Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy with or without immunotherapy for early-stage or isolated lung parenchymal recurrent node-negative non-small-cell lung cancer: an open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial.

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.

Moderators of the association between stigma and psychological and cancer-related symptoms in women with non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Lung cancer patients, particularly women, are vulnerable to experience disease-related stigma, which is linked to greater psychological distress and worse treatment outcomes. To inform future stigma-resilience interventions, we examined if mindfulness, self-compassion, and social support might buffer the associations between perceived lung cancer stigma and psychological and cancer-related symptoms. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, women with recently diagnosed non-small cell lung cancer undergoing cancer treatment completed measures of Cataldo Lung Cancer Stigma Scale, depressive (Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale), stress (Impact of Events Scale) and cancer-related (MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Lung Cancer) symptoms, mindfulness (Mindful Attention Awareness Scale), self-compassion (Self-Compassion Scale), and social support (Social Provisions Scale). RESULTS: The sample included 56 women (mean age = 65 years; 71% non-Hispanic White; 50% college educated; 74% advanced stage) who had consented to participate in an online support group study. Most (70%) had a smoking history and reported moderate levels of stigma (M = 36.28, SD = 10.51). Based on general linear modeling, mindfulness moderated the associations between stigma and depressive symptoms (F = 5.78, p = 0.02), cancer-related stress (F = 12.21, p = 0.002), and cancer-related symptom severity (F = 4.61, p = 0.04), such that, only for women scoring low in mindfulness, the associations between stigma and symptoms were significant. For those scoring high in mindfulness, the associations between stigma and symptoms were not significant supporting a buffering effect. Self-compassion and social support did not significantly moderate the stigma and symptom associations. CONCLUSIONS: Higher levels of mindfulness may protect women from psychological and cancer-related symptoms typically associated with the stigmatizing experience of a lung cancer diagnosis. Yet, longitudinal studies and randomized controlled designs are needed to identify mindfulness as a causal protective factor.

Financial distress and its associated burden in couples coping with an advanced cancer.

PURPOSE: In efforts to understand financial distress (FD) associated with advanced cancer care from the perspective of both patients with incurable disease and their spousal caregivers, we assessed FD in both members of the couple, identified symptom and quality of life (QOL) correlates, and examined the potential role of illness communication. METHODS: Patients undergoing treatment for stage III/IV lung cancer or a grade III/IV primary brain tumor and their spousal caregivers (n = 76 dyads) completed measures of somatic and affective symptoms including FD, physical and mental QOL, and ease of engaging in illness communication. Patients and caregivers additionally rated their perception of each other's symptoms, including FD. RESULTS: FD was endorsed by both patients (any FD 62.7%; high FD 24%) and spousal caregivers (any FD 64.7%; high FD 32.3%). Self-reported FD was significantly correlated (partial r = .52, p < .001) within couples. FD was associated with greater symptoms of anxiety (r = .29, p = .01; r = .31, p = .01), depression (r = 29, p = 01; r = .39, p = .001), and poorer physical QOL(r = - .25, p = .03; r = - .25, p = .001) for patients and caregivers, respectively. For patients, FD was additionally associated with poorer mental QOL(r = - .44, p < .001). Caregivers accurately perceived patient FD, yet patients tended to underreport their caregiver's FD by almost an entire point (t = 2.8, p = .007). A 3-way interaction (FD X role X illness communication) revealed (b = .40, p = .041) that illness communication moderated the association between FD and physical QOL for spouses so that spouses who reported less ease of illness communication demonstrated a stronger association between financial distress and physical QOL (b = - 2.08, p < .001) than those reporting greater ease of engaging in illness communication (b = .49, p = .508). CONCLUSION: In the advanced cancer setting, FD is prevalent in both patients and their spousal caregivers and associated with psychological distress and poor physical QOL. Results suggest that optimal FD assessment should include patients and spouses, and spouse's ease of engaging with illness communication may be a potential target for future intervention studies.

Variation in Use of High-Cost Technologies for Palliative Radiation Therapy by Radiation Oncologists.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the sources of variation in the use of high-cost technologies is important for developing effective strategies to control costs of care. Palliative radiation therapy (RT) is a discretionary treatment and its use may vary based on patient and clinician factors. METHODS: Using data from the SEER-Medicare linked database, we identified patients diagnosed with metastatic lung, prostate, breast, and colorectal cancers in 2010 through 2015 who received RT, and the radiation oncologists who treated them. The costs of radiation services for each patient over a 90-day episode were calculated, and radiation oncologists were assigned to cost quintiles. The use of advanced technologies (eg, intensity-modulated radiation, stereotactic RT) and the number of RT treatments (eg, any site, bone only) were identified. Multivariable random-effects models were constructed to estimate the proportion of variation in the use of advanced technologies and extended fractionation (>10 fractions) that could be explained by patient fixed effects versus physician random effects. RESULTS: We identified 37,361 patients with metastatic lung cancer, 3,684 with metastatic breast cancer, 5,323 with metastatic prostate cancer, and 8,726 with metastatic colorectal cancer, with 34%, 27%, 22%, and 9% receiving RT within the first year, respectively. The use of advanced technologies and extended fractionation was associated with higher costs of care. Compared with the patient case-mix, physician variation accounted for a larger proportion of the variation in the use of advanced technologies for palliative RT and the use of extended fractionation. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in radiation oncologists' practice and choices, rather than differences in patient case-mix, accounted for a greater proportion of the variation in the use of advanced technologies and high-cost radiation services.

National Quality Measure Compliance for Palliative Bone Radiation Among Patients With Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: There exists wide practice variability in palliative treatment schedules for bone metastases. In an effort to reduce variation and promote high-quality, cost-conscious care, the National Quality Forum (NQF) endorsed measure 1822 in 2012. This measure recommends the use of 30 Gy in 10 fractions, 24 Gy in 6 fractions, 20 Gy in 5 fractions, or 8 Gy in a single fraction for palliative radiation for bone metastases. We report on longitudinal compliance with this measure. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database, patients with metastatic thoracic non-small cell lung cancer diagnosed between 2004 and 2016 who received radiation therapy for bony sites of metastatic disease were identified. Treatment courses fitting 1 of the 4 recommended schedules under NQF 1822 were coded as compliant. Rates of compliance by patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 42,685 patients met the criteria for inclusion. Among all patients, 60.2% of treatment courses were compliant according to NQF 1822. Compliance increased over time and was highest for treatments to the extremity (69.8%), lowest for treatments to the skull or head (48.8%), and higher for academic practice (67.1%) compared with community (56.0%) or integrated network facilities (61.2%). On multivariable analysis, predictors of NQF 1822 compliance included year of diagnosis after 2011, treatment to an extremity, or treatment at an academic facility. Of noncompliant treatment courses, extended fractionation (≥11 fractions) occurred in 62.6% and was more common before 2012, in community practice, and for treatments of the skull or head. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients treated for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer, compliance with NQF 1822 increased over time. Although extended fractionation constituted a majority of noncompliant treatment courses, a substantial proportion also involved shorter courses.

Overuse of Diagnostic Brain Imaging Among Patients With Stage IA Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Among patients diagnosed with stage IA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the incidence of occult brain metastasis is low, and several professional societies recommend against brain imaging for staging purposes. The goal of this study was to characterize the use of brain imaging among Medicare patients diagnosed with stage IA NSCLC. METHODS: Using data from linked SEER-Medicare claims, we identified patients diagnosed with AJCC 8th edition stage IA NSCLC in 2004 through 2013. Patients were classified as having received brain imaging if they underwent head CT or brain MRI from 1 month before to 3 months after diagnosis. We identified factors associated with receipt of brain imaging using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 13,809 patients with stage IA NSCLC, 3,417 (25%) underwent brain imaging at time of diagnosis. The rate of brain imaging increased over time, from 23.5% in 2004 to 28.7% in 2013 (P=.0006). There was significant variation in the use of brain imaging across hospital service areas, with rates ranging from 0% to 64.0%. Factors associated with a greater likelihood of brain imaging included older age (odds ratios [ORs] of 1.16 for 70-74 years, 1.13 for 75-79 years, 1.31 for 80-84 years, and 1.46 for ≥85 years compared with 65-69 years; all P<.05), female sex (OR, 1.09; P<.05), black race (OR 1.23; P<.05), larger tumor size (ORs of 1.23 for 11-20 mm and 1.28 for 21-30 mm tumors vs 1-10 mm tumors; all P<.05), and higher modified Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score (OR, 1.28 for score >1 vs score of 0; P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: Roughly 1 in 4 patients with stage IA NSCLC received brain imaging at the time of diagnosis despite national recommendations against the practice. Although several patient factors are associated with receipt of brain imaging, there is significant geographic variation across the United States. Closer adherence to clinical guidelines is likely to result in more cost-effective care.

Effect of ivabradine on major adverse cardiovascular events and mortality in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials with trial sequential analyses.

BACKGROUND: Ivabradine lowers heart rate (HR) without affecting contractility or vascular tone. It is licensed for HR control in chronic heart diseases. We performed a systematic review and meta-analyses to examine whether ivabradine could decrease major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and mortality in critically ill patients. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for RCTs. Trial quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed if at least three trials or 100 patients were available. Results are reported as weighted mean difference (WMD), odds ratio (OR), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Trial sequential analyses were performed to estimate the sample size needed to reach definitive conclusions of efficacy or futility. RESULTS: We included 13 RCTs (n=1497 patients). We found no evidence of an impact of ivabradine on MACE (three RCTs, 819 patients; OR=0.77; 95% CI, 0.53-1.11) or mortality (10 RCTs, 1356 patients; OR=1.07; 95% CI, 0.63-1.82), but sample sizes were not reached to allow definitive conclusions. Compared with placebo or standard care, ivabradine reduced HR (eight RCTs, 464 patients; WMD, -9.5 beats min-1; 95% CI, -13.3 to -5.8). Risk of bradycardia was not different between ivabradine and control (five RCTs, 434 patients; OR=1.2; 95% CI, 0.60-2.38). Risk of bias was overall high or unclear. CONCLUSIONS: Ivabradine reduces HR compared with placebo or standard care. The effect on MACE or mortality in acute care remains unclear. Further RCTs powered to detect changes in clinically relevant outcomes are warranted. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospero CRD42018086109.

Cost-Effectiveness of Surveillance for Distant Recurrence in Extremity Soft Tissue Sarcoma.

BACKGROUND: Optimal distant recurrence (DR) surveillance strategies for extremity soft tissue sarcoma (STS) are unknown. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of different imaging modalities performed at guideline-specified intervals. METHODS: We developed a Markov model simulating lifetime outcomes for 54-year-old patients after definitive treatment for American Joint Committee on Cancer stage II-III extremity STS using four surveillance strategies: watchful waiting (WW), chest X-ray (CXR), chest computed tomography (CCT), and positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET/CT). Probabilities, utilities, and costs were extracted from the literature and Medicare claims to determine incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). RESULTS: CCT was the most effective and most costly strategy with CXR the most cost-effective strategy at a societal willing-to-pay (WTP) of $100,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The ICER was $12,113/QALY for CXR versus $104,366/QALY for CCT while PET/CT was never cost-effective. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated CCT becomes the preferred imaging modality as the lifetime risk of DR increases beyond 33% or as the WTP increases beyond $120,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Optimal DR surveillance imaging for stage II-III extremity STS should be individualized based on patients' risks for DR. These results suggest CXR, or CCT performed at more protracted intervals, may be preferred for lower-risk patients (i.e., DR risk <33%), whereas CCT may be preferred for higher-risk patients (i.e., DR risk >33%). Further study of optimal strategies is needed. In the interim, these findings may help to refine guidelines to reduce resource overutilization during routine surveillance of lower-risk sarcoma patients.

Defining a standard set of patient-centred outcomes for lung cancer.

In lung cancer, outcome measurement has been mostly limited to survival. Proper assessment of the value of lung cancer treatments, and the performance of institutions delivering care, requires more comprehensive measurement of standardised outcomes.The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement convened an international, multidisciplinary working group of patient representatives, medical oncologists, surgeons, radiation oncologists, pulmonologists, palliative care specialists, registry experts and specialist nurses to review existing data and practices. Using a modified Delphi method, the group developed a consensus recommendation ("the set") on the outcomes most essential to track for patients with lung cancer, along with baseline demographic, clinical and tumour characteristics (case-mix variables) for risk adjustment.The set applies to patients diagnosed with nonsmall cell lung cancer and small cell lung cancer. Our working group recommends the collection of the following outcomes: survival, complications during or within 6 months of treatment and patient-reported domains of health-related quality of life including pain, fatigue, cough and dyspnoea. Case-mix variables were defined to improve interpretation of comparisons.We defined an international consensus recommendation of the most important outcomes for lung cancer patients, along with relevant case-mix variables, and are working to support adoption and reporting of these measures globally.

Comparison of once and twice daily radiotherapy for limited stage small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to review outcomes of once- (QD) versus twice-daily (BID) radiotherapy (RT) for limited stage small-cell lung cancer (L-SCLC) treated at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Brigham and Women's Hospital. METHODS: We reviewed records for all patients with L-SCLC treated with radical chemoradiotherapy at our institution between January 2005 and December 2010. Differences in patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics were assessed by Student's t test and Fisher exact test. Outcomes were compared using Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: Twenty patients received QD RT to a median dose of 61.2 Gy, and 26 patients received BID RT to a dose of 45 Gy. Median follow-up was 2.8 years. Overall survival (OS) was similar in both groups. 5-year locoregional control (LC) for all patients was 67 %: 80 % for the QD group and 57 % for the BID group (log-rank, P = 0.16). Grade 2 or higher dermatitis and pneumonitis were significantly higher in the QD group (15 vs. 0 %, P = 0.0014 and 13 vs. 4 %, P = 0.048, respectively), whereas Grade 2 or higher esophagitis trended higher in the BID group (44 vs. 24 %, P = 0.076). CONCLUSIONS: Although there were no differences in OS with QD versus BID RT, there was a trend toward increased LC in the QD group. Dermatitis and pneumonitis were more common for QD RT, and esophagitis was somewhat more common for BID RT. Possible differences in toxicities depending on RT regimen may be worth further investigation, until results from CALGB 30610 become available.

Phase I/II study of BMS-986156 with ipilimumab or nivolumab with or without stereotactic ablative radiotherapy in patients with advanced solid malignancies.

BACKGROUND: BMS-986156 is an agonist of the glucocorticoid-induced tumor necrosis factor receptor (TNFR)-related protein (GITR) and promotes increased effector T-cell activation. Combined anti-GITR, anti-programmed death-1, anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 antibodies and radiotherapy improve tumor control in preclinical studies. Herein we describe the results of the safety and efficacy of BMS-986156+ipilimumab or nivolumab with/without stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) in patients with advanced solid cancers (NCT04021043). METHODS: This open-label, multigroup, single-center phase I/II study enrolled patients with histologically-confirmed stage IV solid cancers resistant to standard treatments. Group 1 (G1, n=20) received four cycles of ipilimumab (3 mg/kg) plus BMS-986156 (30 mg as dose level 1 (L1) or 100 mg as dose level 2 (L2)), every 3 weeks (Q3W). Group 2 (G2, n=10) received four cycles of ipilimumab (3 mg/kg) plus BMS-986156 (dose as determined in G1, Q3W) with SABR (50 Gy/4 fx or 60-70 Gy/10 fx to liver/lung lesions. Group 3 (G3, n=20) received four cycles of nivolumab (480 mg) plus BMS-986156 (30 mg), every 4 weeks with SABR. Maintenance nivolumab could be given up to 2 years. Tumor responses were assessed every 1-3 months until progression, using immune-related response criteria. RESULTS: 50 patients were enrolled between 10/2019 and 12/2021. Patients received a median of 3 (IQR 2-4.25) initial treatment cycles. 100 mg BMS-986156 with ipilimumab was tolerated well. Five discontinued BMS-986156 with ipilimumab due to treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), with three in G1/L1, one in G1/L2 and one in G2, respectively. 22 patients (44%) experienced Grade 1-3 TRAEs (6, 4, 5, 7 patients for G1/L1, G1/L2, G2, G3). Six (12%) had Grade 3 TRAEs (2, 2, 1, 1 for G1/L1, G1/L2, G2, G3), with elevated alanine aminotransferase (n=3, in G1/L2, G2 and G3) and aspartate aminotransferase (n=2, in G2 and G3) being the most common. There was no Grade 4-5 TRAEs. Overall, 19/39 (48.7%) patients eligible for efficacy analysis had stable disease and 3 (7.7%) achieved a partial response. Out-of-field (abscopal) disease control rate (ACR) and out-of-field (abscopal) response rate (ARR) were 38.5% and 7.7%, respectively, with the highest ACR (50%, 9/18) and ARR (11.1%, 2/18) in G3. CONCLUSIONS: BMS-986156 was well-tolerated with ipilimumab, nivolumab, with or without SABR. Outcomes were encouraging in this population, as more than half of patients had stable disease/partial response.

Survival outcomes and toxicity of adjuvant immunotherapy after definitive concurrent chemotherapy with proton beam radiation therapy for patients with inoperable locally advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Adjuvant immunotherapy (IO) following concurrent chemotherapy and photon radiation therapy confers an overall survival (OS) benefit for patients with inoperable locally advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma (LA-NSCLC); however, outcomes of adjuvant IO after concurrent chemotherapy with proton beam therapy (CPBT) are unknown. We investigated OS and toxicity after CPBT with adjuvant IO versus CPBT alone for inoperable LA-NSCLC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed 354 patients with LA-NSCLC who were prospectively treated with CPBT with or without adjuvant IO from 2009 to 2021. Optimal variable ratio propensity score matching (PSM) matched CPBT with CPBT + IO patients. Survival was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with log-rank tests. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression evaluated the effect of IO on disease outcomes. RESULTS: Median age was 70 years; 71 (20%) received CPBT + IO and 283 (80%) received CPBT only. After PSM, 71 CPBT patients were matched with 71 CPBT + IO patients. Three-year survival rates for CPBT + IO vs CPBT were: OS 67% vs 30% (P < 0.001) and PFS 59% vs 35% (P = 0.017). Three-year LRFS (P = 0.137) and DMFS (P = 0.086) did not differ. Receipt of adjuvant IO was a strong predictor of OS (HR 0.40, P = 0.001) and PFS (HR 0.56, P = 0.030), but not LRFS (HR 0.61, P = 0.121) or DMFS (HR 0.61, P = 0.136). There was an increased incidence of grade ≥3 esophagitis in the CPBT-only group (6% CPBT + IO vs 17% CPBT, P = 0.037). CONCLUSION: This study, one of the first to investigate CPBT followed by IO for inoperable LA-NSCLC, showed that IO conferred survival benefits with no increased rates of toxicity.

Comparative effectiveness of three platinum-doublet chemotherapy regimens in elderly patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials report equivalent efficacy among various combinations of platinum-based regimens in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Their relative effectiveness and comparability based on squamous versus nonsquamous histology is uncertain. METHODS: The authors used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked data to identify first-line chemotherapy agents administered to Medicare beneficiaries with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC diagnosed from 2000 to 2007. Overall survival was compared between patients who received the 3 most common regimens: carboplatin-paclitaxel, carboplatin-gemcitabine, and carboplatin-docetaxel. Stratified analyses distinguished between the outcomes of patients with squamous versus nonsquamous cell histology. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models and propensity score analyses facilitated adjustment for imbalance in measurable patient characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 15,318 patients who received first-line chemotherapy, 43.1% received carboplatin-paclitaxel, 14.3% received carboplatin-gemcitabine, 8.5% received carboplatin-docetaxel, and 34.1% received other regimens. The median survival was 8.0 months (interquartile range [IQR], 3.5-17.4 months) for carboplatin-paclitaxel, 7.3 months (IQR, 3.4-15.2 months) for carboplatin-gemcitabine, and 7.5 months (IQR, 3.2-16.0 months) for carboplatin-docetaxel. Both multivariable and propensity score-adjusted Cox models demonstrated a slight inferiority associated with carboplatin-gemcitabine or carboplatin-docetaxel versus carboplatin-paclitaxel, with a hazard ratio of 1.10 (95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.15) and 1.09 (95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.16), respectively, in propensity score-stratified models. Among the subgroup of 2063 patients with squamous carcinoma, propensity score-stratified analyses had a higher risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.35) associated with carboplatin-gemcitabine versus carboplatin-paclitaxel. CONCLUSIONS: Carboplatin-paclitaxel was associated with slightly better survival compared with carboplatin-gemcitabine or carboplatin-docetaxel within the Medicare population with advanced NSCLC, and this was most pronounced for patients who had squamous cell histology.

Co-occurring insomnia and anxiety: a randomized controlled trial of internet cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia versus internet cognitive behavioral therapy for anxiety.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Insomnia and anxiety are highly prevalent and frequently co-occur. Given limited therapeutic resources and time constraints, the aim of this study was to compare which treatment-internet cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for insomnia or internet CBT for anxiety-leads to the best outcomes in individuals with comorbid insomnia and anxiety. METHODS: 120 participants with comorbid insomnia and clinical anxiety (as defined by scores above the clinical cutoff on the insomnia severity index (ISI) and the generalized anxiety disorder 7-item scale (GAD-7)) were randomized to receive internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy (iCBT) for insomnia or iCBT for anxiety. The primary outcome measures were the ISI and the generalized anxiety disorder 7-item scale. Primary outcome measures were assessed before treatment, at mid-treatment, at post-treatment, and 3 months after treatment. Secondary outcome measures assessed depression symptoms, distress, and sleep diary parameters. RESULTS: Participants in both groups experienced large reductions in symptoms of insomnia, anxiety, depression, and distress, as well as improvements in sleep efficiency and total sleep time. Improvements were maintained at follow-up. Crucially, at the end of treatment, the insomnia treatment was more effective in reducing symptoms of insomnia than the anxiety treatment, and equally effective in reducing symptoms of anxiety. Treatment gains were maintained at 3-month follow-up, however, there were no differences between groups at that time point. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that in the common case of a patient presenting with comorbid insomnia and anxiety, treatment for insomnia may be the most efficient treatment strategy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?ACTRN=12618001141235. Trial ID: ACTRN12618001141235. Trial name: a comparison of internet-based CBT for insomnia versus internet-based CBT for anxiety in a comorbid sample.

End-of-Life Care, Symptom Burden, and Quality of Life in Couples Facing Stage IV Lung Cancer: The Role of Patient and Spousal Psychospirituality and Discussions Around Fear of Death and Disease Progression.

Background: As patients live longer with stage IV nonsmall cell lung cancer, correlates of end-of-life (EOL) care and experience are increasingly relevant. Methods: We, therefore, prospectively examined associations among psychospirituality (Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual Well-Being), discussions around fear of death and disease progression, and hospital-based EOL care in patients and caregivers. Patients additionally reported symptom burden (MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Lung Cancer total) and quality of life (QOL) (quality-of-life at EOL). Results: Of the baseline patients (n = 75), 32% were alive at time of the analyses (mean = 4.6 years postbaseline). Deceased patients (n = 51) were middle aged (mean = 65.3 years) and non-Hispanic White (81%). Caregiver spiritual well-being (r = 0.34, p = 0.02) and depression (r = -0.31, p = 0.03) were associated with EOL care metrics. Patients who "held back" more of their fear of death or disease progression experienced greater symptom burden (r = 0.41, p < 0.001) and poorer QOL (r = -0.44, p < 0.001). Conclusion: For couples facing prolonged metastatic disease, psychospirituality is highly relevant to EOL care with potential sequelae of withholding one's fear regarding death or disease progression.

ASTRO Radiation Therapy Summary of the ASCO Guideline on Management of Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: To develop a radiation therapy summary of recommendations on the management of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) based on the Management of Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Guideline, which was endorsed by the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO). METHODS: The American Society of Clinical Oncology, ASTRO, and the American College of Chest Physicians convened a multidisciplinary panel to develop a guideline based on a systematic review of the literature and a formal consensus process, that has been separately published. A new panel consisting of radiation oncologists from the original guideline as well as additional ASTRO members was formed to provide further guidance to the radiation oncology community. A total of 127 articles met the eligibility criteria to answer 5 clinical questions. This summary focuses on the 3 radiation therapy questions (neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and unresectable settings). RESULTS: Radiation-specific recommendations are summarized with additional relevant commentary on specific questions regarding the management of preoperative radiation, postoperative radiation, and combined chemoradiation. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with stage III NSCLC who are planned for surgical resection, should receive either neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiation. The addition of neoadjuvant treatment is particularly important in patients planned for surgery in the N2 or superior sulcus settings. Postoperatively, patients who did not receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy should be offered adjuvant chemotherapy. The use of postoperative radiation for completely resected N2 disease is not routinely recommended. Unresectable patients with stage III NSCLC should ideally be managed with combined concurrent chemoradiation using a platinum-based doublet with a standard radiation dose of 60 Gy followed by consolidation durvalumab in patients without progression after initial therapy. Patients who cannot tolerate a concurrent chemoradiation approach can be managed either by sequential chemotherapy followed by radiation or by dose-escalated or hypofractionated radiation alone.

Multicenter analysis of stereotactic radiosurgery for multiple brain metastases from EGFR and ALK driven non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with brain metastases (BrMs) arising from EGFR and ALK driven non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have favorable prognoses and evolving treatment options. We evaluated multicenter outcomes for stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) to multiple (≥4) BrMs, where randomized data remain limited. METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively from 5 academic centers on EGFR and ALK NSCLC who received SRS to ≥4 BrMs with their first SRS treatment between 2008 and 2018. Analyzed endpoints included overall survival (OS), freedom from CNS progression (FFCNSP), and freedom from whole-brain radiotherapy (FFWBRT). RESULTS: Eighty-nine patients (50 EGFR, 39 ALK) received a total of 159 SRS treatments to 1,080 BrMs, with a median follow up of 51.3 months. The median number of BrMs treated with SRS treatment-1 was 6 (range 4-26) and median for all treatments was 9 (range 4-47). Sixteen patients (18 %) had received WBRT prior to SRS treatment-1. The median OS was 24.2, 21.2, and 33.2 months for all patients, EGFR, and ALK subsets, respectively. After multivariable adjustment, only receipt of a next-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor was associated with OS (HR 0.40, p = 0.005). No differences in OS were observed based on number of BrMs treated. The median FFCNSP was 9.4, 11.6, and 7.5 months, for all patients, EGFR, and ALK subsets, respectively. After multivariable adjustment, the number of BrMs (continuous) treated during treatment-1 was the only negative prognostic factor associated with FFCNSP (HR 1.071, p = 0.045). The 5-year FFWBRT was 73.6 %. CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter analysis over a >10-year period demonstrated favorable OS, FFCNSP, and FFWBRT, in patients with EGFR and ALK driven NSCLC receiving SRS to ≥4 BrMs. These data support SRS as an option in the upfront and salvage setting for higher burden CNS disease in this population.

Carboplatin and paclitaxel with vs without bevacizumab in older patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

CONTEXT: A previous randomized trial demonstrated that adding bevacizumab to carboplatin and paclitaxel improved survival in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, longer survival was not observed in the subgroup of patients aged 65 years or older. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether adding bevacizumab to carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy is associated with improved survival in older patients with NSCLC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study of 4168 Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older with stage IIIB or stage IV non-squamous cell NSCLC diagnosed in 2002-2007 in a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) region. Patients were categorized into 3 cohorts based on diagnosis year and type of initial chemotherapy administered within 4 months of diagnosis: (1) diagnosis in 2006-2007 and bevacizumab-carboplatin-paclitaxel therapy; (2) diagnosis in 2006-2007 and carboplatin-paclitaxel therapy; or (3) diagnosis in 2002-2005 and carboplatin-paclitaxel therapy. The associations between carboplatin-paclitaxel with vs without bevacizumab and overall survival were compared using Cox proportional hazards models and propensity score analyses including information about patient characteristics recorded in SEER-Medicare. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Overall survival measured from the first date of chemotherapy treatment until death or the censoring date of December 31, 2009. RESULTS: The median survival estimates were 9.7 (interquartile range [IQR], 4.4-18.6) months for bevacizumab-carboplatin-paclitaxel, 8.9 (IQR, 3.5-19.3) months for carboplatin-paclitaxel in 2006-2007, and 8.0 (IQR, 3.7-17.2) months for carboplatin-paclitaxel in 2002-2005. One-year survival probabilities were 39.6% (95% CI, 34.6%-45.4%) for bevacizumab-carboplatin-paclitaxel vs 40.1% (95% CI, 37.4%-43.0%) for carboplatin-paclitaxel in 2006-2007 and 35.6% (95% CI, 33.8%-37.5%) for carboplatin-paclitaxel in 2002-2005. Neither multivariable nor propensity score-adjusted Cox models demonstrated a survival advantage for bevacizumab-carboplatin-paclitaxel compared with carboplatin-paclitaxel cohorts. In propensity score-stratified models, the hazard ratio for overall survival for bevacizumab-carboplatin-paclitaxel compared with carboplatin-paclitaxel in 2006-2007 was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.89-1.16; P = .85) and compared with carboplatin-paclitaxel in 2002-2005 was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.83-1.06; P = .28). The propensity score-weighted model and propensity score-matching model similarly failed to demonstrate a statistically significant superiority for bevacizumab-carboplatin-paclitaxel. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses for key variables did not change these findings. CONCLUSION: Adding bevacizumab to carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy was not associated with better survival among Medicare patients with advanced NSCLC.

Treatment-related pulmonary adverse events induced by chemoradiation and Durvalumab affect survival in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: We compared treatment-related pulmonary adverse events (TRPAE), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) among locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who received concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) versus CRT followed by immune check point inhibitor (ICI) immunotherapy (CRTI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: TRPAE was defined as any pulmonary events as defined in CTCAE v.5 occurring within 12 months after completion of radiotherapy. Outcomes were compared between CRT and CTRI by Cox proportional hazard regression and Kaplan-Meier analyses. We also assessed if TRPAE-induced discontinuation of ICI affected survival. RESULTS: We analyzed 326 patients treated between July 2010 and November 2019; 195 patients received CRT and 131 received CRTI. The incidences of severe grade ≥ 3 TRPAE were similar between the two groups, however, symptomatic TRPAE was almost doubled in CRTI group (65.7 % CTRI vs 35.9 % CRT, P < 0.0001). The rates of 4-year OS and PFS were 54.5 % vs 36.7 % (P = 0.0003) and 43.8 % vs 35.8 % (P = 0.038) in CRT + Durvalumab and CRT group, respectively. Receipt of ICI Durvalumab was associated with better 4-year OS (HR 0.53, 95 % CI 0.36-0.78, P = 0.001) and PFS (HR 0.55, 95 % CI 0.38-0.80, P = 0.002). Patients who discontinued ICI because of TRPAE had worse 4-year OS (P = 0.001) and higher rates of distant metastasis (P = 0.003) than those who completed planned ICI after developing TRPAE. CONCLUSION: CRT followed by adjuvant ICI led to improved 4-year OS and PFS consistent with published data. CRTI was associated with higher incidence of grade ≥ 2 TRPAE in both high and low mean lung dose groups without significant difference in grade ≥ 3 TRPAE. Discontinuation of ICI due to TRPAE was associated with poorer OS and distant disease control than completing ICI as planned after developing TRPAE.

Prognostic Understanding and Goals of Palliative Radiotherapy: A Qualitative Study.

CONTEXT: There is a paucity of data describing patients' expectations of goals of palliative radiotherapy (RT) and overall prognosis. OBJECTIVES: To explore patients' perceptions of and preferences for communication surrounding goals of palliative RT and cancer prognosis. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study utilizing semi-structured interviews with seventeen patients with either bone or lung metastases receiving their first course of palliative RT at a comprehensive cancer center. All patient interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Themes of goals of palliative RT centered on either restoration, such as through improving quality of life or minimizing pain, or on a desire to combat cancer by eliminating tumor. While most patients perceived that palliative RT would palliate symptoms but not cure their cancer, some patients believed that the goal of palliative RT was to cure. Themes that emerged surrounding patients' understanding of prognosis and what lies ahead included uncertainty and apprehension about the future, a focus on additional treatment, and confronting mortality. Most patients preferred to receive information about goals of treatment and prognosis from their doctors, including radiation oncologists, rather than other members of the medical team. Patients also expressed a desire for written patient education materials on palliative RT. CONCLUSION: Unclear perceptions of goals of treatment and prognosis may motivate some patients to pursue unnecessarily aggressive cancer treatments. Patients desire prognostic information from their doctors, including radiation oncologists, who are important contributors to goals of care discussions and may improve patient understanding and well-being by using restorative rather than combat-oriented language.