Oral anticoagulant prescribing among patients with cancer and atrial fibrillation in England, 2009-2019.

BACKGROUND: Anticoagulation of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and cancer is challenging because of their high risk for stroke and bleeding. Little is known of the variations of oral anticoagulant (OAC) prescribing in patients with AF with and without cancer. METHODS: Patients with first-time AF during 2009-2019 from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink were included. Cancer diagnosis was defined as a history of breast, prostate, colorectal, lung, or hematological cancer. Competing-risk analysis was used to assess the risk of OAC prescribing in patients with AF and cancer adjusted for clinical and sociodemographic factors. RESULTS: Of 177,065 patients with AF, 11.7% had cancer. Compared to patients without cancer, patients with cancer were less likely to receive OAC: prostate cancer (subhazard ratio [SHR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-0.99), breast cancer (SHR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.89-0.98), colorectal cancer (SHR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88-0.99), hematological cancer (SHR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.65-0.75), and lung cancer (SHR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.38-0.50). The cumulative incidence function (CIF) of OAC prescribing was lowest for patients with lung cancer and hematological cancer compared with patients without cancer. The difference between the CIF of OAC prescribing in patients with and without cancer becomes narrower in the most deprived areas. Elderly patients (aged ≥85 years) overall had the lowest CIF of OAC prescribing regardless of cancer status. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with AF, underprescribing of OAC is independently associated with certain cancer types. Patients with hematological and lung cancer are the least likely to receive anticoagulation therapy compared with patients without cancer. Underprescribing of OAC in cancer is linked to old age. Further studies of patients with AF and cancer are warranted to assess the net clinical benefit of anticoagulation in certain cancer types.

European Respiratory Society guideline on various aspects of quality in lung cancer care.

This European Respiratory Society guideline is dedicated to the provision of good quality recommendations in lung cancer care. All the clinical recommendations contained were based on a comprehensive systematic review and evidence syntheses based on eight PICO (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes) questions. The evidence was appraised in compliance with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Evidence profiles and the GRADE Evidence to Decision frameworks were used to summarise results and to make the decision-making process transparent. A multidisciplinary Task Force panel of lung cancer experts formulated and consented the clinical recommendations following thorough discussions of the systematic review results. In particular, we have made recommendations relating to the following quality improvement measures deemed applicable to routine lung cancer care: 1) avoidance of delay in the diagnostic and therapeutic period, 2) integration of multidisciplinary teams and multidisciplinary consultations, 3) implementation of and adherence to lung cancer guidelines, 4) benefit of higher institutional/individual volume and advanced specialisation in lung cancer surgery and other procedures, 5) need for pathological confirmation of lesions in patients with pulmonary lesions and suspected lung cancer, and histological subtyping and molecular characterisation for actionable targets or response to treatment of confirmed lung cancers, 6) added value of early integration of palliative care teams or specialists, 7) advantage of integrating specific quality improvement measures, and 8) benefit of using patient decision tools. These recommendations should be reconsidered and updated, as appropriate, as new evidence becomes available.

Postoperative radiotherapy versus no postoperative radiotherapy in patients with completely resected non-small-cell lung cancer and proven mediastinal N2 involvement (Lung ART): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the use of postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) has been controversial since 1998, because of one meta-analysis showing a deleterious effect on survival in patients with pN0 and pN1, but with an unclear effect in patients with pN2 NSCLC. Because many changes have occurred in the management of patients with NSCLC, the role of three-dimensional (3D) conformal PORT warrants further investigation in patients with stage IIIAN2 NSCLC. The aim of this study was to establish whether PORT should be part of their standard treatment. METHODS: Lung ART is an open-label, randomised, phase 3, superiority trial comparing mediastinal PORT to no PORT in patients with NSCLC with complete resection, nodal exploration, and cytologically or histologically proven N2 involvement. Previous neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy was allowed. Patients aged 18 years or older, with an WHO performance status of 0-2, were recruited from 64 hospitals and cancer centres in five countries (France, UK, Germany, Switzerland, and Belgium). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either the PORT or no PORT (control) groups via a web randomisation system, and minimisation factors were the institution, administration of chemotherapy, number of mediastinal lymph node stations involved, histology, and use of pre-treatment PET scan. Patients received PORT at a dose of 54 Gy in 27 or 30 daily fractions, on five consecutive days a week. Three dimensional conformal radiotherapy was mandatory, and intensity-modulated radiotherapy was permitted in centres with expertise. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival, analysed by intention to treat at 3 years; patients from the PORT group who did not receive radiotherapy and patients from the control group with no follow-up were excluded from the safety analyses. This trial is now closed. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00410683. FINDINGS: Between Aug 7, 2007, and July 17, 2018, 501 patients, predominantly staged with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) PET (456 [91%]; 232 (92%) in the PORT group and 224 (90%) in the control group), were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive PORT (252 patients) or no PORT (249 patients). At the cutoff date of May 31, 2019, median follow-up was 4·8 years (IQR 2·9-7·0). 3-year disease-free survival was 47% (95% CI 40-54) with PORT versus 44% (37-51) without PORT, and the median disease-free survival was 30·5 months (95% CI 24-49) in the PORT group and 22·8 months (17-37) in the control group (hazard ratio 0·86; 95% CI 0·68-1·08; p=0·18). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were pneumonitis (13 [5%] of 241 patients in the PORT group vs one [<1%] of 246 in the control group), lymphopenia (nine [4%] vs 0), and fatigue (six [3%] vs one [<1%]). Late-grade 3-4 cardiopulmonary toxicity was reported in 26 patients (11%) in the PORT group versus 12 (5%) in the control group. Two patients died from pneumonitis, partly related to radiotherapy and infection, and one patient died due to chemotherapy toxicity (sepsis) that was deemed to be treatment-related, all of whom were in the PORT group. INTERPRETATION: Lung ART evaluated 3D conformal PORT after complete resection in patients who predominantly had been staged using (18F-FDG PET-CT and received neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy. 3-year disease-free survival was higher than expected in both groups, but PORT was not associated with an increased disease-free survival compared with no PORT. Conformal PORT cannot be recommended as the standard of care in patients with stage IIIAN2 NSCLC. FUNDING: French National Cancer Institute, Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique from the French Health Ministry, Gustave Roussy, Cancer Research UK, Swiss State Secretary for Education, Research, and Innovation, Swiss Cancer Research Foundation, Swiss Cancer League.

Excess years of life lost to COVID-19 and other causes of death by sex, neighbourhood deprivation, and region in England and Wales during 2020: A registry-based study.

BACKGROUND: Deaths in the first year of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in England and Wales were unevenly distributed socioeconomically and geographically. However, the full scale of inequalities may have been underestimated to date, as most measures of excess mortality do not adequately account for varying age profiles of deaths between social groups. We measured years of life lost (YLL) attributable to the pandemic, directly or indirectly, comparing mortality across geographic and socioeconomic groups. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used national mortality registers in England and Wales, from 27 December 2014 until 25 December 2020, covering 3,265,937 deaths. YLLs (main outcome) were calculated using 2019 single year sex-specific life tables for England and Wales. Interrupted time-series analyses, with panel time-series models, were used to estimate expected YLL by sex, geographical region, and deprivation quintile between 7 March 2020 and 25 December 2020 by cause: direct deaths (COVID-19 and other respiratory diseases), cardiovascular disease and diabetes, cancer, and other indirect deaths (all other causes). Excess YLL during the pandemic period were calculated by subtracting observed from expected values. Additional analyses focused on excess deaths for region and deprivation strata, by age-group. Between 7 March 2020 and 25 December 2020, there were an estimated 763,550 (95% CI: 696,826 to 830,273) excess YLL in England and Wales, equivalent to a 15% (95% CI: 14 to 16) increase in YLL compared to the equivalent time period in 2019. There was a strong deprivation gradient in all-cause excess YLL, with rates per 100,000 population ranging from 916 (95% CI: 820 to 1,012) for the least deprived quintile to 1,645 (95% CI: 1,472 to 1,819) for the most deprived. The differences in excess YLL between deprivation quintiles were greatest in younger age groups; for all-cause deaths, a mean of 9.1 years per death (95% CI: 8.2 to 10.0) were lost in the least deprived quintile, compared to 10.8 (95% CI: 10.0 to 11.6) in the most deprived; for COVID-19 and other respiratory deaths, a mean of 8.9 years per death (95% CI: 8.7 to 9.1) were lost in the least deprived quintile, compared to 11.2 (95% CI: 11.0 to 11.5) in the most deprived. For all-cause mortality, estimated deaths in the most deprived compared to the most affluent areas were much higher in younger age groups, but similar for those aged 85 or over. There was marked variability in both all-cause and direct excess YLL by region, with the highest rates in the North West. Limitations include the quasi-experimental nature of the research design and the requirement for accurate and timely recording. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed strong socioeconomic and geographical health inequalities in YLL, during the first calendar year of the COVID-19 pandemic. These were in line with long-standing existing inequalities in England and Wales, with the most deprived areas reporting the largest numbers in potential YLL.

Prognostic value of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in adults with non-small cell Lung Cancer: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in the collection and use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to support clinical decision making in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, an overview of research into the prognostic value of PROMs is currently lacking. AIM: To explore to what extent, how, and how robustly the value of PROMs for prognostic prediction has been investigated in adults diagnosed with NSCLC. METHODS: We systematically searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL Plus and Scopus for English-language articles published from 2011 to 2021 that report prognostic factor study, prognostic model development or validation study. Example data charting forms from the Cochrane Prognosis Methods Group guided our data charting on study characteristics, PROMs as predictors, predicted outcomes, and statistical methods. Two reviewers independently charted the data and critically appraised studies using the QUality In Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool for prognostic factor studies, and the risk of bias assessment section of the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST) for prognostic model studies. RESULTS: Our search yielded 2,769 unique titles of which we included 31 studies, reporting the results of 33 unique analyses and models. Out of the 17 PROMs used for prediction, the EORTC QLQ-C30 was most frequently used (16/33); 12/33 analyses used PROM subdomain scores instead of the overall scores. PROMs data was mostly collected at baseline (24/33) and predominantly used to predict survival (32/33) but seldom other clinical outcomes (1/33). Almost all prognostic factor studies (26/27) had moderate to high risk of bias and all four prognostic model development studies had high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: There is an emerging body of research into the value of PROMs as a prognostic factor for survival in people with NSCLC but the methodological quality of this research is poor with significant bias. This warrants more robust studies into the prognostic value of PROMs, in particular for predicting outcomes other than survival. This will enable further development of PROM-based prediction models to support clinical decision making in NSCLC.

Overall Survival with Durvalumab after Chemoradiotherapy in Stage III NSCLC.

BACKGROUND: An earlier analysis in this phase 3 trial showed that durvalumab significantly prolonged progression-free survival, as compared with placebo, among patients with stage III, unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who did not have disease progression after concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Here we report the results for the second primary end point of overall survival. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive durvalumab intravenously, at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram of body weight, or matching placebo every 2 weeks for up to 12 months. Randomization occurred 1 to 42 days after the patients had received chemoradiotherapy and was stratified according to age, sex, and smoking history. The primary end points were progression-free survival (as assessed by blinded independent central review) and overall survival. Secondary end points included the time to death or distant metastasis, the time to second progression, and safety. RESULTS: Of the 713 patients who underwent randomization, 709 received the assigned intervention (473 patients received durvalumab and 236 received placebo). As of March 22, 2018, the median follow-up was 25.2 months. The 24-month overall survival rate was 66.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 61.7 to 70.4) in the durvalumab group, as compared with 55.6% (95% CI, 48.9 to 61.8) in the placebo group (two-sided P=0.005). Durvalumab significantly prolonged overall survival, as compared with placebo (stratified hazard ratio for death, 0.68; 99.73% CI, 0.47 to 0.997; P=0.0025). Updated analyses regarding progression-free survival were similar to those previously reported, with a median duration of 17.2 months in the durvalumab group and 5.6 months in the placebo group (stratified hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.63). The median time to death or distant metastasis was 28.3 months in the durvalumab group and 16.2 months in the placebo group (stratified hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.68). A total of 30.5% of the patients in the durvalumab group and 26.1% of those in the placebo group had grade 3 or 4 adverse events of any cause; 15.4% and 9.8% of the patients, respectively, discontinued the trial regimen because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Durvalumab therapy resulted in significantly longer overall survival than placebo. No new safety signals were identified. (Funded by AstraZeneca; PACIFIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02125461 .).

Patient-reported outcomes with durvalumab by PD-L1 expression and prior chemoradiotherapy-related variables in unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer.

Aim: We retrospectively investigated the impact of tumor PD-L1 expression and prior chemoradiotherapy (CRT)-related variables on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from PACIFIC. Patients & methods: PACIFIC was a Phase III study of durvalumab versus placebo after CRT in patients with unresectable, stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. If available, pre-CRT tumor tissue was tested for PD-L1 tumor-cell expression, scored at prespecified (25%) and post-hoc (1%) cut-offs. PROs were assessed using EORTC QLQ C30/-LC13. Results: Similar to the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, most PROs remained stable over time across PD-L1 and CRT subgroups, with few clinically relevant differences between treatment arms. Time to deterioration was generally similar to the ITT population. Conclusion: Neither PD-L1 expression nor prior CRT-related variables influenced PROs with durvalumab therapy. Clinical trial registration: NCT02125461 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

SABRTooth: a randomised controlled feasibility study of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) with surgery in patients with peripheral stage I nonsmall cell lung cancer considered to be at higher risk of complications from surgical resection.

OBJECTIVES: Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is a well-established treatment for medically inoperable peripheral stage I nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Previous nonrandomised evidence supports SABR as an alternative to surgery, but high-quality randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence is lacking. The SABRTooth study aimed to establish whether a UK phase III RCT was feasible. DESIGN AND METHODS: SABRTooth was a UK multicentre randomised controlled feasibility study targeting patients with peripheral stage I NSCLC considered to be at higher risk of surgical complications. 54 patients were planned to be randomised 1:1 to SABR or surgery. The primary outcome was monthly average recruitment rates. RESULTS: Between July 2015 and January 2017, 318 patients were considered for the study and 205 (64.5%) were deemed ineligible. Out of 106 (33.3%) assessed as eligible, 24 (22.6%) patients were randomised to SABR (n=14) or surgery (n=10). A key theme for nonparticipation was treatment preference, with 43 (41%) preferring nonsurgical treatment and 19 (18%) preferring surgery. The average monthly recruitment rate was 1.7 patients against a target of three. 15 patients underwent their allocated treatment: SABR n=12, surgery n=3. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that a phase III RCT randomising higher risk patients between SABR and surgery is not feasible in the National Health Service. Patients have pre-existing treatment preferences, which was a barrier to recruitment. A significant proportion of patients randomised to the surgical group declined and chose SABR. SABR remains an alternative to surgery and novel study approaches are needed to define which patients benefit from a nonsurgical approach.

ERS/ESTS/EACTS/ESTRO guidelines for the management of malignant pleural mesothelioma.

The European Respiratory Society (ERS)/European Society of Thoracic Surgeons (ESTS)/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)/European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) task force brought together experts to update previous 2009 ERS/ESTS guidelines on management of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), a rare cancer with globally poor outcome, after a systematic review of the 2009-2018 literature. The evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. The evidence syntheses were discussed and recommendations formulated by this multidisciplinary group of experts. Diagnosis: pleural biopsies remain the gold standard to confirm the diagnosis, usually obtained by thoracoscopy but occasionally via image-guided percutaneous needle biopsy in cases of pleural symphysis or poor performance status. Pathology: standard staining procedures are insufficient in ∼10% of cases, justifying the use of specific markers, including BAP-1 and CDKN2A (p16) for the separation of atypical mesothelial proliferation from MPM. Staging: in the absence of a uniform, robust and validated staging system, we advise using the most recent 2016 8th TNM (tumour, node, metastasis) classification, with an algorithm for pre-therapeutic assessment. Monitoring: patient's performance status, histological subtype and tumour volume are the main prognostic factors of clinical importance in routine MPM management. Other potential parameters should be recorded at baseline and reported in clinical trials. Treatment: (chemo)therapy has limited efficacy in MPM patients and only selected patients are candidates for radical surgery. New promising targeted therapies, immunotherapies and strategies have been reviewed. Because of limited data on the best combination treatment, we emphasise that patients who are considered candidates for a multimodal approach, including radical surgery, should be treated as part of clinical trials in MPM-dedicated centres.

Reliability and prognostic value of radiomic features are highly dependent on choice of feature extraction platform.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of Image Biomarker Standardisation Initiative (IBSI) compliance, harmonisation of calculation settings and platform version on the statistical reliability of radiomic features and their corresponding ability to predict clinical outcome. METHODS: The statistical reliability of radiomic features was assessed retrospectively in three clinical datasets (patient numbers: 108 head and neck cancer, 37 small-cell lung cancer, 47 non-small-cell lung cancer). Features were calculated using four platforms (PyRadiomics, LIFEx, CERR and IBEX). PyRadiomics, LIFEx and CERR are IBSI-compliant, whereas IBEX is not. The effects of IBSI compliance, user-defined calculation settings and platform version were assessed by calculating intraclass correlation coefficients and confidence intervals. The influence of platform choice on the relationship between radiomic biomarkers and survival was evaluated using univariable cox regression in the largest dataset. RESULTS: The reliability of radiomic features calculated by the different software platforms was only excellent (ICC > 0.9) for 4/17 radiomic features when comparing all four platforms. Reliability improved to ICC > 0.9 for 15/17 radiomic features when analysis was restricted to the three IBSI-compliant platforms. Failure to harmonise calculation settings resulted in poor reliability, even across the IBSI-compliant platforms. Software platform version also had a marked effect on feature reliability in CERR and LIFEx. Features identified as having significant relationship to survival varied between platforms, as did the direction of hazard ratios. CONCLUSION: IBSI compliance, user-defined calculation settings and choice of platform version all influence the statistical reliability and corresponding performance of prognostic models in radiomics. KEY POINTS: • Reliability of radiomic features varies between feature calculation platforms and with choice of software version. • Image Biomarker Standardisation Initiative (IBSI) compliance improves reliability of radiomic features across platforms, but only when calculation settings are harmonised. • IBSI compliance, user-defined calculation settings and choice of platform version collectively affect the prognostic value of features.

Inter-observer variability in target delineation increases during adaptive treatment of head-and-neck and lung cancer.

Introduction: Inter-observer variability (IOV) in target volume delineation is a well-documented source of geometric uncertainty in radiotherapy. Such variability has not yet been explored in the context of adaptive re-delineation based on imaging data acquired during treatment. We compared IOV in the pre- and mid-treatment setting using expert primary gross tumour volume (GTV) and clinical target volume (CTV) delineations in locoregionally advanced head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) and (non-)small cell lung cancer [(N)SCLC]. Material and methods: Five and six observers participated in the HNSCC and (N)SCLC arm, respectively, and provided delineations for five cases each. Imaging data consisted of CT studies partly complemented by FDG-PET and was provided in two separate phases for pre- and mid-treatment. Global delineation compatibility was assessed with a volume overlap metric (the Generalised Conformity Index), while local extremes of IOV were identified through the standard deviation of surface distances from observer delineations to a median consensus delineation. Details of delineation procedures, in particular, GTV to CTV expansion and adaptation strategies, were collected through a questionnaire. Results: Volume overlap analysis revealed a worsening of IOV in all but one case per disease site, which failed to reach significance in this small sample (p-value range .063-.125). Changes in agreement were propagated from GTV to CTV delineations, but correlation could not be formally demonstrated. Surface distance based analysis identified longitudinal target extent as a pervasive source of disagreement for HNSCC. High variability in (N)SCLC was often associated with tumours abutting consolidated lung tissue or potentially invading the mediastinum. Adaptation practices were variable between observers with fewer than half stating that they consistently adapted pre-treatment delineations during treatment. Conclusion: IOV in target volume delineation increases during treatment, where a disparity in institutional adaptation practices adds to the conventional causes of IOV. Consensus guidelines are urgently needed.

Practice-changing radiation therapy trials for the treatment of cancer: where are we 150 years after the birth of Marie Curie?

As we mark 150 years since the birth of Marie Curie, we reflect on the global advances made in radiation oncology and the current status of radiation therapy (RT) research. Large-scale international RT clinical trials have been fundamental in driving evidence-based change and have served to improve cancer management and to reduce side effects. Radiation therapy trials have also improved practice by increasing quality assurance and consistency in treatment protocols across multiple centres. This review summarises some of the key RT practice-changing clinical trials over the last two decades, in four common cancer sites for which RT is a crucial component of curative treatment: breast, lung, urological and lower gastro-intestinal cancer. We highlight the global inequality in access to RT, and the work of international organisations, such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), and the United Kingdom National Cancer Research Institute Clinical and Translational Radiotherapy Research Working Group (CTRad), that aim to improve access to RT and facilitate radiation research. We discuss some emerging RT technologies including proton beam therapy and magnetic resonance linear accelerators and predict likely future directions in clinical RT research.

ERS statement on harmonised standards for lung cancer registration and lung cancer services in Europe.

The European Respiratory Society (ERS) task force for harmonised standards for lung cancer registration and lung cancer services in Europe recognised the need to create a single dataset for use in pan-European data collection and a manual of standards for European lung cancer services.The multidisciplinary task force considered evidence from two different sources, reviewing existing national and international datasets alongside the results of a survey of clinical data collection on lung cancer in 35 European countries. A similar process was followed for the manual of lung cancer services, with the task force using existing guidelines and national or international recommendations for lung cancer services to develop a manual of standards for services in Europe.The task force developed essential and minimum datasets for lung cancer registration to enable all countries to collect the same essential data and some to collect data with greater detail. The task force also developed a manual specifying standards for lung cancer services in Europe.Despite the wide variation in the sociopolitical landscape across Europe, the ERS is determined to encourage the delivery of high-quality lung cancer care. Both the manual of lung cancer services and the minimum dataset for lung cancer registration will support this aspiration.

Results from a clinical trial evaluating the efficacy of real-time body surface visual feedback in reducing patient motion during lung cancer radiotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: Optical surface measurement devices are a maturing technology in radiotherapy. The challenge for such devices is to demonstrate how they can improve clinical care. We present results from a phase 1 clinical trial designed to test the hypothesis that if presented with live data from a novel optical measurement device, showing their deviation from an ideal radiotherapy treatment position, patients will be able to better control their motion and increase their geometrical conformance. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Fourteen lung cancer patients were enrolled in a prospective clinical study and asked to use a variety of visual feedback schema from a novel in-house developed optical surface measurement device. The magnitude and regularity of their body surface motion using the different schema was compared to that when free-breathing at three time-points throughout their radiotherapy treatment schedule. Additionally, 4D Cone Beam CT data, acquired simultaneously with the optical measurements, was used to test if improvements in external motion are reflected in changes in internal tumor motion. RESULTS: The primary endpoint of the trial, device tolerability assessed by the fraction of participants completing all study sessions, was 86%. Secondary endpoints showed that use of the visual feedback device was found to statistically significantly decrease body surface motion magnitude by an average of 17% over the study cohort, although not universally. Similarly body surface motion variability was decreased by 18% on average. Internal tumor motion magnitude was also found to be statistically significantly decreased by an average of 14% when using the feedback device. Reduction in external motion was predictive of reduced internal motion but no evidence of a simple correlation between changes in internal and external motion magnitude was found. CONCLUSIONS: Visual feedback of live motion is well tolerated by lung cancer patients and can reduce both body surface and tumor motion.

A prediction model for early death in non-small cell lung cancer patients following curative-intent chemoradiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Early death after a treatment can be seen as a therapeutic failure. Accurate prediction of patients at risk for early mortality is crucial to avoid unnecessary harm and reducing costs. The goal of our work is two-fold: first, to evaluate the performance of a previously published model for early death in our cohorts. Second, to develop a prognostic model for early death prediction following radiotherapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with NSCLC treated with chemoradiotherapy or radiotherapy alone were included in this study. Four different cohorts from different countries were available for this work (N = 1540). The previous model used age, gender, performance status, tumor stage, income deprivation, no previous treatment given (yes/no) and body mass index to make predictions. A random forest model was developed by learning on the Maastro cohort (N = 698). The new model used performance status, age, gender, T and N stage, total tumor volume (cc), total tumor dose (Gy) and chemotherapy timing (none, sequential, concurrent) to make predictions. Death within 4 months of receiving the first radiotherapy fraction was used as the outcome. RESULTS: Early death rates ranged from 6 to 11% within the four cohorts. The previous model performed with AUC values ranging from 0.54 to 0.64 on the validation cohorts. Our newly developed model had improved AUC values ranging from 0.62 to 0.71 on the validation cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Using advanced machine learning methods and informative variables, prognostic models for early mortality can be developed. Development of accurate prognostic tools for early mortality is important to inform patients about treatment options and optimize care.

Concurrent once-daily versus twice-daily chemoradiotherapy in patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (CONVERT): an open-label, phase 3, randomised, superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is the standard of care in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, but the optimal radiotherapy schedule and dose remains controversial. The aim of this study was to establish a standard chemoradiotherapy treatment regimen in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: The CONVERT trial was an open-label, phase 3, randomised superiority trial. We enrolled adult patients (aged ≥18 years) who had cytologically or histologically confirmed limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and adequate pulmonary function. Patients were recruited from 73 centres in eight countries. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 45 Gy radiotherapy in 30 twice-daily fractions of 1·5 Gy over 19 days, or 66 Gy in 33 once-daily fractions of 2 Gy over 45 days, starting on day 22 after commencing cisplatin-etoposide chemotherapy (given as four to six cycles every 3 weeks in both groups). The allocation method used was minimisation with a random element, stratified by institution, planned number of chemotherapy cycles, and performance status. Treatment group assignments were not masked. The primary endpoint was overall survival, defined as time from randomisation until death from any cause, analysed by modified intention-to-treat. A 12% higher overall survival at 2 years in the once-daily group versus the twice-daily group was considered to be clinically significant to show superiority of the once-daily regimen. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00433563) and is currently in follow-up. FINDINGS: Between April 7, 2008, and Nov 29, 2013, 547 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive twice-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy (274 patients) or once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy (273 patients). Four patients (one in the twice-daily group and three in the once-daily group) did not return their case report forms and were lost to follow-up; these patients were not included in our analyses. At a median follow-up of 45 months (IQR 35-58), median overall survival was 30 months (95% CI 24-34) in the twice-daily group versus 25 months (21-31) in the once-daily group (hazard ratio for death in the once daily group 1·18 [95% CI 0·95-1·45]; p=0·14). 2-year overall survival was 56% (95% CI 50-62) in the twice-daily group and 51% (45-57) in the once-daily group (absolute difference between the treatment groups 5·3% [95% CI -3·2% to 13·7%]). The most common grade 3-4 adverse event in patients evaluated for chemotherapy toxicity was neutropenia (197 [74%] of 266 patients in the twice-daily group vs 170 [65%] of 263 in the once-daily group). Most toxicities were similar between the groups, except there was significantly more grade 4 neutropenia with twice-daily radiotherapy (129 [49%] vs 101 [38%]; p=0·05). In patients assessed for radiotherapy toxicity, was no difference in grade 3-4 oesophagitis between the groups (47 [19%] of 254 patients in the twice-daily group vs 47 [19%] of 246 in the once-daily group; p=0·85) and grade 3-4 radiation pneumonitis (4 [3%] of 254 vs 4 [2%] of 246; p=0·70). 11 patients died from treatment-related causes (three in the twice-daily group and eight in the once-daily group). INTERPRETATION: Survival outcomes did not differ between twice-daily and once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, and toxicity was similar and lower than expected with both regimens. Since the trial was designed to show superiority of once-daily radiotherapy and was not powered to show equivalence, the implication is that twice-daily radiotherapy should continue to be considered the standard of care in this setting. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK (Clinical Trials Awards and Advisory Committee), French Ministry of Health, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (Cancer Research Fund, Lung Cancer, and Radiation Oncology Groups).

Dexamethasone and supportive care with or without whole brain radiotherapy in treating patients with non-small cell lung cancer with brain metastases unsuitable for resection or stereotactic radiotherapy (QUARTZ): results from a phase 3, non-inferiority, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) and dexamethasone are widely used to treat brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), although there have been no randomised clinical trials showing that WBRT improves either quality of life or overall survival. Even after treatment with WBRT, the prognosis of this patient group is poor. We aimed to establish whether WBRT could be omitted without a significant effect on survival or quality of life. METHODS: The Quality of Life after Treatment for Brain Metastases (QUARTZ) study is a non-inferiority, phase 3 randomised trial done at 69 UK and three Australian centres. NSCLC patients with brain metastases unsuitable for surgical resection or stereotactic radiotherapy were randomly assigned (1:1) to optimal supportive care (OSC) including dexamethasone plus WBRT (20 Gy in five daily fractions) or OSC alone (including dexamethasone). The dose of dexamethasone was determined by the patients' symptoms and titrated downwards if symptoms improved. Allocation to treatment group was done by a phone call from the hospital to the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London using a minimisation programme with a random element and stratification by centre, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), gender, status of brain metastases, and the status of primary lung cancer. The primary outcome measure was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). QALYs were generated from overall survival and patients' weekly completion of the EQ-5D questionnaire. Treatment with OSC alone was considered non-inferior if it was no more than 7 QALY days worse than treatment with WBRT plus OSC, which required 534 patients (80% power, 5% [one-sided] significance level). Analysis was done by intention to treat for all randomly assigned patients. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN3826061. FINDINGS: Between March 2, 2007, and Aug 29, 2014, 538 patients were recruited from 69 UK and three Australian centres, and were randomly assigned to receive either OSC plus WBRT (269) or OSC alone (269). Baseline characteristics were balanced between groups, and the median age of participants was 66 years (range 38-85). Significantly more episodes of drowsiness, hair loss, nausea, and dry or itchy scalp were reported while patients were receiving WBRT, although there was no evidence of a difference in the rate of serious adverse events between the two groups. There was no evidence of a difference in overall survival (hazard ratio 1·06, 95% CI 0·90-1·26), overall quality of life, or dexamethasone use between the two groups. The difference between the mean QALYs was 4·7 days (46·4 QALY days for the OSC plus WBRT group vs 41·7 QALY days for the OSC group), with two-sided 90% CI of -12·7 to 3·3. INTERPRETATION: Although the primary outcome measure result includes the prespecified non-inferiority margin, the combination of the small difference in QALYs and the absence of a difference in survival and quality of life between the two groups suggests that WBRT provides little additional clinically significant benefit for this patient group. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, and the National Health and Medical Research Council in Australia.

Management of stage I and II nonsmall cell lung cancer.

The incidence of stage I and II nonsmall cell lung cancer is likely to increase with the ageing population and introduction of screening for high-risk individuals. Optimal management requires multidisciplinary collaboration. Local treatments include surgery and radiotherapy and these are currently combined with (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy in specific cases to improve long-term outcome. Targeted therapies and immunotherapy may also become important therapeutic modalities in this patient group. For resectable disease in patients with low cardiopulmonary risk, complete surgical resection with lobectomy remains the gold standard. Minimally invasive techniques, conservative and sublobar resections are suitable for a subset of patients. Data are emerging that radiotherapy, especially stereotactic body radiation therapy, is a valid alternative in compromised patients who are high-risk candidates for surgery. Whether this is also true for good surgical candidates remains to be evaluated in randomised trials. In specific subgroups adjuvant chemotherapy has been shown to prolong survival; however, patient selection remains important. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy may yield similar results as adjuvant chemotherapy. The role of targeted therapies and immunotherapy in early stage nonsmall cell lung cancer has not yet been determined and results of randomised trials are awaited.

Use of thoracic radiotherapy for extensive stage small-cell lung cancer: a phase 3 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with extensive stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) who undergo chemotherapy, and prophylactic cranial irradiation, have persistent intrathoracic disease. We assessed thoracic radiotherapy for treatment of this patient group. METHODS: We did this phase 3 randomised controlled trial at 42 hospitals: 16 in Netherlands, 22 in the UK, three in Norway, and one in Belgium. We enrolled patients with WHO performance score 0-2 and confirmed ES-SCLC who responded to chemotherapy. They were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either thoracic radiotherapy (30 Gy in ten fractions) or no thoracic radiotherapy. All underwent prophylactic cranial irradiation. The primary endpoint was overall survival at 1 year in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival. This study is registered with the Nederlands Trial Register, number NTR1527. FINDINGS: We randomly assigned 498 patients between Feb 18, 2009, and Dec 21, 2012. Three withdrew informed consent, leaving 247 patients in the thoracic radiotherapy group and 248 in the control group. Mean interval between diagnosis and randomisation was 17 weeks. Median follow-up was 24 months. Overall survival at 1 year was not significantly different between groups: 33% (95% CI 27-39) for the thoracic radiotherapy group versus 28% (95% CI 22-34) for the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.84, 95% CI 0.69-1.01; p=0.066). However, in a secondary analysis, 2-year overall survival was 13% (95% CI 9-19) versus 3% (95% CI 2-8; p=0.004). Progression was less likely in the thoracic radiotherapy group than in the control group (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61-0.87; p=0.001). At 6 months, progression-free survival was 24% (95% CI 19-30) versus 7% (95% CI 4-11; p=0.001). We recorded no severe toxic effects. The most common grade 3 or higher toxic effects were fatigue (11 vs 9) and dyspnoea (three vs four). INTERPRETATION: Thoracic radiotherapy in addition to prophylactic cranial irradiation should be considered for all patients with ES-SCLC who respond to chemotherapy. FUNDING: Dutch Cancer Society (CKTO), Dutch Lung Cancer Research Group, Cancer Research UK, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre Trials Coordination Unit, and the UK National Cancer Research Network.