Vivek Kavadi

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.

Memantine for the prevention of cognitive dysfunction in patients receiving whole-brain radiotherapy: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND To determine the protective effects of memantine on cognitive function in patients receiving whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT). METHODS Adult patients with brain metastases received WBRT and were randomized to receive placebo or memantine (20 mg/d), within 3 days of initiating radiotherapy for 24 weeks. Serial standardized tests of cognitive function were performed. RESULTS Of 554 patients who were accrued, 508 were eligible. Grade 3 or 4 toxicities and study compliance were similar in the 2 arms. There was less decline in delayed recall in the memantine arm at 24 weeks (P = .059), but the difference was not statistically significant, possibly because there were only 149 analyzable patients at 24 weeks, resulting in only 35% statistical power. The memantine arm had significantly longer time to cognitive decline (hazard ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.62-0.99, P = .01); the probability of cognitive function failure at 24 weeks was 53.8% in the memantine arm and 64.9% in the placebo arm. Superior results were seen in the memantine arm for executive function at 8 (P = .008) and 16 weeks (P = .0041) and for processing speed (P = .0137) and delayed recognition (P = .0149) at 24 weeks. CONCLUSIONS Memantine was well tolerated and had a toxicity profile very similar to placebo. Although there was less decline in the primary endpoint of delayed recall at 24 weeks, this lacked statistical significance possibly due to significant patient loss. Overall, patients treated with memantine had better cognitive function over time; specifically, memantine delayed time to cognitive decline and reduced the rate of decline in memory, executive function, and processing speed in patients receiving WBRT. RTOG 0614, ClinicalTrials.gov number CT00566852.

Impact of intensity-modulated radiation therapy technique for locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A secondary analysis of the NRG oncology RTOG 0617 randomized clinical trial

Purpose Although intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is increasingly used to treat locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), IMRT and three-dimensional conformal external beam radiation therapy (3D-CRT) have not been compared prospectively. This study compares 3D-CRT and IMRT outcomes for locally advanced NSCLC in a large prospective clinical trial. Patients and Methods A secondary analysis was performed to compare IMRT with 3D-CRT in NRG Oncology clinical trial RTOG 0617, in which patients received concurrent chemotherapy of carboplatin and paclitaxel with or without cetuximab, and 60- versus 74-Gy radiation doses. Comparisons included 2-year overall survival (OS), progression-free survival, local failure, distant metastasis, and selected Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 3) ≥ grade 3 toxicities. Results The median follow-up was 21.3 months. Of 482 patients, 53% were treated with 3D-CRT and 47% with IMRT. The IMRT group had larger planning treatment volumes (median, 427 v 486 mL; P = .005); a larger planning treatment volume/volume of lung ratio (median, 0.13 v 0.15; P = .013); and more stage IIIB disease (30.3% v 38.6%, P = .056). Two-year OS, progression-free survival, local failure, and distant metastasis-free survival were not different between IMRT and 3D-CRT. IMRT was associated with less ≥ grade 3 pneumonitis (7.9% v 3.5%, P = .039) and a reduced risk in adjusted analyses (odds ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.171 to 0.986; P = .046). IMRT also produced lower heart doses ( P < .05), and the volume of heart receiving 40 Gy (V40) was significantly associated with OS on adjusted analysis ( P < .05). The lung V5 was not associated with any ≥ grade 3 toxicity, whereas the lung V20 was associated with increased ≥ grade 3 pneumonitis risk on multivariable analysis ( P = .026). Conclusion IMRT was associated with lower rates of severe pneumonitis and cardiac doses in NRG Oncology clinical trial RTOG 0617, which supports routine use of IMRT for locally advanced NSCLC.

Quality of Life Analysis of a Radiation Dose–Escalation Study of Patients With Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Secondary Analysis of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0617 Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE A recent randomized radiation dose-escalation trial in unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group [RTOG] 0617) showed a lower survival rate in the high-dose radiation therapy (RT) arm (74 Gy) than in the low-dose arm (60 Gy) with concurrent chemotherapy. OBJECTIVE The primary QOL hypothesis predicted a clinically meaningful decline in quality of life (QOL) via the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT)-Lung Cancer Subscale (LCS) in the high-dose RT arm at 3 months. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS The RTOG 0617 trial was a randomized phase 3 study (conducted from November 2007 to November 2011) in stage III NSCLC using a 2 × 2 factorial design and stratified by histology, positron emission tomography staging, performance status, and irradiation technique (3-dimensional conformal RT [3D-CRT] vs intensity-modulated RT [IMRT]). A total of 185 institutions in the United States and Canada took part. Of 424 eligible patients with stage III NSCLC randomized, 360 (85%) consented to QOL evaluation, of whom 313 (88%) completed baseline QOL assessments. INTERVENTION Treatment with 74-Gy vs 60-Gy RT with concurrent and consolidation carboplatin/paclitaxel with or without cetuximab. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The QOL data were collected prospectively via FACT Trial Outcome Index (FACT-TOI), calculated as the sum of the following measures: Physical Well Being (PWB), Functional Well Being (FWB), and the LCS. Data are presented at baseline and 3 and 12 months via minimal clinically meaningful changes of 2 points or more for PWB, FWB, and LCS or 5 points or more for TOI. RESULTS Of the 313 patients who completed baseline QOL assessments, 219 patients (70%) completed the 3-month QOL assessments, and 137 of the living patients (57%) completed the 12-month assessment. Patient demographics and baseline QOL scores were comparable between the 74-Gy and 60-Gy arms. Significantly more patients in the 74-Gy arm than in the 60-Gy arm had clinically meaningful decline in FACT-LCS at 3 months (45% vs 30%; P = .02). At 12 months, fewer patients who received IMRT (vs 3D-CRT) had clinically meaningful decline in FACT-LCS (21% vs 46%; P = .003). Baseline FACT-TOI was associated with overall survival in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Despite few differences in clinician-reported toxic effects between treatment arms, QOL analysis demonstrated a clinically meaningful decline in QOL in the 74-Gy arm at 3 months, confirming the primary QOL hypothesis. Baseline QOL was an independent prognostic factor for survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00533949.

Institutional Enrollment and Survival among NSCLC Patients Receiving Chemoradiation: NRG Oncology Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0617

BACKGROUND The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the effect of institutional accrual volume on clinical outcomes among patients receiving chemoradiation for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) on a phase III trial. METHODS Patients with LA-NSCLC were randomly assigned to 60 Gy or 74 Gy radiotherapy (RT) with concurrent carboplatin/paclitaxel +/- cetuximab on NRG Oncology RTOG 0617. Participating institutions were categorized as low-volume centers (LVCs) or high-volume centers (HVCs) according to the number of patients accrued (≤3 vs > 3). All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS Range of accrual for LVCs (n = 195) vs HVCs (n = 300) was 1 to 3 vs 4 to 18 patients. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two cohorts. Treatment at a HVC was associated with statistically significantly longer overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with treatment at a LVC (median OS = 26.2 vs 19.8 months; HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.56 to 0.88, P = .002; median PFS: 11.4 vs 9.7 months, HR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.65-0.99, P = .04). Patients treated at HVCs were more often treated with intensity-modulated RT (54.0% vs 39.5%, P = .002), had a lower esophageal dose (mean = 26.1 vs 28.0 Gy, P = .03), and had a lower heart dose (median = V5 Gy 38.2% vs 54.1%, P = .006; V50 Gy 3.6% vs 7.3%, P < .001). Grade 5 adverse events (AEs) (5.3% vs 9.2%, P = .09) and RT termination because of AEs (1.3% vs 4.1%, P = .07) were less common among patients treated at HVCs. HVC remained independently associated with longer OS (P = .03) when accounting for other factors. CONCLUSION Treatment at institutions with higher clinical trial accrual volume is associated with longer OS among patients with LA-NSCLC participating in a phase III trial.