ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) is the standard treatment for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). However, the optimal radiotherapy regimen, particularly in terms of total dose and planned range of irradiation field, remains unclear. This phase III clinical trial aimed to compare the survival benefits between different radiation doses and different target fields. METHODS: This trial compared two aspects of radiation treatment, total dose and field, using a two-by-two factorial design. The high-dose (HD) group received 59.4 Gy radiation, and the standard-dose (SD) group received 50.4 Gy. The involved field irradiation (IFI) group and elective nodal irradiation (ENI) group adopted different irradiation ranges. The participants were assigned to one of the four groups (HD+ENI, HD+IFI, SD+ENI and SD+IFI). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and the secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS). The synergy indexwas used to measure the interaction effect between dose and field. RESULTS: The interaction analysis did not reveal significant synergistic effects between the dose and irradiation field. In comparison to the target field, patients in IFI or ENI showed similar OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.80-1.23, p = 0.930) and PFS (HR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.82-1.25). The HD treatment did not show significantly prolonged OS compared with SD (HR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.72-1.11, p = 0.318), but it suggested improved PFS (25.2 months to 18.0 months). Among the four groups, the HD+IFI group presented the best survival, while the SD+IFI group had the worst prognosis. No significant difference in the occurrence of severe adverse events was found in dose or field comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: IFI demonstrated similar treatment efficacy to ENI in CCRT of ESCC. The HD demonstrated improved PFS, but did not significantly improve OS. The dose escalation based on IFI (HD+IFI) showed better therapeutic efficacy than the current recommendation (SD+ENI) and is worth further validation.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The initial randomized, double-blinded, actively controlled, phase III ANEAS study (NCT03849768) demonstrated that aumolertinib showed superior efficacy relative to gefitinib as first-line therapy in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Metastatic disease in the central nervous system (CNS) remains a challenge in the management of NSCLC. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of aumolertinib versus gefitinib among patients with baseline CNS metastases in the ANEAS study. METHODS: Eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to orally receive either aumolertinib or gefitinib in a double-blinded fashion. Patients with asymptomatic, stable CNS metastases were included. Follow-up imaging of the same modality as the initial CNS imaging was performed every 6 weeks for 15 months, then every 12 weeks. CNS response was assessed by a neuroradiological blinded, independent central review (neuroradiological-BICR). The primary endpoint for this subgroup analysis was CNS progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Of the 429 patients enrolled and randomized in the ANEAS study, 106 patients were found to have CNS metastases (CNS Full Analysis Set, cFAS) at baseline by neuroradiological-BICR, and 60 of them had CNS target lesions (CNS Evaluable for Response, cEFR). Treatment with aumolertinib significantly prolonged median CNS PFS compared with gefitinib in both cFAS (29.0 vs. 8.3 months; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.17-0.56; P < 0.001) and cEFR (29.0 vs. 8.3 months; HR = 0.26; 95% CI, 0.11-0.57; P < 0.001). The confirmed CNS overall response rate in cEFR was 85.7% and 75.0% in patients treated with aumolertinib and gefitinib, respectively. Competing risk analysis showed that the estimated probability of CNS progression without prior non-CNS progression or death was consistently lower with aumolertinib than with gefitinib in patients with and without CNS metastases at baseline. No new safety findings were observed. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate a potential advantage of aumolertinib over gefitinib in terms of CNS PFS and the risk of CNS progression in patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC with baseline CNS metastases. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03849768.