Dataset Information

A Randomized Phase 2 Study Comparing 2 Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Schedules for Medically Inoperable Patients With Stage I Peripheral Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: NRG Oncology RTOG 0915 (NCCTG N0927).

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To compare 2 stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) schedules for medically inoperable early-stage lung cancer to determine which produces the lowest rate of grade ≥3 protocol-specified adverse events (psAEs) at 1 year.

Methods and materials

Patients with biopsy-proven peripheral (≥2 cm from the central bronchial tree) T1 or T2, N0 (clinically node negative by positron emission tomography), M0 tumors were eligible. Patients were randomized to receive either 34 Gy in 1 fraction (arm 1) or 48 Gy in 4 consecutive daily fractions (arm 2). Rigorous central accreditation and quality assurance confirmed treatment per protocol guidelines. This study was designed to detect a psAEs rate >17% at a 10% significance level (1-sided) and 90% power. Secondary endpoints included rates of primary tumor control (PC), overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS) at 1 year. Designating the better of the 2 regimens was based on prespecified rules of psAEs and PC for each arm.

Results

Ninety-four patients were accrued between September 2009 and March 2011. The median follow-up time was 30.2 months. Of 84 analyzable patients, 39 were in arm 1 and 45 in arm 2. Patient and tumor characteristics were balanced between arms. Four (10.3%) patients on arm 1 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.9%-24.2%) and 6 (13.3%) patients on arm 2 (95% CI 5.1%-26.8%) experienced psAEs. The 2-year OS rate was 61.3% (95% CI 44.2%-74.6%) for arm 1 patients and 77.7% (95% CI 62.5%-87.3%) for arm 2. The 2-year DFS was 56.4% (95% CI 39.6%-70.2%) for arm 1 and 71.1% (95% CI 55.5%-82.1%) for arm 2. The 1-year PC rate was 97.0% (95% CI 84.2%-99.9%) for arm 1 and 92.7% (95% CI 80.1%-98.5%) for arm 2.

Conclusions

34 Gy in 1 fraction met the prespecified criteria and, of the 2 schedules, warrants further clinical research.

SUBMITTER: Videtic GM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4744654 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Randomized Phase 2 Study Comparing 2 Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Schedules for Medically Inoperable Patients With Stage I Peripheral Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: NRG Oncology RTOG 0915 (NCCTG N0927).

Videtic Gregory M M GM Hu Chen C Singh Anurag K AK Chang Joe Y JY Parker William W Olivier Kenneth R KR Schild Steven E SE Komaki Ritsuko R Urbanic James J JJ Timmerman Robert D RD Choy Hak H

International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics 20150717 4

<h4>Purpose</h4>To compare 2 stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) schedules for medically inoperable early-stage lung cancer to determine which produces the lowest rate of grade ≥3 protocol-specified adverse events (psAEs) at 1 year.<h4>Methods and materials</h4>Patients with biopsy-proven peripheral (≥2 cm from the central bronchial tree) T1 or T2, N0 (clinically node negative by positron emission tomography), M0 tumors were eligible. Patients were randomized to receive either 34 Gy in 1 ...[more]

PMID: 26530743

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has become a standard treatment for patients with medically inoperable early-stage lung cancer. However, its effectiveness in patients medically suitable for surgery is unclear. Objective:To evaluate whether noninvasive SBRT delivered on an outpatient basis can safely eradicate lung cancer and cure selected patients with operable lung cancer, obviating the need for surgical resection. Design, Setting, and Participants:Single-arm phase 2 NRG Oncology Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0618 study enrolled patients from December 2007 to May 2010 with median follow-up of 48.1 months (range, 15.4-73.7 months). The setting was a multicenter North American academic and community practice cancer center consortium. Patients had operable biopsy-proven peripheral T1 to T2, N0, M0 non-small cell tumors no more than 5 cm in diameter, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and diffusing capacity greater than 35% predicted, arterial oxygen tension greater than 60 mm Hg, arterial carbon dioxide tension less than 50 mm Hg, and no severe medical problems. The data analysis was performed in October 2014. Interventions:The SBRT prescription dose was 54 Gy delivered in 3 18-Gy fractions over 1.5 to 2.0 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures:Primary end point was primary tumor control, with survival, adverse events, and the incidence and outcome of surgical salvage as secondary end points. Results:Of 33 patients accrued, 26 were evaluable (23 T1 and 3 T2 tumors; 15 [58%] male; median age, 72.5 [range, 54-88] years). Median FEV1 and diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide at enrollment were 72.5% (range, 38%-136%) and 68% (range, 22%-96%) of predicted, respectively. Only 1 patient had a primary tumor recurrence. Involved lobe failure, the other component defining local failure, did not occur in any patient, so the estimated 4-year primary tumor control and local control rate were both 96% (95% CI, 83%-100%). As per protocol guidelines, the single patient with local recurrence underwent salvage lobectomy 1.2 years after SBRT, complicated by a grade 4 cardiac arrhythmia. The 4-year estimates of disease-free and overall survival were 57% (95% CI, 36%-74%) and 56% (95% CI, 35%-73%), respectively. Median overall survival was 55.2 months (95% CI, 37.7 months to not reached). Protocol-specified treatment-related grade 3, 4, and 5 adverse events were reported in 2 (8%; 95% CI, 0.1%-25%), 0, and 0 patients, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance:As given, SBRT appears to be associated with a high rate of primary tumor control, low treatment-related morbidity, and infrequent need for surgical salvage in patients with operable early-stage lung cancer. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00551369.

Project description:PurposeNRG/RTOG 0841 assessed the feasibility of a depression screening procedure in patients receiving radiation therapy (RT). As a secondary endpoint, availability and barriers to psychosocial care data were collected in hopes of providing recommendations for improved psychosocial care among patients receiving RT.Methods and materialsPatients starting RT were prospectively recruited and assessed with self-reported distress screening tools. Patients exceeding a validated cutoff and a sample of patients who screened negative received the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID) mood disorder modules via telephone. During that SCID evaluation, patients completed a validated scale ranking interview on barriers to psychosocial care and interest in various psychosocial intervention modalities.ResultsA total of 463 patients from 35 community-based and 2 academic RT oncology sites were recruited. Of the 455 eligible, 75 (16%) exceeded screening cutoffs for depressive symptoms. From this group, 78 patients completed the SCID; most were female (76%), white (88%), and had breast cancer (55%). Overall, the most common barriers to treatment, regardless of insurance, were costs (58%), daily responsibilities (44%), and physical health symptoms (38%). Patients from RT facilities without mental health services were significantly more likely to report difficulty with physical health problems, specifically serious illness and walking, compared with those treated at RT facilities with services (P = .013 and P = .039, respectively). Overall, there was interest in obtaining psychosocial services with face-to-face counseling at the cancer center and printed educational materials as the most commonly preferred interventions. Patients with difficult barriers to psychosocial interventions were significantly less interested in support away from the cancer center (P = .016), telephone and Internet counseling (P = .0062 &P = .011), and Internet support (P = .0048).ConclusionRadiation oncology patients are interested in obtaining psychosocial services but face barriers to access to mental health services including cost, debilitating symptoms, and time constraints that prevent adequate care.

Project description:OBJECTIVE This is the first clinical outcomes report of NRG Oncology RTOG 0539, detailing the primary endpoint, 3-year progression-free survival (PFS), compared with a predefined historical control for intermediate-risk meningioma, and secondarily evaluating overall survival (OS), local failure, and prospectively scored adverse events (AEs). METHODS NRG Oncology RTOG 0539 was a Phase II clinical trial allocating meningioma patients to 1 of 3 prognostic groups and management strategies according to WHO grade, recurrence status, and resection extent. For the intermediate-risk group (Group 2), eligible patients had either newly diagnosed WHO Grade II meningioma that had been treated with gross-total resection (GTR; Simpson Grades I-III) or recurrent WHO Grade I meningioma with any resection extent. Pathology and imaging were centrally reviewed. Patients were treated with radiation therapy (RT), either intensity modulated (IMRT) or 3D conformal (3DCRT), 54 Gy in 30 fractions. The RT target volume was defined as the tumor bed and any nodular enhancement (e.g., in patients with recurrent WHO Grade I tumors) with a minimum 8-mm and maximum 15-mm margin, depending on tumor location and setup reproducibility of the RT method. The primary endpoint was 3-year PFS. Results were compared with historical controls (3-year PFS: 70% following GTR alone and 90% with GTR + RT). AEs were scored using NCI Common Toxicity Criteria. RESULTS Fifty-six patients enrolled in the intermediate-risk group, of whom 3 were ineligible and 1 did not receive RT. Of the 52 patients who received protocol therapy, 4 withdrew without a recurrence before 3 years leaving 48 patients evaluable for the primary endpoint, 3-year PFS, which was actuarially 93.8% (p = 0.0003). Within 3 years, 3 patients experienced events affecting PFS: 1 patient with a WHO Grade II tumor died of the disease, 1 patient with a WHO Grade II tumor had disease progression but remained alive, and 1 patient with recurrent WHO Grade I meningioma died of undetermined cause without tumor progression. The 3-year actuarial local failure rate was 4.1%, and the 3-year OS rate was 96%. After 3 years, progression occurred in 2 additional patients: 1 patient with recurrent WHO Grade I meningioma and 1 patient with WHO Grade II disease; both remain alive. Among 52 evaluable patients who received protocol treatment, 36 (69.2%) had WHO Grade II tumors and underwent GTR, and 16 (30.8%) had recurrent WHO Grade I tumors. There was no significant difference in PFS between these subgroups (p = 0.52, HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.09-3.35), validating their consolidation. Of the 52 evaluable patients, 44 (84.6%) received IMRT, and 50 (96.2%) were treated per protocol or with acceptable variation. AEs (definitely, probably, or possibly related to protocol treatment) were limited to Grade 1 or 2, with no reported Grade 3 events. CONCLUSIONS This is the first clinical outcomes report from NRG Oncology RTOG 0539. Patients with intermediate-risk meningioma treated with RT had excellent 3-year PFS, with a low rate of local failure and a low risk of AEs. These results support the use of postoperative RT for newly diagnosed gross-totally resected WHO Grade II or recurrent WHO Grade I meningioma irrespective of resection extent. They also document minimal toxicity and high rates of tumor control with IMRT. Clinical trial registration no.: NCT00895622 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Dataset Information

A Randomized Phase 2 Study Comparing 2 Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Schedules for Medically Inoperable Patients With Stage I Peripheral Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: NRG Oncology RTOG 0915 (NCCTG N0927).

Purpose

Methods and materials

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A Randomized Phase 2 Study Comparing 2 Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Schedules for Medically Inoperable Patients With Stage I Peripheral Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: NRG Oncology RTOG 0915 (NCCTG N0927).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets