial.

BACKGROUND: The oligometastatic paradigm suggests that some patients with a limited number of metastases might be cured if all lesions are eradicated. Evidence from randomised controlled trials to support this paradigm is scarce. We aimed to assess the effect of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) on survival, oncological outcomes, toxicity, and quality of life in patients with a controlled primary tumour and one to five oligometastatic lesions. METHODS: This randomised, open-label phase 2 study was done at 10 hospitals in Canada, the Netherlands, Scotland, and Australia. Patients aged 18 or older with a controlled primary tumour and one to five metastatic lesions, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score of 0-1, and a life expectancy of at least 6 months were eligible. After stratifying by the number of metastases (1-3 vs 4-5), we randomly assigned patients (1:2) to receive either palliative standard of care treatments alone (control group), or standard of care plus SABR to all metastatic lesions (SABR group), using a computer-generated randomisation list with permuted blocks of nine. Neither patients nor physicians were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival. We used a randomised phase 2 screening design with a two-sided α of 0·20 (wherein p<0·20 designates a positive trial). All analyses were intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01446744. FINDINGS: 99 patients were randomised between Feb 10, 2012, and Aug 30, 2016. Of 99 patients, 33 (33%) were assigned to the control group and 66 (67%) to the SABR group. Two (3%) patients in the SABR group did not receive allocated treatment and withdrew from the trial; two (6%) patients in the control group also withdrew from the trial. Median follow-up was 25 months (IQR 19-54) in the control group versus 26 months (23-37) in the SABR group. Median overall survival was 28 months (95% CI 19-33) in the control group versus 41 months (26-not reached) in the SABR group (hazard ratio 0·57, 95% CI 0·30-1·10; p=0·090). Adverse events of grade 2 or worse occurred in three (9%) of 33 controls and 19 (29%) of 66 patients in the SABR group (p=0·026), an absolute increase of 20% (95% CI 5-34). Treatment-related deaths occurred in three (4·5%) of 66 patients after SABR, compared with none in the control group. INTERPRETATION: SABR was associated with an improvement in overall survival, meeting the primary endpoint of this trial, but three (4·5%) of 66 patients in the SABR group had treatment-related death. Phase 3 trials are needed to conclusively show an overall survival benefit, and to determine the maximum number of metastatic lesions wherein SABR provides a benefit. FUNDING: Ontario Institute for Cancer Research and London Regional Cancer Program Catalyst Grant.

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for the comprehensive treatment of 1-3 Oligometastatic tumors (SABR-COMET-3): study protocol for a randomized phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: A recent randomized phase II trial evaluated stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (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 a significant improvement in progression-free survival and a trend to an overall survival benefit, supporting progression to phase III randomized trials. METHODS: Two hundred and ninety-seven patients will be randomized in a 1:2 ratio between the control arm (consisting of standard of care [SOC] palliative-intent treatments), and the SABR arm (consisting of SOC treatment + SABR to all sites of known disease). Randomization will be stratified by two factors: histology (prostate, breast, or renal vs. all others), and disease-free interval (defined as time from diagnosis of primary tumor until first detection of the metastases being treated on this trial; divided as ≤2 vs. > 2 years). The primary endpoint is overall survival, and secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, cost effectiveness, time to development of new metastatic lesions, quality of life (QoL), 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 survival, QoL, and cost effectiveness to determine if long-term survival can be achieved for selected patients with 1-3 oligometastatic lesions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03862911. Date of registration: March 5, 2019.

Treatment de-escalation for HPV-associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma with radiotherapy vs. trans-oral surgery (ORATOR2): study protocol for a randomized phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with human papillomavirus-positive (HPV+) oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPC) have substantially better treatment response and overall survival (OS) than patients with HPV-negative disease. Treatment options for HPV+ OPC can involve either a primary radiotherapy (RT) approach (± concomitant chemotherapy) or a primary surgical approach (± adjuvant radiation) with transoral surgery (TOS). These two treatment paradigms have different spectrums of toxicity. The goals of this study are to assess the OS of two de-escalation approaches (primary radiotherapy and primary TOS) compared to historical control, and to compare survival, toxicity and quality of life (QOL) profiles between the two approaches. METHODS: This is a multicenter phase II study randomizing one hundred and forty patients with T1-2 N0-2 HPV+ OPC in a 1:1 ratio between de-escalated primary radiotherapy (60 Gy) ± concomitant chemotherapy and TOS ± de-escalated adjuvant radiotherapy (50-60 Gy based on risk factors). Patients will be stratified based on smoking status (< 10 vs. ≥ 10 pack-years). The primary endpoint is OS of each arm compared to historical control; we hypothesize that a 2-year OS of 85% or greater will be achieved. Secondary endpoints include progression free survival, QOL and toxicity. DISCUSSION: This study will provide an assessment of two de-escalation approaches to the treatment of HPV+ OPC on oncologic outcomes, QOL and toxicity. Results will inform the design of future definitive phase III trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03210103. Date of registration: July 6, 2017, Current version: 1.3 on March 15, 2019.

Local Ablative Therapies in Oligometastatic NSCLC: New Data and New Directions.

The oligometastatic and oligoprogressive disease states have been recently recognized as common clinical scenarios in the management of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). As a result, there has been increasing interest in treating these patients with locally ablative therapies including surgery, conventionally fractionated radiotherapy, stereotactic ablative radiotherapy, and radiofrequency ablation. This article provides an overview of oligometastatic and oligoprogressive disease in the setting of NSCLC and reviews the evidence supporting ablative treatment. Phase II randomized controlled trials and retrospective series suggest that ablative treatment of oligometastases may substantially improve progression-free survival and overall survival, and additional large randomized studies testing this hypothesis in a definitive context are ongoing. However, several challenges remain, including quantifying the possible benefits of ablative therapies for oligoprogressive disease and developing prognostic and predictive models to assist in clinical decision making.

Radiotherapy versus transoral robotic surgery and neck dissection for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (ORATOR): an open-label, phase 2, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Transoral robotic surgery (TORS) with concurrent neck dissection has supplanted radiotherapy in the USA as the most common treatment for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC), yet no randomised trials have compared these modalities. We aimed to evaluate differences in quality of life (QOL) 1 year after treatment. METHODS: The ORATOR trial was an investigator-initiated, multicentre, international, open-label, parallel-group, phase 2, randomised study. Patients were enrolled at six hospitals in Canada and Australia. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients aged 18 years or older, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scores of 0-2, and with T1-T2, N0-2 (≤4 cm) OPSCC tumour types to radiotherapy (70 Gy, with chemotherapy if N1-2) or TORS plus neck dissection (with or without adjuvant chemoradiotherapy, based on pathology). Following stratification by p16 status, patients were randomly assigned using a computer-generated randomisation list with permuted blocks of four. The primary endpoint was swallowing-related QOL at 1 year as established using the MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI) score, powered to detect a 10-point improvement (a clinically meaningful change) in the TORS plus neck dissection group. All analyses were done by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01590355) and is active, but not currently recruiting. FINDINGS: 68 patients were randomly assigned (34 per group) between Aug 10, 2012, and June 9, 2017. Median follow-up was 25 months (IQR 20-33) for the radiotherapy group and 29 months (23-43) for the TORS plus neck dissection group. MDADI total scores at 1 year were mean 86·9 (SD 11·4) in the radiotherapy group versus 80·1 (13·0) in the TORS plus neck dissection group (p=0·042). There were more cases of neutropenia (six [18%] of 34 patients vs none of 34), hearing loss (13 [38%] vs five [15%]), and tinnitus (12 [35%] vs two [6%]) reported in the radiotherapy group than in the TORS plus neck dissection group, and more cases of trismus in the TORS plus neck dissection group (nine [26%] vs one [3%]). The most common adverse events in the radiotherapy group were dysphagia (n=6), hearing loss (n=6), and mucositis (n=4), all grade 3, and in the TORS plus neck dissection group, dysphagia (n=9, all grade 3) and there was one death caused by bleeding after TORS. INTERPRETATION: Patients treated with radiotherapy showed superior swallowing-related QOL scores 1 year after treatment, although the difference did not represent a clinically meaningful change. Toxicity patterns differed between the groups. Patients with OPSCC should be informed about both treatment options. FUNDING: Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute Grant (#701842), Ontario Institute for Cancer Research Clinician-Scientist research grant, and the Wolfe Surgical Research Professorship in the Biology of Head and Neck Cancers grant.

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.

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.

Optimizing SABR delivery for synchronous multiple lung tumors using volumetric-modulated arc therapy.

BACKGROUND: Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) delivery for stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) of multiple lung tumors allows for faster treatments. We report on clinical outcomes and describe a general approach for treatment planning. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients undergoing multi iso-center VMAT-based SABR for ≥2 lung lesions between 2009 and 2014 were identified from the VU University Medical Center and London Health Sciences Centre. Patients were eligible if the start date of the SABR treatment for the different lesions was within a time range of 30 days. SABR was delivered using separate iso-centers for lesions at a substantial distance from each other. Tumors were either treated with a single fraction of 34 Gy, or using three risk-adapted dose-fractionation schemes, namely three fractions of 18 Gy, five fractions of 11 Gy, or eight fractions of 7.5 Gy, depending on the tumor size and the location. Multivariable analysis was performed to assess factors predictive of clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Of 84 patients (188 lesions) identified, 46% were treated for multiple metastases and 54% for multiple primary NSCLC. About 97% were treated for two or three lesions, and 56% had bilateral disease. After a median follow-up of 28 months, median overall survival (OS) for primary tumors was 27.6 months, and not reached for metastatic lesions (p = .028). Grade ≥3 toxicity was observed in 2% of patients. Multivariable analysis showed that grade 2 or higher radiation pneumonitis (n = 9) was best predicted by a total lung V35Gy of ≥6.5% (in 2Gy/fraction equivalent) (p = .007). CONCLUSION: Severe toxicity was uncommon following SABR using VMAT for up to three lung tumors. Further investigations of planning parameters are needed in patients presenting with more lesions.

Local consolidative therapy versus maintenance therapy or observation for patients with oligometastatic non-small-cell lung cancer without progression after first-line systemic therapy: a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence from retrospective studies suggests that disease progression after first-line chemotherapy for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) occurs most often at sites of disease known to exist at baseline. However, the potential effect of aggressive local consolidative therapy for patients with oligometastatic NSCLC is unknown. We aimed to assess the effect of local consolidative therapy on progression-free survival. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 study, eligible patients from three hospitals had histological confirmation of stage IV NSCLC, three or fewer metastatic disease lesions after first-line systemic therapy, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 2 or less, had received standard first-line systemic therapy, and had no disease progression before randomisation. First-line therapy was four or more cycles of platinum doublet therapy or 3 or more months of EGFR or ALK inhibitors for patients with EGFR mutations or ALK rearrangements, respectively. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either local consolidative therapy ([chemo]radiotherapy or resection of all lesions) with or without subsequent maintenance treatment or to maintenance treatment alone, which could be observation only. Maintenance treatment was recommended based on a list of approved regimens, and observation was defined as close surveillance without cytotoxic treatment. Randomisation was not masked and was balanced dynamically on five factors: number of metastases, response to initial therapy, CNS metastases, intrathoracic nodal status, and EGFR and ALK status. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival analysed in all patients who were treated and had at least one post-baseline imaging assessment. The study is ongoing but not recruiting participants. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01725165. FINDINGS: Between Nov 28, 2012, and Jan 19, 2016, 74 patients were enrolled either during or at the completion of first-line systemic therapy. The study was terminated early after randomisation of 49 patients (25 in the local consolidative therapy group and 24 in the maintenance treatment group) as part of the annual analyses done by the Data Safety Monitoring Committee of all randomised trials at MD Anderson Cancer Center, and before a planned interim analysis of 44 events. At a median follow-up time for all randomised patients of 12·39 months (IQR 5·52-20·30), the median progression-free survival in the local consolidative therapy group was 11·9 months (90% CI 5·7-20·9) versus 3·9 months (2·3-6·6) in the maintenance treatment group (hazard ratio 0·35 [90% CI 0·18-0·66], log-rank p=0·0054). Adverse events were similar between groups, with no grade 4 adverse events or deaths due to treatment. Grade 3 adverse events in the maintenance therapy group were fatigue (n=1) and anaemia (n=1) and in the local consolidative therapy group were oesophagitis (n=2), anaemia (n=1), pneumothorax (n=1), and abdominal pain (n=1, unlikely related). INTERPRETATION: Local consolidative therapy with or without maintenance therapy for patients with three or fewer metastases from NSCLC that did not progress after initial systemic therapy improved progression-free survival compared with maintenance therapy alone. These findings suggest that aggressive local therapy should be further explored in phase 3 trials as a standard treatment option in this clinical scenario. FUNDING: MD Anderson Lung Cancer Priority Fund, MD Anderson Cancer Center Moon Shot Initiative, and Cancer Center Support (Core), National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health.