Richard L. Deming

Effect of Radiosurgery Alone vs Radiosurgery With Whole Brain Radiation Therapy on Cognitive Function in Patients With 1 to 3 Brain Metastases: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE Whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) significantly improves tumor control in the brain after stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), yet because of its association with cognitive decline, its role in the treatment of patients with brain metastases remains controversial. OBJECTIVE To determine whether there is less cognitive deterioration at 3 months after SRS alone vs SRS plus WBRT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS At 34 institutions in North America, patients with 1 to 3 brain metastases were randomized to receive SRS or SRS plus WBRT between February 2002 and December 2013. INTERVENTIONS The WBRT dose schedule was 30 Gy in 12 fractions; the SRS dose was 18 to 22 Gy in the SRS plus WBRT group and 20 to 24 Gy for SRS alone. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary end point was cognitive deterioration (decline >1 SD from baseline on at least 1 cognitive test at 3 months) in participants who completed the baseline and 3-month assessments. Secondary end points included time to intracranial failure, quality of life, functional independence, long-term cognitive status, and overall survival. RESULTS There were 213 randomized participants (SRS alone, n = 111; SRS plus WBRT, n = 102) with a mean age of 60.6 years (SD, 10.5 years); 103 (48%) were women. There was less cognitive deterioration at 3 months after SRS alone (40/63 patients [63.5%]) than when combined with WBRT (44/48 patients [91.7%]; difference, -28.2%; 90% CI, -41.9% to -14.4%; P < .001). Quality of life was higher at 3 months with SRS alone, including overall quality of life (mean change from baseline, -0.1 vs -12.0 points; mean difference, 11.9; 95% CI, 4.8-19.0 points; P = .001). Time to intracranial failure was significantly shorter for SRS alone compared with SRS plus WBRT (hazard ratio, 3.6; 95% CI, 2.2-5.9; P < .001). There was no significant difference in functional independence at 3 months between the treatment groups (mean change from baseline, -1.5 points for SRS alone vs -4.2 points for SRS plus WBRT; mean difference, 2.7 points; 95% CI, -2.0 to 7.4 points; P = .26). Median overall survival was 10.4 months for SRS alone and 7.4 months for SRS plus WBRT (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.75-1.38; P = .92). For long-term survivors, the incidence of cognitive deterioration was less after SRS alone at 3 months (5/11 [45.5%] vs 16/17 [94.1%]; difference, -48.7%; 95% CI, -87.6% to -9.7%; P = .007) and at 12 months (6/10 [60%] vs 17/18 [94.4%]; difference, -34.4%; 95% CI, -74.4% to 5.5%; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with 1 to 3 brain metastases, the use of SRS alone, compared with SRS combined with WBRT, resulted in less cognitive deterioration at 3 months. In the absence of a difference in overall survival, these findings suggest that for patients with 1 to 3 brain metastases amenable to radiosurgery, SRS alone may be a preferred strategy. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00377156.

NCCTG N0574 (Alliance): A phase III randomized trial of whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) in addition to radiosurgery (SRS) in patients with 1 to 3 brain metastases.

LBA4 Background: WBRT significantly improves tumor control in the brain after SRS, yet the role of adjuvant WBRT remains undefined due to concerns regarding neurocognitive risks. METHODS Patients with 1-3 brain metastases, each < 3 cm by contrast MRI, were randomized to SRS alone or SRS + WBRT and underwent cognitive testing before and after treatment. The primary endpoint was cognitive progression (CP) defined as decline > 1 SD from baseline in any of the 6 cognitive tests at 3 months. Time to CP was estimated using cumulative incidence adjusting for survival as a competing risk. RESULTS 213 patients were enrolled with 2 ineligible and 3 cancels prior to receiving treatment. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced between study arms. The median age was 60 and lung primary the most common (68%). CP at 3 months was more frequent after WBRT + SRS vs. SRS alone (88.0% vs. 61.9% respectively, p = 0.002). There was more deterioration in the WBRT + SRS arm in immediate recall (31% vs. 8%, p = 0.007), delayed recall (51% vs. 20%, p = 0.002), and verbal fluency (19% vs. 2%, p = 0.02). Intracranial tumor control at 6 and 12 months were 66.1% and 50.5% with SRS alone vs. 88.3% and 84.9% with SRS+WBRT (p < 0.001). Median OS was 10.7 for SRS alone vs. 7.5 months for SRS+WBRT respectively (HR = 1.02, p = 0.93). CONCLUSIONS Decline in cognitive function, specifically immediate recall, memory and verbal fluency, was more frequent with the addition of WBRT to SRS. Adjuvant WBRT did not improve OS despite better brain control. Initial treatment with SRS and close monitoring is recommended to better preserve cognitive function in patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases that are amenable to SRS. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION NCT00377156.

Mometasone Furoate Effect on Acute Skin Toxicity in Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Radiotherapy: A Phase III Double-Blind, Randomized Trial From the North Central Cancer Treatment Group N06C4

PURPOSE A two-arm, double-blind, randomized trial was performed to evaluate the effect of 0.1% mometasone furoate (MMF) on acute skin-related toxicity in patients undergoing breast or chest wall radiotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS Patients with ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive breast carcinoma who were undergoing external beam radiotherapy to the breast or chest wall were randomly assigned to apply 0.1% MMF or placebo cream daily. The primary study endpoint was the provider-assessed maximal grade of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3.0, radiation dermatitis. The secondary endpoints included provider-assessed Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Grade 3 or greater radiation dermatitis and adverse event monitoring. The patient-reported outcome measures included the Skindex-16, the Skin Toxicity Assessment Tool, a Symptom Experience Diary, and a quality-of-life self-assessment. An assessment was performed at baseline, weekly during radiotherapy, and for 2 weeks after radiotherapy. RESULTS A total of 176 patients were enrolled between September 21, 2007, and December 7, 2007. The provider-assessed primary endpoint showed no difference in the mean maximum grade of radiation dermatitis by treatment arm (1.2 for MMF vs. 1.3 for placebo; p = .18). Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events toxicity was greater in the placebo group (p = .04), primarily from pruritus. For the patient-reported outcome measures, the maximum Skindex-16 score for the MMF group showed less itching (p = .008), less irritation (p = .01), less symptom persistence or recurrence (p = .02), and less annoyance with skin problems (p = .04). The groups maximal Skin Toxicity Assessment Tool score showed less burning sensation (p = .02) and less itching (p = .002). CONCLUSION Patients receiving daily MMF during radiotherapy might experience reduced acute skin toxicity compared with patients receiving placebo.

OLSALAZINE IS CONTRAINDICATED DURING PELVIC RADIATION THERAPY: RESULTS OF A DOUBLE-BLIND, RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL

PURPOSE A randomized clinical trial from Great Britain suggested a possible beneficial effect of acetylsalicylate in the prevention of radiation-induced bowel toxicity. Olsalazine is an orally administered drug designed to deliver 5-aminosalicylate to the large bowel with minimal systemic absorption. A randomized clinical trial was undertaken to assess the effectiveness of olsalazine in preventing acute diarrhea in patients receiving pelvic radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS Patients receiving pelvic radiation therapy were randomized, in double-blind fashion, to olsalazine 250 mg, two capsules twice daily, or an identical appearing placebo, two capsules twice daily. Patients were then evaluated weekly during radiation therapy for the primary study endpoint, diarrhea, as well as rectal bleeding, abdominal cramping, and tenesmus. RESULTS The study was closed early, after entry of 58 evaluable patients, when a preliminary analysis showed excessive diarrhea in patients randomized to olsalazine. The incidence and severity of diarrhea were worse in patients randomized to olsalazine (p = 0.0036). Sixty percent of the patients randomized to olsalazine experienced Grade 3 or 4 diarrhea compared to only 14% randomized to placebo. There was also a trend toward higher incidence and greater severity of abdominal cramping in patients who were randomized to olsalazine (p = 0.084). CONCLUSION Administration of olsalazine during pelvic radiation therapy resulted in an increased incidence and severity of diarrhea. Olsalazine is contraindicated in patients receiving pelvic radiation therapy.

Prognostic factors differ by tumor stage for small cell lung cancer: a pooled analysis of North Central Cancer Treatment Group trials.

An analysis of 14 small cell lung cancer (SCLC) trials was performed to improve the current understanding of potential prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) and progression‐free survival (PFS) in groups of patients with limited‐stage disease SCLC (LD‐SCLC) and extensive‐stage disease SCLC (ED‐SCLC) separately.

The Value of Combined-modality Therapy in Elderly Patients With Stage III Nonsmall Cell Lung Cancer

The objective of this study was to assess the value of combined‐modality therapy in elderly patients by comparing the differences in outcome between patients who received radiotherapy (RT) alone and patients who received RT plus chemotherapy for stage III nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Survivorship care plans: Is there buy-in from community oncology providers?

The Institute of Medicine recommended that survivors of cancer and their primary care providers receive survivorship care plans (SCPs) to summarize cancer treatment and plan ongoing care. However, the use of SCPs remains limited.

Comparison of Provider-Assessed and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures of Acute Skin Toxicity During a Phase III Trial of Mometasone Cream Versus Placebo During Breast Radiotherapy: The North Central Cancer Treatment Group (N06C4)

PURPOSE Considerable interobserver variability exists among providers and between providers and patients when measuring subjective symptoms. In the recently published Phase III N06C4 trial of mometasone cream vs. placebo to prevent radiation dermatitis, the primary provider-assessed (PA) endpoint, using the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), was negative. However, prospectively planned secondary analyses of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), using the Skindex-16 and Skin Toxicity Assessment Tool (STAT), were positive. This study assesses the relationship between PA outcomes and PROs. METHODS AND MATERIALS Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to compare the three tools. Statistical correlations were defined as follows: <0.5, mild; 0.5-0.7, moderate; and >0.7, strong. RESULTS CTCAE dermatitis moderately correlated with STAT erythema, and CTCAE pruritus strongly correlated with STAT itching. CTCAE pruritus had a moderate correlation with Skindex-16 itching. Comparing the 2 PRO tools, Skindex-16 itching correlated moderately with STAT itching. Skindex-16 burning, hurting, irritation, and persistence all showed the strongest correlation with STAT burning; they showed moderate correlations with STAT itching and tenderness. CONCLUSIONS The PRO Skindex-16 correlated well with the PRO portions of STAT, but neither tool correlated well with CTCAE. PROs delineated a wider spectrum of toxicity than PA measures and provided more information on rash, redness, pruritus, and annoyance measures compared with CTCAE findings of rash and pruritus. PROs may provide a more complete measure of patient experience than single-symptom, PA endpoints in clinical trials assessing radiation skin toxicity.

Phase III, Double-Blind Study of Depot Octreotide Versus Placebo in the Prevention of Acute Diarrhea in Patients Receiving Pelvic Radiation Therapy: Results of North Central Cancer Treatment Group N00CA

PURPOSE To assess the effectiveness of depot octreotide for the prevention of diarrhea during pelvic radiation therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients receiving pelvic radiation therapy (planned minimum dose, 45 Gy; 1.7 to 2.1 Gy daily) were eligible for the study. From May 10, 2002, through October 14, 2005, 125 patients were randomly allocated in a double-blind fashion to receive octreotide (100 microg, administered subcutaneously on day 1, followed by depot octreotide, 20 mg, administered intramuscularly on days 2 and 29; n = 62) or to receive a placebo (n = 63). RESULTS Grade 0, 1, 2, and 3 diarrhea were observed in 18%, 31%, 31%, and 21% of patients in the octreotide arm, respectively, and in 25%, 32%, 22%, and 21% of patients in the placebo arm, respectively (P = .64). Grade 0, 1, 2, and 3 abdominal cramps were observed in 32%, 45%, 21%, and 2% of patients receiving octreotide, respectively, and in 51%, 24%, 21%, and 5% of patients receiving the placebo, respectively (P = .053). Some patient-reported symptoms were worse in the octreotide group, including nocturnal bowel movements (70% v 45%; P = .004), clustering of bowel movements (90% v 69%; P = .004), and bleeding with bowel movements (57% v 35%; P = .01). CONCLUSION As administered in this study, octreotide did not decrease diarrhea during pelvic radiation therapy. Some gastrointestinal symptoms were worse in patients treated with octreotide. Octreotide is not indicated for prevention of diarrhea during pelvic radiation therapy.

Brain metastases from melanoma: is there a role for concurrent temozolomide in addition to whole brain radiation therapy?

Objectives:This study was performed to evaluate the addition of temozolomide (TMZ) to whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) for brain metastases from melanoma. Methods:Seven patients with brain metastases from melanoma were treated on a North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) trial (N0274) of TMZ plus WBRT. TMZ was given orally in doses of 200 mg/m2 for 5 days every 4 weeks for up to 8 cycles. WBRT was started on the first day of TMZ and included the delivery of 3750 cGy in 15 fractions. In addition, separately analyzed was a cohort of 53 patients treated at the Mayo Clinic who received WBRT alone (39 patients) or WBRT plus TMZ (14 patients). Results:The median survival of the 7 patients treated on N0274 was 3.6 months with 2 of 7 (29%) failing in brain and 5 of 7 (71%) failing elsewhere. For the other cohort of 53 patients, the median survival was 3.8 months with WBRT alone compared 4.3 months for WBRT plus TMZ (P = 0.5). Conclusions:Patients did not appear to benefit from the addition of TMZ to WBRT for the treatment of their brain metastases. Further improvements in outcome will require research to discover more effective systemic therapy and RT techniques.