Trimodality therapy versus perioperative chemotherapy in the management of locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus and oesophagogastric junction (Neo-AEGIS): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimum curative approach to adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus and oesophagogastric junction is unknown. We aimed to compare trimodality therapy (preoperative radiotherapy with carboplatin plus paclitaxel [CROSS regimen]) with optimum contemporaneous perioperative chemotherapy regimens (epirubicin plus cisplatin or oxaliplatin plus fluorouracil or capecitabine [a modified MAGIC regimen] before 2018 and fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel [FLOT] subsequently). METHODS: Neo-AEGIS (CTRIAL-IE 10-14) was an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done at 24 centres in Europe. Patients aged 18 years or older with clinical tumour stage T2-3, nodal stage N0-3, and M0 adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus and oesophagogastric junction were randomly assigned to perioperative chemotherapy (three preoperative and three postoperative 3-week cycles of intravenous 50 mg/m2 epirubicin on day 1 plus intravenous 60 mg/m2 cisplatin or intravenous 130 mg/m2 oxaliplatin on day 1 plus continuous infusion of 200 mg/m2 fluorouracil daily or oral 625 mg/m2 capecitabine twice daily up to 2018, with four preoperative and four postoperative 2-week cycles of 2600 mg/m2 fluorouracil, 85 mg/m2 oxaliplatin, 200 mg/m2 leucovorin, and 50 mg/m2 docetaxel intravenously on day 1 as an option from 2018) or trimodality therapy (41·4 Gy in 23 fractions on days 1-5, 8-12, 15-19, 22-26, and 29-31 with intravenous area under the curve 2 mg/mL per min carboplatin plus intravenous 50 mg/m2 paclitaxel on days 1, 8, 15, 22, and 29). The primary endpoint was overall survival, assessed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug, regardless of which study drug they received, by intention to treat. Secondary endpoints were disease-free survival, site of treatment failure, operative complications, toxicity, pathological response (complete [ypT0N0] and major [tumour regression grade 1 and 2]), margin-free resection (R0), and health-related quality of life. Toxicity and safety data were analysed in the safety population, defined as patients who took at least one dose of study drug, according to treatment actually received. The initial power calculation was based on superiority of trimodality therapy (n=366 patients); it was adjusted after FLOT became an option to a non-inferiority design with a margin of 5% for perioperative chemotherapy (n=540). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01726452. FINDINGS: Between Jan 24, 2013, and Dec 23, 2020, 377 patients were randomly assigned, of whom 362 were included in the intention-to treat population (327 [90%] male and 360 [99%] White): 184 in the perioperative chemotherapy group and 178 in the trimodality therapy group. The trial closed prematurely in December, 2020, after the second interim futility analysis (143 deaths), on the basis of similar survival metrics and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. At a median follow-up of 38·8 months (IQR 16·3-55·1), median overall survival was 48·0 months (95% CI 33·6-64·8) in the perioperative chemotherapy group and 49·2 months (34·8-74·4) in the trimodality therapy group (3-year overall survival 55% [95% CI 47-62] vs 57% [49-64]; hazard ratio 1·03 [95% CI 0·77-1·38]; log-rank p=0·82). Median disease-free survival was 32·4 months (95% CI 22·8-64·8) in the perioperative chemotherapy group and 24·0 months (18·0-40·8) in the trimodality therapy group [hazard ratio 0·89 [95% CI 0·68-1·17]; log-rank p=0·41). The pattern of recurrence, locoregional or systemic, was not significantly different (odds ratio 1·35 [95% CI 0·63-2·91], p=0·44). Pathological complete response (odds ratio 0·33 [95% CI 0·14-0·81], p=0·012), major pathological response (0·21 [0·12-0·38], p<0·0001), and R0 rates (0·21 [0·08-0·53], p=0·0003) favoured trimodality therapy. The most common grade 3-4 adverse event was neutropenia (49 [27%] of 183 patients in the perioperative chemotherapy group vs 11 [6%] of 178 patients in the trimodality therapy group), followed by diarrhoea (20 [11%] vs none), and pulmonary embolism (ten [5%] vs nine [5%]). One (1%) patient in the perioperative chemotherapy group and three (2%) patients in the trimodality therapy group died from serious adverse events, two (one in each group) of which were possibly related to treatment. No differences were seen in operative mortality (five [3%] deaths in the perioperative chemotherapy group vs four [2%] in the trimodality therapy group), major morbidity, or in global health status at 1 and 3 years. INTERPRETATION: Although underpowered and incomplete, Neo-AEGIS provides the largest comprehensive randomised dataset for patients with adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus and oesophagogastric junction treated with perioperative chemotherapy (predominantly the modified MAGIC regimen), and CROSS trimodality therapy, and reports similar 3-year survival and no major differences in operative and health-related quality of life outcomes. We suggest that these data support continued clinical equipoise. FUNDING: Health Research Board, Cancer Research UK, Irish Cancer Society, Oesophageal Cancer Fund, and French National Cancer Institute.

Mean heart dose variation over a course of breath-holding breast cancer radiotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the work was to estimate the dose received by the heart throughout a course of breath-holding breast radiotherapy. METHODS: 113 cone-beam CT (CBCT) scans were acquired for 20 patients treated within the HeartSpare 1A study, in which both an active breathing control (ABC) device and a voluntary breath-hold (VBH) method were used. Predicted mean heart doses were obtained from treatment plans. CBCT scans were imported into a treatment planning system, heart outlines defined, images registered to the CT planning scan and mean heart dose recorded. Two observers outlined two cases three times each to assess interobserver and intraobserver variation. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between ABC and VBH heart dose data from CT planning scans, or in the CBCT-based estimates of heart dose, and no effect from the order of the breath-hold method. Variation in mean heart dose per fraction over the three imaged fractions was <6 cGy without setup correction, decreasing to 3.3 cGy with setup correction. If scaled to 15 fractions, all differences between predicted and estimated mean heart doses were <0.5 Gy and in 80% of cases, they were <0.25 Gy. CONCLUSION: Variation in mean heart dose was at an acceptable level over the duration of breath-holding radiotherapy and was well predicted by the planning system. Advances in knowledge: Mean heart dose was not adversely affected by fraction-to-fraction variations throughout a course of heart-sparing radiotherapy using two well-established breath-holding methods.

Voluntary breath-holding for breast cancer radiotherapy is consistent and stable.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate breath-hold stability and constancy for a voluntary breath-hold (VBH) technique in a retrospective analysis. METHODS: Movie loop sequences of electronic portal image data from multiple breath holds in a cohort of 19 patients were used to assess within and between breath-hold stability. In vivo dosimetry data based on electronic portal imaging (EPI) were analysed for 31 VBH patients plus a cohort of free-breathing (FB) patients to provide a reference. A phantom experiment simulated the impact on dose of FB, breath hold and unplanned release of breath hold. RESULTS: 165/174 (93%) movie loop data sets had no detectable displacement. For the remaining 12, median displacement = 1.5 mm and maximum displacement = 3 mm (one patient on one fraction). In vivo dosimetry data analysis showed a median dose difference measured to planned of -0.2% (VBH) and -0.1% (FB). Dose distribution evaluation (γ) pass rates were 84% (VBH) and 91% (FB) including the lung region; 93% and 96% with a lung override. Unplanned release of phantom breath-hold position changed median dose by ≤1% and degraded γ pass rates to 79-62%. Failing regions were mostly in the periphery of the treated volume. CONCLUSION: The data confirmed that multiple VBHs using visual monitoring are stable; in vivo dose verification via EPI was within expected and acceptable levels. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: These data provide further reassurance that VBH is a safe technique for cardiac sparing breast radiotherapy and support its rapid, widespread implementation.

The UK HeartSpare Study (Stage IB): randomised comparison of a voluntary breath-hold technique and prone radiotherapy after breast conserving surgery.

PURPOSE: To compare mean heart and left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) doses (NTDmean) and positional reproducibility in larger-breasted women receiving left breast radiotherapy using supine voluntary deep-inspiratory breath-hold (VBH) and free-breathing prone techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following surgery for early breast cancer, patients with estimated breast volumes >750 cm(3) underwent planning-CT scans in supine VBH and free-breathing prone positions. Radiotherapy treatment plans were prepared, and mean heart and LAD doses were calculated. Patients were randomised to receive one technique for fractions 1-7, before switching techniques for fractions 8-15 (40 Gy/15 fractions total). Daily electronic portal imaging and alternate-day cone-beam CT (CBCT) imaging were performed. The primary endpoint was the difference in mean LAD NTDmean between techniques. Population systematic (Σ) and random errors (σ) were estimated. Within-patient comparisons between techniques used Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. RESULTS: 34 patients were recruited, with complete dosimetric data available for 28. Mean heart and LAD NTDmean doses for VBH and prone treatments respectively were 0.4 and 0.7 (p<0.001) and 2.9 and 7.8 (p<0.001). Clip-based CBCT errors for VBH and prone respectively were ⩽3.0 mm and ⩽6.5 mm (Σ) and ⩽3.5 mm and ⩽5.4 mm (σ). CONCLUSIONS: In larger-breasted women, supine VBH provided superior cardiac sparing and reproducibility than a free-breathing prone position.

Voluntary breath-hold technique for reducing heart dose in left breast radiotherapy.

Breath-holding techniques reduce the amount of radiation received by cardiac structures during tangential-field left breast radiotherapy. With these techniques, patients hold their breath while radiotherapy is delivered, pushing the heart down and away from the radiotherapy field. Despite clear dosimetric benefits, these techniques are not yet in widespread use. One reason for this is that commercially available solutions require specialist equipment, necessitating not only significant capital investment, but often also incurring ongoing costs such as a need for daily disposable mouthpieces. The voluntary breath-hold technique described here does not require any additional specialist equipment. All breath-holding techniques require a surrogate to monitor breath-hold consistency and whether breath-hold is maintained. Voluntary breath-hold uses the distance moved by the anterior and lateral reference marks (tattoos) away from the treatment room lasers in breath-hold to monitor consistency at CT-planning and treatment setup. Light fields are then used to monitor breath-hold consistency prior to and during radiotherapy delivery.

The UK HeartSpare Study: randomised evaluation of voluntary deep-inspiratory breath-hold in women undergoing breast radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: To determine whether voluntary deep-inspiratory breath-hold (v_DIBH) and deep-inspiratory breath-hold with the active breathing coordinator™ (ABC_DIBH) in patients undergoing left breast radiotherapy are comparable in terms of normal-tissue sparing, positional reproducibility and feasibility of delivery. METHODS: Following surgery for early breast cancer, patients underwent planning-CT scans in v_DIBH and ABC_DIBH. Patients were randomised to receive one technique for fractions 1-7 and the second technique for fractions 8-15 (40 Gy/15 fractions total). Daily electronic portal imaging (EPI) was performed and matched to digitally-reconstructed radiographs. Cone-beam CT (CBCT) images were acquired for 6/15 fractions and matched to planning-CT data. Population systematic (Σ) and random errors (σ) were estimated. Heart, left-anterior-descending coronary artery, and lung doses were calculated. Patient comfort, radiographer satisfaction and scanning/treatment times were recorded. Within-patient comparisons between the two techniques used the paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients were recruited. All completed treatment with both techniques. EPI-derived Σ were ≤ 1.8mm (v_DIBH) and ≤ 2.0mm (ABC_DIBH) and σ ≤ 2.5mm (v_DIBH) and ≤ 2.2mm (ABC_DIBH) (all p non-significant). CBCT-derived Σ were ≤ 3.9 mm (v_DIBH) and ≤ 4.9 mm (ABC_DIBH) and σ ≤ 4.1mm (v_DIBH) and ≤ 3.8mm (ABC_DIBH). There was no significant difference between techniques in terms of normal-tissue doses (all p non-significant). Patients and radiographers preferred v_DIBH (p=0.007, p=0.03, respectively). Scanning/treatment setup times were shorter for v_DIBH (p=0.02, p=0.04, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: v_DIBH and ABC_DIBH are comparable in terms of positional reproducibility and normal tissue sparing. v_DIBH is preferred by patients and radiographers, takes less time to deliver, and is cheaper than ABC_DIBH.

Intravenous iron alone for the treatment of anemia in patients with chronic heart failure.

OBJECTIVES: This study was undertaken to assess the hematologic, clinical, and biochemical response to intravenous iron in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) and anemia. BACKGROUND: Anemia is common in patients with CHF and is associated with higher morbidity and mortality. The combination of erythropoietin (EPO) and iron increases hemoglobin (Hb) and improves symptoms and exercise capacity in anemic CHF patients. It is not known whether intravenous iron alone is an effective treatment for anemia associated with CHF. METHODS: Sixteen anemic patients (Hb < or =12 g/dl) with stable CHF (age 68.3 +/- 11.5 years, 12 men, 9 participants New York Heart Association [NYHA] functional class II and the remainder class III, left ventricular ejection fraction 26 +/- 13%) received a maximum of 1 g of iron sucrose by bolus intravenous injections over a 12-day treatment phase in an outpatient setting. Mean follow-up was 92 +/- 6 days. RESULTS: Hemoglobin rose from 11.2 +/- 0.7 to 12.6 +/- 1.2 g/dl (p = 0.0007), Minnesota Living with Heart Failure (MLHF) score fell (denoting improvement) from 33 +/- 19 to 19 +/- 14 (p = 0.02), 6-min walk distance increased from 242 +/- 78 m to 286 +/- 72 m (p = 0.01), and all patients recorded NYHA class II at study end (p < 0.02). Changes in MLHF score and 6-min walk distance related closely to changes in Hb (r = 0.76, p = 0.002; r = 0.56, p = 0.03, respectively). Of all baseline measurements, only iron and transferrin saturation correlated with increases in Hb (r = 0.60, p = 0.02; r = 0.60, p = 0.01, respectively). There were no adverse events relating to drug administration or during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous iron sucrose, when used without concomitant EPO, is a simple and safe therapy that increases Hb, reduces symptoms, and improves exercise capacity in anemic patients with CHF. Further assessment of its efficacy should be made in a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.