Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus standard radiotherapy in stage 1 non-small-cell lung cancer (TROG 09.02 CHISEL): a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) is widely used to treat inoperable stage 1 non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), despite the absence of prospective evidence that this type of treatment improves local control or prolongs overall survival compared with standard radiotherapy. We aimed to compare the two treatment techniques. METHODS: We did this multicentre, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial in 11 hospitals in Australia and three hospitals in New Zealand. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, had biopsy-confirmed stage 1 (T1-T2aN0M0) NSCLC diagnosed on the basis of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET, and were medically inoperable or had refused surgery. Patients had to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and the tumour had to be peripherally located. Patients were randomly assigned after stratification for T stage and operability in a 2:1 ratio to SABR (54 Gy in three 18 Gy fractions, or 48 Gy in four 12 Gy fractions if the tumour was <2 cm from the chest wall) or standard radiotherapy (66 Gy in 33 daily 2 Gy fractions or 50 Gy in 20 daily 2·5 Gy fractions, depending on institutional preference) using minimisation, so no sequence was pre-generated. Clinicians, patients, and data managers had no previous knowledge of the treatment group to which patients would be assigned; however, the treatment assignment was subsequently open label (because of the nature of the interventions). The primary endpoint was time to local treatment failure (assessed according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.0), with the hypothesis that SABR would result in superior local control compared with standard radiotherapy. All efficacy analyses were based on the intention-to-treat analysis. Safety analyses were done on a per-protocol basis, according to treatment that the patients actually received. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01014130) and the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12610000479000). The trial is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between Dec 31, 2009, and June 22, 2015, 101 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive SABR (n=66) or standard radiotherapy (n=35). Five (7·6%) patients in the SABR group and two (6·5%) in the standard radiotherapy group did not receive treatment, and a further four in each group withdrew before study end. As of data cutoff (July 31, 2017), median follow-up for local treatment failure was 2·1 years (IQR 1·2-3·6) for patients randomly assigned to standard radiotherapy and 2·6 years (IQR 1·6-3·6) for patients assigned to SABR. 20 (20%) of 101 patients had progressed locally: nine (14%) of 66 patients in the SABR group and 11 (31%) of 35 patients in the standard radiotherapy group, and freedom from local treatment failure was improved in the SABR group compared with the standard radiotherapy group (hazard ratio 0·32, 95% CI 0·13-0·77, p=0·0077). Median time to local treatment failure was not reached in either group. In patients treated with SABR, there was one grade 4 adverse event (dyspnoea) and seven grade 3 adverse events (two cough, one hypoxia, one lung infection, one weight loss, one dyspnoea, and one fatigue) related to treatment compared with two grade 3 events (chest pain) in the standard treatment group. INTERPRETATION: In patients with inoperable peripherally located stage 1 NSCLC, compared with standard radiotherapy, SABR resulted in superior local control of the primary disease without an increase in major toxicity. The findings of this trial suggest that SABR should be the treatment of choice for this patient group. FUNDING: The Radiation and Optometry Section of the Australian Government Department of Health with the assistance of Cancer Australia, and the Cancer Society of New Zealand and the Cancer Research Trust New Zealand (formerly Genesis Oncology Trust).

Minimal clinically important differences in the EORTC QLQ-C30 and brief pain inventory in patients undergoing re-irradiation for painful bone metastases.

PURPOSE: The EORTC QLQ-C30 and the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) are validated tools for measuring quality of life (QOL) and the impact of pain in patients with advanced cancer. Interpretation of these instrument scores can be challenging and it is difficult to know what numerical changes translate to clinically significant impact in patients' lives. To address this issue, our study sought to establish the minimal clinically important differences (MCID) for these two instruments in a prospective cohort of patients with advanced cancer and painful bone metastases. METHODS: Both anchor-based and distribution-based methods were used to estimate the MCID scores from patients enrolled in a randomized phase III trial evaluating two different re-irradiation treatment schedules. For the anchor-based method, the global QOL item from the QLQ-C30 was chosen as the anchor. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated for all items and only those items with moderate or better correlation (|r| ≥ 0.30) with the anchor were used for subsequent analysis. A 10-point difference in the global QOL score was used to classify improvement and deterioration, and the MCID scores were calculated for each of these categories. These results were compared with scores obtained by the distribution-method, which estimates the MCID purely from the statistical characteristics of the sample population. RESULTS: A total of 375 patients were included in this study with documented pain responses and completed QOL questionnaires at 2 months. 9/14 items in the QLQ-C30 and 6/10 items in the BPI were found to have moderate or better correlation with the anchor. For deterioration, statistically significant MCID scores were found in all items of the QLQ-C30 and BPI. For improvement, statistically significant MCID scores were found in 7/9 items of the QLQ-C30 and 2/6 items of the BPI. The MCID scores for deterioration were uniformly higher than the MCIDs for improvement. Using the distribution-based method, there was good agreement between the 0.5 standard deviation (SD) values and anchor-based scores for deterioration. For improvement, there was less agreement and the anchor-based scores were lower than the 0.5 SD values obtained from the distribution-based method. CONCLUSION: We present MCID scores for the QLQ-C30 and BPI instruments obtained from a large cohort of patients with advanced cancer undergoing re-irradiation for painful bone metastases. The results from this study were compared to other similar studies which showed larger MCID scores for improvement compared to deterioration. We hypothesize that disease trajectory and patient expectations are important factors in understanding the contrasting results. The results of this study can guide clinicians and researchers in the interpretation of these instruments.

Gender and age make no difference in the re-irradiation of painful bone metastases: A secondary analysis of the NCIC CTG SC.20 randomized trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Patient's gender and age may influence physicians in prescribing palliative radiotherapy. The purpose of this secondary analysis of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group Symptom Control Trial SC.20 was to explore the gender and age differences in pain and patient reported outcomes in cancer patients with bone metastases undergoing re-irradiation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Response to radiation was evaluated using the International Bone Metastases Consensus Endpoint Definitions. Patients completed the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (C30) before and 2 months after re-irradiation. RESULTS: A total of 847 patients were analyzed. At baseline, men had more dyspnea, and mild pain. Older patients consumed less analgesic. More women reported clinically significant improvement in mood and enjoyment of life in the BPI after radiation. Similarly, younger patients reported better improvement in enjoyment of life. There were no significant gender or age differences in overall survival, response to radiation, or in C30 scores at 2 months. CONCLUSION: Similar benefit in terms of pain relief was observed across all patient groups. Cancer patients with bone metastases should be offered palliative re-irradiation irrespective of gender or age. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00080912; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00080912.

Revisiting classification of pain from bone metastases as mild, moderate, or severe based on correlation with function and quality of life.

PURPOSE: The objective of our study was to determine the optimal cut points for classification of pain scores as mild, moderate, and severe based on interference with function and quality of life (QOL). METHODS: We evaluated 822 patients who completed the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and/or the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QOL Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) prior to receiving repeat radiation therapy for previously irradiated painful bone metastases. Optimal cut points for mild, moderate, and severe pain were determined by the MANOVA that yielded the largest F ratio for the between category effect on the seven interference items of BPI and the six functional domains of QOL (physical, role, emotional, cognitive, social functioning, and global QOL) as indicated by Pillai's Trace, Wilk's λ, and Hostelling's Trace F statistics. RESULTS: For BPI and for QOL domains separately, the two largest F ratios for Wilk's λ, Pillai's Trace, and Hotelling's Trace F statistics were from the cut points 4, 8 and 6, 8. When combining both, the optimal cut points were 4, 8 with 1-4 (mild), 5-8 (moderate), and 9-10 (severe). With this classification, the mean scores of all the seven interference items in BPI and the six functional domains were all highly statistically different. Patients with severe pain survived significantly shorter than those with mild and moderate pain (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Our analysis supports the classification of pain scores as follows: 1-4 as mild pain, 5-8 as moderate pain, and 9-10 as severe pain. This may facilitate conduct of future clinical trials.

Predictive model for survival in patients having repeat radiation treatment for painful bone metastases.

PURPOSE: To establish a survival prediction model in the setting of a randomized trial of re-irradiation for painful bone metastases. METHODS: Data were randomly divided into training and testing sets with an approximately 3:2 ratio. Baseline factors of gender, primary cancer site, KPS, worst-pain score and age were included with backward variable selection to derive a model using the training set. A partial score was assigned by dividing the value of each statistically significant regression coefficient by the smallest statistically significant regression coefficient. The survival prediction score (SPS) was obtained by adding together partial scores for the variables that were statistically significant. Three risk groups were modelled. RESULTS: The training set included 460 patients and the testing set 351 patients. Only KPS and primary cancer site reached the 5%-significance level. Summing up the partial scores assigned to KPS (90-100, 0; 70-80, 1; 50-60, 2) and primary cancer site (breast, 0; prostate, 1.3; other, 2.6; lung, 3) totalled the SPS. The 1/3 and 2/3 percentiles of the SPS were 2 and 3.6. For the testing set, the median survival of the 3 groups was not reached, 11.3 (95% C.I. 8.5 - not reached) and 5.2 months (95% C.I. 3.7-6.5). The 3, 6 and 12 month survival rates for the worst group were 64.4% (95% C.I. 55.3-72.1%), 43.0% (95% C.I. 34.0-51.8%) and 19.7% (95% C.I. 12.4-28.1%) respectively, similar to that in the training set. CONCLUSION: This survival prediction model will assist in choosing dose fractionation. We recommend a single 8 Gy in the worst group identified.

Adjuvant lymph-node field radiotherapy versus observation only in patients with melanoma at high risk of further lymph-node field relapse after lymphadenectomy (ANZMTG 01.02/TROG 02.01): 6-year follow-up of a phase 3, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant radiotherapy is recommended for patients with melanoma after lymphadenectomy. We previously showed this treatment reduced risk of repeat lymph-node field cancer in patients with a high risk of recurrence but had no effect on overall survival. Here, we aim to update the relapse and survival data from that trial and assess quality of life and toxic effects. METHODS: In the ANZMTG 01.02/TROG 02.01 randomised controlled trial, we enrolled patients who had undergone lymphadenectomy for a palpable lymph-node field relapse and were at high risk of recurrence at 16 hospitals (11 in Australia, three in New Zealand, one in Netherlands, and one in Brazil). We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to adjuvant radiotherapy (48 Gy in 20 fractions, given over a maximum of 30 days) or observation, stratified by institution, areas of lymph-node field (parotid and cervical, axilla, or groin), number of involved nodes (≤3 vs >3), maximum involved node diameter (≤4 cm vs >4 cm), and extent of extracapsular extension (none, limited, or extensive). Participants, those giving treatment, and those assessing outcomes were not masked to treatment allocation, but participants were unaware of each other's treatment allocation. In this follow-up, we assessed outcomes every 3 months from randomisation for the first 2 years, then every 6 months up to 5 years, then annually. The primary endpoint was lymph-node field relapse as a first relapse, assessed in patients without major eligibility infringements (determined by an independent data monitoring committee). We assessed late adverse effects (occurring >90 days after surgery or start of radiotherapy) with standard criteria in the as-treated population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00287196. FINDINGS: Between March 21, 2003, and Nov 15, 2007, we randomly assigned 123 patients to adjuvant radiotherapy (109 eligible for efficacy assessments) and 127 to observation (108 eligible). The final follow-up date was Nov 15, 2011. Median follow-up was 73 months (IQR 61-91). 23 (21%) relapses occurred in the adjuvant radiotherapy group compared with 39 (36%) in the observation group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·52 [95% CI 0·31-0·88], p=0·023). Overall survival (HR 1·27 [95% CI 0·89-1·79], p=0·21) and relapse-free survival (0·89 [0·65-1·22], p=0·51) did not differ between groups. Minor, long-term toxic effects from radiotherapy (predominantly pain, and fibrosis of the skin or subcutaneous tissue) were common, and 20 (22%) of 90 patients receiving adjuvant radiotherapy developed grade 3-4 toxic effects. 18 (20%) of 90 patients had grade 3 toxic effects, mainly affecting skin (nine [10%] patients) and subcutaneous tissue (six [7%] patients). Over 5 years, a significant increase in lower limb volumes was noted after adjuvant radiotherapy (mean volume ratio 15·0%) compared with observation (7·7%; difference 7·3% [95% CI 1·5-13·1], p=0·014). No significant differences in upper limb volume were noted between groups. INTERPRETATION: Long-term follow-up supports our previous findings. Adjuvant radiotherapy could be useful for patients for whom lymph-node field control is a major issue, but entry to an adjuvant systemic therapy trial might be a preferable first option. Alternatively, observation, reserving surgery and radiotherapy for a further recurrence, might be an acceptable strategy. FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Cancer Council Australia, Melanoma Institute Australia, and the Cancer Council South Australia.

Impact of reirradiation of painful osseous metastases on quality of life and function: a secondary analysis of the NCIC CTG SC.20 randomized trial.

PURPOSE: We previously demonstrated that 48% of patients with pain at sites of previously irradiated bone metastases benefit from reirradiation. It is unknown whether alleviating pain also improves patient perception of quality of life (QOL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used the database of a randomized trial comparing radiation treatment dose fractionation schedules to evaluate whether response, determined using the International Consensus Endpoint (ICE) and Brief Pain Inventory pain score (BPI-PS), is associated with patient perception of benefit, as measured using the European Organisation for Resesarch and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and functional interference scale of the BPI (BPI-FI). Evaluable patients completed baseline and 2-month follow-up assessments. RESULTS: Among 850 randomly assigned patients, 528 were evaluable for response using the ICE and 605 using the BPI-PS. Using the ICE, 253 patients experienced a response and 275 did not. Responding patients had superior scores on all items of the BPI-FI (ie, general activity, mood, walking ability, normal work, relations with other people, sleep, and enjoyment of life) and improved QOL, as determined by scores on the EORTC QLQ-C30 scales of physical, role, emotional and social functioning, global QOL, fatigue, pain, and appetite. Similar results were obtained using the BPI-PS; observed improvements were typically of lesser magnitude. CONCLUSION: Patients responding to reirradiation of painful bone metastases experience superior QOL scores and less functional interference associated with pain. Patients should be offered re-treatment for painful bone metastases in the hope of reducing pain severity as well as improving QOL and pain interference.

Single versus multiple fractions of repeat radiation for painful bone metastases: a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Although repeat radiation treatment has been shown to palliate pain in patients with bone metastases from multiple primary origin sites, data for the best possible dose fractionation schedules are lacking. We aimed to assess two dose fractionation schedules in patients with painful bone metastases needing repeat radiation therapy. METHODS: We did a multicentre, non-blinded, randomised, controlled trial in nine countries worldwide. We enrolled patients 18 years or older who had radiologically confirmed, painful (ie, pain measured as ≥2 points using the Brief Pain Inventory) bone metastases, had received previous radiation therapy, and were taking a stable dose and schedule of pain-relieving drugs (if prescribed). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either 8 Gy in a single fraction or 20 Gy in multiple fractions by a central computer-generated allocation sequence using dynamic minimisation to conceal assignment, stratified by previous radiation fraction schedule, response to initial radiation, and treatment centre. Patients, caregivers, and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall pain response at 2 months, which was defined as the sum of complete and partial pain responses to treatment, assessed using both Brief Pain Inventory scores and changes in analgesic consumption. Analysis was done by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00080912. FINDINGS: Between Jan 7, 2004, and May 24, 2012, we randomly assigned 425 patients to each treatment group. 19 (4%) patients in the 8 Gy group and 12 (3%) in the 20 Gy group were found to be ineligible after randomisation, and 140 (33%) and 132 (31%) patients, respectively, were not assessable at 2 months and were counted as missing data in the intention-to-treat analysis. In the intention-to-treat population, 118 (28%) patients allocated to 8 Gy treatment and 135 (32%) allocated to 20 Gy treatment had an overall pain response to treatment (p=0·21; response difference of 4·00% [upper limit of the 95% CI 9·2, less than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10%]). In the per-protocol population, 116 (45%) of 258 patients and 134 (51%) of 263 patients, respectively, had an overall pain response to treatment (p=0·17; response difference 6·00% [upper limit of the 95% CI 13·2, greater than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10%]). The most frequently reported acute radiation-related toxicities at 14 days were lack of appetite (201 [56%] of 358 assessable patients who received 8 Gy vs 229 [66%] of 349 assessable patients who received 20 Gy; p=0·011) and diarrhoea (81 [23%] of 357 vs 108 [31%] of 349; p=0·018). Pathological fractures occurred in 30 (7%) of 425 patients assigned to 8 Gy and 20 (5%) of 425 assigned to 20 Gy (odds ratio [OR] 1·54, 95% CI 0·85-2·75; p=0·15), and spinal cord or cauda equina compressions were reported in seven (2%) of 425 versus two (<1%) of 425, respectively (OR 3·54, 95% CI 0·73-17·15; p=0·094). INTERPRETATION: In patients with painful bone metastases requiring repeat radiation therapy, treatment with 8 Gy in a single fraction seems to be non-inferior and less toxic than 20 Gy in multiple fractions; however, as findings were not robust in a per-protocol analysis, trade-offs between efficacy and toxicity might exist. FUNDING: Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, US National Cancer Institute, Cancer Council Australia, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Dutch Cancer Society, and Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris.

Adjuvant radiotherapy versus observation alone for patients at risk of lymph-node field relapse after therapeutic lymphadenectomy for melanoma: a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The use of radiotherapy after therapeutic lymphadenectomy for patients with melanoma at high risk of further lymph-node field and distant recurrence is controversial. Decisions for radiotherapy in this setting are made on the basis of retrospective, non-randomised studies. We did this randomised trial to assess the effect of adjuvant radiotherapy on lymph-node field control in patients who had undergone therapeutic lymphadenectomy for metastatic melanoma in regional lymph nodes. METHODS: This randomised controlled trial included patients from 16 hospitals in Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Brazil. To be eligible for this trial, patients had to be at high risk of lymph-node field relapse, judged on the basis of number of nodes involved, extranodal spread, and maximum size of involved nodes. After lymphadenectomy, randomisation was done centrally by computer and patients assigned by telephone in a ratio of 1:1 to receive adjuvant radiotherapy of 48 Gy in 20 fractions or observation, with institution, lymph-node field, number of involved nodes, maximum node diameter, and extent of extranodal spread as minimisation factors. Participants, those giving treatment, and those assessing outcomes were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was lymph-node field relapse (as a first relapse), analysed for all eligible patients. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00287196. The trial is now closed and follow-up discontinued. FINDINGS: 123 patients were randomly allocated to the adjuvant radiotherapy group and 127 to the observation group between March 20, 2002, and Sept 21, 2007. Two patients withdrew consent and 31 had a major eligibility infringement as decided by the independent data monitoring committee, resulting in 217 eligible for the primary analysis (109 in the adjuvant radiotherapy group and 108 in the observation group). Median follow-up was 40 months (IQR 27-55). Risk of lymph-node field relapse was significantly reduced in the adjuvant radiotherapy group compared with the observation group (20 relapses in the radiotherapy group vs 34 in the observation group, hazard ratio [HR] 0·56, 95% CI 0·32-0·98; p=0·041), but no differences were noted for relapse-free survival (70 vs 73 events, HR 0·91, 95% CI 0·65-1·26; p=0·56) or overall survival (59 vs 47 deaths, HR 1·37, 95% CI 0·94-2·01; p=0·12). The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were seroma (nine in the radiotherapy group vs 11 in the observation group), radiation dermatitis (19 in the radiotherapy group), and wound infection (three in the radiotherapy group vs seven in the observation group). INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant radiotherapy improves lymph-node field control in patients at high risk of lymph-node field relapse after therapeutic lymphadenectomy for metastatic melanoma. Adjuvant radiotherapy should be discussed with patients at high risk of relapse after lymphadenectomy. FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Cancer Australia, Melanoma Institute Australia, Cancer Council of South Australia.

Squamous cell carcinoma of the lip: is there a role for adjuvant radiotherapy in improving local control following incomplete or inadequate excision?

BACKGROUND: The treatment of squamous cell carcinoma of the lip with surgery is usually curative but incomplete/inadequate excision may be associated with recurrence and poor outcome. There is no consensus in the literature on the definition of an adequate excision margin. METHODS: Patients treated for squamous cell carcinoma of the lip at Westmead Hospital, Sydney, between 1980 and 2000 were eligible for inclusion. Polytomous logistic regression analysis was undertaken to assess for predictors of recurrence. Recurrence-free and overall survival were calculated using Kaplan-Meier survival curves. RESULTS: A total of 130 patients was identified. Median age at diagnosis was 64 years (23-97 years). Most lesions (90%) were located on the lower lip in 96 (74%) male patients. Median follow-up duration was 54 months (0-189 months). Most patients -presented with T1 lesions (75%). Initial treatment was surgery (39%), radiotherapy (48%) or both (13%). Twenty-seven per cent of excised lesions had a close (< or =2 mm) or positive margin. A total of 40 patients (31%) had recurrence (18% lymph nodes, 11% lip and 2% both). In the surgery group recurrence was significantly more likely with close or positive margins (P = 0.05). The 2 year -recurrence-free survival was 82% and 54% for radiotherapy and surgery, respectively (P < 0.001). The 2 year overall survival was similar (90% radiotherapy vs 100% surgery; P = 0.58). CONCLUSION: Incomplete or inadequate excision of some lip cancers results in local recurrence. If re-excision is not feasible -surgeons should consider the role of adjuvant radiotherapy in improving local control.