NTCP modelling of lung toxicity after SBRT comparing the universal survival curve and the linear quadratic model for fractionation correction.

BACKGROUND: In SBRT of lung tumours no established relationship between dose-volume parameters and the incidence of lung toxicity is found. The aim of this study is to compare the LQ model and the universal survival curve (USC) to calculate biologically equivalent doses in SBRT to see if this will improve knowledge on this relationship. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Toxicity data on radiation pneumonitis grade 2 or more (RP2+) from 57 patients were used, 10.5% were diagnosed with RP2+. The lung DVHs were corrected for fractionation (LQ and USC) and analysed with the Lyman- Kutcher-Burman (LKB) model. In the LQ-correction α/ß = 3 Gy was used and the USC parameters used were: α/ß = 3 Gy, D(0) = 1.0 Gy, [Formula: see text] = 10, α = 0.206 Gy(-1) and d(T) = 5.8 Gy. In order to understand the relative contribution of different dose levels to the calculated NTCP the concept of fractional NTCP was used. This might give an insight to the questions of whether "high doses to small volumes" or "low doses to large volumes" are most important for lung toxicity. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: NTCP analysis with the LKB-model using parameters m = 0.4, D(50) = 30 Gy resulted for the volume dependence parameter (n) with LQ correction n = 0.87 and with USC correction n = 0.71. Using parameters m = 0.3, D(50) = 20 Gy n = 0.93 with LQ correction and n = 0.83 with USC correction. In SBRT of lung tumours, NTCP modelling of lung toxicity comparing models (LQ,USC) for fractionation correction, shows that low dose contribute less and high dose more to the NTCP when using the USC-model. Comparing NTCP modelling of SBRT data and data from breast cancer, lung cancer and whole lung irradiation implies that the response of the lung is treatment specific. More data are however needed in order to have a more reliable modelling.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy for medically inoperable patients with stage I non-small cell lung cancer - a first report of toxicity related to COPD/CVD in a non-randomized prospective phase II study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In a retrospective study using stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in medically inoperable patients with stage I NSCLC we previously reported a local control rate of 88% utilizing a median dose of 15Gyx3. This report records the toxicity encountered in a prospective phase II trial, and its relation to coexisting chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and cardio vascular disease (CVD). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty patients were entered in the study between August 2003 and September 2005. Fifty-seven patients (T1 65%, T2 35%) with a median age of 75 years (59-87 years) were evaluable. The baseline mean FEV1% was 64% and median Karnofsky index was 80. A total dose of 45Gy was delivered in three fractions at the 67% isodose of the PTV. Clinical, pulmonary and radiological evaluations were made at 6 weeks, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 36 months post-SBRT. Toxicity was graded according to CTC v2.0 and performance status was graded according to the Karnofsky scale. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 23 months, 2 patients had relapsed locally. No grade 4 or 5 toxicity was reported. Grade 3 toxicity was seen in 12 patients (21%). There was no significant decline of FEV1% during follow-up. Low grade pneumonitis developed to the same extent in the CVD 3/17 (18%) and COPD 7/40 (18%) groups. The incidence of fibrosis was 9/17 (53%) and pleural effusions was 8/17 (47%) in the CVD group compared with 13/40 (33%) and 5/40 (13%) in the COPD group. CONCLUSION: SBRT for stage I NSCLC patients who are medically inoperable because of COPD and CVD results in a favourable local control rate with a low incidence of grade 3 and no grade 4 or 5 toxicity.

Multicentre phase II trial of paclitaxel and carboplatin with concurrent radiotherapy in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

AIM: To evaluate weekly induction chemotherapy followed by weekly concomitant chemoradiotherapy in a multicentre phase II study of patients with unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC; stage wet IIIB excluded). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients received three weekly cycles of paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 and carboplatin AUC2 followed by six weekly cycles of paclitaxel 60 mg/m2 and carboplatin AUC2 in combination with thoracic radiotherapy (2 Gy per fraction and day to a total dose of 60 Gy). RESULTS: Sixty-four patients (40 males and 24 females) with a median age of 63 years (range, 43-79 years) entered the study. T and N stage were distributed as follows: T1 2 patients (3.2%), T2 10 patients (15.6%), T3 15 patients (23.4%), T4 37 patients (57.8%); N0 10 patients (15.6%), N1 1 patient (1.6%), N2 26 patients (40.6%), N3 26 patients (40.6%), and N missing 1 patient (1.6%). Seven patients (10.9%) suffered from grade 3/4 oesophagitis. Grade 1/2 oesophagitis occurred in 36 patients (56.3%) and pneumonitis grade 1/2 occurred in 10 patients (15.6%). Sixty-three patients were evaluated on an intent-to-treat basis. The overall response rate was 74.6%. The median time to progression was 247 days and median overall survival was 461 days. According to subgroup analyses, no statistically significant differences were noted according to gender, age (<65 vs. > or =65 years), performance status, histology, or study centre. CONCLUSION: Induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy with weekly cycles of paclitaxel and carboplatin is feasible and generates moderate toxicity. Efficacy is comparable to other recently published regimens. However, prognosis remains, in general, poor for this group of patients and further work to develop better therapy is required.

Phase III trial of gemcitabine plus carboplatin versus single-agent gemcitabine in the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: the Swedish Lung Cancer Study Group.

PURPOSE: This phase III study compared overall survival in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) when treated with single-agent gemcitabine versus gemcitabine/carboplatin. Secondary objectives were to compare response, time to progression, toxicity, and quality of life. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients received either gemcitabine alone (1,250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8; gemcitabine arm) or with carboplatin (area under the curve 5 on day 1; GC arm) every 21 days. RESULTS: Demographics and disease characteristics of 334 randomly assigned patients were comparable on both arms. An intent-to-treat analysis showed significantly better overall survival (log-rank P = .0205) and 2-year survival (15% v 5%; P = .009) favoring the GC arm. Per Cox multivariate analysis, only two covariates, treatment arm (GC v G) and baseline performance status (0 or 1 v 2), independently influenced survival. Per-protocol analyses showed significantly longer median time to progression (5.7 v 3.9 months; P = .0001) and significantly higher objective response rate (29.6 v 11.3%; P < .0001) in the GC arm. Grade 3 to 4 leucopenia and thrombocytopenia were significantly more pronounced in the GC arm (P for both variables < .001) but importantly without associated increases in fever, infection, bleeding, or hospitalizations. There was no discernible difference in global quality-of-life patterns between treatment arms. CONCLUSION: In advanced NSCLC, gemcitabine/carboplatin therapy resulted in significant survival benefit compared with single-agent gemcitabine without undue increase in toxicity.

Gemcitabine versus gemcitabine/carboplatin in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: preliminary findings in a phase III trial of the Swedish Lung Cancer Study Group.

Gemcitabine is an active agent in non-small cell lung cancer, with single-agent treatment producing response rates of approximately 20% and median survivals of approximately 7 to 9 months. In a pilot trial in advanced non-small cell lung cancer, the gemcitabine/carboplatin combination produced a response rate of 43% and median survival of 12 months with good tolerability. Preliminary results of a phase III trial comparing gemcitabine alone with gemcitabine/carboplatin in 332 patients with stage IIIB or IV non-small cell lung cancer are now available. Patients were randomized to receive gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 every 21 days or the same gemcitabine regimen plus carboplatin at an area under the concentration-time curve of 5 mg/mL/min on day 1 for a maximum of six cycles. Hematologic toxicity was more common in the combination arm; grade 4 thrombocytopenia occurred in 23.5% v 5.3% of patients, but infrequently resulted in clinical complications. Nonhematologic toxicity was moderate and similar in frequency in the combination and gemcitabine arms (25% and 28%, respectively). Among 275 patients, overall response rates were 30% (2% complete response and 28% partial response) in the combination arm and 12% (all partial responses) in the gemcitabine arm. Median time to disease progression was 6 months in the combination arm and 4 months in the gemcitabine arm. Median survival in the study population was 9 months, a promising finding given the high proportion of elderly patients in the study (37% >/= 70 years of age). Full mature results of the trial, including comparative survival results and data on quality of life, are awaited.

A randomised phase II study of pemetrexed versus pemetrexed+erlotinib as second-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Pemetrexed and erlotinib have been approved as second-line monotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This multicentre, randomised, open-label, parallel phase II study assessed efficacy and safety of pemetrexed versus pemetrexed+erlotinib in patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC. METHODS: NSCLC stage III-IV patients who failed one prior platinum-based chemotherapy regimen, ≥ 1 measurable lesion by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 2 were eligible. Patients received pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) with vitamin B12 and folic acid q3w alone or combined with erlotinib 150 mg daily. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end-points were overall survival (OS), time-to-treatment failure (TTTF), response and toxicity. RESULTS: Of 165 randomised non-squamous patients, 159 were treated (pemetrexed: 83; pemetrexed+erlotinib: 76). The median PFS (months; 95% CI) was 2.89 (1.94, 3.38) for pemetrexed versus 3.19 (2.86, 4.70) for pemetrexed+erlotinib (hazard ratio [HR] 0.63; 95% CI: (0.44, 0.90); P = 0.0047). The median OS (months; 95% CI) was 7.75 (5.29, 10.41) for pemetrexed versus 11.83 (8.18, 16.66) for pemetrexed+erlotinib (HR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.46, 0.98; P = 0.019). The median TTTF (months: 95% CI) was 2.4 (1.74, 2.99) for pemetrexed versus 3.0 (2.23, 4.07) for pemetrexed+erlotinib (HR 0.64; 95% CI: 0.46, 0.89; P = 0.0034). One patient died in pemetrexed+erlotinib arm due to febrile neutropenia. Grades 3/4 drug-related toxicities (in ≥ 5% of patients) in pemetrexed/pemetrexed+erlotinib were febrile neutropenia (2.4%/10.5%), diarrhoea (1.2%/5.3%), rash (1.2%/9.2%); anaemia (6%/11.8%), leukopenia (9.6%/23.7%), neutropenia (9.6%/25.0%), and thrombocytopenia (4.8%/14.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Pemetrexed+erlotinib treatment significantly improved PFS, OS and TTTF in 2nd line non-squamous NSCLC and was associated with an increase in grade 3/4 toxicities compared with pemetrexed alone.

Predictive role of plasma vascular endothelial growth factor for the effect of celecoxib in advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with chemotherapy.

AIM OF THE STUDY: The primary purpose of this study is to investigate if pretreatment plasma levels of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) are predictive of the effect of celecoxib on survival in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with palliative chemotherapy. A secondary objective is to describe the course of plasma VEGF levels during and after treatment with cytotoxic chemotherapy combined with celecoxib or placebo. METHODS: In a previously published double-blind multicenter phase III trial, 316 patients with NSCLC stage IIIB or IV and World Health Organisation (WHO) performance status 0-2 were randomised to receive celecoxib 400mg b.i.d. or placebo in combination with two-drug platinum-based chemotherapy. Chemotherapy cycle length was three weeks and planned duration of chemotherapy was four cycles. Celecoxib was given for a maximum of one year but was stopped earlier in case of disease progression or prohibitive toxicity. In a subset of patients, plasma VEGF levels were examined at onset of treatment and at 6, 12 and 20 weeks. RESULTS: VEGF levels at start of treatment were obtained in 107 patients at four study sites. The median value was 70 pg/ml. Mean values declined during the first 12 weeks and then increased at 20 weeks. A subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot (STEPP) analysis showed an inverse relationship between initial plasma VEGF and the impact of celecoxib on survival with zero effect at 200 pg/ml. The effect on survival by celecoxib in the whole subset of patients was positive (hazard ratio (HR)=0.64 [confidence interval (CI) 0.43-0.95], p=0.028). CONCLUSION: Low pretreatment plasma levels of VEGF appear to be predictive of a positive effect of celecoxib on survival.

Randomized phase II study of gemcitabine and carboplatin +/- sequential docetaxel in non-small cell lung cancer.

Sequential administration of chemotherapeutic drugs might have advantages: additive toxicity is avoided and the individual drugs can be given in full dosages. The Swedish group earlier found the combination of gemcitabine and carboplatin to be effective and with acceptable toxicity. The group therefore decided to add docetaxel in a sequential way in a randomized phase II study. Patients were randomized to either gemcitabine or carboplatin for six cycles or the same regimen for three cycles followed by weekly single agent docetaxel. The primary objective was time to progression (TTP). One hundred and twenty-three patients with performance status WHO 0-2 and with earlier un-treated non-small cell lung cancer with measurable stage IIIB disease, not amenable to curative treatment, or stage IV disease without known metastatic spread to the CNS, were enrolled. Hematological toxicity was more common in the GC group but clinically significant bleeding or leucopenic fever occurred only in a minority of patients. No complete responses were noted. Partial response (PR) was observed in 19.3% and 20.8% in the GC and GCD group, respectively. Progression-free survival was 5.6 and 4.8 months and overall survival time 10.6 and 10.1 months in the GC and GCD groups, respectively. Thus, sequential treatment with docetaxel after treatment with gemcitabine and carboplatin did not improve time to progression, response rates, or overall survival.

Effect of celecoxib on survival in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a double blind randomised clinical phase III trial (CYCLUS study) by the Swedish Lung Cancer Study Group.

BACKGROUND: Increased expression of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) is common in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and has been associated with poor prognosis. Experimental and clinical phase II trials have indicated that the addition of the COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib to palliative chemotherapy might increase survival time in patients with advanced NSCLC. METHODS: We performed a double-blind, placebo-controlled multicentre phase III trial at 13 centres in Sweden. Three hundred and nineteen patients with advanced NSCLC stage IIIB-IV and performance status 0-2 were randomised to receive celecoxib 400mg b.i.d. or placebo in addition to palliative chemotherapy. The primary objective was to compare overall survival. Other end-points were quality of life, progression-free survival, toxicity, cardiovascular events and biological markers. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, No. NCT00300729. FINDINGS: Three hundred and sixteen patients were included in the analysis, 158 in each treatment group. Median survival time was 8.5 months. There was no survival difference between the treatment arms. Small but not statistically significant differences in global quality of life and pain were seen favouring the celecoxib group. No increased incidence of cardiovascular events was observed in the celecoxib group. INTERPRETATION: This study failed to demonstrate a survival benefit of the addition of celecoxib to palliative chemotherapy.

Outcome in a prospective phase II trial of medically inoperable stage I non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: The impact of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) on 3-year progression-free survival of medically inoperable patients with stage I non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was analyzed in a prospective phase II study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-seven patients with T1NOMO (70%) and T2N0M0 (30%) were included between August 2003 and September 2005 at seven different centers in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark and observed up to 36 months. SBRT was delivered with 15 Gy times three at the 67% isodose of the planning target volume. RESULTS: Progression-free survival at 3 years was 52%. Overall- and cancer-specific survival at 1, 2, and 3 years was 86%, 65%, 60%, and 93%, 88%, 88%, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in survival between patients with T1 or T2 tumors. At a median follow-up of 35 months (range, 4 to 47 months), 27 patients (47%) were deceased, seven as a result of lung cancer and 20 as a result of concurrent disease. Kaplan-Meier estimated local control at 3 years was 92%. Local relapse was observed in four patients (7%). Regional relapse was observed in three patients (5%). Nine patients (16%) developed distant metastases. The estimated risk of all failure (local, regional, or distant metastases) was increased in patients with T2 (41%) compared with those with T1 (18%) tumors (P = .027). CONCLUSION: With a 3-year local tumor control rate higher than 90% with limited toxicity, SBRT emerges as state-of-the-art treatment for medically inoperable stage I NSCLC and may even challenge surgery in operable instances.

Irinotecan plus carboplatin versus oral etoposide plus carboplatin in extensive small-cell lung cancer: a randomized phase III trial.

PURPOSE: A Japanese randomized trial showed superior survival for patients with extensive-disease (ED) small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) receiving irinotecan plus cisplatin compared with etoposide plus cisplatin. The present trial evaluated the efficacy of irinotecan plus carboplatin (IC) compared with oral etoposide plus carboplatin (EC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with ED SCLC were randomly assigned to receive either IC, which consisted of carboplatin (area under the curve = 4; Chatelut formula) and irinotecan (175 mg/m2) intravenously both on day 1, or EC, which consisted of carboplatin as in IC and etoposide (120 mg/m(2)/d) orally on days 1 through 5. Courses were repeated every 3 weeks with four cycles planned. Doses were reduced by one third in patients with a WHO performance status (PS) of 3 to 4 and/or age older than 70 years. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were quality of life (QOL) and complete response (CR) rate. RESULTS: Of 220 randomly assigned patients, 209 were eligible for analysis (IC, n = 105; EC, n = 104). Thirty-five percent were older than 70 years, and 47% had a PS of 2 to 4. The groups were well balanced with respect to prognostic factors. OS was inferior in the EC group (hazard ratio = 1.41; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.87; P = .02). Median survival time was 8.5 months for IC compared with 7.1 months for EC. One-year survival rate was 34% for IC and 24% for EC. CR was seen in 18 IC patients compared with seven EC patients (P = .02). There were no statistically significant differences in hematologic grade 3 or 4 toxicity. Grade 3 or 4 diarrhea was more common in the IC group. QOL differences were small, with a trend toward prolonged palliation with the IC regimen. CONCLUSION: IC prolongs survival in ED SCLC with slightly better scores for QOL.