RECIST 1.1 versus clinico-radiological response assessment for locally advanced cervical cancer: implications on interpreting survival outcomes of future trials.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate differences in standard clinico-radiological evaluation versus Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 for reporting survival outcomes in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer treated with chemoradiation and brachytherapy. METHODS: Between November 2017 and March 2020, patients recruited in cervical cancer trials were identified. MRI at diagnosis and at least one follow-up imaging was mandatory. Disease-free survival and progression-free survival were determined using standard evaluation (clinical examination and symptom-directed imaging) and RECIST 1.1. Agreement between criteria was estimated using κ value. Sensitivity analysis was done to test the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of RECIST 1.1 in detecting response to treatment. RESULTS: Sixty-nine eligible patients had at least one target lesion. Thirty-three patients (47.8%) had pathological lymph nodes. Of these 33 patients, RECIST 1.1 classified only 18% (6/33) as 'target nodal lesions' and the remaining nodes as 'non-target'. There were 6 (8.7%) and 8 (11.6%) patients with disease events using RECIST 1.1 and standard evaluation, respectively. The disease-free survival at 12, 18, and 24 months using RECIST 1.1 was 94.2%, 91.2%, 91.2%, and with standard evaluation was 94.2%, 89.7%, and 88.2%, respectively (p=0.58). Whereas, progression-free survival at 12, 18, and 24 months using RECIST 1.1 and standard evaluation were same (94.2%, 91.2%, and 91.2%, respectively). The κ value was 0.84, showing strong agreement in assessing disease-free survival, although an absolute difference of 3% between endpoint assessment methodologies. RECIST 1.1 had a sensitivity of 75% (95% CI 34.91% to 96.81%), specificity of 100% (95% CI 94.13% to 100%), and accuracy of 97.1% (95% CI 89.92% to 99.65%). CONCLUSIONS: The study showed 1.5% and 3% difference in disease-free survival at 18 and 24 months and no difference in progression-free survival between RECIST 1.1 and standard evaluation in a patient cohort with low event rate.

Concurrent chemoradiation and brachytherapy alone or in combination with nelfinavir in locally advanced cervical cancer (NELCER): study protocol for a phase III trial.

INTRODUCTION: In locally advanced cervical cancer, nodal, local and distant relapse continue to be significant patterns of relapse. Therefore, strategies to improve the efficacy of chemoradiation are desirable such as biological pathway modifiers and immunomodulating agents. This trial will investigate the impact of nelfinavir, a protease inhibitor that targets the protein kinase B (AKT) pathway on disease-free survival (DFS). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Radiosensitising effect of nelfinavir in locally advanced carcinoma of cervix is a single-centre, open-label, parallel-group, 1:1 randomised phase-III study. Patients aged over 18 years with a diagnosis of carcinoma cervix stage III are eligible for the study. After consenting, patients will undergo randomisation to chemoradiation and brachytherapy arm or nelfinavir with chemoradiation and brachytherapy arm. The primary aim of the study is to compare the difference in 3-year DFS between the two arms. Secondary aims are locoregional control, overall survival, toxicity and quality of life between the two arms. Pharmacokinetics of nelfinavir and its impact on tumour AKT, programmed cell death ligand 1, cluster of differentiation 4, cluster of differentiation 8 and natural killer 1.1 expression will be investigated. The overall sample size of 348 with 1 planned interim analysis achieves 80% power at a 0.05 significance level to detect a HR of 0.66 when the proportion surviving in the control arm is 0.65. The planned study duration is 8 years. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial is approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee-I of Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai (reference number: IEC/0317/1543/001) and will be monitored by the data safety monitoring committee. The study results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed scientific journals, and conference presentations. Study participants will be accrued after obtaining written informed consent from them. The confidentiality and privacy of study participants will be maintained. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The trial is registered with Clinical Trials Registry-India (CTRI/2017/08/009265) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03256916).

Months and Severity Score (MOSES) in a Phase III trial (PARCER): A new comprehensive method for reporting adverse events in oncology clinical trials.

Background: Adverse event reporting in oncology trials lacks temporal description. We propose a toxicity summarizing method that incorporates time. Methods: Patients recruited in a phase III trial (NCT01279135) that compared three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) and intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for late toxicity in cervical cancer were included. Adverse events were reported using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v3.0 and quality of life (QOL) with EORTC QLQ-C30 and CX24. A total of six symptoms with a related QOL question (diarrhoea, abdominal pain, anorexia, urinary incontinence, frequency and fatigue) were included. Month and severity score [MOSES= ∑ (CTCAE grade x proportionate time)] was calculated. Cumulative-MOSES (C-MOSES) was calculated by summating these 6 individual MOSES. QoL was categorized as "substantially symptomatic" or "not". Receiver operator curve analysis was performed to determine the MOSES cut off that predicts for substantial QOL symptoms. CTCAE and MOSES were tested for accurately categorizing QOL impact. Findings: In the construction dataset, 201/300 patients had symptoms. MOSES > 0.20 had higher accuracy than CTCAE for predicting impact on QOL related to diarrhoea (85% vs. 69%), anorexia (61% vs 51%), abdominal pain (71% vs. 57%), urinary incontinence (72% vs. 61%) and frequency (62% vs. 59%). C-MOSES > 0·70 correlated with reduction in role functioning and global QOL. While no difference was seen in CTCAE grade ≥1 Gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity between 3DCRT or IMRT arm, 3DCRT had higher C-MOSES than IMRT (HR=0.64;95% CI 0.41-0.99, p = 0.04). Interpretation: MOSES has higher accuracy than CTCAE in categorizing symptom specific and functional QOL. These results require further external validation. Funding: None.

Patterns of Relapse After Adjuvant Chemoradiation for Cervical Cancer in a Phase 3 Clinical Trial (PARCER): An Evaluation of Updated NRG Oncology/RTOG Target Delineation Guidelines.

PURPOSE: The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) under NRG Oncology recently published updated contouring guidelines for intensity modulated radiation therapy in postoperative treatment for endometrial and cervical cancer. The present study was designed to evaluate the implications of newly published guidelines. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We recruited 300 patients in a phase 3 randomized controlled trial of adjuvant chemoradiation therapy for cervical cancer (NCT01279135) to understand patterns of relapse. For those patients with pelvic relapse, we imported radiation therapy structure sets, treatment plans, and diagnostic images at relapse on the treatment planning system. We performed rigid registration with treatment planning images that contained the delineated planning target volume and radiation dose information. We delineated gross tumor volume at time of relapse on the diagnostic scans and superimposed it on the radiation therapy treatment scans. We categorized the site of pelvic relapse as "within field of old RTOG/[Postoperative Adjuvant Radiation in Cervical Cancer (PARCER)] target delineation guidelines" or "within field of new NRG/RTOG guidelines," or both, and compared proportions of recurrences contained within the 2 guidelines. We consider a P value of <.05 statistically significant. Additionally, we generated intensity modulated radiation therapy treatment plans based on the new guidelines for a limited set of patients to see if these new guidelines increased the organ at risk doses. RESULTS: Most common form of relapse was distant metastasis (15%). Pelvic relapse rate in our study was 8%. Overall, 9 out of 19 relapses were encompassed in the contouring guidelines of the old RTOG/ Postoperative Adjuvant Radiation in Cervical Cancer (PARCER) trial, and 12 out of 19 were encompassed within the new RTOG 2021 contouring guidelines. This corresponded to a further 1% reduction in local relapses (P = .007). Dose to rectum was marginally increased with the new contouring, with no difference in other organs at risk. Salvage treatment was offered in 25 out of 60 patients who relapsed. Patients who received local treatment after relapse had a mean survival after relapse of 27.2 months compared with 8 months among those who received supportive care alone. CONCLUSIONS: Our study supports the use of newly published NRG/RTOG contouring guidelines in patients with cervical cancer who have undergone hysterectomy. Further data are needed to ascertain if anterior extension of the clinical target volume is needed as in the Postoperative Adjuvant Radiation in Cervical Cancer trial.

Late Toxicity After Adjuvant Conventional Radiation Versus Image-Guided Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy for Cervical Cancer (PARCER): A Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: Postoperative Adjuvant Radiation in Cervical Cancer (PARCER), a phase III randomized trial, compared late toxicity after image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IG-IMRT) with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) in women with cervical cancer undergoing postoperative radiation. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either IG-IMRT or 3D-CRT after stratification for the type of hysterectomy and use of concurrent chemotherapy. The primary end point was 3-year grade ≥ 2 late GI toxicity assessed using Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events v 3.0 and estimated using time-to-event, intention-to-treat analysis, with a study level type I error of 0.05 and a nominal α of .047 after accounting for one interim analysis. Secondary end points included acute toxicity, health-related quality of life, and pelvic relapse-free, disease-free, and overall survival. RESULTS: Between 2011 and 2019, 300 patients were randomly assigned (IG-IMRT 151 and 3D-CRT 149). At a median follow-up of 46 (interquartile range, 20-72) months, the 3-year cumulative incidence of grade ≥ 2 late GI toxicity in the IG-IMRT and 3D-CRT arms were 21.1% versus 42.4% (hazard ratio [HR] 0.46; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.73; P < .001). The cumulative incidence of grade ≥ 2 any late toxicity was 28.1% versus 48.9% (HR 0.50; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.76; P < .001), respectively. Patients reported reduced diarrhea (P = .04), improved appetite (P = .008), and lesser bowel symptoms (P = .002) with IG-IMRT. However, no difference was observed in the time by treatment interaction. The 3-year pelvic relapse-free survival and disease-free survival in the IG-IMRT versus the 3D-CRT arm were 81.8% versus 84% (HR 1.17; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.99; P = .55) and 76.9% versus 81.2% (HR 1.03; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.71; P = .89), respectively. CONCLUSION: IG-IMRT results in reduced toxicity with no difference in disease outcomes.