Dataset Information

Improvement in Patient-Reported Outcomes With Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy (RT) Compared With Standard RT: A Report From the NRG Oncology RTOG 1203 Study.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

In oncology trials, the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) is the standard tool for reporting adverse events (AEs), but it may underreport symptoms experienced by patients. This analysis of the NRG Oncology RTOG 1203 compared symptom reporting by patients and clinicians during radiotherapy (RT).

Patients and methods

Patients with cervical or endometrial cancer requiring postoperative RT were randomly assigned to standard 4-field RT or intensity-modulated RT (IMRT). Patients completed the 6-item patient-reported outcomes version of the CTCAE (PRO-CTCAE) for GI toxicity assessing abdominal pain, diarrhea, and fecal incontinence at various time points. Patients reported symptoms on a 5-point scale. Clinicians recorded these AEs as CTCAE grades 1 to 5. Clinician- and patient-reported AEs were compared using McNemar's test for rates > 0%.

Results

Of 278 eligible patients, 234 consented and completed the PRO-CTCAE. Patients reported high-grade abdominal pain 19.1% (P < .0001), high-grade diarrhea 38.5% (P < .0001), and fecal incontinence 6.8% more frequently than clinicians. Similar effects were seen between grade ≥ 1 CTCAE toxicity and any-grade patient-reported toxicity. Between-arm comparison of patient-reported high-grade AEs revealed that at 5 weeks of RT, patients who received IMRT experienced fewer GI AEs than patients who received 4-field pelvic RT with regard to frequency of diarrhea (18.2% difference; P = .01), frequency of fecal incontinence (8.2% difference; P = .01), and interference of fecal incontinence (8.5% difference; P = .04).

Conclusion

Patient-reported AEs showed a reduction in symptoms with IMRT compared with standard RT, whereas clinician-reported AEs revealed no difference. Clinicians also underreported symptomatic GI AEs compared with patients. This suggests that patient-reported symptomatic AEs are important to assess in this disease setting.

SUBMITTER: Yeung AR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7238486 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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).

Project description:Purpose/objectiveHypofractionated radiotherapy (HRT) regimens for prostate cancer are emerging, but tolerance doses for late adverse events are scarce. The purpose of this study is to define dose-volume predictors for late gastrointestinal and genitourinary (GI and GU) toxicities after HRT in the multi-center NRG Oncology/RTOG 0415 low-risk prostate cancer trial (N = 521).Material/methodsTreatment in the studied HRT arm was delivered as 70 Gy at 2.5 Gy/fraction with 3D-CRT/IMRT (N = 108/413). At a median follow-up of 5.9 years, the crude late ≥Grade 2 GI and GU toxicities were 19% and 29%, respectively. For modeling, the complete HRT cohort was randomly split into training and validation (70% and 30%; preserved toxicity rates). Within training, dose-response modeling was based on dose-volume cut-points (EQD2Gy; bladder/rectum: α/β = 6 Gy/3Gy), age, acute ≥Grade 2 toxicity, and treatment technique using univariate and multivariate logistic regression on bootstrapping (UVA and MVA). Candidate predictors were determined at p ≤ 0.05, and the selected MVA models were explored on validation where model generalizability was judged if the area under the receiver-operating curve in validation (AUCvalidation) was within AUCtraining ± SD with p ≤ 0.05, and with an Hosmer-Lemeshow p-value (pHL) > 0.05.ResultsThree candidate predictors were suggested for late GI toxicity: the minimum dose to the hottest 5% rectal volume (D5%[Gy]), the absolute rectal volume <35 Gy, and acute GI toxicity (AUC = 0.59-0.63; p = 0.02-0.04). The two generalizable MVA models, i.e., D5%[Gy] with or without acute GI toxicity (AUCvalidation = 0.64, 0.65; p = 0.01, 0.03; pHL = 0.45-0.56), suggest that reducing late GI toxicity from 20% to 10% would require reducing D5%[Gy] from ≤65 Gy to ≤62 Gy (logistic function argument: 17+(0.24D5%[Gy])). Acute GU toxicity showed only a trend to predict late GU toxicity (AUCtraining = 0.57; p = 0.07).ConclusionLate GI toxicity, following moderate HRT for low-risk prostate cancer, increases with higher doses to small rectal volumes. This work provides quantitative evidence that limiting small rectal dose 'hotspots' in clinical practice of such HRT regimens is likely to further reduce the associated rates of GI toxicity.

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

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:Importance:Optimizing radiation therapy techniques for localized prostate cancer can affect patient outcomes. Dose escalation improves biochemical control, but no prior trials were powered to detect overall survival (OS) differences. Objective:To determine whether radiation dose escalation to 79.2 Gy compared with 70.2 Gy would improve OS and other outcomes in prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants:The NRG Oncology/RTOG 0126 randomized clinical trial randomized 1532 patients from 104 North American Radiation Therapy Oncology Group institutions March 2002 through August 2008. Men with stage cT1b to T2b, Gleason score 2 to 6, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of 10 or greater and less than 20 or Gleason score of 7 and PSA less than 15 received 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy or intensity-modulated radiation therapy to 79.2 Gy in 44 fractions or 70.2 Gy in 39 fractions. Main Outcomes and Measures:Time to OS measured from randomization to death due to any cause. American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO)/Phoenix definitions were used for biochemical failure. Acute (?90 days of treatment start) and late radiation therapy toxic effects (>90 days) were graded using the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria, version 2.0, and the RTOG/European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Late Radiation Morbidity Scoring Scheme, respectively. Results:With a median follow-up of 8.4 (range, 0.02-13.0) years in 1499 patients (median [range] age, 71 [33-87] years; 70% had PSA <10 ng/mL, 84% Gleason score of 7, 57% T1 disease), there was no difference in OS between the 751 men in the 79.2-Gy arm and the 748 men in the 70.2-Gy arm. The 8-year rates of OS were 76% with 79.2 Gy and 75% with 70.2 Gy (hazard ratio [HR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.83-1.20; P?=?.98). The 8-year cumulative rates of distant metastases were 4% for the 79.2-Gy arm and 6% for the 70.2-Gy arm (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.42-1.01; P?=?.05). The ASTRO and Phoenix biochemical failure rates at 5 and 8 years were 31% and 20% with 79.2 Gy and 47% and 35% with 70.2 Gy, respectively (both P?<?.001; ASTRO: HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.50-0.70; Phoenix: HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.44-0.65). The high-dose arm had a lower rate of salvage therapy use. The 5-year rates of late grade 2 or greater gastrointestinal and/or genitourinary toxic effects were 21% and 12% with 79.2 Gy and 15% and 7% with 70.2 Gy (P?=?.006 [HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.10-1.77] and P?=?.003 [HR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.17-2.16], respectively). Conclusions and Relevance:Despite improvements in biochemical failure and distant metastases, dose escalation did not improve OS. High doses caused more late toxic effects but lower rates of salvage therapy. Trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00033631.