Measuring the Integration of Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy Plus Surgery for Early-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (MISSILE): Long-Term Clinical Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: For early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), surgery is the preferred approach in operable patients, whereas stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is preferred for medically inoperable patients. The combination of neoadjuvant SABR followed by surgery was tested in the MISSILE phase II trial. We report long-term outcomes, beyond 5 years of follow-up. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with T1-2N0M0 NSCLC with good performance status and adequate lung function were enrolled. Patients underwent neoadjuvant SABR followed by lobectomy/wedge resection. Forty enrolled patients received SABR, of which 36 patients proceeded to surgery. RESULTS: The pathologic and major complete response rates were 60% and 63%, respectively. Median follow-up was 6.6 years following surgery. Five-year overall, disease-free and cancer-specific survival were 66.7% (95% CI: 48.8-79.5), 58.3% (95% CI: 40.7-72.4) and 76.4% (95% CI: 58.2-87.4). Five-year local, regional and distant control were 93.5% (95% CI: 76.3-98.4), 80.1% (95% CI: 62.7-90.0) and 82.4% (95% CI: 64.9-91.7). After SABR and surgery, 16.7% (n=6) of patients experienced related grade ≥ 3 adverse events and there were no grade 5 events. CONCLUSION: The combined approach of SABR and surgery was safe and demonstrated reasonable long-term clinical outcomes, but similar to surgery alone.

Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in a Central/Ultra-Central Location: Executive Summary of the American Radium Society's Systematic Review and Guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: Definitive radiation therapy is considered standard therapy for medically inoperable early-stage NSCLC. Nevertheless, for patients with tumors located near structures such as the proximal tracheobronchial tree, esophagus, heart, spinal cord, and brachial plexus, the optimal management regimen is controversial. The objective was to develop expert multidisciplinary consensus guidelines on managing medically inoperable NSCLC located in a central or ultracentral location relative to critical organs at risk. METHODS: Case variants regarding centrally and ultracentrally located lung tumors were developed by the 15-member multidisciplinary American Radium Society (ARS) Thoracic Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) expert panel. A comprehensive review of the English medical literature was performed from January 1 1946 to December 31 2023 to inform consensus guidelines. Modified Delphi methods were used by the panel to evaluate the variants and procedures, with at least three rating points from median defining agreement/consensus. The guideline was then approved by the ARS Executive Committee and released for public comment per established ARS procedures. RESULTS: The Thoracic ARS AUC Panel identified 90 relevant references and obtained consensus in all variants. Radiotherapy alone was considered appropriate, with additional immunotherapy to be considered primarily in the clinical trial setting. Hypofractionated radiotherapy in eight to 18 fractions was considered appropriate for ultracentral lesions near the proximal tracheobronchial tree, upper trachea, and esophagus. For other ultracentral lesions near the heart, great vessels, brachial plexus, and spine, or for non-ultracentral but still central lesions, five-fraction stereotactic body radiation therapy was also considered an appropriate option. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy was considered appropriate and three-dimensional-conformal radiotherapy inappropriate for all variants. Other treatment planning techniques to decrease the risk of overdosing critical organs at risk were also considered. CONCLUSIONS: The ARS Thoracic AUC panel has developed multidisciplinary consensus guidelines for various presentations of stage I NSCLC in a central or ultracentral location.

American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria on Cardiac Toxicity Prevention and Management After Thoracic Radiotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: The multidisciplinary American Radium Society Thoracic Committee was assigned to create appropriate use criteria on cardiac toxicity prevention and management for patients undergoing radiotherapy. METHODS: A systematic review of the current literature was conducted. Case variants of patients with thoracic malignancies undergoing radiation were created based on presence or absence of cardiovascular risk factors and treatment-related risks assessed by dose exposure to the heart and cardiac substructures. Modified Delphi methodology was used to evaluate the variants and procedures, with less than or equal to three rating points from median defining agreement/consensus. RESULTS: A total of six variants were evaluated. The panel felt that patients with cardiac comorbidities at high risk for radiation-related cardiac toxicity should undergo a prescreening cardiac-focused history and physical (H&P) examination, electrocardiogram, cardiac imaging including an echocardiogram, and referral to a cardiologist/cardio-oncologist. Recommendations for those without cardiac comorbidities at low risk for cardiac toxicity were to undergo a baseline H&P examination only. Conversely, those without cardiac comorbidities but at high risk for radiation-related cardiac toxicity were recommended to undergo a prescreening electrocardiogram, in addition to a H&P examination. For patients with cardiac comorbidities at low risk for cardiac toxicity, the panel felt that prescreening and postscreening tests may be appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: The American Radium Society Thoracic appropriate use criteria panel has developed multidisciplinary consensus guidelines for cardiac toxicity prevention, surveillance, and management after thoracic radiotherapy based on cardiac comorbidities at presentation and risk of radiation-related cardiac toxicity.

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for oligoprogressive solid tumours: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to review evidence and pool outcomes to assess the effectiveness of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) in patients treated for oligoprogressive metastases. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A search was conducted January 2010 to January 2023 in five bibliographic databases for studies of patients with oligoprogressive disease treated with SABR to all lesions. Clinical outcomes included PFS (progression-free survival), OS (overall survival) and CST (change in systemic therapy). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. Binary random effects model was used for pooled analyses. RESULTS: 12,366 titles/abstracts screened, of which 25 met eligibility criteria and were included the review. All studies were published after 2017 with approximately 80% of the publications in 2021 and 2022. The primary tumour was prostate (n=8, 32%), kidney (n=6, 24%), colorectal (n=4, 16%) followed by breast (n=3, 12%), lung (n=2, 8%) and mixed (n=3, 12%). At 1 year, the pooled PFS was 44% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 34-53%, I2=91%); 53% (95% CI: 45-60%, I2=46%) in prostate, 49% (95% CI: 33-65%, I2=88%) in kidney, 62% (95% CI: 11-113%, I2=96%) in lung, 13% (95% CI: 3-24%, I2=39%) in breast and 30% (95% CI: 19-41%, I2=59%) in mixed. DISCUSSION: There has been a surge in publications describing the use of SABR in oligoprogressive tumours. Published studies are mostly retrospective reported in prostate and kidney cancers, with limited evidence in other sites. Universal guidelines are recommended to ensure consistency in reporting and comparability of future studies.

Corrigendum to "Androgen Deprivation and Radiotherapy with or Without Docetaxel for Localized High-risk Prostat Cancer: Long-term Follow-up from the Randomized NRG Oncology RTOG 0521 Trial" [Eur. Eurol. 84(2) (2023) 156-163].

BACKGROUND: Intensification of therapy may improve outcomes for patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To provide long-term follow-up data from phase III RTOG 0521, which compared a combination of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) + external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) + docetaxel with ADT + EBRT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: High-risk localized prostate cancer patients (>50% of patients had Gleason 9-10 disease) were prospectively randomized to 2 yr of ADT + EBRT or ADT + EBRT + six cycles of docetaxel. A total of 612 patients were accrued, and 563 were eligible and included in the modified intent-to-treat analysis. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Analyses with Cox proportional hazards were performed as prespecified in the protocol; however, there was evidence of nonproportional hazards. Thus, a post hoc analysis was performed using the restricted mean survival time (RMST). The secondary endpoints included biochemical failure, distant metastasis (DM) as detected by conventional imaging, and disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: After 10.4 yr of median follow-up among survivors, the hazard ratio (HR) for OS was 0.89 (90% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-1.14; one-sided log-rank p = 0.22). Survival at 10 yr was 64% for ADT + EBRT and 69% for ADT + EBRT + docetaxel. The RMST at 12 yr was 0.45 yr and not statistically significant (one-sided p = 0.053). No differences were detected in the incidence of DFS (HR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.73-1.14), DM (HR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.73-1.14), or prostate-specific antigen recurrence risk (HR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.74-1.29). Two patients had grade 5 toxicity in the chemotherapy arm and zero patients in the control arm. CONCLUSIONS: After a median follow-up of 10.4 yr among surviving patients, no significant differences are observed in clinical outcomes between the experimental and control arms. These data suggest that docetaxel should not be used for high-risk localized prostate cancer. Additional research may be warranted using novel predictive biomarkers. PATIENT SUMMARY: No significant differences in survival were noted after long-term follow-up for high-risk localized prostate cancer patients in a large prospective trial where patients were treated with androgen deprivation therapy + radiation to the prostate ± docetaxel.

Evaluating Peer Review of Palliative Radiation Plans at a Canadian Tertiary Care Cancer Center.

INTRODUCTION: Peer review (PR) of palliative-intent radiation plans is an important but understudied component of quality assurance. This retrospective review aims to improve our understanding of palliative PR by examining the characteristics of reviewed plans and peer feedback along with the associated time burden of two different types of PR processes. METHODS: This single-institution, quality assurance project assessed palliative PR between 2018 and 2020. Initially, the PR involved a multi-disciplinary team PR. Subsequently, it transitioned to independent PR by a single physician. Characteristics of reviewed plans and feedback on PR were captured and abstracted. Time requirements of PR were based on self-reported estimates and attendance records. RESULTS: A total of 1942 cases were reviewed, representing 85.7% (1942/2266) of all palliative-intent plans between 2018 and 2020. A total of 41.1% (n=799) were simple (2D/3D) radiation plans while 56.0% (n=1087) were complex (volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) or tomotherapy) plans. Approximately one-third (30.4%, n=590) of all plans were stereotactic treatments. The rate of any peer feedback was 2.3% (n=45), while the rate of a specific recommended or implemented change was 1.2% (n=24) and 0.9% (n=18), respectively. PR before the start of treatment was associated with more frequent recommended (p=0.005) and implemented changes (p=0.008). Most other factors, including plan complexity and use of stereotactic radiation, were not predictive in this analysis. Comparing the independent versus team PR approach, there was no significant difference in recommended or implemented changes. The mean±standard deviation (SD) staff time required per plan reviewed was 36±6 and 37±6 minutes, including 21±6 and 10±6 minutes of physician time, for team and independent PR, respectively. CONCLUSION: This work highlights the high frequency of complex and stereotactic radiation in the palliative setting, along with the importance of timely PR and the potential benefit of reviewing even simple, 2D/3D radiation plans. Additionally, from a process perspective, our work showed that independent PR may require less dedicated physician time.

Stereotactic Radiation for Ultra-Central Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Safety and Efficacy Trial (SUNSET).

PURPOSE: The use of stereotactic body radiation therapy for tumors in close proximity to the central mediastinal structures has been associated with a high risk of toxicity. This study (NCT03306680) aimed to determine the maximally tolerated dose of stereotactic body radiation therapy for ultracentral non-small cell lung carcinoma, using a time-to-event continual reassessment methodology. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with T1-3N0M0 (≤6 cm) non-small cell lung carcinoma were eligible. The maximally tolerated dose was defined as the dose of radiation therapy associated with a ≤30% rate of grade (G) 3 to 5 prespecified treatment-related toxicity occurring within 2 years of treatment. The starting dose level was 60 Gy in 8 daily fractions. The dose-maximum hotspot was limited to 120% and within the planning tumor volume; tumors with endobronchial invasion were excluded. This primary analysis occurred 2 years after completion of accrual. RESULTS: Between March 2018 and April 2021, 30 patients were enrolled at 5 institutions. The median age was 73 years (range, 65-87) and 17 (57%) were female. Planning tumor volume was abutting proximal bronchial tree in 19 (63%), esophagus 5 (17%), pulmonary vein 1 (3.3%), and pulmonary artery 14 (47%). All patients received 60 Gy in 8 fractions. The median follow-up was 37 months (range, 8.9-51). Two patients (6.7%) experienced G3-5 adverse events related to treatment: 1 patient with G3 dyspnea and 1 G5 pneumonia. The latter had computed tomography findings consistent with a background of interstitial lung disease. Three-year overall survival was 72.5% (95% CI, 52.3%-85.3%), progression-free survival 66.1% (95% CI, 46.1%-80.2%), local control 89.6% (95% CI, 71.2%-96.5%), regional control 96.4% (95% CI, 77.2%-99.5%), and distant control 85.9% (95% CI, 66.7%-94.5%). Quality-of-life scores declined numerically over time, but the decreases were not clinically or statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Sixty Gy in 8 fractions, planned and delivered with only a moderate hotspot, has a favorable adverse event rate within the prespecified acceptability criteria and results in excellent control for ultracentral tumors.

American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria for Unresectable Locally Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Importance: The treatment of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) has been informed by more than 5 decades of clinical trials and other relevant literature. However, controversies remain regarding the application of various radiation and systemic therapies in commonly encountered clinical scenarios. Objective: To develop case-referenced consensus and evidence-based guidelines to inform clinical practice in unresectable LA-NSCLC. Evidence Review: The American Radium Society (ARS) Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) Thoracic Committee guideline is an evidence-based consensus document assessing various clinical scenarios associated with LA-NSCLC. A systematic review of the literature with evidence ratings was conducted to inform the appropriateness of treatment recommendations by the ARS AUC Thoracic Committee for the management of unresectable LA-NSCLC. Findings: Treatment appropriateness of a variety of LA-NSCLC scenarios was assessed by a consensus-based modified Delphi approach using a range of 3 points to 9 points to denote consensus agreement. Committee recommendations were vetted by the ARS AUC Executive Committee and a 2-week public comment period before official approval and adoption. Standard of care management of good prognosis LA-NSCLC consists of combined concurrent radical (60-70 Gy) platinum-based chemoradiation followed by consolidation durvalumab immunotherapy (for patients without progression). Planning and delivery of locally advanced lung cancer radiotherapy usually should be performed using intensity-modulated radiotherapy techniques. A variety of palliative and radical fractionation schedules are available to treat patients with poor performance and/or pulmonary status. The salvage therapy for a local recurrence after successful primary management is complex and likely requires both multidisciplinary input and shared decision-making with the patient. Conclusions and Relevance: Evidence-based guidance on the management of various unresectable LA-NSCLC scenarios is provided by the ARS AUC to optimize multidisciplinary patient care for this challenging patient population.

Stereotactic Radiation Therapy in Early Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and Interstitial Lung Disease: A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) and early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have been reported to be at high risk of toxic effects after stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR), but for many patients, there are limited alternative treatment options. Objective: To prospectively assess the benefits and toxic effects of SABR in this patient population. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study was conducted at 6 academic radiation oncology institutions, 5 in Canada and 1 in Scotland, with accrual between March 7, 2019, and January 12, 2022. Patients aged 18 years or older with fibrotic ILD and a diagnosis of T1-2N0 NSCLC who were not candidates for surgical resection were enrolled. Intervention: Patients were treated with SABR to a dose of 50 Gy in 5 fractions every other day. Main Outcomes and Measures: The study prespecified that SABR would be considered worthwhile if median overall survival-the primary end point-was longer than 1 year, with a grade 3 to 4 risk of toxic effects less than 35% and a grade 5 risk of toxic effects less than 15%. Secondary end points included toxic effects, progression-free survival (PFS), local control (LC), quality-of-life outcomes, and changes in pulmonary function. Intention-to-treat analysis was conducted. Results: Thirty-nine patients enrolled and received SABR. Median age was 78 (IQR, 67-83) years and 59% (n = 23) were male. At baseline, 70% (26 of 37) of patients reported dyspnea, median forced expiratory volume in first second of expiration was 80% (IQR, 66%-90%) predicted, median forced vital capacity was 84% (IQR, 69%-94%) predicted, and median diffusion capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide was 49% (IQR, 38%-61%) predicted. Median follow-up was 19 (IQR, 14-25) months. Overall survival at 1 year was 79% (95%, CI 62%-89%; P < .001 vs the unacceptable rate), and median overall survival was 25 months (95% CI, 14 months to not reached). Median PFS was 19 months (95% CI, 13-28 months), and 2-year LC was 92% (95% CI, 69%-98%). Adverse event rates (highest grade per patient) were grade 1 to 2: n = 12 (31%), grade 3: n = 4 (10%), grade 4: n = 0, and grade 5: n = 3 (7.7%, all due to respiratory deterioration). Conclusions and Relevance: In this trial, use of SABR in patients with fibrotic ILD met the prespecified acceptability thresholds for both toxicity and efficacy, supporting the use of SABR for curative-intent treatment after a careful discussion of risks and benefits. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03485378.

Long-Term Outcomes Following Fairly Brief Androgen Suppression and Stereotactic Radiation Therapy in High-Risk Prostate Cancer: Update From the FASTR/FASTR-2 Trials.

PURPOSE: There is limited data on the long-term outcomes of ultrahypofractionated radiation therapy in high-risk prostate cancer. The FASTR and FASTR-2 trials were designed to assess the tolerability of stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) in this context. Herein, the long-term results are reported. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eligible patients had localized high-risk prostate cancer and were either ≥70 years old, had a score of ≥3 on the Vulnerable Elderly Scale, or declined standard therapy. Nineteen patients from a single institution were enrolled on FASTR between 2011 and 2015. They received 40 Gy to the prostate and 25 Gy to the pelvic lymph nodes in 5 weekly fractions, with 12 months of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Thirty patients from the same institution were enrolled on FASTR-2 between 2015 and 2017. They received 35 Gy to the prostate alone in 5 weekly fractions, with 18 months of ADT. Updated toxicity and outcomes were assessed retrospectively. Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated for biochemical failure-free survival, freedom from distant metastases, prostate cancer-specific survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: Forty-four patients were eligible for analysis, 16 from FASTR and 28 from FASTR-2. Thirty-four patients (77%) were >70 years old. High-risk features included Gleason score ≥8 (n = 20, 46%), T3-T4 disease (n = 12, 27%), and baseline prostate-specific antigen > 20 (n = 22, 50%). Median follow-up was 6.4 years. The 5-year cumulative incidence of late grade ≥3 genitourinary/gastrointestinal toxicity was 32% in FASTR and 11% in FASTR-2. At 5 years, the combined rates of biochemical failure-free survival, freedom from distant metastases, prostate cancer-specific survival, and overall survival were 72%, 90%, 92%, and 83%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: SABR can be safely delivered in high-risk prostate cancer by optimizing technical delivery, particularly with adherence to strict dose constraints for organs at risk. The clinical outcomes in FASTR and FASTR-2 were largely comparable to more standard fractionation schemes plus ADT, but further modifications may improve disease control. Larger randomized trials are necessary to better understand the efficacy and tolerability of this approach.

What is the predictive value of RECIST criteria following stereotactic lung radiation?

PURPOSE: Response EvaluationCriteriain Solid Tumors (RECIST) is commonly used to assess response to anti-cancer therapies. However, its application after lung stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is complicated by radiation-induced lung changes. This study assesses the frequency of progressive disease (PD) by RECIST following lung SABR and correlates this with actual treatment outcomes as determined by longitudinal follow-up. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We reviewed patients treated with lung SABR for primary lung tumors or oligometastases between 2010 and 2015. Patients were treated with SABR doses of 54-60 Gy in 3-8 fractions. All follow-up scans were assessed and the treated lesion was serially measured over time, with the maximum diameter on axial CT slices used for RECIST calculations. Lesions demonstrating PD by RECIST criteria were identified and subsequently followed for long-term outcomes. The final 'gold-standard' assessment of response was based on size changes after PD and, as available, positron emission tomography scan and/or biopsy. RESULTS: Eighty-eight lesions met inclusion criteria. Seventy-five were lung primaries and thirteen were lung metastases. Median follow-up was 52 months (interquartile range: 33-68). Two-thirds (66 %, 58/88) of treated lesions met RECIST criteria for PD; however, local recurrence was only confirmed in 16 % (9/58) of cases. Most lesions that triggered PD by RECIST (47/58, 81 %) were ultimately found not to represent recurrence, while a minority (2/58, 3 %) had an uncertain response. The positive predictive value [PPV] of a RECIST defined PD event was 0.16. If PD was triggered within 12-months post-treatment, PPV was 0.08, compared to 0.21 for lesions triggering PD after 12-months. CONCLUSION: Using RECIST criteria, two-thirds of patients treated with lung SABR met criteria for PD. However, only a minority had recurrence, leading to a poor PPV of RECIST. This highlights the limitations of RECIST in this setting and provides context for physicians when interpreting post-lung SABR imaging.

Real-World Analysis of Durvalumab after Chemoradiation in Stage III Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

The 2017 PACIFIC trial heralded the incorporation of routine adjuvant durvalumab following curative-intent chemoradiation for stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, carefully selected clinical trial populations can differ significantly from real-world populations, which can have implications on treatment toxicities and outcomes, making it difficult to accurately counsel patients. Consequently, we performed a real-world, retrospective analysis of outcomes and toxicities in 118 patients with stage III NSCLC treated with durvalumab after platinum-based chemoradiotherapy. The data were collected from patients who underwent treatment at a single, tertiary-level Canadian cancer centre from May 2018 to October 2020. The variables collected included patient demographics, treatment specifics, progression-free survival, overall survival, and immune-related adverse events (IRAE) from durvalumab. Descriptive statistics were used for toxicity analysis, and progression-free survival and overall survival estimates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The statistical analyses indicated a 64.4% (n = 76) toxicity rate, with a 21% (n = 25) toxicity rate of grade 3+ IRAEs. The most common documented IRAEs were pneumonitis (n = 44; 40%), followed by rash (n = 20; 18%) and thyroid dysfunction (n = 17; 15%). FEV1 and DLCO were not found to be associated predictors of pneumonitis toxicity. The median PFS and OS were estimated to be >1.7 years and >2.7 years, respectively.

Stereotactic or Conventional Radiation for Early-Stage Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) has been increasingly used for the treatment of inoperable early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). It has been shown to provide promising local control (LC) and toxicity in prospective trials. However, randomized trials have shown conflicting results in terms of whether SABR confers an overall survival (OS) advantage compared to conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT). A systematic review of Medline and Embase (inception to December 2020) was performed on early-stage NSCLC patients randomized to SABR versus CFRT. Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and manuscripts. A random-effects model was used to estimate treatment effects. Toxicity outcomes were compared by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Individual patient data were digitally approximated and pooled as secondary analysis. The literature search identified 1494 studies, and 16 studies were included for full-text review. Two randomized trials were identified, including a total of 203 patients, of which 115 (57%) received SABR, and 88 (43%) received CFRT. The weighted mean age was 74 years and 48% of patients were male. Most patients had T1 cancers (67%). Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy was not associated with a significant improvement in OS (hazard ratio: 0.84; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34-2.08, p=0.71). There was no significant difference in LC between SABR and CFRT (relative risk: 0.59; CI 0.28-1.23, p=0.16). Of the commonly reported adverse events, one grade 4 toxicity of dyspnea was reported for SABR, while all others i.e., grade 3 or higher toxicities were similar. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy demonstrated less esophagitis, dyspnea, and skin reaction of any grade. Despite widespread adoption and extensive single-arm prospective and retrospective studies suggesting its benefit, this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials fail to confirm improvements in LC, OS, and toxicity profile of SABR over CFRT in early NSCLC. This small study is likely underpowered to detect clinically significant differences.

Planning for the Effect of the SC.24 Trial on Spine Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Utilization at a Tertiary Cancer Center.

Purpose: The goal of this study was to assess the potential real-world effect of the recently reported SC.24 trial on spine stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) utilization. We estimated the proportion of patients treated with conventional radiation therapy (CRT) who would have been eligible for spine SBRT per trial inclusion criteria and analyzed the potential estimated increased costs to our institution. Methods and Materials: This was a retrospective review of patients who received spine CRT at our institution between August and October 2020. Data abstracted included demographics, SC.24 eligibility criteria, provider-reported pain response, and survival. A cost analysis and time survey was performed using institutional and provincial data. Results: Of 73 patients reviewed, 24 patients (33%) were eligible. The most common exclusion factors included irradiation of ≥3 consecutive spinal segments (n = 32, 44%), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status >2 (n = 17, 23%), and symptomatic spinal cord compression (n = 13, 18%). Of eligible patients, the mean age was 68.92 years, median spinal instability in neoplasia score was 8 (interquartile range, 7-9), and median Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status was 2 (interquartile range, 1-2). The most common primary cancer types among eligible patients were lung (n = 10) and breast (n = 4). The median survival of eligible patients was 10 months (95% confidence interval, 4 months to not reached) with 58% surviving longer than 3 months. Of patients who had subjective pain documented after CRT, 54% had at least some response. The cost of spine SBRT was estimated at CA$4764.80 compared with $3589.10 for CRT, and tasks for spine SBRT took roughly 3 times as long as those for CRT. Conclusions: One-third of patients who received palliative spine CRT met eligibility criteria for SC.24. This possible expanded indication for spine SBRT can have a substantial effect on resource utilization. These data may be useful in guiding resource planning at institutions looking to commence a spine SBRT program.

American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria for Radiation Therapy in the Multidisciplinary Management of Thymic Carcinoma.

Importance: Thymic carcinoma is rare, and its oncologic management is controversial due to a paucity of prospective data. For this reason, multidisciplinary consensus guidelines are crucial to guide oncologic management. Objective: To develop expert multidisciplinary consensus guidelines on the management of common presentations of thymic carcinoma. Evidence Review: Case variants spanning the spectrum of stage I to IV thymic carcinoma were developed by the 15-member multidisciplinary American Radium Society (ARS) Thoracic Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) expert panel to address management controversies. A comprehensive review of the English-language medical literature from 1980 to 2021 was performed to inform consensus guidelines. Variants and procedures were evaluated by the panel using modified Delphi methodology. Agreement/consensus was defined as less than or equal to 3 rating points from median. Consensus recommendations were then approved by the ARS Executive Committee and subject to public comment per established ARS procedures. Findings: The ARS Thoracic AUC panel identified 89 relevant references and obtained consensus for all procedures evaluated for thymic carcinoma. Minimally invasive thymectomy was rated as usually inappropriate (regardless of stage) due to the infiltrative nature of thymic carcinomas. There was consensus that conventionally fractionated radiation (1.8-2 Gy daily) to a dose of 45 to 60 Gy adjuvantly and 60 to 66 Gy in the definitive setting is appropriate and that elective nodal irradiation is inappropriate. For radiation technique, the panel recommended use of intensity-modulated radiation therapy or proton therapy (rather than 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy) to reduce radiation exposure to the heart and lungs. Conclusions and Relevance: The ARS Thoracic AUC panel has developed multidisciplinary consensus guidelines for various presentations of thymic carcinoma, perhaps the most well referenced on the topic.

Early mortality in patients with cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors in routine practice.

BACKGROUND: We sought to estimate the proportion of patients with cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) who die soon after starting ICI in the real world and examine factors associated with early mortality (EM). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using linked health administrative data from Ontario, Canada. EM was defined as death from any cause within 60 days of ICI initiation. Patients with melanoma, lung, bladder, head and neck, or kidney cancer treated with ICI between 2012 and 2020 were included. RESULTS: A total of 7126 patients treated with ICI were evaluated. Fifteen percent (1075 of 7126) died within 60 days of initiating ICI. The highest mortality was observed in patients with bladder and head and neck tumors (approximately 21% each). In multivariable analysis, previous hospital admission or emergency department visit, prior chemotherapy or radiation therapy, stage 4 disease at diagnosis, lower hemoglobin, higher white blood cell count, and higher symptom burden were associated with higher risk of EM. Conversely, patients with lung and kidney cancer (compared with melanoma), lower neutrophil to lymphocytes ratio, and with higher body mass index were less likely to die within 60 days post ICI initiation. In a sensitivity analysis, 30-day and 90-day mortality were 7% (519 of 7126) and 22% (1582 of 7126), respectively, with comparable clinical factors associated with EM identified. CONCLUSIONS: EM is common among patients treated with ICI in the real-world setting and is associated with several patient and tumor characteristics. Development of a validated tool to predict EM may facilitate better patient selection for treatment with ICI in routine practice.

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy before resection to avoid delay for early-stage lung cancer or oligometastases during the COVID-19 pandemic: Pathologic outcomes from the SABR-BRIDGE protocol.

BACKGROUND: During coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related operating room closures, some multidisciplinary thoracic oncology teams adopted a paradigm of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) as a bridge to surgery, an approach called SABR-BRIDGE. This study presents the preliminary surgical and pathological results. METHODS: Eligible participants from four institutions (three in Canada and one in the United States) had early-stage presumed or biopsy-proven lung malignancy that would normally be surgically resected. SABR was delivered using standard institutional guidelines, with surgery >3 months following SABR with standardized pathologic assessment. Pathological complete response (pCR) was defined as absence of viable cancer. Major pathologic response (MPR) was defined as ≤10% viable tissue. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients underwent SABR. Most common SABR regimens were 34 Gy/1 (29%, n = 21), 48 Gy/3-4 (26%, n = 19), and 50/55 Gy/5 (22%, n = 16). SABR was well-tolerated, with one grade 5 toxicity (death 10 days after SABR with COVID-19) and five grade 2-3 toxicities. Following SABR, 26 patients underwent resection thus far (13 pending surgery). Median time-to-surgery was 4.5 months post-SABR (range, 2-17.5 months). Surgery was reported as being more difficult because of SABR in 38% (n = 10) of cases. Thirteen patients (50%) had pCR and 19 (73%) had MPR. Rates of pCR trended higher in patients operated on at earlier time points (75% if within 3 months, 50% if 3-6 months, and 33% if ≥6 months; p = .069). In the exploratory best-case scenario analysis, pCR rate does not exceed 82%. CONCLUSIONS: The SABR-BRIDGE approach allowed for delivery of treatment during a period of operating room closure and was well-tolerated. Even in the best-case scenario, pCR rate does not exceed 82%.

Androgen Deprivation and Radiotherapy with or Without Docetaxel for Localized High-risk Prostate Cancer: Long-term Follow-up from the Randomized NRG Oncology RTOG 0521 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Intensification of therapy may improve outcomes for patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To provide long-term follow-up data from phase III RTOG 0521, which compared a combination of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) + external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) + docetaxel with ADT + EBRT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: High-risk localized prostate cancer patients (>50% of patients had Gleason 9-10 disease) were prospectively randomized to 2 yr of ADT + EBRT or ADT + EBRT + six cycles of docetaxel. A total of 612 patients were accrued, and 563 were eligible and included in the modified intent-to-treat analysis. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Analyses with Cox proportional hazards were performed as prespecified in the protocol; however, there was evidence of nonproportional hazards. Thus, a post hoc analysis was performed using the restricted mean survival time (RMST). The secondary endpoints included biochemical failure, distant metastasis (DM) as detected by conventional imaging, and disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: After 10.4 yr of median follow-up among survivors, the hazard ratio (HR) for OS was 0.89 (90% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-1.14; one-sided log-rank p = 0.22). Survival at 10 yr was 64% for ADT + EBRT and 69% for ADT + EBRT + docetaxel. The RMST at 12 yr was 0.45 yr and not statistically significant (one-sided p = 0.053). No differences were detected in the incidence of DFS (HR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.73-1.14), DM (HR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.73-1.14), or prostate-specific antigen recurrence risk (HR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.74-1.29). Two patients had grade 5 toxicity in the chemotherapy arm and zero patients in the control arm. CONCLUSIONS: After a median follow-up of 10.4 yr among surviving patients, no significant differences are observed in clinical outcomes between the experimental and control arms. These data suggest that docetaxel should not be used for high-risk localized prostate cancer. Additional research may be warranted using novel predictive biomarkers. PATIENT SUMMARY: No significant differences in survival were noted after long-term follow-up for high-risk localized prostate cancer patients in a large prospective trial where patients were treated with androgen deprivation therapy + radiation to the prostate ± docetaxel.

ASTRO Radiation Therapy Summary of the ASCO Guideline on Management of Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: To develop a radiation therapy summary of recommendations on the management of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) based on the Management of Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Guideline, which was endorsed by the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO). METHODS: The American Society of Clinical Oncology, ASTRO, and the American College of Chest Physicians convened a multidisciplinary panel to develop a guideline based on a systematic review of the literature and a formal consensus process, that has been separately published. A new panel consisting of radiation oncologists from the original guideline as well as additional ASTRO members was formed to provide further guidance to the radiation oncology community. A total of 127 articles met the eligibility criteria to answer 5 clinical questions. This summary focuses on the 3 radiation therapy questions (neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and unresectable settings). RESULTS: Radiation-specific recommendations are summarized with additional relevant commentary on specific questions regarding the management of preoperative radiation, postoperative radiation, and combined chemoradiation. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with stage III NSCLC who are planned for surgical resection, should receive either neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiation. The addition of neoadjuvant treatment is particularly important in patients planned for surgery in the N2 or superior sulcus settings. Postoperatively, patients who did not receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy should be offered adjuvant chemotherapy. The use of postoperative radiation for completely resected N2 disease is not routinely recommended. Unresectable patients with stage III NSCLC should ideally be managed with combined concurrent chemoradiation using a platinum-based doublet with a standard radiation dose of 60 Gy followed by consolidation durvalumab in patients without progression after initial therapy. Patients who cannot tolerate a concurrent chemoradiation approach can be managed either by sequential chemotherapy followed by radiation or by dose-escalated or hypofractionated radiation alone.

Ensuring Superior Reporting of Radiation Therapy Noninferiority Trials: A Systematic Review.

Purpose: Although the frequency of noninferiority trials is increasing, the consistency of the reporting of these trials can vary. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the reporting quality of radiation therapy noninferiority trials. Methods and Materials: The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were queried for randomized controlled radiation therapy trials with noninferiority hypotheses published in English between January 2000 and July 2022, and this was performed by an information scientist. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize data. Results: Of 423 records screened, 59 (14%) were included after full-text review. All were published after 2003 and open label. The most common primary cancer type was breast (n = 15, 25%). Altered radiation fractionation (n = 26, 45%) and radiation de-escalation (n = 11, 19%) were the most common types of interventions. The most common primary endpoints were locoregional control (n = 17, 29%) and progression-free survival (n = 14, 24%). Fifty-three (90%) reported the noninferiority margin, and only 9 (17%) provided statistical justification for the margin. The median absolute noninferiority margin was 9% (interquartile range, 5%-10%), and the median relative margin was 1.51 (interquartile range, 1.33-2.04). Sample size calculations and confidence intervals were reported in 54 studies (92%). Both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were reported in 27 studies (46%). In 31 trials (53%), noninferiority of the primary endpoint was reached. Conclusions: There was variability in the reporting of key components of noninferiority trials. We encourage consideration of additional statistical reasoning such as guidelines or previous trials in the selection of the noninferiority margin, reporting both absolute and relative margins, and the avoidance of statistically vague or misleading language in the reporting of future noninferiority trials.