Noninferiority of Hypofractionated vs Conventional Postprostatectomy Radiotherapy for Genitourinary and Gastrointestinal Symptoms: The NRG-GU003 Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: No prior trial has compared hypofractionated postprostatectomy radiotherapy (HYPORT) to conventionally fractionated postprostatectomy (COPORT) in patients primarily treated with prostatectomy. Objective: To determine if HYPORT is noninferior to COPORT for patient-reported genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms at 2 years. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this phase 3 randomized clinical trial, patients with a detectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA; ≥0.1 ng/mL) postprostatectomy with pT2/3pNX/0 disease or an undetectable PSA (<0.1 ng/mL) with either pT3 disease or pT2 disease with a positive surgical margin were recruited from 93 academic, community-based, and tertiary medical sites in the US and Canada. Between June 2017 and July 2018, a total of 296 patients were randomized. Data were analyzed in December 2020, with additional analyses occurring after as needed. Intervention: Patients were randomized to receive 62.5 Gy in 25 fractions (HYPORT) or 66.6 Gy in 37 fractions (COPORT). Main Outcomes and Measures: The coprimary end points were the 2-year change in score from baseline for the bowel and urinary domains of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Composite Index questionnaire. Secondary objectives were to compare between arms freedom from biochemical failure, time to progression, local failure, regional failure, salvage therapy, distant metastasis, prostate cancer-specific survival, overall survival, and adverse events. Results: Of the 296 patients randomized (median [range] age, 65 [44-81] years; 100% male), 144 received HYPORT and 152 received COPORT. At the end of RT, the mean GU change scores among those in the HYPORT and COPORT arms were neither clinically significant nor different in statistical significance and remained so at 6 and 12 months. The mean (SD) GI change scores for HYPORT and COPORT were both clinically significant and different in statistical significance at the end of RT (-15.52 [18.43] and -7.06 [12.78], respectively; P < .001). However, the clinically and statistically significant differences in HYPORT and COPORT mean GI change scores were resolved at 6 and 12 months. The 24-month differences in mean GU and GI change scores for HYPORT were noninferior to COPORT using noninferiority margins of -5 and -6, respectively, rejecting the null hypothesis of inferiority (mean [SD] GU score: HYPORT, -5.01 [15.10] and COPORT, -4.07 [14.67]; P = .005; mean [SD] GI score: HYPORT, -4.17 [10.97] and COPORT, -1.41 [8.32]; P = .02). With a median follow-up for censored patients of 2.1 years, there was no difference between HYPORT vs COPORT for biochemical failure, defined as a PSA of 0.4 ng/mL or higher and rising (2-year rate, 12% vs 8%; P = .28). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, HYPORT was associated with greater patient-reported GI toxic effects compared with COPORT at the completion of RT, but both groups recovered to baseline levels within 6 months. At 2 years, HYPORT was noninferior to COPORT in terms of patient-reported GU or GI toxic effects. HYPORT is a new acceptable practice standard for patients receiving postprostatectomy radiotherapy. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03274687.

Acute hospitalizations after proton therapy versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer in the durvalumab era.

INTRODUCTION: It was hypothesized that use of proton beam therapy (PBT) in patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with concurrent chemoradiation and consolidative immune checkpoint inhibition is associated with fewer unplanned hospitalizations compared with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). METHODS: Patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated between October 2017 and December 2021 with concurrent chemoradiation with either IMRT or PBT ± consolidative immune checkpoint inhibition were retrospectively identified. Logistic regression was used to assess the association of radiation therapy technique with 90-day hospitalization and grade 3 (G3+) lymphopenia. Competing risk regression was used to compare G3+ pneumonitis, G3+ esophagitis, and G3+ cardiac events. Kaplan-Meier method was used for progression-free survival and overall survival. Inverse probability treatment weighting was applied to adjust for differences in PBT and IMRT groups. RESULTS: Of 316 patients, 117 (37%) received PBT and 199 (63%) received IMRT. The PBT group was older (p < .001) and had higher Charlson Comorbidity Index scores (p = .02). The PBT group received a lower mean heart dose (p < .0001), left anterior descending artery V15 Gy (p = .001), mean lung dose (p = .008), and effective dose to immune circulating cells (p < .001). On inverse probability treatment weighting analysis, PBT was associated with fewer unplanned hospitalizations (adjusted odds ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.38-0.81; p = .002) and less G3+ lymphopenia (adjusted odds ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.37-0.81; p = .003). There was no difference in other G3+ toxicities, progression-free survival, or overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: PBT is associated with fewer unplanned hospitalizations, lower effective dose to immune circulating cells and less G3+ lymphopenia compared with IMRT. Minimizing dose to lymphocytes may be warranted, but prospective data are needed.

Quality-adjusted survival in women with gynecologic malignancies receiving IMRT after surgery: A Ppatient Rreported Ooutcome study of NRG oncology's RTOG 1203.

INTRODUCTION: NRG/RTOG 1203 compared 3-D conformal radiotherapy (3D CRT) to intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in patients with endometrial or cervical cancer requiring post-operative radiotherapy after hysterectomy. The purpose of this study was to report the first quality-adjusted survival analysis comparing the two treatments. METHODS: NRG/RTOG 1203 randomized patients having undergone hysterectomy to either 3DCRT or IMRT. Stratification factors included RT dose, chemotherapy, and disease site. The EQ-5D, both index and visual analog scale (VAS), were obtained at baseline, 5 weeks after the start of RT, 4-6 weeks post RT and 1 and 3-years post RT. EQ-5D index and VAS scores along with quality-adjusted survival (QAS) were compared between treatment arms using the t-test at a two-sided significance level of 0.05. RESULTS: NRG/RTOG 1203 enrolled 289 patients of which 236 consented to participate in the patient reported outcome (PRO) assessments. QAS was higher in women treated with IMRT, 1374 vs 1333 days (p = 0.5) compared to patients treated with 3DCRT, but this difference was not statistically different. Patients treated with IMRT had less of a decline in VAS score 5 weeks post RT, -5.04, compared to patients treated with 3DCRT, -7.48, although not statistically significant (p = 0.38). CONCLUSION: This is the first report of the use of the EQ-5D comparing two radiotherapy techniques in the treatment of gynecologic malignancies after surgery. While there were no significant differences in QAS and VAS scores between patients who received IMRT vs. 3DCRT, RTOG 1203 was not powered to show statistical differences in these secondary endpoints.

Sustained Preservation of Cognition and Prevention of Patient-Reported Symptoms With Hippocampal Avoidance During Whole-Brain Radiation Therapy for Brain Metastases: Final Results of NRG Oncology CC001.

PURPOSE: Initial report of NRG Oncology CC001, a phase 3 trial of whole-brain radiation therapy plus memantine (WBRT + memantine) with or without hippocampal avoidance (HA), demonstrated neuroprotective effects of HA with a median follow-up of fewer than 8 months. Herein, we report the final results with complete cognition, patient-reported outcomes, and longer-term follow-up exceeding 1 year. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Adult patients with brain metastases were randomized to HA-WBRT + memantine or WBRT + memantine. The primary endpoint was time to cognitive function failure, defined as decline using the reliable change index on the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised (HVLT-R), Controlled Oral Word Association, or the Trail Making Tests (TMT) A and B. Patient-reported symptom burden was assessed using the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory with Brain Tumor Module and EQ-5D-5L. RESULTS: Between July 2015 and March 2018, 518 patients were randomized. The median follow-up for living patients was 12.1 months. The addition of HA to WBRT + memantine prevented cognitive failure (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.74, P = .016) and was associated with less deterioration in TMT-B at 4 months (P = .012) and HVLT-R recognition at 4 (P = .055) and 6 months (P = .011). Longitudinal modeling of imputed data showed better preservation of all HVLT-R domains (P < .005). Patients who received HA-WBRT + Memantine reported less symptom burden at 6 (P < .001 using imputed data) and 12 months (P = .026 using complete-case data; P < .001 using imputed data), less symptom interference at 6 (P = .003 using complete-case data; P = .0016 using imputed data) and 12 months (P = .0027 using complete-case data; P = .0014 using imputed data), and fewer cognitive symptoms over time (P = .043 using imputed data). Treatment arms did not differ significantly in overall survival, intracranial progression-free survival, or toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: With median follow-up exceeding 1 year, HA during WBRT + memantine for brain metastases leads to sustained preservation of cognitive function and continued prevention of patient-reported neurologic symptoms, symptom interference, and cognitive symptoms with no difference in survival or toxicity.

Long-Term Update of NRG/RTOG 0522: A Randomized Phase 3 Trial of Concurrent Radiation and Cisplatin With or Without Cetuximab in Locoregionally Advanced Head and Neck Cancer.

PURPOSE: The combination of cisplatin and radiation or cetuximab and radiation improves overall survival of patients with locoregionally advanced head and neck carcinoma. NRG Oncology conducted a phase 3 trial to test the hypothesis that adding cetuximab to radiation and cisplatin would improve progression-free survival (PFS). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eligible patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer sixth edition stage T2 N2a-3 M0 or T3-4 N0-3 M0 were accrued from November 2005 to March 2009 and randomized to receive radiation and cisplatin without (arm A) or with (arm B) cetuximab. Outcomes were correlated with patient and tumor features. Late reactions were scored using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 3). RESULTS: Of 891 analyzed patients, 452 with a median follow-up of 10.1 years were alive at analysis. The addition of cetuximab did not improve PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89-1.26; P = .74), with 10-year estimates of 43.6% (95% CI, 38.8- 48.4) for arm A and 40.2% (95% CI, 35.4-45.0) for arm B. Cetuximab did not reduce locoregional failure (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.95-1.53; P = .94) or distant metastasis (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.54-1.14; P = .10) or improve overall survival (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.80-1.16; P = .36). Cetuximab did not appear to improve PFS in either p16-positive oropharynx (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.87-1.93) or p16-negative oropharynx or nonoropharyngeal primary (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.73-1.21). Grade 3 to 4 late toxicity rates were 57.4% in arm A and 61.3% in arm B (P = .26). CONCLUSIONS: With a median follow-up of more than 10 years, this updated report confirms the addition of cetuximab to radiation therapy and cisplatin did not improve any measured outcome in the entire cohort or when stratifying by p16 status.

Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy Reduces Patient-Reported Chronic Toxicity Compared With Conventional Pelvic Radiation Therapy: Updated Results of a Phase III Trial.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned coprimary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.The purpose of this update was to determine differences in patient-reported chronic toxicity and disease outcomes with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) compared with conventional pelvic radiation. Patients with cervical and endometrial cancers who received postoperative pelvic radiation were randomly assigned to conventional radiation therapy (CRT) or IMRT. Toxicity and quality of life were assessed using Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) bowel and urinary domains, and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General. Between 2012 and 2015, 279 eligible patients were enrolled to the study with a median follow-up of 37.8 months. There were no differences in overall survival (P = .53), disease-free survival (P = .21), or locoregional failure (P = .81). One year after RT, patients in the CRT arm experienced more high-level diarrhea frequency (5.8% IMRT v 15.1% CRT, P = .042) and a greater number had to take antidiarrheal medication two or more times a day (1.2% IMRT v 8.6% CRT, P = .036). At 3 years, women in the CRT arm reported a decline in urinary function, whereas the IMRT arm continued to improve (mean change in EPIC urinary score = 0.5, standard deviation = 13.0, IMRT v -6.0, standard deviation = 14.3, CRT, P = .005). In conclusion, IMRT reduces patient-reported chronic GI and urinary toxicity with no difference in treatment efficacy at 3 years.

Hippocampal Avoidance During Whole-Brain Radiotherapy Plus Memantine for Patients With Brain Metastases: Phase III Trial NRG Oncology CC001.

PURPOSE: Radiation dose to the neuroregenerative zone of the hippocampus has been found to be associated with cognitive toxicity. Hippocampal avoidance (HA) using intensity-modulated radiotherapy during whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) is hypothesized to preserve cognition. METHODS: This phase III trial enrolled adult patients with brain metastases to HA-WBRT plus memantine or WBRT plus memantine. The primary end point was time to cognitive function failure, defined as decline using the reliable change index on at least one of the cognitive tests. Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), intracranial progression-free survival (PFS), toxicity, and patient-reported symptom burden. RESULTS: Between July 2015 and March 2018, 518 patients were randomly assigned. Median follow-up for alive patients was 7.9 months. Risk of cognitive failure was significantly lower after HA-WBRT plus memantine versus WBRT plus memantine (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.95; P = .02). This difference was attributable to less deterioration in executive function at 4 months (23.3% v 40.4%; P = .01) and learning and memory at 6 months (11.5% v 24.7% [P = .049] and 16.4% v 33.3% [P = .02], respectively). Treatment arms did not differ significantly in OS, intracranial PFS, or toxicity. At 6 months, using all data, patients who received HA-WBRT plus memantine reported less fatigue (P = .04), less difficulty with remembering things (P = .01), and less difficulty with speaking (P = .049) and using imputed data, less interference of neurologic symptoms in daily activities (P = .008) and fewer cognitive symptoms (P = .01). CONCLUSION: HA-WBRT plus memantine better preserves cognitive function and patient-reported symptoms, with no difference in intracranial PFS and OS, and should be considered a standard of care for patients with good performance status who plan to receive WBRT for brain metastases with no metastases in the HA region.

Pooled Analysis of external-beam RADiotherapy parameters in phase II and phase III trials in radiochemotherapy in Anal Cancer (PARADAC).

PURPOSE: Concomitant external-beam radiochemotherapy (5-fluorouracil-mitomycin C) has become the standard of care in anal cancer since the '90s. A pooled analysis of individual patient data from 7 major trials was performed quantifying the effect of radiation therapy (RT)-related parameters on the outcome of patients with anal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pooling databases from combined modality trials, the impact of RT parameters (total dose, gap duration, OTT: overall treatment time) on outcome including locoregional failure (LRF), 5-year progression free survival (PFS) and toxicities were investigated. Individual patient data were received for 10/13 identified published studies conducted from 1987 to 2008 (n = 3031). A Cox regression model was used (landmark = 3 months after RT for first follow-up). RESULTS: After data inspection indicating severe heterogeneity between trials, only 1343 patients from 7/10 studies received were analysed (the most recent ones, since 1994; median follow-up = 4.1 years). A higher overall 5-year LRF rate [22.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 22.3-27.3%)] significantly correlated with longer OTT (p = 0.03), larger tumour size (p < 0.001) and male gender (p = 0.045). Although significant differences were not observed, subset analyses for LRF (dose range: 50.4-59 Gy) seemed to favour lower doses (p = 0.412), and when comparing a 2-week gap versus 3 (dose: 59.4 Gy), results suggested 3 weeks might be detrimental (p = 0.245). For a 2-week gap versus none (dose range: 55-59.4 Gy), no difference was observed (p = 0.89). Five-year PFS was 65.7% (95% CI: 62.8-68.5%). Higher PFS rates were observed in women (p < 0.001), smaller tumour sizes (p < 0.001) and shorter OTT (p = 0.025). Five-year overall survival [76.7% (95% CI: 73.9%-79.3%)] correlated positively with female gender (p < 0.001), small tumour size (p = 0.027) and short OTT (p = 0.026). Descriptive toxicity data are presented. CONCLUSION: For patients receiving concurrent external-beam doublet chemoradiation, a longer OTT seems detrimental to outcome. Further trials involving modern techniques may better define optimal OTT and total dose.

Executive Summary of the American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria for Local Excision in Rectal Cancer.

The goal of treatment for early stage rectal cancer is to optimize oncologic outcome while minimizing effect of treatment on quality of life. The standard of care treatment for most early rectal cancers is radical surgery alone. Given the morbidity associated with radical surgery, local excision for early rectal cancers has been explored as an alternative approach associated with lower rates of morbidity. The American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria presented in this manuscript are evidence-based guidelines for the use of local excision in early stage rectal cancer that include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) used by a multidisciplinary expert panel to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment. These guidelines are intended for the use of all practitioners and patients who desire information regarding the use of local excision in rectal cancer.

An Economic Analysis of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 94-10: Cost-Efficacy of Concurrent vs. Sequential Chemoradiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Cost can be a major issue in therapeutic decision-making, and in particular for patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC). METHODS: The specific aim of this analysis was to evaluate the costs and outcomes of patients treated on Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 94-10, Medicare Part A and Part B costs from all for patients treated from 1991 to 1996 on RTOG 94-10, a phase III trial showing a survival benefit for concurrent chemoradiation (STD RT) over sequential (RT day 50) chemoradiation in LA-NSCLC with intermediate outcome for concurrent twice daily radiation and chemotherapy (HFX RT). 26-month expected costs for each arm of the trial in 1996 dollars were determined, with Kaplan Meier sampling average estimates of survival probabilities for each month and mean monthly costs. The analysis was performed from a payer's perspective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated comparing RT on day 50 and HFX RT to the STD RT. RESULTS: Of the 610 patients entered, Medicare cost data and clinical outcomes were available for 92 patients. In this subset, compared to STD RT, RT on day 50 proved less costly but resulted in reduced survival at 1 year. In addition, HFX RT cost slightly more than STD RT but was less effective in this cohort of patients. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with Medicare insurance and with significant toxicity burden, RT on day 50 is the least expensive but also least effective treatment in this subset of patients treated on RTOG 94-10.

Risk factors for late bowel and bladder toxicities in NRG Oncology prostate cancer trials of high-risk patients: A meta-analysis of physician-rated toxicities.

PURPOSE: A meta-analysis of sociodemographic variables and their association with late (>180 days from start of radiation therapy[RT]) bowel, bladder, and clustered bowel and bladder toxicities was conducted in patients with high-risk (clinical stages T2c-T4b or Gleason score 8-10 or prostate-specific antigen level >20) prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Three NRG trials (RTOG 9202, RTOG 9413, and RTOG 9406) that accrued from 1992 to 2000 were used. Late toxicities were measured with the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Late Radiation Morbidity Scale. After controlling for study, age, Karnofsky Performance Status, and year of accrual, sociodemographic variables were added to the model for each outcome variable of interest in a stepwise fashion using the Fine-Gray regression models with an entry criterion of 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 2432 patients were analyzed of whom most were Caucasian (76%), had a KPS score of 90 to 100 (92%), and received whole-pelvic RT+HT (67%). Of these patients, 13 % and 16% experienced late grade ≥2 bowel and bladder toxicities, respectively, and 2% and 3% experienced late grade ≥3 bowel and bladder toxicities, respectively. Late grade ≥2 clustered bowel and bladder toxicities were seen in approximately 1% of patients and late grade ≥3 clustered toxicities were seen in 2 patients (<1%). The multivariate analysis showed that patients who received prostate-only RT+HT had a lower risk of experiencing grade ≥2 bowel toxicities than those who received whole-pelvic RT+long-term (LT) HT (hazard ratio: 0.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.73; P = .0046 and hazard ratio: 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.80; P = .008, respectively). Patients who received whole-pelvic RT had similar chances of having grade ≥2 bowel or bladder toxicities no matter whether they received LT or short-term HT. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with high-risk prostate cancer who receive whole-pelvic RT+LT HT are more likely to have a grade ≥2 bowel toxicity than those who receive prostate-only RT. LT bowel and bladder toxicities were infrequent. Future studies will need to confirm these findings utilizing current radiation technology and patient-reported outcomes.

Cost effectiveness of prostate cancer radiotherapy.

The use of radiotherapy in the treatment of prostate cancer has evolved from treatments utilizing large fields with hand placed blocks to radiotherapy treatments given with a linear accelerator moving around the patient on a robotic arm. These technologic developments have allowed radiation dose escalations resulting in improvements in disease and patient reported outcomes with longer biochemical disease-free survival (DFS) as well as improved quality of life. Increased costs have accompanied these technologic improvements with some private payers questioning the increased cost of the newer treatments and in some instances refusing to pay for some treatment modalities such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or proton beam therapy (PBT). Cost-effectiveness analysis have been used in an attempt to illustrate these new treatments were cost-effective when compared to the older treatments. Cost-effectiveness analyses will need to be adapted in the current health care environment to provide an assessment of value as many payers, including medicare, move to a value-based reimbursement system.

A Medicare cost analysis of MRI- versus CT-based high-dose-rate brachytherapy of the cervix: Can MRI-based planning be less costly?

PURPOSE: While some institutions deliver multiple fractions per implant for MRI-based planning, it is common for only one fraction to be delivered per implant with CT-based cervical brachytherapy. The purpose of this study was to compare physician costs, hospital costs, and overall costs for cervical cancer patients treated with either CT-based or MRI-based high-dose-rate (HDR) cervical brachytherapy to determine if MRI-based brachytherapy as described can be financially feasible. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We identified 40 consecutive patients treated with curative intent cervical brachytherapy. Twenty patients underwent CT-based HDR brachytherapy with five fractions delivered in five implants on nonconsecutive days in an outpatient setting with the first implant placed with a Smit sleeve under general anesthesia. Twenty patients received MRI-based HDR brachytherapy with four fractions delivered in two implants, each with MRI-based planning, performed 1-2 weeks apart with an overnight hospital admission for each implant. We used Medicare reimbursements to assess physician costs, hospital costs, and overall cost. RESULTS: The median cost of MRI-based brachytherapy was $14,248.75 (interquartile range [IQR]: $13,421.32-$15,539.74), making it less costly than CT-based brachytherapy with conscious sedation (i.e., $18,278.85; IQR: $17,323.13-$19,863.03, p < 0.0001) and CT-based brachytherapy with deep sedation induced by an anesthesiologist (i.e., $27,673.44; IQR: $26,935.14-$29,511.16, p < 0.0001). CT-based brachytherapy with conscious sedation was more costly than CT-based brachytherapy with deep sedation (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: MRI-based brachytherapy using the described treatment course was less costly than both methods of CT-based brachytherapy. Cost does not need to be a barrier for MRI-based cervical brachytherapy, especially when delivering multiple fractions with the same application.

Effect of the Addition of Cetuximab to Paclitaxel, Cisplatin, and Radiation Therapy for Patients With Esophageal Cancer: The NRG Oncology RTOG 0436 Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: The role of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibition in chemoradiation strategies in the nonoperative treatment of patients with esophageal cancer remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the benefit of cetuximab added to concurrent chemoradiation therapy for patients undergoing nonoperative treatment of esophageal carcinoma. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A National Cancer Institute (NCI) sponsored, multicenter, phase 3, randomized clinical trial open to patients with biopsy-proven carcinoma of the esophagus. The study accrued 344 patients from 2008 to 2013. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to weekly concurrent cisplatin (50 mg/m2), paclitaxel (25 mg/m2), and daily radiation of 50.4 Gy/1.8 Gy fractions with or without weekly cetuximab (400 mg/m2 on day 1 then 250 mg/m2 weekly). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint, with a study designed to detect an increase in 2-year OS from 41% to 53%; 80% power and 1-sided α = .025. RESULTS: Between June 30, 2008, and February 8, 2013, 344 patients were enrolled. This analysis used all data received at NRG Oncology through April 12, 2015. Sixteen patients were ineligible, resulting in 328 evaluable patients, 159 in the experimental arm and 169 in the control arm. Patients were well matched between the treatment arms for patient and tumor characteristics: 263 (80%) with T3 or T4 disease, 215 (66%) N1, and 62 (19%) with celiac nodal involvement. Incidence of grade 3, 4, or 5 treatment-related adverse events at any time was 71 (46%), 35 (23%), or 6 (4%) in the experimental arm and 83 (50%), 28 (17%), or 2 (1%) in the control arm, respectively. A clinical complete response (cCR) rate of 81 (56%) was observed in the experimental arm vs 92 (58%) in the control arm (Fisher exact test, P = .66). No differences were seen in cCR between treatment arms for either histology (adenocarcinoma or squamous cell). Median follow-up for all patients was 18.6 months. The 24- and 36-month local failure for the experimental arm was 47% (95% CI, 38%-57%) and 49% (95% CI, 40%-59%) vs 49% (95% CI, 41%-58%) and 49% (95% CI, 41%-58%) for the control arm (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.66-1.28; P = .65). The 24- and 36-month OS rates for the experimental arm were 45% (95% CI, 37%-53%) and 34% (95% CI, 26%-41%) vs 44% (95% CI, 36%-51%) and 28% (95% CI, 21%-35%) for the control arm (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.70-1.16; P = .47). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The addition of cetuximab to concurrent chemoradiation did not improve OS. These phase 3 trial results point to little benefit to current EGFR-targeted agents in an unselected patient population, and highlight the need for predictive biomarkers in the treatment of esophageal cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00655876.

Defining Value in Radiation Oncology: Approaches to Weighing Benefits vs Costs.

The passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010 initiated discussion regarding transitioning from a fee-for-service arrangement of care reimbursement to value-based care. Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) has been used in the past to quantify value as it relates to the provision of healthcare. New treatments or techniques being compared with other new or existing therapies or approaches to care were determined to be cost-effective if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was less than $50,000/life-year or quality-adjusted life-year. This result was accepted as a proxy for value in care delivery. The calculation of value, however, is the inverse of CEA, with units measured in outcome/cost. Given the wealth of medical information now available online, patients are becoming more sophisticated consumers of healthcare, investigating not only outcomes but also costs of care associated with different treatment approaches. Costs to be considered include direct medical costs; the indirect medical costs associated with treatment; and productivity costs resulting, for example, from time lost from work when patients must travel to a cancer center or clinic to receive treatment. Radiation oncologists must be mindful of these costs when designing treatment plans. Increased adoption of hypofractionated radiation treatment strategies (ie, higher radiation doses given over a shorter course of treatment) could increase patient value by reducing direct and indirect medical costs, as well as productivity costs.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Resectable Pancreatic Cancer.

Management of resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma continues to present a challenge due to a paucity of high-quality randomized studies. Administration of adjuvant chemotherapy is widely accepted due to the high risk of systemic spread associated with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, but the role of radiation therapy is less clear. This paper reviews literature associated with resectable pancreatic cancer to include prognostic factors to aid in the selection of patients appropriate for adjuvant therapies. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.