Ritsuko Komaki

Non-small cell lung cancer.

Most patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are diagnosed with advanced cancer. These guidelines only include information about stage IV NSCLC. Patients with widespread metastatic disease (stage IV) are candidates for systemic therapy, clinical trials, and/or palliative treatment. The goal is to identify patients with metastatic disease before initiating aggressive treatment, thus sparing these patients from unnecessary futile treatment. If metastatic disease is discovered during surgery, then extensive surgery is often aborted. Decisions about treatment should be based on multidisciplinary discussion.

Twice-Daily Compared with Once-Daily Thoracic Radiotherapy in Limited Small-Cell Lung Cancer Treated Concurrently with Cisplatin and Etoposide

BACKGROUND For small-cell lung cancer confined to one hemithorax (limited small-cell lung cancer), thoracic radiotherapy improves survival, but the best ways of integrating chemotherapy and thoracic radiotherapy remain unsettled. Twice-daily accelerated thoracic radiotherapy has potential advantages over once-daily radiotherapy. METHODS We studied 417 patients with limited small-cell lung cancer. All the patients received four 21-day cycles of cisplatin plus etoposide. We randomly assigned these patients to receive a total of 45 Gy of concurrent thoracic radiotherapy, given either twice daily over a three-week period or once daily over a period of five weeks. RESULTS Twice-daily treatment beginning with the first cycle of chemotherapy significantly improved survival as compared with concurrent once-daily radiotherapy (P=0.04 by the log-rank test). After a median follow-up of almost 8 years, the median survival was 19 months for the once-daily group and 23 months for the twice-daily group. The survival rates for patients receiving once-daily radiotherapy were 41 percent at two years and 16 percent at five years. For patients receiving twice-daily radiotherapy, the survival rates were 47 percent at two years and 26 percent at five years. Grade 3 esophagitis was significantly more frequent with twice-daily thoracic radiotherapy, occurring in 27 percent of patients, as compared with 11 percent in the once-daily group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS Four cycles of cisplatin plus etoposide and a course of radiotherapy (45 Gy, given either once or twice daily) beginning with cycle 1 of the chemotherapy resulted in overall two- and five-year survival rates of 44 percent and 23 percent, a considerable improvement in survival rates over previous results in patients with limited small-cell lung cancer.

INT 0123 (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 94-05) Phase III Trial of Combined-Modality Therapy for Esophageal Cancer: High-Dose Versus Standard-Dose Radiation Therapy

PURPOSE To compare the local/regional control, survival, and toxicity of combined-modality therapy using high-dose (64.8 Gy) versus standard-dose (50.4 Gy) radiation therapy for the treatment of patients with esophageal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 236 patients with clinical stage T1 to T4, N0/1, M0 squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma selected for a nonsurgical approach, after stratification by weight loss, primary tumor size, and histology, were randomized to receive combined-modality therapy consisting of four monthly cycles of fluorouracil (5-FU) (1,000 mg/m(2)/24 hours for 4 days) and cisplatin (75 mg/m(2) bolus day 1) with concurrent 64.8 Gy versus the same chemotherapy schedule but with concurrent 50.4 Gy. The trial was stopped after an interim analysis. The median follow-up was 16.4 months for all patients and 29.5 months for patients still alive. RESULTS For the 218 eligible patients, there was no significant difference in median survival (13.0 v 18.1 months), 2-year survival (31% v 40%), or local/regional failure and local/regional persistence of disease (56% v 52%) between the high-dose and standard-dose arms. Although 11 treatment-related deaths occurred in the high-dose arm compared with two in the standard-dose arm, seven of the 11 deaths occurred in patients who had received 50.4 Gy or less. CONCLUSION The higher radiation dose did not increase survival or local/regional control. Although there was a higher treatment-related mortality rate in the patients assigned to the high-dose radiation arm, it did not seem to be related to the higher radiation dose. The standard radiation dose for patients treated with concurrent 5-FU and cisplatin chemotherapy is 50.4 Gy.

Standard-dose versus high-dose conformal radiotherapy with concurrent and consolidation carboplatin plus paclitaxel with or without cetuximab for patients with stage IIIA or IIIB non-small-cell lung cancer (RTOG 0617): a randomised, two-by-two factorial phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND We aimed to compare overall survival after standard-dose versus high-dose conformal radiotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy and the addition of cetuximab to concurrent chemoradiation for patients with inoperable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS In this open-label randomised, two-by-two factorial phase 3 study in 185 institutions in the USA and Canada, we enrolled patients (aged ≥ 18 years) with unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer, a Zubrod performance status of 0-1, adequate pulmonary function, and no evidence of supraclavicular or contralateral hilar adenopathy. We randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) patients to receive either 60 Gy (standard dose), 74 Gy (high dose), 60 Gy plus cetuximab, or 74 Gy plus cetuximab. All patients also received concurrent chemotherapy with 45 mg/m(2) paclitaxel and carboplatin once a week (AUC 2); 2 weeks after chemoradiation, two cycles of consolidation chemotherapy separated by 3 weeks were given consisting of paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)) and carboplatin (AUC 6). Randomisation was done with permuted block randomisation methods, stratified by radiotherapy technique, Zubrod performance status, use of PET during staging, and histology; treatment group assignments were not masked. Radiation dose was prescribed to the planning target volume and was given in 2 Gy daily fractions with either intensity-modulated radiation therapy or three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy. The use of four-dimensional CT and image-guided radiation therapy were encouraged but not necessary. For patients assigned to receive cetuximab, 400 mg/m(2) cetuximab was given on day 1 followed by weekly doses of 250 mg/m(2), and was continued through consolidation therapy. The primary endpoint was overall survival. All analyses were done by modified intention-to-treat. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00533949. FINDINGS Between Nov 27, 2007, and Nov 22, 2011, 166 patients were randomly assigned to receive standard-dose chemoradiotherapy, 121 to high-dose chemoradiotherapy, 147 to standard-dose chemoradiotherapy and cetuximab, and 110 to high-dose chemoradiotherapy and cetuximab. Median follow-up for the radiotherapy comparison was 22.9 months (IQR 27.5-33.3). Median overall survival was 28.7 months (95% CI 24.1-36.9) for patients who received standard-dose radiotherapy and 20.3 months (17.7-25.0) for those who received high-dose radiotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 1.38, 95% CI 1.09-1.76; p=0.004). Median follow-up for the cetuximab comparison was 21.3 months (IQR 23.5-29.8). Median overall survival in patients who received cetuximab was 25.0 months (95% CI 20.2-30.5) compared with 24.0 months (19.8-28.6) in those who did not (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.84-1.35; p=0.29). Both the radiation-dose and cetuximab results crossed protocol-specified futility boundaries. We recorded no statistical differences in grade 3 or worse toxic effects between radiotherapy groups. By contrast, the use of cetuximab was associated with a higher rate of grade 3 or worse toxic effects (205 [86%] of 237 vs 160 [70%] of 228 patients; p<0.0001). There were more treatment-related deaths in the high-dose chemoradiotherapy and cetuximab groups (radiotherapy comparison: eight vs three patients; cetuximab comparison: ten vs five patients). There were no differences in severe pulmonary events between treatment groups. Severe oesophagitis was more common in patients who received high-dose chemoradiotherapy than in those who received standard-dose treatment (43 [21%] of 207 patients vs 16 [7%] of 217 patients; p<0.0001). INTERPRETATION 74 Gy radiation given in 2 Gy fractions with concurrent chemotherapy was not better than 60 Gy plus concurrent chemotherapy for patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer, and might be potentially harmful. Addition of cetuximab to concurrent chemoradiation and consolidation treatment provided no benefit in overall survival for these patients. FUNDING National Cancer Institute and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Sequential vs Concurrent Chemoradiation for Stage III Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: Randomized Phase III Trial RTOG 9410

BACKGROUND The combination of chemotherapy with thoracic radiotherapy (TRT) compared with TRT alone has been shown to confer a survival advantage for good performance status patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer. However, it is not known whether sequential or concurrent delivery of these therapies is the optimal combination strategy. METHODS A total of 610 patients were randomly assigned to two concurrent regimens and one sequential chemotherapy and TRT regimen in a three-arm phase III trial. The sequential arm included cisplatin at 100 mg/m2 on days 1 and 29 and vinblastine at 5 mg/m2 per week for 5 weeks with 63 Gy TRT delivered as once-daily fractions beginning on day 50. Arm 2 used the same chemotherapy regimen as arm 1 with 63 Gy TRT delivered as once-daily fractions beginning on day 1 [corrected]. Arm 3 used cisplatin at 50 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 29, and 36 with oral etoposide at 50 mg twice daily for 10 weeks on days 1, 2, 5, and 6 with 69.6 Gy delivered as 1.2 Gy twice-daily fractions beginning on day 1. The primary endpoint was overall survival, and secondary endpoints included tumor response and time to tumor progression. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to assess survival, and toxic effects were examined using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS Median survival times were 14.6, 17.0, and 15.6 months for arms 1-3, respectively. Five-year survival was statistically significantly higher for patients treated with the concurrent regimen with once-daily TRT compared with the sequential treatment (5-year survival: sequential, arm 1, 10% [20 patients], 95% confidence interval [CI] = 7% to 15%; concurrent, arm 2, 16% [31 patients], 95% CI = 11% to 22%, P = .046; concurrent, arm 3, 13% [22 patients], 95% CI = 9% to 18%). With a median follow-up time of 11 years, the rates of acute grade 3-5 nonhematologic toxic effects were higher with concurrent than sequential therapy, but late toxic effects were similar. CONCLUSION Concurrent delivery of cisplatin-based chemotherapy with TRT confers a long-term survival benefit compared with the sequential delivery of these therapies.

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus lobectomy for operable stage I non-small-cell lung cancer: a pooled analysis of two randomised trials

BACKGROUND The standard of care for operable, stage I, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is lobectomy with mediastinal lymph node dissection or sampling. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) for inoperable stage I NSCLC has shown promising results, but two independent, randomised, phase 3 trials of SABR in patients with operable stage I NSCLC (STARS and ROSEL) closed early due to slow accrual. We aimed to assess overall survival for SABR versus surgery by pooling data from these trials. METHODS Eligible patients in the STARS and ROSEL studies were those with clinical T1-2a (<4 cm), N0M0, operable NSCLC. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to SABR or lobectomy with mediastinal lymph node dissection or sampling. We did a pooled analysis in the intention-to-treat population using overall survival as the primary endpoint. Both trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (STARS: NCT00840749; ROSEL: NCT00687986). FINDINGS 58 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (31 to SABR and 27 to surgery). Median follow-up was 40·2 months (IQR 23·0-47·3) for the SABR group and 35·4 months (18·9-40·7) for the surgery group. Six patients in the surgery group died compared with one patient in the SABR group. Estimated overall survival at 3 years was 95% (95% CI 85-100) in the SABR group compared with 79% (64-97) in the surgery group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·14 [95% CI 0·017-1·190], log-rank p=0·037). Recurrence-free survival at 3 years was 86% (95% CI 74-100) in the SABR group and 80% (65-97) in the surgery group (HR 0·69 [95% CI 0·21-2·29], log-rank p=0·54). In the surgery group, one patient had regional nodal recurrence and two had distant metastases; in the SABR group, one patient had local recurrence, four had regional nodal recurrence, and one had distant metastases. Three (10%) patients in the SABR group had grade 3 treatment-related adverse events (three [10%] chest wall pain, two [6%] dyspnoea or cough, and one [3%] fatigue and rib fracture). No patients given SABR had grade 4 events or treatment-related death. In the surgery group, one (4%) patient died of surgical complications and 12 (44%) patients had grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events. Grade 3 events occurring in more than one patient in the surgery group were dyspnoea (four [15%] patients), chest pain (four [15%] patients), and lung infections (two [7%]). INTERPRETATION SABR could be an option for treating operable stage I NSCLC. Because of the small patient sample size and short follow-up, additional randomised studies comparing SABR with surgery in operable patients are warranted. FUNDING Accuray Inc, Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, NCI Cancer Center Support, NCI Clinical and Translational Science Award.

Long-term follow-up of patients enrolled in a randomized trial comparing perioperative chemotherapy and surgery with surgery alone in resectable stage IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer

Our previously reported randomized study of patients with untreated, potentially resectable clinical stage IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer found that patients treated with perioperative chemotherapy and surgery had a significant increase in median survival compared to patients treated with surgery alone. We have now re-analyzed the results of the study with a median time from random allocation to analysis for all patients of 82 months. The increase in survival conferred by perioperative chemotherapy was maintained during the period of extended observation.

A Randomized Trial of Postoperative Adjuvant Therapy in Patients with Completely Resected Stage II or IIIa Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND We conducted a randomized trial to determine whether combination chemotherapy plus thoracic radiotherapy is superior to thoracic radiotherapy alone in prolonging survival and preventing local recurrence in patients with completely resected stage II or IIIa non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS After surgical staging and resection of the tumor (usually by lobectomy or pneumonectomy), the patients were randomly assigned to receive either four 28-day cycles of cisplatin (60 mg per square meter of body-surface area intravenously on day 1) and etoposide (120 mg per square meter intravenously on days 1, 2, and 3) administered concurrently with radiotherapy (a total of 50.4 Gy, given in 28 daily fractions) or radiotherapy alone (a total of 50.4 Gy, given in 28 daily fractions). RESULTS Of the 488 patients who were enrolled in the study, 242 were assigned to receive radiotherapy alone and 246 were assigned to receive chemotherapy and radiotherapy. The median duration of follow-up was 44 months. Treatment-associated mortality was 1.2 percent in the group given radiotherapy alone and 1.6 percent in the group given chemotherapy and radiotherapy. The median survival was 39 months in the group given radiotherapy and 38 months in the group given chemotherapy and radiotherapy (P= 0.56 by the log-rank test). The relative likelihood of survival among patients assigned to receive chemotherapy and radiotherapy, as compared with those assigned to receive radiotherapy alone, was 0.93 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.74 to 1.18). Intrathoracic disease recurred within the radiation field in 30 of 234 patients (13 percent) in the group given radiotherapy and in 28 of 236 patients (12 percent) in the group given chemotherapy and radiotherapy (P=0.84); data on recurrence were not available for 18 patients. CONCLUSIONS As compared with radiotherapy alone, adjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy with cisplatin and etoposide does not decrease the risk of intrathoracic recurrence or prolong survival in patients with completely resected stage II or IIIa non-small-cell lung cancer.

Survival and Neurologic Outcomes in a Randomized Trial of Motexafin Gadolinium and Whole-Brain Radiation Therapy in Brain Metastases

PURPOSE This phase III randomized trial evaluated survival as well as neurologic and neurocognitive function in patients with brain metastases from solid tumors receiving whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) with or without motexafin gadolinium (MGd). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomly assigned to 30 Gy of WBRT +/- 5 mg/kg/d MGd. Survival and time to neurologic progression determined by a blinded events review committee (ERC) were coprimary end points. Standardized investigator neurologic assessment and neurocognitive testing were evaluated. RESULTS Four hundred one (251 non-small-cell lung cancer) patients were enrolled. There was no significant difference by treatment arm in survival (median, 5.2 months for MGd v 4.9 months for WBRT; P =.48) or time to neurologic progression (median, 9.5 months for MGd v 8.3 months for WBRT; P =.95). Treatment with MGd improved time to neurologic progression in patients with lung cancer (median, not reached for MGd v 7.4 months for WBRT; P =.048, unadjusted). By investigator, MGd improved time to neurologic progression in all patients (median, 4.3 months for MGd v 3.8 months for WBRT; P =.018) and in lung cancer patients (median, 5.5 months for MGd v 3.7 months for WBRT; P =.025). MGd improved neurocognitive function in lung cancer patients. CONCLUSION The overall results did not demonstrate significant differences by treatment arm for survival and ERC time to neurologic progression. Investigator neurologic assessments demonstrated an MGd treatment benefit in all patients. In lung cancer patients, ERC- and investigator-determined time to neurologic progression demonstrated an MGd treatment benefit. MGd may improve time to neurologic and neurocognitive progression in lung cancer.

Posttherapy pathologic stage predicts survival in patients with esophageal carcinoma receiving preoperative chemoradiation

In patients with locoregional carcinoma of the esophagus or esophagogastric junction who underwent preoperative chemoradiation, it is unclear whether survival was better predicted by pretherapy clinical stage or by posttherapy pathologic stage.