Alzheimer's disease and low-dose radiation therapy: A new hope.

The concept of low-dose radiation (LDR)-induced hormetic responses was initially observed approximately 70 years ago and systematically reviewed along with the discovery of LDR-induced adaptive responses in a cytogenetic in vitro study in 1980s. By the end of the 1990s, discussions regarding the potential applications of LDR-induced hormesis and adaptive responses for preventing or treating chronic diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease (AD) had taken place. Until 2016, reports on radiotherapy for the subjects with AD and for genetic AD model mice were published. Subsequently, several preclinical studies with animal models of AD and clinical studies in AD subjects were conducted. A significant milestone was achieved with the online availability of a new Systematic Review based on qualified publications from these preclinical and clinical studies. This mini-review provides a concise historical introduction to LDR-induced hormesis and adaptive responses with discussion of AD radiotherapy with either LDR or relatively high dose radiation. Highlights of this Systematic Review cover promising outcomes, challenges, and new questions, followed by discussion of potential mechanisms.

Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials of p16-positive squamous cell carcinoma of the oropharynx: an individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The increased incidence of human papillomavirus (HPV)-related cancers has motivated efforts to optimise treatment for these patients with excellent prognosis. Validation of surrogates for overall survival could expedite the investigation of new therapies. We sought to evaluate candidate intermediate clinical endpoints in trials assessing definitive treatment of p16-positive oropharyngeal cancer with chemotherapy or radiotherapy. METHODS: We did a retrospective review of five multicentre, randomised trials (NRG/RTOG 9003, 0129, 0234, 0522, and 1016) that tested radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy in patients (aged ≥18 years) with p16-positive localised head or neck squamous-cell carcinomas. Eight intermediate clinical endpoints were considered as potential surrogates for overall survival: freedom from local progression, freedom from regional progression, freedom from distant metastasis, freedom from locoregional progression, freedom from any progression, locoregional progression-free survival, progression-free survival, and distant metastasis-free survival. We used a two-stage meta-analytical framework, which requires high correlation between the intermediate clinical endpoint and overall survival at the patient level (condition 1), and high correlation between the treatment effect on the intermediate clinical endpoint and the treatment effect on overall survival (condition 2). For both, an r2 greater than 0·7 was used as criteria for clinically relevant surrogacy. FINDINGS: We analysed 1373 patients with oropharyngeal cancer from May 9, 2020, to Nov 22, 2023. 1231 (90%) of patients were men, 142 (10%) were women, and 1207 (88%) were White, with a median age of 57 years (IQR 51-62). Median follow-up was 4·2 years (3·1-5·1). For the first condition, correlating the intermediate clinical endpoints with overall survival at the individual and trial level, the three composite endpoints of locoregional progression-free survival (Kendall's τ 0·91 and r2 0·72), distant metastasis-free survival (Kendall's τ 0·93 and r2 0·83), and progression-free survival (Kendall's τ 0·88 and r2 0·70) were highly correlated with overall survival at the patient level and at the trial-group level. For the second condition, correlating treatment effects of the intermediate clinical endpoints and overall survival, the composite endpoints of locoregional progression-free survival (r2 0·88), distant metastasis-free survival (r2 0·96), and progression-free survival (r2 0·92) remained strong surrogates. Treatment effects on the remaining intermediate clinical endpoints were less strongly correlated with overall survival. INTERPRETATION: We identified locoregional progression-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, and progression-free survival as surrogates for overall survival in p16-positive oropharyngeal cancers treated with chemotherapy or radiotherapy, which could serve as clinical trial endpoints. FUNDING: NRG Oncology Operations, NRG Oncology SDMC, the National Cancer Institute, Eli Lilly, Aventis, and the University of Michigan.

Radiotherapy Plus Cisplatin With or Without Lapatinib for Non-Human Papillomavirus Head and Neck Carcinoma: A Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Patients with locally advanced non-human papillomavirus (HPV) head and neck cancer (HNC) carry an unfavorable prognosis. Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with cisplatin or anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibody improves overall survival (OS) of patients with stage III to IV HNC, and preclinical data suggest that a small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor dual EGFR and ERBB2 (formerly HER2 or HER2/neu) inhibitor may be more effective than anti-EGFR antibody therapy in HNC. Objective: To examine whether adding lapatinib, a dual EGFR and HER2 inhibitor, to radiation plus cisplatin for frontline therapy of stage III to IV non-HPV HNC improves progression-free survival (PFS). Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial enrolled 142 patients with stage III to IV carcinoma of the oropharynx (p16 negative), larynx, and hypopharynx with a Zubrod performance status of 0 to 1 who met predefined blood chemistry criteria from October 18, 2012, to April 18, 2017 (median follow-up, 4.1 years). Data analysis was performed from December 1, 2020, to December 4, 2020. Intervention: Patients were randomized (1:1) to 70 Gy (6 weeks) plus 2 cycles of cisplatin (every 3 weeks) plus either 1500 mg per day of lapatinib (CRT plus lapatinib) or placebo (CRT plus placebo). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was PFS, with 69 events required. Progression-free survival rates between arms for all randomized patients were compared by 1-sided log-rank test. Secondary end points included OS. Results: Of the 142 patients enrolled, 127 (median [IQR] age, 58 [53-63] years; 98 [77.2%] male) were randomized; 63 to CRT plus lapatinib and 64 to CRT plus placebo. Final analysis did not suggest improvement in PFS (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.56-1.46; P = .34) or OS (hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.61-1.86; P = .58) with the addition of lapatinib. There were no significant differences in grade 3 to 4 acute adverse event rates (83.3% [95% CI, 73.9%-92.8%] with CRT plus lapatinib vs 79.7% [95% CI, 69.4%-89.9%] with CRT plus placebo; P = .64) or late adverse event rates (44.4% [95% CI, 30.2%-57.8%] with CRT plus lapatinib vs 40.8% [95% CI, 27.1%-54.6%] with CRT plus placebo; P = .84). Conclusion and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, dual EGFR-ERBB2 inhibition with lapatinib did not appear to enhance the benefit of CRT. Although the results of this trial indicate that accrual to a non-HPV HNC-specific trial is feasible, new strategies must be investigated to improve the outcome for this population with a poor prognosis. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01711658.

Stereotactic Radiosurgery vs Conventional Radiotherapy for Localized Vertebral Metastases of the Spine: Phase 3 Results of NRG Oncology/RTOG 0631 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Spine metastasis can be treated with high-dose radiation therapy with advanced delivery technology for long-term tumor and pain control. Objective: To assess whether patient-reported pain relief was improved with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) as compared with conventional external beam radiotherapy (cEBRT) for patients with 1 to 3 sites of vertebral metastases. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this randomized clinical trial, patients with 1 to 3 vertebral metastases were randomized 2:1 to the SRS or cEBRT groups. This NRG 0631 phase 3 study was performed as multi-institutional enrollment within NRG Oncology. Eligibility criteria included the following: (1) solitary vertebral metastasis, (2) 2 contiguous vertebral levels involved, or (3) maximum of 3 separate sites. Each site may involve up to 2 contiguous vertebral bodies. A total of 353 patients enrolled in the trial, and 339 patients were analyzed. This analysis includes data extracted on March 9, 2020. Interventions: Patients randomized to the SRS group were treated with a single dose of 16 or 18 Gy (to convert to rad, multiply by 100) given to the involved vertebral level(s) only, not including any additional spine levels. Patients assigned to cEBRT were treated with 8 Gy given to the involved vertebra plus 1 additional vertebra above and below. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was patient-reported pain response defined as at least a 3-point improvement on the Numerical Rating Pain Scale (NRPS) without worsening in pain at the secondary site(s) or the use of pain medication. Secondary end points included treatment-related toxic effects, quality of life, and long-term effects on vertebral bone and spinal cord. Results: A total of 339 patients (mean [SD] age of SRS group vs cEBRT group, respectively, 61.9 [13.1] years vs 63.7 [11.9] years; 114 [54.5%] male in SRS group vs 70 [53.8%] male in cEBRT group) were analyzed. The baseline mean (SD) pain score at the index vertebra was 6.06 (2.61) in the SRS group and 5.88 (2.41) in the cEBRT group. The primary end point of pain response at 3 months favored cEBRT (41.3% for SRS vs 60.5% for cEBRT; difference, -19 percentage points; 95% CI, -32.9 to -5.5; 1-sided P = .99; 2-sided P = .01). Zubrod score (a measure of performance status ranging from 0 to 4, with 0 being fully functional and asymptomatic, and 4 being bedridden) was the significant factor influencing pain response. There were no differences in the proportion of acute or late adverse effects. Vertebral compression fracture at 24 months was 19.5% with SRS and 21.6% with cEBRT (P = .59). There were no spinal cord complications reported at 24 months. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, superiority of SRS for the primary end point of patient-reported pain response at 3 months was not found, and there were no spinal cord complications at 2 years after SRS. This finding may inform further investigation of using spine radiosurgery in the setting of oligometastases, where durability of cancer control is essential. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00922974.

Long-Term Update of NRG/RTOG 0522: A Randomized Phase 3 Trial of Concurrent Radiation and Cisplatin With or Without Cetuximab in Locoregionally Advanced Head and Neck Cancer.

PURPOSE: The combination of cisplatin and radiation or cetuximab and radiation improves overall survival of patients with locoregionally advanced head and neck carcinoma. NRG Oncology conducted a phase 3 trial to test the hypothesis that adding cetuximab to radiation and cisplatin would improve progression-free survival (PFS). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eligible patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer sixth edition stage T2 N2a-3 M0 or T3-4 N0-3 M0 were accrued from November 2005 to March 2009 and randomized to receive radiation and cisplatin without (arm A) or with (arm B) cetuximab. Outcomes were correlated with patient and tumor features. Late reactions were scored using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 3). RESULTS: Of 891 analyzed patients, 452 with a median follow-up of 10.1 years were alive at analysis. The addition of cetuximab did not improve PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89-1.26; P = .74), with 10-year estimates of 43.6% (95% CI, 38.8- 48.4) for arm A and 40.2% (95% CI, 35.4-45.0) for arm B. Cetuximab did not reduce locoregional failure (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.95-1.53; P = .94) or distant metastasis (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.54-1.14; P = .10) or improve overall survival (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.80-1.16; P = .36). Cetuximab did not appear to improve PFS in either p16-positive oropharynx (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.87-1.93) or p16-negative oropharynx or nonoropharyngeal primary (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.73-1.21). Grade 3 to 4 late toxicity rates were 57.4% in arm A and 61.3% in arm B (P = .26). CONCLUSIONS: With a median follow-up of more than 10 years, this updated report confirms the addition of cetuximab to radiation therapy and cisplatin did not improve any measured outcome in the entire cohort or when stratifying by p16 status.

Two-Year Tumor Outcomes of a Phase 2B, Randomized, Double-Blind Trial of Avasopasem Manganese (GC4419) Versus Placebo to Reduce Severe Oral Mucositis Owing to Concurrent Radiation Therapy and Cisplatin for Head and Neck Cancer.

PURPOSE: Avasopasem manganese (GC4419), an investigational selective dismutase mimetic radioprotector, reduced duration, incidence, and severity of severe oral mucositis (World Health Organization grade 3-4) in a phase 2b, randomized, double-blind trial of patients receiving concurrent cisplatin (cis) and radiation therapy (RT) for head and neck cancer. We report the secondary endpoints of final 1- and 2-year tumor outcomes and exploratory data on trismus and xerostomia. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with locally advanced oral cavity or oropharynx cancer to be treated with definitive or postop cis and RT were randomized to 1 of 3 arms: 30 mg avasopasem, 90 mg avasopasem, or placebo. Pairwise comparisons of Kaplan-Meier estimates (each active arm separately vs placebo) were made for overall survival, progression-free survival, locoregional control, and distant metastasis-free survival. Xerostomia and trismus data were collected at each follow-up visit and analyzed for trends by post-RT timepoint and treatment group. RESULTS: At a median follow-up for the entire cohort of 25.5 months (25th-75th percentile, 24.6-26.2 months; range, 0.2-31.9 months), Kaplan-Meier estimates of 1- and 2-year overall survival, progression-free survival, locoregional control, and distant metastasis-free survival were not statistically different. No trends were apparent in xerostomia or trismus data. CONCLUSIONS: Avasopasem does not lead to statistically different tumor control outcomes when used concurrently with cis and RT for head and neck cancer. There was no detectable effect on trismus or xerostomia.

Phase II Clinical Trial of Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Pembrolizumab in Resectable Local-Regionally Advanced Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Patients with resected, local-regionally advanced, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) have a one-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate of 65%-69% despite adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy. Neoadjuvant PD-1 immune-checkpoint blockade (ICB) has demonstrated clinical activity, but biomarkers of response and effect on survival remain unclear. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had resectable squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity, larynx, hypopharynx, or oropharynx (p16-negative) and clinical stage T3-T4 and/or two or more nodal metastases or clinical extracapsular nodal extension (ENE). Patients received neoadjuvant pembrolizumab 200 mg 1-3 weeks prior to surgery, were stratified by absence (intermediate-risk) or presence (high-risk) of positive margins and/or ENE, and received adjuvant radiotherapy (60-66 Gy) and concurrent pembrolizumab (every 3 weeks × 6 doses). Patients with high-risk HNSCC also received weekly, concurrent cisplatin (40 mg/m2). Primary outcome was one-year DFS. Secondary endpoints were one-year overall survival (OS) and pathologic response (PR). Safety was evaluated with CTCAE v5.0. RESULTS: From February 2016 to October 2020, 92 patients enrolled. The median age was 59 years (range, 27-80), 30% were female, 86% had stage T3-T4, and 69% had ≥N2. At a median follow-up of 28 months, one-year DFS was 97% (95% CI, 71%-90%) in the intermediate-risk group and 66% (95% CI, 55%-84%) in the high-risk group. Patients with a PR had significantly improved one-year DFS relative to patients without response (93% vs. 72%, hazard ratio 0.29; 95% CI, 11%-77%). No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant and adjuvant pembrolizumab increased one-year DFS rate in intermediate-risk, but not high-risk, HNSCC relative to historical control. PR to neoadjuvant ICB is a promising surrogate for DFS.

Influence of Treatment Package Time on outcomes in High-Risk Oral Cavity Carcinoma in patients receiving Adjuvant Radiation and Concurrent Systemic Therapy: A Multi-Institutional Oral Cavity Collaborative study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the influence of treatment package time(TPT) in high-risk oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma(OCSCC) receiving adjuvant radiotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy(CRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We queried our multi-institutional OCSCC collaborative database for cases diagnosed between 2005 and 2015 who underwent surgery followed by adjuvant CRT. All patients had high-risk features: extranodal extension(ENE) and/or positive surgical margin(PM). TPT was days between surgery to last radiotherapy fraction. Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank p-values and multivariate analysis(MVA) were used to investigate the impact of TPT on overall(OS), disease-free(DFS), locoregional failure-free(LRFS) and distant metastases-free(DMFS) survival. RESULTS: We identified 187 cases: median age 58 (range, 24-87 years), males 66%, and ever smokers 69%. ENE and PM were detected in 85% and 32%, and oral tongue and floor of the mouth constituted 49% and 18%, respectively. Median radiotherapy and cisplatin doses received were 66 Gy and 200 mg/m2. Overall, median TPT was 98 (range, 63-162 days). OS was worse for TPT > 90-days (n = 134) than TPT ≤ 90 (n = 53) at two-(65% vs. 71%) and five-years (45% vs. 62%); p = 0.05, with similar results for DFS. No influence on LRFS or DMFS was noted. More lymph nodes(LN) dissected(P = 0.039), T3-4 disease(P = 0.017), and unplanned reoperations(P = 0.037) occurred with TPT > 90-days. On MVA, TPT in 10-day increments was independently detrimental for OS (Hazard Ratio: 1.14; 95 %Confidence Interval [1-1.28]; P = 0.043), perineural invasion, age and positive LN (p < 0.05 for all). CONCLUSION: In one of the largest multi-institutional cohorts, TPT > 90-days predicted worse OS for high-risk OCSCC receiving adjuvant CRT. All efforts are needed to optimize perioperative care and baseline conditions for favorable outcomes.

COVID-19 and low-dose radiation therapy.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative pathogen of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has caused more than 179 million infections and 3.8 million deaths worldwide. Global health authorities working on the COVID-19 outbreak continue to explore methods to reduce the rate of its transmission to healthy individuals. Treatment protocols thus far have focused on social distancing and masking, treatment with antivirals early in infection, and steroids to reduce the inflammatory response. An alternative approach is therapy with low dose radiation (LDR), which has several advantages compared to the current drugs and medicines. To date more than 10 case reports and pilot clinical trial preliminary outcome are available from different countries. These reports cover a wide range of patient conditions and LDR treatment strategies. Although one report showed the failure to observe the improvement of COVID-19 patients after LDR therapy, the majority showed some clinical improvement, and demonstrated the safety of LDR for COVID-19 patients, particularly with 0.5 â€‹Gy. This review aims to summarize the potential rationales and mechanisms of LDR therapy for COVID-19 patients, and its current clinical status and potential use.

Outcomes of Post-Operative Treatment with Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in High-Risk Resected Oral Cavity Squamous Cell Carcinoma (OCSCC): A Multi-Institutional Collaboration.

Adjuvant chemoradiation (CRT), with high-dose cisplatin remains standard treatment for oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OCSCC) with high-risk pathologic features. We evaluated outcomes associated with different cisplatin dosing and schedules, concurrent with radiation (RT), and the effect of cumulative dosing of cisplatin. An IRB-approved collaborative database of patients (pts) with primary OCSCC (Stage I-IVB AJCC 7th edition) treated with primary surgical resection between January 2005 and January 2015, with or without adjuvant therapy, was established from six academic institutions. Patients were categorized by cisplatin dose and schedule, and resultant groups compared for demographic data, pathologic features, and outcomes by statistical analysis to determine disease free survival (DFS) and freedom from metastatic disease (DM). From a total sample size of 1282 pts, 196 pts were identified with high-risk features who were treated with adjuvant CRT. Administration schedule of cisplatin was not significantly associated with DFS. On multivariate (MVA), DFS was significantly better in patients without perineural invasion (PNI) and in those receiving ≥200 mg/m2 cisplatin dose (p < 0.001 and 0.007). Median DFS, by cisplatin dose, was 10.5 (<200 mg/m2) vs. 20.8 months (≥200 mg/m2). Our analysis demonstrated cumulative cisplatin dose ≥200 mg/m2 was associated with improved DFS in high-risk resected OCSCC pts.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) of adrenal gland metastases in oligometastatic and oligoprogressive disease.

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) as a form of noninvasive treatment that is becoming increasingly used to manage cancers with adrenal gland metastases. There is a paucity of data on safety and efficacy of this modality. The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of adrenal gland SBRT in oligometastatic and oligoprogressive disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, we performed a single-institution analysis of 26 adrenal lesions from 23 patients with oligometastatic or oligoprogressive disease treated from 2013 to 2019 with the goal of achieving durable local control. Palliative cases were excluded. Radiation dosimetry data was collected. Kaplan Meier product estimator and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The median dose was 36 Gy in 3 fractions (range: 24-50 Gy and 3-6 fractions) with a median biologically effective dose (BED10) of 72 (range: 40-100). 1-year local control rate was 80% and median local control was not achieved due to a low number of failures. 1- and 2-year overall survival rates were 66% and 32%. Toxicity was mild with only one case of grade 2 nausea and no grade 3-5 toxicity. Higher neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio was associated with worse overall survival and a trend toward worse progression-free survival. In addition, worse performance status and lower BED10 were associated with worse survival. No such association could be shown for primary tumor location, histology, size or stage. CONCLUSION: Adrenal SBRT for oligometastatic or oligoprogressive disease is a safe and effective form of treatment.

Evaluating compliance with process-related quality metrics and survival in oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma: Multi-institutional oral cavity collaboration study.

BACKGROUND: Process-related measures have been proposed as quality metrics in head and neck cancer care. A recent single-institution study identified four key metrics associated with increased survival. This study sought to validate the association of these quality metrics with survival in a multi-institutional cohort. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective study of patients with oral cavity squamous cell (1/2005-1/2015). Baseline patient and disease characteristics and compliance with quality metrics was evaluated. Association between compliance with quality metrics with overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and disease-specific survival (DSS) was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Failure to comply with two or more of the quality metrics was associated with worse OS, DFS, and DSS. Adherence to all or all but one of the quality metrics was found to be associated with improved survival. CONCLUSIONS: Process-related quality metrics are associated with increased survival in patients with oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma in a multi-institutional cohort.

Surface mould brachytherapy in oral and oropharyngeal cancers.

INTRODUCTION: There are insufficient data on surface mold brachytherapy (SMB) in treating oral cancers. We reviewed our institutional experience to investigate the efficacy and toxicity of this treatment modality. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all the patients treated between 1989 and 2018 with high-dose-rate iridium-192 SMB for oral and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas at our institution. Surface mold brachytherapy was delivered via an acrylic surface mold with 1-5 inserted catheters spaced 1 cm apart fabricated by our dental oncologist. The Kaplan-Meier product estimator was used to assess local control (LC), locoregional control (LRC), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and overall survival (OS). Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to assess the relationship of various variables and patient outcomes. RESULTS: Eighteen patients met the inclusion criteria and were evaluated. Indications for treatment were primary tumor (n = 13), local recurrence (2), locoregional recurrence (1), and oligometastatic disease (1). Ten patients received SMB alone and 8 received external beam radiotherapy with an SMB boost. The acute toxicity outcomes were as follows: no toxicity (n = 1), grade 1 (7), grade 2 (9), and grade 3 (1). Late effects were rare, only occurring in 3 patients. The one- and two-year LC were 81% and 68%, LRC 77% and 64%, DMFS 81% and 81%, and OS 77% and 46%. CONCLUSIONS: Surface mold brachytherapy is a viable modality as either primary or boost treatment for superficial oral cancers. In our patients, this treatment method has a low toxicity profile and resulted in reasonable LC.

Extrapulmonary small cell carcinoma: Prognostic factors, patterns of care, and overall survival.

BACKGROUND: Extrapulmonary small cell carcinoma is a rare malignancy with scarce data. Treatment paradigms extrapolate from pulmonary small cell carcinoma and single institution studies. We analyzed the epidemiology, patterns of care, prognostic factors, and overall survival (OS) of EPSCC patients. METHODS: The cohort included EPSCC. Patients with <2 months follow-up, unknown demographic/treatment variables were excluded. Descriptive statistics were performed to characterize the cohort. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate OS. Cox proportional hazard modeling was done to analyze the influence of prognostic variables on OS. RESULTS: 5747 patients were included. Median OS was 1.2 years. Head and neck (HR: 0.60, 95% CI 0.53-0.67, p < 0.0001) and breast (HR: 0.69, 95% CI 0.53-0.89, p = .0046) were associated with improved OS; gastrointestinal (HR: 1.19, 95% CI 1.09-1.29, p < .0001) worse OS; and gynecologic (HR: 1.04, 95% CI 0.92-1.17, p = .5660) showing no difference, all compared to genitourinary (reference). Surgery was associated with improved overall survival (HR: 0.84, 95% CI 0.79-0.91, p=<.0001). Chemoradiation showed a decreased HR (HR: 0.91, 95% CI 0.83-0.99, p = .0363) when compared to chemotherapy alone (reference). CONCLUSION: EPSCC occurs throughout the body with poor survival. Anatomic subsite was predictive for survival. Surgical resection may improve survival. Concurrent chemoradiation appears to improve survival over chemotherapy alone.

A competing risk nomogram to predict severe late toxicity after modern re-irradiation for squamous carcinoma of the head and neck.

PURPOSE: Severe late toxicity is common after re-irradiation for recurrent or second primary (RSP) squamous carcinoma of the head and neck. However, many patients experience complications from tumor progression before manifesting late effects. We constructed a nomogram to examine this relationship between late toxicity and competing risks. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with RSP squamous carcinoma originating in a field previously irradiated to ≥40 Gy and treated with IMRT-based re-irradiation to ≥40 Gy were collected. Grade ≥3 late toxicity developing ≥90 days after re-irradiation was collected. A multivariable competing-risk model was fit to the actuarial risk of late toxicity with progression or death as the competing risk. The final bootstrap optimized model was converted into a nomogram. RESULTS: From 9 institutions, 505 patients were included. The 2-year incidence of grade ≥3 late toxicity was 16.7% (95% CI 13.2-20.2%) whereas progression or death was 64.2% (95% CI 59.7-68.8%). The median freedom from late toxicity, progression or death was 10.7, 5.5 and 3.2 months for RPA class I-III patients respectively, whereas the median OS was 44.9, 15.9 and 7.9 months, respectively. The final model included six clinical factors. Notably, dose, volume and fractionation did not significantly impact toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: After re-irradiation, the risk of progression or death is approximately four times the risk of radiation-related severe late toxicity. The risk of late toxicity may be more dependent on patient and disease factors than modifiable treatment factors. This model is useful for patient selection, pre-treatment consent and post-treatment survivorship following re-irradiation.

Influence of Neoadjuvant Radiation Dose on Patients Undergoing Esophagectomy and Survival in Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by resection is standard of care for patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer, however, a significant portion of these patients do not undergo surgical intervention. This study evaluates radiation dose and other factors associated with undergoing esophageal resection and their impact on outcomes including survival. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer between 2010 and 15 were queried from the National Cancer Database and stratified into low-dose radiation (41.4 Gy) (LDR) or high-dose radiation (50.0 or 50.4 Gy) (HDR) groups. Multivariable Logistic and Cox Regression analyses were performed to investigate the effect of multiple variables on the likelihood of undergoing esophagectomy and overall survival, respectively. Propensity score matching was performed to reduce bias between groups. RESULTS: A total of 3633 patients met study criteria with 3005 (82.7%) undergoing esophagectomy. A greater proportion received HDR (3163 (87.1%)) than LDR (470 (12.9%)). The use of LDR increased from 4.7% (n = 22) in 2010 to 20.7% (n = 154) in 2015. Factors associated with undergoing esophagectomy included LDR, adenocarcinoma histology, and younger age. Radiation dosage did not impact overall survival, but undergoing esophagectomy was associated with improved survival. After propensity matching, a greater portion of the LDR group underwent esophagectomy (87.0 vs 81.1%, p = 0.013). There was no difference in R0 3 resection (93.2 vs 92.4%, p = 0.678) or complete pathologic response (19.3 vs 21.5%, p = 0.442) between LDR and HDR groups. CONCLUSION: The use of LDR is increasing but still underutilized. LDR is associated with increased rates of esophagectomy without negatively impacting overall survival, R0 resection, or complete pathologic response.

Prognostic factors and selection criteria in the retreatment of head and neck cancers.

OBJECTIVES: To determine predictors of treatment selection, outcome, and survival, we examined a cohort of previously irradiated head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 100 patients at our institution who were treated for recurrent or second primary (RSP) HNSCC, focusing on subgroups receiving reirradiation (ReRT) alone and those undergoing surgical salvage (SS) with or without post-operative reirradiation therapy (POReRT). Logistic regression modeling was performed to identify factors predictive of retreatment modality. Cox regression modeling was used to determine prognostic factors for progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: ReRT alone was less likely in current smokers and neck recurrences, with reirradiation more likely in primary site recurrences. POReRT was significantly more likely in patients with positive surgical margins (PSM), neck dissection, or organ dysfunction. POReRT omission negatively impacted PFS when PSM (HR: 8.894, 95% CI: 1.742-45.403) and perineural invasion (PNI) (HR: 3.391, 95% CI: 1.140-10.089) were present. Tracheostomy was associated with worse OS, but ReRT alone and POReRT improved OS. PSM correlated with worse OS, regardless of whether POReRT was given (HR: 14.260, 95% CI: 2.064-98.547). CONCLUSION: This analysis confirms known factors for predicting outcome and shows nonsmoking status and primary site recurrence as predictors for ReRT alone. POReRT for PSM and PNI improves PFS. Tracheostomy patients are more likely to have ReRT due to acute toxicity not limiting treatment and POReRT improves OS compared to surgery alone. The presence of PSM negatively impacts survival which cannot be overcome by POReRT.

Radiotherapy plus cetuximab or cisplatin in human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal cancer (NRG Oncology RTOG 1016): a randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma have high survival when treated with radiotherapy plus cisplatin. Whether replacement of cisplatin with cetuximab-an antibody against the epidermal growth factor receptor-can preserve high survival and reduce treatment toxicity is unknown. We investigated whether cetuximab would maintain a high proportion of patient survival and reduce acute and late toxicity. METHODS: RTOG 1016 was a randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial at 182 health-care centres in the USA and Canada. Eligibility criteria included histologically confirmed HPV-positive oropharyngeal carcinoma; American Joint Committee on Cancer 7th edition clinical categories T1-T2, N2a-N3 M0 or T3-T4, N0-N3 M0; Zubrod performance status 0 or 1; age at least 18 years; and adequate bone marrow, hepatic, and renal function. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to receive either radiotherapy plus cetuximab or radiotherapy plus cisplatin. Randomisation was balanced by using randomly permuted blocks, and patients were stratified by T category (T1-T2 vs T3-T4), N category (N0-N2a vs N2b-N3), Zubrod performance status (0 vs 1), and tobacco smoking history (≤10 pack-years vs >10 pack-years). Patients were assigned to receive either intravenous cetuximab at a loading dose of 400 mg/m2 5-7 days before radiotherapy initiation, followed by cetuximab 250 mg/m2 weekly for seven doses (total 2150 mg/m2), or cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on days 1 and 22 of radiotherapy (total 200 mg/m2). All patients received accelerated intensity-modulated radiotherapy delivered at 70 Gy in 35 fractions over 6 weeks at six fractions per week (with two fractions given on one day, at least 6 h apart). The primary endpoint was overall survival, defined as time from randomisation to death from any cause, with non-inferiority margin 1·45. Primary analysis was based on the modified intention-to-treat approach, whereby all patients meeting eligibility criteria are included. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01302834. FINDINGS: Between June 9, 2011, and July 31, 2014, 987 patients were enrolled, of whom 849 were randomly assigned to receive radiotherapy plus cetuximab (n=425) or radiotherapy plus cisplatin (n=424). 399 patients assigned to receive cetuximab and 406 patients assigned to receive cisplatin were subsequently eligible. After median follow-up duration of 4·5 years, radiotherapy plus cetuximab did not meet the non-inferiority criteria for overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 1·45, one-sided 95% upper CI 1·94; p=0·5056 for non-inferiority; one-sided log-rank p=0·0163). Estimated 5-year overall survival was 77·9% (95% CI 73·4-82·5) in the cetuximab group versus 84·6% (80·6-88·6) in the cisplatin group. Progression-free survival was significantly lower in the cetuximab group compared with the cisplatin group (HR 1·72, 95% CI 1·29-2·29; p=0·0002; 5-year progression-free survival 67·3%, 95% CI 62·4-72·2 vs 78·4%, 73·8-83·0), and locoregional failure was significantly higher in the cetuximab group compared with the cisplatin group (HR 2·05, 95% CI 1·35-3·10; 5-year proportions 17·3%, 95% CI 13·7-21·4 vs 9·9%, 6·9-13·6). Proportions of acute moderate to severe toxicity (77·4%, 95% CI 73·0-81·5 vs 81·7%, 77·5-85·3; p=0·1586) and late moderate to severe toxicity (16·5%, 95% CI 12·9-20·7 vs 20·4%, 16·4-24·8; p=0·1904) were similar between the cetuximab and cisplatin groups. INTERPRETATION: For patients with HPV-positive oropharyngeal carcinoma, radiotherapy plus cetuximab showed inferior overall survival and progression-free survival compared with radiotherapy plus cisplatin. Radiotherapy plus cisplatin is the standard of care for eligible patients with HPV-positive oropharyngeal carcinoma. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute USA, Eli Lilly, and The Oral Cancer Foundation.

Volume, Dose, and Fractionation Considerations for IMRT-based Reirradiation in Head and Neck Cancer: A Multi-institution Analysis.

PURPOSE: Limited data exist to guide the treatment technique for reirradiation of recurrent or second primary squamous carcinoma of the head and neck. We performed a multi-institution retrospective cohort study to investigate the effect of the elective treatment volume, dose, and fractionation on outcomes and toxicity. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with recurrent or second primary squamous carcinoma originating in a previously irradiated field (≥40 Gy) who had undergone reirradiation with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT); (≥40 Gy re-IMRT) were included. The effect of elective nodal treatment, dose, and fractionation on overall survival (OS), locoregional control, and acute and late toxicity were assessed. The Kaplan-Meier and Gray's competing risks methods were used for actuarial endpoints. RESULTS: From 8 institutions, 505 patients were included in the present updated analysis. The elective neck was not treated in 56.4% of patients. The median dose of re-IMRT was 60 Gy (range 39.6-79.2). Hyperfractionation was used in 20.2%. Systemic therapy was integrated for 77.4% of patients. Elective nodal radiation therapy did not appear to decrease the risk of locoregional failure (LRF) or improve the OS rate. Doses of ≥66 Gy were associated with improvements in both LRF and OS in the definitive re-IMRT setting. However, dose did not obviously affect LRF or OS in the postoperative re-IMRT setting. Hyperfractionation was not associated with improved LRF or OS. The rate of acute grade ≥3 toxicity was 22.1% overall. On multivariable logistic regression, elective neck irradiation was associated with increased acute toxicity in the postoperative setting. The rate of overall late grade ≥3 toxicity was 16.7%, with patients treated postoperatively with hyperfractionation experiencing the highest rates. CONCLUSIONS: Doses of ≥66 Gy might be associated with improved outcomes in high-performance patients undergoing definitive re-IMRT. Postoperatively, doses of 50 to 66 Gy appear adequate after removal of gross disease. Hyperfractionation and elective neck irradiation were not associated with an obvious benefit and might increase toxicity.