L. Ashcroft

Randomized Phase II Study of Temozolomide Given Every 8 Hours or Daily With Either Interferon Alfa-2b or Thalidomide in Metastatic Malignant Melanoma

PURPOSE Temozolomide is an imidazotetrazine with a mechanism of action similar to dacarbazine and equivalent activity in melanoma. It is well tolerated and is a candidate for combination chemotherapy and schedule manipulation. In this study, we combined temozolomide with interferon alfa-2b and, separately, with thalidomide, and we administered temozolomide alone in a compressed schedule. The objectives of this randomized phase II, two-center study were to determine response rates, overall survival, and tolerability of the regimens in patients with advanced metastatic melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS One hundred eighty-one patients with metastatic melanoma were randomly assigned to receive up to six 4-weekly cycles consisting of temozolomide 200 mg/m2 every 8 hours for five doses, or temozolomide 200 mg/m2 daily for days 1 to 5 plus interferon alfa-2b 5 MU (million International Units) subcutaneously three times a week, or temozolomide 150 mg/m2 (increased after one cycle to 200 mg/m2) daily on days 1 to 5 plus thalidomide 100 mg daily days 1 to 28. RESULTS The treatment arms were well balanced for known prognostic factors. Median survival was 5.3 months for 8-hourly temozolomide, 7.7 months for temozolomide/interferon, and 7.3 months for temozolomide/thalidomide; and 1-year survivals were 18%, 26%, and 24%, respectively. Response or disease stabilization occurred in 20% of patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 10% to 33%) given 8-hourly temozolomide, 21% (95% CI, 12% to 33%) given temozolomide/interferon, and 25% (95% CI, 15% to 38%) given temozolomide/thalidomide. Grade 3 or 4 nonhematologic toxicities were similar in each arm except for infection, which was more frequent with 8-hourly temozolomide. There were fewer instances of grade 3 or 4 myelotoxicity with temozolomide/thalidomide. CONCLUSION Of the three regimens tested, the combination of temozolomide and thalidomide seems the most promising for future study.

Concurrent once-daily versus twice-daily chemoradiotherapy in patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (CONVERT): An open-label, phase 3, randomised, superiority trial

Summary Background Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is the standard of care in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, but the optimal radiotherapy schedule and dose remains controversial. The aim of this study was to establish a standard chemoradiotherapy treatment regimen in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer. Methods The CONVERT trial was an open-label, phase 3, randomised superiority trial. We enrolled adult patients (aged ≥18 years) who had cytologically or histologically confirmed limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, and adequate pulmonary function. Patients were recruited from 73 centres in eight countries. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 45 Gy radiotherapy in 30 twice-daily fractions of 1·5 Gy over 19 days, or 66 Gy in 33 once-daily fractions of 2 Gy over 45 days, starting on day 22 after commencing cisplatin–etoposide chemotherapy (given as four to six cycles every 3 weeks in both groups). The allocation method used was minimisation with a random element, stratified by institution, planned number of chemotherapy cycles, and performance status. Treatment group assignments were not masked. The primary endpoint was overall survival, defined as time from randomisation until death from any cause, analysed by modified intention-to-treat. A 12% higher overall survival at 2 years in the once-daily group versus the twice-daily group was considered to be clinically significant to show superiority of the once-daily regimen. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00433563) and is currently in follow-up. Findings Between April 7, 2008, and Nov 29, 2013, 547 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive twice-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy (274 patients) or once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy (273 patients). Four patients (one in the twice-daily group and three in the once-daily group) did not return their case report forms and were lost to follow-up; these patients were not included in our analyses. At a median follow-up of 45 months (IQR 35–58), median overall survival was 30 months (95% CI 24–34) in the twice-daily group versus 25 months (21–31) in the once-daily group (hazard ratio for death in the once daily group 1·18 [95% CI 0·95–1·45]; p=0·14). 2-year overall survival was 56% (95% CI 50–62) in the twice-daily group and 51% (45–57) in the once-daily group (absolute difference between the treatment groups 5·3% [95% CI −3·2% to 13·7%]). The most common grade 3–4 adverse event in patients evaluated for chemotherapy toxicity was neutropenia (197 [74%] of 266 patients in the twice-daily group vs 170 [65%] of 263 in the once-daily group). Most toxicities were similar between the groups, except there was significantly more grade 4 neutropenia with twice-daily radiotherapy (129 [49%] vs 101 [38%]; p=0·05). In patients assessed for radiotherapy toxicity, was no difference in grade 3–4 oesophagitis between the groups (47 [19%] of 254 patients in the twice-daily group vs 47 [19%] of 246 in the once-daily group; p=0·85) and grade 3–4 radiation pneumonitis (4 [3%] of 254 vs 4 [2%] of 246; p=0·70). 11 patients died from treatment-related causes (three in the twice-daily group and eight in the once-daily group). Interpretation Survival outcomes did not differ between twice-daily and once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, and toxicity was similar and lower than expected with both regimens. Since the trial was designed to show superiority of once-daily radiotherapy and was not powered to show equivalence, the implication is that twice-daily radiotherapy should continue to be considered the standard of care in this setting. Funding Cancer Research UK (Clinical Trials Awards and Advisory Committee), French Ministry of Health, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (Cancer Research Fund, Lung Cancer, and Radiation Oncology Groups).

Protocol for the CONVERT trial—Concurrent ONce-daily VErsus twice-daily RadioTherapy: an international 2-arm randomised controlled trial of concurrent chemoradiotherapy comparing twice-daily and once-daily radiotherapy schedules in patients with limited stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC) and good performance status

Introduction Concurrent ONce-daily VErsus twice-daily RadioTherapy (CONVERT) is the only multicentre, international, randomised, phase III trial open in Europe and Canada looking at optimisation of chemoradiotherapy (RT) in limited stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC). Following on from the Turrisi trial of once-daily versus twice-daily (BD) concurrent chemoradiotherapy, there is a real need for a new phase III trial using modern conformal RT techniques and investigating higher once-daily radiation dose. This trial has the potential to define a new standard chemo-RT regimen for patients with LS-SCLC and good performance status. Methods and analysis 447 patients with histologically or cytologically proven diagnosis of SCLC were recruited from 74 centres in eight countries between 2008 and 2013. Patients were randomised to receive either concurrent twice-daily RT(45 Gy in 30 twice-daily fractions over 3 weeks) or concurrent once-daily RT(66 Gy in 33 once-daily fractions over 6.5 weeks) both starting on day 22 of cycle 1. Patients are followed up until death. The primary end point of the study is overall survival and secondary end points include local progression-free survival, metastasis-free survival, acute and late toxicity based on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events V.3.0, chemotherapy and RTdose intensity. Ethics and dissemination The trial received ethical approval from NRES Committee North West—Greater Manchester Central (07/H1008/229). There is a trial steering committee, including independent members and an independent data monitoring committee. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at international conferences. Trial registration number ISRCTN91927162; Pre-results.

Protocol for the isotoxic intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a feasibility study

Introduction The majority of stage III patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are unsuitable for concurrent chemoradiotherapy, the non-surgical gold standard of care. As the alternative treatment options of sequential chemoradiotherapy and radiotherapy alone are associated with high local failure rates, various intensification strategies have been employed. There is evidence to suggest that altered fractionation using hyperfractionation, acceleration, dose escalation, and individualisation may be of benefit. The MAASTRO group have pioneered the concept of ‘isotoxic’ radiotherapy allowing for individualised dose escalation using hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy based on predefined normal tissue constraints. This study aims to evaluate whether delivering isotoxic radiotherapy using intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is achievable. Methods and analysis Isotoxic IMRT is a multicentre feasibility study. From June 2014, a total of 35 patients from 7 UK centres, with a proven histological or cytological diagnosis of inoperable NSCLC, unsuitable for concurrent chemoradiotherapy will be recruited. A minimum of 2 cycles of induction chemotherapy is mandated before starting isotoxic radiotherapy. The dose of radiation will be increased until one or more of the organs at risk tolerance or the maximum dose of 79.2 Gy is reached. The primary end point is feasibility, with accrual rates, local control and overall survival our secondary end points. Patients will be followed up for 5 years. Ethics and dissemination The study has received ethical approval (REC reference: 13/NW/0480) from the National Research Ethics Service (NRES) Committee North West—Greater Manchester South. The trial is conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice (GCP). The trial results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented internationally. Trial registration number NCT01836692; Pre-results.

Circulating Tumor Cell Enumeration in a Phase II Trial of a Four-Drug Regimen in Advanced Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND Multidrug regimens are active against advanced colorectal cancer (ACRC). However, the increased toxicity requires the use of biomarkers to select the patients who will derive the most benefit. We assessed circulating tumor cells (CTCs) as a prognostic biomarker in patients treated with a 4-drug regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS A single-arm phase II trial (Erbitux Study of CPT11, Oxaliplatin, UFToral Targeted-therapy [eSCOUT]) was undertaken in patients with previously untreated KRAS wild-type ACRC using a regimen of irinotecan, oxaliplatin, and tegafur-uracil with leucovorin and cetuximab. Baseline CTCs were enumerated using CellSearch. The endpoints were an objective response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS). We modeled our results and compared them with those modeled for the capecitabine, oxaliplatin, bevacizumab +/- cetuximab (CAIRO2) trial, stratifying patients a priori into low (< 3) and high (≥ 3) CTC groups. RESULTS For 48 eligible patients, the best ORR from the 4-drug regimen was 71%, with a disease control rate of 98%. The median OS for patients with a high and low CTC count was 18.7 and 22.3 months (log-rank test, P = .038), respectively. In our modeled data, for patients with a low CTC count, no differences were found between the median OS in the eSCOUT trial and that in the CAIRO2 trial (22.2 vs. 22.0 months). However, for the high CTC group, a clinically relevant improvement was seen in median OS (eSCOUT vs. CAIRO2, 18.7 vs. 13.7 months; P = .001). CONCLUSION These data are hypothesis generating-for patients with ACRC, stratification by CTC count can identify those who might benefit the most from an intensive 4-drug regimen, avoiding high-toxicity regimens in low CTC groups. This hypothesis warrants validation in a phase III biomarker-driven trial.

PO-0663: Lung V5 does not predict for lung toxicity after fixed-beam intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for lung cancer

Results: Seventy-one consecutive patients were prospectively included in the study. Baseline patient, tumour and treatment characteristics are presented in Table 1. Preliminary analysis of the first 34 patients with baseline SPECT/CT scans showed no association with radiation pneumonitis for conventional MLD, whereas there was an association with symptomatic radiation pneumonitis for MLD to FL 40%. MLDf was larger than MLDc in 13 out of 34 patients with a difference of around 5 Gy. All 13 patients developed symptomatic RP. Analysis of functional DVH parameters for the whole patient cohort is underway.