The Dutch Lung Cancer Audit-Radiotherapy (DLCA-R): Real-World Data on Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients Treated With Curative Chemoradiation.

INTRODUCTION: Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is the standard of care in inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, favoring concurrent (cCRT) over sequential CRT (seqCRT), with adjuvant immunotherapy in responders. Elderly and frail NSCLC patients have generally been excluded from trials in the past. In elderly patients however, the higher treatment related morbidity of cCRT, may outweigh the possible lower tumor control of seqCRT. For elderly patients with locally advanced NSCLC real-world data is essential to be able to balance treatment toxicity and treatment outcome. The aim of this study is to analyze acute toxicity and 3-month mortality of curative chemoradiation (CRT) in patients with stage III NSCLC and to analyze whether cCRT for elderly stage III NSCLC patients is safe. METHODS: The Dutch Lung Cancer Audit-Radiotherapy (DLCA-R) is a national lung cancer audit that started in 2013 for patients treated with curative intent radiotherapy. All Dutch patients treated for stage III NSCLC between 2015 and 2018 with seqCRT or cCRT for (primary or recurrent) stage III lung cancer are included in this population-based study. Information was collected on patient, tumor- and treatment characteristics and the incidence and severity of acute non-hematological toxicity (CTCAE-4 version 4.03) and mortality within 3 months after the end of radiotherapy. To evaluate the association between prognostic factors and outcome (acute toxicity and mortality within 3 months), an univariable and multivariable analysis was performed. The definition of cCRT was:radiotherapy started within 30 days after the start of chemotherapy. RESULTS: Out of all 20 Dutch departments of radiation oncology, 19 centers participated in the registry. A total of 2942 NSCLC stage III patients were treated with CRT. Of these 67.2% (n = 1977) were treated with cCRT (median age 66 years) and 32.8% (n = 965) were treated with seqCRT (median age 69 years). Good performance status (WHO 0-1) was scored in 88.6% for patients treated with cCRT and in 71.0% in the patients treated with seqCRT. Acute nonhematological 3-month toxicity (CTCAE grade ≥3 or radiation pneumonitis grade ≥2) was scored in 21.9% of the patients treated with cCRT and in 17.7% of the patients treated with seqCRT. The univariable analysis for acute toxicity showed significantly increased toxicity for cCRT (P = .008), WHO ≥2 (P = .006), and TNM IIIC (P = .031). The multivariable analysis for acute toxicity was significant for cCRT (P = .015), WHO ≥2 (P = .001) and TNM IIIC (P = .016). The univariable analysis for 3-month mortality showed significance for seqCRT (P = .025), WHO ≥2 (P < .001), higher cumulative radiotherapy dose (P < .001), higher gross tumor volume total (P = .020) and male patients (p < .001). None of these variables reached significance in the multivariable analysis for 3-month mortality. CONCLUSION: In this national lung cancer audit of inoperable NSCLC patients, 3-month toxicity was significantly higher in patients treated with cCRT (21.9% vs. 17.7% for seqCRT) higher TNM stage IIIC, and poor performance (WHO≥2) patients.The 3-months mortality was not significantly different for tested parameters. Age was not a risk factor for acute toxicity, nor 3 months mortality.

The Impact of the Availability of Immunotherapy on Patterns of Care in Stage III NSCLC: A Dutch Multicenter Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment patterns in stage III NSCLC can vary considerably between countries. The PACIFIC trial reported improvements in progression-free and overall survival with adjuvant durvalumab after concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). We studied treatment decision-making by three Dutch regional thoracic multidisciplinary tumor boards between 2015 and 2019, to identify changes in practice when adjuvant durvalumab became available. METHODS: Details of patients presenting with stage III NSCLC were retrospectively collected. Both CCRT and multimodality schemes incorporating planned surgery were defined as being radical-intent treatment (RIT). RESULTS: Of 855 eligible patients, most (95%) were discussed at a thoracic multidisciplinary tumor board, which recommended a RIT in 63% (n = 510). Only 52% (n = 424) of the patients finally received a RIT. Predictors for not recommending RIT were age greater than or equal to 70 years, WHO performance score greater than or equal to 2, Charlson comorbidity index greater than or equal to 2 (excluding age), forced expiratory volume in 1 second less than 80% of predicted value, N3 disease, and period of diagnosis. Between 2015 to 2017 and 2018 to 2019, the proportion of patients undergoing CCRT increased from 34% to 42% (p = 0.02) and use of sequential chemoradiotherapy declined (21%-16%, p = 0.05). Rates of early toxicity and 1-year mortality were comparable for both periods. After 2018, 57% of the patients who underwent CCRT (90 of 159) received adjuvant durvalumab. CONCLUSIONS: After publication of the PACIFIC trial, a significant increase was observed in the use of CCRT for patients with stage III NSCLC with rates of early toxicity and mortality being unchanged. Since 2018, 57% of the patients undergoing CCRT went on to receive adjuvant durvalumab. Nevertheless, approximately half of the patients were still considered unfit for a RIT.

Compliance and Outcome of Elderly Patients Treated in the Concurrent Once-Daily Versus Twice-Daily Radiotherapy (CONVERT) Trial.

INTRODUCTION: There is a lack of data on the efficacy and safety of concurrent chemoradiotherapy in elderly, limited-stage, patients with SCLC. METHODS: We compared outcomes of patients 70 years of age or older versus younger patients within the Concurrent Once-daily Versus twice-daily RadioTherapy (CONVERT) trial. Patients were randomized to receive 45 Gy/30 twice-daily fractions/19 days or 66 Gy/33 once-daily fractions/45 days concurrently with platinum-based chemotherapy. Overall survival and progression-free survival were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier methodology and Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: Of 547 patients randomized between April 2008 and November 2013, 57 did not receive protocol treatment and were excluded. Of the 490 patients included, 67 (14%) were 70 years of age or older (median age: 73 years; range: 70-82). Fewer older patients received the optimal number of radiotherapy fractions (73% versus 85%; p = 0.03); however, chemotherapy compliance was similar in both groups (p = 0.24). Neutropenia grade 3/4 occurred more frequently in the elderly (84% versus 70%; p = 0.02) but rates of neutropenic sepsis (4% versus 7%; p = 0.07) and death (3% versus 1.4%; p = 0.67) were similar in both groups. With a median follow-up of 46 months; median survival in the elderly versus younger groups was 29 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 21-39) versus 30 months (95% CI: 26-35), respectively; (hazard ratio: 1.15, 95% CI: 0.84-1.59; p = 0.38). Median time to progression in the elderly versus younger groups was 18 months (95% CI: 13-31) versus 16 months (95% CI: 14-19), respectively (hazard ratio: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.76-1.41; p = 0.81). CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy with modern radiotherapy techniques should be a treatment option for fit, older patients.

External validation of an NTCP model for acute esophageal toxicity in locally advanced NSCLC patients treated with intensity-modulated (chemo-)radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We externally validated a previously established multivariable normal-tissue complication probability (NTCP) model for Grade ≥2 acute esophageal toxicity (AET) after intensity-modulated (chemo-)radiotherapy or volumetric-modulated arc therapy for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 603 patients from five cohorts (A-E) within four different Dutch institutes were included. Using the NTCP model, containing predictors concurrent chemoradiotherapy, mean esophageal dose, gender and clinical tumor stage, the risk of Grade ≥2 AET was estimated per patient and model discrimination and (re)calibration performance were evaluated. RESULTS: Four validation cohorts (A, B, D, E) experienced higher incidence of Grade ≥2 AET compared to the training cohort (49.3-70.2% vs 35.6%; borderline significant for one cohort, highly significant for three cohorts). Cohort C experienced lower Grade ≥2 AET incidence (21.7%, p < 0.001). For three cohorts (A-C), discriminative performance was similar to the training cohort (area under the curve (AUC) 0.81-0.89 vs 0.84). In the two remaining cohorts (D-E) the model showed poor discriminative power (AUC 0.64 and 0.63). Reasonable calibration performance was observed in two cohorts (A-B), and recalibration further improved performance in all three cohorts with good discrimination (A-C). Recalibration for the two poorly discriminating cohorts (D-E) did not improve performance. CONCLUSIONS: The NTCP model for AET prediction was successfully validated in three out of five patient cohorts (AUC ≥0.80). The model did not perform well in two cohorts, which included patients receiving substantially different treatment. Before applying the model in clinical practice, validation of discrimination and (re)calibration performance in a local cohort is recommended.

Prophylactic Cranial Irradiation Versus Observation in Radically Treated Stage III Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Randomized Phase III NVALT-11/DLCRG-02 Study.

Purpose The purpose of the current study was to investigate whether prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) reduces the incidence of symptomatic brain metastases in patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with curative intention. Patients and Methods Patients with stage III NSCLC-staged with a contrast-enhanced brain computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging-were randomly assigned to either observation or PCI after concurrent/sequential chemoradiotherapy with or without surgery. The primary end point-development of symptomatic brain metastases at 24 months-was defined as one or a combination of key symptoms that suggest brain metastases-signs of increased intracranial pressure, headache, nausea and vomiting, cognitive or affective disturbances, seizures, and focal neurologic symptoms-and magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography demonstrating the existence of brain metastasis. Adverse effects, survival, quality of life, quality-adjusted survival, and health care costs were secondary end points. Results Between 2009 and 2015, 175 patients were randomly assigned: 87 received PCI and 88 underwent observation only. Median follow-up was 48.5 months (95% CI, 39 to 54 months). Six (7.0%) of 86 patients in the PCI group and 24 (27.2%) of 88 patients in the control group had symptomatic brain metastases ( P = .001). PCI significantly increased the time to develop symptomatic brain metastases (hazard ratio, 0.23; [95% CI, 0.09 to 0.56]; P = .0012). Median time to develop brain metastases was not reached in either arm. Overall survival was not significantly different between both arms. Grade 1 and 2 memory impairment (26 of 86 v seven of 88 patients) and cognitive disturbance (16 of 86 v three of 88 patients) were significantly increased in the PCI arm. Quality of life was only decreased 3 months post-PCI and was similar to the observation arm thereafter. Conclusion PCI significantly decreased the proportion of patients who developed symptomatic brain metastases with an increase of low-grade toxicity.

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.