医学
卡铂
临床终点
放化疗
放射治疗
肿瘤科
内科学
肺癌
核医学
临床试验
化疗
顺铂
作者
Feng‐Ming Kong,Chen Hu,Randall K. Ten Haken,Ying Xiao,Martha M. Matuszak,Vera Hirsh,Daniel A. Pryma,Barry Alan Siegel,Daphna Y. Gelblum,James Alan Hayman,Clifford G. Robinson,Billy W. Loo,Gregory M.M. Videtic,Sérgio Luis Faria,Catherine Ferguson,Neal Dunlap,Vijayananda Kundapur,Rebecca Paulus,Jeffrey D. Bradley,Mitchell X. Machtay
标识
DOI:10.1200/jco.2021.39.15_suppl.8548
摘要
8548 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. [Table: see text]
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI