Dutch national guidelines for locally recurrent rectal cancer.

Due to improvements in treatment for primary rectal cancer, the incidence of LRRC has decreased. However, 6-12% of patients will still develop a local recurrence. Treatment of patients with LRRC can be challenging, because of complex and heterogeneous disease presentation and scarce - often low-grade - data steering clinical decisions. Previous consensus guidelines have provided some direction regarding diagnosis and treatment, but no comprehensive guidelines encompassing all aspects of the clinical management of patients with LRRC are available to date. The treatment of LRRC requires a multidisciplinary approach and overarching expertise in all domains. This broad expertise is often limited to specific expert centres, with dedicated multidisciplinary teams treating LRRC. A comprehensive, narrative literature review was performed and used to develop the Dutch National Guideline for management of LRRC, in an attempt to guide decision making for clinicians, regarding the complete clinical pathway from diagnosis to surgery.

Locally recurrent rectal cancer: Oncological outcomes for patients with a pathological complete response after neoadjuvant therapy.

BACKGROUND: For patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer, it is an ongoing pursuit to establish factors predicting or improving oncological outcomes. In locally advanced rectal cancer, a pCR appears to be associated with improved outcomes. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to compare the oncological outcomes of patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer with and without a pCR. METHODS: Patients who underwent neoadjuvant treatment and surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer with curative intent between January 2004 and June 2020 at a tertiary referral hospital were analysed. Primary outcomes included overall survival, disease-free survival, metastasis-free survival, and local re-recurrence-free survival, stratified according to whether the patient had a pCR. RESULTS: Of a total of 345 patients, 51 (14.8 per cent) had a pCR. Median follow-up was 36 (i.q.r. 16-60) months. The 3-year overall survival rate was 77 per cent for patients with a pCR and 51.1 per cent for those without (P < 0.001). The 3-year disease-free survival rate was 56 per cent for patients with a pCR and 26.1 per cent for those without (P < 0.001). The 3-year local re-recurrence-free survival rate was 82 and 44 per cent respectively (P < 0.001). Surgical procedures (for example soft tissue, sacrum, and urogenital organ resections) and postoperative complications were comparable between patients with and without a pCR. CONCLUSION: This study showed that patients with a pCR have superior oncological outcomes to those without a pCR. It may therefore be safe to consider a watch-and-wait approach in highly selected patients, potentially improving quality of life by omitting extensive surgical procedures without compromising oncological outcomes.

Development of a consensus-based delineation guideline for locally recurrent rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) is used in locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) to increase chances of a radical surgical resection. Delineation in LRRC is hampered by complex disease presentation and limited clinical exposure. Within the PelvEx II trial, evaluating the benefit of chemotherapy preceding nCRT for LRRC, a delineation guideline was developed by an expert LRRC team. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight radiation oncologists, from Dutch and Swedish expert centres, participated in two meetings, delineating GTV and CTV in six cases. Regions at-risk for re-recurrence or irradical resection were identified by eleven expert surgeons and one expert radiologist. Target volumes were evaluated multidisciplinary. Inter-observer variation was analysed. RESULTS: Inter-observer variation in delineation of LRRC appeared large. Multidisciplinary evaluation per case is beneficial in determining target volumes. The following consensus regarding target volumes was reached. GTV should encompass all tumour, including extension into OAR if applicable. If the tumour is in fibrosis, GTV should encompass the entire fibrotic area. Only if tumour can clearly be distinguished from fibrosis, GTV may be reduced, as long as the entire fibrotic area is covered by the CTV. CTV is GTV with a 1 cm margin and should encompass all at-risk regions for irradical resection or re-recurrence. CTV should not be adjusted towards other organs. Multifocal recurrences should be encompassed in one CTV. Elective nodal delineation is only advised in radiotherapy-naïve patients. CONCLUSION: This study provides a first consensus-based delineation guideline for LRRC. Analyses of re-recurrences is needed to understand disease behaviour and to optimize delineation guidelines accordingly.

Narrowing the difference in dose delivery for IOERT and IOBT for locally advanced and locally recurrent rectal cancer.

Purpose: Intra-operative radiotherapy (IORT) has been used as a tool to provide a high-dose radiation boost to a limited volume of patients with fixed tumors with a likelihood of microscopically involved resection margins, in order to improve local control. Two main techniques to deliver IORT include high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy, termed 'intra-operative brachytherapy' (IOBT), and electrons, termed 'intra-operative electron radiotherapy' (IOERT), both having very different dose distributions. A recent paper described an improved local recurrence-free survival favoring IOBT over IOERT for patients with locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer and microscopically irradical resections. Although several factors may have contributed to this result, an important difference between the two techniques was the higher surface dose delivered by IOBT. This article described an adaptation of IOERT technique to achieve a comparable surface dose as dose delivered by IOBT. Material and methods: Two steps were taken to increase the surface dose for IOERT: 1. Introducing a bolus to achieve a maximum dose on the surface, and 2. Re-normalizing to allow for the same prescribed dose at reference depth. Conclusions: We describe and propose an adaptation of IOERT technique to increase surface dose, decreasing the differences between these two techniques, with the aim of further improving local control. In addition, an alternative method of dose prescription is suggested, to consider improved comparison with other techniques in the future.

Intraoperative Electron Beam Radiation Therapy (IOERT) Versus High-Dose-Rate Intraoperative Brachytherapy (HDR-IORT) in Patients With an R1 Resection for Locally Advanced or Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer.

PURPOSE: Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT), delivered by intraoperative electron beam radiation therapy (IOERT) or high-dose-rate intraoperative brachytherapy (HDR-IORT), may reduce the local recurrence rate in patients with locally advanced and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LARC and LRRC, respectively). The aim of this study was to compare the oncological outcomes between both IORT modalities in patients with LARC or LRRC who underwent a microscopic irradical (R1) resection. METHODS: All consecutive patients who received IORT because of an R1 resection of LARC or LRRC between 2000 and 2016 in two tertiary referral centers were included. In LARC, a resection margin of ≤2 mm was considered R1. A resection margin of 0 mm was considered R1 in LRRC. RESULTS: In total, 215 patients with LARC were included, of whom 151 (70%) received IOERT and 64 (30%) received HDR-IORT; in addition, 158 patients with LRRC were included, of whom 112 (71%) received IOERT and 46 (29%) received HDR-IORT. After multivariable analyses, the overall survival was not significantly different between the two IORT modalities. The local recurrence-free survival was significantly longer in patients treated with HDR-IORT, both in LARC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.496; 95% CI, 0.253-0.973; P = .041) and LRRC (HR, 0.567; 95% CI, 0.349-0.920; P = .021). In patients with LARC, major postoperative complications were similar for both IORT modalities (IOERT, 30%; HDR-IORT, 27%), whereas in patients with LRRC, the incidence of major postoperative complications was higher after HDR-IORT (IOERT, 26%; HDR-IORT, 46%). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed a significantly better local recurrence-free survival in favor of HDR-IORT in patients with an R1 resection for LARC or LRRC. Optimization of the IOERT technique seems warranted.

Pembrolizumab with or without radiotherapy for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: a pooled analysis of two randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy might augment systemic antitumoral responses to immunotherapy. In the PEMBRO-RT (phase 2) and MDACC (phase 1/2) trials, patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer were randomly allocated immunotherapy (pembrolizumab) with or without radiotherapy. When the trials were analysed individually, a potential benefit was noted in the combination treatment arm. However, owing to the small sample size of each trial, differences in response rates and outcomes were not statistically significant but remained clinically notable. We therefore did a pooled analysis to infer whether radiotherapy improves responses to immunotherapy in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: Inclusion criteria for the PEMBRO-RT and MDACC trials were patients (aged ≥18 years) with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer and at least one unirradiated lesion to monitor for out-of-field response. In the PEMBRO-RT trial, patients had previously received chemotherapy, whereas in the MDACC trial, patients could be either previously treated or newly diagnosed. Patients in both trials were immunotherapy-naive. In the PEMBRO-RT trial, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) and stratified by smoking status (<10 vs ≥10 pack-years). In the MDACC trial, patients were entered into one of two cohorts based on radiotherapy schedule feasibility and randomly assigned (1:1). Because of the nature of the intervention in the combination treatment arm, blinding to radiotherapy was not feasible in either trial. Pembrolizumab was administered intravenously (200 mg every 3 weeks) with or without radiotherapy in both trials. In the PEMBRO-RT trial, the first dose of pembrolizumab was given sequentially less than 1 week after the last dose of radiotherapy (24 Gy in three fractions), whereas in the MDACC trial, pembrolizumab was given concurrently with the first dose of radiotherapy (50 Gy in four fractions or 45 Gy in 15 fractions). Only unirradiated lesions were measured for response. The endpoints for this pooled analysis were best out-of-field (abscopal) response rate (ARR), best abscopal disease control rate (ACR), ARR at 12 weeks, ACR at 12 weeks, progression-free survival, and overall survival. The intention-to-treat populations from both trials were included in analyses. The PEMBRO-RT trial (NCT02492568) and the MDACC trial (NCT02444741) are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov. FINDINGS: Overall, 148 patients were included in the pooled analysis, 76 of whom had been assigned pembrolizumab and 72 who had been assigned pembrolizumab plus radiotherapy. Median follow-up for all patients was 33 months (IQR 32·4-33·6). 124 (84%) of 148 patients had non-squamous histological features and 111 (75%) had previously received chemotherapy. Baseline variables did not differ between treatment groups, including PD-L1 status and metastatic disease volume. The most frequently irradiated sites were lung metastases (28 of 72 [39%]), intrathoracic lymph nodes (15 of 72 [21%]), and lung primary disease (12 of 72 [17%]). Best ARR was 19·7% (15 of 76) with pembrolizumab versus 41·7% (30 of 72) with pembrolizumab plus radiotherapy (odds ratio [OR] 2·96, 95% CI 1·42-6·20; p=0·0039), and best ACR was 43·4% (33 of 76) with pembrolizumab versus 65·3% (47 of 72) with pembrolizumab plus radiotherapy (2·51, 1·28-4·91; p=0·0071). Median progression-free survival was 4·4 months (IQR 2·9-5·9) with pembrolizumab alone versus 9·0 months (6·8-11·2) with pembrolizumab plus radiotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0·67, 95% CI 0·45-0·99; p=0·045), and median overall survival was 8·7 months (6·4-11·0) with pembrolizumab versus 19·2 months (14·6-23·8) with pembrolizumab plus radiotherapy (0·67, 0·54-0·84; p=0·0004). No new safety concerns were noted in the pooled analysis. INTERPRETATION: Adding radiotherapy to pembrolizumab immunotherapy significantly increased responses and outcomes in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. These results warrant validation in a randomised phase 3 trial. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Phase I and Pharmacologic Study of Olaparib in Combination with High-dose Radiotherapy with and without Concurrent Cisplatin for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: To identify an MTD of olaparib, a PARP inhibitor, in combination with loco-regional radiotherapy with/without cisplatin for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Olaparib dose was escalated in two groups: radiotherapy (66 Gy/24 fractions in 2.75 Gy/fraction) with and without daily cisplatin (6 mg/m2), using time-to-event continual reassessment method with a 1-year dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) period. The highest dose level with a DLT probability <15% was defined as MTD. Poly ADP-ribose (PAR) inhibition and radiation-induced PAR-ribosylation (PARylation) were determined in peripheral blood mononuclear cells. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients with loco-regional or oligometastatic disease (39%) were treated: 11 at olaparib 25 mg twice daily and 17 at 25 mg once daily. The lowest dose level with cisplatin was above the MTD due to hematologic and late esophageal DLT. The MTD without cisplatin was olaparib 25 mg once daily. At a latency of 1-2.8 years, severe pulmonary adverse events (AE) were observed in 5 patients across all dose levels, resulting in 18% grade 5 pulmonary AEs. Exploratory analyses indicate an association with the radiation dose to the lungs. At the MTD, olaparib reduced PAR levels by more than 95% and abolished radiation-induced PARylation. Median follow-up of survivors was 4.1 years. Two-year loco-regional control was 84%, median overall survival in patients with locally advanced NSCLC was 28 months. CONCLUSIONS: Combined mildly hypofractionated radiotherapy and low-dose daily cisplatin and olaparib was not tolerable due to esophageal and hematologic toxicity. Severe pulmonary toxicity was observed as well, even without cisplatin. More conformal radiotherapy schedules with improved pulmonary and esophageal sparing should be explored.

Effect of Pembrolizumab After Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy vs Pembrolizumab Alone on Tumor Response in Patients With Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Results of the PEMBRO-RT Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Many patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving immunotherapy show primary resistance. High-dose radiotherapy can lead to increased tumor antigen release, improved antigen presentation, and T-cell infiltration. This radiotherapy may enhance the effects of checkpoint inhibition. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether stereotactic body radiotherapy on a single tumor site preceding pembrolizumab treatment enhances tumor response in patients with metastatic NSCLC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter, randomized phase 2 study (PEMBRO-RT) of 92 patients with advanced NSCLC enrolled between July 1, 2015, and March 31, 2018, regardless of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) status. Data analysis was of the intention-to-treat population. INTERVENTIONS: Pembrolizumab (200 mg/kg every 3 weeks) either alone (control arm) or after radiotherapy (3 doses of 8 Gy) (experimental arm) to a single tumor site until confirmed radiographic progression, unacceptable toxic effects, investigator decision, patient withdrawal of consent, or a maximum of 24 months. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Improvement in overall response rate (ORR) at 12 weeks from 20% in the control arm to 50% in the experimental arm with P < .10. RESULTS: Of the 92 patients enrolled, 76 were randomized to the control arm (n = 40) or the experimental arm (n = 36). Of those, the median age was 62 years (range, 35-78 years), and 44 (58%) were men. The ORR at 12 weeks was 18% in the control arm vs 36% in the experimental arm (P = .07). Median progression-free survival was 1.9 months (95% CI, 1.7-6.9 months) vs 6.6 months (95% CI, 4.0-14.6 months) (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.42-1.18; P = .19), and median overall survival was 7.6 months (95% CI, 6.0-13.9 months) vs 15.9 months (95% CI, 7.1 months to not reached) (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.37-1.18; P = .16). Subgroup analyses showed the largest benefit from the addition of radiotherapy in patients with PD-L1-negative tumors. No increase in treatment-related toxic effects was observed in the experimental arm. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Stereotactic body radiotherapy prior to pembrolizumab was well tolerated. Although a doubling of ORR was observed, the results did not meet the study's prespecified end point criteria for meaningful clinical benefit. Positive results were largely influenced by the PD-L1-negative subgroup, which had significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival. These results suggest that a larger trial is necessary to determine whether radiotherapy may activate noninflamed NSCLC toward a more inflamed tumor microenvironment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02492568.

Intrafraction Motion in Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Versus Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy.

PURPOSE: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for early-stage inoperable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients delivers high doses that require high-precision treatment. Typically, image guidance is used to minimize day-to-day target displacement, but intrafraction position variability is often not corrected. Currently, volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is replacing intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in many departments because of its shorter delivery time. This study aimed to evaluate whether intrafraction variation in VMAT patients is reduced in comparison with patients treated with IMRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: NSCLC patients (197 IMRT and 112 VMAT) treated with a frameless SBRT technique to a prescribed dose of 3 × 18 Gy were evaluated. Image guidance for both techniques was identical: pretreatment cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) (CBCTprecorr) for setup correction followed immediately before treatment by postcorrection CBCT (CBCTpostcorr) for verification. Then, after either a noncoplanar IMRT technique or a VMAT technique, a posttreatment (CBCTpostRT) scan was acquired. The CBCTpostRT and CBCTpostcorr scans were then used to evaluate intrafraction motion. Treatment delivery times, systematic (Σ) and random (σ) intrafraction variations, and associated planning target volume (PTV) margins were calculated. RESULTS: The median treatment delivery time was significantly reduced by 20 minutes (range, 32-12 minutes) using VMAT compared with noncoplanar IMRT. Intrafraction tumor motion was significantly larger for IMRT in all directions up to 0.5 mm systematic (Σ) and 0.7 mm random (σ). The required PTV margins for IMRT and VMAT differed by less than 0.3 mm. CONCLUSION: VMAT-based SBRT for NSCLC was associated with significantly shorter delivery times and correspondingly smaller intrafraction motion compared with noncoplanar IMRT. However, the impact on the required PTV margin was small.