The Inherited KRAS-variant as a Biomarker of Cetuximab Response in NSCLC.

PURPOSE: RTOG 0617 was a phase III randomized trial for patients with unresectable stage IIIA/IIIB non-small cell lung cancer comparing standard-dose (60 Gy) versus high-dose (74 Gy) radiotherapy and chemotherapy, plus or minus cetuximab. Although the study was negative, based on prior evidence that patients with the KRAS-variant, an inherited germline mutation, benefit from cetuximab, we evaluated KRAS-variant patients in RTOG 0617. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: From RTOG 0617, 328 of 496 (66%) of patients were included in this analysis. For time-to-event outcomes, stratified log-rank tests and multivariable Cox regression models were used. For binary outcomes, Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel tests and multivariable logistic regression models were used. All statistical tests were two sided, and a P value <0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 17.1% (56/328) of patients had the KRAS-variant, and overall survival rates were similar between KRAS-variant and non-variant patients. However, there was a time-dependent effect of cetuximab seen only in KRAS-variant patients-while the hazard of death was higher in cetuximab-treated patients within year 1 [HR = 3.37, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.13-10.10, P = 0.030], death was lower from year 1 to 4 (HR = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.11-0.97, P = 0.043). In contrast, in non-variant patients, the addition of cetuximab significantly increased local failure (HR = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.11-2.28, P = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS/DISCUSSION: Although an overall survival advantage was not achieved in KRAS-variant patients, there is potential impact of cetuximab for this genetic subset of patients. In contrast, cetuximab seems to harm non-variant patients. These findings further support the importance of genetic patient selection in trials studying the addition of systemic agents to radiotherapy. SIGNIFICANCE: The KRAS-variant is the first functional, inherited miRNA-disrupting variant identified in cancer. Our findings support that cetuximab has a potentially beneficial impact on KRAS-variant patients treated with radiation. The work confirms prior evidence that KRAS-variant patients are a subgroup who are especially sensitive to radiation. These findings further support the potential of this class of variants to enable true treatment personalization, considering the equally important endpoints of response and toxicity.

Dose-Escalated Radiation Alone or in Combination With Short-Term Total Androgen Suppression for Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: Patient-Reported Outcomes From NRG/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0815 Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: To report patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of a phase III trial evaluating total androgen suppression (TAS) combined with dose-escalated radiation therapy (RT) for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: Patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer were randomly assigned to dose-escalated RT alone (arm 1) or RT plus TAS (arm 2) consisting of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist/antagonist with oral antiandrogen for 6 months. The primary PRO was the validated Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-50). Secondary PROs included Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-fatigue and EuroQOL five-dimensions scale questionnaire (EQ-5D). PRO change scores, calculated for each patient as the follow-up score minus baseline score (at the end of RT and at 6, 12, and 60 months), were compared between treatment arms using a two-sample t test. An effect size of 0.50 standard deviation was considered clinically meaningful. RESULTS: For the primary PRO instrument (EPIC), the completion rates were ≥86% through the first year of follow-up and 70%-75% at 5 years. For the EPIC hormonal and sexual domains, there were clinically meaningful (P < .0001) deficits in the RT + TAS arm. However, there were no clinically meaningful differences by 1 year between arms. There were also no clinically meaningful differences at any time points between arms for PROMIS-fatigue, EQ-5D, and EPIC bowel/urinary scores. CONCLUSION: Compared with dose-escalated RT alone, adding TAS demonstrated clinically meaningful declines only in EPIC hormonal and sexual domains. However, even these PRO differences were transient, and there were no clinically meaningful differences between arms by 1 year.

Dose-Escalated Radiotherapy Alone or in Combination With Short-Term Androgen Deprivation for Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: Results of a Phase III Multi-Institutional Trial.

PURPOSE: It remains unknown whether or not short-term androgen deprivation (STAD) improves survival among men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer (IRPC) treated with dose-escalated radiotherapy (RT). METHODS: The NRG Oncology/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0815 study randomly assigned 1,492 patients with stage T2b-T2c, Gleason score 7, or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) value >10 and ≤20 ng/mL to dose-escalated RT alone (arm 1) or with STAD (arm 2). STAD was 6 months of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist/antagonist therapy plus antiandrogen. RT modalities were external-beam RT alone to 79.2 Gy or external beam (45 Gy) with brachytherapy boost. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), non-PCSM, distant metastases (DMs), PSA failure, and rates of salvage therapy. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 6.3 years. Two hundred nineteen deaths occurred, 119 in arm 1 and 100 in arm 2. Five-year OS estimates were 90% versus 91%, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.11]; P = .22). STAD resulted in reduced PSA failure (HR, 0.52; P <.001), DM (HR, 0.25; P <.001), PCSM (HR, 0.10; P = .007), and salvage therapy use (HR, 0.62; P = .025). Other-cause deaths were not significantly different (P = .56). Acute grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 2% of patients in arm 1 and in 12% for arm 2 (P <.001). Cumulative incidence of late grade ≥3 AEs was 14% in arm 1 and 15% in arm 2 (P = .29). CONCLUSION: STAD did not improve OS rates for men with IRPC treated with dose-escalated RT. Improvements in metastases rates, prostate cancer deaths, and PSA failures should be weighed against the risk of adverse events and the impact of STAD on quality of life.

A Medicare Claims Analysis of Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Access to Radiation Therapy Services.

PURPOSE: Reduced access and utilization of radiation therapy (RT) is a well-documented healthcare disparity observed among racial and ethnic minority groups in the USA and a contributor to the inferior health outcomes observed among Black, Hispanic, and Native American patient groups. What is less understood are the points during the process of care following RT consultation at which patients either fail to complete their prescribed treatment or encounter delays. Identification of those points where significant differences exist among different patient groups may help identify opportunities to close gaps in the access of clinically indicated RT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This analysis examines 261,559 RT episodes abstracted from Medicare claims and beneficiary data between 2016 and 2018 to determine rates of treatment initiation following planning and timeliness of treatment completion for different racial groups. RESULTS: Failure to initiate treatment was observed to be 29.3% relatively greater for Black, Hispanic, and Native American patients than for White and Asian patients. Among episodes for which treatment was initiated, Black and Hispanic patients were observed to require a significantly greater number of calendar days (when adjusted for fraction number) for completion than for White, Asian, and Native American patients. CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be a patient cohort for which RT disparities may be more marginal in their effects-allowing for access to consultation and treatment prescription but not for treatment initiation or timely completion of treatment-and may therefore permit effective solutions to help address current differences in cancer outcomes.

Practice radiation patterns among oncologists in the Oncology Care Model.

OBJECTIVES: CMS created the Oncology Care Model (OCM) to increase the delivery of cost-efficient cancer care, but in linking medical oncologist compensation to total costs of care, the model also prompted concerns about reductions in radiation therapy utilization. We compare practices that participated in the model with those that did not through its launch to estimate whether radiation therapy utilization was reduced under the OCM. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of a secondary claims-based data set. METHODS: We used 5 years of reimbursement claims data from a large community oncology network in which approximately half of the practices participated in the OCM to measure the relative change in utilization following OCM participation compared with practices that did not participate in the OCM. We evaluated use of radiation therapy for all cancer diagnoses and, more specifically, bone metastases, lung cancer, and breast cancer to assess whether effects varied by setting using 3 quasi-experimental estimation techniques (difference-in-differences, event study, and triple differences regressions). RESULTS: We found no evidence of reductions in radiation therapy utilization associated with the OCM between participant and nonparticipant practices in any of the specifications or subpopulations analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the potential incentives for medical oncologists to reduce radiation therapy utilization, we found no evidence that such reduction occurred.

Impact of the Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model on Brachytherapy Reimbursement.

PURPOSE: The Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model (RO Model) will test prospective radiotherapy episode-based payments for 16 common disease sites. We created an automated analytics platform to calculate the impact of the RO Model vs historical fee-for-service episode reimbursements for brachytherapy treatments within five community oncology practices for prostate, uterine, and cervical cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Claims data between January 1, 2017 and October 2, 2019 for prostate, uterine, and cervical cancer were analyzed as per the RO Model Final Rule methodology. Expected professional and technical component (PC and TC) reimbursements were compared for episodes that utilized brachytherapy alone vs combination modality (external beam and brachytherapy) in the RO Model vs historical reimbursements. RESULTS: 6,022 RO Model-defined episodes (60% prostate, 28% uterine, 13% cervical) were generated. Brachytherapy monotherapy episodes (14%) would have an average positive reimbursement in the RO Model (+$2,163 for prostate, +$711 for uterine, +$533 for cervical for the PC; +$12,168 for prostate, +$8,181 for uterine, +$11,322 for cervical for the TC), while combination modality episodes (15%) would have an average negative reimbursement in the RO Model (-$183 for prostate, -$1,701 for uterine, -$2,195 for cervical for the PC; -$374 for prostate, -$5,026 for uterine, -$2,801 for cervical for the TC). CONCLUSIONS: Brachytherapy monotherapy episodes for prostate, uterine, and cervical cancer will benefit from an increase in payment, whereas combination modality episodes will receive lower reimbursement. Large shifts in episodic payment may be related to practice-wide adjustments and pricing based on partial episodes of care that may ultimately limit access to care for vulnerable patient populations with cancer.

Higher Radiation Dose to the Immune Cells Correlates with Worse Tumor Control and Overall Survival in Patients with Stage III NSCLC: A Secondary Analysis of RTOG0617.

Background: We hypothesized that the Effective radiation Dose to the Immune Cells (EDIC) in circulating blood is a significant factor for the treatment outcome in patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: This is a secondary study of a phase III trial, NRG/RTOG 0617, in patients with stage III NSCLC treated with radiation-based treatment. The EDIC was computed as equivalent uniform dose to the entire blood based on radiation doses to all blood-containing organs, with consideration of blood flow and fractionation effect. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and the secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and local progression-free survival (LPFS). The EDIC-survival relationship was analyzed with consideration of clinical significant factors. Results: A total of 456 patients were eligible. The median EDIC values were 5.6 Gy (range, 2.1-12.2 Gy) and 6.3 Gy (2.1-11.6 Gy) for the low- and high-dose groups, respectively. The EDIC was significantly associated with OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.12, p = 0.005) and LPFS (HR = 1.09, p = 0.02) but PFS (HR = 1.05, p = 0.17) after adjustment for tumor dose, gross tumor volume and other factors. OS decreased with an increasing EDIC in a non-linear pattern: the two-year OS decreased first with a slope of 8%/Gy when the EDIC < 6 Gy, remained relatively unchanged when the EDIC was 6-8 Gy, and followed by a further reduction with a slope of 12%/Gy when the EDIC > 8 Gy. Conclusions: The EDIC is a significant independent risk factor for poor OS and LPFS in RTOG 0617 patients with stage III NSCLC, suggesting that radiation dose to circulating immune cells is critical for tumor control. Organ at risk for the immune system should be considered during RT plan.

Radiation Oncology's Place in Payment Reform: ASTRO Advocates for a Place at the Table.

In its current form, the Radiation Oncology Model (RO Model) prioritizes payment cuts over true value-based payment transformation. With significant modifications to the payment methodology, the reporting requirements, and recognition of the unique challenges faced by disadvantaged populations, the RO Model can protect patient access to care, preserve the physician-patient decision-making process, and ensure the delivery of high-quality, efficient radiation therapy treatment. The American Society for Radiation Oncology has spent several years advocating for a meaningful alternative payment model for radiation oncology and continues to push The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation for changes to the RO Model that will recognize these key outcomes.

Comparison of Radiation With or Without Concurrent Trastuzumab for HER2-Positive Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Resected by Lumpectomy: A Phase III Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: Preclinical studies report that trastuzumab (T) can boost radiotherapy (RT) effectiveness. The primary aim of the B-43 trial was to assess the efficacy of RT alone vs concurrent RT plus T in preventing recurrence of ipsilateral breast cancer (IBTR) in women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligibility: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0 or 1, DCIS resected by lumpectomy, known estrogen receptor (ER) and/or progesterone receptor (PgR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status by centralized testing. Whole-breast RT was given concurrently with T. Stratification was by menopausal status, adjuvant endocrine therapy plan, and nuclear grade. Definitive intent-to-treat primary analysis was to be conducted when either 163 IBTR events occurred or all accrued patients were on study ≥ 5 years. RESULTS: There were 2,014 participants who were randomly assigned. Median follow-up time as of December 31, 2019, was 79.2 months. At primary definitive analysis, 114 IBTR events occurred: RT arm, 63 and RT plus T arm, 51 (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.17; P value = .26). There were 34 who were invasive: RT arm, 18 and RT plus T arm, 20 (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.59 to 2.10; P value = .71). Seventy-six were DCIS: RT arm, 45 and RT plus T arm, 31 (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.43 to 1.08; P value = .11). Annual IBTR event rates were: RT arm, 0.99%/y and RT plus T arm, 0.79%/y. The study did not reach the 163 protocol-specified events, so the definitive analysis was triggered by all patients having been on study for ≥ 5 years. CONCLUSION: Addition of T to RT did not achieve the objective of 36% reduction in IBTR rate but did achieve a modest but statistically nonsignificant reduction of 19%. Nonetheless, this trial had negative results. Further exploration of RT plus T is needed in HER2-positive DCIS before its routine delivery in patients with DCIS resected by lumpectomy.

Modeling the Impact of Cardiopulmonary Irradiation on Overall Survival in NRG Oncology Trial RTOG 0617.

PURPOSE: To quantitatively predict the impact of cardiopulmonary dose on overall survival (OS) after radiotherapy for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We used the NRG Oncology/RTOG 0617 dataset. The model building procedure was preregistered on a public website. Patients were split between a training and a set-aside validation subset (N = 306/131). The 191 candidate variables covered disease, patient, treatment, and dose-volume characteristics from multiple cardiopulmonary substructures (atria, lung, pericardium, and ventricles), including the minimum dose to the hottest x% volume (Dx%[Gy]), mean dose of the hottest x% (MOHx%[Gy]), and minimum, mean (Mean[Gy]), and maximum dose. The model building was based on Cox regression and given 191 candidate variables; a Bonferroni-corrected P value threshold of 0.0003 was used to identify predictors. To reduce overreliance on the most highly correlated variables, stepwise multivariable analysis (MVA) was repeated on 1000 bootstrapped replicates. Multivariate sets selected in ≥10% of replicates were fit to the training subset and then averaged to generate a final model. In the validation subset, discrimination was assessed using Harrell c-index, and calibration was tested using risk group stratification. RESULTS: Four MVA models were identified on bootstrap. The averaged model included atria D45%[Gy], lung Mean[Gy], pericardium MOH55%[Gy], and ventricles MOH5%[Gy]. This model had excellent performance predicting OS in the validation subset (c = 0.89). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of death due to cardiopulmonary irradiation was accurately modeled, as demonstrated by predictions on the validation subset, and provides guidance on the delivery of safe thoracic radiotherapy.

Patterns of Failure Observed in the 2-Step Institution Credentialing Process for NRG Oncology/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 1005 (NCT01349322) and Lessons Learned.

PURPOSE: To investigate patterns of failure in institutional credentialing submissions to NRG/RTOG 1005 with the aim of improving the quality and consistency for future breast cancer protocols. METHODS AND MATERIALS: NRG/RTOG 1005 allowed the submission of 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT), intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) breast plans. Credentialing required institutions to pass a 2-step quality assurance (QA) process: (1) benchmark, requiring institutions to create a plan with no unacceptable deviations and ≤1 acceptable variation among the dose volume (DV) criteria, and (2) rapid review, requiring each institution's first protocol submission to have no unacceptable deviations among the DV criteria or contours. Overall rates, number of resubmissions, and reasons for resubmission were analyzed for each QA step. RESULTS: In total, 352 institutions participated in benchmark QA and 280 patients enrolled had rapid review QA. Benchmark initial failure rates were similar for 3DCRT (18%), IMRT (17%), and SIB (18%) plans. For 3DCRT and IMRT benchmark plans, ipsilateral lung most frequently failed the DV criteria, and SIB DV failures were seen most frequently for the heart. Rapid review contour initial failures (35%) were due to target rather than organs at risk. For 29% of the rapid review initial failures, the planning target volume boost eval volume was deemed an unacceptable deviation. CONCLUSIONS: The review of the benchmark and rapid review QA submissions indicates that acceptable variations or unacceptable deviations for the ipsilateral lung and heart dose constraints were the most commonly observed cause of benchmark QA failure, and unacceptable deviations in target contouring, rather than normal structure contouring, were the most common cause of rapid review QA failure. These findings suggest that a rigorous QA process is necessary for high quality and homogeneity in radiation therapy in multi-institutional trials of breast cancer to ensure that the benefits of radiation therapy far outweigh the risks.

Long-Term Results of NRG Oncology RTOG 0617: Standard- Versus High-Dose Chemoradiotherapy With or Without Cetuximab for Unresectable Stage III Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: RTOG 0617 compared standard-dose (SD; 60 Gy) versus high-dose (HD; 74 Gy) radiation with concurrent chemotherapy and determined the efficacy of cetuximab for stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: The study used a 2 × 2 factorial design with radiation dose as 1 factor and cetuximab as the other, with a primary end point of overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Median follow-up was 5.1 years. There were 3 grade 5 adverse events (AEs) in the SD arm and 9 in the HD arm. Treatment-related grade ≥3 dysphagia and esophagitis occurred in 3.2% and 5.0% of patients in the SD arm v 12.1% and 17.4% in the HD arm, respectively (P = .0005 and < .0001). There was no difference in pulmonary toxicity, with grade ≥3 AEs in 20.6% and 19.3%. Median OS was 28.7 v 20.3 months (P = .0072) in the SD and HD arms, respectively, 5-year OS and progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 32.1% and 23% and 18.3% and 13% (P = .055), respectively. Factors associated with improved OS on multivariable analysis were standard radiation dose, tumor location, institution accrual volume, esophagitis/dysphagia, planning target volume and heart V5. The use of cetuximab conferred no survival benefit at the expense of increased toxicity. The prior signal of benefit in patients with higher H scores was no longer apparent. The progression rate within 1 month of treatment completion in the SD arm was 4.6%. For comparison purposes, the resultant 2-year OS and PFS rates allowing for that dropout rate were 59.6% and 30.7%, respectively, in the SD arms. CONCLUSION: A 60-Gy radiation dose with concurrent chemotherapy should remain the standard of care, with the OS rate being among the highest reported in the literature for stage III NSCLC. Cetuximab had no effect on OS. The 2-year OS rates in the control arm are similar to the PACIFIC trial.

Impact of Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy Technique for Locally Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Secondary Analysis of the NRG Oncology RTOG 0617 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Purpose Although intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is increasingly used to treat locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), IMRT and three-dimensional conformal external beam radiation therapy (3D-CRT) have not been compared prospectively. This study compares 3D-CRT and IMRT outcomes for locally advanced NSCLC in a large prospective clinical trial. Patients and Methods A secondary analysis was performed to compare IMRT with 3D-CRT in NRG Oncology clinical trial RTOG 0617, in which patients received concurrent chemotherapy of carboplatin and paclitaxel with or without cetuximab, and 60- versus 74-Gy radiation doses. Comparisons included 2-year overall survival (OS), progression-free survival, local failure, distant metastasis, and selected Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 3) ≥ grade 3 toxicities. Results The median follow-up was 21.3 months. Of 482 patients, 53% were treated with 3D-CRT and 47% with IMRT. The IMRT group had larger planning treatment volumes (median, 427 v 486 mL; P = .005); a larger planning treatment volume/volume of lung ratio (median, 0.13 v 0.15; P = .013); and more stage IIIB disease (30.3% v 38.6%, P = .056). Two-year OS, progression-free survival, local failure, and distant metastasis-free survival were not different between IMRT and 3D-CRT. IMRT was associated with less ≥ grade 3 pneumonitis (7.9% v 3.5%, P = .039) and a reduced risk in adjusted analyses (odds ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.171 to 0.986; P = .046). IMRT also produced lower heart doses ( P < .05), and the volume of heart receiving 40 Gy (V40) was significantly associated with OS on adjusted analysis ( P < .05). The lung V5 was not associated with any ≥ grade 3 toxicity, whereas the lung V20 was associated with increased ≥ grade 3 pneumonitis risk on multivariable analysis ( P = .026). Conclusion IMRT was associated with lower rates of severe pneumonitis and cardiac doses in NRG Oncology clinical trial RTOG 0617, which supports routine use of IMRT for locally advanced NSCLC.

Institutional Enrollment and Survival Among NSCLC Patients Receiving Chemoradiation: NRG Oncology Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0617.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the effect of institutional accrual volume on clinical outcomes among patients receiving chemoradiation for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) on a phase III trial. METHODS: Patients with LA-NSCLC were randomly assigned to 60 Gy or 74 Gy radiotherapy (RT) with concurrent carboplatin/paclitaxel +/- cetuximab on NRG Oncology RTOG 0617. Participating institutions were categorized as low-volume centers (LVCs) or high-volume centers (HVCs) according to the number of patients accrued (≤3 vs > 3). All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Range of accrual for LVCs (n = 195) vs HVCs (n = 300) was 1 to 3 vs 4 to 18 patients. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two cohorts. Treatment at a HVC was associated with statistically significantly longer overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with treatment at a LVC (median OS = 26.2 vs 19.8 months; HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.56 to 0.88, P = .002; median PFS: 11.4 vs 9.7 months, HR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.65-0.99, P = .04). Patients treated at HVCs were more often treated with intensity-modulated RT (54.0% vs 39.5%, P = .002), had a lower esophageal dose (mean = 26.1 vs 28.0 Gy, P = .03), and had a lower heart dose (median = V5 Gy 38.2% vs 54.1%, P = .006; V50 Gy 3.6% vs 7.3%, P < .001). Grade 5 adverse events (AEs) (5.3% vs 9.2%, P = .09) and RT termination because of AEs (1.3% vs 4.1%, P = .07) were less common among patients treated at HVCs. HVC remained independently associated with longer OS (P = .03) when accounting for other factors. CONCLUSION: Treatment at institutions with higher clinical trial accrual volume is associated with longer OS among patients with LA-NSCLC participating in a phase III trial.

Quality of Life Analysis of a Radiation Dose-Escalation Study of Patients With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Secondary Analysis of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0617 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: A recent randomized radiation dose-escalation trial in unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group [RTOG] 0617) showed a lower survival rate in the high-dose radiation therapy (RT) arm (74 Gy) than in the low-dose arm (60 Gy) with concurrent chemotherapy. OBJECTIVE: The primary QOL hypothesis predicted a clinically meaningful decline in quality of life (QOL) via the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT)-Lung Cancer Subscale (LCS) in the high-dose RT arm at 3 months. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: The RTOG 0617 trial was a randomized phase 3 study (conducted from November 2007 to November 2011) in stage III NSCLC using a 2 × 2 factorial design and stratified by histology, positron emission tomography staging, performance status, and irradiation technique (3-dimensional conformal RT [3D-CRT] vs intensity-modulated RT [IMRT]). A total of 185 institutions in the United States and Canada took part. Of 424 eligible patients with stage III NSCLC randomized, 360 (85%) consented to QOL evaluation, of whom 313 (88%) completed baseline QOL assessments. INTERVENTION: Treatment with 74-Gy vs 60-Gy RT with concurrent and consolidation carboplatin/paclitaxel with or without cetuximab. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The QOL data were collected prospectively via FACT Trial Outcome Index (FACT-TOI), calculated as the sum of the following measures: Physical Well Being (PWB), Functional Well Being (FWB), and the LCS. Data are presented at baseline and 3 and 12 months via minimal clinically meaningful changes of 2 points or more for PWB, FWB, and LCS or 5 points or more for TOI. RESULTS: Of the 313 patients who completed baseline QOL assessments, 219 patients (70%) completed the 3-month QOL assessments, and 137 of the living patients (57%) completed the 12-month assessment. Patient demographics and baseline QOL scores were comparable between the 74-Gy and 60-Gy arms. Significantly more patients in the 74-Gy arm than in the 60-Gy arm had clinically meaningful decline in FACT-LCS at 3 months (45% vs 30%; P = .02). At 12 months, fewer patients who received IMRT (vs 3D-CRT) had clinically meaningful decline in FACT-LCS (21% vs 46%; P = .003). Baseline FACT-TOI was associated with overall survival in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Despite few differences in clinician-reported toxic effects between treatment arms, QOL analysis demonstrated a clinically meaningful decline in QOL in the 74-Gy arm at 3 months, confirming the primary QOL hypothesis. Baseline QOL was an independent prognostic factor for survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00533949.

Standard-dose versus high-dose conformal radiotherapy with concurrent and consolidation carboplatin plus paclitaxel with or without cetuximab for patients with stage IIIA or IIIB non-small-cell lung cancer (RTOG 0617): a randomised, two-by-two factorial phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare overall survival after standard-dose versus high-dose conformal radiotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy and the addition of cetuximab to concurrent chemoradiation for patients with inoperable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: In this open-label randomised, two-by-two factorial phase 3 study in 185 institutions in the USA and Canada, we enrolled patients (aged ≥ 18 years) with unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer, a Zubrod performance status of 0-1, adequate pulmonary function, and no evidence of supraclavicular or contralateral hilar adenopathy. We randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) patients to receive either 60 Gy (standard dose), 74 Gy (high dose), 60 Gy plus cetuximab, or 74 Gy plus cetuximab. All patients also received concurrent chemotherapy with 45 mg/m(2) paclitaxel and carboplatin once a week (AUC 2); 2 weeks after chemoradiation, two cycles of consolidation chemotherapy separated by 3 weeks were given consisting of paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)) and carboplatin (AUC 6). Randomisation was done with permuted block randomisation methods, stratified by radiotherapy technique, Zubrod performance status, use of PET during staging, and histology; treatment group assignments were not masked. Radiation dose was prescribed to the planning target volume and was given in 2 Gy daily fractions with either intensity-modulated radiation therapy or three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy. The use of four-dimensional CT and image-guided radiation therapy were encouraged but not necessary. For patients assigned to receive cetuximab, 400 mg/m(2) cetuximab was given on day 1 followed by weekly doses of 250 mg/m(2), and was continued through consolidation therapy. The primary endpoint was overall survival. All analyses were done by modified intention-to-treat. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00533949. FINDINGS: Between Nov 27, 2007, and Nov 22, 2011, 166 patients were randomly assigned to receive standard-dose chemoradiotherapy, 121 to high-dose chemoradiotherapy, 147 to standard-dose chemoradiotherapy and cetuximab, and 110 to high-dose chemoradiotherapy and cetuximab. Median follow-up for the radiotherapy comparison was 22.9 months (IQR 27.5-33.3). Median overall survival was 28.7 months (95% CI 24.1-36.9) for patients who received standard-dose radiotherapy and 20.3 months (17.7-25.0) for those who received high-dose radiotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 1.38, 95% CI 1.09-1.76; p=0.004). Median follow-up for the cetuximab comparison was 21.3 months (IQR 23.5-29.8). Median overall survival in patients who received cetuximab was 25.0 months (95% CI 20.2-30.5) compared with 24.0 months (19.8-28.6) in those who did not (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.84-1.35; p=0.29). Both the radiation-dose and cetuximab results crossed protocol-specified futility boundaries. We recorded no statistical differences in grade 3 or worse toxic effects between radiotherapy groups. By contrast, the use of cetuximab was associated with a higher rate of grade 3 or worse toxic effects (205 [86%] of 237 vs 160 [70%] of 228 patients; p<0.0001). There were more treatment-related deaths in the high-dose chemoradiotherapy and cetuximab groups (radiotherapy comparison: eight vs three patients; cetuximab comparison: ten vs five patients). There were no differences in severe pulmonary events between treatment groups. Severe oesophagitis was more common in patients who received high-dose chemoradiotherapy than in those who received standard-dose treatment (43 [21%] of 207 patients vs 16 [7%] of 217 patients; p<0.0001). INTERPRETATION: 74 Gy radiation given in 2 Gy fractions with concurrent chemotherapy was not better than 60 Gy plus concurrent chemotherapy for patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer, and might be potentially harmful. Addition of cetuximab to concurrent chemoradiation and consolidation treatment provided no benefit in overall survival for these patients. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Memantine for the prevention of cognitive dysfunction in patients receiving whole-brain radiotherapy: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: To determine the protective effects of memantine on cognitive function in patients receiving whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT). METHODS: Adult patients with brain metastases received WBRT and were randomized to receive placebo or memantine (20 mg/d), within 3 days of initiating radiotherapy for 24 weeks. Serial standardized tests of cognitive function were performed. RESULTS: Of 554 patients who were accrued, 508 were eligible. Grade 3 or 4 toxicities and study compliance were similar in the 2 arms. There was less decline in delayed recall in the memantine arm at 24 weeks (P = .059), but the difference was not statistically significant, possibly because there were only 149 analyzable patients at 24 weeks, resulting in only 35% statistical power. The memantine arm had significantly longer time to cognitive decline (hazard ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.62-0.99, P = .01); the probability of cognitive function failure at 24 weeks was 53.8% in the memantine arm and 64.9% in the placebo arm. Superior results were seen in the memantine arm for executive function at 8 (P = .008) and 16 weeks (P = .0041) and for processing speed (P = .0137) and delayed recognition (P = .0149) at 24 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Memantine was well tolerated and had a toxicity profile very similar to placebo. Although there was less decline in the primary endpoint of delayed recall at 24 weeks, this lacked statistical significance possibly due to significant patient loss. Overall, patients treated with memantine had better cognitive function over time; specifically, memantine delayed time to cognitive decline and reduced the rate of decline in memory, executive function, and processing speed in patients receiving WBRT. RTOG 0614, ClinicalTrials.gov number CT00566852.

Reduce in variation and improve efficiency of target volume delineation by a computer-assisted system using a deformable image registration approach.

PURPOSE: To determine whether a computer-assisted target volume delineation (CAT) system using a deformable image registration approach can reduce the variation of target delineation among physicians with different head and neck (HN) IMRT experiences and reduce the time spent on the contouring process. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a deformable image registration method for mapping contours from a template case to a patient case with a similar tumor manifestation but different body configuration. Eight radiation oncologists with varying levels of clinical experience in HN IMRT performed target delineation on two HN cases, one with base-of-tongue (BOT) cancer and another with nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC), by first contouring from scratch and then by modifying the contours deformed by the CAT system. The gross target volumes were provided. Regions of interest for comparison included the clinical target volumes (CTVs) and normal organs. The volumetric and geometric variation of these regions of interest and the time spent on contouring were analyzed. RESULTS: We found that the variation in delineating CTVs from scratch among the physicians was significant, and that using the CAT system reduced volumetric variation and improved geometric consistency in both BOT and NPC cases. The average timesaving when using the CAT system was 26% to 29% for more experienced physicians and 38% to 47% for the less experienced ones. CONCLUSIONS: A computer-assisted target volume delineation approach, using a deformable image-registration method with template contours, was able to reduce the variation among physicians with different experiences in HN IMRT while saving contouring time.