Radiotherapy and paclitaxel plus pazopanib or placebo in anaplastic thyroid cancer (NRG/RTOG 0912): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Anaplastic thyroid cancer is a rare and aggressive cancer with no standard radiotherapy-based local treatment. Based on data suggesting synergy between pazopanib and paclitaxel in anaplastic thyroid cancer, NRG Oncology did a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised phase 2 clinical trial comparing concurrent paclitaxel and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with the addition of pazopanib or placebo with the aim of improving overall survival in this patient population. METHODS: Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with a pathological diagnosis of anaplastic thyroid cancer, any TNM stage, Zubrod performance status of 0-2, no recent haemoptysis or bleeding, and no brain metastases. Patients were enrolled from 34 centres in the USA. Initially, a run-in was done to establish safety. In the randomised phase 2 trial, patients in the experimental group (pazopanib) received 2-3 weeks of weekly paclitaxel (80 mg/m2) intravenously and daily pazopanib suspension 400 mg orally followed by concurrent weekly paclitaxel (50 mg/m2), daily pazopanib (300 mg), and IMRT 66 Gy given in 33 daily fractions (2 Gy fractions). In the control group (placebo), pazopanib was replaced by matching placebo. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to the two treatment groups by permuted block randomisation by NRG Oncology with stratification by metastatic disease. All investigators, patients, and funders of the study were masked to group allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01236547, and is complete. FINDINGS: The safety run-showed the final dosing regimen to be safe based on two out of nine participants having adverse events of predefined concern. Between June 23, 2014, and Dec 30, 2016, 89 patients were enrolled to the phase 2 trial, of whom 71 were eligible (36 in the pazopanib group and 35 in the placebo group; 34 [48%] males and 37 [52%] females). At the final analysis (data cutoff March 9, 2020), with a median follow-up of 2·9 years (IQR 0·002-4·0), 61 patients had died. Overall survival was not significantly improved with pazopanib versus placebo, with a median overall survival of 5·7 months (95% CI 4·0-12·8) in the pazopanib group versus 7·3 months (4·3-10·6) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·86, 95% CI 0·52-1·43; one-sided log-rank p=0·28). 1-year overall survival was 37·1% (95% CI 21·1-53·2) in the pazopanib group and 29·0% (13·2-44·8) in the placebo group. The incidence of grade 3-5 adverse events did not differ significantly between the treatment groups (pazopanib 88·9% [32 of 36 patients] and placebo 85·3% [29 of 34 patients]; p=0·73). The most common clinically significant grade 3-4 adverse events in the 70 eligible treated patients (36 in the pazopanib group and 34 in the placebo group) were dysphagia (13 [36%] vs 10 [29%]), radiation dermatitis (8 [22%] vs 13 [38%]), increased alanine aminotransferase (12 [33%] vs none), increased aspartate aminotransferase (eight [22%] vs none), and oral mucositis (five [14%] vs eight [24%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported for 16 (44%) patients on pazopanib and 12 (35%) patients on placebo. The most common serious adverse events were dehydration and thromboembolic event (three [8%] each) in patients on pazopanib and oral mucositis (three [8%]) in those on placebo. There was one treatment-related death in each group (sepsis in the pazopanib group and pneumonitis in the placebo group). INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this study is the largest randomised anaplastic thyroid cancer study that has completed accrual showing feasibility in a multicenter NCI National Clinical Trials Network setting. Although no significant improvement in overall survival was recorded in the pazopanib group, the treatment combination was shown to be feasible and safe, and hypothesis-generating data that might warrant further investigation were generated. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute and Novartis.

Reirradiation of Recurrent and Second Primary Cancers of the Head and Neck: a Review of the Contemporary Evidence.

OPINION STATEMENT: Recurrent and second primary head and neck cancers represent a clinical challenge due to frequently unresectable and/or locally advanced disease. Given that many of these patients have received definitive doses of radiation previously, reirradiation is associated with significant morbidity. Use of modern approaches such as conformal photon-based planning and charged particle therapy using protons or carbon ions allows for greater sparing of normal tissues while maintaining or escalating doses to tumor volumes. While the reirradiation data has consistently shown benefits to local control and even survival from escalation of radiotherapy dose, excessive cumulative doses can result in severe toxicities, including fatal carotid blowout syndrome. For all modalities, appropriate patient selection is of utmost importance. Large-scale trials and multi-institutional registry data are needed to standardize treatment modalities, and to determine optimal doses and volumes for reirradiation.

Human papillomavirus and survival of patients with oropharyngeal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Oropharyngeal squamous-cell carcinomas caused by human papillomavirus (HPV) are associated with favorable survival, but the independent prognostic significance of tumor HPV status remains unknown. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of the association between tumor HPV status and survival among patients with stage III or IV oropharyngeal squamous-cell carcinoma who were enrolled in a randomized trial comparing accelerated-fractionation radiotherapy (with acceleration by means of concomitant boost radiotherapy) with standard-fractionation radiotherapy, each combined with cisplatin therapy, in patients with squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Proportional-hazards models were used to compare the risk of death among patients with HPV-positive cancer and those with HPV-negative cancer. RESULTS: The median follow-up period was 4.8 years. The 3-year rate of overall survival was similar in the group receiving accelerated-fractionation radiotherapy and the group receiving standard-fractionation radiotherapy (70.3% vs. 64.3%; P=0.18; hazard ratio for death with accelerated-fractionation radiotherapy, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72 to 1.13), as were the rates of high-grade acute and late toxic events. A total of 63.8% of patients with oropharyngeal cancer (206 of 323) had HPV-positive tumors; these patients had better 3-year rates of overall survival (82.4%, vs. 57.1% among patients with HPV-negative tumors; P<0.001 by the log-rank test) and, after adjustment for age, race, tumor and nodal stage, tobacco exposure, and treatment assignment, had a 58% reduction in the risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.66). The risk of death significantly increased with each additional pack-year of tobacco smoking. Using recursive-partitioning analysis, we classified our patients as having a low, intermediate, or high risk of death on the basis of four factors: HPV status, pack-years of tobacco smoking, tumor stage, and nodal stage. CONCLUSIONS: Tumor HPV status is a strong and independent prognostic factor for survival among patients with oropharyngeal cancer. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00047008.)

Stereotactic body radiotherapy for superior vena cava syndrome.

Superior vena cava syndrome (SVCS) is characterized by a spectrum of clinical findings that result from the occlusion of the superior vena cava (SVC), usually caused by extracaval compression of the SVC by either a bronchogenic tumor or an enlarged mediastinal lymph node. Most efforts at treatment for SVCS are palliative, and long-term survival for malignancy-related SVCS is very low. Therefore, radiotherapy treatment is usually delivered with palliative intent utilizing hypofractionated regimens. The use of high dose per fraction may result in more rapid and more durable responses to treatment. Similarly, the high dose per fraction utilized in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) has been proven highly efficacious in treating early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here we report the first reported case of a patient with SVCS from NSCLC successfully treated with SBRT to alleviate SVCS.

Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy Better Spares Non-Adjacent Organs and Reduces the Risk of Secondary Malignant Neoplasms in the Treatment of Sinonasal Cancers.

This study compare dosimetric parameters and secondary malignancy risk (SMN) using intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for the treatment of sinonasal cancer (SC). After IRB-approval, 10 patients previously treated with IMPT for cancers of the ethmoid, sphenoid, maxillary, or frontal sinuses were identified. Dosimetrists blinded to the IMPT plans generated VMAT plans for comparison. Volume coverage and dose to organs at risk (OAR) were recorded and compared. Organ equivalent dose (OED) of tissues outside of the treatment volume was used to define the excess absolute and relative risk of SMNs. In all cases, both VMAT and IMPT provided acceptable target volume coverage and were able to meet OAR constraints. IMPT was superior for brain V10, V30, and mean, brainstem D0.01 ipsilateral cochlea V30, contralateral cochlea mean, contralateral lacrimal gland mean, contralateral parotid mean, spinal cord D0.01 and body outside of the CTV V10, V20, and V30. VMAT was superior for ipsilateral eye mean, ipsilateral lens mean, CTV V100 and maximum hotspot. The relative risk of SMNs with VMAT compared to IMPT is 3.35 (95% CI, 1.92-5.89). For the treatment of SC, IMPT spares OARs that are not immediately adjacent to the treatment volume and reduces the risk of SMNs when compared to VMAT. VMAT spares OARs abutting the target volume better than IMPT and has more homogenous target coverage. Tumors of the ethmoid sinus, benefit more from IMPT, while tumors located elsewhere require application of our findings on a case by case basis.

A phase I/II trial of concurrent immunotherapy with chemoradiation in locally advanced larynx cancer.

Objectives: Cisplatin-based chemoradiation is an established organ-preserving strategy for locally advanced laryngeal cancer, but long-term survival remains suboptimal. Immunotherapy has been studied in the metastatic and unresectable recurrent settings. However, additional data are needed to assess its role in organ preservation for locally advanced laryngeal cancer. Methods: This trial was an open-label, single-arm, multi-institutional study with a Phase I run-in portion followed by a planned Phase II component, which closed early due to low accrual. Study patients had Stage III or IV (T2-3; N0-3; M0) laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma and were candidates for larynx preservation. Pembrolizumab was given 2-3 weeks prior to chemoradiation and then, q21 days concurrently with high-dose cisplatin and radiation prescribed to a total dose of 70 Gy. The primary endpoint of the trial was organ-preservation rate (OPR) at 18 months. Results: A total of nine patients were enrolled with a median follow-up of 30.1 months. No patient required laryngectomy, resulting in 100% OPR at 18 months. The 12-month overall survival (OS) rate was 77.8% and the median duration of OS was not reached. All acute Grade 4 (n = 3) toxicities occurred in a single patient with poorly controlled diabetes at baseline. One patient had late Grade 4 laryngeal edema requiring tracheostomy 8 months after chemoradiation, which self-resolved. Conclusion: UCCI-HN-15-02 demonstrated the safety of the addition of immunotherapy to definitive chemoradiation and the patient outcomes suggest the potential for improving long-term survival while minimizing negative impact from treatment. While results from this trial were promising, a randomized study with a larger number of patients and longer follow-up is warranted to verify this treatment approach prior to wider adoption. NCT #: NCT02759575.Level of evidence: 2b.

Adjuvant radiation and cetuximab improves local control in head and neck cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: Phase II study.

BACKGROUND: Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma of the head/neck (CSCCHN) is common due to chronic sun exposure. As CSCCHN highly expresses EGFR, we prospectively studied postoperative concurrent cetuximab with radiotherapy for locally advanced CSCCHN (LA-CSCCHN). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Single-institutional phase II trial of LA-CSCCHN (NCT XXXX). Adjuvant radiation was given with concurrent cetuximab. Primary endpoint of 2-year LRC and secondary objectives of 2-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 2-year OS were assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients ages 47-88 (median 71 years) were treated from 2014 to 2017. Fourteen patients had T3/4 disease, 5 had N1 disease, and 7 were N2/3. At median follow-up of 42 months, median OS and DFS was not reached and 64 months. Two-year OS was 75%, 2-year DFS was 70.8%. LRC was 91.1% at 2 years. All grade 3 adverse events were related to skin toxicity (12.5% radiation-related dermatitis, 16.7% cetuximab-related rash). CONCLUSIONS: LRC compares favorably to historical data examining postoperative radiation alone but requires further investigation.

Recurrent advanced (T3 or T4) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: is salvage possible?

BACKGROUND: Salvage surgery is often the only curative option for recurrent cancer. In patients whose initial tumor is stage T3 or T4, the primary therapy often makes salvage even more difficult. We therefore analyzed the outcome in patients who were originally treated for T3 or T4 squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity, larynx, oropharynx, or hypopharynx and who then had a recurrence and chose to undergo further therapy for cure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 1980 to 2000, a total of 940 patients were treated for stage T3 or T4 cancer. Forty-eight patients underwent salvage therapy for recurrence: 24 for primary site recurrence, 20 for regional recurrence, and 4 for locoregional recurrence. RESULTS: The mean time to recurrence was 14.0 months, and the mean survival time was 26.2 months. Among the 28 patients treated for primary site recurrence, the mean time to rerecurrence was 12.6 months, and the mean survival time was 27.3 months. Only 5 of the 28 patients had prolonged survival. The stage of the recurrent disease did not influence outcome. Among the 20 patients treated for neck recurrence, the mean time to recurrence was 14.0 months, and the mean survival time was 25.0 months. Six of the 20 patients had prolonged survival, but none had a recurrence in a previously dissected and irradiated neck. CONCLUSIONS: These results show the limited potential for survival in patients who have a recurrence after treatment for advanced primary site head and neck cancer. Patients who have not undergone all modalities of therapy have the potential for salvage, but even then the chances are limited. Given the morbidity of salvage therapy, and the limited chance for cure, physicians must cautiously counsel patients who are contemplating treatment of recurrent cancer after therapy for advanced disease.

Therapeutic decision making in stages III and IV head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The best treatment for advanced head and neck cancer remains unclear. Proponents of various therapeutic regimens continue to debate this issue with inconclusive and frequently biased data and with carefully selected patients in controlled trials to support their approach. To assess the outcome of patients in a real-world situation, we reviewed a prospectively maintained database of patients with head and neck cancer. METHODS: We reviewed data from 591 consecutive patients with stage III or IV squamous cell carcinoma treated at a university medical center from January 1, 1992, through December 31, 2000, and analyzed survival using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Overall survival was 48%, 40%, and 33% at 2, 3, and 5 years, respectively. We found a significant death rate due to comorbid conditions. The primary tumor was treated surgically (with or without postoperative radiation) in 363 patients, with survival of 55%, 46%, and 38% at 2, 3, and 5 years, respectively. The tumor was treated primarily with radiation therapy (with or without neck dissection) in 193 patients, with survival of 40%, 33%, and 27% at 2, 3, and 5 years, respectively. Overall survival in the surgical group was better than in the radiation group (P =.005, log-rank chi 2 test). The radiation group was subcategorized into those who underwent radiation because the tumor was so advanced as to be unresectable (n = 86), because they were too unhealthy to undergo radical surgery (n = 23), and because they elected radiation therapy (n = 84). Survival in each of the radiation subgroups at 2, 3, and 5 years was 28%, 20%, and 14%, respectively, in the unresectable group; 34%, 22%, and 11%, respectively, in the unhealthy group; and 57%, 53%, and 46%, respectively, in the elective group. Thus, survival in the elective radiation subgroup exceeded that of the surgical group, although not statistically. We analyzed data regarding T and N stages, age, race, surgical margin status, postoperative radiation therapy, chemotherapy, radiation dose, and tumor site. Multivariate analysis of the surgical group and elective radiation subgroup showed that N stage and age were the strongest predictors of survival and that the method of therapy was not significant. For oropharyngeal cancer, the patients in the elective radiation subgroup did as well as the surgical group. Many patients were noncompliant with portions of therapy, with a resulting reduction in survival. CONCLUSIONS: The data demonstrate the value of analyzing a consecutive series of patients with advanced head and neck cancer. By including patients with comorbidities and those who are noncompliant, we determined a realistic expectation of patient outcomes. By including all patients, the data dramatically show the impact of age, comorbidity, and advanced stage on survival. The survival of patients who underwent elective radiation therapy in combination with neck dissection was similar to that of patients treated with primary tumor surgery. This was particularly true for oropharyngeal tumors. The site and stage-specific data are useful in counseling patients with advanced head and neck cancer regarding treatment choices.

p16 protein expression and human papillomavirus status as prognostic biomarkers of nonoropharyngeal head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Although p16 protein expression, a surrogate marker of oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, is recognized as a prognostic marker in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC), its prevalence and significance have not been well established in cancer of the oral cavity, hypopharynx, or larynx, collectively referred as non-OPSCC, where HPV infection is less common than in the oropharynx. PATIENTS AND METHODS: p16 expression and high-risk HPV status in non-OPSCCs from RTOG 0129, 0234, and 0522 studies were determined by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and in situ hybridization (ISH). Hazard ratios from Cox models were expressed as positive or negative, stratified by trial, and adjusted for clinical characteristics. RESULTS: p16 expression was positive in 14.1% (12 of 85), 24.2% (23 of 95), and 19.0% (27 of 142) and HPV ISH was positive in 6.5% (six of 93), 14.6% (15 of 103), and 6.9% (seven of 101) of non-OPSCCs from RTOG 0129, 0234, and 0522 studies, respectively. Hazard ratios for p16 expression were 0.63 (95% CI, 0.42 to 0.95; P = .03) and 0.56 (95% CI, 0.35 to 0.89; P = .01) for progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS), respectively. Comparing OPSCC and non-OPSCC, patients with p16-positive OPSCC have better PFS and OS than patients with p16-positive non-OPSCC, but patients with p16-negative OPSCC and non-OPSCC have similar outcomes. CONCLUSION: Similar to results in patients with OPSCC, patients with p16-negative non-OPSCC have worse outcomes than patients with p16-positive non-OPSCC, and HPV may also have a role in outcome in a subset of non-OPSCC. However, further development of a p16 IHC scoring system in non-OPSCC and improvement of HPV detection methods are warranted before broad application in the clinical setting.

Can lung cancer screening by computed tomography be effective in areas with endemic histoplasmosis?

OBJECTIVE: Low-dose chest computed tomography (CT) is being evaluated in several national trials as a screening modality for the early detection of lung cancer. The goal of the present study was to determine whether lung cancer screening could be done while minimizing the number of benign biopsy specimens taken in an area endemic for histoplasmosis. METHODS: The subjects were recruited by letters mailed to area physicians and local advertisement. The inclusion criteria were age older than 50 years and at least a 20 pack-year smoking history. The exclusion criteria were symptoms suggestive of lung cancer or a history of malignancy in the previous 5 years. The participants completed a questionnaire and underwent a chest CT scan at baseline and annually for 5 years. The management of positive screening results was determined using a defined algorithm: annual follow-up CT scan for nodules less than 5 mm; 6-month follow-up CT scan for nodules 5 to 7 mm; review by our multidisciplinary tumor board for nodules 8 to 12 mm; and biopsy for nodules greater than 12 mm. RESULTS: A total of 132 patients were recruited. Of the 132 patients, 61% had positive baseline CT findings and 22% had positive findings on the annual CT scans. Six cancers were detected. Of these 6 patients, 5 had stage I disease and underwent lobectomy, and 1 had stage IIIA disease and underwent induction chemotherapy and radiotherapy followed by lobectomy. All patients were alive and disease free at a mean follow-up of 41.7 ± 18.6 months. No biopsies were performed for benign lesions. Also, no cancers were missed when the protocol was followed. CONCLUSIONS: Screening with CT can be done effectively in an area endemic for histoplasmosis while minimizing benign biopsies.

Randomized trial to assess the efficacy of intraoperative steroid use in decreasing acute urinary retention after transperineal radioactive iodine-125 implantation for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Acute urinary retention is a potential complication of brachytherapy, with the literature estimating that 5% to 22% of patients require catheterization within 48 hours after implantation. In theory, postimplantation edema could be reduced by using intraoperative steroids. A prospective trial was conducted randomizing patients to a single intraoperative dose of dexamethasone versus no steroid use. METHODS: In all, 196 evaluable patients who received iodine-125 (I(125)) interstitial brachytherapy alone as definitive treatment for low-to-intermediate risk prostate cancer were randomized to receive either dexamethasone at a dose of 6 mg administered intravenously intraoperatively (Arm A) or no steroids (Arm B). All patients completed the International Prostate Symptom Score before treatment. Patients were contacted by telephone 72 to 96 hours after treatment and the need for catheterization was reported. RESULTS: Between 2003 and 2005, 99 patients received steroids on treatment Arm A and 97 patients were treated according to control Arm B. Treatment arms were balanced with respect to pretreatment characteristics. A total of 3 patients required catheterization (2 in Arm A and 1 in Arm B). The overall rate of catheterization was 1.5%, with no statistically significant difference noted between treatment arms. The 3 patients requiring catheterization had no statistical differences from other patients with respect to pretreatment characteristics, number of seeds/needles used, or postimplantation computed tomography volume of the prostate. CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistically significant difference noted between treatment arms in the current study, leading the authors to conclude that intraoperative dexamethasone did not decrease the rate of catheterization required after brachytherapy. The overall rate of postimplantation catheterization in the current study was 1.5%, which is lower than reported elsewhere in the literature and in a retrospective review from the study institution.

Phase I clinical trial of concurrent paclitaxel, carboplatin, and external beam chest irradiation with glutamine in patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Esophagitis is a dose-limiting toxicity of combined chemoradiation therapy in patients with locally advanced lung cancer. Our study aimed at minimizing this complication by using glutamine in an attempt to escalate the dose of chemotherapy. This was a Phase I trial of escalating the dose of weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin with concurrent radiation therapy. Fifteen patients were enrolled, with median age 62 years (58-78), 13 males and 12 Caucasians. Due to multiple severe toxicities including hematological toxicities and esophagitis, the combination was deemed not feasible. In conclusion, the addition of glutamine does not prevent serious toxities of this concurrent chemoradiotherapy regimen.

A phase II study of sequential neoadjuvant gemcitabine and paclitaxel, radiation therapy with cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil and surgery in locally advanced esophageal carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of sequential neoadjuvant chemotherapy, chemoradiation, and surgery in patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: There were 29 patients who received paclitaxel 150 mg/m2 and gemcitabine 3000 mg/m2 2 weeks apart. Two weeks later, patients received cisplatin 75 mg/m2 and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) 1000 mg/m2/d continuous infusion for 4 days with concurrent radiotherapy in 15 fractions to a total dose of 4000 cGy. After 6 weeks, cisplatin and 5-FU were repeated at the above doses. After 4 to 6 weeks, patients were restaged and underwent surgical resection. RESULTS: All 29 patients completed the prescribed gemcitabine, paclitaxel, and radiation therapy. Febrile neutropenia occurred in 1 patient and 4 patients received growth factor support. After neoadjuvant treatment, 1 patient refused surgery, 23 underwent R0 resection (82%), while 5 developed progressive disease. Four patients developed anastomotic leaks (17%). Four patients had complete pathologic responses (14%) and 4 (14%) had only residual microscopic disease. Nine patients remain alive at a median follow-up of 48 months. Three-year survival for the entire cohort was 36%. CONCLUSION: This regimen was associated with a high rate of compliance and induction therapy had an acceptable toxicity profile. The R0 resection rate and 3-year survival data are similar to recently reported studies. While active, gemcitabine and paclitaxel induction therapy was associated with an increased rate of postoperative complications, but no increase in survival. Patterns of failure continue to demonstrate the need for regimens incorporating greater emphasis on systemic therapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer.