ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is the standard treatment for medically inoperable early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but regional or distant relapses, or both, are common. Immunotherapy reduces recurrence and improves survival in people with stage III NSCLC after chemoradiotherapy, but its utility in stage I and II cases is unclear. We therefore conducted a randomised phase 2 trial of SABR alone compared with SABR with immunotherapy (I-SABR) for people with early-stage NSCLC. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial comparing SABR to I-SABR, conducted at three different hospitals in TX, USA. People aged 18 years or older with histologically proven treatment-naive stage IA-IB (tumour size ≤4 cm, N0M0), stage IIA (tumour size ≤5 cm, N0M0), or stage IIB (tumour size >5 cm and ≤7 cm, N0M0) as per the American Joint Committee on Cancer version 8 staging system or isolated parenchymal recurrences (tumour size ≤7 cm) NSCLC (TanyNanyM0 before definitive surgery or chemoradiotherapy) were included in this trial. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1; using the Pocock & Simon method) to receive SABR with or without four cycles of nivolumab (480 mg, once every 4 weeks, with the first dose on the same day as, or within 36 h after, the first SABR fraction). This trial was unmasked. The primary endpoint was 4-year event-free survival (local, regional, or distant recurrence; second primary lung cancer; or death). Analyses were both intention to treat (ITT) and per protocol. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03110978) and is closed to enrolment. FINDINGS: From June 30, 2017, to March 22, 2022, 156 participants were randomly assigned, and 141 participants received assigned therapy. At a median 33 months' follow-up, I-SABR significantly improved 4-year event-free survival from 53% (95% CI 42-67%) with SABR to 77% (66-91%; per-protocol population, hazard ratio [HR] 0·38; 95% CI 0·19-0·75; p=0·0056; ITT population, HR 0·42; 95% CI 0·22-0·80; p=0·0080). There were no grade 3 or higher adverse events associated with SABR. In the I-SABR group, ten participants (15%) had grade 3 immunologial adverse events related to nivolumab; none had grade 3 pneumonitis or grade 4 or higher toxicity. INTERPRETATION: Compared with SABR alone, I-SABR significantly improved event-free survival at 4 years in people with early-stage treatment-naive or lung parenchymal recurrent node-negative NSCLC, with tolerable toxicity. I-SABR could be a treatment option in these participants, but further confirmation from a number of currently accruing phase 3 trials is required. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb and MD Anderson Cancer Center Alliance, National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health through Cancer Center Core Support Grant and Clinical and Translational Science Award to The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.
Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung , Lung Neoplasms , Small Cell Lung Carcinoma , Humans , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/radiotherapy , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/drug therapy , Chronic Disease , Immunotherapy , Lung Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Lung Neoplasms/drug therapy , Neoplasm Staging , Nivolumab/adverse effects , Recurrence , Small Cell Lung Carcinoma/drug therapy , Small Cell Lung Carcinoma/radiotherapy , Treatment Outcome , Adolescent , AdultABSTRACT
The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) provide recommendations for the treatment of patients with NSCLC, including diagnosis, primary disease management, surveillance for relapse, and subsequent treatment. The panel has updated the list of recommended targeted therapies based on recent FDA approvals and clinical data. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for NSCLC focuses on treatment recommendations for advanced or metastatic NSCLC with actionable molecular biomarkers.
Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung , Lung Neoplasms , Humans , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/therapy , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/diagnosis , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/pathology , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/genetics , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/drug therapy , Lung Neoplasms/diagnosis , Lung Neoplasms/therapy , Lung Neoplasms/pathology , Lung Neoplasms/genetics , Biomarkers, Tumor/genetics , Molecular Targeted Therapy/methods , Neoplasm StagingABSTRACT
Mesothelioma is a rare cancer that originates from the mesothelial surfaces of the pleura and other sites, and is estimated to occur in approximately 3,500 people in the United States annually. Pleural mesothelioma is the most common type and represents approximately 85% of these cases. The NCCN Guidelines for Mesothelioma: Pleural provide recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up for patients with pleural mesothelioma. These NCCN Guidelines Insights highlight significant updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Mesothelioma: Pleural, including revised guidance on disease classification and systemic therapy options.
Subject(s)
Mesothelioma, Malignant , Mesothelioma , Pleural Neoplasms , Humans , Pleura , Mesothelioma/diagnosis , Mesothelioma/therapy , Pleural Neoplasms/diagnosis , Pleural Neoplasms/therapyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant immunotherapy (nIT) is a rapidly emerging paradigm for advanced resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The objectives of this PRISMA/MOOSE/PICOD-guided systematic review and meta-analysis were (1) to assess the safety and efficacy of nIT, (2) to compare the safety and efficacy of neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy (nCIT) versus chemotherapy alone (nCT), and (3) to explore predictors of pathologic response with nIT and their association with outcomes. METHODS: Eligibility was resectable stage I-III NSCLC and the receipt of programmed death-1/programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1)/cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 inhibitors before resection; other forms and modalities of neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant therapies were allowed. For statistical analysis, the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect or random-effect model was used, depending on the heterogeneity (I2 ). RESULTS: Sixty-six articles met the criteria (eight randomized studies, 39 prospective nonrandomized studies, and 19 retrospective studies). The pooled pathologic complete response (pCR) rate was 28.1%. The estimated grade ≥3 toxicity rate was 18.0%. Compared with nCT, nCIT achieved higher rates of pCR (odds ratio [OR], 7.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.49-12.97; p < .001), progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio [HR] 0.51; 95% CI, 0.38-0.67; p < .001), and overall survival (OS) (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.36-0.74; p = .0003) but yielded similar toxicity rates (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.67-1.52; p = .97). The results remained robust on sensitivity analysis when all retrospective publications were removed. pCR was associated with improved PFS (HR, 0.25; 0.15-0.43; p < .001) and OS (HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.10-0.67; p = .005). PD-L1 expressors (≥1%) were more likely to achieve a pCR (OR, 2.93; 95% CI, 1.22-7.03; p = .02). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced resectable NSCLC, neoadjuvant immunotherapy was safe and efficacious. nCIT improved pathologic response rates and PFS/OS over nCT, particularly in patients who had tumors that expressed PD-L1, without increasing toxicities. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: This meta-analysis of 66 studies showed that neoadjuvant immunotherapy for advanced resectable non-small cell lung cancer is safe and efficacious. Compared with chemotherapy alone, chemoimmunotherapy improved pathologic response rates and survival, particularly for patients who had tumors that expressed programmed cell death ligand-1, without increasing toxicities.
Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung , Lung Neoplasms , Humans , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/drug therapy , Lung Neoplasms/drug therapy , Neoadjuvant Therapy , B7-H1 Antigen , Ligands , Prospective Studies , Retrospective Studies , Immunotherapy/adverse effects , Immunotherapy/methodsABSTRACT
Mesothelioma is a rare cancer originating in mesothelial surfaces of the peritoneum, pleura, and other sites. These NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) focus on peritoneal mesothelioma (PeM). The NCCN Guidelines for PeM provide recommendations for workup, diagnosis, and treatment of primary as well as previously treated PeM. The diagnosis of PeM may be delayed because PeM mimics other diseases and conditions and because the disease is so rare. The pathology section was recently updated to include new information about markers used to identify mesothelioma, which is difficult to diagnose. The term "malignant" is no longer used to classify mesotheliomas, because all mesotheliomas are now defined as malignant.
Subject(s)
Mesothelioma, Malignant , Mesothelioma , Humans , Medical Oncology , Mesothelioma/diagnosis , Mesothelioma/therapy , PeritoneumABSTRACT
The NCCN Guidelines for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) provide recommendations for management of disease in patients with NSCLC. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on neoadjuvant and adjuvant (also known as perioperative) systemic therapy options for eligible patients with resectable NSCLC.
Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung , Lung Neoplasms , Humans , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/diagnosis , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/drug therapy , Lung Neoplasms/diagnosis , Lung Neoplasms/therapy , Neoadjuvant TherapyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Systemic corticosteroids are commonly prescribed for palliation of dyspnoea in patients with cancer, despite scarce evidence to support their use. We aimed to assess the effect of high-dose dexamethasone versus placebo on cancer-related dyspnoea. METHODS: The parallel-group, double-blind, randomised, controlled ABCD (Alleviating Breathlessness in Cancer Patients with Dexamethasone) trial was done at the at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and the general oncology clinic at Lyndon B Johnson General Hospital (both in Houston, TX, USA). Ambulatory patients with cancer, aged 18 years or older, and with an average dyspnoea intensity score on an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS; 0=none, 10=worst) over the past week of 4 or higher were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive dexamethasone 8 mg orally every 12 h for 7 days followed by 4 mg orally every 12 h for 7 days, or matching placebo capsules for 14 days. Pharmacists did permuted block randomisation with a block size of six, and patients were stratified by baseline dyspnoea score (4-6 vs 7-10) and study site. Patients, research staff, and clinicians were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was change in dyspnoea NRS intensity over the past 24 h from baseline to day 7 (±2 days). Analyses were done by modified intention-to-treat (ie, including all patients who were randomly assigned and started the study treatment, regardless of whether they completed the study). Enrolment was stopped after the second preplanned interim analysis, when the futility criterion was met. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03367156) and is now completed. FINDINGS: Between Jan 11, 2018, and April 23, 2021, we screened 2867 patients, enrolled 149 patients, and randomly assigned 128 to dexamethasone (n=85) or placebo (n=43). The mean change in dyspnoea NRS intensity from baseline to day 7 (±2 days) was -1·6 (95% CI -2·0 to -1·2) in the dexamethasone group and -1·6 (-2·3 to -0·9) in the placebo group, with no significant between-group difference (mean 0 [95% CI -0·8 to 0·7]; p=0·48). The most common all-cause grade 3-4 adverse events were infections (nine [11%] of 85 patients in the dexamethasone group vs three [7%] of 43 in the placebo group), insomnia (seven [8%] vs one [2%]), and neuropsychiatric symptoms (three [4%] vs none [0%]). Serious adverse events, all resulting in hospital admissions, were reported in 24 (28%) of 85 patients in the dexamethasone group and in three (7%) of 43 patients in the placebo group. No treatment-related deaths occurred in either group. INTERPRETATION: High-dose dexamethasone did not improve dyspnoea in patients with cancer more effectively than placebo and was associated with a higher frequency of adverse events. These data suggest that dexamethasone should not be routinely given to unselected patients with cancer for palliation of dyspnoea. FUNDING: US National Cancer Institute.
Subject(s)
Neoplasms , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , Dexamethasone/adverse effects , Double-Blind Method , Dyspnea/chemically induced , Dyspnea/etiology , Humans , Neoplasms/drug therapy , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
Metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is highly heterogeneous, and there are patients with limited areas of metastases (oligometastases) or progression (oligoprogression) whose natural history and prognosis can be considerably more favorable. As a result, local therapy may offer these patients a chance at clinically meaningful disease control and/or cure. This review begins by describing the current status of the existing prospective data, including evidence of overall survival improvements from multiple randomized trials. Given the nascence of this realm, the review then examines ongoing controversies and unresolved issues regarding local therapy for oligometastatic and oligoprogression. First, the role of local therapy in the setting of targeted therapies and immunotherapy is discussed, because most published randomized trials of local therapy have been performed in the context of chemotherapy, which is no longer the standard of care for most patients with metastatic NSCLC. Refining patient selection for local therapy is then reviewed, including clinical factors (such as control of the primary and regional lymph node sites, the heterogeneous definitions of oligometastases/oligoprogression, and the underrepresentation of brain metastases in existing randomized data) and novel pathologic/molecular biomarkers. Next, because there also remains no consensus regarding the optimal modality of local therapy, the advantages and disadvantages of stereotactic radiotherapy, surgery, and other ablative techniques are discussed. Subsequently, methods to optimize radiotherapy are examined, including controversies regarding the optimal dose/fractionation and timing/sequencing scheme. A discussion regarding potentially extending the existing data to polymetastatic NSCLC follows. The review concludes with remarks regarding prudently designing randomized trials of local therapy going forward, including the benefits and drawbacks of specific endpoints meriting further testing in this unique population.
Subject(s)
Brain Neoplasms , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung , Lung Neoplasms , Radiosurgery , Brain Neoplasms/secondary , Humans , Lung Neoplasms/pathology , Prospective Studies , Radiosurgery/methodsABSTRACT
NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) provide recommended management for patients with NSCLC, including diagnosis, primary treatment, surveillance for relapse, and subsequent treatment. Patients with metastatic lung cancer who are eligible for targeted therapies or immunotherapies are now surviving longer. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for NSCLC focuses on targeted therapies for patients with metastatic NSCLC and actionable mutations.
Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung , Lung Neoplasms , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/diagnosis , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/genetics , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/therapy , Humans , Immunotherapy , Lung Neoplasms/diagnosis , Lung Neoplasms/genetics , Lung Neoplasms/therapy , Medical Oncology , Neoplasm Recurrence, LocalABSTRACT
PURPOSE: It is essential to evaluate the risk of occult lymph node (LN) disease in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), especially because delivering stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) assumes no occult spread. This study was designed to assist clinicians in roughly quantifying this risk for cN0 NSCLC. METHODS: The National Cancer Data Base was queried for cN0 cM0 lung squamous cell or adenocarcinoma who underwent surgery and LN dissection without neoadjuvant therapy. Statistics included multivariable logistic regression to evaluate factors associated with pN + disease. RESULTS: 109,964 patients were included. For tumors with size ≤1.0, 1.1-2.0, 2.1-3.0, 3.1-4.0, 4.1-5.0, 5.1-6.0, 6.1-7.0, and >7.0 cm, the pN + rate was 4.4, 7.7, 12.9, 18.0, 20.2, 22.5, 24.4, and 26.4%, respectively. When examining patients with more complete LN dissections (defined as removal of at least 10 LNs), the respective values were 6.6, 11.5, 17.6, 25.3, 26.8, 29.7, 30.7, and 31.6%. Moderately-poorly differentiated disease and adenocarcinomas were associated with a higher rate of pN + disease (p < .001 for both). For every cm increase in tumor size, the relative occult nodal risk increased by 10-14% (p < .001). For every elapsed day from initial diagnosis, the relative risk increased by â¼1% (p < .001). Graphs with best-fit lines were created based on tumor size, histology, and differentiation to aid physicians in estimating the pN + risk. CONCLUSIONS: This nationwide study can allow clinicians to roughly estimate the rate of occult LN disease in cN0 NSCLC. These data can also assist in guiding enrollment on randomized trials of SABR ± immunotherapy, individualizing follow-up imaging surveillance, and patient counseling to avoid post-diagnosis delays.
Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung , Lung Neoplasms , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/pathology , Humans , Lung Neoplasms/pathology , Lymph Node Excision , Lymph Nodes/pathology , Lymph Nodes/surgery , Lymphatic Metastasis/pathology , Neoplasm Staging , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
Aim: Previous studies showed that replacing conventional flattened beams (FF) with flattening filter-free (FFF) beams improves the therapeutic ratio in lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), but these findings could have been impacted by dose calculation uncertainties caused by the heterogeneity of the thoracic anatomy and by respiratory motion, which were particularly high for target coverage. In this study, we minimized such uncertainties by calculating doses using high-spatial-resolution Monte Carlo and four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) images. We aimed to evaluate more reliably the benefits of using FFF beams for lung SBRT. Materials and methods: For a cohort of 15 patients with early stage lung cancer that we investigated in a previous treatment planning study, we recalculated dose distributions with Monte Carlo using 4DCT images. This included fifteen FF and fifteen FFF treatment plans. Results: Compared to Monte Carlo, the treatment planning system (TPS) over-predicted doses in low-dose regions of the planning target volume. For most patients, replacing FF beams with FFF beams improved target coverage, tumor control, and uncomplicated tumor control probabilities. Conclusions: Monte Carlo tends to reveal deficiencies in target coverage compared to coverage predicted by the TPS. Our data support previously reported benefits of using FFF beams for lung SBRT.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: A previous pooled analysis of the STARS and ROSEL trials showed higher survival after stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) than with surgery for operable early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but that analysis had notable limitations. This study reports long-term results of the revised STARS trial, in which the SABR group was re-accrued with a larger sample size, along with a protocol-specified propensity-matched comparison with a prospectively registered, contemporary institutional cohort of patients who underwent video-assisted thoracoscopic surgical lobectomy with mediastinal lymph node dissection (VATS L-MLND). METHODS: This single-arm prospective trial was done at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, TX, USA) and enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with a Zubrod performance status of 0-2, newly diagnosed and histologically confirmed NSCLC with N0M0 disease (squamous cell, adenocarcinoma, large cell, or NSCLC not otherwise specified), and a tumour diameter of 3 cm or less. This trial did not include patients from the previous pooled analysis. SABR dosing was 54 Gy in three fractions (for peripheral lesions) or 50 Gy in four fractions (for central tumours; simultaneous integrated boost to gross tumour totalling 60 Gy). The primary endpoint was the 3-year overall survival. For the propensity-matching analysis, we used a surgical cohort from the MD Anderson Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery's prospectively registered, institutional review board-approved database of all patients with clinical stage I NSCLC who underwent VATS L-MLND during the period of enrolment in this trial. Non-inferiority could be claimed if the 3-year overall survival rate after SABR was lower than that after VATS L-MLND by 12% or less and the upper bound of the 95% CI of the hazard ratio (HR) was less than 1·965. Propensity matching consisted of determining a propensity score using a multivariable logistic regression model including several covariates (age, tumour size, histology, performance status, and the interaction of age and sex); based on the propensity scores, one patient in the SABR group was randomly matched with one patient in the VATS L-MLND group using a 5:1 digit greedy match algorithm. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02357992. FINDINGS: Between Sept 1, 2015, and Jan 31, 2017, 80 patients were enrolled and included in efficacy and safety analyses. Median follow-up time was 5·1 years (IQR 3·9-5·8). Overall survival was 91% (95% CI 85-98) at 3 years and 87% (79-95) at 5 years. SABR was tolerated well, with no grade 4-5 toxicity and one (1%) case each of grade 3 dyspnoea, grade 2 pneumonitis, and grade 2 lung fibrosis. No serious adverse events were recorded. Overall survival in the propensity-matched VATS L-MLND cohort was 91% (95% CI 85-98) at 3 years and 84% (76-93) at 5 years. Non-inferiority was claimed since the 3-year overall survival after SABR was not lower than that observed in the VATS L-MLND group. There was no significant difference in overall survival between the two patient cohorts (hazard ratio 0·86 [95% CI 0·45-1·65], p=0·65) from a multivariable analysis. INTERPRETATION: Long-term survival after SABR is non-inferior to VATS L-MLND for operable stage IA NSCLC. SABR remains promising for such cases but multidisciplinary management is strongly recommended. FUNDING: Varian Medical Systems and US National Cancer Institute (National Institutes of Health).
Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/surgery , Lung Neoplasms/surgery , Pneumonectomy , Radiosurgery , Thoracic Surgery, Video-Assisted , Aged , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/mortality , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/pathology , Female , Humans , Lung Neoplasms/mortality , Lung Neoplasms/pathology , Lymph Node Excision , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasm Staging , Pneumonectomy/adverse effects , Pneumonectomy/mortality , Progression-Free Survival , Prospective Studies , Radiosurgery/adverse effects , Radiosurgery/mortality , Texas , Thoracic Surgery, Video-Assisted/adverse effects , Thoracic Surgery, Video-Assisted/mortality , Time FactorsABSTRACT
Purpose Acute radiation-induced esophagitis (ARIE) leads to treatment delays, decreased quality of life (QOL), and secondary adverse events such as weight loss. Grade 3 ARIE occurs in 15%-30% of patients undergoing radiotherapy to the esophagus, leading to disruption or discontinuation of treatment. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of glutamine, a common nutritional supplement, on ARIE in patients with thoracic malignancies. Patients and methods This double-blind, placebo-controlled trial enrolled patients with advanced thoracic malignancies receiving concurrent chemotherapy/radiotherapy or radiotherapy alone, with radiation doses to the esophagus ≥45 Gy. Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive 4 g of glutamine or glycine placebo twice daily. The primary objective was to determine whether glutamine decreases the severity of ARIE in these patients. Secondary objectives included assessment of the effects of glutamine on other measures of ARIE, weight, symptom burden measure assessed by the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI-HN) questionnaire and the toxicity profile of glutamine. Results At the time of interim analysis, 53 patients were enrolled: 27 in the glutamine arm and 26 in the placebo arm. There was no difference in the incidence of esophagitis in the first 6 weeks of radiotherapy between the glutamine and placebo arms (74% versus 68%; P = 1.00). There were no significant differences between the two arms for time to onset of esophagitis. The duration of ARIE was shorter (6.3 versus 7.1 weeks; P = 0.54) and median weight loss was lower (0.9 kg versus 2.8 kg; p = 0.83) in the glutamine arm versus the placebo arm. The groups differ significantly in core symptom severity (2.1 vs 1.5, p < .03) but not in head and neck specific symptom severity (1.2 vs 1.1, p < .60) nor in symptom interference (2.1 vs 1.7, p < .22). There was no grade 3 or higher adverse event at least possibly related to glutamine. The study was terminated for futility following interim analysis. Conclusion Oral glutamine was not associated with significant improvement in severity of ARIE, weight loss, head and neck specific symptoms or symptom interference compared with placebo in patients with advanced thoracic malignancies receiving radiotherapy to the esophagus.Clinical trial information. NCT01952847, and date of registration is September 30, 2013.
Subject(s)
Esophagitis/prevention & control , Glutamine/administration & dosage , Radiation Injuries/prevention & control , Thoracic Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Aged , Antineoplastic Agents/administration & dosage , Combined Modality Therapy , Double-Blind Method , Esophagitis/epidemiology , Esophagitis/etiology , Female , Glutamine/adverse effects , Humans , Incidence , Male , Middle Aged , Radiation Injuries/epidemiology , Severity of Illness Index , Time FactorsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Palliative radiotherapy (RT) is effective, but some patients die during treatment or too soon afterward to experience benefit. This study investigates end-of-life RT patterns to inform shared decision-making and facilitate treatment consistent with palliative goals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients who died ≤6 months after initiating palliative RT at an academic cancer center between 2015 and 2018 were identified. Associations with time-to-death, early mortality (≤30 days), and midtreatment mortality were analyzed. RESULTS: In total, 1,620 patients died ≤6 months from palliative RT initiation, including 574 (34%) deaths at ≤30 days and 222 (14%) midtreatment. Median survival was 43 days from RT start (95% CI, 41-45) and varied by site (P<.001), ranging from 36 (head and neck) to 53 days (dermal/soft tissue). On multivariable analysis, earlier time-to-death was associated with osseous (hazard ratio [HR], 1.33; P<.001) and head and neck (HR, 1.45; P<.001) sites, multiple RT courses ≤6 months (HR, 1.65; P<.001), and multisite treatments (HR, 1.40; P=.008), whereas stereotactic technique (HR, 0.77; P<.001) and more recent treatment year (HR, 0.82; P<.001) were associated with longer survival. No difference in time to death was noted among patients prescribed conventional RT in 1 to 10 versus >10 fractions (median, 40 vs 47 days; P=.272), although the latter entailed longer courses. The 30-day mortality group included 335 (58%) inpatients, who were 27% more likely to die midtreatment (P=.031). On multivariable analysis, midtreatment mortality among these inpatients was associated with thoracic (odds ratio [OR], 2.95; P=.002) and central nervous system (CNS; OR, 2.44; P=.002) indications, >5-fraction courses (OR, 3.27; P<.001), and performance status of 3 to 4 (OR, 1.63; P=.050). Conversely, palliative/supportive care consultation was associated with decreased midtreatment mortality (OR, 0.60; P=.045). CONCLUSIONS: Earlier referrals and hypofractionated courses (≤5-10 treatments) should be routinely considered for palliative RT indications, given the short life expectancies of patients at this stage in their disease course. Providers should exercise caution for emergent thoracic and CNS indications among inpatients with poor prognoses due to high midtreatment mortality.
Subject(s)
Hospice Care , Terminal Care , Humans , Palliative Care/methods , Patient SelectionABSTRACT
The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) address all aspects of management for NSCLC. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines regarding targeted therapies, immunotherapies, and their respective biomarkers.
Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung , Lung Neoplasms , Biomarkers, Tumor , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/diagnosis , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/therapy , Humans , Immunotherapy , Lung Neoplasms/diagnosis , Lung Neoplasms/therapyABSTRACT
Aim: To investigate the extent to which lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) treatment plans can be improved by replacing conventional flattening filter (FF) beams with flattening filter-free (FFF) beams. Material and Methods: We selected 15 patients who had received SBRT with conventional 6-MV photon beams for early-stage lung cancer. We imported the patients' treatment plans into the Eclipse 13.6 treatment planning system, in which we configured the AAA dose calculation model using representative beam data for a TrueBeam accelerator operated in 6-MV FFF mode. We then created new treatment plans by replacing the conventional FF beams in the original plans with FFF beams. Results: The FFF plans had better target coverage than the original FF plans did. For the planning target volume, FFF plans significantly improved the D98, D95, D90, homogeneity index, and uncomplicated tumor control probability. In most cases, the doses to organs at risk were lower in FFF plans. FFF plans significantly reduced the mean lung dose, V10, V20, V30, and normal tissue complication probability for the total lung and improved the dosimetric indices for the ipsilateral lung. For most patients, FFF beams achieved lower maximum doses to the esophagus, heart, and the spinal cord; and a lower chest wall V30. Findings: Compared with FF beams, FFF beams achieved lower doses to organs at risk, especially the lung, without compromising tumor coverage; in fact, FFF beams improved coverage in most cases. Thus, replacing FF beams with FFF beams can achieve a better therapeutic ratio.
Subject(s)
Immunotherapy , Lung Neoplasms , Radiosurgery , Humans , Radiosurgery/methods , Lung Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Lung Neoplasms/therapy , Lung Neoplasms/pathology , Immunotherapy/methods , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/radiotherapy , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/pathology , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/therapy , Combined Modality Therapy , Neoplasm StagingABSTRACT
Vascular damage is followed by vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) expression at high levels, which is an important mechanism forradiation brain necrosis development. Bevacizumab alleviates brain edema symptoms caused by radiation brain necrosis through inhibiting VEGF and acting on vascular tissue around the brain necrosis area. Many studies have confirmed that bevacizumab effectively relieves symptoms caused by brain necrosis, improves patients' Karnofsky performance status (KPS) scores and brain necrosis imaging. However, necrosis is irreversible, and hypoxia and ischemia localized in the brain necrosis area may easily lead to radiation brain necrosis recurrence after bevacizumab is discontinued. Further studies are necessary to investigate brain necrosis diagnoses, bevacizumab indications, and the optimal mode of administration, bevacizumab resistance and necrosis with a residual or recurrent tumor.
Subject(s)
Angiogenesis Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Bevacizumab/therapeutic use , Brain Ischemia/drug therapy , Necrosis/drug therapy , Neovascularization, Pathologic/prevention & control , Radiation Injuries/drug therapy , Brain/blood supply , Brain/drug effects , Brain/pathology , Brain/radiation effects , Brain Ischemia/genetics , Brain Ischemia/pathology , Drug Resistance/genetics , Gamma Rays/adverse effects , Gene Expression , Humans , Necrosis/genetics , Necrosis/pathology , Neovascularization, Pathologic/genetics , Neovascularization, Pathologic/pathology , Radiation Injuries/genetics , Radiation Injuries/pathology , Recurrence , Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A/antagonists & inhibitors , Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A/genetics , Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A/metabolismABSTRACT
The NCCN Guidelines for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) address all aspects of management for NSCLC. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates in immunotherapy. For the 2020 update, all of the systemic therapy regimens have been categorized using a new preference stratification system; certain regimens are now recommended as "preferred interventions," whereas others are categorized as either "other recommended interventions" or "useful under certain circumstances."
Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Agents/therapeutic use , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/drug therapy , Immunotherapy/methods , Lung Neoplasms/drug therapy , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/immunology , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/pathology , Humans , Lung Neoplasms/immunology , Lung Neoplasms/pathologyABSTRACT
The NCCN Guidelines for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) address all aspects of management for NSCLC. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the targeted therapy and immunotherapy sections in the NCCN Guidelines. For the 2018 update, a new section on biomarkers was added.