Dose-intensified stereotactic body radiotherapy for painful vertebral metastases: A randomized phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this randomised study was to determine whether dose-intensified stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for painful vertebral metastases results in increased rates of pain improvement compared with conventional external beam radiotherapy (cEBRT) (control) 6 months after treatment. METHODS: This randomized, controlled phase 3 trial was conducted between November 2016 and January 2023, when it was stopped early. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older; had one or two painful, stable, or potentially unstable vertebral metastases; and had a life expectancy of 1 year or longer according to the investigator's estimates. Patients received 48.5 grays (Gy) in 10 fractions (with epidural involvement) or 40 Gy in five fractions (without epidural involvement) in the SBRT group and 30 Gy in 10 fractions or 20 Gy in five fractions in the cEBRT group, respectively. The primary end point was an improvement in the pain score at the treated site by at least 2 points (on a visual analog scale from 0 to 10 points) at 6-month follow-up. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat and per-protocol basis. RESULTS: Of 214 patients who were screened for eligibility, 63 were randomized 1:1 between SBRT (33 patients with 36 metastases) and cEBRT (30 patients with 31 metastases). The median age of all patients was 66 years, and 40 patients were men (63.5%). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the 6-month proportion of patients who had metastases with pain reduction by 2 or more points was significantly higher in the SBRT group versus the control group (69.4% vs. 41.9%, respectively; two-sided p = .02). Changes in opioid medication intake relative to baseline were nonsignificant between the groups. No differences were observed in vertebral compression fracture or adverse event rates between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Dose-intensified SBRT improved pain score more effectively than cEBRT at 6 months.

Pharmaceutical management of acute radiation dermatitis in the German speaking radiation oncology community.

BACKGROUND: Radiation dermatitis (RD) remains the most common side effect in radiation therapy (RT) with various pharmaceutical options available for prevention and treatment. We sought to determine pharmaceutical management patterns of radiation dermatitis among radiation oncology professionals. METHODS: We conducted a survey on RD among the German-speaking community of radiation oncologists inquiring for their opinion on preventive and therapeutic pharmaceutical approaches for acute RD. RESULTS: 244 health professionals participated. Dexpanthenol lotion is the agent most widely used both for prevention (53.0%) and treatment (76.9%) of RD, followed by urea (29.8%) for prevention and corticosteroids (46.9%) for treatment. A wide range of substances is used by participants, though the overall experience with them is rather limited. 32.5% of participants do generally not recommend any preventative treatment. 53.4% of participants recommend alternative medicine for RD management. While seldomly used, corticosteroids were considered most effective in RD therapy, followed by dexpanthenol and low-level laser therapy. A majority of participants prefers moist over dry treatment of moist desquamation and 43.8% prescribe antiseptics. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmaceutical management of RD in the German-speaking radiation oncology community remains controversial, inconsistent, and partially not supported by evidence-based medicine. Stronger evidence level and interdisciplinary consensus is required amongst practitioners to improve these care patterns.

Risk assessment, surveillance, and nonpharmaceutical prevention of acute radiation dermatitis: results of a multicentric survey among the German-speaking radiation oncology community.

PURPOSE: Radiation dermatitis (RD) represents one of the most frequent side effects in radiotherapy (RT). Despite technical progress, mild and moderate RD still affects major subsets of patients and identification and management of patients with a high risk of severe RD is essential. We sought to characterize surveillance and nonpharmaceutical preventive management of RD in German-speaking hospitals and private centers. METHODS: We conducted a survey on RD among German-speaking radiation oncologists inquiring for their evaluation of risk factors, assessment methods, and nonpharmaceutical preventive management of RD. RESULTS: A total of 244 health professionals from public and private institutions in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland participated in the survey. RT-dependent factors were deemed most relevant for RD onset followed by lifestyle factors, emphasizing the impact of treatment conceptualization and patient education. While a broad majority of 92.8% assess RD at least once during RT, 59.0% of participants report RD at least partially arbitrarily and 17.4% stated to classify RD severity solely arbitrarily. 83.7% of all participants were unaware of patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Consensus exists on some lifestyle recommendations like avoidance of sun exposure (98.7%), hot baths (95.1%), and mechanical irritation (91.8%) under RT, while deodorant use (63.4% not at all, 22.1% with restrictions) or application of skin lotion (15.1% disapproval) remain controversial and are not recommended by guidelines or evidence-based practices. CONCLUSION: Identification of patients at an increased risk of RD and subsequent implementation of adequate preventive measures remain relevant and challenging aspects of clinical routines. Consensus exists on several risk factors and nonpharmaceutical prevention recommendations, while RT-dependent risk factors, e.g., the fractionation scheme, or hygienic measures like deodorant use remain controversial. Surveillance is widely lacking methodology and objectivity. Intensifying outreach in the radiation oncology community is needed to improve practice patterns.

European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer consensus on re-irradiation: definition, reporting, and clinical decision making.

Re-irradiation can be considered for local recurrence or new tumours adjacent to a previously irradiated site to achieve durable local control for patients with cancer who have otherwise few therapeutic options. With the use of new radiotherapy techniques, which allow for conformal treatment plans, image guidance, and short fractionation schemes, the use of re-irradiation for different sites is increasing in clinical settings. Yet, prospective evidence on re-irradiation is scarce and our understanding of the underlying radiobiology is poor. Our consensus on re-irradiation aims to assist in re-irradiation decision making, and to standardise the classification of different forms of re-irradiation and reporting. The consensus has been endorsed by the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer. The use of this classification in daily clinical practice and research will facilitate accurate understanding of the clinical implications of re-irradiation and allow for cross-study comparisons. Data gathered in a uniform manner could be used in the future to make recommendations for re-irradiation on the basis of clinical evidence. The consensus document is based on an adapted Delphi process and a systematic review of the literature was done according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).

Adjuvant and concurrent temozolomide for 1p/19q non-co-deleted anaplastic glioma (CATNON; EORTC study 26053-22054): second interim analysis of a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The CATNON trial investigated the addition of concurrent, adjuvant, and both current and adjuvant temozolomide to radiotherapy in adults with newly diagnosed 1p/19q non-co-deleted anaplastic gliomas. The benefit of concurrent temozolomide chemotherapy and relevance of mutations in the IDH1 and IDH2 genes remain unclear. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, phase 3 study done in 137 institutions across Australia, Europe, and North America included patients aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed 1p/19q non-co-deleted anaplastic gliomas and a WHO performance status of 0-2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) centrally using a minimisation technique to radiotherapy alone (59·4 Gy in 33 fractions; three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy or intensity-modulated radiotherapy), radiotherapy with concurrent oral temozolomide (75 mg/m2 per day), radiotherapy with adjuvant oral temozolomide (12 4-week cycles of 150-200 mg/m2 temozolomide given on days 1-5), or radiotherapy with both concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide. Patients were stratified by institution, WHO performance status score, age, 1p loss of heterozygosity, the presence of oligodendroglial elements on microscopy, and MGMT promoter methylation status. The primary endpoint was overall survival adjusted by stratification factors at randomisation in the intention-to-treat population. A second interim analysis requested by the independent data monitoring committee was planned when two-thirds of total required events were observed to test superiority or futility of concurrent temozolomide. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00626990. FINDINGS: Between Dec 4, 2007, and Sept 11, 2015, 751 patients were randomly assigned (189 to radiotherapy alone, 188 to radiotherapy with concurrent temozolomide, 186 to radiotherapy and adjuvant temozolomide, and 188 to radiotherapy with concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide). Median follow-up was 55·7 months (IQR 41·0-77·3). The second interim analysis declared futility of concurrent temozolomide (median overall survival was 66·9 months [95% CI 45·7-82·3] with concurrent temozolomide vs 60·4 months [45·7-71·5] without concurrent temozolomide; hazard ratio [HR] 0·97 [99·1% CI 0·73-1·28], p=0·76). By contrast, adjuvant temozolomide improved overall survival compared with no adjuvant temozolomide (median overall survival 82·3 months [95% CI 67·2-116·6] vs 46·9 months [37·9-56·9]; HR 0·64 [95% CI 0·52-0·79], p<0·0001). The most frequent grade 3 and 4 toxicities were haematological, occurring in no patients in the radiotherapy only group, 16 (9%) of 185 patients in the concurrent temozolomide group, and 55 (15%) of 368 patients in both groups with adjuvant temozolomide. No treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant temozolomide chemotherapy, but not concurrent temozolomide chemotherapy, was associated with a survival benefit in patients with 1p/19q non-co-deleted anaplastic glioma. Clinical benefit was dependent on IDH1 and IDH2 mutational status. FUNDING: Merck Sharpe & Dohme.

Immunotherapy and Radiotherapy for Older Cancer Patients during the COVID-19 Era: Proposed Paradigm by the International Geriatric Radiotherapy Group.

BACKGROUND: Older cancer patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease may benefit from chemotherapy alone or combined with radiotherapy. However, chemotherapy is often omitted either because of physician bias or because of its underlying comorbidity, thus compromising their survival. The coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic is compounding this issue because of the fear of immunosuppression induced by chemotherapy on the elderly which makes them more vulnerable to the virus. SUMMARY: Immunotherapy has less effect on the patient bone marrow compared to chemotherapy. The potential synergy between radiotherapy and immunotherapy may improve local control and survival for older patients with selected cancer. Preliminary data are encouraging because of better survival and local control in diseases which are traditionally resistant to radiotherapy and chemotherapy such as melanoma and renal cell carcinoma. Key Message: We propose a new paradigm combining immunotherapy at a reduced dose and/or extended dosing intervals and hypofractionated radiotherapy for older patients with selected cancer which needs to be tested in future clinical trials.

Short-Course Radiation plus Temozolomide in Elderly Patients with Glioblastoma.

BACKGROUND: Glioblastoma is associated with a poor prognosis in the elderly. Survival has been shown to increase among patients 70 years of age or younger when temozolomide chemotherapy is added to standard radiotherapy (60 Gy over a period of 6 weeks). In elderly patients, more convenient shorter courses of radiotherapy are commonly used, but the benefit of adding temozolomide to a shorter course of radiotherapy is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a trial involving patients 65 years of age or older with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either radiotherapy alone (40 Gy in 15 fractions) or radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide. RESULTS: A total of 562 patients underwent randomization, 281 to each group. The median age was 73 years (range, 65 to 90). The median overall survival was longer with radiotherapy plus temozolomide than with radiotherapy alone (9.3 months vs. 7.6 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 0.80; P<0.001), as was the median progression-free survival (5.3 months vs. 3.9 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.60; P<0.001). Among 165 patients with methylated O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) status, the median overall survival was 13.5 months with radiotherapy plus temozolomide and 7.7 months with radiotherapy alone (hazard ratio for death, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.73; P<0.001). Among 189 patients with unmethylated MGMT status, the median overall survival was 10.0 months with radiotherapy plus temozolomide and 7.9 months with radiotherapy alone (hazard ratio for death, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.01; P=0.055; P=0.08 for interaction). Quality of life was similar in the two trial groups. CONCLUSIONS: In elderly patients with glioblastoma, the addition of temozolomide to short-course radiotherapy resulted in longer survival than short-course radiotherapy alone. (Funded by the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00482677 .).

Clinical trial design for local therapies for brain metastases: a guideline by the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Brain Metastases working group.

The goals of therapeutic and biomarker development form the foundation of clinical trial design, and change considerably from early-phase to late-phase trials. From these goals, decisions on specific clinical trial design elements, such as endpoint selection and statistical approaches, are formed. Whereas early-phase trials might focus on finding a therapeutic signal to make decisions on further development, late-phase trials focus on the confirmation of therapeutic impact by considering clinically meaningful endpoints. In this guideline from the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Brain Metastases (RANO-BM) working group, we highlight issues related to, and provide recommendations for, the design of clinical trials on local therapies for CNS metastases from solid tumours. We discuss endpoint selection criteria, the analysis appropriate for early-phase and late-phase trials, the association between tumour-specific and clinically meaningful endpoints, and possible issues related to the estimation of local control in the context of competing risks. In light of these discussions, we make specific recommendations on the clinical trial design of local therapies for brain metastases.

The DNA methylome of DDR genes and benefit from RT or TMZ in IDH mutant low-grade glioma treated in EORTC 22033.

The optimal treatment for patients with low-grade glioma (LGG) WHO grade II remains controversial. Overall survival ranges from 2 to over 15 years depending on molecular and clinical factors. Hence, risk-adjusted treatments are required for optimizing outcome and quality of life. We aim at identifying mechanisms and associated molecular markers predictive for benefit from radiotherapy (RT) or temozolomide (TMZ) in LGG patients treated in the randomized phase III trial EORTC 22033. As candidate biomarkers for these genotoxic treatments, we considered the DNA methylome of 410 DNA damage response (DDR) genes. We first identified 62 functionally relevant CpG sites located in the promoters of 24 DDR genes, using the LGG data from The Cancer Genome Atlas. Then we tested their association with outcome [progression-free survival (PFS)] depending on treatment in 120 LGG patients of EORTC 22033, whose tumors were mutant for isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 or 2 (IDHmt), the molecular hallmark of LGG. The results suggested that seven CpGs of four DDR genes may be predictive for longer PFS in one of the treatment arms that comprised MGMT, MLH3, RAD21, and SMC4. Most interestingly, the two CpGs identified for MGMT are the same, previously selected for the MGMT-STP27 score that is used to determine the methylation status of the MGMT gene. This score was higher in the LGG with 1p/19q codeletion, in this and other independent LGG datasets. It was predictive for PFS in the TMZ, but not in the RT arm of EORTC 22033. The results support the hypothesis that a high score predicts benefit from TMZ treatment for patients with IDHmt LGG, regardless of the 1p/19q status. This MGMT methylation score may identify patients who benefit from first-line treatment with TMZ, to defer RT for long-term preservation of cognitive function and quality of life.

Novel, improved grading system(s) for IDH-mutant astrocytic gliomas.

According to the 2016 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System (2016 CNS WHO), IDH-mutant astrocytic gliomas comprised WHO grade II diffuse astrocytoma, IDH-mutant (AIIIDHmut), WHO grade III anaplastic astrocytoma, IDH-mutant (AAIIIIDHmut), and WHO grade IV glioblastoma, IDH-mutant (GBMIDHmut). Notably, IDH gene status has been made the major criterion for classification while the manner of grading has remained unchanged: it is based on histological criteria that arose from studies which antedated knowledge of the importance of IDH status in diffuse astrocytic tumor prognostic assessment. Several studies have now demonstrated that the anticipated differences in survival between the newly defined AIIIDHmut and AAIIIIDHmut have lost their significance. In contrast, GBMIDHmut still exhibits a significantly worse outcome than its lower grade IDH-mutant counterparts. To address the problem of establishing prognostically significant grading for IDH-mutant astrocytic gliomas in the IDH era, we undertook a comprehensive study that included assessment of histological and genetic approaches to prognosis in these tumors. A discovery cohort of 211 IDH-mutant astrocytic gliomas with an extended observation was subjected to histological review, image analysis, and DNA methylation studies. Tumor group-specific methylation profiles and copy number variation (CNV) profiles were established for all gliomas. Algorithms for automated CNV analysis were developed. All tumors exhibiting 1p/19q codeletion were excluded from the series. We developed algorithms for grading, based on molecular, morphological and clinical data. Performance of these algorithms was compared with that of WHO grading. Three independent cohorts of 108, 154 and 224 IDH-mutant astrocytic gliomas were used to validate this approach. In the discovery cohort several molecular and clinical parameters were of prognostic relevance. Most relevant for overall survival (OS) was CDKN2A/B homozygous deletion. Other parameters with major influence were necrosis and the total number of CNV. Proliferation as assessed by mitotic count, which is a key parameter in 2016 CNS WHO grading, was of only minor influence. Employing the parameters most relevant for OS in our discovery set, we developed two models for grading these tumors. These models performed significantly better than WHO grading in both the discovery and the validation sets. Our novel algorithms for grading IDH-mutant astrocytic gliomas overcome the challenges caused by introduction of IDH status into the WHO classification of diffuse astrocytic tumors. We propose that these revised approaches be used for grading of these tumors and incorporated into future WHO criteria.