1
|
Bogart J, Wang X, Masters G, Gao J, Komaki R, Gaspar LE, Heymach J, Bonner J, Kuzma C, Waqar S, Petty W, Stinchcombe TE, Bradley JD, Vokes E. High-Dose Once-Daily Thoracic Radiotherapy in Limited-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer: CALGB 30610 (Alliance)/RTOG 0538. J Clin Oncol 2023; 41:2394-2402. [PMID: 36623230 PMCID: PMC10150922 DOI: 10.1200/jco.22.01359] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/16/2022] [Revised: 08/16/2022] [Accepted: 11/22/2022] [Indexed: 01/11/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Although level 1 evidence supports 45-Gy twice-daily radiotherapy as standard for limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, most patients receive higher-dose once-daily regimens in clinical practice. Whether increasing radiotherapy dose improves outcomes remains to be prospectively demonstrated. METHODS This phase III trial, CALGB 30610/RTOG 0538 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00632853), was conducted in two stages. In the first stage, patients with limited-stage disease were randomly assigned to receive 45-Gy twice-daily, 70-Gy once-daily, or 61.2-Gy concomitant-boost radiotherapy, starting with either the first or second (of four total) chemotherapy cycles. In the second stage, allocation to the 61.2-Gy arm was discontinued following planned interim toxicity analysis, and the study continued with two remaining arms. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS Trial accrual opened on March 15, 2008, and closed on December 1, 2019. All patients randomly assigned to 45-Gy twice-daily (n = 313) or 70-Gy once-daily radiotherapy (n = 325) are included in this analysis. After a median follow-up of 4.7 years, OS was not improved on the once-daily arm (hazard ratio for death, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.17; P = .594). Median survival is 28.5 months for twice-daily treatment, and 30.1 months for once-daily treatment, with 5-year OS of 29% and 32%, respectively. Treatment was tolerable, and the frequency of severe adverse events, including esophageal and pulmonary toxicity, was similar on both arms. CONCLUSION Although 45-Gy twice-daily radiotherapy remains the standard of care, this study provides the most robust information available to help guide the choice of thoracic radiotherapy regimen for patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeffrey Bogart
- State University of New York Upstate Medical University, New York, NY
| | - Xiaofei Wang
- Alliance Statistics and Data Management Center, Duke University, Durham, NC
| | - Gregory Masters
- Delaware/Christiana Care NCORP, Helen Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE
| | - Junheng Gao
- Alliance Statistics and Data Management Center, Duke University, Durham, NC
| | - Ritsuko Komaki
- MD Anderson Cancer Center, University of Texas, Houston, TX
| | - Laurie E. Gaspar
- University of Colorado Denver Health Science Center, Denver, CO
- University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO
| | - John Heymach
- MD Anderson Cancer Center, University of Texas, Houston, TX
| | | | - Charles Kuzma
- Southeast Clinical Oncology Research Consortium NCORP, FirstHealth of the Carolinas-Moore Regional Hospital, Pinehurst, NC
| | - Saiama Waqar
- Washington University—Siteman Cancer Center, St Louis, MO
| | - William Petty
- Wake Forest University Health Sciences, Winston-Salem, NC
| | | | | | - Everett Vokes
- University of Chicago Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chicago, IL
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Sperduto PW, De B, Li J, Carpenter D, Kirkpatrick J, Milligan M, Shih HA, Kutuk T, Kotecha R, Higaki H, Otsuka M, Aoyama H, Bourgoin M, Roberge D, Dajani S, Sachdev S, Gainey J, Buatti JM, Breen W, Brown PD, Ni L, Braunstein S, Gallitto M, Wang TJC, Shanley R, Lou E, Shiao J, Gaspar LE, Tanabe S, Nakano T, An Y, Chiang V, Zeng L, Soliman H, Elhalawani H, Cagney D, Thomas E, Boggs DH, Ahluwalia MS, Mehta MP. Graded Prognostic Assessment (GPA) for Patients With Lung Cancer and Brain Metastases: Initial Report of the Small Cell Lung Cancer GPA and Update of the Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer GPA Including the Effect of Programmed Death Ligand 1 and Other Prognostic Factors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022; 114:60-74. [PMID: 35331827 PMCID: PMC9378572 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.03.020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/06/2021] [Revised: 03/02/2022] [Accepted: 03/14/2022] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Patients with lung cancer and brain metastases represent a markedly heterogeneous population. Accurate prognosis is essential to optimally individualize care. In prior publications, we described the graded prognostic assessment (GPA), but a GPA for patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) has never been reported, and in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the effect of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) was unknown. The 3-fold purpose of this work is to provide the initial report of an SCLC GPA, to evaluate the effect of PD-L1 on survival in patients with NSCLC, and to update the Lung GPA accordingly. METHODS AND MATERIALS A multivariable analysis of prognostic factors and treatments associated with survival was performed on 4183 patients with lung cancer (3002 adenocarcinoma, 611 nonadenocarcinoma, 570 SCLC) with newly diagnosed brain metastases between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, using a multi-institutional retrospective database. Significant variables were used to update the Lung GPA. RESULTS Overall median survival for lung adenocarcinoma, SCLC, and nonadenocarcinoma was 17, 10, and 8 months, respectively, but varied widely by GPA from 2 to 52 months. In SCLC, the significant prognostic factors were age, performance status, extracranial metastases, and number of brain metastases. In NSCLC, the distribution of molecular markers among patients with lung adenocarcinoma and known primary tumor molecular status revealed alterations/expression in PD-L1 50% to 100%, PD-L1 1% to 49%, epidermal growth factor receptor, and anaplastic lymphoma kinase in 32%, 31%, 30%, and 7%, respectively. Median survival of patients with lung adenocarcinoma and brain metastases with 0, 1% to 49%, and ≥50% PD-L1 expression was 17, 19, and 24 months, respectively (P < .01), confirming PD-L1 is a prognostic factor. Previously identified prognostic factors for NSCLC (epidermal growth factor receptor and anaplastic lymphoma kinase status, performance status, age, number of brain metastases, and extracranial metastases) were reaffirmed. These factors were incorporated into the updated Lung GPA with robust separation between subgroups for all histologies. CONCLUSIONS Survival for patients with lung cancer and brain metastases has improved but varies widely. The initial report of a GPA for SCLC is presented. For patients with NSCLC-adenocarcinoma and brain metastases, PD-L1 is a newly identified significant prognostic factor, and the previously identified factors were reaffirmed. The updated indices establish unique criteria for SCLC, NSCLC-nonadenocarcinoma, and NSCLC-adenocarcinoma (incorporating PD-L1). The updated Lung GPA, available for free at brainmetgpa.com, provides an accurate tool to estimate survival, individualize treatment, and stratify clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Brian De
- MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Jing Li
- MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | | | | | | | - Helen A Shih
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Tugce Kutuk
- Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, Florida
| | - Rupesh Kotecha
- Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, Florida
| | | | | | - Hidefumi Aoyama
- Hokkaido Cancer Center, Hokkaido, Japan; Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan
| | - Malie Bourgoin
- Centre Hospitalier de l' Université de Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - David Roberge
- Centre Hospitalier de l' Université de Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Lisa Ni
- University of California, San Francisco, California
| | | | | | | | | | - Emil Lou
- University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
| | - Jay Shiao
- University of Colorado Denver, Denver, Colorado
| | - Laurie E Gaspar
- University of Colorado Denver, Denver, Colorado; Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center, Loveland, Colorado
| | | | | | - Yi An
- Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
| | | | - Liang Zeng
- Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Hany Soliman
- Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | | | | | - Evan Thomas
- University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama
| | | | | | - Minesh P Mehta
- Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, Florida
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Schiff D, Messersmith H, Brastianos PK, Brown PD, Burri S, Dunn IF, Gaspar LE, Gondi V, Jordan JT, Maues J, Mohile N, Redjal N, Stevens GHJ, Sulman EP, van den Bent M, Wallace HJ, Zadeh G, Vogelbaum MA. Radiation Therapy for Brain Metastases: ASCO Guideline Endorsement of ASTRO Guideline. J Clin Oncol 2022; 40:2271-2276. [PMID: 35561283 DOI: 10.1200/jco.22.00333] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE American Society of Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) has developed a guideline on appropriate radiation therapy for brain metastases. ASCO has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations. METHODS "Radiation Therapy for Brain Metastases: An ASTRO Clinical Practice Guideline"2 was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists. An ASCO Endorsement Panel subsequently reviewed the content and the recommendations. RESULTS The ASCO Endorsement Panel determined that the recommendations from the ASTRO guideline, published May 6, 2022, are clear, thorough, and based upon the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO endorses "Radiation Therapy for Brain Metastases: An ASTRO Clinical Practice Guideline."2. RECOMMENDATIONS Within the guideline, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is recommended for patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 and up to four intact brain metastases, and conditionally recommended for patients with up to 10 intact brain metastases. The guideline provides detailed dosing and fractionation recommendations on the basis of the size of the metastases. For patients with resected brain metastases, radiation therapy (SRS or whole-brain radiation therapy [WBRT]) is recommended to improve intracranial disease control; if there are limited additional brain metastases, SRS is recommended over WBRT. For patients with favorable prognosis and brain metastases ineligible for surgery and/or SRS, WBRT is recommended with hippocampal avoidance where possible and the addition of memantine is recommended. For patients with brain metastases, limiting the single-fraction V12Gy to brain tissue to ≤ 10 cm3 is conditionally recommended.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/neurooncology-guidelines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David Schiff
- University of Virginia Medical Center, Charlottesville, VA
| | | | | | | | - Stuart Burri
- Levine Cancer Institute at Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC
| | - Ian F Dunn
- Stephenson Cancer Center at the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK
| | - Laurie E Gaspar
- Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center, Loveland, CO.,University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO
| | - Vinai Gondi
- Northwestern Medicine Cancer Center Warrenville and Proton Center, Warrenville, IL
| | | | - Julia Maues
- GRASP (Guiding Researchers & Advocates to Scientific Partnerships), Baltimore, MD
| | - Nimish Mohile
- University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY
| | | | | | | | - Martin van den Bent
- Brain Tumor Center at Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Pisters K, Kris MG, Gaspar LE, Ismaila N. Adjuvant Systemic Therapy and Adjuvant Radiation Therapy for Stage I-IIIA Completely Resected Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: ASCO Guideline Rapid Recommendation Update. J Clin Oncol 2022; 40:1127-1129. [PMID: 35167335 DOI: 10.1200/jco.22.00051] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
ASCO Rapid Recommendations Updates highlight revisions to select ASCO guideline recommendations as a response to the emergence of new and practice-changing data. The rapid updates are supported by an evidence review and follow the guideline development processes outlined in the ASCO Guideline Methodology Manual. The goal of these articles is to disseminate updated recommendations, in a timely manner, to better inform health practitioners and the public on the best available cancer care options.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Mark G Kris
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Laurie E Gaspar
- Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center, Loveland, CO.,University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Vinogradskiy Y, Castillo R, Castillo E, Schubert L, Jones BL, Faught A, Gaspar LE, Kwak J, Bowles DW, Waxweiler T, Dougherty JM, Gao D, Stevens C, Miften M, Kavanagh B, Grills I, Rusthoven CG, Guerrero T. Results of a Multi-Institutional Phase 2 Clinical Trial for 4DCT-Ventilation Functional Avoidance Thoracic Radiation Therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022; 112:986-995. [PMID: 34767934 PMCID: PMC8863640 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.10.147] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/21/2021] [Revised: 10/07/2021] [Accepted: 10/22/2021] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Radiation pneumonitis remains a major limitation in the radiation therapy treatment of patients with lung cancer. Functional avoidance radiation therapy uses functional imaging to reduce pulmonary toxic effects by designing radiation therapy plans that reduce doses to functional regions of the lung. Lung functional imaging has been developed that uses 4-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) imaging to calculate 4DCT-based lung ventilation (4DCT-ventilation). A phase 2 multicenter study was initiated to evaluate 4DCT-ventilation functional avoidance radiation therapy. The study hypothesis was that functional avoidance radiation therapy could reduce the rate of grade ≥2 radiation pneumonitis to 12% compared with a 25% historical rate, with the trial being positive if ≤16.4% of patients experienced grade ≥2 pneumonitis. METHODS AND MATERIALS Lung cancer patients receiving curative-intent radiation therapy (prescription doses of 45-75 Gy) and chemotherapy were accrued. Patient 4DCT scans were used to generate 4DCT-ventilation images. The 4DCT-ventilation images were used to generate functional avoidance plans that reduced doses to functional portions of the lung while delivering the prescribed tumor dose. Pneumonitis was evaluated by a clinician at 3, 6, and 12 months after radiation therapy. RESULTS Sixty-seven evaluable patients were accrued between April 2015 and December 2019. The median prescription dose was 60 Gy (range, 45-66 Gy) delivered in 30 fractions (range, 15-33 fractions). The average reduction in the functional volume of lung receiving ≥20 Gy with functional avoidance was 3.5% (range, 0%-12.8%). The median follow-up was 312 days. The rate of grade ≥2 radiation pneumonitis was 10 of 67 patients (14.9%; 95% upper CI, 24.0%), meeting the phase 2 criteria. CONCLUSIONS 4DCT-ventilation offers an imaging modality that is convenient and provides functional imaging without an extra procedure necessary. This first report of a multicenter study of 4DCT-ventilation functional avoidance radiation therapy provided data showing that the trial met phase 2 criteria and that evaluation in a phase 3 study is warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yevgeniy Vinogradskiy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado; Department of Radiation Oncology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
| | - Richard Castillo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Edward Castillo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, Michigan
| | - Leah Schubert
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Bernard L Jones
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Austin Faught
- Department of Radiation Oncology, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee
| | - Laurie E Gaspar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Jennifer Kwak
- Department of Radiology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Daniel W Bowles
- Division of Medical Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado; Rocky Mountain Regional VA Medical Center, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Timothy Waxweiler
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | | | - Dexiang Gao
- Departments of Pediatrics and Biostatistics and Informatics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Craig Stevens
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, Michigan
| | - Moyed Miften
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Brian Kavanagh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Inga Grills
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, Michigan
| | - Chad G Rusthoven
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Thomas Guerrero
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, Michigan
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Vogelbaum MA, Brown PD, Messersmith H, Brastianos PK, Burri S, Cahill D, Dunn IF, Gaspar LE, Gatson NTN, Gondi V, Jordan JT, Lassman AB, Maues J, Mohile N, Redjal N, Stevens G, Sulman E, van den Bent M, Wallace HJ, Weinberg JS, Zadeh G, Schiff D. Treatment for Brain Metastases: ASCO-SNO-ASTRO Guideline. J Clin Oncol 2021; 40:492-516. [PMID: 34932393 DOI: 10.1200/jco.21.02314] [Citation(s) in RCA: 220] [Impact Index Per Article: 73.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To provide guidance to clinicians regarding therapy for patients with brain metastases from solid tumors. METHODS ASCO convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of the literature. RESULTS Thirty-two randomized trials published in 2008 or later met eligibility criteria and form the primary evidentiary base. RECOMMENDATIONS Surgery is a reasonable option for patients with brain metastases. Patients with large tumors with mass effect are more likely to benefit than those with multiple brain metastases and/or uncontrolled systemic disease. Patients with symptomatic brain metastases should receive local therapy regardless of the systemic therapy used. For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases, local therapy should not be deferred unless deferral is specifically recommended in this guideline. The decision to defer local therapy should be based on a multidisciplinary discussion of the potential benefits and harms that the patient may experience. Several regimens were recommended for non-small-cell lung cancer, breast cancer, and melanoma. For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases and no systemic therapy options, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) alone should be offered to patients with one to four unresected brain metastases, excluding small-cell lung carcinoma. SRS alone to the surgical cavity should be offered to patients with one to two resected brain metastases. SRS, whole brain radiation therapy, or their combination are reasonable options for other patients. Memantine and hippocampal avoidance should be offered to patients who receive whole brain radiation therapy and have no hippocampal lesions and 4 months or more expected survival. Patients with asymptomatic brain metastases with either Karnofsky Performance Status ≤ 50 or Karnofsky Performance Status < 70 with no systemic therapy options do not derive benefit from radiation therapy.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/neurooncology-guidelines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | - Stuart Burri
- Levine Cancer Institute at Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC
| | - Dan Cahill
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
| | - Ian F Dunn
- Stephenson Cancer Center at the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK
| | - Laurie E Gaspar
- University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO.,University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO
| | - Na Tosha N Gatson
- Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center, Phoenix, AZ.,Geisinger Neuroscience Institute. Danville, PA
| | - Vinai Gondi
- Northwestern Medicine Cancer Center Warrenville and Proton Center, Warrenville, IL
| | | | | | - Julia Maues
- Georgetown Breast Cancer Advocates, Washington, DC
| | - Nimish Mohile
- University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY
| | - Navid Redjal
- Capital Health Medical Center - Hopewell Campus, Princeton, NJ
| | | | | | - Martin van den Bent
- Brain Tumor Center at Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | | | | | - David Schiff
- University of Virginia Medical Center, Charlottesville, VA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Bogart JA, Wang XF, Masters GA, Gao J, Komaki R, Kuzma CS, Heymach J, Petty WJ, Gaspar LE, Waqar SN, Stinchcombe T, Bradley JD, Vokes EE. Phase 3 comparison of high-dose once-daily (QD) thoracic radiotherapy (TRT) with standard twice-daily (BID) TRT in limited stage small cell lung cancer (LSCLC): CALGB 30610 (Alliance)/RTOG 0538. J Clin Oncol 2021. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2021.39.15_suppl.8505] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
8505 Background: Although level 1 evidence is lacking, the majority of patients (pts) with LSCLC are treated with a high dose QD TRT regimen in clinical practice. CALGB 30610/RTOG 0538 was designed to determine if administering high dose TRT would improve overall survival (OS), compared with standard 45 Gy BID TRT, in LSCLC pts treated with chemoradiotherapy. Methods: Eligible pts had LSCLC, ECOG performance status (PS) 0-2 and regional lymph node involvement excluding contralateral hilar or supraclavicular nodes. This phase 3 trial was conducted in 2 stages. In the first stage, pts were randomized 1:1:1 to 45 Gy BID over 3 weeks, 70 Gy QD over 7 weeks, or 61.2 Gy concomitant boost (CB) over 5 weeks. For the second stage, the study planned discontinuation of one high dose arm based on interim toxicity analysis with patients then randomized 1:1 in the two remaining arms. TRT was given starting with either the 1st or 2nd (of 4 total) chemotherapy cycles. The primary endpoint was OS measured from date of randomization. Results: The trial opened 03/15/2008 and closed 12/01/2019 upon completing accrual, with the CB arm discontinued 3/11/2013 after interim analysis. This analysis includes 638 pts randomized to 45 Gy BID TRT (n = 313) or 70 Gy QD TRT (n = 325). Median age was 63 years (range 37-81), the majority of pts were Caucasian (86%), female (52%), and with ECOG PS 0-1 (95%). After median follow-up of 2.84 years (IQR:1.35 -5.61) for surviving pts, QD compared to BID did not result in a significant difference in OS (HR 0.94, 95% CI: 0.76-1.2, p = 0.9). Median, 2- and 4-year OS for QD were 30.5 months (95% CI: 24.4-39.6), 56% (95% CI: 0.51-0.62), and 39% (95% CI: 0.33-0.45), and for BID 28.7 months (95% CI: 26.2-35.5), 59% (95% CI: 0.53-0.65), and 35% (95% CI: 0.29-0.42). QD also did not result in a significant difference in PFS (HR 0.96, 95% CI: 0.78-1.18, p = 0.94). Most grade 3+ hematologic and non-hematologic adverse events (AEs) were similar between cohorts. Rates of grade 3+ febrile neutropenia, dyspnea, esophageal pain and dysphagia for QD were 12.6%,7%, 11.6% and 11.3%, and for BID 13.6%, 4%, 11.2 % and 9.5%. Grade 5 AEs were reported in 3.7% and 1.7% of the QD and BID cohorts, respectively. Results will be updated at presentation. Conclusions: High dose QD TRT to 70 Gy did not significantly improve OS compared with standard 45 Gy BID TRT. Nevertheless, favorable outcomes on the QD arm provide the most robust evidence available supporting high dose once-daily TRT as an acceptable option in LSCLC. Outcomes from this study, the largest conducted in LSCLC to date, will help guide TRT decisions for this patient population. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882; Clinical trial information: NCT00632853.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | - Ritsuko Komaki
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - John Heymach
- Department of Thoracic Head and Neck Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - William J. Petty
- Comprehensive Cancer Center of Wake Forest Baptist Health, Winston Salem, NC
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Sperduto PW, Mesko S, Li J, Cagney D, Aizer A, Lin NU, Nesbit E, Kruser TJ, Chan J, Braunstein S, Lee J, Kirkpatrick JP, Breen W, Brown PD, Shi D, Shih HA, Soliman H, Sahgal A, Shanley R, Sperduto W, Lou E, Everett A, Boggs DH, Masucci L, Roberge D, Remick J, Plichta K, Buatti JM, Jain S, Gaspar LE, Wu CC, Wang TJC, Bryant J, Chuong M, Yu J, Chiang V, Nakano T, Aoyama H, Mehta MP. Estrogen/progesterone receptor and HER2 discordance between primary tumor and brain metastases in breast cancer and its effect on treatment and survival. Neuro Oncol 2021; 22:1359-1367. [PMID: 32034917 PMCID: PMC7523450 DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/noaa025] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Breast cancer treatment is based on estrogen receptors (ERs), progesterone receptors (PRs), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). At the time of metastasis, receptor status can be discordant from that at initial diagnosis. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of discordance and its effect on survival and subsequent treatment in patients with breast cancer brain metastases (BCBM). METHODS A retrospective database of 316 patients who underwent craniotomy for BCBM between 2006 and 2017 was created. Discordance was considered present if the ER, PR, or HER2 status differed between the primary tumor and the BCBM. RESULTS The overall receptor discordance rate was 132/316 (42%), and the subtype discordance rate was 100/316 (32%). Hormone receptors (HR, either ER or PR) were gained in 40/160 (25%) patients with HR-negative primary tumors. HER2 was gained in 22/173 (13%) patients with HER2-negative primary tumors. Subsequent treatment was not adjusted for most patients who gained receptors-nonetheless, median survival (MS) improved but did not reach statistical significance (HR, 17-28 mo, P = 0.12; HER2, 15-19 mo, P = 0.39). MS for patients who lost receptors was worse (HR, 27-18 mo, P = 0.02; HER2, 30-18 mo, P = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS Receptor discordance between primary tumor and BCBM is common, adversely affects survival if receptors are lost, and represents a missed opportunity for use of effective treatments if receptors are gained. Receptor analysis of BCBM is indicated when clinically appropriate. Treatment should be adjusted accordingly. KEY POINTS 1. Receptor discordance alters subtype in 32% of BCBM patients.2. The frequency of receptor gain for HR and HER2 was 25% and 13%, respectively.3. If receptors are lost, survival suffers. If receptors are gained, consider targeted treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul W Sperduto
- Minneapolis Radiation Oncology and University of Minnesota Gamma Knife Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
| | - Shane Mesko
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Jing Li
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Daniel Cagney
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Ayal Aizer
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Nancy U Lin
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Eric Nesbit
- Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | | | - Jason Chan
- University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Steve Braunstein
- University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Jessica Lee
- Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| | | | | | | | - Diana Shi
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Helen A Shih
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Hany Soliman
- Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Arjun Sahgal
- Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Ryan Shanley
- University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
| | | | - Emil Lou
- University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
| | - Ashlyn Everett
- University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
| | | | - Laura Masucci
- Centre Hospitalier de l' Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada
| | - David Roberge
- Centre Hospitalier de l' Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada
| | - Jill Remick
- University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | | | | | - Supriya Jain
- University of Colorado Denver, Denver, Colorado, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | - James Yu
- Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Bogart JA, Wang X, Masters GA, Gao J, Komaki R, Gaspar LE, Heymach JV, Dobelbower MC, Kuzma C, Stinchcombe TE, Vokes EE. Short Communication: Interim toxicity analysis for patients with limited stage small cell lung cancer (LSCLC) treated on CALGB 30610 (Alliance) / RTOG 0538. Lung Cancer 2021; 156:68-71. [PMID: 33894496 DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2021.04.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/17/2021] [Revised: 04/11/2021] [Accepted: 04/14/2021] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The CALGB 30610/RTOG 0538 randomized trial was designed to test whether high-dose thoracic radiotherapy (TRT) would improve survival compared with 45 Gy twice-daily (BID) TRT in limited stage small cell lung cancer (LSCLC). Two piloted experimental TRT regimens were of interest to study, 70 Gy daily (QD) and 61.2 Gy concomitant boost (CB). Driven by concerns about adequate patient accrual, a study design was employed that eliminated one experimental TRT arm based on early interim toxicity and tolerability, with the study then continuing as a traditional 2-arm phase III study. METHODS Patients with LSCLC were assigned to receive four cycles of cisplatin and etoposide chemotherapy with one of 3 TRT regimens starting with either the first or second cycle of chemotherapy. The interim endpoint was the cumulative highest toxicity calculated from a scoring system based on treatment-related grade 3 and higher toxicity and the ability to complete therapy in the experimental arms. RESULTS The final interim analysis was performed after 70 patients accrued to each experimental cohort, and a difference in treatment related toxicity scoring was not found (p = 0.739). Severe esophageal toxicity was comparable in both cohorts. Pulmonary toxicity was low overall, though 4 patients (5.7 %) on the 61.2 Gy arm developed grade 4 dyspnea, which was not observed in the 70 Gy arm. A protocol mandated decision was made to discontinue the 61.2 Gy arm following review of toxicity with the Data and Safety Monitoring Board. CONCLUSION A randomized trial design using a planned early interim toxicity analysis to discriminate between experimental treatment arms is feasible in a phase III setting. Refinement of the design could increase the likelihood of detecting clinically meaningful differences in toxicity in future studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeffrey A Bogart
- State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY, United States.
| | - Xiaofei Wang
- Alliance Statistics and Data Center, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States
| | | | - Junheng Gao
- Alliance Statistics and Data Center, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States
| | | | - Laurie E Gaspar
- Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center, Greeley, CO, United States
| | - John V Heymach
- MD Anderson Cancer Center, University of Texas, Houston, TX, United States
| | | | - Charles Kuzma
- FirstHealth of the Carolinas-Moore Regional Hospital, Pinehurst, NC, United States
| | - Thomas E Stinchcombe
- Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States
| | - Everett E Vokes
- University of Chicago Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chicago, IL, United States
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Nieder C, Mehta MP, Guckenberger M, Gaspar LE, Rusthoven CG, Sahgal A, Grosu AL, De Ruysscher D. Assessment of extracranial metastatic disease in patients with brain metastases: How much effort is needed in the context of evolving survival prediction models? Radiother Oncol 2021; 159:17-20. [PMID: 33675870 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.02.038] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/18/2020] [Revised: 02/20/2021] [Accepted: 02/23/2021] [Indexed: 10/22/2022]
Abstract
Survival prediction models may serve as decision-support tools for clinicians who have to assign the right treatment to each patient, in a manner whereby harmful over- or undertreatment is avoided as much as possible. Current models differ regarding their components, the overall number of components and the weighting of individual components. Some of the components are easy to assess, such as age or primary tumor type. Others carry the risk of inter-assessor inconsistency and time-dependent variation. The present publication focuses on issues related to assessment of extracranial metastases and potential surrogates, e.g. blood biomarkers. It identifies areas of controversy and provides recommendations for future research projects, which may contribute to prognostic models with improved accuracy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carsten Nieder
- Department of Oncology and Palliative Medicine, Nordland Hospital, Bodø, Norway; Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT - The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
| | - Minesh P Mehta
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, USA
| | - Matthias Guckenberger
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Laurie E Gaspar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado and Banner MDAnderson of Northern Colorado, USA
| | - Chad G Rusthoven
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, USA
| | - Arjun Sahgal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Anca L Grosu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical Center, Medical Faculty, University Freiburg, Germany
| | - Dirk De Ruysscher
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO Clinic), Maastricht University Medical Center, GROW, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Hanna NH, Robinson AG, Temin S, Baker S, Brahmer JR, Ellis PM, Gaspar LE, Haddad RY, Hesketh PJ, Jain D, Jaiyesimi I, Johnson DH, Leighl NB, Moffitt PR, Phillips T, Riely GJ, Rosell R, Schiller JH, Schneider BJ, Singh N, Spigel DR, Tashbar J, Masters G. Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer With Driver Alterations: ASCO and OH (CCO) Joint Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol 2021; 39:1040-1091. [PMID: 33591844 DOI: 10.1200/jco.20.03570] [Citation(s) in RCA: 172] [Impact Index Per Article: 57.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/30/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To provide evidence-based recommendations updating the 2017 ASCO guideline on systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with driver alterations. A guideline update for systemic therapy for patients with stage IV NSCLC without driver alterations was published separately. METHODS The American Society of Clinical Oncology and Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) NSCLC Expert Panel updated recommendations based on a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from December 2015 to January 2020 and meeting abstracts from ASCO 2020. RESULTS This guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous update. Twenty-seven RCTs, 26 observational studies, and one meta-analysis provide the evidence base (total 54). Outcomes of interest included efficacy and safety. Additional literature suggested by the Expert Panel is discussed. RECOMMENDATIONS All patients with nonsquamous NSCLC should have the results of testing for potentially targetable mutations (alterations) before implementing therapy for advanced lung cancer, regardless of smoking status recommendations, when possible, following other existing high-quality testing guidelines. Most patients should receive targeted therapy for these alterations: Targeted therapies against ROS-1 fusions, BRAF V600e mutations, RET fusions, MET exon 14 skipping mutations, and NTRK fusions should be offered to patients, either as initial or second-line therapy when not given in the first-line setting. New or revised recommendations include the following: Osimertinib is the optimal first-line treatment for patients with activating epidermal growth factor receptor mutations (exon 19 deletion, exon 21 L858R, and exon 20 T790M); alectinib or brigatinib is the optimal first-line treatment for patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase fusions. For the first time, to our knowledge, the guideline includes recommendations regarding RET, MET, and NTRK alterations. Chemotherapy is still an option at most stages.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nasser H Hanna
- Indiana University Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN
| | - Andrew G Robinson
- Kingston General Hospital, School of Medicine, Queen's University, ON, Canada
| | - Sarah Temin
- American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA
| | | | | | | | - Laurie E Gaspar
- University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver, CO.,Banner MDA Cancer Center, Greeley, CO
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Natasha B Leighl
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | | | | | | | - Rafael Rosell
- Catalan Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
| | | | | | - Navneet Singh
- Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
| | | | | | - Gregory Masters
- Helen F. Graham Cancer Center and Research Institute, Newark, DE
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Sperduto PW, Mesko S, Li J, Cagney D, Aizer A, Lin NU, Nesbit E, Kruser TJ, Chan J, Braunstein S, Lee J, Kirkpatrick JP, Breen W, Brown PD, Shi D, Shih HA, Soliman H, Sahgal A, Shanley R, Sperduto WA, Lou E, Everett A, Boggs DH, Masucci L, Roberge D, Remick J, Plichta K, Buatti JM, Jain S, Gaspar LE, Wu CC, Wang TJ, Bryant J, Chuong M, An Y, Chiang V, Nakano T, Aoyama H, Mehta MP. Survival in Patients With Brain Metastases: Summary Report on the Updated Diagnosis-Specific Graded Prognostic Assessment and Definition of the Eligibility Quotient. J Clin Oncol 2020; 38:3773-3784. [PMID: 32931399 PMCID: PMC7655019 DOI: 10.1200/jco.20.01255] [Citation(s) in RCA: 191] [Impact Index Per Article: 47.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 08/15/2020] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Conventional wisdom has rendered patients with brain metastases ineligible for clinical trials for fear that poor survival could mask the benefit of otherwise promising treatments. Our group previously published the diagnosis-specific Graded Prognostic Assessment (GPA). Updates with larger contemporary cohorts using molecular markers and newly identified prognostic factors have been published. The purposes of this work are to present all the updated indices in a single report to guide treatment choice, stratify research, and define an eligibility quotient to expand eligibility. METHODS A multi-institutional database of 6,984 patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases underwent multivariable analyses of prognostic factors and treatments associated with survival for each primary site. Significant factors were used to define the updated GPA. GPAs of 4.0 and 0.0 correlate with the best and worst prognoses, respectively. RESULTS Significant prognostic factors varied by diagnosis and new prognostic factors were identified. Those factors were incorporated into the updated GPA with robust separation (P < .01) between subgroups. Survival has improved, but varies widely by GPA for patients with non-small-cell lung, breast, melanoma, GI, and renal cancer with brain metastases from 7-47 months, 3-36 months, 5-34 months, 3-17 months, and 4-35 months, respectively. CONCLUSION Median survival varies widely and our ability to estimate survival for patients with brain metastases has improved. The updated GPA (available free at brainmetgpa.com) provides an accurate tool with which to estimate survival, individualize treatment, and stratify clinical trials. Instead of excluding patients with brain metastases, enrollment should be encouraged and those trials should be stratified by the GPA to ensure those trials make appropriate comparisons. Furthermore, we recommend the expansion of eligibility to allow for the enrollment of patients with previously treated brain metastases who have a 50% or greater probability of an additional year of survival (eligibility quotient > 0.50).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul W. Sperduto
- Minneapolis Radiation Oncology and University of Minnesota Gamma Knife Center, Minneapolis, MN
| | | | - Jing Li
- MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - Ayal Aizer
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
| | | | | | | | - Jason Chan
- University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Diana Shi
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
| | | | - Hany Soliman
- Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Arjun Sahgal
- Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | | | | | - Emil Lou
- University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
| | | | | | - Laura Masucci
- Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - David Roberge
- Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Yi An
- Yale University, New Haven, CT
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
13
|
Sperduto PW, Mesko S, Li J, Cagney D, Aizer A, Lin NU, Nesbit E, Kruser TJ, Chan J, Braunstein S, Lee J, Kirkpatrick JP, Breen W, Brown PD, Shi D, Shih HA, Soliman H, Sahgal A, Shanley R, Sperduto W, Lou E, Everett A, Boggs DH, Masucci L, Roberge D, Remick J, Plichta K, Buatti JM, Jain S, Gaspar LE, Wu CC, Wang TJC, Bryant J, Chuong M, Yu J, Chiang V, Nakano T, Aoyama H, Mehta MP. Beyond an Updated Graded Prognostic Assessment (Breast GPA): A Prognostic Index and Trends in Treatment and Survival in Breast Cancer Brain Metastases From 1985 to Today. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020; 107:334-343. [PMID: 32084525 PMCID: PMC7276246 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.01.051] [Citation(s) in RCA: 73] [Impact Index Per Article: 18.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/25/2019] [Revised: 01/28/2020] [Accepted: 01/31/2020] [Indexed: 02/02/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Brain metastases are a common sequelae of breast cancer. Survival varies widely based on diagnosis-specific prognostic factors (PF). We previously published a prognostic index (Graded Prognostic Assessment [GPA]) for patients with breast cancer with brain metastases (BCBM), based on cohort A (1985-2007, n = 642), then updated it, reporting the effect of tumor subtype in cohort B (1993-2010, n = 400). The purpose of this study is to update the Breast GPA with a larger contemporary cohort (C) and compare treatment and survival across the 3 cohorts. METHODS AND MATERIALS A multi-institutional (19), multinational (3), retrospective database of 2473 patients with breast cancer with newly diagnosed brain metastases (BCBM) diagnosed from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2017, was created and compared with prior cohorts. Associations of PF and treatment with survival were analyzed. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were compared with log-rank tests. PF were weighted and the Breast GPA was updated such that a GPA of 0 and 4.0 correlate with the worst and best prognoses, respectively. RESULTS Median survival (MS) for cohorts A, B, and C improved over time (from 11, to 14 to 16 months, respectively; P < .01), despite the subtype distribution becoming less favorable. PF significant for survival were tumor subtype, Karnofsky Performance Status, age, number of BCBMs, and extracranial metastases (all P < .01). MS for GPA 0 to 1.0, 1.5-2.0, 2.5-3.0, and 3.5-4.0 was 6, 13, 24, and 36 months, respectively. Between cohorts B and C, the proportion of human epidermal receptor 2 + subtype decreased from 31% to 18% (P < .01) and MS in this subtype increased from 18 to 25 months (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS MS has improved modestly but varies widely by diagnosis-specific PF. New PF are identified and incorporated into an updated Breast GPA (free online calculator available at brainmetgpa.com). The Breast GPA facilitates clinical decision-making and will be useful for stratification of future clinical trials. Furthermore, these data suggest human epidermal receptor 2-targeted therapies improve clinical outcomes in some patients with BCBM.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul W Sperduto
- Minneapolis Radiation Oncology & University of Minnesota Gamma Knife Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
| | | | - Jing Li
- MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | | | - Ayal Aizer
- Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Nancy U Lin
- Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
| | | | | | - Jason Chan
- University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| | - Steve Braunstein
- University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| | | | | | | | | | - Diana Shi
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Helen A Shih
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Hany Soliman
- Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Arjun Sahgal
- Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | | | | | - Emil Lou
- University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
| | | | | | - Laura Masucci
- Centre Hospitalier de l' Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - David Roberge
- Centre Hospitalier de l' Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - James Yu
- Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
14
|
Chang SM, Messersmith H, Ahluwalia M, Andrews D, Brastianos PK, Gaspar LE, Gatson NTN, Jordan JT, Khasraw M, Lassman AB, Maues J, Mrugala M, Raizer J, Schiff D, Stevens G, Sumrall A, Van den Bent M, Vogelbaum MA. Anticonvulsant prophylaxis and steroid use in adults with metastatic brain tumors: summary of SNO and ASCO endorsement of the Congress of Neurological Surgeons guidelines. Neuro Oncol 2020; 21:424-427. [PMID: 30883663 DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/noz034] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/30/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS) has developed a series of guidelines on the treatment of adults with metastatic brain tumors, including systemic therapy and supportive care topics. ASCO has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations. METHODS Two CNS Guidelines were reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists and an independent multi-disciplinary Expert Panel was formed to review the content and assess agreement with the recommendations. The expert panel voted to endorse the two guidelines and ASCO and SNO independently reviewed and approved the ASCO/SNO guideline endorsement. RESULTS The ASCO/SNO Expert Panel determined that the recommendations from the CNS anticonvulsants and steroids guidelines, published January 9, 2019, are clear, thorough, and based upon the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO/SNO endorsed these two CNS guidelines, with minor alterations. CONCLUSIONS Key recommendations include: prophylactic anti-epileptic drugs were not recommended for routine use; corticosteroids (specifically dexamethasone) were recommended for temporary symptomatic relief in patients with neurologic symptoms and signs related to mass effect from brain metastases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Susan M Chang
- University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Julia Maues
- Georgetown Breast Cancer Advocates, Washington, DC, USA
| | | | - Jeffrey Raizer
- Northwestern University, Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - David Schiff
- University of Virginia Medical Center, Charlottesville, VA, USA
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
15
|
Sun A, Hu C, Wong SJ, Gore E, Videtic G, Dutta S, Suntharalingam M, Chen Y, Gaspar LE, Choy H. Prophylactic Cranial Irradiation vs Observation in Patients With Locally Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Long-term Update of the NRG Oncology/RTOG 0214 Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol 2020; 5:847-855. [PMID: 30869743 DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.7220] [Citation(s) in RCA: 37] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
Importance Brain metastasis (BM) rates are high in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC), approaching rates seen in small cell lung cancer, where prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) is standard of care. Although PCI decreases the incidence of BM in LA-NSCLC, a survival advantage has not yet been shown. Objective To determine if PCI improves survival in LA-NSCLC. Design, Setting, and Participants Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0214 was a randomized phase 3 clinical trial in stage III NSCLC stratified by stage (IIIA vs IIIB), histologic characteristics (nonsquamous vs squamous) and therapy (no surgery vs surgery). The study took place at 291 institutions in the United States, Canada, and internationally. Of 356 patients with stage III NSCLC entered onto this study, 16 were ineligible; therefore, 340 patients were randomized. Intervention for Clinical Trials Observation vs PCI. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). The secondary end points were disease-free survival (DFS) and incidence of BM. Results Of the 340 total participants, mean (SD) age was 61 years; 213 of the participants were men and 127 were women. The median follow-up time was 2.1 years for all patients, and 9.2 years for living patients. The OS for PCI was not significantly better than observation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.63-1.06; P = .12; 5- and 10-year rates, 24.7% and 17.6% vs 26.0% and 13.3%, respectively), while the DFS (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.97; P = .03; 5- and 10-year rates, 19.0% and 12.6% vs 16.1% and 7.5% for PCI vs observation) and BM (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24-0.77; P = .003; 5- and 10-year rates, 16.7% vs 28.3% for PCI vs observation) were significantly different. Patients in the PCI arm were 57% less likely to develop BM than those in the observation arm. Younger patients (<60 years) and patients with nonsquamous disease developed more BM. On multivariable analysis, PCI was associated with decreased BM and improved DFS, but not improved OS. Multivariable analysis within the nonsurgical arm suggests that PCI effectively prolongs OS, DFS, and BM. Conclusions and Relevance In patients with stage III LA-NSCLC without progression of disease after therapy, PCI decreased the 5- and 10-year rate of BM and improved 5- and 10-year DFS, but did not improve OS. Although this study did not meet its primary end point, the long-term results reveal many important findings that will benefit future trials. Identifying the appropriate patient population and a safe intervention is critical. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00048997.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander Sun
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Chen Hu
- NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.,Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | | | | | | | - Swati Dutta
- Michigan Cancer Research Consortium CCOP, Ann Arbor
| | | | | | | | - Hak Choy
- University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Hanna NH, Schneider BJ, Temin S, Baker S, Brahmer J, Ellis PM, Gaspar LE, Haddad RY, Hesketh PJ, Jain D, Jaiyesimi I, Johnson DH, Leighl NB, Phillips T, Riely GJ, Robinson AG, Rosell R, Schiller JH, Singh N, Spigel DR, Stabler JO, Tashbar J, Masters G. Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Without Driver Alterations: ASCO and OH (CCO) Joint Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol 2020; 38:1608-1632. [PMID: 31990617 DOI: 10.1200/jco.19.03022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 197] [Impact Index Per Article: 49.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The aim of this work is to provide evidence-based recommendations updating the 2017 ASCO guideline on systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without driver alterations. A guideline update for patients with stage IV NSCLC with driver alterations will be published separately. METHODS The American Society of Clinical Oncology and Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) NSCLC Expert Panel made updated recommendations based on a systematic review of randomized controlled trials from December 2015 to 2019. RESULTS This guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous guideline update. Five randomized controlled trials provide the evidence base. Additional literature suggested by the Expert Panel is discussed. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations apply to patients without driver alterations in epidermal growth factor receptor or ALK. For patients with high programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression (tumor proportion score [TPS] ≥ 50%) and non-squamous cell carcinoma (non-SCC), the Expert Panel recommends single-agent pembrolizumab. Additional treatment options include pembrolizumab/carboplatin/pemetrexed, atezolizumab/carboplatin/paclitaxel/bevacizumab, or atezolizumab/carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel. For most patients with non-SCC and either negative (0%) or low positive (1% to 49%) PD-L1, the Expert Panel recommends pembrolizumab/carboplatin/pemetrexed. Additional options are atezolizumab/carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel, atezolizumab/carboplatin/paclitaxel/bevacizumab, platinum-based two-drug combination chemotherapy, or non-platinum-based two-drug therapy. Single-agent pembrolizumab is an option for low positive PD-L1. For patients with high PD-L1 expression (TPS ≥ 50%) and SCC, the Expert Panel recommends single-agent pembrolizumab. An additional treatment option is pembrolizumab/carboplatin/(paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel). For most patients with SCC and either negative (0%) or low positive PD-L1 (TPS 1% to 49%), the Expert Panel recommends pembrolizumab/carboplatin/(paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel) or chemotherapy. Single-agent pembrolizumab is an option in select cases of low positive PD-L1. Recommendations are conditional on the basis of histology, PD-L1 status, and/or the presence or absence of contraindications. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/lung-cancer-guidelines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nasser H Hanna
- Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN
| | | | - Sarah Temin
- American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA
| | | | - Julie Brahmer
- Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
| | | | - Laurie E Gaspar
- University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver, CO.,Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center, Greeley, CO
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Natasha B Leighl
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | | | | | - Andrew G Robinson
- Kingston General Hospital, School of Medicine, Queen's University, Ontario, Canada
| | | | | | - Navneet Singh
- Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
| | | | | | - Joan Tashbar
- Circle of Hope for Cancer Research, St Cloud, FL
| | - Gregory Masters
- Helen F. Graham Cancer Center and Research Institute, Newark, DE
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Vinogradskiy Y, Diot Q, Jones B, Castillo R, Castillo E, Kwak J, Bowles D, Grills I, Myziuk N, Guerrero T, Stevens C, Schefter T, Gaspar LE, Kavanagh B, Miften M, Rusthoven C. Evaluating Positron Emission Tomography-Based Functional Imaging Changes in the Heart After Chemo-Radiation for Patients With Lung Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020; 106:1063-1070. [PMID: 31983558 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.12.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/30/2019] [Revised: 11/27/2019] [Accepted: 12/10/2019] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Studies have noted a link between radiation dose to the heart and overall survival (OS) for patients with lung cancer treated with chemoradiation. The purpose of this study was to characterize pre- to posttreatment cardiac metabolic changes using fluorodeoxyglucose/positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) images and to evaluate whether changes in cardiac metabolism predict for OS. METHODS AND MATERIALS Thirty-nine patients enrolled in a functional avoidance prospective study who had undergone pre- and postchemoradiation FDG-PET imaging were evaluated. For each patient, the pretreatment and posttreatment PET/CTs were rigidly registered to the planning CT, dose, and structure set. PET-based metabolic dose-response was assessed by comparing pretreatment to posttreatment mean standardized uptake values (SUVmean) in the heart as a function of dose-bin. OS analysis was performed by comparing SUVmean changes for patients who were alive or had died at last follow-up and by using a multivariate model to assess whether pre- to posttreatment SUVmean changes were a predictor of OS. RESULTS The dose-response curve revealed increasing changes in SUV as a function of cardiac dose with an average SUVmean increase of 1.7% per 10 Gy. Patients were followed for a median of 437 days (range, 201-1131 days). SUVmean change was significantly predictive of OS on multivariate analysis with a hazard ratio of 0.541 (95% confidence intervals, 0.312-0.937). Patients alive at follow-up had an average increase of 17.2% in cardiac SUVmean while patients that died had an average decrease in SUVmean decrease of 13.5% (P = .048). CONCLUSIONS Our data demonstrated that posttreatment SUV changes in the heart were significant indicators of dose-response and predictors of OS. The present work is hypothesis generating and must be validated in an independent cohort. If validated, our data show the potential for cardiac metabolic changes to be an early predictor for clinical outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yevgeniy Vinogradskiy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado.
| | - Quentin Diot
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Bernard Jones
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Richard Castillo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Edward Castillo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, Missouri
| | - Jennifer Kwak
- Department of Radiology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Daniel Bowles
- Rocky Mountain Regional VA Medical Center, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Inga Grills
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, Missouri
| | - Nicholas Myziuk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, Missouri
| | - Thomas Guerrero
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, Missouri
| | - Craig Stevens
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, Missouri
| | - Tracey Schefter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Laurie E Gaspar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Brian Kavanagh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Moyed Miften
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Chad Rusthoven
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Gaspar LE, Prabhu RS, Hdeib A, McCracken DJ, Lasker GF, McDermott MW, Kalkanis SN, Olson JJ. Congress of Neurological Surgeons Systematic Review and Evidence-Based Guidelines on the Role of Whole Brain Radiation Therapy in Adults With Newly Diagnosed Metastatic Brain Tumors. Neurosurgery 2019; 84:E159-E162. [PMID: 30629211 DOI: 10.1093/neuros/nyy541] [Citation(s) in RCA: 44] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/01/2018] [Accepted: 10/18/2018] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
TARGET POPULATION Adult patients (older than 18 yr of age) with newly diagnosed brain metastases. QUESTION If whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) is used, is there an optimal dose/fractionation schedule? RECOMMENDATIONS Level 1: A standard WBRT dose/fractionation schedule (ie, 30 Gy in 10 fractions or a biological equivalent dose [BED] of 39 Gy10) is recommended as altered dose/fractionation schedules do not result in significant differences in median survival or local control. Level 3: Due to concerns regarding neurocognitive effects, higher dose per fraction schedules (such as 20 Gy in 5 fractions) are recommended only for patients with poor performance status or short predicted survival. Level 3: WBRT can be recommended to improve progression-free survival for patients with more than 4 brain metastases. QUESTION What impact does tumor histopathology or molecular status have on the decision to use WBRT, the dose fractionation scheme to be utilized, and its outcomes? RECOMMENDATIONS There is insufficient evidence to support the choice of any particular dose/fractionation regimen based on histopathology. Molecular status may have an impact on the decision to delay WBRT in subgroups of patients, but there is not sufficient data to make a more definitive recommendation. QUESTION Separate from survival outcomes, what are the neurocognitive consequences of WBRT, and what steps can be taken to minimize them? RECOMMENDATIONS Level 2: Due to neurocognitive toxicity, local therapy (surgery or SRS) without WBRT is recommended for patients with ≤4 brain metastases amenable to local therapy in terms of size and location. Level 2: Given the association of neurocognitive toxicity with increasing total dose and dose per fraction of WBRT, WBRT doses exceeding 30 Gy given in 10 fractions, or similar biologically equivalent doses, are not recommended, except in patients with poor performance status or short predicted survival. Level 2: If prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) is given to prevent brain metastases for small cell lung cancer, the recommended WBRT dose/fractionation regimen is 25 Gy in 10 fractions, and because this can be associated with neurocognitive decline, patients should be told of this risk at the same time they are counseled about the possible survival benefits. Level 3: Patients having WBRT (given for either existing brain metastases or as PCI) should be offered 6 mo of memantine to potentially delay, lessen, or prevent the associated neurocognitive toxicity. QUESTION Does the addition of WBRT after surgical resection or radiosurgery improve progression-free or overall survival outcomes when compared to surgical resection or radiosurgery alone? RECOMMENDATIONS Level 2: WBRT is not recommended in WHO performance status 0 to 2 patients with up to 4 brain metastases because, compared to surgical resection or radiosurgery alone, the addition of WBRT improves intracranial progression-free survival but not overall survival. Level 2: In WHO performance status 0 to 2 patients with up to 4 brain metastases where the goal is minimizing neurocognitive toxicity, as opposed to maximizing progression-free survival and overall survival, local therapy (surgery or radiosurgery) without WBRT is recommended. Level 3: Compared to surgical resection or radiosurgery alone, the addition of WBRT is not recommended for patients with more than 4 brain metastases unless the metastases' volume exceeds 7 cc, or there are more than 15 metastases, or the size or location of the metastases are not amenable to surgical resection or radiosurgery.The full guideline can be found at: https://www.cns.org/guidelines/guidelines-treatment-adults-metastatic-brain-tumors/chapter_3.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laurie E Gaspar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Roshan S Prabhu
- Southeast Radiation Oncology Group and Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, North Carolina
| | - Alia Hdeib
- Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - D Jay McCracken
- Department of Neurosurgery, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - George F Lasker
- Departments of Neurological Surgery, Radiation Oncology, Otolaryngology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| | - Michael W McDermott
- Departments of Neurological Surgery, Radiation Oncology, Otolaryngology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| | - Steven N Kalkanis
- Department of Neurosurgery, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan
| | - Jeffrey J Olson
- Department of Neurosurgery, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea Bezjak
- Andrea Bezjak, MD, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Rebecca Paulus, NRG Oncology, Philadelphia, PA; Laurie E. Gaspar, MD, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Robert D. Timmerman, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX; and Jeffrey D. Bradley, MD, Washington University in St Louis School of Medicine, St Louis, MO
| | - Rebecca Paulus
- Andrea Bezjak, MD, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Rebecca Paulus, NRG Oncology, Philadelphia, PA; Laurie E. Gaspar, MD, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Robert D. Timmerman, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX; and Jeffrey D. Bradley, MD, Washington University in St Louis School of Medicine, St Louis, MO
| | - Laurie E Gaspar
- Andrea Bezjak, MD, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Rebecca Paulus, NRG Oncology, Philadelphia, PA; Laurie E. Gaspar, MD, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Robert D. Timmerman, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX; and Jeffrey D. Bradley, MD, Washington University in St Louis School of Medicine, St Louis, MO
| | - Robert D Timmerman
- Andrea Bezjak, MD, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Rebecca Paulus, NRG Oncology, Philadelphia, PA; Laurie E. Gaspar, MD, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Robert D. Timmerman, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX; and Jeffrey D. Bradley, MD, Washington University in St Louis School of Medicine, St Louis, MO
| | - Jeffrey D Bradley
- Andrea Bezjak, MD, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Rebecca Paulus, NRG Oncology, Philadelphia, PA; Laurie E. Gaspar, MD, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Robert D. Timmerman, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX; and Jeffrey D. Bradley, MD, Washington University in St Louis School of Medicine, St Louis, MO
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Amini A, Verma V, Glaser SM, Shinde A, Sampath S, Stokes WA, Rusthoven CG, Massarelli E, Salgia R, Gaspar LE, Liu AK. Early mortality of stage IV non-small cell lung cancer in the United States. Acta Oncol 2019; 58:1095-1101. [PMID: 30958075 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2019.1599138] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/06/2023]
Abstract
Background: Early mortality is a major deterrent to oncologic management, often preventing delivery of therapy or leading to administration of treatment that offers limited benefit from aggressive interventions. Due to more recent progress in therapeutic options for stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, identifying those at high risk of early mortality (within 30 days) could have implications for treatment selection. Because early mortality following diagnosis of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is not well-characterized, this investigation evaluated national trends and predictors thereof. Material and methods: The National Cancer Database was queried for cases of pathologically confirmed metastatic NSCLC with complete vital status and clinical information, diagnosed between 2006 and 2014. Multivariable logistic regression ascertained factors associated with 30-day mortality. Results: Of 346,681 patients, 45,861 (13%) experienced early mortality over the past decade, which remained relatively constant over time. Predictors of early mortality included advancing age (>65 years), male gender, Caucasian race, non-private insurance, lower income, greater comorbidities, residence in metropolitan and/or lesser-educated areas, treatment at community centers, patients with no prior history of cancer and regional differences (p < .01 for all). Early mortality was highest in patients older than 80 years with multiple comorbidities (29%). The majority of patients (71%) who died within 30 days did not receive any therapy. Conclusions: A fair proportion of NSCLC patients experience early mortality, which has not decreased over time. The majority of patients with early mortality do not receive treatment. Prognostic factors for early mortality should be considered during initial evaluation and subsequent follow-up of these patients. Doing so may impact systemic treatment selection by medical oncologists, management of (oligo)metastatic disease by radiation and surgical oncologists and cost-effective administration of these therapies in the stage IV NSCLC population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arya Amini
- Department of Radiation Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA
| | - Vivek Verma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Scott M. Glaser
- Department of Radiation Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA
| | - Ashwin Shinde
- Department of Radiation Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA
| | - Sagus Sampath
- Department of Radiation Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA
| | - William A. Stokes
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Chad G. Rusthoven
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA
| | - Erminia Massarelli
- Department of Medical Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA
| | - Ravi Salgia
- Department of Medical Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA
| | - Laurie E. Gaspar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA
| | - Arthur K. Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UC Health – Harmony Campus, Fort Collins, CO, USA
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Sperduto PW, Fang P, Li J, Breen W, Brown PD, Cagney D, Aizer A, Yu JB, Chiang V, Jain S, Gaspar LE, Myrehaug S, Sahgal A, Braunstein S, Sneed P, Cameron B, Attia A, Molitoris J, Wu CC, Wang TJC, Lockney NA, Beal K, Parkhurst J, Buatti JM, Shanley R, Lou E, Tandberg DD, Kirkpatrick JP, Shi D, Shih HA, Chuong M, Saito H, Aoyama H, Masucci L, Roberge D, Mehta MP. Estimating survival in patients with gastrointestinal cancers and brain metastases: An update of the graded prognostic assessment for gastrointestinal cancers (GI-GPA). Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2019; 18:39-45. [PMID: 31341974 PMCID: PMC6612649 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2019.06.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/14/2019] [Revised: 06/23/2019] [Accepted: 06/24/2019] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Patients with gastrointestinal cancers and brain metastases (BM) represent a unique and heterogeneous population. Our group previously published the Diagnosis-Specific Graded Prognostic Assessment (DS-GPA) for patients with GI cancers (GI-GPA) (1985-2007, n = 209). The purpose of this study is to update the GI-GPA based on a larger contemporary database. Methods An IRB-approved consortium database analysis was performed using a multi-institutional (18), multi-national (3) cohort of 792 patients with gastrointestinal (GI) cancers, with newly-diagnosed BM diagnosed between 1/1/2006 and 12/31/2017. Survival was measured from date of first treatment for BM. Multiple Cox regression was used to select and weight prognostic factors in proportion to their hazard ratios. These factors were incorporated into the updated GI-GPA. Results Median survival (MS) varied widely by primary site and other prognostic factors. Four significant factors (KPS, age, extracranial metastases and number of BM) were used to formulate the updated GI-GPA. Overall MS for this cohort remains poor; 8 months. MS by GPA was 3, 7, 11 and 17 months for GPA 0-1, 1.5-2, 2.5-3.0 and 3.5-4.0, respectively. >30% present in the worst prognostic group (GI-GPA of ≤1.0). Conclusions Brain metastases are not uncommon in GI cancer patients and MS varies widely among them. This updated GI-GPA index improves our ability to estimate survival for these patients and will be useful for therapy selection, end-of-life decision-making and stratification for future clinical trials. A user-friendly, free, on-line app to calculate the GPA score and estimate survival for an individual patient is available at brainmetgpa.com.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul W Sperduto
- Minneapolis Radiation Oncology and University of Minnesota Gamma Knife Center, USA
| | | | - Jing Li
- MD Anderson Cancer Center, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Laura Masucci
- Centre Hospitalier de l' Université de Montreal, Canada
| | - David Roberge
- Centre Hospitalier de l' Université de Montreal, Canada
| | | |
Collapse
|
22
|
Sperduto PW, Fang P, Li J, Breen W, Brown PD, Cagney D, Aizer A, Yu J, Chiang V, Jain S, Gaspar LE, Myrehaug S, Sahgal A, Braunstein S, Sneed P, Cameron B, Attia A, Molitoris J, Wu CC, Wang TJC, Lockney N, Beal K, Parkhurst J, Buatti JM, Shanley R, Lou E, Tandberg DD, Kirkpatrick JP, Shi D, Shih HA, Chuong M, Saito H, Aoyama H, Masucci L, Roberge D, Mehta MP. Survival and prognostic factors in patients with gastrointestinal cancers and brain metastases: have we made progress? Transl Res 2019; 208:63-72. [PMID: 30885538 PMCID: PMC6527460 DOI: 10.1016/j.trsl.2019.02.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/15/2018] [Revised: 02/17/2019] [Accepted: 02/22/2019] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
The literature describing the prognosis of patients with gastrointestinal (GI) cancers and brain metastases (BM) is sparse. Our group previously published a prognostic index, the Graded Prognostic Assessment (GPA) for GI cancer patients with BM, based on 209 patients diagnosed from 1985-2005. The purpose of this analysis is to identify prognostic factors for GI cancer patients with newly diagnosed BM in a larger contemporary cohort. A multi-institutional retrospective IRB-approved database of 792 GI cancer patients with new BM diagnosed from 1/1/2006 to 12/31/2016 was created. Demographic data, clinical parameters, and treatment were correlated with survival and time from primary diagnosis to BM (TPDBM). Kaplan-Meier median survival (MS) estimates were calculated and compared with log-rank tests. The MS from time of first treatment for BM for the prior and current cohorts were 5 and 8 months, respectively (P < 0.001). Eight prognostic factors (age, stage, primary site, resection of primary tumor, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), extracranial metastases, number of BM and Hgb were found to be significant for survival, in contrast to only one (KPS) in the prior cohort. In this cohort, the most common primary sites were rectum (24%) and esophagus (23%). Median TPDBM was 22 months. Notably, 37% (267/716) presented with poor prognosis (GPA 0-1.0). Although little improvement in overall survival in this cohort has been achieved in recent decades, survival varies widely and multiple new prognostic factors were identified. Future work will translate these factors into a prognostic index to facilitate clinical decision-making and stratification of future clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul W Sperduto
- Minneapolis Radiation Oncology and University of Minnesota Gamma Knife Center.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
23
|
Bezjak A, Paulus R, Gaspar LE, Timmerman RD, Straube WL, Ryan WF, Garces YI, Pu AT, Singh AK, Videtic GM, McGarry RC, Iyengar P, Pantarotto JR, Urbanic JJ, Sun AY, Daly ME, Grills IS, Sperduto P, Normolle DP, Bradley JD, Choy H. Safety and Efficacy of a Five-Fraction Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy Schedule for Centrally Located Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: NRG Oncology/RTOG 0813 Trial. J Clin Oncol 2019; 37:1316-1325. [PMID: 30943123 PMCID: PMC6524984 DOI: 10.1200/jco.18.00622] [Citation(s) in RCA: 294] [Impact Index Per Article: 58.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Patients with centrally located early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are at a higher risk of toxicity from high-dose ablative radiotherapy. NRG Oncology/RTOG 0813 was a phase I/II study designed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), efficacy, and toxicity of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for centrally located NSCLC. MATERIALS AND METHODS Medically inoperable patients with biopsy-proven, positron emission tomography-staged T1 to 2 (≤ 5 cm) N0M0 centrally located NSCLC were accrued into a dose-escalating, five-fraction SBRT schedule that ranged from 10 to 12 Gy/fraction (fx) delivered over 1.5 to 2 weeks. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was defined as any treatment-related grade 3 or worse predefined toxicity that occurred within the first year. MTD was defined as the SBRT dose at which the probability of DLT was closest to 20% without exceeding it. RESULTS One hundred twenty patients were accrued between February 2009 and September 2013. Patients were elderly, there were slightly more females, and the majority had a performance status of 0 to 1. Most cancers were T1 (65%) and squamous cell (45%). Organs closest to planning target volume/most at risk were the main bronchus and large vessels. Median follow-up was 37.9 months. Five patients experienced DLTs; MTD was 12.0 Gy/fx, which had a probability of a DLT of 7.2% (95% CI, 2.8% to 14.5%). Two-year rates for the 71 evaluable patients in the 11.5 and 12.0 Gy/fx cohorts were local control, 89.4% (90% CI, 81.6% to 97.4%) and 87.9% (90% CI, 78.8% to 97.0%); overall survival, 67.9% (95% CI, 50.4% to 80.3%) and 72.7% (95% CI, 54.1% to 84.8%); and progression-free survival, 52.2% (95% CI, 35.3% to 66.6%) and 54.5% (95% CI, 36.3% to 69.6%), respectively. CONCLUSION The MTD for this study was 12.0 Gy/fx; it was associated with 7.2% DLTs and high rates of tumor control. Outcomes in this medically inoperable group of mostly elderly patients with comorbidities were comparable with that of patients with peripheral early-stage tumors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea Bezjak
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada,Andrea Bezjak, MD, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, 610 University Ave, Toronto, Ontario M5G 2M9, Canada; Twitter: @NRGonc; e-mail:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Paul Sperduto
- Metro-Minnesota Community Clinical Oncology Program, St Louis Park, MN
| | | | | | - Hak Choy
- The University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Gomez DR, Tang C, Zhang J, Blumenschein GR, Hernandez M, Lee JJ, Ye R, Palma DA, Louie AV, Camidge DR, Doebele RC, Skoulidis F, Gaspar LE, Welsh JW, Gibbons DL, Karam JA, Kavanagh BD, Tsao AS, Sepesi B, Swisher SG, Heymach JV. Local Consolidative Therapy Vs. Maintenance Therapy or Observation for Patients With Oligometastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Long-Term Results of a Multi-Institutional, Phase II, Randomized Study. J Clin Oncol 2019; 37:1558-1565. [PMID: 31067138 DOI: 10.1200/jco.19.00201] [Citation(s) in RCA: 758] [Impact Index Per Article: 151.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Our previously published findings reported that local consolidative therapy (LCT) with radiotherapy or surgery improved progression-free survival (PFS) and delayed new disease in patients with oligometastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that did not progress after front-line systemic therapy. Herein, we present the longer-term overall survival (OS) results accompanied by additional secondary end points. PATIENTS AND METHODS values less than .10 were deemed significant. RESULTS = .034). Of the 20 patients who experienced progression in the MT/O arm, nine received LCT to all lesions after progression, and the median OS was 17 months (95% CI, 7.8 months to not reached). CONCLUSION In patients with oligometastatic NSCLC that did not progress after front-line systemic therapy, LCT prolonged PFS and OS relative to MT/O.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel R Gomez
- 1 The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Chad Tang
- 1 The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Jianjun Zhang
- 1 The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - Mike Hernandez
- 1 The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - J Jack Lee
- 1 The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Rong Ye
- 1 The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - David A Palma
- 2 London Health Sciences Center, London, Ontario, Canada
| | | | | | | | | | | | - James W Welsh
- 1 The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Don L Gibbons
- 1 The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Jose A Karam
- 1 The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - Anne S Tsao
- 1 The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Boris Sepesi
- 1 The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - John V Heymach
- 1 The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Stumpf PK, Cittelly DM, Robin TP, Carlson JA, Stuhr KA, Contreras-Zarate MJ, Lai S, Ormond DR, Rusthoven CG, Gaspar LE, Rabinovitch R, Kavanagh BD, Liu A, Diamond JR, Kabos P, Fisher CM. Combination of Trastuzumab Emtansine and Stereotactic Radiosurgery Results in High Rates of Clinically Significant Radionecrosis and Dysregulation of Aquaporin-4. Clin Cancer Res 2019; 25:3946-3953. [PMID: 30940654 DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-18-2851] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/30/2018] [Revised: 01/09/2019] [Accepted: 03/27/2019] [Indexed: 01/05/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Patients with human EGFR2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer have a high incidence of brain metastases, and trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) is often employed. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is frequently utilized, and case series report increased toxicity with combination SRS and T-DM1. We provide an update of our experience of T-DM1 and SRS evaluating risk of clinically significant radionecrosis (CSRN) and propose a mechanism for this toxicity. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN Patients with breast cancer who were ≤45 years regardless of HER2 status or had HER2+ disease regardless of age and underwent SRS for brain metastases were included. Rates of CSRN, SRS data, and details of T-DM1 administration were recorded. Proliferation and astrocytic swelling studies were performed to elucidate mechanisms of toxicity. RESULTS A total of 45 patients were identified; 66.7% were HER2+, and 60.0% were ≤ 45 years old. Of the entire cohort, 10 patients (22.2%) developed CSRN, 9 of whom received T-DM1. CSRN was observed in 39.1% of patients who received T-DM1 versus 4.5% of patients who did not. Receipt of T-DM1 was associated with a 13.5-fold (P = 0.02) increase in CSRN. Mechanistically, T-DM1 targeted reactive astrocytes and increased radiation-induced cytotoxicity and astrocytic swelling via upregulation of Aquaporin-4 (Aqp4). CONCLUSIONS The strong correlation between development of CSRN after SRS and T-DM1 warrants prospective studies controlling for variations in timing of T-DM1 and radiation dosing to further stratify risk of CSRN and mitigate toxicity. Until such studies are completed, we advise caution in the combination of SRS and T-DM1.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Priscilla K Stumpf
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado.
| | - Diana M Cittelly
- Department of Pathology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Tyler P Robin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Julie A Carlson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, St. Mary's Oncology Group, Grand Junction, Colorado
| | - Kelly A Stuhr
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | | | - Steven Lai
- Department of Pathology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | - D Ryan Ormond
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Chad G Rusthoven
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Laurie E Gaspar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Rachel Rabinovitch
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Brian D Kavanagh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Arthur Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Jennifer R Diamond
- Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Peter Kabos
- Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado.
| | - Christine M Fisher
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado.
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Chang SM, Messersmith H, Ahluwalia M, Andrews D, Brastianos PK, Gaspar LE, Gatson NTN, Jordan JT, Khasraw M, Lassman AB, Maues J, Mrugala M, Raizer J, Schiff D, Stevens G, Sumrall A, van den Bent M, Vogelbaum MA. Anticonvulsant Prophylaxis and Steroid Use in Adults With Metastatic Brain Tumors: ASCO and SNO Endorsement of the Congress of Neurological Surgeons Guidelines. J Clin Oncol 2019; 37:1130-1135. [PMID: 30883246 DOI: 10.1200/jco.18.02085] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/17/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS) has developed a series of guidelines for the treatment of adults with metastatic brain tumors, including systemic therapy and supportive care topics. ASCO has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations. METHODS Two CNS guidelines were reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists, and an independent multidisciplinary Expert Panel was formed to review the content and assess agreement with the recommendations. The Expert Panel voted to endorse the two guidelines, and ASCO and Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) independently reviewed and approved the ASCO/SNO guideline endorsement. RESULTS The ASCO/SNO Expert Panel determined that the recommendations from the CNS anticonvulsants and steroids guidelines, published January 9, 2019, are clear, thorough, and based on the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO/SNO endorsed these two CNS guidelines with minor alterations. RECOMMENDATIONS Key recommendations include the following: prophylactic antiepileptic drugs were not recommended for routine use; and corticosteroids, specifically dexamethasone, were recommended for temporary symptomatic relief in patients with neurologic symptoms and signs related to mass effect from brain metastases. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/neurooncology-guidelines .
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Susan M Chang
- 1 University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Julia Maues
- 10 Georgetown Breast Cancer Advocates, Washington, DC
| | | | - Jeffrey Raizer
- 12 Northwestern University, Robert H Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | - David Schiff
- 13 University of Virginia Medical Center, Charlottesville, VA
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
27
|
Elhalawani H, Elgohari B, Lin TA, Mohamed ASR, Fitzgerald TJ, Laurie F, Ulin K, Kalpathy-Cramer J, Guerrero T, Holliday EB, Russo G, Patel A, Jones W, Walker GV, Awan M, Choi M, Dagan R, Mahmoud O, Shapiro A, Kong FMS, Gomez D, Zeng J, Decker R, Spoelstra FOB, Gaspar LE, Kachnic LA, Thomas CR, Okunieff P, Fuller CD. An in-silico quality assurance study of contouring target volumes in thoracic tumors within a cooperative group setting. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2019; 15:83-92. [PMID: 30775563 PMCID: PMC6365802 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2019.01.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/06/2018] [Revised: 01/03/2019] [Accepted: 01/04/2019] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
We aimed at quantifying inter-observer Pancoast tumors delineation variability. Experts’ delineations were used to define ground truth. Other observers’ delineations were compared against ground truth. High degree of variability was noted for most target volumes except GTV_P. This unveils potentials for protocol modification for future IMRT studies.
Introduction Target delineation variability is a significant technical impediment in multi-institutional trials which employ intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), as there is a real potential for clinically meaningful variances that can impact the outcomes in clinical trials. The goal of this study is to determine the variability of target delineation among participants from different institutions as part of Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) Radiotherapy Committee’s multi-institutional in-silico quality assurance study in patients with Pancoast tumors as a “dry run” for trial implementation. Methods CT simulation scans were acquired from four patients with Pancoast tumor. Two patients had simulation 4D-CT and FDG-FDG PET-CT while two patients had 3D-CT and FDG-FDG PET-CT. Seventeen SWOG-affiliated physicians independently delineated target volumes defined as gross primary and nodal tumor volumes (GTV_P & GTV_N), clinical target volume (CTV), and planning target volume (PTV). Six board-certified thoracic radiation oncologists were designated as the ‘Experts’ for this study. Their delineations were used to create a simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE) contours using ADMIRE software (Elekta AB, Sweden 2017). Individual participants’ contours were then compared with Experts’ STAPLE contours. Results When compared to the Experts’ STAPLE, GTV_P had the best agreement among all participants, while GTV_N showed the lowest agreement among all participants. There were no statistically significant differences in all studied parameters for all TVs for cases with 4D-CT versus cases with 3D-CT simulation scans. Conclusions High degree of inter-observer variation was noted for all target volume except for GTV_P, unveiling potentials for protocol modification for subsequent clinically meaningful improvement in target definition. Various similarity indices exist that can be used to guide multi-institutional radiotherapy delineation QA credentialing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hesham Elhalawani
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, TX 77030, USA
| | - Baher Elgohari
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, TX 77030, USA
| | - Timothy A Lin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, TX 77030, USA.,Baylor College of Medicine, TX 77030, USA
| | - Abdallah S R Mohamed
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, TX 77030, USA.,Department of Clinical Oncology and Nuclear Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt
| | - Thomas J Fitzgerald
- Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core QA Center Rhode Island, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Fran Laurie
- Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core QA Center Rhode Island, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Kenneth Ulin
- Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core QA Center Rhode Island, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer
- Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Thomas Guerrero
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, USA
| | - Emma B Holliday
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, TX 77030, USA
| | - Gregory Russo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston Medical Center, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Abhilasha Patel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Health Sciences Center at San Antonio, TX, USA
| | - William Jones
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Health Sciences Center at San Antonio, TX, USA
| | - Gary V Walker
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, TX 77030, USA.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center, Gilbert, Arizona, USA
| | - Musaddiq Awan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Case Western Reserve University, OH, USA
| | - Mehee Choi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Northwestern University, IL, USA
| | - Roi Dagan
- University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, FL, USA
| | - Omar Mahmoud
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami, FL, USA
| | - Anna Shapiro
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Upstate Cancer Center, SUNY Upstate Medical University, NY, USA
| | - Feng-Ming Spring Kong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, OH, USA
| | - Daniel Gomez
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, TX 77030, USA
| | - Jing Zeng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington Medical Center, WA, USA
| | - Roy Decker
- Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, Connecticut, USA
| | - Femke O B Spoelstra
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Laurie E Gaspar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Vanderbilt University, TN, USA
| | - Lisa A Kachnic
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Tennessee, USA
| | - Charles R Thomas
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Oregon, USA
| | - Paul Okunieff
- SWOG, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Florida, USA
| | - Clifton D Fuller
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, TX 77030, USA
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Nieder C, Guckenberger M, Gaspar LE, Rusthoven CG, De Ruysscher D, Sahgal A, Nguyen T, Grosu AL, Mehta MP. Management of patients with brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer and adverse prognostic features: multi-national radiation treatment recommendations are heterogeneous. Radiat Oncol 2019; 14:33. [PMID: 30770745 PMCID: PMC6377775 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-019-1237-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/03/2018] [Accepted: 02/08/2019] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Different management options exist for patients with brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), patients whose treatment with whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) has become more controversial over the last decade. It is not trivial to find the optimal balance of over- versus undertreatment in these patients. Several recent trials, including the randomized QUARTZ trial now influence the decision to recommend or withhold WBRT for patients with unfavorable prognosis, and similarly, for favorable prognosis patients, the balance between radiosurgery alone or WBRT has become a nuanced decision. Additionally, the availability of intracranially active targeted agent for some subsets of these patients has added another layer of complexity to the decision-making. Methods A multinational consortium of expert radiation oncologists was established with the aim of compiling treatment recommendations for challenging scenarios, in this case the choice between optimal supportive care (SC), WBRT and other types of radiation therapy (RT). We distributed 17 cases to 7 radiation oncologists who were allowed to involve coworkers to provide their treatment recommendations. The cases differed in extra- and intracranial disease extent, histology, age and other prognostic factors. Expert recommendations were tabulated with the aim of providing guidance. Results Regarding willingness to include the 17 patients in the QUARTZ trial, the rates of trial inclusion were low (range 0/7 to 3/7). Experts not recommending trial inclusion provided their treatment recommendations. These suggestions differed widely for most of the patients. It was not uncommon to see 3 or 4 different recommendations. In general, few (0–2) recommended SC. Some kind of local treatment was suggested by the majority of experts for all 17 patients. Commonly, stereotactic single-fraction radiosurgery (SRS) or stereotactic fractionated radiotherapy (SFRT) were recommended by many experts, also for patients with 5–7 lesions. The highest proportion of recommendations towards WBRT in any patient was 3/7. It was also quite common for patients with multiple metastases of varying size that experts suggested combinations of resection, post-operative SRS/SFRT and SRS/SFRT to intact lesions. Despite recommending active treatment, experts were often willing to include the patients in a hypothetical protocol investigating radiotherapy utilization in the last 30 days of life (assessment of factors predicting early death). Conclusions WBRT was infrequently recommended. Even in patients with adverse prognostic features that raised the experts’ awareness of an increased risk for futile treatment near the end of life, SRS/SFRT were more often recommended than optimal supportive care, unless a patient decided to forego active treatment. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13014-019-1237-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carsten Nieder
- Department of Oncology and Palliative Medicine, Nordland Hospital, 8092, Bodø, Norway. .,Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT - The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
| | - Matthias Guckenberger
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Laurie E Gaspar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA
| | - Chad G Rusthoven
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA
| | - Dirk De Ruysscher
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO Clinic), Maastricht University Medical Center, GROW, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Arjun Sahgal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Timothy Nguyen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Anca L Grosu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Minesh P Mehta
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Miami, FL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Vinogradskiy Y, Rusthoven CG, Schubert L, Jones B, Faught A, Castillo R, Castillo E, Gaspar LE, Kwak J, Waxweiler T, Dougherty M, Gao D, Stevens C, Miften M, Kavanagh B, Guerrero T, Grills I. Interim Analysis of a Two-Institution, Prospective Clinical Trial of 4DCT-Ventilation-based Functional Avoidance Radiation Therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2018; 102:1357-1365. [PMID: 30353873 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.07.186] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/30/2017] [Revised: 06/13/2018] [Accepted: 07/17/2018] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Functional imaging has been proposed that uses 4DCT images to calculate 4DCT-based lung ventilation (4DCT-ventilation). We have started a 2-institution, phase 2 prospective trial evaluating the feasibility, safety, and preliminary efficacy of 4DCT-ventilation functional avoidance. The trial hypothesis is that the rate of grade ≥2 radiation pneumonitis could be reduced to 12% with functional avoidance, compared with a 25% rate of pneumonitis with a historical control. The trial employed a Simon 2-stage design with a planned futility analysis after 17 evaluable patients. The purpose of this work is to present the trial design and implementation, dosimetric data, and clinical results for the planned futility analysis. METHODS AND MATERIALS Eligible patients were patients with lung cancer who were prescribed doses of 45 to 75 Gy. For each patient, the 4DCT data were used to generate a 4DCT-ventilation image using the Hounsfield unit technique along with a compressible flow-based image registration algorithm. Two intensity modulated radiation therapy treatment plans were generated: (1) a standard lung plan and (2) a functional avoidance treatment plan that aimed to reduce dose to functional lung while meeting target and normal tissue constraints. Patients were treated with the functional avoidance plan and evaluated for thoracic toxicity (presented as rate and 95% confidence intervals [CI]) with a 1-year follow-up. RESULTS The V20 to functional lung was 21.6% ± 9.5% (mean ± standard deviation) with functional avoidance, representing a decrease of 3.2% (P < .01) relative to standard, nonfunctional treatment plans. The rates of grade ≥2 and grade ≥3 radiation pneumonitis were 17.6% (95% CI, 3.8%-43.4%) and 5.9% (95% CI, 0.1%-28.7%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS Dosimetrically, functional avoidance achieved reduction in doses to functional lung while meeting target and organ at risk constraints. On the basis of Simon's 2-stage design and the 17.6% grade ≥2 pneumonitis rate, the trial met its futility criteria and has continued accrual.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yevgeniy Vinogradskiy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado.
| | - Chad G Rusthoven
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Leah Schubert
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Bernard Jones
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Austin Faught
- Department of Radiation Oncology, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee
| | - Richard Castillo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Edward Castillo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, Michigan
| | - Laurie E Gaspar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Jennifer Kwak
- Department of Radiology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Timothy Waxweiler
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | | | - Dexiang Gao
- Department of Pediatrics and Department of Biostatistics and Informatics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Craig Stevens
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, Michigan
| | - Moyed Miften
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Brian Kavanagh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Thomas Guerrero
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, Michigan
| | - Inga Grills
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, Michigan
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Elhalawani H, Mohamed A, Laurie F, Gaspar LE, Fitzgerald TJ, Okunieff P, Fuller CD, Thomas CR. (OA48) Prospective In-Silico Quality Assurance Study of Contouring Target Volumes in Thoracic Tumors Within a Cooperative Group Setting. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2018. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.02.176] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
|
31
|
Gaspar LE, West HJ, Addario BJ, Camidge DR. The patient experience with shared decision-making in lung cancer: A survey of patients, significant others or care givers. Patient Experience Journal 2018. [DOI: 10.35680/2372-0247.1241] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/05/2022] Open
|
32
|
Robin TP, Jones BL, Amini A, Koshy M, Gaspar LE, Liu AK, Nath SK, Kavanagh BD, Camidge DR, Rusthoven CG. Radiosurgery alone is associated with favorable outcomes for brain metastases from small-cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2018; 120:88-90. [PMID: 29748022 DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2018.03.027] [Citation(s) in RCA: 37] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/17/2017] [Revised: 03/09/2018] [Accepted: 03/31/2018] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) is the standard approach for brain metastases (BM) arising in patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), but the neurocognitive toxicities of WBRT are well documented. For this reason, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) alone is the preferred modality for limited BM in most histologies, but in SCLC there are few data exploring this approach. METHODS We queried the National Cancer Database (NCDB) for patients with SCLC with BM at diagnosis and stratified by upfront SRS compared with upfront WBRT ± SRS. We utilized multivariate Cox regression and propensity score matching (PSM) to determine the impact on overall survival (OS) of each approach. RESULTS 5952 eligible patients (WBRT: 5752; SRS: 200) were identified from 2010 to 2014 with a median follow-up of 40.0 months. Upfront SRS was associated with superior OS (median 10.8 vs 7.1 months, HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.55-0.75, p < 0.001), which persisted on multivariate analysis controlling for comorbidities, extracranial metastases, age, race/ethnicity, and gender (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60-0.81, p < 0.001). These results were confirmed in PSM analysis. A subset analysis comparing outcomes after SRS vs SRS + WBRT showed no differences in OS (p = .601). CONCLUSIONS To our knowledge, this is the largest dataset of patients treated with SRS alone for SCLC. The observation of favorable OS with SRS alone in this contemporary dataset suggests that SRS alone may be appropriate for some patients with SCLC. Prospective investigations of SRS in SCLC are warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tyler P Robin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, United States
| | - Bernard L Jones
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, United States
| | - Arya Amini
- Department of Radiation Oncology, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, CA, United States
| | - Matthew Koshy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States; Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States
| | - Laurie E Gaspar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, United States
| | - Arthur K Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, United States
| | - Sameer K Nath
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, United States
| | - Brian D Kavanagh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, United States
| | - D Ross Camidge
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, United States
| | - Chad G Rusthoven
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, United States.
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Robin TP, Sannes TS, Spring Kong FM, Mornex F, Hirsch FR, Rusthoven CG, Gaspar LE. Physician Bias in Prophylactic Cranial Irradiation Decision Making-An Opportunity for a Patient Decision Aid. Clin Lung Cancer 2018; 19:476-483. [PMID: 29544717 DOI: 10.1016/j.cllc.2018.02.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/13/2017] [Revised: 01/25/2018] [Accepted: 02/11/2018] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Guidelines have recommended prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) for patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer with at least a partial response after thoracic chemoradiation. However, the survival advantage has been small and was observed in an era before magnetic resonance imaging and surveillance. Neurotoxicity also remains a concern, especially in older adults. Thus, patients have a complex value-laden decision to make. We sought to better understand the role physicians play in patient decision making and introduce a patient decision aid (PDA) to potentially facilitate these discussions. MATERIALS AND METHODS An e-mail survey was sent to International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer members querying their personal perspectives and professional recommendations regarding PCI for limited-stage small-cell lung cancer. RESULTS We received 295 responses. Most were from the United States (35%) and Europe (35%) and were radiation (45%) or medical (43%) oncologists. Of those responding, 88% and 50% reported they would recommend PCI to a 50- and 70-year-old patient, respectively. Also, 79% reported that they would wish to receive PCI if faced with this decision. The physicians who would have chosen PCI if faced with the decision were 27.6 and 12.9 times more likely to recommend PCI to a 50- and 70-year-old patient, respectively, than were physicians who would not undergo PCI themselves. Most of the respondents had positive responses to the proposed PDA. CONCLUSION Physician bias appears to play a role in PCI counseling, and most physicians reported that the provided PDA was better than their present method for discussing PCI and would help patients make such value-laden choices.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tyler P Robin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO
| | - Timothy S Sannes
- Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO
| | | | - Francoise Mornex
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Claude Bernard, Lyon, France
| | - Fred R Hirsch
- Department of Medical Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO
| | - Chad G Rusthoven
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO
| | - Laurie E Gaspar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO.
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Stokes WA, Bronsert MR, Meguid RA, Blum MG, Jones BL, Koshy M, Sher DJ, Louie AV, Palma DA, Senan S, Gaspar LE, Kavanagh BD, Rusthoven CG. Post-Treatment Mortality After Surgery and Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Early-Stage Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. J Clin Oncol 2018; 36:642-651. [PMID: 29346041 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2017.75.6536] [Citation(s) in RCA: 97] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose In early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), post-treatment mortality may influence the comparative effectiveness of surgery and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), with implications for shared decision making among high-risk surgical candidates. We analyzed early mortality after these interventions using the National Cancer Database. Patients and Methods We abstracted patients with cT1-T2a, N0, M0 NSCLC diagnosed between 2004 and 2013 undergoing either surgery or SBRT. Thirty-day and 90-day post-treatment mortality rates were calculated and compared using Cox regression and propensity score-matched analyses. Results We identified 76,623 patients who underwent surgery (78% lobectomy, 20% sublobar resection, 2% pneumonectomy) and 8,216 patients who received SBRT. In the unmatched cohort, mortality rates were moderately increased with surgery versus SBRT (30 days, 2.07% v 0.73% [absolute difference (Δ), 1.34%]; P < .001; 90 days, 3.59% v 2.93% [Δ, 0.66%]; P < .001). Among the 27,200 propensity score-matched patients, these differences increased (30 days, 2.41% v 0.79% [Δ, 1.62%]; P < .001; 90 days, 4.23% v 2.82% [Δ, 1.41%]; P < .001). Differences in mortality between surgery and SBRT increased with age, with interaction P < .001 at both 30 days and 90 days (71 to 75 years old: 30-day Δ, 1.87%; 90-day Δ, 2.02%; 76 to 80 years old: 30-day Δ, 2.80%; 90-day Δ, 2.59%; > 80 years old: 30-day Δ, 3.03%; 90-day Δ, 3.67%; all P ≤ .001). Compared with SBRT, surgical mortality rates were higher with increased extent of resection (30-day and 90-day multivariate hazard ratio for mortality: sublobar resection, 2.85 and 1.37; lobectomy, 3.65 and 1.60; pneumonectomy, 14.5 and 5.66; all P < 0.001). Conclusion Differences in 30- and 90-day post-treatment mortality between surgery and SBRT increased as a function of age, with the largest differences in favor of SBRT observed among patients older than 70 years. These representative mortality data may inform shared decision making among patients with early-stage NSCLC who are eligible for both interventions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- William A Stokes
- William A. Stokes, Michael R. Bronsert, Robert A. Meguid, Bernard L. Jones, Laurie E. Gaspar, Brian D. Kavanagh, and Chad G. Rusthoven, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora; Matthew G. Blum, Memorial Hospital, Colorado Springs, CO; Matthew Koshy, University of Chicago School of Medicine, Chicago, IL; David J. Sher, University of Texas Southwestern School of Medicine, Dallas, TX; Alexander V. Louie and David A. Palma, London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada; and Suresh Senan, Vrije Universiteit University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Michael R Bronsert
- William A. Stokes, Michael R. Bronsert, Robert A. Meguid, Bernard L. Jones, Laurie E. Gaspar, Brian D. Kavanagh, and Chad G. Rusthoven, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora; Matthew G. Blum, Memorial Hospital, Colorado Springs, CO; Matthew Koshy, University of Chicago School of Medicine, Chicago, IL; David J. Sher, University of Texas Southwestern School of Medicine, Dallas, TX; Alexander V. Louie and David A. Palma, London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada; and Suresh Senan, Vrije Universiteit University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Robert A Meguid
- William A. Stokes, Michael R. Bronsert, Robert A. Meguid, Bernard L. Jones, Laurie E. Gaspar, Brian D. Kavanagh, and Chad G. Rusthoven, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora; Matthew G. Blum, Memorial Hospital, Colorado Springs, CO; Matthew Koshy, University of Chicago School of Medicine, Chicago, IL; David J. Sher, University of Texas Southwestern School of Medicine, Dallas, TX; Alexander V. Louie and David A. Palma, London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada; and Suresh Senan, Vrije Universiteit University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Matthew G Blum
- William A. Stokes, Michael R. Bronsert, Robert A. Meguid, Bernard L. Jones, Laurie E. Gaspar, Brian D. Kavanagh, and Chad G. Rusthoven, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora; Matthew G. Blum, Memorial Hospital, Colorado Springs, CO; Matthew Koshy, University of Chicago School of Medicine, Chicago, IL; David J. Sher, University of Texas Southwestern School of Medicine, Dallas, TX; Alexander V. Louie and David A. Palma, London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada; and Suresh Senan, Vrije Universiteit University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Bernard L Jones
- William A. Stokes, Michael R. Bronsert, Robert A. Meguid, Bernard L. Jones, Laurie E. Gaspar, Brian D. Kavanagh, and Chad G. Rusthoven, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora; Matthew G. Blum, Memorial Hospital, Colorado Springs, CO; Matthew Koshy, University of Chicago School of Medicine, Chicago, IL; David J. Sher, University of Texas Southwestern School of Medicine, Dallas, TX; Alexander V. Louie and David A. Palma, London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada; and Suresh Senan, Vrije Universiteit University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Matthew Koshy
- William A. Stokes, Michael R. Bronsert, Robert A. Meguid, Bernard L. Jones, Laurie E. Gaspar, Brian D. Kavanagh, and Chad G. Rusthoven, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora; Matthew G. Blum, Memorial Hospital, Colorado Springs, CO; Matthew Koshy, University of Chicago School of Medicine, Chicago, IL; David J. Sher, University of Texas Southwestern School of Medicine, Dallas, TX; Alexander V. Louie and David A. Palma, London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada; and Suresh Senan, Vrije Universiteit University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - David J Sher
- William A. Stokes, Michael R. Bronsert, Robert A. Meguid, Bernard L. Jones, Laurie E. Gaspar, Brian D. Kavanagh, and Chad G. Rusthoven, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora; Matthew G. Blum, Memorial Hospital, Colorado Springs, CO; Matthew Koshy, University of Chicago School of Medicine, Chicago, IL; David J. Sher, University of Texas Southwestern School of Medicine, Dallas, TX; Alexander V. Louie and David A. Palma, London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada; and Suresh Senan, Vrije Universiteit University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Alexander V Louie
- William A. Stokes, Michael R. Bronsert, Robert A. Meguid, Bernard L. Jones, Laurie E. Gaspar, Brian D. Kavanagh, and Chad G. Rusthoven, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora; Matthew G. Blum, Memorial Hospital, Colorado Springs, CO; Matthew Koshy, University of Chicago School of Medicine, Chicago, IL; David J. Sher, University of Texas Southwestern School of Medicine, Dallas, TX; Alexander V. Louie and David A. Palma, London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada; and Suresh Senan, Vrije Universiteit University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - David A Palma
- William A. Stokes, Michael R. Bronsert, Robert A. Meguid, Bernard L. Jones, Laurie E. Gaspar, Brian D. Kavanagh, and Chad G. Rusthoven, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora; Matthew G. Blum, Memorial Hospital, Colorado Springs, CO; Matthew Koshy, University of Chicago School of Medicine, Chicago, IL; David J. Sher, University of Texas Southwestern School of Medicine, Dallas, TX; Alexander V. Louie and David A. Palma, London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada; and Suresh Senan, Vrije Universiteit University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Suresh Senan
- William A. Stokes, Michael R. Bronsert, Robert A. Meguid, Bernard L. Jones, Laurie E. Gaspar, Brian D. Kavanagh, and Chad G. Rusthoven, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora; Matthew G. Blum, Memorial Hospital, Colorado Springs, CO; Matthew Koshy, University of Chicago School of Medicine, Chicago, IL; David J. Sher, University of Texas Southwestern School of Medicine, Dallas, TX; Alexander V. Louie and David A. Palma, London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada; and Suresh Senan, Vrije Universiteit University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Laurie E Gaspar
- William A. Stokes, Michael R. Bronsert, Robert A. Meguid, Bernard L. Jones, Laurie E. Gaspar, Brian D. Kavanagh, and Chad G. Rusthoven, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora; Matthew G. Blum, Memorial Hospital, Colorado Springs, CO; Matthew Koshy, University of Chicago School of Medicine, Chicago, IL; David J. Sher, University of Texas Southwestern School of Medicine, Dallas, TX; Alexander V. Louie and David A. Palma, London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada; and Suresh Senan, Vrije Universiteit University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Brian D Kavanagh
- William A. Stokes, Michael R. Bronsert, Robert A. Meguid, Bernard L. Jones, Laurie E. Gaspar, Brian D. Kavanagh, and Chad G. Rusthoven, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora; Matthew G. Blum, Memorial Hospital, Colorado Springs, CO; Matthew Koshy, University of Chicago School of Medicine, Chicago, IL; David J. Sher, University of Texas Southwestern School of Medicine, Dallas, TX; Alexander V. Louie and David A. Palma, London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada; and Suresh Senan, Vrije Universiteit University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Chad G Rusthoven
- William A. Stokes, Michael R. Bronsert, Robert A. Meguid, Bernard L. Jones, Laurie E. Gaspar, Brian D. Kavanagh, and Chad G. Rusthoven, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora; Matthew G. Blum, Memorial Hospital, Colorado Springs, CO; Matthew Koshy, University of Chicago School of Medicine, Chicago, IL; David J. Sher, University of Texas Southwestern School of Medicine, Dallas, TX; Alexander V. Louie and David A. Palma, London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada; and Suresh Senan, Vrije Universiteit University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Lin NU, Gaspar LE, Soffietti R. Breast Cancer in the Central Nervous System: Multidisciplinary Considerations and Management. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2017; 37:45-56. [PMID: 28561683 DOI: 10.1200/edbk_175338] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
Breast cancer is the second most common primary tumor associated with central nervous system (CNS) metastases. Patients with metastatic HER2-positive or triple-negative (estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, progesterone receptor (PR)-negative, HER2-negative) breast cancer are at the highest risk of developing parenchymal brain metastases. Leptomeningeal disease is less frequent but is distributed across breast cancer subtypes, including lobular breast cancer. Initial treatment strategies can include surgery, radiation, intravenous or intrathecal chemotherapy, and/or targeted approaches. In this article, we review the epidemiology of breast cancer brain metastases, differences in clinical behavior and natural history by tumor subtype, and important considerations in the multidisciplinary treatment of these patients. We will highlight new findings that impact current standards of care, clinical controversies, and notable investigational approaches in clinical testing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nancy U Lin
- From the Breast Oncology Center, Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO; Department of Neuro-Oncology, University of Turin and City of Health and Science Hospital, Turin, Italy
| | - Laurie E Gaspar
- From the Breast Oncology Center, Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO; Department of Neuro-Oncology, University of Turin and City of Health and Science Hospital, Turin, Italy
| | - Riccardo Soffietti
- From the Breast Oncology Center, Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO; Department of Neuro-Oncology, University of Turin and City of Health and Science Hospital, Turin, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Sperduto PW, Jiang W, Brown PD, Braunstein S, Sneed P, Wattson DA, Shih HA, Bangdiwala A, Shanley R, Lockney NA, Beal K, Lou E, Amatruda T, Sperduto WA, Kirkpatrick JP, Yeh N, Gaspar LE, Molitoris JK, Masucci L, Roberge D, Yu J, Chiang V, Mehta M. Estimating Survival in Melanoma Patients With Brain Metastases: An Update of the Graded Prognostic Assessment for Melanoma Using Molecular Markers (Melanoma-molGPA). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2017; 99:812-816. [PMID: 29063850 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.06.2454] [Citation(s) in RCA: 102] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/02/2017] [Revised: 06/12/2017] [Accepted: 06/19/2017] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To update the Diagnosis-Specific Graded Prognostic Assessment (DS-GPA) for a markedly heterogeneous patient population, patients with melanoma and brain metastases, using a larger, more current cohort, including molecular markers. METHODS The original Melanoma-GPA is based on data from 483 patients whose conditions were diagnosed between 1985 and 2005. This is a multi-institutional retrospective database analysis of 823 melanoma patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2015. Multivariable analyses identified significant prognostic factors, which were weighted and included in the updated index (Melanoma-molGPA). Multiple Cox regression was used to select and weight prognostic factors in proportion to their hazard ratios to design the updated Melanoma-molGPA in which scores of 4.0 and 0.0 are associated with the best and worst prognoses, as with all of the diagnosis-specific GPA indices. Log-rank tests were used to compare adjacent classes. RESULTS There were 5 significant prognostic factors for survival (age, Karnofsky performance status [KPS], extracranial metastases [ECM], number of brain metastases, and BRAF status), whereas only KPS and the number of brain metastases were significant in the original Melanoma-GPA. Median survival improved from 6.7 to 9.8 months between the 2 treatment eras, and the median survival times for patients with Melanoma-molGPA of 0 to 1.0, 1.5 to 2.0, 2.5 to 3.0, and 3.5 to 4.0 were 4.9, 8.3, 15.8, and 34.1 months (P<.0001 between each adjacent group). CONCLUSIONS Survival and our ability to estimate survival in melanoma patients with brain metastases has improved significantly. The updated Melanoma-molGPA, a user-friendly tool to estimate survival, will facilitate clinical decision making regarding whether and which treatment is appropriate and will also be useful for stratification of future clinical trials. To further simplify use, a free online/smart phone app is available at brainmetgpa.com.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Wen Jiang
- MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | | | - Steve Braunstein
- University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| | - Penny Sneed
- University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| | - Daniel A Wattson
- Minneapolis Radiation Oncology, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Helen A Shih
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | | | - Ryan Shanley
- University of Minnesota Biostatistics, Minneapolis, Minnesota
| | | | - Kathryn Beal
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Emil Lou
- University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
| | | | | | | | - Norman Yeh
- University of Colorado Denver, Denver, Colorado
| | | | | | - Laura Masucci
- Centre Hospitalier de l' Universite de Montreal, Montreal, Canada
| | - David Roberge
- Centre Hospitalier de l' Universite de Montreal, Montreal, Canada
| | - James Yu
- Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
37
|
Sumner WA, Amini A, Hankinson TC, Foreman NK, Gaspar LE, Kavanagh BD, Karam SD, Rusthoven CG, Liu AK. Survival benefit of postoperative radiation in papillary meningioma: Analysis of the National Cancer Data Base. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2017; 22:495-501. [PMID: 29123457 DOI: 10.1016/j.rpor.2017.10.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/25/2017] [Revised: 07/28/2017] [Accepted: 10/07/2017] [Indexed: 10/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Aim/Background Papillary meningioma represents a rare subset of World Health Organization (WHO) Grade III meningioma that portends an overall poor prognosis. There is relatively limited data regarding the benefit of postoperative radiation therapy (PORT). We used the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) to compare overall survival (OS) outcomes of surgically resected papillary meningioma cases undergoing PORT compared to post-operative observation. Materials and methods The NCDB was queried for patients with papillary meningioma, diagnosed between 2004 and 2013, who underwent upfront surgery with or without PORT. Overall survival (OS) was determined using the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate (UVA) and multivariate (MVA) analyses were performed. Results In total, 190 patients were identified; 89 patients underwent PORT, 101 patients were observed. Eleven patients received chemotherapy (6 with PORT, 5 without). 2-Year OS was significantly improved with PORT vs. no PORT (93.0% vs. 74.4%), as was 5-year OS (78.5% vs. 62.5%) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27-0.85; p = 0.01). On MVA, patients receiving PORT had improved OS compared to observation (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22-0.76; p = 0.005). On subset analysis by age group, the benefit of PORT vs. no PORT was significant in patients ≤18 years (n = 13), with 2-year OS of 85.7% vs. 50.0% (HR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.01-0.80; p = 0.032) and for patients >18 years (n = 184), with 2-year OS of 94.7% vs. 76.1% (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.31-1.00; p = 0.049), respectively. Conclusions In this large contemporary analysis, PORT was associated with improved survival for both adult and pediatric patients with papillary meningioma. PORT should be considered in those who present with this rare, aggressive tumor.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Whitney A Sumner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA
| | - Arya Amini
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA
| | - Todd C Hankinson
- Department of Neurosurgery, Children's Hospital Colorado, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA
| | - Nicholas K Foreman
- Department of Pediatrics, Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA
| | - Laurie E Gaspar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA
| | - Brian D Kavanagh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA
| | - Sana D Karam
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA
| | - Chad G Rusthoven
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA
| | - Arthur K Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Kris MG, Gaspar LE, Chaft JE, Kennedy EB, Azzoli CG, Ellis PM, Lin SH, Pass HI, Seth R, Shepherd FA, Spigel DR, Strawn JR, Ung YC, Weyant M. Adjuvant Systemic Therapy and Adjuvant Radiation Therapy for Stage I to IIIA Completely Resected Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancers: American Society of Clinical Oncology/Cancer Care Ontario Clinical Practice Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol 2017. [PMID: 28437162 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2017.72] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/17/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose The panel updated the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) adjuvant therapy guideline for resected non-small-cell lung cancers. Methods ASCO convened an update panel and conducted a systematic review of the literature, investigating adjuvant therapy in resected non-small-cell lung cancers. Results The updated evidence base covered questions related to adjuvant systemic therapy and included a systematic review conducted by Cancer Care Ontario current to January 2016. A recent American Society for Radiation Oncology guideline and systematic review, previously endorsed by ASCO, was used as the basis for recommendations for adjuvant radiation therapy. An update of these systematic reviews and a search for studies related to radiation therapy found no additional randomized controlled trials. Recommendations Adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy is recommended for routine use in patients with stage IIA, IIB, or IIIA disease who have undergone complete surgical resections. For individuals with stage IB, adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy is not recommended for routine use. However, a postoperative multimodality evaluation, including a consultation with a medical oncologist, is recommended to assess benefits and risks of adjuvant chemotherapy for each patient. The guideline provides information on factors other than stage to consider when making a recommendation for adjuvant chemotherapy, including tumor size, histopathologic features, and genetic alterations. Adjuvant chemotherapy is not recommended for patients with stage IA disease. Adjuvant radiation therapy is not recommended for patients with resected stage I or II disease. In patients with stage IIIA N2 disease, adjuvant radiation therapy is not recommended for routine use. However, a postoperative multimodality evaluation, including a consultation with a radiation oncologist, is recommended to assess benefits and risks of adjuvant radiation therapy for each patient with N2 disease. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/lung-cancer-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mark G Kris
- Mark G. Kris and Jamie E. Chaft, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Harvey I. Pass, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York; Rahul Seth, Upstate Medical Center, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY; Laurie E. Gaspar and Michael Weyant, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO; Erin B. Kennedy, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Christopher G. Azzoli, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Steven H. Lin, MD Anderson Cancer Center; John R. Strawn, Patient Representative, Houston, TX; David R. Spigel, Sarah Cannon Cancer Center, Nashville, TN; Peter M. Ellis, Juravinski Cancer Center, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton; Frances A. Shepherd, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network; and Yee C. Ung, Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Laurie E Gaspar
- Mark G. Kris and Jamie E. Chaft, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Harvey I. Pass, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York; Rahul Seth, Upstate Medical Center, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY; Laurie E. Gaspar and Michael Weyant, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO; Erin B. Kennedy, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Christopher G. Azzoli, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Steven H. Lin, MD Anderson Cancer Center; John R. Strawn, Patient Representative, Houston, TX; David R. Spigel, Sarah Cannon Cancer Center, Nashville, TN; Peter M. Ellis, Juravinski Cancer Center, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton; Frances A. Shepherd, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network; and Yee C. Ung, Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jamie E Chaft
- Mark G. Kris and Jamie E. Chaft, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Harvey I. Pass, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York; Rahul Seth, Upstate Medical Center, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY; Laurie E. Gaspar and Michael Weyant, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO; Erin B. Kennedy, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Christopher G. Azzoli, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Steven H. Lin, MD Anderson Cancer Center; John R. Strawn, Patient Representative, Houston, TX; David R. Spigel, Sarah Cannon Cancer Center, Nashville, TN; Peter M. Ellis, Juravinski Cancer Center, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton; Frances A. Shepherd, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network; and Yee C. Ung, Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Erin B Kennedy
- Mark G. Kris and Jamie E. Chaft, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Harvey I. Pass, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York; Rahul Seth, Upstate Medical Center, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY; Laurie E. Gaspar and Michael Weyant, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO; Erin B. Kennedy, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Christopher G. Azzoli, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Steven H. Lin, MD Anderson Cancer Center; John R. Strawn, Patient Representative, Houston, TX; David R. Spigel, Sarah Cannon Cancer Center, Nashville, TN; Peter M. Ellis, Juravinski Cancer Center, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton; Frances A. Shepherd, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network; and Yee C. Ung, Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Christopher G Azzoli
- Mark G. Kris and Jamie E. Chaft, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Harvey I. Pass, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York; Rahul Seth, Upstate Medical Center, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY; Laurie E. Gaspar and Michael Weyant, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO; Erin B. Kennedy, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Christopher G. Azzoli, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Steven H. Lin, MD Anderson Cancer Center; John R. Strawn, Patient Representative, Houston, TX; David R. Spigel, Sarah Cannon Cancer Center, Nashville, TN; Peter M. Ellis, Juravinski Cancer Center, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton; Frances A. Shepherd, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network; and Yee C. Ung, Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Peter M Ellis
- Mark G. Kris and Jamie E. Chaft, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Harvey I. Pass, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York; Rahul Seth, Upstate Medical Center, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY; Laurie E. Gaspar and Michael Weyant, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO; Erin B. Kennedy, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Christopher G. Azzoli, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Steven H. Lin, MD Anderson Cancer Center; John R. Strawn, Patient Representative, Houston, TX; David R. Spigel, Sarah Cannon Cancer Center, Nashville, TN; Peter M. Ellis, Juravinski Cancer Center, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton; Frances A. Shepherd, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network; and Yee C. Ung, Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Steven H Lin
- Mark G. Kris and Jamie E. Chaft, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Harvey I. Pass, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York; Rahul Seth, Upstate Medical Center, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY; Laurie E. Gaspar and Michael Weyant, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO; Erin B. Kennedy, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Christopher G. Azzoli, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Steven H. Lin, MD Anderson Cancer Center; John R. Strawn, Patient Representative, Houston, TX; David R. Spigel, Sarah Cannon Cancer Center, Nashville, TN; Peter M. Ellis, Juravinski Cancer Center, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton; Frances A. Shepherd, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network; and Yee C. Ung, Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Harvey I Pass
- Mark G. Kris and Jamie E. Chaft, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Harvey I. Pass, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York; Rahul Seth, Upstate Medical Center, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY; Laurie E. Gaspar and Michael Weyant, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO; Erin B. Kennedy, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Christopher G. Azzoli, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Steven H. Lin, MD Anderson Cancer Center; John R. Strawn, Patient Representative, Houston, TX; David R. Spigel, Sarah Cannon Cancer Center, Nashville, TN; Peter M. Ellis, Juravinski Cancer Center, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton; Frances A. Shepherd, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network; and Yee C. Ung, Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Rahul Seth
- Mark G. Kris and Jamie E. Chaft, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Harvey I. Pass, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York; Rahul Seth, Upstate Medical Center, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY; Laurie E. Gaspar and Michael Weyant, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO; Erin B. Kennedy, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Christopher G. Azzoli, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Steven H. Lin, MD Anderson Cancer Center; John R. Strawn, Patient Representative, Houston, TX; David R. Spigel, Sarah Cannon Cancer Center, Nashville, TN; Peter M. Ellis, Juravinski Cancer Center, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton; Frances A. Shepherd, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network; and Yee C. Ung, Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Frances A Shepherd
- Mark G. Kris and Jamie E. Chaft, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Harvey I. Pass, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York; Rahul Seth, Upstate Medical Center, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY; Laurie E. Gaspar and Michael Weyant, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO; Erin B. Kennedy, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Christopher G. Azzoli, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Steven H. Lin, MD Anderson Cancer Center; John R. Strawn, Patient Representative, Houston, TX; David R. Spigel, Sarah Cannon Cancer Center, Nashville, TN; Peter M. Ellis, Juravinski Cancer Center, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton; Frances A. Shepherd, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network; and Yee C. Ung, Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - David R Spigel
- Mark G. Kris and Jamie E. Chaft, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Harvey I. Pass, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York; Rahul Seth, Upstate Medical Center, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY; Laurie E. Gaspar and Michael Weyant, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO; Erin B. Kennedy, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Christopher G. Azzoli, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Steven H. Lin, MD Anderson Cancer Center; John R. Strawn, Patient Representative, Houston, TX; David R. Spigel, Sarah Cannon Cancer Center, Nashville, TN; Peter M. Ellis, Juravinski Cancer Center, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton; Frances A. Shepherd, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network; and Yee C. Ung, Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - John R Strawn
- Mark G. Kris and Jamie E. Chaft, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Harvey I. Pass, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York; Rahul Seth, Upstate Medical Center, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY; Laurie E. Gaspar and Michael Weyant, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO; Erin B. Kennedy, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Christopher G. Azzoli, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Steven H. Lin, MD Anderson Cancer Center; John R. Strawn, Patient Representative, Houston, TX; David R. Spigel, Sarah Cannon Cancer Center, Nashville, TN; Peter M. Ellis, Juravinski Cancer Center, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton; Frances A. Shepherd, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network; and Yee C. Ung, Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Yee C Ung
- Mark G. Kris and Jamie E. Chaft, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Harvey I. Pass, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York; Rahul Seth, Upstate Medical Center, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY; Laurie E. Gaspar and Michael Weyant, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO; Erin B. Kennedy, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Christopher G. Azzoli, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Steven H. Lin, MD Anderson Cancer Center; John R. Strawn, Patient Representative, Houston, TX; David R. Spigel, Sarah Cannon Cancer Center, Nashville, TN; Peter M. Ellis, Juravinski Cancer Center, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton; Frances A. Shepherd, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network; and Yee C. Ung, Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Michael Weyant
- Mark G. Kris and Jamie E. Chaft, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Harvey I. Pass, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York; Rahul Seth, Upstate Medical Center, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY; Laurie E. Gaspar and Michael Weyant, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO; Erin B. Kennedy, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Christopher G. Azzoli, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Steven H. Lin, MD Anderson Cancer Center; John R. Strawn, Patient Representative, Houston, TX; David R. Spigel, Sarah Cannon Cancer Center, Nashville, TN; Peter M. Ellis, Juravinski Cancer Center, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton; Frances A. Shepherd, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network; and Yee C. Ung, Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Sperduto PW, Yang TJ, Beal K, Pan H, Brown PD, Bangdiwala A, Shanley R, Yeh N, Gaspar LE, Braunstein S, Sneed P, Boyle J, Kirkpatrick JP, Mak KS, Shih HA, Engelman A, Roberge D, Arvold ND, Alexander B, Awad MM, Contessa J, Chiang V, Hardie J, Ma D, Lou E, Sperduto W, Mehta MP. Estimating Survival in Patients With Lung Cancer and Brain Metastases: An Update of the Graded Prognostic Assessment for Lung Cancer Using Molecular Markers (Lung-molGPA). JAMA Oncol 2017; 3:827-831. [PMID: 27892978 DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.3834] [Citation(s) in RCA: 443] [Impact Index Per Article: 63.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/29/2023]
Abstract
Importance Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States and worldwide. As systemic therapies improve, patients with lung cancer live longer and thus are at increased risk for brain metastases. Understanding how prognosis varies across this heterogeneous patient population is essential to individualize care and design future clinical trials. Objective To update the current Diagnosis-Specific Graded Prognostic Assessment (DS-GPA) for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and brain metastases. The DS-GPA is based on data from patients diagnosed between 1985 and 2005, and we set out to update it by incorporating more recently reported gene and molecular alteration data for patients with NSCLC and brain metastases. This new index is called the Lung-molGPA. Design, Setting, and Participants This is a multi-institutional retrospective database analysis of 2186 patients diagnosed between 2006 and 2014 with NSCLC and newly diagnosed brain metastases. The multivariable analyses took place between December 2015 and May 2016, and all prognostic factors were weighted for significance by hazard ratios. Significant factors were included in the updated Lung-molGPA prognostic index. Main Outcomes and Measures The main outcome was survival. Multiple Cox regression was used to select and weight prognostic factors in proportion to their hazard ratios. Log rank tests were used to compare adjacent classes and to compare overall survival for adenocarcinoma vs nonadenocarcinoma groups. Results The original DS-GPA was based on 4 factors found in 1833 patients with NSCLC and brain metastases diagnosed between 1985 and 2005: patient age, Karnofsky Performance Status, extracranial metastases, and number of brain metastases. The patients studied for the creation of the DS-GPA had a median survival of 7 months from the time of initial treatment of brain metastases. To design the updated Lung-molGPA, we analyzed data from 2186 patients from 2006 through 2014 with NSCLC and newly diagnosed brain metastases (1521 adenocarcinoma and 665 nonadenocarcinoma). Significant prognostic factors included the original 4 factors used in the DS-GPA index plus 2 new factors: EGFR and ALK alterations in patients with adenocarcinoma (mutation status was not routinely tested for nonadenocarcinoma). The overall median survival for the cohort in the present study was 12 months, and those with NSCLC-adenocarcinoma and Lung-molGPA scores of 3.5 to 4.0 had a median survival of nearly 4 years. Conclusions and Relevance In recent years, patient survival and physicians' ability to predict survival in NSCLC with brain metastases has improved significantly. The updated Lung-molGPA incorporating gene alteration data into the DS-GPA is a user-friendly tool that may facilitate clinical decision making and appropriate stratification of future clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul W Sperduto
- Minneapolis Radiation Oncology, Minneapolis, Minnesota2University of Minnesota Gamma Knife Center, Minneapolis
| | | | - Kathryn Beal
- Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Hubert Pan
- MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | | | - Ananta Bangdiwala
- University of Minnesota, Masonic Cancer Center, Biostatistics, Minneapolis
| | - Ryan Shanley
- University of Minnesota, Masonic Cancer Center, Biostatistics, Minneapolis
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - David Roberge
- University of Montreal Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Emil Lou
- University of Minnesota, Department of Hematology Oncology, Minneapolis
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
40
|
Rusthoven CG, Koshy M, Sher DJ, Ney DE, Gaspar LE, Jones BL, Karam SD, Amini A, Ormond DR, Youssef AS, Kavanagh BD. Combined-Modality Therapy With Radiation and Chemotherapy for Elderly Patients With Glioblastoma in the Temozolomide Era: A National Cancer Database Analysis. JAMA Neurol 2017; 73:821-8. [PMID: 27214765 DOI: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2016.0839] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/14/2022]
Abstract
IMPORTANCE The optimal management for elderly patients with glioblastoma (GBM) is controversial. Following maximal safe resection or biopsy, accepted treatment paradigms for elderly patients with GBM include combined-modality therapy (CMT) with both radiotherapy (RT) and chemotherapy (CT), RT alone, and CT alone. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the overall survival (OS) outcomes associated with RT, CT, and CMT for elderly patients with GBM in the modern temozolomide era. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In this retrospective cohort study of a prospectively maintained, multi-institutional national cancer registry, the National Cancer Database was queried for elderly patients (≥65 years) with newly diagnosed GBM from January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2011, with complete data sets for RT, CT, tumor resection, Charlson-Deyo comorbidity scores, age, sex, and year of diagnosis. Data analysis was performed from October 2015 through December 2015. INTERVENTIONS Combined-modality therapy, RT, CT. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Survival by treatment cohort was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and analyzed using the log rank test, univariate and multivariate Cox models, and propensity score-matched analyses. RESULTS A total of 16 717 patients (median [range] age, 73 [65-≥90 y]; 8870 [53%] male) were identified. The median OS by treatment was 9.0 (95% CI, 8.8-9.3) months with CMT (8435 patients), 4.7 (95% CI, 4.5-5.0) months with RT alone (1693 patients), 4.3 (95% CI, 4.0-4.7) months with CT alone (1018 patients), and 2.8 (95% CI, 2.8-2.9) months with no therapy (5571 patients) (P < .001). On multivariate analysis, CMT was superior to both CT alone (hazard ratio, 1.50 [95% CI, 1.40-1.60]; P < .001) and RT alone (hazard ratio, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.39-1.55]; P < .001), whereas no differences were observed between CT alone vs RT alone (P = .60). Propensity score-matched analyses redemonstrated improved OS with CMT over CT alone (P = .002) and RT alone (P < .001); no differences were observed between CT alone vs RT alone (P = .44). On subgroup analyses, a consistent OS advantage was observed with CMT over both CT alone and RT alone across each age stratification (65-69, 70-74, 75-79, and ≥80 years) and among patients treated with or without tumor resection (all P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this analysis of multimodality therapy for elderly patients with GBM, OS was superior with CMT compared with CT alone and RT alone. Survival was similar between CT alone and RT alone, and both CT alone and RT alone were superior to no therapy. This analysis supports the use of CMT for suitable elderly candidates.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chad G Rusthoven
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora
| | - Matthew Koshy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Illinois at Chicago School of Medicine, Chicago3Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, University of Chicago School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
| | - David J Sher
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas
| | - Douglas E Ney
- Division of Neuro-Oncology, Department of Neurology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora
| | - Laurie E Gaspar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora
| | - Bernard L Jones
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora
| | - Sana D Karam
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora
| | - Arya Amini
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora
| | - D Ryan Ormond
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora
| | - A Samy Youssef
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora
| | - Brian D Kavanagh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
Kris MG, Gaspar LE, Chaft JE, Kennedy EB. Adjuvant Systemic Therapy and Adjuvant Radiation Therapy for Stages I to IIIA Resectable Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancers: American Society of Clinical Oncology/Cancer Care Ontario Clinical Practice Guideline Update Summary. J Oncol Pract 2017; 13:449-451. [PMID: 28441082 DOI: 10.1200/jop.2017.022251] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Mark G Kris
- University of Colorado School of Medicine, Anschutz, CO; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, NY; and American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA
| | - Laurie E Gaspar
- University of Colorado School of Medicine, Anschutz, CO; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, NY; and American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA
| | - Jamie E Chaft
- University of Colorado School of Medicine, Anschutz, CO; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, NY; and American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA
| | - Erin B Kennedy
- University of Colorado School of Medicine, Anschutz, CO; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, NY; and American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Kris MG, Gaspar LE, Chaft JE, Kennedy EB, Azzoli CG, Ellis PM, Lin SH, Pass HI, Seth R, Shepherd FA, Spigel DR, Strawn JR, Ung YC, Weyant M. Adjuvant Systemic Therapy and Adjuvant Radiation Therapy for Stage I to IIIA Completely Resected Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancers: American Society of Clinical Oncology/Cancer Care Ontario Clinical Practice Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35:2960-2974. [PMID: 28437162 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2017.72.4401] [Citation(s) in RCA: 230] [Impact Index Per Article: 32.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose The panel updated the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) adjuvant therapy guideline for resected non-small-cell lung cancers. Methods ASCO convened an update panel and conducted a systematic review of the literature, investigating adjuvant therapy in resected non-small-cell lung cancers. Results The updated evidence base covered questions related to adjuvant systemic therapy and included a systematic review conducted by Cancer Care Ontario current to January 2016. A recent American Society for Radiation Oncology guideline and systematic review, previously endorsed by ASCO, was used as the basis for recommendations for adjuvant radiation therapy. An update of these systematic reviews and a search for studies related to radiation therapy found no additional randomized controlled trials. Recommendations Adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy is recommended for routine use in patients with stage IIA, IIB, or IIIA disease who have undergone complete surgical resections. For individuals with stage IB, adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy is not recommended for routine use. However, a postoperative multimodality evaluation, including a consultation with a medical oncologist, is recommended to assess benefits and risks of adjuvant chemotherapy for each patient. The guideline provides information on factors other than stage to consider when making a recommendation for adjuvant chemotherapy, including tumor size, histopathologic features, and genetic alterations. Adjuvant chemotherapy is not recommended for patients with stage IA disease. Adjuvant radiation therapy is not recommended for patients with resected stage I or II disease. In patients with stage IIIA N2 disease, adjuvant radiation therapy is not recommended for routine use. However, a postoperative multimodality evaluation, including a consultation with a radiation oncologist, is recommended to assess benefits and risks of adjuvant radiation therapy for each patient with N2 disease. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/lung-cancer-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mark G Kris
- Mark G. Kris and Jamie E. Chaft, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Harvey I. Pass, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York; Rahul Seth, Upstate Medical Center, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY; Laurie E. Gaspar and Michael Weyant, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO; Erin B. Kennedy, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Christopher G. Azzoli, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Steven H. Lin, MD Anderson Cancer Center; John R. Strawn, Patient Representative, Houston, TX; David R. Spigel, Sarah Cannon Cancer Center, Nashville, TN; Peter M. Ellis, Juravinski Cancer Center, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton; Frances A. Shepherd, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network; and Yee C. Ung, Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Laurie E Gaspar
- Mark G. Kris and Jamie E. Chaft, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Harvey I. Pass, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York; Rahul Seth, Upstate Medical Center, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY; Laurie E. Gaspar and Michael Weyant, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO; Erin B. Kennedy, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Christopher G. Azzoli, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Steven H. Lin, MD Anderson Cancer Center; John R. Strawn, Patient Representative, Houston, TX; David R. Spigel, Sarah Cannon Cancer Center, Nashville, TN; Peter M. Ellis, Juravinski Cancer Center, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton; Frances A. Shepherd, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network; and Yee C. Ung, Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jamie E Chaft
- Mark G. Kris and Jamie E. Chaft, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Harvey I. Pass, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York; Rahul Seth, Upstate Medical Center, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY; Laurie E. Gaspar and Michael Weyant, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO; Erin B. Kennedy, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Christopher G. Azzoli, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Steven H. Lin, MD Anderson Cancer Center; John R. Strawn, Patient Representative, Houston, TX; David R. Spigel, Sarah Cannon Cancer Center, Nashville, TN; Peter M. Ellis, Juravinski Cancer Center, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton; Frances A. Shepherd, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network; and Yee C. Ung, Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Erin B Kennedy
- Mark G. Kris and Jamie E. Chaft, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Harvey I. Pass, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York; Rahul Seth, Upstate Medical Center, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY; Laurie E. Gaspar and Michael Weyant, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO; Erin B. Kennedy, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Christopher G. Azzoli, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Steven H. Lin, MD Anderson Cancer Center; John R. Strawn, Patient Representative, Houston, TX; David R. Spigel, Sarah Cannon Cancer Center, Nashville, TN; Peter M. Ellis, Juravinski Cancer Center, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton; Frances A. Shepherd, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network; and Yee C. Ung, Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Christopher G Azzoli
- Mark G. Kris and Jamie E. Chaft, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Harvey I. Pass, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York; Rahul Seth, Upstate Medical Center, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY; Laurie E. Gaspar and Michael Weyant, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO; Erin B. Kennedy, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Christopher G. Azzoli, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Steven H. Lin, MD Anderson Cancer Center; John R. Strawn, Patient Representative, Houston, TX; David R. Spigel, Sarah Cannon Cancer Center, Nashville, TN; Peter M. Ellis, Juravinski Cancer Center, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton; Frances A. Shepherd, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network; and Yee C. Ung, Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Peter M Ellis
- Mark G. Kris and Jamie E. Chaft, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Harvey I. Pass, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York; Rahul Seth, Upstate Medical Center, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY; Laurie E. Gaspar and Michael Weyant, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO; Erin B. Kennedy, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Christopher G. Azzoli, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Steven H. Lin, MD Anderson Cancer Center; John R. Strawn, Patient Representative, Houston, TX; David R. Spigel, Sarah Cannon Cancer Center, Nashville, TN; Peter M. Ellis, Juravinski Cancer Center, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton; Frances A. Shepherd, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network; and Yee C. Ung, Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Steven H Lin
- Mark G. Kris and Jamie E. Chaft, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Harvey I. Pass, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York; Rahul Seth, Upstate Medical Center, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY; Laurie E. Gaspar and Michael Weyant, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO; Erin B. Kennedy, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Christopher G. Azzoli, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Steven H. Lin, MD Anderson Cancer Center; John R. Strawn, Patient Representative, Houston, TX; David R. Spigel, Sarah Cannon Cancer Center, Nashville, TN; Peter M. Ellis, Juravinski Cancer Center, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton; Frances A. Shepherd, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network; and Yee C. Ung, Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Harvey I Pass
- Mark G. Kris and Jamie E. Chaft, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Harvey I. Pass, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York; Rahul Seth, Upstate Medical Center, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY; Laurie E. Gaspar and Michael Weyant, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO; Erin B. Kennedy, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Christopher G. Azzoli, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Steven H. Lin, MD Anderson Cancer Center; John R. Strawn, Patient Representative, Houston, TX; David R. Spigel, Sarah Cannon Cancer Center, Nashville, TN; Peter M. Ellis, Juravinski Cancer Center, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton; Frances A. Shepherd, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network; and Yee C. Ung, Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Rahul Seth
- Mark G. Kris and Jamie E. Chaft, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Harvey I. Pass, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York; Rahul Seth, Upstate Medical Center, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY; Laurie E. Gaspar and Michael Weyant, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO; Erin B. Kennedy, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Christopher G. Azzoli, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Steven H. Lin, MD Anderson Cancer Center; John R. Strawn, Patient Representative, Houston, TX; David R. Spigel, Sarah Cannon Cancer Center, Nashville, TN; Peter M. Ellis, Juravinski Cancer Center, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton; Frances A. Shepherd, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network; and Yee C. Ung, Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Frances A Shepherd
- Mark G. Kris and Jamie E. Chaft, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Harvey I. Pass, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York; Rahul Seth, Upstate Medical Center, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY; Laurie E. Gaspar and Michael Weyant, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO; Erin B. Kennedy, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Christopher G. Azzoli, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Steven H. Lin, MD Anderson Cancer Center; John R. Strawn, Patient Representative, Houston, TX; David R. Spigel, Sarah Cannon Cancer Center, Nashville, TN; Peter M. Ellis, Juravinski Cancer Center, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton; Frances A. Shepherd, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network; and Yee C. Ung, Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - David R Spigel
- Mark G. Kris and Jamie E. Chaft, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Harvey I. Pass, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York; Rahul Seth, Upstate Medical Center, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY; Laurie E. Gaspar and Michael Weyant, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO; Erin B. Kennedy, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Christopher G. Azzoli, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Steven H. Lin, MD Anderson Cancer Center; John R. Strawn, Patient Representative, Houston, TX; David R. Spigel, Sarah Cannon Cancer Center, Nashville, TN; Peter M. Ellis, Juravinski Cancer Center, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton; Frances A. Shepherd, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network; and Yee C. Ung, Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - John R Strawn
- Mark G. Kris and Jamie E. Chaft, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Harvey I. Pass, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York; Rahul Seth, Upstate Medical Center, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY; Laurie E. Gaspar and Michael Weyant, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO; Erin B. Kennedy, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Christopher G. Azzoli, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Steven H. Lin, MD Anderson Cancer Center; John R. Strawn, Patient Representative, Houston, TX; David R. Spigel, Sarah Cannon Cancer Center, Nashville, TN; Peter M. Ellis, Juravinski Cancer Center, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton; Frances A. Shepherd, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network; and Yee C. Ung, Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Yee C Ung
- Mark G. Kris and Jamie E. Chaft, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Harvey I. Pass, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York; Rahul Seth, Upstate Medical Center, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY; Laurie E. Gaspar and Michael Weyant, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO; Erin B. Kennedy, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Christopher G. Azzoli, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Steven H. Lin, MD Anderson Cancer Center; John R. Strawn, Patient Representative, Houston, TX; David R. Spigel, Sarah Cannon Cancer Center, Nashville, TN; Peter M. Ellis, Juravinski Cancer Center, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton; Frances A. Shepherd, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network; and Yee C. Ung, Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Michael Weyant
- Mark G. Kris and Jamie E. Chaft, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Harvey I. Pass, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York; Rahul Seth, Upstate Medical Center, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY; Laurie E. Gaspar and Michael Weyant, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO; Erin B. Kennedy, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Christopher G. Azzoli, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Steven H. Lin, MD Anderson Cancer Center; John R. Strawn, Patient Representative, Houston, TX; David R. Spigel, Sarah Cannon Cancer Center, Nashville, TN; Peter M. Ellis, Juravinski Cancer Center, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton; Frances A. Shepherd, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network; and Yee C. Ung, Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Sperduto PW, Jiang W, Brown PD, Braunstein S, Sneed P, Wattson DA, Shih HA, Bangdiwala A, Shanley R, Lockney NA, Beal K, Lou E, Amatruda T, Sperduto WA, Kirkpatrick JP, Yeh N, Gaspar LE, Molitoris JK, Masucci L, Roberge D, Yu J, Chiang V, Mehta M. The Prognostic Value of BRAF, C-KIT, and NRAS Mutations in Melanoma Patients With Brain Metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2017; 98:1069-1077. [PMID: 28721890 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.03.030] [Citation(s) in RCA: 39] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/17/2017] [Revised: 03/16/2017] [Accepted: 03/20/2017] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Brain metastases are a common problem in patients with melanoma, but little is known about the effect of gene mutations on survival in these patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS We created a retrospective multi-institutional database of 823 patients with melanoma and brain metastases diagnosed between 2006 and 2015. Clinical parameters, gene mutation status (BRAF, C-KIT, NRAS), and treatment were correlated with survival. Treatment patterns and outcomes were compared with a prior era (1985-2005). RESULTS BRAF status was known in 584 of 823 patients (71%). BRAF, NRAS, and C-KIT mutations were present in 51%, 22%, and 11% of tested patients, respectively. The median time from primary diagnosis to brain metastasis was 32 months, and overall median survival (MS) from the time of initial treatment of brain metastases was 10 months. MS for BRAF-positive and BRAF-negative patients was 13 months and 9 months, respectively (P=.02). There was no significant difference in MS in patients with or without NRAS or C-KIT mutations. The time from primary diagnosis to brain metastasis did not vary by mutation and was not associated with survival after the diagnosis of brain metastases. MS for the 1985 to 2005 and 2006 to 2015 cohorts was 6.7 months and 10.0 months, respectively (P<.01). Reflecting treatment-trend changes, use of whole-brain radiation therapy decreased from 48% to 26% during this period. Among BRAF-positive patients, 71% received targeted BRAF and/or MEK inhibitors and 57% received some combination of targeted therapy, chemotherapy, and/or immunotherapy. CONCLUSIONS For melanoma patients with brain metastases, BRAF-positive patients survive longer than BRAF-negative patients and overall survival has improved from 1985-2005 to 2006-2015.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Wen Jiang
- MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | | | - Steve Braunstein
- University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| | - Penny Sneed
- University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| | - Daniel A Wattson
- Minneapolis Radiation Oncology, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Helen A Shih
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Ananta Bangdiwala
- Division of Biostatistics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
| | - Ryan Shanley
- Division of Biostatistics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
| | | | - Kathryn Beal
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Emil Lou
- Department of Medical Oncology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
| | | | | | | | - Norman Yeh
- University of Colorado Denver, Denver, Colorado
| | | | | | - Laura Masucci
- Centre Hospitalier de l'Universite de Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - David Roberge
- Centre Hospitalier de l'Universite de Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - James Yu
- Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
44
|
Jackson MW, Palma DA, Camidge DR, Jones BL, Robin TP, Sher DJ, Koshy M, Kavanagh BD, Gaspar LE, Rusthoven CG. The Impact of Postoperative Radiotherapy for Thymoma and Thymic Carcinoma. J Thorac Oncol 2017; 12:734-744. [PMID: 28126540 DOI: 10.1016/j.jtho.2017.01.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 79] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/07/2016] [Revised: 12/04/2016] [Accepted: 01/01/2017] [Indexed: 01/22/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The optimal role for postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) for thymoma and thymic carcinoma remains controversial. We used the National Cancer Data Base to investigate the impact of PORT on overall survival (OS). METHODS Patients who underwent an operation for thymoma or thymic carcinoma were categorized into Masaoka-Koga stage groups I to IIA, IIB, III, and IV. Patients who did not undergo an operation or those who received preoperative radiation were excluded. Kaplan-Meier estimates of OS and univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed. Propensity score-matched analyses were performed to further control for baseline confounders. RESULTS From 2004 to 2012, 4056 patients were eligible for inclusion, 2001 of whom (49%) received PORT. On multivariate analysis of OS in the thymoma cohort adjusted for age, WHO histologic subtype, Masaoka-Koga stage group, surgical margins, and chemotherapy administration, PORT was associated with superior OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.72, p = 0.001). Propensity score-matched analyses confirmed the survival advantage associated with PORT. Subset analysis indicated longer OS in association with PORT for patients with stage IIB thymoma (HR = 0.61, p = 0.035), stage III (HR = 0.69, p = 0.020), and positive margins (HR = 0.53, p < 0.001). The impact of PORT for stage I to IIA disease did not reach significance (HR = 0.76, p = 0.156). CONCLUSIONS In this large database analysis of PORT for thymic tumors, PORT was associated with longer OS, with the greatest relative benefits observed for stage IIB to III disease and positive margins. In the absence of randomized studies assessing the value of PORT, these data may inform clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew W Jackson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, Colorado.
| | - David A Palma
- London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada
| | - D Ross Camidge
- Division of Medical Oncology, University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Bernard L Jones
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Tyler P Robin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, Colorado
| | - David J Sher
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - Matthew Koshy
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Cellular Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Brian D Kavanagh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Laurie E Gaspar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Chad G Rusthoven
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, Colorado
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Lin NU, Gaspar LE, Soffietti R. Breast Cancer in the Central Nervous System: Multidisciplinary Considerations and Management. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2017. [PMID: 28561683 DOI: 10.14694/edbk_175338] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/09/2023]
Abstract
Breast cancer is the second most common primary tumor associated with central nervous system (CNS) metastases. Patients with metastatic HER2-positive or triple-negative (estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, progesterone receptor (PR)-negative, HER2-negative) breast cancer are at the highest risk of developing parenchymal brain metastases. Leptomeningeal disease is less frequent but is distributed across breast cancer subtypes, including lobular breast cancer. Initial treatment strategies can include surgery, radiation, intravenous or intrathecal chemotherapy, and/or targeted approaches. In this article, we review the epidemiology of breast cancer brain metastases, differences in clinical behavior and natural history by tumor subtype, and important considerations in the multidisciplinary treatment of these patients. We will highlight new findings that impact current standards of care, clinical controversies, and notable investigational approaches in clinical testing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nancy U Lin
- From the Breast Oncology Center, Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO; Department of Neuro-Oncology, University of Turin and City of Health and Science Hospital, Turin, Italy
| | - Laurie E Gaspar
- From the Breast Oncology Center, Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO; Department of Neuro-Oncology, University of Turin and City of Health and Science Hospital, Turin, Italy
| | - Riccardo Soffietti
- From the Breast Oncology Center, Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO; Department of Neuro-Oncology, University of Turin and City of Health and Science Hospital, Turin, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Gomez DR, Blumenschein GR, Lee JJ, Hernandez M, Ye R, Camidge DR, Doebele RC, Skoulidis F, Gaspar LE, Gibbons DL, Karam JA, Kavanagh BD, Tang C, Komaki R, Louie AV, Palma DA, Tsao AS, Sepesi B, William WN, Zhang J, Shi Q, Wang XS, Swisher SG, Heymach JV. Local consolidative therapy versus maintenance therapy or observation for patients with oligometastatic non-small-cell lung cancer without progression after first-line systemic therapy: a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol 2016; 17:1672-1682. [PMID: 27789196 PMCID: PMC5143183 DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(16)30532-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 734] [Impact Index Per Article: 91.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/26/2016] [Revised: 09/07/2016] [Accepted: 09/14/2016] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Evidence from retrospective studies suggests that disease progression after first-line chemotherapy for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) occurs most often at sites of disease known to exist at baseline. However, the potential effect of aggressive local consolidative therapy for patients with oligometastatic NSCLC is unknown. We aimed to assess the effect of local consolidative therapy on progression-free survival. METHODS In this multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 study, eligible patients from three hospitals had histological confirmation of stage IV NSCLC, three or fewer metastatic disease lesions after first-line systemic therapy, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 2 or less, had received standard first-line systemic therapy, and had no disease progression before randomisation. First-line therapy was four or more cycles of platinum doublet therapy or 3 or more months of EGFR or ALK inhibitors for patients with EGFR mutations or ALK rearrangements, respectively. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either local consolidative therapy ([chemo]radiotherapy or resection of all lesions) with or without subsequent maintenance treatment or to maintenance treatment alone, which could be observation only. Maintenance treatment was recommended based on a list of approved regimens, and observation was defined as close surveillance without cytotoxic treatment. Randomisation was not masked and was balanced dynamically on five factors: number of metastases, response to initial therapy, CNS metastases, intrathoracic nodal status, and EGFR and ALK status. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival analysed in all patients who were treated and had at least one post-baseline imaging assessment. The study is ongoing but not recruiting participants. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01725165. FINDINGS Between Nov 28, 2012, and Jan 19, 2016, 74 patients were enrolled either during or at the completion of first-line systemic therapy. The study was terminated early after randomisation of 49 patients (25 in the local consolidative therapy group and 24 in the maintenance treatment group) as part of the annual analyses done by the Data Safety Monitoring Committee of all randomised trials at MD Anderson Cancer Center, and before a planned interim analysis of 44 events. At a median follow-up time for all randomised patients of 12·39 months (IQR 5·52-20·30), the median progression-free survival in the local consolidative therapy group was 11·9 months (90% CI 5·7-20·9) versus 3·9 months (2·3-6·6) in the maintenance treatment group (hazard ratio 0·35 [90% CI 0·18-0·66], log-rank p=0·0054). Adverse events were similar between groups, with no grade 4 adverse events or deaths due to treatment. Grade 3 adverse events in the maintenance therapy group were fatigue (n=1) and anaemia (n=1) and in the local consolidative therapy group were oesophagitis (n=2), anaemia (n=1), pneumothorax (n=1), and abdominal pain (n=1, unlikely related). INTERPRETATION Local consolidative therapy with or without maintenance therapy for patients with three or fewer metastases from NSCLC that did not progress after initial systemic therapy improved progression-free survival compared with maintenance therapy alone. These findings suggest that aggressive local therapy should be further explored in phase 3 trials as a standard treatment option in this clinical scenario. FUNDING MD Anderson Lung Cancer Priority Fund, MD Anderson Cancer Center Moon Shot Initiative, and Cancer Center Support (Core), National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel R Gomez
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
| | - George R Blumenschein
- Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - J Jack Lee
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Mike Hernandez
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Rong Ye
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - D Ross Camidge
- Division of Medical Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA
| | - Robert C Doebele
- Division of Medical Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA
| | - Ferdinandos Skoulidis
- Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Laurie E Gaspar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA
| | - Don L Gibbons
- Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jose A Karam
- Department of Urology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Brian D Kavanagh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA
| | - Chad Tang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Ritsuko Komaki
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Alexander V Louie
- Department of Medical Oncology, London Health Sciences Center, London, ON, Canada
| | - David A Palma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, London Health Sciences Center, London, ON, Canada
| | - Anne S Tsao
- Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Boris Sepesi
- Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - William N William
- Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jianjun Zhang
- Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Qiuling Shi
- Department of Symptom Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Xin Shelley Wang
- Department of Symptom Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Stephen G Swisher
- Department of Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - John V Heymach
- Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
Sperduto P, Yang TJ, Beal K, Pan H, Brown P, Bangdiwala A, Shanley R, Yeh N, Gaspar LE, Braunstein S, Sneed P, Boyle JM, Kirkpatrick J, Mak K, Shih H, Engelman A, Roberge D, Arvold N, Alexander B, Awad M, Contessa J, Chiang V, Hardie J, Ma D, Lou E, Sperduto W, Mehta M. BMET-06. IMPROVED SURVIVAL AND PROGNOSTIC ABILITY IN LUNG CANCER PATIENTS WITH BRAIN METASTASES: AN UPDATE OF THE GRADED PROGNOSTIC ASSESSMENT FOR LUNG CANCER USING MOLECULAR MARKERS (LUNG-molGPA). Neuro Oncol 2016. [DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/now212.106] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
|
48
|
Gaspar LE, Mornex F, Kong FM(S, Hirsch F. MINI01.15: Prophylactic Cranial Irradiation (PCI) for Limited Small Cell Lung Cancer (LSCLC): An IASLC Physician Survey. J Thorac Oncol 2016. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jtho.2016.09.030] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
|
49
|
Khalifa J, Amini A, Popat S, Gaspar LE, Faivre-Finn C. Brain Metastases from NSCLC: Radiation Therapy in the Era of Targeted Therapies. J Thorac Oncol 2016; 11:1627-43. [PMID: 27343440 DOI: 10.1016/j.jtho.2016.06.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 51] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/07/2016] [Revised: 06/02/2016] [Accepted: 06/09/2016] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
Brain metastases (BMs) will develop in a large proportion of patients with NSCLC throughout the course of their disease. Among patients with NSCLC with oncogenic drivers, mainly EGFR activating mutations and anaplastic lymphoma receptor tyrosine kinase gene (ALK) rearrangements, the presence of BM is a common secondary localization of disease both at the time of diagnosis and at relapse. Because of the limited penetration of a wide range of drugs across the blood-brain barrier, radiotherapy is considered the cornerstone of treatment of BMs. However, evidence of dramatic intracranial response rates has been reported in recent years with targeted therapies such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors and has been supported by new insights into pharmacokinetics to increase rates of tyrosine kinase inhibitors' penetration of the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). In this context, the combination of brain radiotherapy and targeted therapies seems relevant, and there is a strong radiobiological rationale to harness the radiosentizing effect of the drugs. Nevertheless, to date, there is a paucity of high-level clinical evidence supporting the combination of brain radiotherapy and targeted therapies in patients with NSCLC and BMs, and there are often methodological biases in reported studies, such as the lack of stratification by mutation status. Moreover, among asymptomatic patients not suitable for ablative treatment, this strategy is challenged by the promising results associated with the administration of targeted therapies alone. Herein, we review the biological rationale to combine targeted therapies and brain radiotherapy for patients with NSCLC and BMs, report the clinical data available to date, and discuss future directions to improve outcome in this group of patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jonathan Khalifa
- Radiotherapy Related Research, The Christie National Health Service Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.
| | - Arya Amini
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Sanjay Popat
- Lung Cancer Unit, Royal Marsden Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Laurie E Gaspar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Corinne Faivre-Finn
- Radiotherapy Related Research, The Christie National Health Service Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Institute of Cancer Sciences, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
Sperduto PW, Yang TJ, Beal K, Pan H, Brown PD, Bangdiwala A, Shanley R, Yeh N, Gaspar LE, Braunstein S, Sneed P, Boyle J, Kirkpatrick JP, Mak KS, Shih HA, Engelman A, Roberge D, Arvold ND, Alexander B, Awad MM, Contessa J, Chiang V, Hardie J, Ma D, Lou E, Sperduto W, Mehta MP. The Effect of Gene Alterations and Tyrosine Kinase Inhibition on Survival and Cause of Death in Patients With Adenocarcinoma of the Lung and Brain Metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016; 96:406-413. [PMID: 27598807 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.06.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 64] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/28/2016] [Revised: 05/08/2016] [Accepted: 06/07/2016] [Indexed: 01/28/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Lung cancer remains the most common cause of both cancer mortality and brain metastases (BM). The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of gene alterations and tyrosine kinase inhibition (TKI) on median survival (MS) and cause of death (CoD) in patients with BM from lung adenocarcinoma (L-adeno). METHODS A multi-institutional retrospective database of patients with L-adeno and newly diagnosed BM between 2006 and 2014 was created. Demographics, gene alterations, treatment, MS, and CoD were analyzed. The treatment patterns and outcomes were compared with those in prior trials. RESULTS Of 1521 L-adeno patients, 816 (54%) had known alteration status. The gene alteration rates were 29%, 10%, and 26% for EGFR, ALK, and KRAS, respectively. The time from primary diagnosis to BM for EGFR-/+ was 10/15 months (P=.02) and for ALK-/+ was 10/20 months (P<.01), respectively. The MS for the group overall (n=1521) was 15 months. The MS from first treatment for BM for EGFR and ALK-, EGFR+, ALK+ were 14, 23 (P<.01), and 45 (P<.0001) months, respectively. The MS after BM for EGFR+ patients who did/did not receive TKI before BM was 17/30 months (P<.01), respectively, but the risk of death was not statistically different between TKI-naïve patients who did/did not receive TKI after the diagnosis of BM (EGFR/ALK hazard ratios: 1.06 [P=.84]/1.60 [P=.45], respectively). The CoD was nonneurologic in 82% of patients with known CoD. CONCLUSION EGFR and ALK gene alterations are associated with delayed onset of BM and longer MS relative to patients without these alterations. The CoD was overwhelmingly nonneurologic in patients with known CoD.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul W Sperduto
- Minneapolis Radiation Oncology and University of Minnesota Gamma Knife Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
| | | | - Kathryn Beal
- Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Hubert Pan
- MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | | | - Ananta Bangdiwala
- University of Minnesota, Masonic Cancer Center, Biostatistics, Minneapolis, Minnesota
| | - Ryan Shanley
- University of Minnesota, Masonic Cancer Center, Biostatistics, Minneapolis, Minnesota
| | - Norman Yeh
- University of Colorado-Denver, Denver, Colorado
| | | | - Steve Braunstein
- University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| | - Penny Sneed
- University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| | | | | | | | - Helen A Shih
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | | | - David Roberge
- CHUM, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Nils D Arvold
- Dana Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Brian Alexander
- Dana Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Mark M Awad
- Dana Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts
| | | | | | | | | | - Emil Lou
- University of Minnesota, Department of Hematology Oncology, Minneapolis, Minnesota
| | | | | |
Collapse
|