Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in NRG Oncology RTOG 0436: a phase III trial evaluating the addition of cetuximab to paclitaxel, cisplatin, and radiation for esophageal cancer treated without surgery.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: NRG/RTOG 0436 evaluated cetuximab added to chemoradiation (CRT) for non-operative esophageal cancer management. PRO objectives assessed improvement in the FACT-Esophageal cancer subscale (ECS), version 4, with cetuximab, and if improved ECS correlated with clinical complete response (cCR). MATERIALS/METHODS: Patients were randomized to cisplatin/paclitaxel/radiation ± cetuximab. Overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint, with a 420 patient target, which also provided 82% power to detect ≥ 15 increase in the proportion of cetuximab patients with ECS improvement from baseline to 6-8 weeks post-CRT; α = 0.05, using a χ2 test. Improvement in ECS and its Swallowing and Eating Indices (SI, EI) was defined as 5, 4 and 2 point increases, respectively, from baseline to 6-8 weeks post-CRT. Univariate logistic regression assessed if cCR was associated with improved ECS. RESULTS: This study was stopped early for not meeting a pre-specified OS endpoint and did not show survival benefit. Of 420 planned patients, 344 enrolled and 281 consented to PROs. ECS was completed by 261 (93%) at baseline, 173 (66%) 6-8 weeks post-CRT, and 117 (64%) at 1 year. At 6-8 weeks, patients receiving CRT + Cetuximab didn't have improved ECS; they experienced a lower proportion of improvement compared to standard CRT (37% vs. 53%; P = 0.04). The proportion of CRT patients with improvement in SI was 9% higher than with cetuximab, but not statistically significant (39% vs. 30%, P = 0.22). There was no association between treatment and EI. When examining ECS scores at 1 year by cCR vs. residual disease, a higher proportion of cCR patients improved, but not statistically significant (48% vs. 45%, P = 0.74). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of cetuximab to CRT for the nonoperative management of esophageal cancer did not improve PROs.

Patient Education Practices and Preferences of Radiation Oncologists and Interprofessional Radiation Therapy Care Teams: A Mixed-Methods Study Exploring Strategies for Effective Patient Education Delivery.

PURPOSE: Patients' understanding of radiation therapy (RT) and data regarding optimal approaches to patient education (PE) within radiation oncology (RO) are limited. We aimed to evaluate PE practices of radiation oncologists and interprofessional RT care team members to inform recommendations for delivering inclusive and accessible PE. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An anonymous survey was administered to all Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group members (10/5/22-11/23/22). Respondent demographics, individual practices/preferences, and institutional practices were collected. Qualitative items explored strategies, challenges, and desired resources for PE. Descriptive statistics summarized survey responses. The Fisher exact test compared PE practices by respondent role and PE timing. Thematic analysis was used for qualitative responses. RESULTS: One hundred thirteen Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group members completed the survey (28.2% response rate); RO attendings comprised 68.1% of respondents. Most practiced in an academic setting (85.8%) in North America (80.5%). Institution-specific materials were the most common PE resource used by radiation oncologists (67.6%). Almost half (40.2%) reported that their PE practices differed based on clinical encounter type, with paper handouts commonly used for in-person and multimedia for telehealth visits. Only 57.7% reported access to non-English PE materials. PE practices among radiation oncologists differed according to RT clinical workflow timing (consultation versus simulation versus first RT, respectively): one-on-one teaching: 88.5% versus 49.4% versus 56.3%, P < .01, and paper handouts: 69.0% versus 28.7% versus 16.1%, P < .01. Identified challenges for PE delivery included limited time, administrative barriers to the development or implementation of new materials or practices, and a lack of customized resources for tailored PE. Effective strategies for PE included utilization of visual diagrams, multimedia, and innovative education techniques to personalize PE delivery/resources for a diverse patient population, as well as fostering interprofessional collaboration to reinforce educational content. CONCLUSIONS: Radiation oncologists and interprofessional RO team members engage in PE, with most using institution-specific materials often available only in English. PE practices differ according to clinical encounter type and RT workflow timing. Increased adoption of multimedia materials and partnerships with patients to tailor PE resources are needed to foster high-quality, patient-centered PE delivery.

Phase II trial of proton therapy versus photon IMRT for GBM: secondary analysis comparison of progression-free survival between RANO versus clinical assessment.

BACKGROUND: This secondary image analysis of a randomized trial of proton radiotherapy (PT) versus photon intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) compares tumor progression based on clinical radiological assessment versus Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO). METHODS: Eligible patients were enrolled in the randomized trial and had MR imaging at baseline and follow-up beyond 12 weeks from completion of radiotherapy. "Clinical progression" was based on a clinical radiology report of progression and/or change in treatment for progression. RESULTS: Of 90 enrolled patients, 66 were evaluable. Median clinical progression-free survival (PFS) was 10.8 (range: 9.4-14.7) months; 10.8 months IMRT versus 11.2 months PT (P = .14). Median RANO-PFS was 8.2 (range: 6.9, 12): 8.9 months IMRT versus 6.6 months PT (P = .24). RANO-PFS was significantly shorter than clinical PFS overall (P = .001) and for both the IMRT (P = .01) and PT (P = .04) groups. There were 31 (46.3%) discrepant cases of which 17 had RANO progression more than a month prior to clinical progression, and 14 had progression by RANO but not clinical criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this secondary analysis of a trial of PT versus IMRT for glioblastoma, while no difference in PFS was noted relative to treatment technique, RANO criteria identified progression more often and earlier than clinical assessment. This highlights the disconnect between measures of tumor response in clinical trials versus clinical practice. With growing efforts to utilize real-world data and personalized treatment with timely adaptation, there is a growing need to improve the consistency of determining tumor progression within clinical trials and clinical practice.

Human TopBP1 ensures genome integrity during normal S phase.

Cell cycle checkpoints are essential for maintaining genomic integrity. Human topoisomerase II binding protein 1 (TopBP1) shares sequence similarity with budding yeast Dpb11, fission yeast Rad4/Cut5, and Xenopus Cut5, all of which are required for DNA replication and cell cycle checkpoints. Indeed, we have shown that human TopBP1 participates in the activation of replication checkpoint and DNA damage checkpoints, following hydroxyurea treatment and ionizing radiation. In this study, we address the physiological function of TopBP1 in S phase by using small interfering RNA. In the absence of exogenous DNA damage, TopBP1 is recruited to replicating chromatin. However, TopBP1 does not appear to be essential for DNA replication. TopBP1-deficient cells have increased H2AX phosphorylation and ATM-Chk 2 activation, suggesting the accumulation of DNA double-strand breaks in the absence of TopBP1. This leads to formation of gaps and breaks at fragile sites, 4N accumulation, and aberrant cell division. We propose that the cellular function of TopBP1 is to monitor ongoing DNA replication. By ensuring proper DNA replication, TopBP1 plays a critical role in the maintenance of genomic stability during normal S phase as well as following genotoxic stress.

Feasibility of proton beam therapy for reirradiation of locoregionally recurrent non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Options are limited for patients with intrathoracic recurrence of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who previously received radiation. We report our 5-year experience with the toxicity and efficacy of proton beam therapy (PBT) for reirradiation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-three patients underwent PBT reirradiation for intrathoracic recurrent NSCLC at a single institution. All patients had had RT for NSCLC (median initial dose 63 Gy in 33 fractions), with median interval to reirradiation of 36 months. Median reirradiation dose was 66 Gy (RBE) in 32 fractions. Toxicity was scored with CTCAE v4.0, and survival outcomes were estimated using Kaplan-Meier. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients (94%) completed reirradiation. At a median 11 months' follow-up, 1-year rates of overall survival, progression-free survival, locoregional control, and distant metastasis-free survival were 47%, 28%, 54%, and 39%. Rates of severe (grade ≥3) toxicity were 9% esophageal, 21% pulmonary; 1 patient had grade 4 esophagitis, and 2 had grade 4 pulmonary toxicity. Nine patients experienced a second in-field failure. CONCLUSIONS: PBT is an option for treating recurrent NSCLC. However, the rates of locoregional recurrence and distant metastasis are high and the potential for toxicity significant. The risks and benefits of PBT must be carefully weighed in each case.