Single vs. multiple fraction non-inferiority trial of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for the comprehensive treatment of oligo-metastases/progression: SIMPLIFY-SABR-COMET.

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy delivery regimens can vary between a single fraction (SF) and multiple fractions (MF) given daily for up to several weeks depending on the location of the cancer or metastases. With limited evidence comparing fractionation regimens for oligometastases, there is support to explore toxicity levels to nearby organs at risk as a primary outcome while using SF and MF stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) as well as explore differences in patient-reported quality of life and experience. METHODS: This study will randomize 598 patients in a 1:1 ratio between the standard arm (MF SABR) and the experimental arm (SF SABR). This trial is designed as two randomized controlled trials within one patient population for resource efficiency. The primary objective of the first randomization is to determine if SF SABR is non-inferior to MF SABR, with respect to healthcare provider (HCP)-reported grade 3-5 adverse events (AEs) that are related to SABR. Primary endpoint is toxicity while secondary endpoints include lesional control rate (LCR), and progression-free survival (PFS). The second randomization (BC Cancer sites only) will allocate participants to either complete quality of life (QoL) questionnaires only; or QoL questionnaires and a symptom-specific survey with symptom-guided HCP intervention. The primary objective of the second randomization is to determine if radiation-related symptom questionnaire-guided HCP intervention results in improved reported QoL as measured by the EuroQoL-5-dimensions-5levels (EQ-5D-5L) instrument. The primary endpoint is patient-reported QoL and secondary endpoints include: persistence/resolution of symptom reporting, QoL, intervention cost effectiveness, resource utilization, and overall survival. DISCUSSION: This study will compare SF and MF SABR in the treatment of oligometastases and oligoprogression to determine if there is non-inferior toxicity for SF SABR in selected participants with 1-5 oligometastatic lesions. This study will also compare patient-reported QoL between participants who receive radiation-related symptom-guided HCP intervention and those who complete questionnaires alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT05784428. Date of Registration: 23 March 2023.

Markerless dynamic tumor tracking (MDTT) radiotherapy using diaphragm as a surrogate for liver targets.

PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility of using the diaphragm as a surrogate for liver targets during MDTT. METHODS: Diaphragm as surrogate for markers: a dome-shaped phantom with implanted markers was fabricated and underwent dual-orthogonal fluoroscopy sequences on the Vero4DRT linac. Ten patients participated in an IRB-approved, feasibility study to assess the MDTT workflow. All images were analyzed using an in-house program to back-project the diaphragm/markers position to the isocenter plane. ExacTrac imager log files were analyzed. Diaphragm as tracking structure for MDTT: The phantom "diaphragm" was contoured as a markerless tracking structure (MTS) and exported to Vero4DRT/ExacTrac. A single field plan was delivered to the phantom film plane under static and MDTT conditions. In the patient study, the diaphragm tracking structure was contoured on CT breath-hold-exhale datasets. The MDTT workflow was applied until just prior to MV beam-on. RESULTS: Diaphragm as surrogate for markers: phantom data confirmed the in-house 3D back-projection program was functioning as intended. In patients, the diaphragm/marker relative positions had a mean ± RMS difference of 0.70 ± 0.89, 1.08 ± 1.26, and 0.96 ± 1.06 mm in ML, SI, and AP directions. Diaphragm as tracking structure for MDTT: Building a respiratory-correlation model using the diaphragm as surrogate for the implanted markers was successful in phantom/patients. During the tracking verification imaging step, the phantom mean ± SD difference between the image-detected and predicted "diaphragm" position was 0.52 ± 0.18 mm. The 2D film gamma (2%/2 mm) comparison (static to MDTT deliveries) was 98.2%. In patients, the mean difference between the image-detected and predicted diaphragm position was 2.02 ± 0.92 mm. The planning target margin contribution from MDTT diaphragm tracking is 2.2, 5.0, and 4.7 mm in the ML, SI, and AP directions. CONCLUSION: In phantom/patients, the diaphragm motion correlated well with markers' motion and could be used as a surrogate. MDTT workflows using the diaphragm as the MTS is feasible using the Vero4DRT linac and could replace the need for implanted markers for liver radiotherapy.

In-vivo quality assurance of dynamic tumor tracking (DTT) for liver SABR using EPID images.

PURPOSE: To assess dynamic tumor tracking (DTT) target localization uncertainty for in-vivo marker-based stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) treatments of the liver using electronic-portal-imaging-device (EPID) images. The Planning Target Volume (PTV) margin contribution for DTT is estimated. METHODS: Phantom and patient EPID images were acquired during non-coplanar 3DCRT-DTT delivered on a Vero4DRT linac. A chain-code algorithm was applied to detect Multileaf Collimator (MLC)-defined radiation field edges. Gold-seed markers were detected using a connected neighbor algorithm. For each EPID image, the absolute differences between the measured center-of-mass (COM) of the markers relative to the aperture-center (Tracking Error, (ET )) was reported in pan, tilt, and 2D-vector directions at the isocenter-plane. PHANTOM STUDY: An acrylic cube phantom implanted with gold-seed markers was irradiated with non-coplanar 3DCRT-DTT beams and EPID images collected. Patient Study: Eight liver SABR patients were treated with non-coplanar 3DCRT-DTT beams. All patients had three to four implanted gold-markers. In-vivo EPID images were analyzed. RESULTS: Phantom Study: On the 125 EPID images collected, 100% of the markers were identified. The average ± SD of ET were 0.24 ± 0.21, 0.47 ± 0.38, and 0.58 ± 0.37 mm in pan, tilt and 2D directions, respectively. Patient Study: Of the 1430 EPID patient images acquired, 78% had detectable markers. Over all patients, the average ± SD of ET was 0.33 ± 0.41 mm in pan, 0.63 ± 0.75 mm in tilt and 0.77 ± 0.80 mm in 2D directions The random 2D-error, σ, for all patients was 0.79 mm and the systematic 2D-error, Σ, was 0.20 mm. Using the Van Herk margin formula 1.1 mm planning target margin can represent the marker based DTT uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: Marker-based DTT uncertainty can be evaluated in-vivo on a field-by-field basis using EPID images. This information can contribute to PTV margin calculations for DTT.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy versus conventional external beam radiotherapy in patients with painful spinal metastases: an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Conventional external beam radiotherapy is the standard palliative treatment for spinal metastases; however, complete response rates for pain are as low as 10-20%. Stereotactic body radiotherapy delivers high-dose, ablative radiotherapy. We aimed to compare complete response rates for pain after stereotactic body radiotherapy or conventional external beam radiotherapy in patients with painful spinal metastasis. METHODS: This open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial was done at 13 hospitals in Canada and five hospitals in Australia. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years and older, and had painful (defined as ≥2 points with the Brief Pain Inventory) MRI-confirmed spinal metastasis, no more than three consecutive vertebral segments to be included in the treatment volume, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, a Spinal Instability Neoplasia Score of less than 12, and no neurologically symptomatic spinal cord or cauda equina compression. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a web-based, computer-generated allocation sequence to receive either stereotactic body radiotherapy at a dose of 24 Gy in two daily fractions or conventional external beam radiotherapy at a dose of 20 Gy in five daily fractions using standard techniques. Treatment assignment was done centrally by use of a minimisation method to achieve balance for the stratification factors of radiosensitivity, the presence or absence of mass-type tumour (extraosseous or epidural disease extension, or both) on imaging, and centre. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a complete response for pain at 3 months after radiotherapy. The primary endpoint was analysed in the intention-to-treat population and all safety and quality assurance analyses were done in the as-treated population (ie, all patients who received at least one fraction of radiotherapy). The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02512965. FINDINGS: Between Jan 4, 2016, and Sept 27, 2019, 229 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive conventional external beam radiotherapy (n=115) or stereotactic body radiotherapy (n=114). All 229 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The median follow-up was 6·7 months (IQR 6·3-6·9). At 3 months, 40 (35%) of 114 patients in the stereotactic body radiotherapy group, and 16 (14%) of 115 patients in the conventional external beam radiotherapy group had a complete response for pain (risk ratio 1·33, 95% CI 1·14-1·55; p=0·0002). This significant difference was maintained in multivariable-adjusted analyses (odds ratio 3·47, 95% CI 1·77-6·80; p=0·0003). The most common grade 3-4 adverse event was grade 3 pain (five [4%] of 115 patients in the conventional external beam radiotherapy group vs five (5%) of 110 patients in the stereotactic body radiotherapy group). No treatment-related deaths were observed. INTERPRETATION: Stereotactic body radiotherapy at a dose of 24 Gy in two daily fractions was superior to conventional external beam radiotherapy at a dose of 20 Gy in five daily fractions in improving the complete response rate for pain. These results suggest that use of conformal, image-guided, stereotactically dose-escalated radiotherapy is appropriate in the palliative setting for symptom control for selected patients with painful spinal metastases, and an increased awareness of the need for specialised and multidisciplinary involvement in the delivery of end-of-life care is needed. FUNDING: Canadian Cancer Society and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Four-dimensional dose calculations for dynamic tumour tracking with a gimbal-mounted linear accelerator.

PURPOSE: In this study we present a novel method for re-calculating a treatment plan on different respiratory phases by accurately modeling the panning and tilting beam motion during DTT (the "rotation method"). This method is used to re-calculate the dose distribution of a plan on multiple breathing phases to accurately assess the dosimetry. METHODS: sIMRT plans were optimized on a breath hold computed tomography (CT) image taken at exhale (BHexhale ) for 10 previous liver stereotactic ablative radiotherapy patients. Our method was used to re-calculate the plan on the inhale (0%) and exhale (50%) phases of the four-dimensional CT (4DCT) image set. The dose distributions were deformed to the BHexhale CT and summed together with proper weighting calculated from the patient's breathing trace. Subsequently, the plan was re-calculated on all ten phases using our method and the dose distributions were deformed to the BHexhale CT and accumulated together. The maximum dose for certain organs at risk (OARs) was compared between calculating on two phases and all ten phases. RESULTS: In total, 26 OARs were examined from 10 patients. When the dose was calculated on the inhale and exhale phases six OARs exceeded their dose limit, and when all 10 phases were used five OARs exceeded their limit. CONCLUSION: Dynamic tumor tracking plans optimized for a single respiratory phase leave an OAR vulnerable to exceeding its dose constraint during other respiratory phases. The rotation method accurately models the beam's geometry. Using deformable image registration to accumulate dose from all 10 breathing phases provides the most accurate results, however it is a time consuming procedure. Accumulating the dose from two extreme breathing phases (exhale and inhale) and weighting them properly provides accurate results while requiring less time. This approach should be used to confirm the safety of a DTT treatment plan prior to delivery.

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus standard of care palliative treatment in patients with oligometastatic cancers (SABR-COMET): a randomised, phase 2, open-label trial.

BACKGROUND: The oligometastatic paradigm suggests that some patients with a limited number of metastases might be cured if all lesions are eradicated. Evidence from randomised controlled trials to support this paradigm is scarce. We aimed to assess the effect of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) on survival, oncological outcomes, toxicity, and quality of life in patients with a controlled primary tumour and one to five oligometastatic lesions. METHODS: This randomised, open-label phase 2 study was done at 10 hospitals in Canada, the Netherlands, Scotland, and Australia. Patients aged 18 or older with a controlled primary tumour and one to five metastatic lesions, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score of 0-1, and a life expectancy of at least 6 months were eligible. After stratifying by the number of metastases (1-3 vs 4-5), we randomly assigned patients (1:2) to receive either palliative standard of care treatments alone (control group), or standard of care plus SABR to all metastatic lesions (SABR group), using a computer-generated randomisation list with permuted blocks of nine. Neither patients nor physicians were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival. We used a randomised phase 2 screening design with a two-sided α of 0·20 (wherein p<0·20 designates a positive trial). All analyses were intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01446744. FINDINGS: 99 patients were randomised between Feb 10, 2012, and Aug 30, 2016. Of 99 patients, 33 (33%) were assigned to the control group and 66 (67%) to the SABR group. Two (3%) patients in the SABR group did not receive allocated treatment and withdrew from the trial; two (6%) patients in the control group also withdrew from the trial. Median follow-up was 25 months (IQR 19-54) in the control group versus 26 months (23-37) in the SABR group. Median overall survival was 28 months (95% CI 19-33) in the control group versus 41 months (26-not reached) in the SABR group (hazard ratio 0·57, 95% CI 0·30-1·10; p=0·090). Adverse events of grade 2 or worse occurred in three (9%) of 33 controls and 19 (29%) of 66 patients in the SABR group (p=0·026), an absolute increase of 20% (95% CI 5-34). Treatment-related deaths occurred in three (4·5%) of 66 patients after SABR, compared with none in the control group. INTERPRETATION: SABR was associated with an improvement in overall survival, meeting the primary endpoint of this trial, but three (4·5%) of 66 patients in the SABR group had treatment-related death. Phase 3 trials are needed to conclusively show an overall survival benefit, and to determine the maximum number of metastatic lesions wherein SABR provides a benefit. FUNDING: Ontario Institute for Cancer Research and London Regional Cancer Program Catalyst Grant.

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for the comprehensive treatment of 1-3 Oligometastatic tumors (SABR-COMET-3): study protocol for a randomized phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: A recent randomized phase II trial evaluated stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) in a group of patients with a small burden of oligometastatic disease (mostly with 1-3 metastatic lesions), and found that SABR was associated with a significant improvement in progression-free survival and a trend to an overall survival benefit, supporting progression to phase III randomized trials. METHODS: Two hundred and ninety-seven patients will be randomized in a 1:2 ratio between the control arm (consisting of standard of care [SOC] palliative-intent treatments), and the SABR arm (consisting of SOC treatment + SABR to all sites of known disease). Randomization will be stratified by two factors: histology (prostate, breast, or renal vs. all others), and disease-free interval (defined as time from diagnosis of primary tumor until first detection of the metastases being treated on this trial; divided as ≤2 vs. > 2 years). The primary endpoint is overall survival, and secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, cost effectiveness, time to development of new metastatic lesions, quality of life (QoL), and toxicity. Translational endpoints include assessment of circulating tumor cells, cell-free DNA, and tumor tissue as prognostic and predictive markers, including assessment of immunological predictors of response and long-term survival. DISCUSSION: This study will provide an assessment of the impact of SABR on survival, QoL, and cost effectiveness to determine if long-term survival can be achieved for selected patients with 1-3 oligometastatic lesions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03862911. Date of registration: March 5, 2019.

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for the comprehensive treatment of 4-10 oligometastatic tumors (SABR-COMET-10): study protocol for a randomized phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) has emerged as a new treatment option for patients with oligometastatic disease. SABR delivers precise, high-dose, hypofractionated radiotherapy, and achieves excellent rates of local control for primary tumors or metastases. A recent randomized phase II trial evaluated SABR in a group of patients with a small burden of oligometastatic disease (mostly with 1-3 metastatic lesions), and found that SABR was associated with benefits in progression-free survival and overall survival. The goal of this phase III trial is to assess the impact of SABR in patients with 4-10 metastatic cancer lesions. METHODS: One hundred and fifty-nine patients will be randomized in a 1:2 ratio between the control arm (consisting of standard of care palliative-intent treatments), and the SABR arm (consisting of standard of care treatment + SABR to all sites of known disease). Randomization will be stratified by two factors: histology (Group 1: prostate, breast, or renal; Group 2: all others), and type of pre-specified systemic therapy (Group 1: immunotherapy/targeted; Group 2: cytotoxic; Group 3: observation). SABR is to be completed within 2 weeks, allowing for rapid initiation of systemic therapy. Recommended SABR doses are 20 Gy in 1 fraction, 30 Gy in 3 fractions, or 35 Gy in 5 fractions, chosen to minimize risks of toxicity. The primary endpoint is overall survival, and secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, time to development of new metastatic lesions, quality of life, and toxicity. Translational endpoints include assessment of circulating tumor cells, cell-free DNA, and tumor tissue as prognostic and predictive markers, including assessment of immunological predictors of response and long-term survival. DISCUSSION: This study will provide an assessment of the impact of SABR on clinical outcomes and quality of life, to determine if long-term survival can be achieved for selected patients with 4-10 oligometastatic lesions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03721341 . Date of registration: October 26, 2018.

Population-based phase II trial of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) for up to 5 oligometastases: SABR-5.

BACKGROUND: Oligometastases refer to a state of disease where cancer has spread beyond the primary site, but is not yet widely metastatic, often defined as 1-3 or 1-5 metastases in number. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is an emerging radiotherapy technique to treat oligometastases that require further prospective population-based toxicity estimates. METHODS: This is a non-randomized phase II trial where all participants will receive experimental SABR treatment to all sites of newly diagnosed or progressing oligometastatic disease. We will accrue 200 patients to assess toxicity associated with this experimental treatment. The study was powered to give a 95% confidence on the risk of late grade 4 toxicity, anticipating a < 5% rate of grade 4 toxicity. DISCUSSION: SABR treatment of oligometastases is occurring off-trial at a high rate, without sufficient evidence of its efficacy or toxicity. This trial will provide necessary toxicity data in a population-based cohort, using standardized doses and organ at risk constraints, while we await data on efficacy from randomized phase III trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered through clinicaltrials.gov NCT02933242 on October 14, 2016 prospectively before patient accrual.

The TEACHH model to predict life expectancy in patients presenting for palliative spine radiotherapy: external validation and comparison with alternate models.

INTRODUCTION: The TEACHH score was developed to identify patients with predicted short (< 3 months) and long (> 1 year) life expectancy. We aimed to validate this model in an independent group of patients presenting for palliative spine radiotherapy and to compare it to alternate prognostic models. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed charts of 195 consecutive patients referred for palliative spine radiotherapy. Patients were grouped according to the number of risk factors from the TEACHH model, Chow model, and Oswestry Risk Index. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty patients with a median age of 65 years were included. Follow-up was 5.8 months in all patients and 31.8 months in living patients. For the TEACHH model, patients in groups 1, 2, and 3 had a median (95% CI) overall survival (OS) of 22.3 (15.7-36.1), 4.9 (3.8-6.6), and 1.5 (0.8-5.4) months, respectively. Wilcoxon pairwise comparisons showed statistically different survival between groups 1 and 2, and 1 and 3. In the Chow model, patients in groups 1, 2, and 3 had a median (95% CI) OS of 16.1 (10.0-22.3), 5.9 (3.8-9.2), and 1.9 (1.2-2.5) months, respectively. There was a significant difference between all groups. The Oswestry Risk Index identified five prognostic groups with median OS (95% CI) ranging from 22.2 (12.9-30.2) to 2.1 (0.8-4.0) months. Only group 1 was statistically different from the others. Although the effect of age was small, the TEACHH model performed best with the inclusion of all parameters. CONCLUSIONS: The TEACHH model is useful to identify patients with spinal metastases with predicted short, intermediate, and long LE. Its prognostic ability is similar to the Chow model.

Re-irradiation volumetric modulated arc therapy optimization based on cumulative biologically effective dose objectives.

The objective of this note is to introduce a clinical tool that generates ideal base plan dose distributions to enable re-irradiation volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) optimization based on cumulative biological effective dose objectives for specific organs at risk (OARs). The tool is demonstrated with a lung cancer case that required re-irradiation at our clinic. First, previous treatment dose is deformed onto the retreatment computed tomography (CT) using commercial software. Then, the in-house Matlab tool alters the deformed previous dose using radiobiological concepts on a voxel-by-voxel manner to generate an ideal base plan dose distribution. Ideal base plans that were generated using the in-house Matlab tool were compatible with the Varian Eclipse™ treatment planning system. The tool enabled optimization of VMAT re-irradiation plans using cumulative dose limits for OARs and all OAR cumulative dose objectives were met on the first optimization for the recurrent lung cancer case tested.

Five-Fraction High-Conformal Ultrahypofractionated Radiotherapy for Primary Tumors in Metastatic Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: To report on the local control and toxicity of 5-fraction, high-conformal ultrafractionated radiation therapy (RT) for primary tumors in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who did not undergo planned surgical intervention. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 27 patients with MBC who underwent 5-fraction high-dose ultrafractionated intensity-modulated RT for their primary tumors between 2017 and 2022 at our institution. A median dose of 66.8 Gy (range, 51.8-83.6 Gy) was prescribed to the gross tumor, calculated in 2-Gy equivalents using an α/ß ratio of 3.5, along with a simultaneous integrated boost of 81.5%. The primary endpoint of this study was local control. RESULTS: The median tumor size and volume were 5.1 cm and 112.4 cm3, respectively. Treatment was generally well tolerated, with only 15% of the patients experiencing mild acute skin toxicity, which resolved spontaneously. The best infield response rate was 82%, with the objective response observed at a median time of 10.8 months post-RT (range, 1.4-29.2), until local progression or the last follow-up. At a median follow-up of 18.3 months, the 2-year local control rate was 77%. A higher number of prior lines of systemic therapy was significantly associated with poorer 2-year local control (one-two lines, 94% vs three or more lines, 34%; p = 0.004). Post-RT, 67% of the patients transitioned to the next line of systemic therapy, and the median duration of maintaining the same systemic therapy post-RT was 16.3 months (range, 1.9-40.3). CONCLUSION: In our small dataset, 5-fraction, high-conformal ultrahypofractionated breast RT offered promising 2-year local control with minimal toxicity. Further studies are warranted to investigate the optimal dose and role in this setting.

Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy for Oligoprogressive Cancers: Results of the Randomized Phase II STOP Trial.

PURPOSE: This trial examined if patients with ≤5 sites of oligoprogression benefit from the addition of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) to standard of care (SOC) systemic therapy. METHODS: We enrolled patients with 1-5 metastases progressing on systemic therapy, and after stratifying by type of systemic therapy (cytotoxic vs. non-cytotoxic), randomized 1:2 between continued SOC treatment vs. SABR to all progressing lesions plus SOC. The trial was initially limited to non-small cell lung cancer but was expanded to include all non-hematologic malignancies to meet accrual goals. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), lesional control, quality of life, adverse events (AEs), and duration of systemic therapy post-randomization. RESULTS: Ninety patients with 127 oligoprogressive metastases were enrolled across 8 Canadian institutions, with 59 randomized to SABR and 31 to SOC. Median age was 67 years and 39 (43%) were female. The most common primary sites were lung (44%), genitourinary (23%) and breast (13%). Protocol adherence in the SOC arm was suboptimal, with 11 patients (35%) either receiving high-dose/ablative therapies (conflicting with trial protocol) or withdrawing from the study. Median follow-up was 31 months. There was no difference in PFS between arms (median PFS 8.4 months in the SABR arm vs. 4.3 months in the SOC arm but curves cross and 2-year PFS was 9% vs. 24% respectively, p=0.91). Median OS was 31.2 months vs. 27.4 months, respectively (p=0.22). Lesional control was superior with SABR (70% vs. 38% respectively, p=0.0015). There were 2 (3.4%) grade 3 and no grade 4/5 AEs attributable to SABR. CONCLUSION: SABR was well-tolerated with superior lesional control but did not improve PFS or OS. Accrual to this study was difficult, and the results may have been impacted by an unwillingness to forgo ablative treatments on the SOC arm. (NCT02756793).

Upfront Versus Delayed Systemic Therapy in Patients With Oligometastatic Cancer Treated With SABR in the Phase 2 SABR-5 Trial.

PURPOSE: The optimal sequencing of local and systemic therapy for oligometastatic cancer has not been established. This study retrospectively compared progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and SABR-related toxicity between upfront versus delay of systemic treatment until progression in patients in the SABR-5 trial. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The single-arm phase 2 SABR-5 trial accrued patients with up to 5 oligometastases across SABR-5 between November 2016 and July 2020. Patients received SABR to all lesions. Two cohorts were retrospectively identified: those receiving upfront systemic treatment along with SABR and those for whom systemic treatment was delayed until disease progression. Patients treated for oligoprogression were excluded. Propensity score analysis with overlap weighting balanced baseline characteristics of cohorts. Bootstrap sampling and Cox regression models estimated the association of delayed systemic treatment with PFS, OS, and grade ≥2 toxicity. RESULTS: A total of 319 patients with oligometastases underwent treatment on SABR-5, including 121 (38%) and 198 (62%) who received upfront and delayed systemic treatment, respectively. In the weighted sample, prostate cancer was the most common primary tumor histology (48%) followed by colorectal (18%), breast (13%), and lung (4%). Most patients (93%) were treated for 1 to 2 metastases. The median follow-up time was 34 months (IQR, 24-45). Delayed systemic treatment was associated with shorter PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.56; 95% CI, 1.15-2.13; P = .005) but similar OS (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.51-1.59; P = .65) compared with upfront systemic treatment. Risk of grade 2 or higher SABR-related toxicity was reduced with delayed systemic treatment (odds ratio, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15-0.70; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Delayed systemic treatment is associated with shorter PFS without reduction in OS and with reduced SABR-related toxicity and may be a favorable option for select patients seeking to avoid initial systemic treatment. Efforts should continue to accrue patients to histology-specific trials examining a delayed systemic treatment approach.

Population-based 10-year oncologic outcomes after low-dose-rate brachytherapy for low-risk and intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to report the rates of disease-free survival (DFS), cause-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival after low-dose-rate (LDR) prostate brachytherapy (PB). METHODS: Data from 1006 consecutive patients with prostate cancer who received LDR-PB and underwent implantation on or before October 23, 2003 were extracted from a prospective database on November 11, 2011. The selected patients had low-risk (58%) or intermediate-risk (42%) disease according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria. The Phoenix threshold was used to define biochemical relapse. Sixty-five percent of patients received 3 months of neoadjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) and 3 months of concomitant ADT. Univariate and multivariate analyses are reported in relation to patient, tumor, and treatment variables. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 7.5 years. By using Fine and Gray competing risks analysis, the 5-year and 10-year actuarial DFS rates were 96.7% (95% confidence interval, 95.2%-97.7%) and 94.1% (95% confidence interval, 92%-95.6%), respectively. When applied to the whole cohort, none of the usual prognostic variables, including dose metrics, were correlated with DFS. However, in both univariate and multivariate models, increasing dose was the only covariate that correlated with improved DFS for the subset of men (N = 348) who did not receive ADT (P = .043). The actuarial 10-year CSS rate was 99.1% (95% confidence interval, 97.3%-99.7%). The overall survival rate was 93.8% at 5 years (95% confidence interval, 92%-95.1%) and 83.5% at 10 years (95% confidence interval, 79.8%-86.6%). Only age at implantation (P = .0001) was correlated with overall survival in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In a consecutive cohort of 1006 men with National Comprehensive Cancer Network low-risk and intermediate-risk prostate cancer, the actuarial rate of recurrent disease after LDR-PB was approximately 3% at 5 years and 6% at 10 years.

Stereotactic Ablative Radiation Therapy for Colorectal Liver Metastases.

INTRODUCTION: Stereotactic Ablative Radiation Therapy (SABR) is a therapeutic option for patients with inoperable oligometastatic colorectal carcinoma (CRC). Given the scarcity of prospective data on outcomes of SABR for metastatic CRC, this study aims to review SABR outcomes and determine predictive factors of local control (LC) and survival in patients with liver metastases from CRC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of SABR for CRC liver metastases between 2011 and 2019 was undertaken. Endpoints included LC, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and time to restarting systemic therapy. Univariate (UVA) and multivariable analyses (MVA) were performed to identify predictive factors. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients were identified. The total number of tumors treated was 58. Median follow-up was 26.6 months. LC at 1, 2 and 3 years was 92.7%, 80.0%, and 61.2% respectively. Median time to local failure was 40.0 months (95% CI 31.8-76.1 months). Median OS was 31.9 months (95% CI 20.6-40.0 months). OS at 1, 2, and 3 years was 79.2%, 61.7%, and 44.9% respectively. Thirty-three patients (69%) restarted systemic therapy after completion of SABR. Median time to restarting chemotherapy was 11.0 months (95% CI 7.1-17.6 months). Systemic therapy free survival at 1, 2, and 3 years was 45.7%, 29.6%, and 22.6% respectively. On MVA, inferior LC was influenced by GTV volume ≥40 cm3 (HR: 3.805, 95% CI 1.376-10.521, P = .01) and PTV D100% BED <100 Gy10 (HR 2.971, 95% CI 1.110-7.953; P = .03). Inferior OS was associated with PTV volume ≥200 cm3 (HR 5.679, 95% CI 2.339-13.755; P < .001). CONCLUSION: SABR is an effective therapeutic option for selected patients with CRC liver metastases providing acceptable LC within the first 2 years. In many cases, it provides meaningful chemotherapy-free intervals. Higher biological effective doses are required to enhance LC.

Mathematical prediction with pretreatment growth rate of metastatic cancer on outcomes: implications for the characterization of oligometastatic disease.

Background: Oligometastatic disease (OMD) represents an indolent cancer status characterized by slow tumor growth and limited metastatic potential. The use of local therapy in the management of the condition continues to rise. This study aimed to investigate the advantage of pretreatment tumor growth rate in addition to baseline disease burden in characterizing OMDs, generally defined by the presence of ≤ 5 metastatic lesions. Methods: The study included patients with metastatic melanoma treated with pembrolizumab. Gross tumor volume of all metastases was contoured on imaging before (TP-1) and at the initiation of pembrolizumab (TP0). Pretreatment tumor growth rate was calculated by an exponential ordinary differential equation model using the sum of tumor volumes at TP-1 and TP0 and the time interval between TP-1. and TP0. Patients were divided into interquartile groups based on pretreatment growth rate. Overall survival, progression-free survival, and subsequent progression-free survival were the study outcomes. Results: At baseline, median cumulative volume and number of metastases were 28.4 cc (range, 0.4-1194.8 cc) and 7 (range, 1-73), respectively. The median interval between TP-1 and TP0 was -90 days and pretreatment tumor growth rate (×10-2 days-1) was median 4.71 (range -0.62 to 44.1). The slow-paced group (pretreatment tumor growth rate ≤ 7.6 ×10-2 days-1, the upper quartile) had a significantly higher overall survival rate, progression-free survival, and subsequent progression-free survival compared to those of the fast-paced group (pretreatment tumor growth rate > 7.6 ×10-2 days-1). Notably, these differences were prominent in the subgroup with >5 metastases. Conclusion: Pretreatment tumor growth rate is a novel prognostic metric associated with overall survival, progression-free survival, and subsequent progression-free survival among metastatic melanoma patients, especially patients with >5 metastases. Future prospective studies should validate the advantage of disease growth rate plus disease burden in better defining OMDs.

Beyond PACIFIC: Real-World Outcomes of Adjuvant Durvalumab According to Treatment Received and PD-L1 Expression.

Adjuvant durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is the standard of care for unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A post hoc exploratory analysis of PACIFIC revealed no OS benefit in the PD-L1 < 1% subgroup. This retrospective analysis assesses the real-world impact of durvalumab on OS according to PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS). Patients with stage III, unresectable NSCLC treated by CRT, with available PD-L1 TPS, from 1 March 2018 to 31 December 2020, at BC Cancer, British Columbia, Canada were included. Patients were divided into two groups, CRT + durvalumab and CRT alone. OS and PFS were analyzed in the PD-L1 ≥ 1% and <1% subgroups. A total of 134 patients were included in the CRT + durvalumab group and 117, in the CRT alone group. Median OS was 35.9 months in the CRT + durvalumab group and 27.4 months in the CRT alone group [HR 0.59 (95% CI 0.42-0.83), p = 0.003]. Durvalumab improved OS in the PD-L1 ≥ 1% [HR 0.53 (95% CI 0.34-0.81), p = 0.003, n = 175], but not in the <1% subgroup [HR 0.79 (95% CI 0.44-1.42), p = 0.4, n = 76]. This retrospective study demonstrates a statistically significant improvement in OS associated with durvalumab after CRT in PD-L1 ≥ 1%, but not PD-L1 < 1% NSCLC. Variables not accounted for may have biased the survival analysis. A prospective study would bring more insight.

Should organs at risk (OARs) be prioritized over target volume coverage in stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) for oligometastases? a secondary analysis of the population-based phase II SABR-5 trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) for oligometastases may improve survival, however concerns about safety remain. To mitigate risk of toxicity, target coverage was sacrificed to prioritize organs-at-risk (OARs) during SABR planning in the population-based SABR-5 trial. This study evaluated the effect of this practice on dosimetry, local recurrence (LR), and progression-free survival (PFS). METHODS: This single-arm phase II trial included patients with up to 5 oligometastases between November 2016 and July 2020. Theprotocol-specified planning objective was to cover 95 % of the planning target volume (PTV) with 100 % of the prescribed dose, however PTV coverage was reduced as needed to meet OAR constraints. This trade-off was measured using the coverage compromise index (CCI), computed as minimum dose received by the hottest 99 % of the PTV (D99) divided by the prescription dose. Under-coverage was defined as CCI < 0.90. The potential association between CCI and outcomes was evaluated. RESULTS: 549 lesions from 381 patients were assessed. Mean CCI was 0.88 (95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.86-0.89), and 196 (36 %) lesions were under-covered. The highest mean CCI (0.95; 95 %CI, 0.93-0.97) was in non-spine bone lesions (n = 116), while the lowest mean CCI (0.71; 95 % CI, 0.69-0.73) was in spine lesions (n = 104). On multivariable analysis, under-coverage did not predict for worse LR (HR 0.48, p = 0.37) or PFS (HR 1.24, p = 0.38). Largest lesion diameter, colorectal and 'other' (non-prostate, breast, or lung) primary predicted for worse LR. Largest lesion diameter, synchronous tumor treatment, short disease free interval, state of oligoprogression, initiation or change in systemic treatment, and a high PTV Dmax were significantly associated with PFS. CONCLUSION: PTV under-coverage was not associated with worse LR or PFS in this large, population-based phase II trial. Combined with low toxicity rates, this study supports the practice of prioritizing OAR constraints during oligometastatic SABR planning.

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for comprehensive treatment of oligometastatic tumors (SABR-COMET): study protocol for a randomized phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) has emerged as a new treatment option for patients with oligometastatic disease. SABR delivers precise, high-dose, hypofractionated radiotherapy, and achieves excellent rates of local control. Survival outcomes for patients with oligometastatic disease treated with SABR appear promising, but conclusions are limited by patient selection, and the lack of adequate controls in most studies. The goal of this multicenter randomized phase II trial is to assess the impact of a comprehensive oligometastatic SABR treatment program on overall survival and quality of life in patients with up to 5 metastatic cancer lesions, compared to patients who receive standard of care treatment alone. METHODS: After stratification by the number of metastases (1-3 vs. 4-5), patients will be randomized between Arm 1: current standard of care treatment, and Arm 2: standard of care treatment + SABR to all sites of known disease. Patients will be randomized in a 1:2 ratio to Arm 1:Arm 2, respectively. For patients receiving SABR, radiotherapy dose and fractionation depends on the site of metastasis and the proximity to critical normal structures. This study aims to accrue a total of 99 patients within four years. The primary endpoint is overall survival, and secondary endpoints include quality of life, toxicity, progression-free survival, lesion control rate, and number of cycles of further chemotherapy/systemic therapy. DISCUSSION: This study will provide an assessment of the impact of SABR on clinical outcomes and quality of life, to determine if long-term survival can be achieved for selected patients with oligometastatic disease, and will inform the design of a possible phase III study.