PTCOG Gastrointestinal Subcommittee Lower Gastrointestinal Tract Malignancies Consensus Statement.

Purpose: Radiotherapy delivery in the definitive management of lower gastrointestinal (LGI) tract malignancies is associated with substantial risk of acute and late gastrointestinal (GI), genitourinary, dermatologic, and hematologic toxicities. Advanced radiation therapy techniques such as proton beam therapy (PBT) offer optimal dosimetric sparing of critical organs at risk, achieving a more favorable therapeutic ratio compared with photon therapy. Materials and Methods: The international Particle Therapy Cooperative Group GI Subcommittee conducted a systematic literature review, from which consensus recommendations were developed on the application of PBT for LGI malignancies. Results: Eleven recommendations on clinical indications for which PBT should be considered are presented with supporting literature, and each recommendation was assessed for level of evidence and strength of recommendation. Detailed technical guidelines pertaining to simulation, treatment planning and delivery, and image guidance are also provided. Conclusion: PBT may be of significant value in select patients with LGI malignancies. Additional clinical data are needed to further elucidate the potential benefits of PBT for patients with anal cancer and rectal cancer.

Dose-escalated intensity-modulated radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced laryngeal and hypopharyngeal cancers: ART DECO, a phase III randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Radical (chemo)radiotherapy offers potentially curative treatment for patients with locally advanced laryngeal or hypopharyngeal cancer. We aimed to show that dose-escalated intensity-modulated radiotherapy (DE-IMRT) improved locoregional control. METHODS: We performed a phase III open-label randomised controlled trial in patients with laryngeal or hypopharyngeal cancer (AJCC III-IVa/b, TNM 7). Patients were randomised (1:1) to DE-IMRT or standard dose IMRT (ST-IMRT) using a minimisation algorithm, balancing for centre, tumour site, nodal status and chemotherapy use. DE-IMRT was 67.2 gray (Gy) in 28 fractions (f) to the primary tumour and 56Gy/28f to at-risk nodes; ST-IMRT was 65Gy/30f to primary tumour and 54Gy/30f to at-risk nodes. Suitable patients received 2 cycles of concomitant cisplatin and up to 3 cycles of platinum-based induction chemotherapy. The primary end-point was time to locoregional failure analysed by intention-to-treat analysis using competing risk methodology. FINDINGS: Between February 2011 and October 2015, 276 patients (138 ST-IMRT; 138 DE-IMRT) were randomised. A preplanned interim futility analysis met the criterion for early closure. After a median follow-up of 47.9 months (interquartile range 37.5-60.5), there were locoregional failures in 38 of 138 (27.5%) ST-IMRT patients and 42 of 138 (30.4%) DE-IMRT patients; an adjusted subhazard ratio of 1.16 (95% confidence interval: 0.74-1.83, p = 0.519) indicated no evidence of benefit with DE-IMRT. Acute grade 2 pharyngeal mucositis was reported more frequently with DE-IMRT than with ST-IMRT (42% vs. 32%). No differences in grade ≥3 acute or late toxicity rates were seen. CONCLUSION: DE-IMRT did not improve locoregional control in patients with laryngeal or hypopharyngeal cancer. The trial is registered: ISRCTN01483375.

Review on the Cellular Mechanisms of Low-Level Laser Therapy Use in Oncology.

Photobiomodulation (PBM) using low-level laser therapy (LLLT) is a treatment that is increasingly used in oncology. Studies reported enhancement of wound healing with reduction in pain, tissue swelling and inflammatory conditions such as radiation dermatitis, oral mucositis, and lymphedema. However, factors such as wavelength, energy density and irradiation frequency influence the cellular mechanisms of LLLT. Moreover, the effects of LLLT vary according to cell types. Thus, controversy arose as a result of poor clinical response reported in some studies that may have used inadequately planned treatment protocols. Since LLLT may enhance tumor cell proliferation, these will also need to be considered before clinical use. This review aims to summarize the current knowledge of the cellular mechanisms of LLLT by considering its effects on cell proliferation, metabolism, angiogenesis, apoptosis and inflammation. With a better understanding of the cellular mechanisms, bridging findings from laboratory studies to clinical application can be improved.

Nivolumab in Patients with Recurrent or Metastatic Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck: Efficacy and Safety in CheckMate 141 by Prior Cetuximab Use.

PURPOSE: Cetuximab, which modulates immune responses, may affect the efficacy of subsequent immunotherapy. Here, we assessed outcomes with nivolumab, by prior cetuximab exposure, in patients with recurrent or metastatic (R/M) squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) who had experienced progression within 6 months of platinum-containing chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the randomized, open-label, phase III CheckMate 141 trial, patients were randomized 2:1 to nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or investigator's choice (IC) of single-agent chemotherapy, with stratification by prior cetuximab exposure. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); additional endpoints were progression-free survival, objective response rate, and safety. RESULTS: In patients with prior cetuximab exposure, the median OS was 7.1 months with nivolumab versus 5.1 months with IC (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.62-1.15); OS benefit with nivolumab was maintained across most demographic subgroups. In patients without prior cetuximab exposure, the median OS was 8.2 months with nivolumab versus 4.9 months with IC (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.35-0.77); OS benefit with nivolumab was maintained across patient baseline subgroups including tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression (<1% or ≥1%). Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse event rates favored nivolumab versus IC in both subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab appeared to improve efficacy versus IC regardless of prior cetuximab use, supporting its use in patients with R/M SCCHN with or without prior cetuximab exposure. The reduction in risk of death with nivolumab compared with IC was greater in patients without prior cetuximab exposure versus with prior cetuximab exposure.