Clinical Oncology Department, The University of Hongkong-Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, China
Feng-Ming Spring Kong , Chen Hu , Randall Ten Haken , Ying Xiao , Martha Matuszak , Vera Hirsh , Daniel A. Pryma , Barry A. Siegel , Daphna Y. Gelblum , James Hayman , Clifford Grant Robinson , Billy W. Loo , Gregory M.M. Videtic , Sergio Faria , Catherine Ferguson , Neal E. Dunlap , Vijayananda Kundapur , Rebecca Paulus , Jeffrey D. Bradley , Mitchell Machtay
Background: NRG-RTOG 0617 (R0617) found that non-personalized dose escalation of radiotherapy (RT) with concurrent chemotherapy was deleterious. NRG-RTOG 1106/ACRIN 6697 (R1106) studied adaptive chemoradiotherapy, using tumor and patient individualized RT dose intensification simultaneously with field reduction, based upon mid-treatment FDG-PET. Methods: The control arms of both studies used 60 Gy (+ weekly carboplatin/paclitaxel). The investigational arm of R0617 used 74 Gy in 37 fractions, with no field/dose adaptation, while R1106 used mid-treatment FDG-PET (after ̃40 Gy) to design an individualized dose adaptive RT plan with daily-fraction size 2.2 to 3.8 Gy (up to 80.4 Gy/30 fractions), based upon a model of isotoxic lung risk. Nearly all (93%) patients had IMRT. No patients had consolidation immunotherapy. The primary endpoint for R1106 was local-regional-progression freedom (LRPF) assessed by central review. Other endpoints reported here were survival, toxicity, and institution-defined local/regional control. Results: From 2012-2017, 127 patients were enrolled to R1106 (43 in the standard and 84 in the adaptive arms), with a median follow-up of 3.6 years. The median actual RT dose in the adaptive arm was 71 Gy (Q1-Q3 68-76 Gy). The 2-year LRPF was 59.5% versus 54.6% (p=0.66) for standard versus adaptive RT; the 3-year survival rates were 49.1% versus 47.5% (p=0.80). An exploratory analysis of 2-year in-field local primary tumor control and local-regional tumor control (institution-assessed) were 58.5% and 55.6% for standard RT, and 75.6% and 66.3% for adaptive RT, respectively. As shown in the table, there were no significant differences in cardiac or esophageal adverse events between the two arms; the adaptive RT arm had more Grade 3+ respiratory events (23.8% versus 14.3%). Conclusions: NRG-RTOG1106 did not meet its primary endpoint of demonstrating improved LRPF. Unlike R0617, there was no suggestion of a detrimental effect of adaptive dose-intensified RT on survival and cardiac events. Studies to refine personalized RT, especially in the immunotherapy era, should be considered. Outcome comparison between R0617 and R1106. Clinical trial information: NCT01507428
R0617 Control Arm | R0617 High-dose Arm | R1106 Control Arm | R1106 Adaptive Arm | |
---|---|---|---|---|
3-yr OS | 44.5% | 31.1% | 49.1% | 47.5% |
3-yr Local-regional failure (institution reported) | 47.1% | 50.9% | 30.0% | 30.2% |
2-yr In-field primary tumor local control (institution reported) | NS | NS | 58.5% | 75.6% |
2-yr In-field local-regional control (institution reported) | NS | NS | 55.6% | 66.3% |
Cardiac event Grade 3+ (crude %) | 17.9% | 19.8% | 2.6% | 1.3% |
Pulmonary toxicity Grade 3+ (crude %) | 20.6% | 19.3% | 14.3% | 23.8% |
Esophagitis Grade 3+ (crude %) | 5.0% | 17.4% | 7.9% | 3.8% |
Disclaimer
This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org
Abstract Disclosures
2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
First Author: Daniel Zeter
2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
First Author: Evgenia Taranova
2018 ASCO Annual Meeting
First Author: Nicola Joseph Nasser
2024 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium
First Author: David William Pook