Stereotactic Radiation for Ultra-Central Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Safety and Efficacy Trial (SUNSET).

PURPOSE: The use of stereotactic body radiation therapy for tumors in close proximity to the central mediastinal structures has been associated with a high risk of toxicity. This study (NCT03306680) aimed to determine the maximally tolerated dose of stereotactic body radiation therapy for ultracentral non-small cell lung carcinoma, using a time-to-event continual reassessment methodology. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with T1-3N0M0 (≤6 cm) non-small cell lung carcinoma were eligible. The maximally tolerated dose was defined as the dose of radiation therapy associated with a ≤30% rate of grade (G) 3 to 5 prespecified treatment-related toxicity occurring within 2 years of treatment. The starting dose level was 60 Gy in 8 daily fractions. The dose-maximum hotspot was limited to 120% and within the planning tumor volume; tumors with endobronchial invasion were excluded. This primary analysis occurred 2 years after completion of accrual. RESULTS: Between March 2018 and April 2021, 30 patients were enrolled at 5 institutions. The median age was 73 years (range, 65-87) and 17 (57%) were female. Planning tumor volume was abutting proximal bronchial tree in 19 (63%), esophagus 5 (17%), pulmonary vein 1 (3.3%), and pulmonary artery 14 (47%). All patients received 60 Gy in 8 fractions. The median follow-up was 37 months (range, 8.9-51). Two patients (6.7%) experienced G3-5 adverse events related to treatment: 1 patient with G3 dyspnea and 1 G5 pneumonia. The latter had computed tomography findings consistent with a background of interstitial lung disease. Three-year overall survival was 72.5% (95% CI, 52.3%-85.3%), progression-free survival 66.1% (95% CI, 46.1%-80.2%), local control 89.6% (95% CI, 71.2%-96.5%), regional control 96.4% (95% CI, 77.2%-99.5%), and distant control 85.9% (95% CI, 66.7%-94.5%). Quality-of-life scores declined numerically over time, but the decreases were not clinically or statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Sixty Gy in 8 fractions, planned and delivered with only a moderate hotspot, has a favorable adverse event rate within the prespecified acceptability criteria and results in excellent control for ultracentral tumors.

Stereotactic Radiation Therapy in Early Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and Interstitial Lung Disease: A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) and early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have been reported to be at high risk of toxic effects after stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR), but for many patients, there are limited alternative treatment options. Objective: To prospectively assess the benefits and toxic effects of SABR in this patient population. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study was conducted at 6 academic radiation oncology institutions, 5 in Canada and 1 in Scotland, with accrual between March 7, 2019, and January 12, 2022. Patients aged 18 years or older with fibrotic ILD and a diagnosis of T1-2N0 NSCLC who were not candidates for surgical resection were enrolled. Intervention: Patients were treated with SABR to a dose of 50 Gy in 5 fractions every other day. Main Outcomes and Measures: The study prespecified that SABR would be considered worthwhile if median overall survival-the primary end point-was longer than 1 year, with a grade 3 to 4 risk of toxic effects less than 35% and a grade 5 risk of toxic effects less than 15%. Secondary end points included toxic effects, progression-free survival (PFS), local control (LC), quality-of-life outcomes, and changes in pulmonary function. Intention-to-treat analysis was conducted. Results: Thirty-nine patients enrolled and received SABR. Median age was 78 (IQR, 67-83) years and 59% (n = 23) were male. At baseline, 70% (26 of 37) of patients reported dyspnea, median forced expiratory volume in first second of expiration was 80% (IQR, 66%-90%) predicted, median forced vital capacity was 84% (IQR, 69%-94%) predicted, and median diffusion capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide was 49% (IQR, 38%-61%) predicted. Median follow-up was 19 (IQR, 14-25) months. Overall survival at 1 year was 79% (95%, CI 62%-89%; P < .001 vs the unacceptable rate), and median overall survival was 25 months (95% CI, 14 months to not reached). Median PFS was 19 months (95% CI, 13-28 months), and 2-year LC was 92% (95% CI, 69%-98%). Adverse event rates (highest grade per patient) were grade 1 to 2: n = 12 (31%), grade 3: n = 4 (10%), grade 4: n = 0, and grade 5: n = 3 (7.7%, all due to respiratory deterioration). Conclusions and Relevance: In this trial, use of SABR in patients with fibrotic ILD met the prespecified acceptability thresholds for both toxicity and efficacy, supporting the use of SABR for curative-intent treatment after a careful discussion of risks and benefits. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03485378.

What is the predictive value of RECIST criteria following stereotactic lung radiation?

PURPOSE: Response EvaluationCriteriain Solid Tumors (RECIST) is commonly used to assess response to anti-cancer therapies. However, its application after lung stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is complicated by radiation-induced lung changes. This study assesses the frequency of progressive disease (PD) by RECIST following lung SABR and correlates this with actual treatment outcomes as determined by longitudinal follow-up. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We reviewed patients treated with lung SABR for primary lung tumors or oligometastases between 2010 and 2015. Patients were treated with SABR doses of 54-60 Gy in 3-8 fractions. All follow-up scans were assessed and the treated lesion was serially measured over time, with the maximum diameter on axial CT slices used for RECIST calculations. Lesions demonstrating PD by RECIST criteria were identified and subsequently followed for long-term outcomes. The final 'gold-standard' assessment of response was based on size changes after PD and, as available, positron emission tomography scan and/or biopsy. RESULTS: Eighty-eight lesions met inclusion criteria. Seventy-five were lung primaries and thirteen were lung metastases. Median follow-up was 52 months (interquartile range: 33-68). Two-thirds (66 %, 58/88) of treated lesions met RECIST criteria for PD; however, local recurrence was only confirmed in 16 % (9/58) of cases. Most lesions that triggered PD by RECIST (47/58, 81 %) were ultimately found not to represent recurrence, while a minority (2/58, 3 %) had an uncertain response. The positive predictive value [PPV] of a RECIST defined PD event was 0.16. If PD was triggered within 12-months post-treatment, PPV was 0.08, compared to 0.21 for lesions triggering PD after 12-months. CONCLUSION: Using RECIST criteria, two-thirds of patients treated with lung SABR met criteria for PD. However, only a minority had recurrence, leading to a poor PPV of RECIST. This highlights the limitations of RECIST in this setting and provides context for physicians when interpreting post-lung SABR imaging.

Planning for the Effect of the SC.24 Trial on Spine Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Utilization at a Tertiary Cancer Center.

Purpose: The goal of this study was to assess the potential real-world effect of the recently reported SC.24 trial on spine stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) utilization. We estimated the proportion of patients treated with conventional radiation therapy (CRT) who would have been eligible for spine SBRT per trial inclusion criteria and analyzed the potential estimated increased costs to our institution. Methods and Materials: This was a retrospective review of patients who received spine CRT at our institution between August and October 2020. Data abstracted included demographics, SC.24 eligibility criteria, provider-reported pain response, and survival. A cost analysis and time survey was performed using institutional and provincial data. Results: Of 73 patients reviewed, 24 patients (33%) were eligible. The most common exclusion factors included irradiation of ≥3 consecutive spinal segments (n = 32, 44%), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status >2 (n = 17, 23%), and symptomatic spinal cord compression (n = 13, 18%). Of eligible patients, the mean age was 68.92 years, median spinal instability in neoplasia score was 8 (interquartile range, 7-9), and median Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status was 2 (interquartile range, 1-2). The most common primary cancer types among eligible patients were lung (n = 10) and breast (n = 4). The median survival of eligible patients was 10 months (95% confidence interval, 4 months to not reached) with 58% surviving longer than 3 months. Of patients who had subjective pain documented after CRT, 54% had at least some response. The cost of spine SBRT was estimated at CA$4764.80 compared with $3589.10 for CRT, and tasks for spine SBRT took roughly 3 times as long as those for CRT. Conclusions: One-third of patients who received palliative spine CRT met eligibility criteria for SC.24. This possible expanded indication for spine SBRT can have a substantial effect on resource utilization. These data may be useful in guiding resource planning at institutions looking to commence a spine SBRT program.

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy before resection to avoid delay for early-stage lung cancer or oligometastases during the COVID-19 pandemic: Pathologic outcomes from the SABR-BRIDGE protocol.

BACKGROUND: During coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related operating room closures, some multidisciplinary thoracic oncology teams adopted a paradigm of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) as a bridge to surgery, an approach called SABR-BRIDGE. This study presents the preliminary surgical and pathological results. METHODS: Eligible participants from four institutions (three in Canada and one in the United States) had early-stage presumed or biopsy-proven lung malignancy that would normally be surgically resected. SABR was delivered using standard institutional guidelines, with surgery >3 months following SABR with standardized pathologic assessment. Pathological complete response (pCR) was defined as absence of viable cancer. Major pathologic response (MPR) was defined as ≤10% viable tissue. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients underwent SABR. Most common SABR regimens were 34 Gy/1 (29%, n = 21), 48 Gy/3-4 (26%, n = 19), and 50/55 Gy/5 (22%, n = 16). SABR was well-tolerated, with one grade 5 toxicity (death 10 days after SABR with COVID-19) and five grade 2-3 toxicities. Following SABR, 26 patients underwent resection thus far (13 pending surgery). Median time-to-surgery was 4.5 months post-SABR (range, 2-17.5 months). Surgery was reported as being more difficult because of SABR in 38% (n = 10) of cases. Thirteen patients (50%) had pCR and 19 (73%) had MPR. Rates of pCR trended higher in patients operated on at earlier time points (75% if within 3 months, 50% if 3-6 months, and 33% if ≥6 months; p = .069). In the exploratory best-case scenario analysis, pCR rate does not exceed 82%. CONCLUSIONS: The SABR-BRIDGE approach allowed for delivery of treatment during a period of operating room closure and was well-tolerated. Even in the best-case scenario, pCR rate does not exceed 82%.

Androgen Deprivation and Radiotherapy with or Without Docetaxel for Localized High-risk Prostate Cancer: Long-term Follow-up from the Randomized NRG Oncology RTOG 0521 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Intensification of therapy may improve outcomes for patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To provide long-term follow-up data from phase III RTOG 0521, which compared a combination of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) + external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) + docetaxel with ADT + EBRT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: High-risk localized prostate cancer patients (>50% of patients had Gleason 9-10 disease) were prospectively randomized to 2 yr of ADT + EBRT or ADT + EBRT + six cycles of docetaxel. A total of 612 patients were accrued, and 563 were eligible and included in the modified intent-to-treat analysis. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Analyses with Cox proportional hazards were performed as prespecified in the protocol; however, there was evidence of nonproportional hazards. Thus, a post hoc analysis was performed using the restricted mean survival time (RMST). The secondary endpoints included biochemical failure, distant metastasis (DM) as detected by conventional imaging, and disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: After 10.4 yr of median follow-up among survivors, the hazard ratio (HR) for OS was 0.89 (90% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-1.14; one-sided log-rank p = 0.22). Survival at 10 yr was 64% for ADT + EBRT and 69% for ADT + EBRT + docetaxel. The RMST at 12 yr was 0.45 yr and not statistically significant (one-sided p = 0.053). No differences were detected in the incidence of DFS (HR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.73-1.14), DM (HR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.73-1.14), or prostate-specific antigen recurrence risk (HR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.74-1.29). Two patients had grade 5 toxicity in the chemotherapy arm and zero patients in the control arm. CONCLUSIONS: After a median follow-up of 10.4 yr among surviving patients, no significant differences are observed in clinical outcomes between the experimental and control arms. These data suggest that docetaxel should not be used for high-risk localized prostate cancer. Additional research may be warranted using novel predictive biomarkers. PATIENT SUMMARY: No significant differences in survival were noted after long-term follow-up for high-risk localized prostate cancer patients in a large prospective trial where patients were treated with androgen deprivation therapy + radiation to the prostate ± docetaxel.

Ensuring Superior Reporting of Radiation Therapy Noninferiority Trials: A Systematic Review.

Purpose: Although the frequency of noninferiority trials is increasing, the consistency of the reporting of these trials can vary. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the reporting quality of radiation therapy noninferiority trials. Methods and Materials: The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were queried for randomized controlled radiation therapy trials with noninferiority hypotheses published in English between January 2000 and July 2022, and this was performed by an information scientist. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize data. Results: Of 423 records screened, 59 (14%) were included after full-text review. All were published after 2003 and open label. The most common primary cancer type was breast (n = 15, 25%). Altered radiation fractionation (n = 26, 45%) and radiation de-escalation (n = 11, 19%) were the most common types of interventions. The most common primary endpoints were locoregional control (n = 17, 29%) and progression-free survival (n = 14, 24%). Fifty-three (90%) reported the noninferiority margin, and only 9 (17%) provided statistical justification for the margin. The median absolute noninferiority margin was 9% (interquartile range, 5%-10%), and the median relative margin was 1.51 (interquartile range, 1.33-2.04). Sample size calculations and confidence intervals were reported in 54 studies (92%). Both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were reported in 27 studies (46%). In 31 trials (53%), noninferiority of the primary endpoint was reached. Conclusions: There was variability in the reporting of key components of noninferiority trials. We encourage consideration of additional statistical reasoning such as guidelines or previous trials in the selection of the noninferiority margin, reporting both absolute and relative margins, and the avoidance of statistically vague or misleading language in the reporting of future noninferiority trials.

Circulating tumor cells detected in follow-up predict survival outcomes in tri-modality management of advanced non-metastatic esophageal cancer: a secondary analysis of the QUINTETT randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to establish if presence of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) predicted worse outcome in patients with non-metastatic esophageal cancer undergoing tri-modality therapy. METHODS: We prospectively collected CTC data from patients with operable non-metastatic esophageal cancer from April 2009 to November 2016 enrolled in our QUINTETT esophageal cancer randomized trial (NCT00907543). Patients were randomized to receive either neoadjuvant cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) plus radiotherapy followed by surgical resection (Neoadjuvant) or adjuvant cisplatin, 5-FU, and epirubicin chemotherapy with concurrent extended volume radiotherapy following surgical resection (Adjuvant). CTCs were identified with the CellSearch® system before the initiation of any treatment (surgery or chemoradiotherapy) as well as at 6-, 12-, and 24-months post-treatment. The threshold for CTC positivity was one and the findings were correlated with patient prognosis. RESULTS: CTC data were available for 74 of 96 patients and identified in 27 patients (36.5%) at a median follow-up of 13.1months (interquartile range:6.8-24.1 months). Detection of CTCs at any follow-up visit was significantly predictive of worse disease-free survival (DFS;hazard ratio [HR]: 2.44; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.41-4.24; p=0.002), regional control (HR: 6.18; 95% CI: 1.18-32.35; p=0.031), distant control (HR: 2.93; 95% CI: 1.52-5.65;p=0.001) and overall survival (OS;HR: 2.02; 95% CI: 1.16-3.51; p=0.013). After adjusting for receiving neoadjuvant vs. adjuvant chemoradiotherapy, the presence of CTCs at any follow-up visit remained significantly predictive of worse OS ([HR]:2.02;95% [Cl]:1.16-3.51; p=0.013) and DFS (HR: 2.49;95% Cl: 1.43-4.33; p=0.001). Similarly, any observed increase in CTCs was significantly predictive of worse OS (HR: 3.14; 95% CI: 1.56-6.34; p=0.001) and DFS (HR: 3.34; 95% CI: 1.67-6.69; p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The presence of CTCs in patients during follow-up after tri-modality therapy was associated with significantly poorer DFS and OS regardless of timing of chemoradiotherapy.

Stereotactic Radiation for the Comprehensive Treatment of Oligometastases (SABR-COMET): Extended Long-Term Outcomes.

PURPOSE: Long-term randomized data assessing the effect of ablative therapies in patients with oligometastases are lacking. The Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy for the Comprehensive Treatment of Oligometastases (SABR-COMET) randomized phase 2 trial was originally designed with 5 years of follow-up, but the trial was amended in 2016 to extend follow-up to 10 years. Herein we report oncologic outcomes beyond 5 years. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients were eligible if they had a controlled primary tumor and 1 to 5 metastases, with all metastases amenable to SABR. Patients were randomized in a 1:2 ratio between palliative standard-of-care treatment (control arm) versus SABR to all metastases plus standard of care (SABR arm). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) and secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), toxicity, quality of life (using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy: General [FACT-G]), and time to new metastases. RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients were randomized between 2012 and 2016 (n = 33 in arm 1 vs n = 66 in arm 2). Primary tumor sites included lung (n = 18), breast (n = 18), colon (n = 18), prostate (n = 16), and other (n = 29). Eight-year OS was 27.2% in the SABR arm versus 13.6% in the control arm (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.84; P = .008). Eight-year PFS estimates were 21.3% versus 0.0%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.72; P < .001). Rates of grade ≥ 2 acute or late toxic effects were 30.3% versus 9.1% (P = .019), with no new grade 3 to 5 toxic effects. FACT-G quality of life scores declined over time in both arms, but there were no differences in quality of life scores between arms. The use of systemic therapy overall was similar between arms, but patients in the SABR arm were less likely to require cytotoxic chemotherapy (33.3% vs 54.6%, respectively, P = .043). CONCLUSIONS: SABR achieved durable improvements in OS and PFS, with no new major toxicity signals with extended follow-up. A minority of patients randomized to the SABR arm (21.3%) achieved > 5 years of survival without recurrence.

The quality of life in neoadjuvant versus adjuvant therapy of esophageal cancer treatment trial (QUINTETT): Randomized parallel clinical superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: We compared the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients undergoing trimodality therapy for resectable stage I-III esophageal cancer. METHODS: A total of 96 patients were randomized to standard neoadjuvant cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy plus radiotherapy (neoadjuvant) followed by surgical resection or adjuvant cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and epirubicin chemotherapy with concurrent extended volume radiotherapy (adjuvant) following surgical resection. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the functional assessment of cancer therapy-esophageal (FACT-E) total scores between arms at 1 year (p = 0.759) with 36% versus 41% (neoadjuvant vs. adjuvant), respectively, showing an increase of ≥15 points compared to pre-treatment (p = 0.638). The HRQOL was significantly inferior at 2 months in the neoadjuvant arm for FACT-E, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-OG25), and EuroQol 5-D-3 L in the dysphagia, reflux, pain, taste, and coughing domains (p < 0.05). Half of patients were able to complete the prescribed neoadjuvant arm chemotherapy without modification compared to only 14% in the adjuvant arm (p < 0.001). Chemotherapy related adverse events of grade ≥2 occurred significantly more frequently in the neoadjuvant arm (100% vs. 69%, p < 0.001). Surgery related adverse events of grade ≥2 were similar in both arms (72% vs. 86%, p = 0.107). There were no 30-day mortalities and 2% vs. 10% 90-day mortalities (p = 0.204). There were no significant differences in either overall survival (OS) (5-year: 35% vs. 32%, p = 0.409) or disease-free survival (DFS) (5-year: 31% vs. 30%, p = 0.710). CONCLUSION: Trimodality therapy is challenging for patients with resectable esophageal cancer regardless of whether it is given before or after surgery. Newer and less toxic protocols are needed.

Functional Lung Avoidance for Individualized Radiation Therapy: Results of a Double-Masked, Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: To determine whether functional lung avoidance based on 3He magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) improves quality of life (QOL) for patients undergoing concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer (or oligometastatic disease treated with curative intent) undergoing CCRT with at least a 10 pack-year smoking history were eligible. Patients underwent pretreatment 3He MRI to measure lung ventilation and had 2 radiation therapy (RT) plans created before randomization: a standard plan, which did not make use of the 3He MRI, and an avoidance plan, preferentially sparing well-ventilated lung. All participants were masked to assignment except the physicist responsible for exporting the selected plan. The primary end point was patient-reported QOL measured at 3-months post-RT by the FACT-L lung cancer subscale (LCS); secondary end points included other QOL metrics, toxicity, and survival outcomes. Target accrual was 64. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients were randomized before the trial was closed due to slower-than-expected accrual, with 11 randomized to the standard arm and 16 to the avoidance arm. Baseline patient characteristics were well-balanced. At 3 months post-RT, the mean ± SD LCS scores were 17.4 ± 2.8 versus 17.3 ± 6.1 for the standard and avoidance arms, respectively (P = .485). A clinically meaningful, prespecified decline of ≥3 points in the LCS score was observed in 50% (4/8) in the standard arm and 33% (4/12) in the avoidance arm (P = .648). Two patients in each arm developed grade ≥2 radiation pneumonitis, with no grade ≥4 toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: Although this trial did not reach full accrual, QOL scores were very similar between arms. Due to the scarcity of 3He MRI, other, more commonly available methods to measure functional lung, such as 4-dimensional computed tomography ventilation mapping, may be considered in the assessment of functional lung avoidance RT, and a larger, multicenter approach would be needed to accrue sufficient patients to test such approaches.

The addition of androgen deprivation therapy and pelvic lymph node treatment to prostate bed salvage radiotherapy (NRG Oncology/RTOG 0534 SPPORT): an international, multicentre, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In men with a detectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level after prostatectomy for prostate cancer, salvage prostate bed radiotherapy (PBRT) results in about 70% of patients being free of progression at 5 years. A three-group randomised trial was designed to determine whether incremental gains in patient outcomes can be achieved by adding either 4-6 months of short-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to PBRT, or both short-term ADT and pelvic lymph node radiotherapy (PLNRT) to PBRT. METHODS: The international, multicentre, randomised, controlled SPPORT trial was done at 283 radiation oncology cancer treatment centres in the USA, Canada, and Israel. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) were those who after prostatectomy for adenocarcinoma of the prostate had a persistently detectable or an initially undetectable and rising PSA of between 0·1 and 2·0 ng/mL. Patients with and without lymphadenectomy (N0/Nx) were eligible if there was no clinical or pathological evidence of lymph node involvement. Other eligibility criteria included pT2 or pT3 disease, prostatectomy Gleason score of 9 or less, and a Zubrod performance status of 0-1. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive PBRT alone at a dose of 64·8-70·2 Gy at 1·8 Gy per fraction daily (group 1), PBRT plus short-term ADT (group 2), or PLNRT (45 Gy at 1·8 Gy per fraction, and then a volume reduction made to the planning target volume for the remaining 19·8-25 ·2 Gy) plus PBRT plus short-term ADT (group 3). The primary endpoint was freedom from progression, in which progression was defined as biochemical failure according to the Phoenix definition (PSA ≥2 ng/mL over the nadir PSA), clinical failure (local, regional, or distant), or death from any cause. A planned interim analysis of 1191 patents with minimum potential follow-up time of 5 years applied a Haybittle-Peto boundary of p<0·001 (one sided) for comparison of 5-year freedom from progression rates between the treatment groups. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00567580. The primary objectives of the trial have been completed, although long-term follow-up is continuing. FINDINGS: Between March 31, 2008, and March 30, 2015, 1792 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the three treatment groups (592 to group 1 [PBRT alone], 602 to group 2 [PBRT plus short-term ADT], and 598 to group 3 [PLNRT plus PBRT plus short-term ADT]). 76 patients subsequently found to be ineligible were excluded from the analyses; thus, the evaluable patient population comprised 1716 patients. At the interim analysis (n=1191 patients; data cutoff May 23, 2018), the Haybittle-Peto boundary for 5-year freedom from progression was exceeded when group 1 was compared with group 3 (difference 17·9%, SE 2·9%; p<0·0001). The difference between groups 2 and 3 did not exceed the boundary (p=0·0063). With additional follow-up beyond the interim analysis (the final planned analysis; data cutoff May 26, 2021), at a median follow-up among survivors of 8·2 years (IQR 6·6-9·4), the 5-year freedom from progression rates in all 1716 eligible patients were 70·9% (95% CI 67·0-74·9) in group 1, 81·3% (78·0-84·6) in group 2, and 87·4% (84·7-90·2) in group 3. Per protocol criteria, freedom from progression in group 3 was superior to groups 1 and 2. Acute (≤3 months after radiotherapy) grade 2 or worse adverse events were significantly more common in group 3 (246 [44%] of 563 patients) than in group 2 (201 [36%] of 563; p=0·0034), which, in turn, were more common than in group 1 (98 [18%] of 547; p<0·0001). Similar findings were observed for grade 3 or worse adverse events. However, late toxicity (>3 months after radiotherapy) did not differ significantly between the groups, apart from more late grade 2 or worse blood or bone marrow events in group 3 versus group 2 (one-sided p=0·0060) attributable to the addition of PLNRT in this group. INTERPRETATION: The results of this randomised trial establish the benefit of adding short-term ADT to PBRT to prevent progression in prostate cancer. To our knowledge, these are the first such findings to show that extending salvage radiotherapy to treat the pelvic lymph nodes when combined with short-term ADT results in meaningful reductions in progression after prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute.

Palliative Radiation for Advanced Central Lung Tumors With Intentional Avoidance of the Esophagus (PROACTIVE): A Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Palliative thoracic radiotherapy (RT) can alleviate local symptoms associated with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but esophagitis is a common treatment-related adverse event. Whether esophageal-sparing intensity-modulated RT (ES-IMRT) achieves a clinically relevant reduction in esophageal symptoms remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether ES-IMRT achieves a clinically relevant reduction in esophageal symptoms compared with standard RT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Palliative Radiation for Advanced Central Lung Tumors With Intentional Avoidance of the Esophagus (PROACTIVE) is a multicenter phase 3 randomized clinical trial that enrolled patients between June 24, 2016, and March 6, 2019. Data analysis was conducted from January 23, 2020, to October 22, 2021. Patients had up to 1 year of follow-up. Ninety patients at 6 tertiary academic cancer centers who had stage III/IV NSCLC and were eligible for palliative thoracic RT (20 Gy in 5 fractions or 30 Gy in 10 fractions) were included. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized (1:1) to standard RT (control arm) or ES-IMRT. Target coverage was compromised to ensure the maximum esophagus dose was no more than 80% of the RT prescription dose. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was esophageal quality of life (QOL) 2 weeks post-RT, measured by the esophageal cancer subscale (ECS) of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy: Esophagus questionnaire. Higher esophageal cancer subscale scores correspond with improved QOL, with a 2- to 3-point change considered clinically meaningful. Secondary outcomes included overall survival, toxic events, and other QOL metrics. Intention-to-treat analysis was used. RESULTS: Between June 24, 2016, and March 6, 2019, 90 patients were randomized to standard RT or ES-IMRT (median age at randomization, 72.0 years [IQR, 65.6-80.3]; 50 [56%] were female). Thirty-six patients (40%) received 20 Gy and 54 (60%) received 30 Gy. For the primary end point, the mean (SD) 2-week ECS score was 50.5 (10.2) in the control arm (95% CI, 47.2-53.8) and 54.3 (7.6) in the ES-IMRT arm (95% CI, 51.9-56.7) (P = .06). Symptomatic RT-associated esophagitis occurred in 24% (n = 11) of patients in the control arm vs 2% (n = 1) in the ES-IMRT arm (P = .002). In a post hoc subgroup analysis based on the stratification factor, reduction in esophagitis was most evident in patients receiving 30 Gy (30% [n = 8] vs 0%; P = .004). Overall survival was similar with standard RT (median, 8.6; 95% CI, 5.7-15.6 months) and ES-IMRT (median, 8.7; 95% CI, 5.1-10.2 months) (P = .62). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this phase 3 randomized clinical trial, ES-IMRT did not significantly improve esophageal QOL but significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic esophagitis. Because post hoc analysis found that reduced esophagitis was most evident in patients receiving 30 Gy of RT, these findings suggest that ES-IMRT may be most beneficial when the prescription dose is higher (30 Gy). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02752126.

American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria for Radiation Therapy in Oligometastatic or Oligoprogressive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: Recent randomized studies have suggested improvements in progression-free and overall survival with the addition of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT, also known as SABR) in patients with oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Given the novelty and complexity of incorporating SBRT in the oligometastatic setting, the multidisciplinary American Radium Society Lung Cancer Panel was assigned to create appropriate use criteria on SBRT as part of consolidative local therapy for patients with oligometastatic and oligoprogressive non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A review of the current literature was conducted from January 1, 2008, to December 25, 2020, using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to systematically search the PubMed database to retrieve a comprehensive set of relevant articles. RESULTS: Based on representation in existing randomized trials, the panel defined the term "oligometastasis" as ≤3 metastatic deposits (not including the primary tumor) in the previously untreated setting or after first-line systemic therapy after the initial diagnosis. "Oligoprogression" also referred to ≤3 discrete areas of progression in the setting of prior or ongoing receipt of systemic therapy. In all appropriate patients, the panel strongly recommends enrollment in a clinical trial whenever available. For oligometastatic disease, administering first-line systemic therapy followed by consolidative radiation therapy (to all sites plus the primary/nodal disease) is preferred over up-front radiation therapy. Owing to a dearth of data, the panel recommended that consolidative radiation therapy be considered on a case-by-case basis for 4 to 5 sites of oligometastatic disease, driver mutation-positive oligometastatic disease without progression on up-front targeted therapy, and oligoprogressive cases. CONCLUSIONS: Although SBRT/SABR appears to be both safe and effective in treating patients with limited metastatic sites of disease, many clinical circumstances require individualized management and strong multidisciplinary discussion on account of the limited existing data.

Radiation Oncologist Consultations Prior to Radical Prostatectomy: Disparities and Opportunities.

PURPOSE: In 2015, men undergoing radical prostatectomy in Ontario, Canada were recommended to undergo multidisciplinary care by seeing a radiation oncologist or discussion at multidisciplinary rounds before surgery. The a priori target rate was ≥76%. We used population-based data to explore factors associated with not receiving multidisciplinary care prior to radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men who underwent radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer in Ontario between 2007 and 2017 were identified using administrative data. Physician billings identified patients who received multidisciplinary care. Multivariable logistic regression was used to predict receipt of multidisciplinary care. RESULTS: A total of 31,485 men underwent radical prostatectomy between 2007 and 2017. Of these patients 28.7% saw a radiation oncologist, 1.2% underwent multidisciplinary discussion and 1.9% had both before surgery. Multidisciplinary care receipt increased from 17.8% in 2007 to 47.8% in 2017 (p <0.001). The odds ratio between the highest and lowest geographic regions was 7.93 (95% CI 6.17-10.18, p <0.001). Lower odds of multidisciplinary care receipt were observed for men further from the nearest cancer center (OR 0.74 per 50 km, 95% CI 0.71-0.78, p <0.001) and higher odds for the highest versus lowest income quintile (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.29-1.54, p <0.001). Of 128 urologists who performed ≥10 radical prostatectomies between 2016 and 2017, 29 (22.7%) met the target of having ≥76% of men seen for multidisciplinary care prior to surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increasing utilization, many men do not receive multidisciplinary care prior to radical prostatectomy. While geography and the urologist appear to be the greatest factors predicting multidisciplinary care receipt, these factors are closely intertwined.

Organ at Risk Dose Constraints in SABR: A Systematic Review of Active Clinical Trials.

PURPOSE: Organ at risk (OAR) dose constraints are a critical aspect of SABR treatment planning. There is limited evidence supporting preferred dose constraints for many OARs. We sought to evaluate OAR dose constraints used in ongoing clinical trials of SABR for oligometastatic disease. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Clinicaltrials.gov was searched from inception to February 2020 to capture actively accruing clinical trials using SABR in oligometastatic disease. Dose constraints were obtained by contacting principal investigators and abstracted by 2 authors. Variability of constraints was assessed by comparing the width of the interquartile range and difference between the maximum and minimum dose to a volume. RESULTS: Fifty-three of 85 eligible clinical trials contributed OAR constraints used in analysis. Dose constraints for 1 to 8 fractions of SABR were collected for 33 OARs. Variability was found in the absolute allowable OAR doses, use of planning OAR volumes, and whether constraints were optional versus mandatory. For many OARs, modal dose constraints often matched a pre-existing publication, but no single pre-existing publication matched the modes of all OAR dose constraints. Organs displaying the most variability were the rectum, penile bulb, and chest wall and ribs. The esophagus, stomach, duodenum, and small bowel also indicated high variability for at least 1 constraint. OARs previously evaluated by HyTEC appeared to have less variability among study protocols. CONCLUSIONS: We found substantial variability in OAR dose constraints used in current clinical trials evaluating SABR in oligometastatic disease. We are unable to comment on toxicity rates or acceptability of dose constraints used. Future research and recommendations for standardized OAR dose constraints, as well as consistency in implementing planning OAR volume margins, should be priorities for the field of radiation oncology.

Predicting pathological complete response (pCR) after stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) of lung cancer using quantitative dynamic [18F]FDG PET and CT perfusion: a prospective exploratory clinical study.

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) is effective in treating inoperable stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but imaging assessment of response after SABR is difficult. This prospective study aimed to develop a predictive model for true pathologic complete response (pCR) to SABR using imaging-based biomarkers from dynamic [18F]FDG-PET and CT Perfusion (CTP). METHODS: Twenty-six patients with early-stage NSCLC treated with SABR followed by surgical resection were included, as a pre-specified secondary analysis of a larger study. Dynamic [18F]FDG-PET and CTP were performed pre-SABR and 8-week post. Dynamic [18F]FDG-PET provided maximum and mean standardized uptake value (SUV) and kinetic parameters estimated using a previously developed flow-modified two-tissue compartment model while CTP measured blood flow, blood volume and vessel permeability surface product. Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) was used to establish a predictive model with the measured PET and CTP imaging biomarkers for predicting pCR. The model was compared to current RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1) and PERCIST (PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.0) criteria. RESULTS: RPA identified three response groups based on tumour blood volume before SABR (BVpre-SABR) and change in SUVmax (ΔSUVmax), the thresholds being BVpre-SABR = 9.3 mL/100 g and ΔSUVmax = - 48.9%. The highest true pCR rate of 92% was observed in the group with BVpre-SABR < 9.3 mL/100 g and ΔSUVmax < - 48.9% after SABR while the worst was observed in the group with BVpre-SABR ≥ 9.3 mL/100 g (0%). RPA model achieved excellent pCR prediction (Concordance: 0.92; P = 0.03). RECIST and PERCIST showed poor pCR prediction (Concordance: 0.54 and 0.58, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we developed a predictive model based on dynamic [18F]FDG-PET and CT Perfusion imaging that was significantly better than RECIST and PERCIST criteria to predict pCR of NSCLC to SABR. The model used BVpre-SABR and ΔSUVmax which correlates to tumour microvessel density and cell proliferation, respectively and warrants validation with larger sample size studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: MISSILE-NSCLC, NCT02136355 (ClinicalTrials.gov). Registered May 8, 2014, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02136355.

A review of ongoing trials of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for oligometastatic disease in the context of new consensus definitions.

The characterization and treatment of oligometastatic disease (OMD) are rapidly growing areas of research. Consensus statements have recently been developed by European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)/American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) and ESTRO/European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) in an effort to harmonize terminology describing OMD. The purpose of this study was to assess patient populations eligible for ongoing clinical trials evaluating stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) in OMD in the context of key definitions from both statements. Using the clinicaltrials.gov database, a search of ongoing OMD clinical trials evaluating the use of SABR was performed from inception to January 2020, using the keywords "oligometastasis", "stereotactic radiotherapy", and related terms. Results were independently reviewed by two investigators, with discrepancies settled by a third. Information from these trials including study design, population criteria, and primary endpoints were extracted. OMD was defined in general as a limited number of metastases that could be safely treated with metastasis-directed therapy. States of OMD were broadly categorized into de novo, repeat, and induced, with synchronous and metachronous being subsets of de novo. The initial search strategy identified 293 trials, of which 85 met our eligibility criteria. Phase II trials were by far the most common (n=46, 52%). Most trials had a single treatment arm (n=43, 51%), and 31 (36%) were randomized. The majority of trials (n=65, 76%) had populations that included all three subsets of OMD. Notably, 70 trials (82%) also included oligoprogressive disease, which is debatably a distinct entity from OMD. Progression-free survival was the most common primary endpoint (n=31, 36%), followed by local control (n=17, 20%), toxicity (n=14, 16%) and overall survival (n=7, 8%). Although the use of SABR for OMD is an active area of prospective clinical trial research, ongoing studies include mixed populations as defined by new consensus statements. Therefore, the applicability of results from these trials should be considered within relevant OMD scenarios.

Is SABR Cost-Effective in Oligometastatic Cancer? An Economic Analysis of the SABR-COMET Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: The phase 2 randomized study SABR-COMET demonstrated that in patients with controlled primary tumors and 1 to 5 oligometastatic lesions, SABR was associated with improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with standard of care (SoC), but with higher costs and treatment-related toxicities. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of SABR versus SoC in this setting. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A Markov model was constructed to perform a cost-utility analysis from the Canadian health care system perspective. Utility values and transition probabilities were derived from individual-level data from the SABR-COMET trial. One-way, 2-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Costs were expressed in 2018 CAD. A separate analysis based on US payer's perspective was performed. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was used. RESULTS: In the base case scenario, SABR was cost-effective at an ICER of $37,157 per QALY gained. This finding was most sensitive to the number of metastatic lesions treated with SABR (ICER: $28,066 per QALY for 2, increasing to $64,429 per QALY for 5), difference in chemotherapy use (ICER: $27,173-$53,738 per QALY), and PFS hazard ratio (HR) between strategies (ICER: $31,548-$53,273 per QALY). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that SABR was cost-effective in 97% of all iterations. Two-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated a nonlinear relationship between the number of lesions and the PFS HR. To maintain cost-effectiveness for each additional metastasis, the HR must decrease by approximately 0.047. The US cost analysis yielded similar results, with an ICER of $54,564 (2018 USD per QALY) for SABR. CONCLUSIONS: SABR is cost-effective for patients with 1 to 5 oligometastatic lesions compared with SoC.

American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria: Radiation Therapy for Limited-Stage SCLC 2020.

INTRODUCTION: Combined modality therapy with concurrent chemotherapy and radiation has long been the standard of care for limited-stage SCLC (LS-SCLC). However, there is controversy over best combined modality practices for LS-SCLC. To address these controversies, the American Radium Society (ARS) Thoracic Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) Committee have developed updated consensus guidelines for the treatment of LS-SCLC. METHODS: The ARS AUC are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guidelines include a review and analysis of current evidence with application of consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of treatments recommended by the panel for LS-SCLC. Agreement or consensus was defined as less than or equal to 3 rating points from the panel median. The consensus ratings and recommendations were then vetted by the ARS Executive Committee and subject to public comment before finalization. RESULTS: The ARS Thoracic AUC committee developed multiple consensus recommendations for LS-SCLC. There was strong consensus that patients with unresectable LS-SCLC should receive concurrent chemotherapy with radiation delivered either once or twice daily. For medically inoperable T1-T2N0 LS-SCLC, either concurrent chemoradiation or stereotactic body radiation followed by adjuvant chemotherapy is a reasonable treatment option. The panel continues to recommend whole-brain prophylactic cranial irradiation after response to chemoradiation for LS-SCLC. There was panel agreement that prophylactic cranial irradiation with hippocampal avoidance and programmed cell death protein-1/programmed death-ligand 1-directed immune therapy should not be routinely administered outside the context of clinical trials at this time. CONCLUSIONS: The ARS Thoracic AUC Committee provide consensus recommendations for LS-SCLC that aim to provide a groundwork for multidisciplinary care and clinical trials.