Jondavid Pollock

Effect of the Addition of Cetuximab to Paclitaxel, Cisplatin, and Radiation Therapy for Patients With Esophageal Cancer: The NRG Oncology RTOG 0436 Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance The role of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibition in chemoradiation strategies in the nonoperative treatment of patients with esophageal cancer remains uncertain. Objective To evaluate the benefit of cetuximab added to concurrent chemoradiation therapy for patients undergoing nonoperative treatment of esophageal carcinoma. Design, Setting, and Participants A National Cancer Institute (NCI) sponsored, multicenter, phase 3, randomized clinical trial open to patients with biopsy-proven carcinoma of the esophagus. The study accrued 344 patients from 2008 to 2013. Interventions Patients were randomized to weekly concurrent cisplatin (50 mg/m2), paclitaxel (25 mg/m2), and daily radiation of 50.4 Gy/1.8 Gy fractions with or without weekly cetuximab (400 mg/m2 on day 1 then 250 mg/m2 weekly). Main Outcomes and Measures Overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint, with a study designed to detect an increase in 2-year OS from 41% to 53%; 80% power and 1-sided &agr; = .025. Results Between June 30, 2008, and February 8, 2013, 344 patients were enrolled. This analysis used all data received at NRG Oncology through April 12, 2015. Sixteen patients were ineligible, resulting in 328 evaluable patients, 159 in the experimental arm and 169 in the control arm. Patients were well matched between the treatment arms for patient and tumor characteristics: 263 (80%) with T3 or T4 disease, 215 (66%) N1, and 62 (19%) with celiac nodal involvement. Incidence of grade 3, 4, or 5 treatment-related adverse events at any time was 71 (46%), 35 (23%), or 6 (4%) in the experimental arm and 83 (50%), 28 (17%), or 2 (1%) in the control arm, respectively. A clinical complete response (cCR) rate of 81 (56%) was observed in the experimental arm vs 92 (58%) in the control arm (Fisher exact test, P = .66). No differences were seen in cCR between treatment arms for either histology (adenocarcinoma or squamous cell). Median follow-up for all patients was 18.6 months. The 24- and 36-month local failure for the experimental arm was 47% (95% CI, 38%-57%) and 49% (95% CI, 40%-59%) vs 49% (95% CI, 41%-58%) and 49% (95% CI, 41%-58%) for the control arm (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.66-1.28; P = .65). The 24- and 36-month OS rates for the experimental arm were 45% (95% CI, 37%-53%) and 34% (95% CI, 26%-41%) vs 44% (95% CI, 36%-51%) and 28% (95% CI, 21%-35%) for the control arm (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.70-1.16; P = .47). Conclusions and Relevance The addition of cetuximab to concurrent chemoradiation did not improve OS. These phase 3 trial results point to little benefit to current EGFR-targeted agents in an unselected patient population, and highlight the need for predictive biomarkers in the treatment of esophageal cancer. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00655876

Efficacy endpoints of radiation therapy group protocol 0247: A randomized, phase 2 study of neoadjuvant radiation therapy plus concurrent capecitabine and irinotecan or capecitabine and oxaliplatin for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer

PURPOSE To report secondary efficacy endpoints of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group protocol 0247, primary endpoint analysis of which demonstrated that preoperative radiation therapy (RT) with capecitabine plus oxaliplatin achieved a pathologic complete remission prespecified threshold (21%) to merit further study, whereas RT with capecitabine plus irinotecan did not (10%). METHODS AND MATERIALS A randomized, phase 2 trial evaluated preoperative RT (50.4 Gy in 1.8-Gy fractions) with 2 concurrent chemotherapy regimens: (1) capecitabine (1200 mg/m(2)/d Monday-Friday) plus irinotecan (50 mg/m(2)/wk × 4); and (2) capecitabine (1650 mg/m(2)/d Monday-Friday) plus oxaliplatin (50 mg/m(2)/wk × 5) for clinical T3 or T4 rectal cancer. Surgery was performed 4 to 8 weeks after chemoradiation, then 4 to 6 weeks later, adjuvant chemotherapy (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2); leucovorin 400 mg/m(2); 5-fluorouracil 400 mg/m(2); 5-fluorouracil 2400 mg/m(2)) every 2 weeks × 9. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated univariately by the Kaplan-Meier method. Local-regional failure (LRF), distant failure (DF), and second primary failure (SP) were estimated by the cumulative incidence method. No statistical comparisons were made between arms because each was evaluated individually. RESULTS A total of 104 patients (median age, 57 years) were treated; characteristics were similar for both arms. Median follow-up for RT with capecitabine/irinotecan arm was 3.77 years and for RT with capecitabine/oxaliplatin arm was 3.97 years. Four-year DFS, OS, LRF, DF, and SP estimates for capecitabine/irinotecan arm were 68%, 85%, 16%, 24%, and 2%, respectively. The 4-year DFS, OS, LRF, DF, and SP failure estimates for capecitabine/oxaliplatin arm were 62%, 75%, 18%, 30%, and 6%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Efficacy results for both arms are similar to other reported studies but suggest that pathologic complete remission is an unsuitable surrogate for traditional survival metrics of clinical outcome. Although it remains uncertain whether the addition of a second cytotoxic agent enhances the effectiveness of fluorouracil plus RT, these results suggest that further study of irinotecan may be warranted.

Accelerated partial breast irradiation using a strut-based brachytherapy device: A multi-institutional initial report on acute and late toxicity with greater than 24-month follow-up.

149 Background: Accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) is commonly used in early-stage breast cancer. The SAVI Collaborative Research Group is a multi-institutional group created to study outcomes in patients who received APBI utilizing strut-based brachytherapy. This analysis reports the acute and late toxicities for patients with greater than 2-year follow-up (F/U) from this study. METHODS 904 APBI patients (ductal carcinoma in situ [n=267] or invasive breast cancer [n=637]), received HDR brachytherapy (34 Gy in 10 fractions) using the SAVI device (Cianna Medical). Patients with dosimetry and documented follow-up were evaluated within 6 weeks of treatment for early adverse events (AEs), and at 1 year, 2 years, and beyond for late AEs. Dosimetric parameters were evaluated with respect to toxicity and will be presented. RESULTS In 212 patients (median age 62.9 years, range 40-88) all with follow-up greater than 24 months, the median tumor size was 12mm. As of last follow-up (>24 months) cumulative rates of erythema and hyperpigmentation of grade 2 or higher were 1.4% and 0.5%. The incidence of grade 2 or higher telangiectasia, seroma and fat necrosis were 2.8%, 2.8%, and 0.5% respectively. CONCLUSIONS Adverse events for APBI with SAVI are low in incidence, low in grade and compare favorably to other HDR APBI methods.