Radiotherapy plus chemotherapy with or without surgical resection for stage III non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Results from phase II studies in patients with stage IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer with ipsilateral mediastinal nodal metastases (N2) have shown the feasibility of resection after concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy with promising rates of survival. We therefore did this phase III trial to compare concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy followed by resection with standard concurrent chemotherapy and definitive radiotherapy without resection. METHODS: Patients with stage T1-3pN2M0 non-small-cell lung cancer were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to concurrent induction chemotherapy (two cycles of cisplatin [50 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, 29, and 36] and etoposide [50 mg/m(2) on days 1-5 and 29-33]) plus radiotherapy (45 Gy) in multiple academic and community hospitals. If no progression, patients in group 1 underwent resection and those in group 2 continued radiotherapy uninterrupted up to 61 Gy. Two additional cycles of cisplatin and etoposide were given in both groups. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00002550. FINDINGS: 202 patients (median age 59 years, range 31-77) were assigned to group 1 and 194 (61 years, 32-78) to group 2. Median OS was 23.6 months (IQR 9.0-not reached) in group 1 versus 22.2 months (9.4-52.7) in group 2 (hazard ratio [HR] 0.87 [0.70-1.10]; p=0.24). Number of patients alive at 5 years was 37 (point estimate 27%) in group 1 and 24 (point estimate 20%) in group 2 (odds ratio 0.63 [0.36-1.10]; p=0.10). With N0 status at thoracotomy, the median OS was 34.4 months (IQR 15.7-not reached; 19 [point estimate 41%] patients alive at 5 years). Progression-free survival (PFS) was better in group 1 than in group 2, median 12.8 months (5.3-42.2) vs 10.5 months (4.8-20.6), HR 0.77 [0.62-0.96]; p=0.017); the number of patients without disease progression at 5 years was 32 (point estimate 22%) versus 13 (point estimate 11%), respectively. Neutropenia and oesophagitis were the main grade 3 or 4 toxicities associated with chemotherapy plus radiotherapy in group 1 (77 [38%] and 20 [10%], respectively) and group 2 (80 [41%] and 44 [23%], respectively). In group 1, 16 (8%) deaths were treatment related versus four (2%) in group 2. In an exploratory analysis, OS was improved for patients who underwent lobectomy, but not pneumonectomy, versus chemotherapy plus radiotherapy. INTERPRETATION: Chemotherapy plus radiotherapy with or without resection (preferably lobectomy) are options for patients with stage IIIA(N2) non-small-cell lung cancer. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute, Canadian Cancer Society, and National Cancer Institute of Canada.

Randomized trial of amifostine in locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients receiving chemotherapy and hyperfractionated radiation: radiation therapy oncology group trial 98-01.

PURPOSE: To test the ability of the cytoprotectant, amifostine, to reduce chemoradiotherapy-induced esophagitis and evaluate its influence on quality of life (QOL) and swallowing symptoms. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 243 patients with stage II to IIIA/B non-small-cell lung cancer received induction paclitaxel 225 mg/m(2) intravenously (IV) days 1 and 22 and carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) days 1 and 22, followed by concurrent weekly paclitaxel (50 mg/m(2) IV) and carboplatin (AUC 2), and hyperfractionated radiation therapy (69.6 Gy at 1.2 Gy bid). Patients were randomly assigned at registration to amifostine (AM) 500 mg IV four times per week or no AM during chemoradiotherapy. Beyond standard toxicity end points, physician dysphagia logs (PDLs), daily patient swallowing diaries, and QOL (EORTC QLQ-C30/LC-13) were also collected. Swallowing AUC analyses were calculated from patient diaries and PDLs. RESULTS: A total of 120 patients were randomly assigned to receive AM, and 122, to receive no AM (one patient was ineligible); 72% received AM per protocol or with a minor deviation. AM was associated with higher rates of acute nausea (P = .03), vomiting (P = .007), cardiovascular toxicity (P = .0001), and infection or febrile neutropenia (P = .03). The rate of >/= grade 3 esophagitis was 30% with AM versus 34% without AM (P = .9). Patient diaries demonstrated lower swallowing dysfunction AUC with amifostine (z test P = .025). QOL was not significantly different between the two arms, except for pain, which showed more clinically meaningful improvement and less deterioration at 6 weeks follow-up (v pretreatment) in the AM arm (P = .003). The median survival rates for both arms were comparable (AM, 17.3 v no AM, 17.9 months; P = .87). CONCLUSION: AM did not significantly reduce esophagitis >/= grade 3 in patients receiving hyperfractionated radiation and chemotherapy. However, patient self-assessments suggested a possible advantage to AM that is being explored with modified dosing route strategies.

Randomized phase IIB trial of BLP25 liposome vaccine in stage IIIB and IV non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of BLP25 liposome vaccine (L-BLP25) on survival and toxicity in patients with stage IIIB and IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Secondary objectives included health-related quality of life (QOL) and immune responses elicited by L-BLP25. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2 and stable or responding stage IIIB or IV NSCLC after any first-line chemotherapy were prestratified by stage and randomly assigned to either L-BLP25 plus best supportive care (BSC) or BSC alone. Patients in the L-BLP25 arm received a single intravenous dose of cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 followed by eight weekly subcutaneous immunizations with L-BLP25 (1,000 microg). Subsequent immunizations were administered at 6-week intervals. RESULTS: The survival results indicate a median survival time of 4.4 months longer for patients randomly assigned to the L-BLP25 arm (88 patients) compared with patients assigned to the BSC arm (83 patients; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 0.739; 95% CI, 0.509 to 1.073; P = .112). The greatest effect was observed in stage IIIB locoregional (LR) patients, for whom the median survival time for the L-BLP25 arm has not yet been reached compared with 13.3 months for the BSC arm (adjusted HR = 0.524; 95% CI, 0.261 to 1.052; P = .069). No significant toxicity was observed. QOL was maintained longer in patients on the L-BLP25 arm. CONCLUSION: L-BLP25 maintenance therapy in patients with advanced NSCLC is feasible with minimal toxicity. The survival difference of 4.4 months observed with the vaccine did not reach statistical significance. In the subgroup of patients with stage IIIB LR disease, a strong trend in 2-year survival in favor of L-BLP25 was observed.

Phase II multicenter study of induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent efaproxiral (RSR13) and thoracic radiotherapy for patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Efaproxiral (RSR13) reduces hemoglobin oxygen-binding affinity, facilitates oxygen release, and increases tissue pO2. We conducted a phase II multicenter study that assessed the efficacy and safety of efaproxiral when administered with thoracic radiation therapy (TRT), following induction chemotherapy, for treatment of locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-one patients with locally advanced NSCLC were enrolled at 13 sites. Treatment comprised two cycles of paclitaxel (225 mg/m2) and carboplatin (area under the curve, 6), 3 weeks apart, followed by TRT (64 Gy/32 fractions) with concurrent efaproxiral (50 to 100 mg/kg). Survival results were compared with results of study Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 94-10. RESULTS: Overall response rate was 75% (37 of 49 patients). Complete and partial response rates were 6% (three of 49 patients) and 69% (34 of 49 patients), respectively. Median survival time (MST) was 20.6 months (95% CI, 14.0 to 24.2); overall survival rates at 1- and 2-years were 67% and 37%, respectively. Survival results were compared with the sequential (S-CRT) and concurrent (C-CRT) chemoradiotherapy arms of RTOG 94-10. MSTs for cases matched by stage, Karnofsky performance status, and age were: RT-010, 20.6 months; S-CRT, 15.1 months; and C-CRT, 17.9 months. Grade 3 to 4 toxicities related to efaproxiral that occurred in more than one patient included transient hypoxemia (19%), radiation pneumonitis (11%), and fatigue (4%). CONCLUSION: Addition of efaproxiral to S-CRT represents a promising approach in NSCLC treatment, and a randomized study should be pursued. The low incidence of grade 3 to 4 toxicities suggests that the use of efaproxiral instead of a cytotoxic agent, as a radiation sensitizer, may be advantageous.

Randomized phase III trial of single versus fractionated thoracic radiation in the palliation of patients with lung cancer (NCIC CTG SC.15).

PURPOSE: This multi-institutional Phase III randomized study compared 10 Gy single-fraction radiotherapy (RT) with 20 Gy in five fractions in the palliation of thoracic symptoms from lung cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The primary end point was palliation of thoracic symptoms at 1 month after RT, evaluated by a patient-completed daily diary card. Secondary end points included quality of life, toxicity, and survival. RESULTS: Most (69%) of 230 patients randomized had locally advanced disease unsuitable for curative treatment. The treatment arms were well balanced with respect to the known prognostic factors. At 1 month after RT, no difference was found in symptom control between the two arms, as judged by the daily diary scores. The changes in the scores on the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale indicated that the fractionated RT (five fractions) group had greater improvement in symptoms related to lung cancer (p = 0.009), pain (p = 0.0008), ability to carry out normal activities (p = 0.037), and better global quality of life (p = 0.039). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 scores showed that patients receiving five fractions had a greater improvement in scores with respect to pain (p = 0.04). No significant difference was found in treatment-related toxicity. Patients who received five fractions survived on average 2 months longer (p = 0.0305) than patients who received one fraction. CONCLUSION: Although the two treatment strategies provided a similar degree of palliation of thoracic symptoms, the difference in survival between the two study arms was of a clinically relevant magnitude.

The addition of amifostine to carboplatin and paclitaxel based chemoradiation in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer: long-term follow-up of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) randomized trial 9801.

INTRODUCTION: We report the long-term results of RTOG 9801, a randomized trial investigating the ability of amifostine, a radioprotector, to reduce chemoradiation-induced esophagitis. METHODS: Patients with stages II and IIIA/B non-small-cell lung cancer received induction paclitaxel 225 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) and carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) 6 both days 1 and 22, followed by concurrent weekly paclitaxel (50 mg/m2) and carboplatin (AUC 2), with hyperfractionated radiation therapy (69.6 Gy at 1.2 Gy BID). Patients were randomly assigned to amifostine (AM) 500 mg IV four times per week or no-AM during chemoradiotherapy. Stratification factors included age (<70 vs. ≥70 years), stage and performance status. RESULTS: 243 patients (pts) were enrolled; 120 received AM, 123 received no-AM. Two pts on each arm were found ineligible. Overall, 85% of patients were ≤70 years; 75% had a KPS ≥90. 34% had squamous histology. With median follow-up of 96.3 months (for patients still alive), overall survival was identical (hazard ratio 1.03 (0.79-1.34), NS): five-year survival 17% in both arms. The incidence of late grade 3-5 toxicities was 16% in the AM arm and 19% in the control arm (hazard ratio 1.24 (0.66-2.32), NS). There was no significant difference between the arms regarding overall survival, disease-free survival or long-term toxicity. CONCLUSION: The chemoradiation regimen of carboplatin and paclitaxel produced long-term results in the multi-institutional setting comparable to other regimens. Amifostine did not appear to compromise survival. As done in RTOG 9801, more consistent reporting of long term toxicity is needed for comparison of different chemoradiation regimens.

Phase I clinical trial of the anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody nimotuzumab with concurrent external thoracic radiotherapy in Canadian patients diagnosed with stage IIb, III or IV non-small cell lung cancer unsuitable for radical therapy.

PURPOSE: Many patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are eligible only for palliative radiation (RT) at presentation. This study was designed to assess the feasibility of adding the anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody nimotuzumab to palliative thoracic RT. METHODS: Patients with stage IIB, III or IV NSCLC considered unsuitable for radical radiation or chemo-radiation received nimotuzumab weekly 8× (100, 200 or 400 mg) with radiation (30 or 36 Gy in 3 Gy fractions). If response or disease stability was observed, nimotuzumab was continued every other week starting from week 10 until progression or toxicity. RESULTS: Eighteen patients were enrolled: 6 at 100 mg, 7 at 200 mg, 5 at 400 mg nimotuzumab. Patient characteristics included median age 69 years, 11 males, 17 smokers, 17 Caucasians, stage IIIA/IIIB/IV 2/7/9, 5 Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS) 2; 9 adenocarcinoma. The most commonly reported adverse events were fatigue, anorexia, chills, pain and hypophosphatemia (grades 1 to 2 in most patients). No severe skin or allergic toxicity was noted. No dose-limiting toxicity was encountered. Objective response rate and disease control rate inside the radiation field were 66 and 94.0%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Nimotuzumab administered concurrently with palliative thoracic radiation is well tolerated at each of the three doses investigated in NSCLC patients unsuitable for radical treatment. The low toxicity and absence of rash make this combination therapeutically attractive for frail patients with other co-morbidities and poor performance status. These results support further testing of this regimen in the phase II setting.

A multicenter open-label study to assess the safety of a new formulation of BLP25 liposome vaccine in patients with unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: BLP25 liposome vaccine (L-BLP25) is an innovative therapeutic cancer vaccine designed to induce an immune response resulting in elimination of tumor cells expressing the MUC1 antigen, which is overexpressed in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Manufacturing modifications have produced subtle changes to the lipid A acyl chain composition of L-BLP25. This open-label phase II study was conducted to evaluate the safety of the new formulation in patients with unresectable stage IIIA/IIIB NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-two patients received L-BLP25 1000 µg every week for 8 weeks plus best supportive care. Maintenance vaccinations were given every 6 weeks, commencing at week 13, until disease progression. RESULTS: Median treatment duration was 9.9 months (range, 1-30 months), 9 patients remain on treatment, and 8 have received treatment for > 2 years. Fifteen patients (68%) had adverse events considered to be related to L-BLP25: these were all grade 1/2, except for 1 grade 3 event (pneumonia). The most common adverse events were injection-site reactions (bruising [23%], erythema [18%], pain [14%], fatigue [18%], and influenza-like illness [14%]). After a median follow-up of 26.7 months, the 1-year survival rate was 82% (95% CI, 66%-98%), and the 2-year survival rate was 64% (95% CI, 44%-84%). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that the new formulation of L-BLP25 has a safety profile similar to the original formulation and is safe to use in the phase III clinical development program.

Oncologists and family physicians. Using a standardized letter to improve communication.

PROBLEM BEING ADDRESSED: Communication between oncologists at a regional cancer centre and family physicians caring for palliative cancer patients in the community was ineffective. OBJECTIVE OF PROGRAM: To improve communication between oncologists and family physicians by routine use of a template for dictated letters concerning follow-up care. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: A consultation letter template was constructed and tested at a single clinic. The template was designed to guide oncologists dictating letters to family physicians for patients' follow-up visits. Effectiveness of the standardized letter was evaluated with a before-after survey. CONCLUSION: Using the template letter improved communication with respect to the relevance, timeliness, format, and amount of information. As care for patients at the end of life increasingly shifts to the community, ongoing efforts are required to improve communication between cancer centres and primary care physicians.