Todd H. Wasserman

Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) of prognostic factors in three radiation therapy oncology group (RTOG) brain metastases trials

PURPOSE Promising results from new approaches such as radiosurgery or stereotactic surgery of brain metastases have recently been reported. Are these results due to the therapy alone or can the results be attributed in part to patient selection? An analysis of tumor/patient characteristics and treatment variables in previous Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) brain metastases studies was considered necessary to fully evaluate the benefit of these new interventions. METHODS AND MATERIALS The database included 1200 patients from three consecutive RTOG trials conducted between 1979 and 1993, which tested several different dose fractionation schemes and radiation sensitizers. Using recursive partitioning analysis (RPA), a statistical methodology which creates a regression tree according to prognostic significance, eighteen pretreatment characteristics and three treatment-related variables were analyzed. RESULTS According to the RPA tree the best survival (median: 7.1 months) was observed in patients < 65 years of age with a Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) of at least 70, and a controlled primary tumor with the brain the only site of metastases. The worst survival (median: 2.3 months) was seen in patients with a KPS less than 70. All other patients had relatively minor differences in observed survival, with a median of 4.2 months. CONCLUSIONS Based on this analysis, we suggest the following three classes: Class 1: patients with KPS > or = 70, < 65 years of age with controlled primary and no extracranial metastases; Class 3: KPS < 70; Class 2- all others. Using these classes or stages, new treatment techniques can be tested on homogeneous patient groups.

Phase III Randomized Trial of Amifostine as a Radioprotector in Head and Neck Cancer

PURPOSE Radiotherapy for head and neck cancer causes acute and chronic xerostomia and acute mucositis. Amifositine and its active metabolite, WR-1065, accumulate with high concentrations in the salivary glands. This randomized trial evaluated whether amifostine could ameliorate these side effects without compromising the effectiveness of radiotherapy in these patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with previously untreated head and neck squamous cell carcinoma were eligible. Primary end points included the incidence of grade > or =2 acute xerostomia, grade > or =3 acute mucositis, and grade > or =2 late xerostomia and were based on the worst toxicity reported. Amifostine was administered (200 mg/m(2) intravenous) daily 15 to 30 minutes before irradiation. Radiotherapy was given once daily (1.8 to 2.0 Gy) to doses of 50 to 70 Gy. Whole saliva production was quantitated preradiotherapy and regularly during follow-up. Patients evaluated their symptoms through a questionnaire during and after treatment. Local-regional control was the primary antitumor efficacy end point. RESULTS Nausea, vomiting, hypotension, and allergic reactions were the most common side effects. Fifty-three percent of the patients receiving amifostine had at least one episode of nausea and/or vomiting, but it only occurred with 233 (5%) of 4,314 doses. Amifostine reduced grade > or =2 acute xerostomia from 78% to 51% (P<.0001) and chronic xerostomia grade > or = 2 from 57% to 34% (P=.002). Median saliva production was greater with amifostine (0.26 g v 0.10 g, P=.04). Amifostine did not reduce mucositis. With and without amifostine, 2-year local-regional control, disease-free survival, and overall survival were 58% versus 63%, 53% versus 57%, and 71% versus 66%, respectively. CONCLUSION Amifostine reduced acute and chronic xerostomia. Antitumor treatment efficacy was preserved.

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.

American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of Chemotherapy and Radiotherapy Protectants

PURPOSE Because toxicities associated with chemotherapy and radiotherapy can adversely affect short- and long-term patient quality of life, can limit the dose and duration of treatment, and may be life-threatening, specific agents designed to ameliorate or eliminate certain chemotherapy and radiotherapy toxicities have been developed. Variability in interpretation of the available data pertaining to the efficacy of the three United States Food and Drug Administration-approved agents that have potential chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-protectant activity-dexrazoxane, mesna, and amifostine-and questions about the role of these protectant agents in cancer care led to concern about the appropriate use of these agents. The American Society of Clinical Oncology sought to establish evidence-based, clinical practice guidelines for the use of dexrazoxane, mesna, and amifostine in patients who are not enrolled on clinical treatment trials. METHODS A multidisciplinary Expert Panel reviewed the clinical data regarding the activity of dexrazoxane, mesna, and amifostine. A computerized literature search was performed using MEDLINE. In addition to reports collected by individual Panel members, all articles published in the English-speaking literature from June 1997 through December 1998 were collected for review by the Panel chairpersons, and appropriate articles were distributed to the entire Panel for review. Guidelines for use, levels of evidence, and grades of recommendation were reviewed and approved by the Panel. Outcomes considered in evaluating the benefit of a chemotherapy- or radiotherapy-protectant agent included amelioration of short- and long-term chemotherapy- or radiotherapy-related toxicities, risk of tumor protection by the agent, toxicity of the protectant agent itself, quality of life, and economic impact. To the extent that these data were available, the Panel placed the greatest value on lesser toxicity that did not carry a concomitant risk of tumor protection. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION Mesna: (1) Mesna, dosed as detailed in these guidelines, is recommended to decrease the incidence of standard-dose ifosfamide-associated urothelial toxicity. (2) There is insufficient evidence on which to base a guideline for the use of mesna to prevent urothelial toxicity with ifosfamide doses that exceed 2.5 g/m(2)/d. (3) Either mesna or forced saline diuresis is recommended to decrease the incidence of urothelial toxicity associated with high-dose cyclophosphamide use in the stem-cell transplantation setting. Dexrazoxane: (1) The use of dexrazoxane is not routinely recommended for patients with metastatic breast cancer who receive initial doxorubicin-based chemotherapy. (2) The use of dexrazoxane may be considered for patients with metastatic breast cancer who have received a cumulative dosage of 300 mg/m(2) or greater of doxorubicin in the metastatic setting and who may benefit from continued doxorubicin-containing therapy. (3) The use of dexrazoxane in the adjuvant setting is not recommended outside of a clinical trial. (4) The use of dexrazoxane can be considered in adult patients who have received more than 300 mg/m(2) of doxorubicin-based therapy for tumors other than breast cancer, although caution should be used in settings in which doxorubicin-based therapy has been shown to improve survival because of concerns of tumor protection by dexrazoxane. (5) There is insufficient evidence to make a guideline for the use of dexrazoxane in the treatment of pediatric malignancies, with epirubicin-based regimens, or with high-dose anthracycline-containing regimens. Similarly, there is insufficient evidence on which to base a guideline for the use of dexrazoxane in patients with cardiac risk factors or underlying cardiac disease. (6) Patients receiving dexrazoxane should continue to be monitored for cardiac toxicity. Amifostine: (1) Amifostine may be considered for the reduction of nephrotoxicity in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemoth

Overview: Late effects of normal tissues (LENT) scoring system

The purpose of the Late Effects of Normal Tissues (LENT) Conference was to analyze the current scoring system for acute and late effects and develop a system that embodies simplicity of design and will result in accuracy of detail. The conference has concerned itself specifically with the development of scoring systems to be used in all anatomical sites and to recommend methods to validate them. These methods and the questions outlined for research will need to be conducted through the resources of the national and regional cooperative groups. The conference participants have the responsibility of implementing these recommendations and methods into the appropriate cooperative group with which each may be affiliated. While the development of studies for interventions to ameliorate acute and prevent late effects is the desired end, this will be a future development. Two acronyms introduce the new scoring system for late effects toxicity and the key elements forming the scales:

Plasmacytoma. Treatment results and conversion to myeloma

Forty‐six cases of solitary plasmacytoma were reviewed for response to radiation and progression to multiple myeloma. Cases were classified as solitary plasmacytomas of bone (SPB) (32 cases) or extramedullary plasmacytomas (EP) (14 cases). There was an overall 93% response rate of the tumor to radiation therapy: 62% had a complete response after radiation therapy, whereas 31% had a partial response. Conversion to multiple myeloma was influenced by the type of plasmacytoma; 53% of the patients with SPB converting to myeloma versus 36% of the patients with EP. Time from diagnosis to conversion for patients with SPB showed no evidence of plateau, with conversion continuing to occur even after 17 years. The median survival time for patients after conversion to myeloma was 14.5 months and was not affected by time to conversion. Serum protein level, presence of monoclonal gammopathy, and size of primary lesion were of some prognostic significance in predicting conversion to myeloma. Adjuvant chemotherapy did not affect the incidence of conversion but did appear to delay conversion to myeloma. Seven patients in whom multiple sequential solitary plasmacytomas developed formed a distinct subset, with a median time to a second plasmacytoma of 63 months. In three of these patients, conversion to myeloma occurred subsequently. This study supports the idea of EP having a lower incidence of conversion to myeloma and a different natural history from SPB, with SPB likely to be multiple myeloma in evolution. Cancer 1992; 69:1513‐1517.

Gross tumor volume, critical prognostic factor in patients treated with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy for non-small-cell lung carcinoma

PURPOSE Three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) has recently become widely available with applications for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). These techniques represent a significant advance in the delivery of radiotherapy, including improved ability to delineate target contours, choose beam angles, and determine dose distributions more accurately than were previously available. The purpose of this study is to identify prognostic factors in a population of NSCLC patients treated with definitive 3D-CRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS Between March 1991 and December 1998, 207 patients with inoperable NSCLC were treated with definitive 3D-CRT. Tumor targets were contoured in multiple sections from a treatment planning computed tomography (CT) scan. Three-dimensional treatment volumes and normal structures were reconstructed. Doses to the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) reference point ranged from 60 to 83.85 Gy with a median dose of 70 Gy. The median dose inhomogeneity was +/- 5% across planning target volume. Outcome was analyzed by prognostic factors for NSCLC including pretreatment patient and tumor-related factors (age, gender, race, histology, clinical stage, tumor [T] stage, and node [N] stage), parameters from our 3D-CRT system (gross tumor volume [GTV] in cm3), irradiation dose prescribed to isocenter, volume of normal lung exceeding 20 Gy (V20), and treatment with or without chemotherapy. The median follow-up time was 24 months (range, 7.5 months to 7.5 years). RESULTS One and two-year overall survival rates for the entire group were 59% and 41%, respectively. Overall survival, cause-specific survival, and local tumor control were most highly correlated with the GTV in cm3. On multivariate analysis the independent variable most predictive of survival was the GTV. Traditional staging such as T, N, and overall clinical staging were not independent prognostic factors. Patients receiving ICRU reference doses > or =70 Gy had better local control and cause-specific survivals than those treated with lower doses (p = 0.05). Increased irradiation dose did not improve overall survival. CONCLUSIONS GTV as determined by CT and 3D-CRT planning is highly prognostic for overall and cause-specific survival and local tumor control and may be important in stratification of patients in prospective therapy trials. T, N, and overall stage were not independent prognostic factors in this population of patients treated nonsurgically. The value of dose escalation beyond 70 Gy should be tested prospectively by clinical trial.

Randomized trial of amifostine in locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients receiving chemotherapy and hyperfractionated radiation: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group trial 98-01

PURPOSE To test the ability of the cytoprotectant, amifostine, to reduce chemoradiotherapy-induced esophagitis and evaluate its influence on quality of life (QOL) and swallowing symptoms. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 243 patients with stage II to IIIA/B non-small-cell lung cancer received induction paclitaxel 225 mg/m(2) intravenously (IV) days 1 and 22 and carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) days 1 and 22, followed by concurrent weekly paclitaxel (50 mg/m(2) IV) and carboplatin (AUC 2), and hyperfractionated radiation therapy (69.6 Gy at 1.2 Gy bid). Patients were randomly assigned at registration to amifostine (AM) 500 mg IV four times per week or no AM during chemoradiotherapy. Beyond standard toxicity end points, physician dysphagia logs (PDLs), daily patient swallowing diaries, and QOL (EORTC QLQ-C30/LC-13) were also collected. Swallowing AUC analyses were calculated from patient diaries and PDLs. RESULTS A total of 120 patients were randomly assigned to receive AM, and 122, to receive no AM (one patient was ineligible); 72% received AM per protocol or with a minor deviation. AM was associated with higher rates of acute nausea (P = .03), vomiting (P = .007), cardiovascular toxicity (P = .0001), and infection or febrile neutropenia (P = .03). The rate of >/= grade 3 esophagitis was 30% with AM versus 34% without AM (P = .9). Patient diaries demonstrated lower swallowing dysfunction AUC with amifostine (z test P = .025). QOL was not significantly different between the two arms, except for pain, which showed more clinically meaningful improvement and less deterioration at 6 weeks follow-up (v pretreatment) in the AM arm (P = .003). The median survival rates for both arms were comparable (AM, 17.3 v no AM, 17.9 months; P = .87). CONCLUSION AM did not significantly reduce esophagitis >/= grade 3 in patients receiving hyperfractionated radiation and chemotherapy. However, patient self-assessments suggested a possible advantage to AM that is being explored with modified dosing route strategies.

Results of an RTOG phase III trial (RTOG 85-27) comparing radiotherapy plus etanidazole with radiotherapy alone for locally advanced head and neck carcinomas

PURPOSE The objectives of this study were to determine the efficacy and toxicity of Etanidazole (ETA), a hypoxic cell sensitizer, when combined with conventional radiotherapy (RT) in the management of advanced head and neck carcinomas. METHODS AND MATERIALS From March 1988 to September 1991, 521 patients who had Stage III or IV head and neck carcinomas were randomized to receive conventional RT alone (66 Gy in 33 fractions to 74 Gy in 37 fractions, 5 fractions per week) or RT+ETA (2.0 g/m2 thrice weekly for 17 doses), of whom 504 were eligible and analyzable. Treatment assignments were stratified before randomization according to the primary site (oral cavity + hypopharynx vs. supraglottic larynx + oropharynx + nasopharynx), T-stage (T1-3 vs. T4), and N-stage (N0-2 vs. N3). Pretreatment characteristics were balanced. In the RT-alone arm, 39% of patients had T3 and 34% had T4 disease, whereas in the RT+ETA arm, 42% of patients had T3 and 33% had T4 disease. Thirty-eight percent of the RT-alone patients and 37% of the RT+ETA patients had N3 disease. The median follow-up of surviving patients was 3.38 years, with a range between 0.96 and 5.63 years. RESULTS One hundred and ninety-four of the 252 (77%) RT+ETA patients received at least 14 doses of the drug. Overall RT protocol compliance rate was 82% in the RT-alone arm and 86% in the RT+ETA arm. No Grade 3 or 4 central nervous system or peripheral neuropathy was observed in the RT+ETA arm. Eighteen percent of the patients developed Grade 1 and 5% developed Grade 2 peripheral neuropathy. Other drug related toxicities included nausea/vomiting (27%), low blood counts (15%), and allergy (9%). Most of these toxicities were Grade 1 and 2. The incidence of severe acute and late radiation effects were similar between the two arms. The 2-year actuarial local-regional control rate (LCR) was 40% for the RT-alone arm and 40% for the RT+ETA arm. Two-year actuarial survival was 41% for the RT-alone arm and 43% for the RT+ETA arm (p = 0.65). Multivariate analyses were performed to investigate the influence of covariates on treatment effects. A strong treatment interaction with N-stage was revealed: LCR (50% vs. 40% at 2 years), RT+ETA improved for patients with N0-2 disease but not for N3 patients (22% for RT+ETA and 40% for RT). Further analyses showed that RT+ETA was more advantageous in N0-1 patients, with a 2-year LCR of 55% for RT+ETA vs. 37% for RT only (p = 0.03). A similar phenomenon was observed when using survival as the end point. CONCLUSION The results showed that adding Etanidazole to conventional RT produced no global benefit for patients who had advanced head and neck carcinomas. There was a suggested benefit for patients who had N0-1 disease, and that needs to be confirmed by another study.

ACCELERATED HYPERFRACTIONATED HEPATIC IRRADIATION IN THE MANAGEMENT OF PATIENTS WITH LIVER METASTASES: RESULTS OF THE RTOG DOSE ESCALATING PROTOCOL

PURPOSE This study was prepared to address two objectives: (a) to determine whether progressively higher total doses of hepatic irradiation can prolong survival in a selected population of patients with liver metastases; (b) to refine existing concepts of liver tolerance for fractionated external radiation employing a fraction size which might be appropriate in clinical protocols evaluating elective or adjuvant radiation of the liver. METHODS AND MATERIALS One hundred seventy-three analyzable patients with computed tomography measurable liver metastases from primary cancers of the gastrointestinal tract were entered on a dose escalating protocol of twice daily hepatic irradiation employing fractions of 1.5 Gy separated by 4 hr or longer. Sequential groups of patients received 27 Gy, 30 Gy, and 33 Gy to the entire liver and were monitored for acute and late toxicities, survival, and cause of death. Dose escalation was implemented following survival of 10 patients at each dose level for a period of 6 months or longer without clinical or biochemical evidence of radiation hepatitis. RESULTS The use of progressively larger total doses of radiation did not prolong median survival or decrease the frequency with which liver metastases were the cause of death. None of 122 patients entered at the 27 Gy and 30 Gy dose levels revealed clinical or biochemical evidence of radiation induced liver injury. Five of 51 patients entered at the 33 Gy level revealed clinical or biochemical evidence of late liver injury with an actuarial risk of severe (Grade 3) radiation hepatitis of 10.0% (+/- 7.3% S.E.) at 6 months, resulting in closure of the study to patient entry. CONCLUSION The study design could not credibly establish a safe dose for hepatic irradiation, however, it did succeed in determining that 33 Gy in fractions of 1.5 Gy is unsafe, carrying a substantial risk of delayed radiation injury. The absence of apparent late liver injury at the 27 Gy and 30 Gy dose levels suggests that a prior clinical trial of adjuvant hepatic irradiation in patients with resected colon cancer may have employed an insufficient radiation dose (21 Gy) to fully test the question.