Long-course preoperative chemoradiation versus 5 × 5 Gy and consolidation chemotherapy for clinical T4 and fixed clinical T3 rectal cancer: long-term results of the randomized Polish II study.

BACKGROUND: This trial evaluated whether preoperative short-course radiotherapy and consolidation chemotherapy (CCT) were superior to chemoradiation in rectal cancers with clinical (c)T4 or fixed cT3. Previously, we reported early results showing no differences in the radical surgery rate (primary end point). In the short-course/CCT group, we observed lower acute toxicity of preoperative treatment and better overall survival (OS). We updated results to determine whether the benefit in OS was sustained and to evaluate late complications. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with cT4 or fixed cT3 rectal cancer were randomized either to preoperative 5 × 5 Gy and three cycles of FOLFOX4 or to chemoradiation (50.4 Gy with bolus 5-Fu, leucovorin and oxaliplatin). RESULTS: Patients (N = 515) were eligible for analysis, 261 in the short-course/CCT group and 254 in the chemoradiation group. The median follow-up was 7.0 years. The difference in OS was insignificant [hazard ratio (HR) 0.90; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-1.15; P = 0.38). However, the difference in early OS favouring short-course/CCT previously reported was observed again, being 9% at 3 years (95% CI 0.5% to 17%). This difference disappeared later; at 8 years OS was 49% in both groups. There was no difference in disease-free survival (HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.75-1.19; P = 0.65) at 8 years 43% versus 41% in the short-course/CCT group versus the chemoradiation group, respectively. The corresponding values for cumulative incidences of local failure and distant metastases did not differ and were HR = 1.08, 95% CI 0.70-1.23, P = 0.60, 35% versus 32% and HR = 1.10, 95% CI 0.68-1.23, P = 0.54, 36% versus 34%, respectively. The rate of late complications was similar (P = 0.66), grade 3+ being 11% versus 9% in the short-course/CCT group versus the chemoradiation group, respectively. CONCLUSION: The superiority of preoperative short-course/CCT over chemoradiation was not demonstrated. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: The trial is registered as ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00833131.

Clinical target volume in postoperative radiotherapy for gastric cancer: identification of major difficulties and controversies

Purpose: To identify the main difficulties in postoperative clinical target volume (CTV) delineation in gastric cancer (GC). Methods: Before and after a training course, 20 radiation oncology residents were asked to delineate the CTV for the postoperative GC case on four computed tomography scans: dome of the diaphragm, anterior abdominal wall, duodenal stump and porta hepatis level, and to determine the lower CTV border. CTV volume was reconstructed from requested planar contours. Area of intersection (AI) for each requested scan and volume of intersection (VI), defined as the overlap of delineated area/volume with respective reference area (RA)/reference volume (RV) proposed by the senior radiation oncologist, were computed. The degree of agreement between the reference and participants’ contours was quantified using the Concordance Index (CI): AI/RA 9 100 % or VI/RV 9 100 %. The lower CTV border was analyzed separately. Pre- and post-training CIs were compared. A questionnaire investigated the difficulties with contouring. Results: Mean CI value was the lowest for the dome of the diaphragm (24 % pre-training, 35 % post-training) and for the duodenal stump (49 % pre-training, 61 % post-training). Mean CI for the CTV volume was 49 % pre-training and 59 % post-training, p = 0.39. Mean distance from the reference to the participants’ lower CTV borders was 2.73 cm pre-training and 2.0 cm post-training, p = 0.71. In a questionnaire, 75 % of respondents indicated the elective nodal area as the main difficulty. Conclusions: Delineation of the dome of the diaphragm and the duodenal stump, as yet not recognized as the source of variation, should be addressed in the international consensus guidelines and clarified (AU)

No disponible

Clinical target volume in postoperative radiotherapy for gastric cancer: identification of major difficulties and controversies.

PURPOSE: To identify the main difficulties in postoperative clinical target volume (CTV) delineation in gastric cancer (GC). METHODS: Before and after a training course, 20 radiation oncology residents were asked to delineate the CTV for the postoperative GC case on four computed tomography scans: dome of the diaphragm, anterior abdominal wall, duodenal stump and porta hepatis level, and to determine the lower CTV border. CTV volume was reconstructed from requested planar contours. Area of intersection (AI) for each requested scan and volume of intersection (VI), defined as the overlap of delineated area/volume with respective reference area (RA)/reference volume (RV) proposed by the senior radiation oncologist, were computed. The degree of agreement between the reference and participants' contours was quantified using the Concordance Index (CI): AI/RA × 100% or VI/RV × 100%. The lower CTV border was analyzed separately. Pre- and post-training CIs were compared. A questionnaire investigated the difficulties with contouring. RESULTS: Mean CI value was the lowest for the dome of the diaphragm (24% pre-training, 35 % post-training) and for the duodenal stump (49% pre-training, 61% post-training). Mean CI for the CTV volume was 49% pre-training and 59% post-training, p = 0.39. Mean distance from the reference to the participants' lower CTV borders was 2.73 cm pre-training and 2.0 cm post-training, p = 0.71. In a questionnaire, 75% of respondents indicated the elective nodal area as the main difficulty. CONCLUSIONS: Delineation of the dome of the diaphragm and the duodenal stump, as yet not recognized as the source of variation, should be addressed in the international consensus guidelines and clarified.

Tecemotide in unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer in the phase III START study: updated overall survival and biomarker analyses.

BACKGROUND: Tecemotide is a MUC1-antigen-specific cancer immunotherapy. The phase III START study did not meet its primary end point but reported notable survival benefit with tecemotide versus placebo in an exploratory analysis of the predefined patient subgroup treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Here, we attempted to gain further insight into the effects of tecemotide in START. PATIENTS AND METHODS: START recruited patients who did not progress following frontline chemoradiotherapy for unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. We present updated overall survival (OS) data and exploratory analyses of OS for baseline biomarkers: soluble MUC1 (sMUC1), antinuclear antibodies (ANA), neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR), lymphocyte count, and HLA type. RESULTS: Updated OS data are consistent with the primary analysis: median 25.8 months (tecemotide) versus 22.4 months (placebo) (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77-1.03, P = 0.111), with ∼20 months additional median follow-up time compared with the primary analysis. Exploratory analysis of the predefined subgroup treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy revealed clinically relevant prolonged OS with tecemotide versus placebo (29.4 versus 20.8 months; HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68-0.98, P = 0.026). No improvement was seen with sequential chemoradiotherapy. High sMUC1 and ANA correlated with a possible survival benefit with tecemotide (interaction P = 0.0085 and 0.0022) and might have future value as biomarkers. Interactions between lymphocyte count, NLR, or prespecified HLA alleles and treatment effect were not observed. CONCLUSION: Updated OS data support potential treatment benefit with tecemotide in patients treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Exploratory biomarker analyses suggest that elevated sMUC1 or ANA levels correlate with tecemotide benefit. CLINICALTRIALSGOV NUMBER: NCT00409188.