Andy Trotti

CTCAE v3.0: development of a comprehensive grading system for the adverse effects of cancer treatment ☆

Multiple systems have been developed for grading the adverse effects (AEs) of cancer treatment. The National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC) system has substantially evolved since its inception in 1983. The most recent version, CTCAE v3.0 (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0) represents the first comprehensive, multimodality grading system for reporting the acute and late effects of cancer treatment. The new CTC requires changes in the application of AE criteria including new guidelines regarding late effects, surgical and pediatric effects, multimodality issues, and for reporting the duration of an effect. It builds on the strengths of previous systems, represents a considerable effort among hundreds of participants, and signifies an international collaboration and consensus of the oncology research community. This article updates recent progress in the evolution of adverse effects grading systems and reviews the development of CTCAE v3.0.

A radiation therapy oncology group (RTOG) phase III randomized study to compare hyperfractionation and two variants of accelerated fractionation to standard fractionation radiotherapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinomas: first report of RTOG 9003

Abstract Purpose: The optimal fractionation schedule for radiotherapy of head and neck cancer has been controversial. The objective of this randomized trial was to test the efficacy of hyperfractionation and two types of accelerated fractionation individually against standard fractionation. Methods and Materials: Patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer were randomly assigned to receive radiotherapy delivered with: 1) standard fractionation at 2 Gy/fraction/day, 5 days/week, to 70 Gy/35 fractions/7 weeks; 2) hyperfractionation at 1.2 Gy/fraction, twice daily, 5 days/week to 81.6 Gy/68 fractions/7 weeks; 3) accelerated fractionation with split at 1.6 Gy/fraction, twice daily, 5 days/week, to 67.2 Gy/42 fractions/6 weeks including a 2-week rest after 38.4 Gy; or 4) accelerated fractionation with concomitant boost at 1.8 Gy/fraction/day, 5 days/week and 1.5 Gy/fraction/day to a boost field as a second daily treatment for the last 12 treatment days to 72 Gy/42 fractions/6 weeks. Of the 1113 patients entered, 1073 patients were analyzable for outcome. The median follow-up was 23 months for all analyzable patients and 41.2 months for patients alive. Results: Patients treated with hyperfractionation and accelerated fractionation with concomitant boost had significantly better local-regional control ( p = 0.045 and p = 0.050 respectively) than those treated with standard fractionation. There was also a trend toward improved disease-free survival ( p = 0.067 and p = 0.054 respectively) although the difference in overall survival was not significant. Patients treated with accelerated fractionation with split had similar outcome to those treated with standard fractionation. All three altered fractionation groups had significantly greater acute side effects compared to standard fractionation. However, there was no significant increase of late effects. Conclusions: Hyperfractionation and accelerated fractionation with concomitant boost are more efficacious than standard fractionation for locally advanced head and neck cancer. Acute but not late effects are also increased.

Common toxicity criteria: version 2.0. an improved reference for grading the acute effects of cancer treatment: impact on radiotherapy

In 1997, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) led an effort to revise and expand the Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC) with the goal of integrating systemic agent, radiation, and surgical criteria into a comprehensive and standardized system. Representatives from the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) participated in this process in an effort to improve acute radiation related criteria and to achieve better clarity and consistency among modalities. CTC v. 2.0 replaces the previous NCI CTC and the RTOG Acute Radiation Morbidity Scoring Criteria and includes more than 260 individual adverse events with more than 100 of these applicable to acute radiation effects. One of the advantages of the revised criteria for radiation oncology is the opportunity to grade acute radiation effects not adequately captured under the previous RTOG system. A pilot study conducted by the RTOG indicated the new criteria are indeed more comprehensive and were preferred by research associates. CTC v. 2.0 represents an improvement in the evaluation and grading of acute toxicity for all modalities.

Mucositis incidence, severity and associated outcomes in patients with head and neck cancer receiving radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy: a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE To determine the frequency of mucositis and associated outcomes in patients receiving radiotherapy (RT) for head and neck cancer through a systematic review of recently published literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS According to the study protocol, databases were searched for randomized clinical trials (English only, 1996-1999) of patients with head and neck cancer receiving RT with or without chemotherapy that reported one or more outcomes of interest. RESULTS Thirty-three studies (n=6181 patients) met inclusion criteria. Mucositis was defined using a variety of scoring systems. The mean incidence was 80%. Over one-half of patients (56%) who received altered fractionation RT (RT-AF) experienced severe mucositis (grades 3-4) compared to 34% of patients who received conventional RT. Rates of hospitalization due to mucositis, reported in three studies (n=700), were 16% overall and 32% for RT-AF patients. Eleven percent of patients had RT regimens interrupted or modified because of mucositis in five studies (n=1267) reporting this outcome. Data insufficiency or heterogeneity prohibited analysis of mucositis severity and other associated outcomes, such as oral pain, dysphagia and opioid use. CONCLUSIONS Mucositis is a frequent, severe toxicity in patients treated with RT for head and neck cancer. While it appears that mucositis may lead to hospitalization and treatment interruptions, its overall impact on outcomes has not been adequately investigated.

Long-Term Results of RTOG 91-11: A Comparison of Three Nonsurgical Treatment Strategies to Preserve the Larynx in Patients With Locally Advanced Larynx Cancer

PURPOSE To report the long-term results of the Intergroup Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 91-11 study evaluating the contribution of chemotherapy added to radiation therapy (RT) for larynx preservation. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with stage III or IV glottic or supraglottic squamous cell cancer were randomly assigned to induction cisplatin/fluorouracil (PF) followed by RT (control arm), concomitant cisplatin/RT, or RT alone. The composite end point of laryngectomy-free survival (LFS) was the primary end point. RESULTS Five hundred twenty patients were analyzed. Median follow-up for surviving patients is 10.8 years. Both chemotherapy regimens significantly improved LFS compared with RT alone (induction chemotherapy v RT alone: hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.95; P = .02; concomitant chemotherapy v RT alone: HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.98; P = .03). Overall survival did not differ significantly, although there was a possibility of worse outcome with concomitant relative to induction chemotherapy (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.61; P = .08). Concomitant cisplatin/RT significantly improved the larynx preservation rate over induction PF followed by RT (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.89; P = .0050) and over RT alone (P < .001), whereas induction PF followed by RT was not better than treatment with RT alone (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.82; P = .35). No difference in late effects was detected, but deaths not attributed to larynx cancer or treatment were higher with concomitant chemotherapy (30.8% v 20.8% with induction chemotherapy and 16.9% with RT alone). CONCLUSION These 10-year results show that induction PF followed by RT and concomitant cisplatin/RT show similar efficacy for the composite end point of LFS. Locoregional control and larynx preservation were significantly improved with concomitant cisplatin/RT compared with the induction arm or RT alone. New strategies that improve organ preservation and function with less morbidity are needed.

RANDOMIZED TRIAL ADDRESSING RISK FEATURES AND TIME FACTORS OF SURGERY PLUS RADIOTHERAPY IN ADVANCED HEAD-AND-NECK CANCER

Abstract Purpose: A multi-institutional, prospective, randomized trial was undertaken in patients with advanced head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma to address ( 1 ) the validity of using pathologic risk features, established from a previous study, to determine the need for, and dose of, postoperative radiotherapy (PORT); ( 2 ) the impact of accelerating PORT using a concomitant boost schedule; and ( 3 ) the importance of the overall combined treatment duration on the treatment outcome. Methods and Materials: Of 288 consecutive patients with advanced disease registered preoperatively, 213 fulfilled the trial criteria and went on to receive therapy predicated on a set of pathologic risk features: no PORT for the low-risk group ( n = 31); 57.6 Gy during 6.5 weeks for the intermediate-risk group ( n = 31); and, by random assignment, 63 Gy during 5 weeks ( n = 76) or 7 weeks ( n = 75) for the high-risk group. Patients were irradiated with standard techniques appropriate to the site of disease and likely areas of spread. The study end points were locoregional control (LRC), survival, and morbidity. Results: Patients with low or intermediate risks had significantly higher LRC and survival rates than those with high-risk features ( p = 0.003 and p = 0.0001, respectively), despite receiving no PORT or lower dose PORT, respectively. For high-risk patients, a trend toward higher LRC and survival rates was noted when PORT was delivered in 5 rather than 7 weeks. A prolonged interval between surgery and PORT in the 7-week schedule was associated with significantly lower LRC ( p = 0.03) and survival ( p = 0.01) rates. Consequently, the cumulative duration of combined therapy had a significant impact on the LRC ( p = 0.005) and survival ( p = 0.03) rates. A 2-week reduction in the PORT duration by using the concomitant boost technique did not increase the late treatment toxicity. Conclusions: This Phase III trial established the power of risk assessment using pathologic features in determining the need for, and dose of, PORT in patients with advanced head-and-neck squamous cell cancer in a prospective, multi-institutional setting. It also revealed the impact of the overall treatment time in the combination of surgery and PORT on the outcome in high-risk patients and showed that PORT acceleration without a reduction in dose by a concomitant boost regimen did not increase the late complication rate. These findings emphasize the importance of coordinated interdisciplinary care in the delivery of combined surgery and RT.

Critical Impact of Radiotherapy Protocol Compliance and Quality in the Treatment of Advanced Head and Neck Cancer: Results From TROG 02.02

PURPOSE To report the impact of radiotherapy quality on outcome in a large international phase III trial evaluating radiotherapy with concurrent cisplatin plus tirapazamine for advanced head and neck cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS The protocol required interventional review of radiotherapy plans by the Quality Assurance Review Center (QARC). All plans and radiotherapy documentation underwent post-treatment review by the Trial Management Committee (TMC) for protocol compliance. Secondary review of noncompliant plans for predicted impact on tumor control was performed. Factors associated with poor protocol compliance were studied, and outcome data were analyzed in relation to protocol compliance and radiotherapy quality. RESULTS At TMC review, 25.4% of the patients had noncompliant plans but none in which QARC-recommended changes had been made. At secondary review, 47% of noncompliant plans (12% overall) had deficiencies with a predicted major adverse impact on tumor control. Major deficiencies were unrelated to tumor subsite or to T or N stage (if N+), but were highly correlated with number of patients enrolled at the treatment center (< five patients, 29.8%; > or = 20 patients, 5.4%; P < .001). In patients who received at least 60 Gy, those with major deficiencies in their treatment plans (n = 87) had a markedly inferior outcome compared with those whose treatment was initially protocol compliant (n = 502): -2 years overall survival, 50% v 70%; hazard ratio (HR), 1.99; P < .001; and 2 years freedom from locoregional failure, 54% v 78%; HR, 2.37; P < .001, respectively. CONCLUSION These results demonstrate the critical importance of radiotherapy quality on outcome of chemoradiotherapy in head and neck cancer. Centers treating only a few patients are the major source of quality problems.

Head and Neck Cancers

Recent evidence suggests that dysregulated translation and its control significantly contribute to the etiology and pathogenesis of the head and neck cancers, specifically to that of squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). eIF4E is one of the most studied components of the translation machinery implicated in the development and progression of HNSCC. It appears that dysregulation of eIF4E levels and activity, namely by the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway, plays an important role in the etiology and pathogenesis of HNSCC and correlates with clinical outcomes. In this chapter, we will discuss the role of eIF4E and some other translation factors as they relate to the biology and treatment of HNSCC.

Randomized Phase III Trial of Concurrent Accelerated Radiation Plus Cisplatin With or Without Cetuximab for Stage III to IV Head and Neck Carcinoma: RTOG 0522

PURPOSE Combining cisplatin or cetuximab with radiation improves overall survival (OS) of patients with stage III or IV head and neck carcinoma (HNC). Cetuximab plus platinum regimens also increase OS in metastatic HNC. The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group launched a phase III trial to test the hypothesis that adding cetuximab to the radiation-cisplatin platform improves progression-free survival (PFS). PATIENTS AND METHODS Eligible patients with stage III or IV HNC were randomly assigned to receive radiation and cisplatin without (arm A) or with (arm B) cetuximab. Acute and late reactions were scored using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 3). Outcomes were correlated with patient and tumor features and markers. RESULTS Of 891 analyzed patients, 630 were alive at analysis (median follow-up, 3.8 years). Cetuximab plus cisplatin-radiation, versus cisplatin-radiation alone, resulted in more frequent interruptions in radiation therapy (26.9% v. 15.1%, respectively); similar cisplatin delivery (mean, 185.7 mg/m2 v. 191.1 mg/m2, respectively); and more grade 3 to 4 radiation mucositis (43.2% v. 33.3%, respectively), rash, fatigue, anorexia, and hypokalemia, but not more late toxicity. No differences were found between arms A and B in 30-day mortality (1.8% v. 2.0%, respectively; P = .81), 3-year PFS (61.2% v. 58.9%, respectively; P = .76), 3-year OS (72.9% v. 75.8%, respectively; P = .32), locoregional failure (19.9% v. 25.9%, respectively; P = .97), or distant metastasis (13.0% v. 9.7%, respectively; P = .08). Patients with p16-positive oropharyngeal carcinoma (OPC), compared with patients with p16-negative OPC, had better 3-year probability of PFS (72.8% v. 49.2%, respectively; P < .001) and OS (85.6% v. 60.1%, respectively; P < .001), but tumor epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expression did not distinguish outcome. CONCLUSION Adding cetuximab to radiation-cisplatin did not improve outcome and hence should not be prescribed routinely. PFS and OS were higher in patients with p16-positive OPC, but outcomes did not differ by EGFR expression.

Tobacco Smoking and Increased Risk of Death and Progression for Patients With p16-Positive and p16-Negative Oropharyngeal Cancer

PURPOSE Tobacco smoking is associated with oropharynx cancer survival, but to what extent cancer progression or death increases with increasing tobacco exposure is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with oropharynx cancer enrolled onto a phase III trial of radiotherapy from 1991 to 1997 (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group [RTOG] 9003) or of chemoradiotherapy from 2002 to 2005 (RTOG 0129) were evaluated for tumor human papillomavirus status by a surrogate, p16 immunohistochemistry, and for tobacco exposure by a standardized questionnaire. Associations between tobacco exposure and overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated by Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS Prevalence of p16-positive cancer was 39.5% among patients in RTOG 9003 and 68.0% in RTOG 0129. Median pack-years of tobacco smoking were lower among p16-positive than p16-negative patients in both trials (RTOG 9003: 29 v 45.9 pack-years; P = .02; RTOG 0129: 10 v 40 pack-years; P < .001). After adjustment for p16 and other factors, risk of progression (PFS) or death (OS) increased by 1% per pack-year (for both, hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.01; P = .002) or 2% per year of smoking (for both, HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.03; P < .001) in both trials. In RTOG 9003, risk of death doubled (HR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.46 to 3.28) among those who smoked during radiotherapy after accounting for pack-years and other factors, and risk of second primary tumors increased by 1.5% per pack-year (HR, 1.015; 95% CI, 1.005 to 1.026). CONCLUSION Risk of oropharyngeal cancer progression and death increases directly as a function of tobacco exposure at diagnosis and during therapy and is independent of tumor p16 status and treatment.