Protocol for a systematic review with prospective individual patient data meta-analysis in EGFR-mutant NSCLC with brain metastases to assess the effect of SRS+osimertinib compared to osimertinib alone: the STARLET Collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene are a heterogeneous population who often develop brain metastases (BM). The optimal management of patients with asymptomatic brain metastases is unclear given the activity of newer-generation targeted therapies in the central nervous system. We present a protocol for an individual patient data (IPD) prospective meta-analysis to evaluate whether the addition of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) before osimertinib treatment will lead to better control of intracranial metastatic disease. This is a clinically relevant question that will inform practice. METHODS: Randomised controlled trials will be eligible if they include participants with BM arising from EGFR-mutant NSCLC and suitable to receive osimertinib both in the first-line and second-line settings (P); comparisons of SRS followed by osimertinib versus osimertinib alone (I, C) and intracranial disease control included as an endpoint (O). Systematic searches of Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL (EBSCO), PsychInfo, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform's Search Portal will be undertaken. An IPD meta-analysis will be performed using methodologies recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. The primary outcome is intracranial progression-free survival, as determined by response assessment in neuro-oncology-BM criteria. Secondary outcomes include overall survival, time to whole brain radiotherapy, quality of life, and adverse events of special interest. Effect differences will be explored among prespecified subgroups. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approved by each trial's ethics committee. Results will be relevant to clinicians, researchers, policymakers and patients, and will be disseminated via publications, presentations and media releases. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42022330532.

Single vs. multiple fraction non-inferiority trial of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for the comprehensive treatment of oligo-metastases/progression: SIMPLIFY-SABR-COMET.

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy delivery regimens can vary between a single fraction (SF) and multiple fractions (MF) given daily for up to several weeks depending on the location of the cancer or metastases. With limited evidence comparing fractionation regimens for oligometastases, there is support to explore toxicity levels to nearby organs at risk as a primary outcome while using SF and MF stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) as well as explore differences in patient-reported quality of life and experience. METHODS: This study will randomize 598 patients in a 1:1 ratio between the standard arm (MF SABR) and the experimental arm (SF SABR). This trial is designed as two randomized controlled trials within one patient population for resource efficiency. The primary objective of the first randomization is to determine if SF SABR is non-inferior to MF SABR, with respect to healthcare provider (HCP)-reported grade 3-5 adverse events (AEs) that are related to SABR. Primary endpoint is toxicity while secondary endpoints include lesional control rate (LCR), and progression-free survival (PFS). The second randomization (BC Cancer sites only) will allocate participants to either complete quality of life (QoL) questionnaires only; or QoL questionnaires and a symptom-specific survey with symptom-guided HCP intervention. The primary objective of the second randomization is to determine if radiation-related symptom questionnaire-guided HCP intervention results in improved reported QoL as measured by the EuroQoL-5-dimensions-5levels (EQ-5D-5L) instrument. The primary endpoint is patient-reported QoL and secondary endpoints include: persistence/resolution of symptom reporting, QoL, intervention cost effectiveness, resource utilization, and overall survival. DISCUSSION: This study will compare SF and MF SABR in the treatment of oligometastases and oligoprogression to determine if there is non-inferior toxicity for SF SABR in selected participants with 1-5 oligometastatic lesions. This study will also compare patient-reported QoL between participants who receive radiation-related symptom-guided HCP intervention and those who complete questionnaires alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT05784428. Date of Registration: 23 March 2023.

Upfront Versus Delayed Systemic Therapy in Patients With Oligometastatic Cancer Treated With SABR in the Phase 2 SABR-5 Trial.

PURPOSE: The optimal sequencing of local and systemic therapy for oligometastatic cancer has not been established. This study retrospectively compared progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and SABR-related toxicity between upfront versus delay of systemic treatment until progression in patients in the SABR-5 trial. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The single-arm phase 2 SABR-5 trial accrued patients with up to 5 oligometastases across SABR-5 between November 2016 and July 2020. Patients received SABR to all lesions. Two cohorts were retrospectively identified: those receiving upfront systemic treatment along with SABR and those for whom systemic treatment was delayed until disease progression. Patients treated for oligoprogression were excluded. Propensity score analysis with overlap weighting balanced baseline characteristics of cohorts. Bootstrap sampling and Cox regression models estimated the association of delayed systemic treatment with PFS, OS, and grade ≥2 toxicity. RESULTS: A total of 319 patients with oligometastases underwent treatment on SABR-5, including 121 (38%) and 198 (62%) who received upfront and delayed systemic treatment, respectively. In the weighted sample, prostate cancer was the most common primary tumor histology (48%) followed by colorectal (18%), breast (13%), and lung (4%). Most patients (93%) were treated for 1 to 2 metastases. The median follow-up time was 34 months (IQR, 24-45). Delayed systemic treatment was associated with shorter PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.56; 95% CI, 1.15-2.13; P = .005) but similar OS (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.51-1.59; P = .65) compared with upfront systemic treatment. Risk of grade 2 or higher SABR-related toxicity was reduced with delayed systemic treatment (odds ratio, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15-0.70; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Delayed systemic treatment is associated with shorter PFS without reduction in OS and with reduced SABR-related toxicity and may be a favorable option for select patients seeking to avoid initial systemic treatment. Efforts should continue to accrue patients to histology-specific trials examining a delayed systemic treatment approach.

Exploring the value of structured narrative feedback within the Serious Illness Conversation-Evaluation Exercise (SIC-Ex): a qualitative analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG) has emerged as a framework for conversations with patients with a serious illness diagnosis. This study reports on narratives generated from open-ended questions of a novel assessment tool, the Serious Illness Conversation-Evaluation Exercise (SIC-Ex), to assess resident-led conversations with patients in oncology outpatient clinics. DESIGN: Qualitative study using template analysis. SETTING: Three academic cancer centres in Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 7 resident physicians (trainees), 7 patients from outpatient cancer clinics, 10 preceptors (raters) consisting of medical oncologists, palliative care physicians and radiation oncologists. INTERVENTIONS: Each trainee conducted an SIC with a patient, which was videotaped. The raters watched the videos and evaluated each trainee using the novel SIC-Ex and the reference Calgary-Cambridge Guide (CCG) initially and again 3 months later. Two independent coders used template analysis to code the raters' narrative comments and identify themes/subthemes. OUTCOME MEASURES: How narrative comments aligned with elements of the CCG and SICG. RESULTS: Template analysis yielded four themes: adhering to SICG, engaging patients and family members, conversation management and being mindful of demeanour. Narrative comments identified numerous verbal and non-verbal elements essential to SICG. Some comments addressing general skills in engaging patients/families and managing the conversation (eg, setting agenda, introduction, planning, exploring, non-verbal communication) related to both the CCG and SICG, whereas other comments such as identifying substitute decision maker(s), affirming commitment and introducing Advance Care Planning were specific to the SICG. CONCLUSIONS: Narrative comments generated by SIC-Ex provided detailed and nuanced insights into trainees' competence in SIC, beyond the numerical ratings of SIC-Ex and the general communication skills outlined in the CCG, and may contribute to a more fulsome assessment of SIC skills.