Using the genomic adjusted radiation dose (GARD) to personalize the radiation dose in nasopharyngeal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Locally advanced nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) patients undergoing radiotherapy are at risk of treatment failure, particularly locoregional recurrence. To optimize the individual radiation dose, we hypothesize that the genomic adjusted radiation dose (GARD) can be used to correlate with locoregional control. METHODS: A total of 92 patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer / International Union Against Cancer stage III to stage IVB recruited in a randomized phase III trial were assessed (NPC-0501) (NCT00379262). Patients were treated with concurrent chemo-radiotherapy plus (neo) adjuvant chemotherapy. The primary endpoint is locoregional failure free rate (LRFFR). RESULTS: Despite the homogenous physical radiation dose prescribed (Median: 70 Gy, range 66-76 Gy), there was a wide range of GARD values (median: 50.7, range 31.1-67.8) in this cohort. In multivariable analysis, a GARD threshold (GARDT) of 45 was independently associated with LRFFR (p = 0.008). By evaluating the physical dose required to achieve the GARDT (RxRSI), three distinct clinical subgroups were identified: (1) radiosensitive tumors that RxRSI at dose < 66 Gy (N = 59, 64.1 %) (b) moderately radiosensitive tumors that RxRSI dose within the current standard of care range (66-74 Gy) (N = 20, 21.7 %), (c) radioresistant tumors that need a significant dose escalation above the current standard of care (>74 Gy) (N = 13, 14.1 %). CONCLUSION: GARD is independently associated with locoregional control in radiotherapy-treated NPC patients from a Phase 3 clinical trial. GARD may be a potential framework to personalize radiotherapy dose for NPC patients.

Radiosensitivity Index is Not Fit to be Used for Dose Adjustments: A Pan-Cancer Analysis.

AIMS: To explore the preclinical and latest clinical evidence of the radiation sensitivity signature termed 'radiosensitivity index' (RSI), to assess its suitability as an input into dose-adjustment algorithms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The original preclinical test-set data from the publication where RSI was derived were collected and reanalysed by comparing the observed versus predicted survival fraction at 2 Gy (SF2). In addition, the predictive capability of RSI was also compared to random guessing. Clinical data were collected from a recently published dataset that included RSI values, overall survival outcomes, radiotherapy dose and tumour site for six cancers (glioma, triple-negative breast, endometrial, melanoma, pancreatic and lung cancer). Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess: (i) does adjusting for RSI elucidate a dose response and (ii) does an interaction between RSI and dose exist with good precision. RESULTS: Preclinically, RSI showed a negative correlation (Spearman's rho = -0.61) between observed and predicted SF2, which remained negative after removing leukaemia cell lines. Furthermore, random guesses showed better correlation to SF2 than RSI, 98% of the time on the full dataset and 80% after removing leukaemia cell lines. The preclinical data show that RSI does not explain the variance in SF2 better than random guessing. Clinically, a dose response was not seen after adjusting for RSI (hazard ratio = 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.97-1.04; P = 0.876) and no evidence of an interaction between RSI and dose was found (P = 0.844). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that RSI does not explain a sufficient amount of the outcome variance to be used within dose-adjustment algorithms.

Genomic identification of sarcoma radiosensitivity and the clinical implications for radiation dose personalization.

BACKGROUND: Soft-tissue sarcomas (STS) are heterogeneous with variable response to radiation therapy (RT). Utilizing the radiosensitivity index (RSI) we estimated the radiobiologic ratio of lethal to sublethal damage (α/ß), genomic-adjusted radiation dose(GARD), and in-turn a biological effective radiation dose (BED). METHODS: Two independent cohorts of patients with soft-tissue sarcoma were identified. The first cohort included 217 genomically-profiled samples from our institutional prospective tissue collection protocol; RSI was calculated for these samples, which were then used to dichotomize the population as either highly radioresistant (HRR) or conventionally radioresistant (CRR). In addition, RSI was used to calculate α/ß ratio and GARD, providing ideal dosing based on sarcoma genomic radiosensitivity. A second cohort comprising 399 non-metastatic-STS patients treated with neoadjuvant RT and surgery was used to validate our findings. RESULTS: Based on the RSI of the sample cohort, 84% would historically be considered radioresistant. We identified a HRR subset that had a significant difference in the RSI, and clinically a lower tumor response to radiation (2.4% vs. 19.4%), 5-year locoregional-control (76.5% vs. 90.8%), and lower estimated α/ß (3.29 vs. 5.98), when compared to CRR sarcoma. Using GARD, the dose required to optimize outcome in the HRR subset is a BEDα/ß=3.29 of 97 Gy. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that on a genomic scale, that although STS is radioresistant overall, they are heterogeneous in terms of radiosensitivity. We validated this clinically and estimated an α/ß ratio and dosing that would optimize outcome, personalizing dose.

Modeling precision genomic-based radiation dose response in rectal cancer.

Aim: Genomic-based risk stratification to personalize radiation dose in rectal cancer. Patients & methods: We modeled genomic-based radiation dose response using the previously validated radiosensitivity index (RSI) and the clinically actionable genomic-adjusted radiation dose. Results: RSI of rectal cancer ranged from 0.19 to 0.81 in a bimodal distribution. A pathologic complete response rate of 21% was achieved in tumors with an RSI <0.31 at a minimal genomic-adjusted radiation dose of 29.76 when modeling RxRSI to the commonly prescribed physical dose of 50 Gy. RxRSI-based dose escalation to 55 Gy in tumors with an RSI of 0.31-0.34 could increase pathologic complete response by 10%. Conclusion: This study provides a theoretical platform for development of an RxRSI-based prospective trial in rectal cancer.