Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus standard radiotherapy in stage 1 non-small-cell lung cancer (TROG 09.02 CHISEL): a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) is widely used to treat inoperable stage 1 non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), despite the absence of prospective evidence that this type of treatment improves local control or prolongs overall survival compared with standard radiotherapy. We aimed to compare the two treatment techniques. METHODS: We did this multicentre, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial in 11 hospitals in Australia and three hospitals in New Zealand. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, had biopsy-confirmed stage 1 (T1-T2aN0M0) NSCLC diagnosed on the basis of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET, and were medically inoperable or had refused surgery. Patients had to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and the tumour had to be peripherally located. Patients were randomly assigned after stratification for T stage and operability in a 2:1 ratio to SABR (54 Gy in three 18 Gy fractions, or 48 Gy in four 12 Gy fractions if the tumour was <2 cm from the chest wall) or standard radiotherapy (66 Gy in 33 daily 2 Gy fractions or 50 Gy in 20 daily 2·5 Gy fractions, depending on institutional preference) using minimisation, so no sequence was pre-generated. Clinicians, patients, and data managers had no previous knowledge of the treatment group to which patients would be assigned; however, the treatment assignment was subsequently open label (because of the nature of the interventions). The primary endpoint was time to local treatment failure (assessed according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.0), with the hypothesis that SABR would result in superior local control compared with standard radiotherapy. All efficacy analyses were based on the intention-to-treat analysis. Safety analyses were done on a per-protocol basis, according to treatment that the patients actually received. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01014130) and the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12610000479000). The trial is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between Dec 31, 2009, and June 22, 2015, 101 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive SABR (n=66) or standard radiotherapy (n=35). Five (7·6%) patients in the SABR group and two (6·5%) in the standard radiotherapy group did not receive treatment, and a further four in each group withdrew before study end. As of data cutoff (July 31, 2017), median follow-up for local treatment failure was 2·1 years (IQR 1·2-3·6) for patients randomly assigned to standard radiotherapy and 2·6 years (IQR 1·6-3·6) for patients assigned to SABR. 20 (20%) of 101 patients had progressed locally: nine (14%) of 66 patients in the SABR group and 11 (31%) of 35 patients in the standard radiotherapy group, and freedom from local treatment failure was improved in the SABR group compared with the standard radiotherapy group (hazard ratio 0·32, 95% CI 0·13-0·77, p=0·0077). Median time to local treatment failure was not reached in either group. In patients treated with SABR, there was one grade 4 adverse event (dyspnoea) and seven grade 3 adverse events (two cough, one hypoxia, one lung infection, one weight loss, one dyspnoea, and one fatigue) related to treatment compared with two grade 3 events (chest pain) in the standard treatment group. INTERPRETATION: In patients with inoperable peripherally located stage 1 NSCLC, compared with standard radiotherapy, SABR resulted in superior local control of the primary disease without an increase in major toxicity. The findings of this trial suggest that SABR should be the treatment of choice for this patient group. FUNDING: The Radiation and Optometry Section of the Australian Government Department of Health with the assistance of Cancer Australia, and the Cancer Society of New Zealand and the Cancer Research Trust New Zealand (formerly Genesis Oncology Trust).

Audiovisual biofeedback breathing guidance for lung cancer patients receiving radiotherapy: a multi-institutional phase II randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a clear link between irregular breathing and errors in medical imaging and radiation treatment. The audiovisual biofeedback system is an advanced form of respiratory guidance that has previously demonstrated to facilitate regular patient breathing. The clinical benefits of audiovisual biofeedback will be investigated in an upcoming multi-institutional, randomised, and stratified clinical trial recruiting a total of 75 lung cancer patients undergoing radiation therapy. METHODS/DESIGN: To comprehensively perform a clinical evaluation of the audiovisual biofeedback system, a multi-institutional study will be performed. Our methodological framework will be based on the widely used Technology Acceptance Model, which gives qualitative scales for two specific variables, perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, which are fundamental determinants for user acceptance. A total of 75 lung cancer patients will be recruited across seven radiation oncology departments across Australia. Patients will be randomised in a 2:1 ratio, with 2/3 of the patients being recruited into the intervention arm and 1/3 in the control arm. 2:1 randomisation is appropriate as within the interventional arm there is a screening procedure where only patients whose breathing is more regular with audiovisual biofeedback will continue to use this system for their imaging and treatment procedures. Patients within the intervention arm whose free breathing is more regular than audiovisual biofeedback in the screen procedure will remain in the intervention arm of the study but their imaging and treatment procedures will be performed without audiovisual biofeedback. Patients will also be stratified by treating institution and for treatment intent (palliative vs. radical) to ensure similar balance in the arms across the sites. Patients and hospital staff operating the audiovisual biofeedback system will complete questionnaires to assess their experience with audiovisual biofeedback. The objectives of this clinical trial is to assess the impact of audiovisual biofeedback on breathing motion, the patient experience and clinical confidence in the system, clinical workflow, treatment margins, and toxicity outcomes. DISCUSSION: This clinical trial marks an important milestone in breathing guidance studies as it will be the first randomised, controlled trial providing the most comprehensive evaluation of the clinical impact of breathing guidance on cancer radiation therapy to date. This study is powered to determine the impact of AV biofeedback on breathing regularity and medical image quality. Objectives such as determining the indications and contra-indications for the use of AV biofeedback, evaluation of patient experience, radiation toxicity occurrence and severity, and clinician confidence will shed light on the design of future phase III clinical trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial has been registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), its trial ID is ACTRN12613001177741 .

Long-Term Outcomes of TROG 13.01 SAFRON II Randomized Trial of Single- Versus Multifraction Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy for Pulmonary Oligometastases.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.In a randomized phase II clinical trial, the Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group compared single- versus multifraction stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) in 90 patients with 133 oligometastases to the lung. The study found no differences in safety, efficacy, systemic immunogenicity, or survival between arms, with single-fraction SABR picked as the winner on the basis of cost-effectiveness. In this article, we report the final updated survival outcome analysis. The protocol mandated no concurrent or post-therapy systemic therapy until progression. Modified disease-free survival (mDFS) was defined as any progression not addressable by local therapy, or death. At a median follow-up of 5.4 years, the 3- and 5-year estimates for overall survival (OS) were 70% (95% CI, 59 to 78) and 51% (95% CI, 39 to 61). There were no significant differences between the multi- and single-fraction arms for OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.1 [95% CI, 0.6 to 2.0]; P = .81). The 3- and 5-year estimates for disease-free survival were 24% (95% CI, 16 to 33) and 20% (95% CI, 13 to 29), with no differences between arms (HR, 1.0 [95% CI, 0.6 to 1.6]; P = .92). The 3- and 5-year estimates for mDFS were 39% (95% CI, 29 to 49) and 34% (95% CI, 24 to 44), with no differences between arms (HR, 1.0 [95% CI, 0.6 to 1.8]; P = .90). In this patient population, where patients receive SABR in lieu of systemic therapy, one-in-three patients are alive without disease in the long term. There were no differences in outcomes by fractionation schedule.

Implementation of the Australian Computer-Assisted Theragnostics (AusCAT) network for radiation oncology data extraction, reporting and distributed learning.

INTRODUCTION: There is significant potential to analyse and model routinely collected data for radiotherapy patients to provide evidence to support clinical decisions, particularly where clinical trials evidence is limited or non-existent. However, in practice there are administrative, ethical, technical, logistical and legislative barriers to having coordinated data analysis platforms across radiation oncology centres. METHODS: A distributed learning network of computer systems is presented, with software tools to extract and report on oncology data and to enable statistical model development. A distributed or federated learning approach keeps data in the local centre, but models are developed from the entire cohort. RESULTS: The feasibility of this approach is demonstrated across six Australian oncology centres, using routinely collected lung cancer data from oncology information systems. The infrastructure was used to validate and develop machine learning for model-based clinical decision support and for one centre to assess patient eligibility criteria for two major lung cancer radiotherapy clinical trials (RTOG-9410, RTOG-0617). External validation of a 2-year overall survival model for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) gave an AUC of 0.65 and C-index of 0.62 across the network. For one centre, 65% of Stage III NSCLC patients did not meet eligibility criteria for either of the two practice-changing clinical trials, and these patients had poorer survival than eligible patients (10.6 m vs. 15.8 m, P = 0.024). CONCLUSION: Population-based studies on routine data are possible using a distributed learning approach. This has the potential for decision support models for patients for whom supporting clinical trial evidence is not applicable.

Single-Fraction vs Multifraction Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy for Pulmonary Oligometastases (SAFRON II): The Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group 13.01 Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Evidence is lacking from randomized clinical trials to guide the optimal approach for stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) in patients with pulmonary oligometastases. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether single-fraction or multifraction SABR is more effective for the treatment of patients with pulmonary oligometastases. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This multicenter, unblinded, phase 2 randomized clinical trial of 90 patients across 13 centers in Australia and New Zealand enrolled patients with 1 to 3 lung oligometastases less than or equal to 5 cm from any nonhematologic malignant tumors located away from the central airways, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1, and all primary and extrathoracic disease controlled with local therapy. Enrollment was from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2018, with a minimum patient follow-up of 2 years. INTERVENTIONS: Single fraction of 28 Gy (single-fraction arm) or 4 fractions of 12 Gy (multifraction arm) to each oligometastasis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The main outcome was grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurring within 1 year of SABR. Secondary outcomes were freedom from local failure, overall survival, disease-free survival, and patient-reported outcomes (MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Lung Cancer and EuroQol 5-dimension visual analog scale). RESULTS: Ninety participants were randomized, of whom 87 were treated for 133 pulmonary oligometastases. The mean (SD) age was 66.6 [11.6] years; 58 (64%) were male. Median follow-up was 36.5 months (interquartile range, 24.8-43.9 months). The numbers of grade 3 or higher AEs related to treatment at 1 year were 2 (5%; 80% CI, 1%-13%) in the single-fraction arm and 1 (3%; 80% CI, 0%-10%) in the multifraction arm, with no significant difference observed between arms. One grade 5 AE occurred in the multifraction arm. No significant differences were found between the multifraction arm and single-fraction arm for freedom from local failure (hazard ratio [HR], 0.5; 95% CI, 0.2-1.3; P = .13), overall survival (HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 0.6-3.7; P = .44), or disease-free survival (HR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.6-1.6; P > .99). There were no significant differences observed in patient-reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this randomized clinical trial, neither arm demonstrated evidence of superior safety, efficacy, or symptom burden; however, single-fraction SABR is more efficient to deliver. Therefore, single-fraction SABR, as assessed by the most acceptable outcome profile from all end points, could be chosen to escalate to future studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01965223.

Synchronous multiple ipsilateral breast cancers: implications for patient management.

Interest in the presence and management of synchronous multiple ipsilateral breast cancer has been reported since the early 1920s. The demonstration of multiple foci of breast cancer has been reported in 9-75% of breast cancer related specimens. The large difference in reported incidence is multifactorial and related to the definitions applied, mode of detection and pathological assessment. However, randomised clinical trials comparing total mastectomy and segmental mastectomy with or without radiation over many years have shown no difference in distant disease-free survival or overall survival in patients with synchronous multiple ipsilateral breast cancer compared with unifocal breast cancer. This review examines the current definitions, incidence, pathological assessment, staging and surgical options of synchronous multiple ipsilateral breast cancer.

Temporal impact of the publication of guidelines and randomised evidence on the adoption of hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy for early-stage breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical data supporting the use of hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy (HF-WBRT) in early-stage breast cancer patients have accumulated over the last decade. Despite the availability of the published evidence, the adoption rate of HF-WBRT has been slower-than-expected. We sought to assess the temporal impact of the publication of the guidelines and randomised evidence on the practice pattern of HF-WBRT and identify clinical predictors of its utilisation. METHODS: Women with early-stage breast cancer who received adjuvant WBRT at Canberra Health Services between 2008 and 2016 were identified from clinical databases. The patterns of HF-WBRT use were analysed in relation to pre-specified time periods (before and after the guideline publications) in the entire cohort as well as in a patient subset fulfilling the criteria for HF-WBRT according to the guidelines (referred to as 'guideline-endorsed subset'). The impact of clinical variables, treating clinicians and the time periods on the adoption of HF-WBRT was assessed by hierarchical multivariate logistic regressions. RESULTS: Of the entire cohort (n = 1171), the guideline-endorsed subset constituted 51.6% (n = 604) of the patients. HF-WBRT was utilised in 32.8% of the entire cohort and 46.2% of the guideline-endorsed subset. Between 2008 and 2016, HF-WBRT use rate increased from 12.1% to 56.6% in a non-linear pattern. Release of international and local consensus guidelines significantly correlated with the increase in HF-WBRT utilisation rate. The use of chemotherapy and/or tumour bed boost radiotherapy (TBBR), chest wall sepJMIROtion distance (CWSD) and patient age were significant predictors of HF-WBRT use on multivariate analyses. After factoring in the effects of individual clinicians and the time periods on hierarchical multivariate analyses, the use of chemotherapy, TBBR, and CWSD remained as significant variables. Clinicians contributed to the variability in the HF-WBRT adoption pattern. CONCLUSION: The temporal uptake pattern and the predictors of adjuvant HF-WBRT use in early breast cancer patients largely reflected the accumulating clinical evidence and the publication of the consensus guidelines. This study identified potentially modifiable factors associated with slower-than-expected uptake rate of HF-WBRT. Understanding why there is variability in clinicians' readiness to adopt the abbreviated treatment despite the availability of advanced radiotherapy techniques and the updated evidence is an important step towards formulating effective strategies to optimise the radiotherapeutic management of this common malignancy.

IHC4 score plus clinical treatment score predicts locoregional recurrence in early breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Immunohistochemical 4 (IHC4) score plus Clinical Treatment Score (CTS) is an inexpensive tool predicting risk of distant recurrence in women with early breast cancer (EBC). IHC4 score is based on ER, PR, HER2 and Ki67 index. This study explores the role of the combined score (IHC4 + CTS) in predicting risk of locoregional recurrence (LRR) in women with EBC who had breast conservation surgery (BCS) without adjuvant radiotherapy (study group). The secondary objective was to evaluate the clinicopathological differences between our study group and women who had adjuvant radiation following BCS (control group). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients were selected from the local database over a 13-year period. IHC testing was done where results were missing. Combined scores were calculated using the appropriate formulae. RESULTS: Patients in the study group (81 patients) had favorable clinicopathological features compared to the control group (1406 patients). The Cox regression indicated a statistically significant association between the combined score and the risk of LRR (p = 0.03). The incidence of LRR was zero, 20% and 33.3% in the low, intermediate and high risk groups respectively (p = 0.007). Margin status was the only variable not included in the combined score. The Cox regression analysis demonstrated that the combined score (p = 0.02) and the ordinal measure of margins (p = 0.03) were significant independent predictors of LRR. CONCLUSION: This is the first study of its kind. The IHC4 score + CTS can be used to identify low risk women who can potentially avoid adjuvant radiotherapy.

Numb chin syndrome: a case series of a clinical syndrome associated with malignancy.

INTRODUCTION: Information regarding the appropriate work-up and outcomes in patients receiving palliative treatment for numb chin syndrome (NCS) in the setting of malignancy is sparse. This study aims to describe NCS in malignancy and evaluate the disease trajectory, significance of diagnostic modalities and outcomes with palliative treatment. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed on patients presenting with NCS between March 2007 and October 2013 at the Capital Region Cancer Service, Canberra. RESULTS: Thirteen patients were identified who presented with numbness of the chin between March 2007 and October 2013. Seven patients had breast cancer, two had prostate cancer, two had multiple myeloma, one had medulloblastoma and one had an adenoid cystic salivary gland tumour. The mean interval from initial cancer diagnosis to development of the syndrome was 4.32 years. Twelve out of 13 patients had had prior chemotherapy with two or more lines of treatment (with a median of two lines), indicating this condition tended to present late in the course of disease in our patients. Four patients developed bilateral symptoms, and in two of these cases the metastatic lesion was in the base of the skull. Eleven out of 13 patients had positive signs on imaging. Nine out of 13 patients received palliative radiotherapy, with clinical response in eight patients. CONCLUSION: Patients with malignancy presented with NCS late in the disease trajectory, often after multiple lines of treatment. In our cohort of patients, 84% had positive imaging signs to aid diagnosis, and 77% had resolution of numbness with palliative treatment.

Surgical margins and risk of locoregional recurrence in invasive breast cancer: an analysis of 10-year data from the Breast Cancer Treatment Quality Assurance Project.

AIM: There is debate as to what constitutes an adequate excision margin to reduce the risk of locoregional recurrence (LRR) after breast cancer surgery. We have investigated the relationship between surgical margin distance and LRR in women with invasive breast cancer (IBC). METHODS: Tumour free margin distances were extracted from histopathology reports for women with IBC, treated by either breast conserving surgery or mastectomy, enrolled in the Breast Cancer Treatment Group Quality Assurance Project from July 1997 to June 2007. Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were conducted to compare the risk of LRR for involved margins compared with negative margins, measured in increments rounded to the nearest mm. RESULTS: 88 of 2300 patients (3.8%) experienced an LRR after a mean follow-up of 7.9 years. An involved margin, or a margin of 1 mm was associated with an increased risk of LRR (HR 2.72, 95% CI 1.30-5.69), whilst margin distances of 2 mm or greater were not. Risk of LRR with margin distances <2 mm was particularly high amongst those not receiving radiotherapy (RT). CONCLUSION: Based on our findings, we recommend that a tumour free margin distance of 2 mm be adopted as an adequate margin of excision for IBC, in the setting of patients receiving standard adjuvant RT and adjuvant drug therapies as dictated by the current clinical treatment paradigms.

Tumor size and survival in multicentric and multifocal breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Current AJCC/UICC staging of early breast cancer defines tumor stage using the largest focus, adding the suffix "(m)" to indicate multiplicity. This method may underestimate the total tumor burden in multifocal and multicentric breast cancer (MMBC). This study examines other measures of tumor size in MMBC to determine which provides the best fit in a multivariate model for survival outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective cohort study used data from the Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales Breast Cancer Treatment Group database to identify 812 women with ipsilateral invasive breast cancer; 141 of these women had MMBC. The pathology slides of all women with MMBC were reviewed and all foci of invasive breast cancer were re-measured. The measures of interest were the diameter of the largest deposit, the aggregate diameter and the aggregate volume. These measures of tumor size were included with other clinicopathological features of MMBC in a multivariate analysis to assess their relationship with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Tumor size was associated with PFS and OS in MMBC using any of the three measures; however, the diameter of the largest deposit provided the best fit in the multivariate model for OS. CONCLUSION: Tumor size is an important prognostic factor for MMBC, and the diameter of the largest deposit provides a better fit in a multivariate model for OS than aggregate diameter and aggregate volume. Therefore, tumor size in MMBC should continue to be measured using the diameter of the largest deposit.