Summary Background A previous pooled analysis of the STARS and ROSEL trials showed higher survival after stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) than with surgery for operable early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but that analysis had notable limitations. This study reports long-term results of the revised STARS trial, in which the SABR group was re-accrued with a larger sample size, along with a protocol-specified propensity-matched comparison with a prospectively registered, contemporary institutional cohort of patients who underwent video-assisted thoracoscopic surgical lobectomy with mediastinal lymph node dissection (VATS L-MLND). Methods This single-arm prospective trial was done at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, TX, USA) and enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with a Zubrod performance status of 0–2, newly diagnosed and histologically confirmed NSCLC with N0M0 disease (squamous cell, adenocarcinoma, large cell, or NSCLC not otherwise specified), and a tumour diameter of 3 cm or less. This trial did not include patients from the previous pooled analysis. SABR dosing was 54 Gy in three fractions (for peripheral lesions) or 50 Gy in four fractions (for central tumours; simultaneous integrated boost to gross tumour totalling 60 Gy). The primary endpoint was the 3-year overall survival. For the propensity-matching analysis, we used a surgical cohort from the MD Anderson Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery's prospectively registered, institutional review board-approved database of all patients with clinical stage I NSCLC who underwent VATS L-MLND during the period of enrolment in this trial. Non-inferiority could be claimed if the 3-year overall survival rate after SABR was lower than that after VATS L-MLND by 12% or less and the upper bound of the 95% CI of the hazard ratio (HR) was less than 1·965. Propensity matching consisted of determining a propensity score using a multivariable logistic regression model including several covariates (age, tumour size, histology, performance status, and the interaction of age and sex); based on the propensity scores, one patient in the SABR group was randomly matched with one patient in the VATS L-MLND group using a 5:1 digit greedy match algorithm. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02357992 . Findings Between Sept 1, 2015, and Jan 31, 2017, 80 patients were enrolled and included in efficacy and safety analyses. Median follow-up time was 5·1 years (IQR 3·9–5·8). Overall survival was 91% (95% CI 85–98) at 3 years and 87% (79–95) at 5 years. SABR was tolerated well, with no grade 4–5 toxicity and one (1%) case each of grade 3 dyspnoea, grade 2 pneumonitis, and grade 2 lung fibrosis. No serious adverse events were recorded. Overall survival in the propensity-matched VATS L-MLND cohort was 91% (95% CI 85–98) at 3 years and 84% (76–93) at 5 years. Non-inferiority was claimed since the 3-year overall survival after SABR was not lower than that observed in the VATS L-MLND group. There was no significant difference in overall survival between the two patient cohorts (hazard ratio 0·86 [95% CI 0·45–1·65], p=0·65) from a multivariable analysis. Interpretation Long-term survival after SABR is non-inferior to VATS L-MLND for operable stage IA NSCLC. SABR remains promising for such cases but multidisciplinary management is strongly recommended. Funding Varian Medical Systems and US National Cancer Institute (National Institutes of Health).

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for operable stage I non-small-cell lung cancer (revised STARS): long-term results of a single-arm, prospective trial with prespecified comparison to surgery.

Radiotherapy is an important modality used for the treatment of lung cancer. Seventy-seven percent of all patients with lung cancer have an evidence-based indication for radiotherapy, although it is often underutilized. Radiotherapy can be used as curative or palliative treatment across all stages of disease. Technological advances have allowed better radiotherapy targeting of tumours and reduced incidental irradiation of surrounding normal tissues. This has expanded the indications for radiotherapy in lung cancer and improved outcomes both in terms of increasing survival and reducing toxicity. This review examines the current role of radiotherapy in lung cancer, discusses the evidence behind this and identifies future directions in the radiotherapy treatment of lung cancer.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/resp.13870

Radiotherapy treatment for lung cancer: Current status and future directions

The treatment goal for patients with early-stage lung cancer is cure. Multidisciplinary discussions of surgical resectability and medical operability determine the modality of definitive local treatment (surgery or radiotherapy) and the associated systemic therapies to further improve the likelihood of cure. Trial evidence supports cisplatin-based adjuvant therapy either after surgical resection or concurrently with radiotherapy. Consensus guidelines support neoadjuvant chemotherapy in lieu of adjuvant chemotherapy and carboplatin-based regimens for patients who are ineligible for cisplatin. The incorporation of newer agents, now standard for patients with stage IV lung cancer, into the curative therapy paradigm has lagged owing to inefficient trial designs, the lengthy follow-up needed to assess survival end points and a developmental focus on the advanced-stage disease setting. Surrogate end points, such as pathological response, are being studied and might shorten trial durations. In 2018, the anti-PD-L1 antibody durvalumab was approved for patients with stage III lung cancer after concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Since then, the study of targeted therapies and immunotherapies in patients with early-stage lung cancer has rapidly expanded. In this Review, we present the current considerations in the treatment of patients with early-stage lung cancer and explore the current and future state of clinical research to develop systemic therapies for non-metastatic lung cancer. The authors of this Review present the current considerations in the treatment of patients with early-stage lung cancer, discussing the critical determination of resectability by thoracic surgical oncologists and the management of both resectable and unresectable disease with a focus on systemic therapy selection. They also address innovations in drug development, trial design and efforts to identify early-stage cancers.

Evolution of systemic therapy for stages I-III non-metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

Except for its use in palliative care, radiotherapy has been largely abandoned in the management of ovarian cancer because of the recognised efficacy and lower toxicity of systemic chemotherapy compared with radiotherapy. New data have emerged that show synergy of radiotherapy with immunotherapy to control or eradicate cancer. Different doses of hypofractionated radiotherapy have been shown to induce immunogenic cell death and in-situ vaccination in several tumour models. However, doses less than 2 Gy can also reprogramme the tumour microenvironment. This Series paper discusses the past and present use of radiotherapy for ovarian cancer, and the mechanisms by which radiotherapy can mobilise anticancer immunity. We provide emerging preclinical and clinical data for combining immunotherapy with radiotherapy for ovarian cancer treatment and offer a clinical development roadmap to guide the next generation of clinical trials for this combination strategy for this disease.

Rational combinations of immunotherapy with radiotherapy in ovarian cancer

Tumor genotyping is not routinely performed in localized non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) due to lack of associations of mutations with outcome. Here, we analyze 232 consecutive patients with localized NSCLC and demonstrate that KEAP1 and NFE2L2 mutations are predictive of high rates of local recurrence (LR) after radiotherapy but not surgery. Half of LRs occurred in tumors with KEAP1/NFE2L2 mutations, indicating that they are major molecular drivers of clinical radioresistance. Next, we functionally evaluate KEAP1/NFE2L2 mutations in our radiotherapy cohort and demonstrate that only pathogenic mutations are associated with radioresistance. Furthermore, expression of NFE2L2 target genes does not predict LR, underscoring the utility of tumor genotyping. Finally, we show that glutaminase inhibition preferentially radiosensitizes KEAP1-mutant cells via depletion of glutathione and increased radiation-induced DNA damage. Our findings suggest that genotyping for KEAP1/NFE2L2 mutations could facilitate treatment personalization and provide a potential strategy for overcoming radioresistance conferred by these mutations. SIGNIFICANCE: This study shows that mutations in KEAP1 and NFE2L2 predict for LR after radiotherapy but not surgery in patients with NSCLC. Approximately half of all LRs are associated with these mutations and glutaminase inhibition may allow personalized radiosensitization of KEAP1/NFE2L2-mutant tumors.This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1775.

/pdf/keap1-nfe2l2-mutations-predict-lung-cancer-radiation-21dng3xnix.pdf

KEAP1/NFE2L2 Mutations Predict Lung Cancer Radiation Resistance That Can Be Targeted by Glutaminase Inhibition

Background: Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) is widely used to treat inoperable stage 1 non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), despite the absence of prospective evidence that this type of treatment improves local control or prolongs overall survival compared with standard radiotherapy. We aimed to compare the two treatment techniques. Methods: We did this multicentre, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial in 11 hospitals in Australia and three hospitals in New Zealand. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, had biopsy-confirmed stage 1 (T1–T2aN0M0) NSCLC diagnosed on the basis of F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET, and were medically inoperable or had refused surgery. Patients had to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and the tumour had to be peripherally located. Patients were randomly assigned after stratification for T stage and operability in a 2:1 ratio to SABR (54 Gy in three 18 Gy fractions, or 48 Gy in four 12 Gy fractions if the tumour was <2 cm from the chest wall) or standard radiotherapy (66 Gy in 33 daily 2 Gy fractions or 50 Gy in 20 daily 2·5 Gy fractions, depending on institutional preference) using minimisation, so no sequence was pre-generated. Clinicians, patients, and data managers had no previous knowledge of the treatment group to which patients would be assigned; however, the treatment assignment was subsequently open label (because of the nature of the interventions). The primary endpoint was time to local treatment failure (assessed according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.0), with the hypothesis that SABR would result in superior local control compared with standard radiotherapy. All efficacy analyses were based on the intention-to-treat analysis. Safety analyses were done on a per-protocol basis, according to treatment that the patients actually received. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01014130) and the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12610000479000). The trial is closed to new participants. Findings: Between Dec 31, 2009, and June 22, 2015, 101 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive SABR (n=66) or standard radiotherapy (n=35). Five (7·6%) patients in the SABR group and two (6·5%) in the standard radiotherapy group did not receive treatment, and a further four in each group withdrew before study end. As of data cutoff (July 31, 2017), median follow-up for local treatment failure was 2·1 years (IQR 1·2–3·6) for patients randomly assigned to standard radiotherapy and 2·6 years (IQR 1·6–3·6) for patients assigned to SABR. 20 (20%) of 101 patients had progressed locally: nine (14%) of 66 patients in the SABR group and 11 (31%) of 35 patients in the standard radiotherapy group, and freedom from local treatment failure was improved in the SABR group compared with the standard radiotherapy group (hazard ratio 0·32, 95% CI 0·13–0·77, p=0·0077). Median time to local treatment failure was not reached in either group. In patients treated with SABR, there was one grade 4 adverse event (dyspnoea) and seven grade 3 adverse events (two cough, one hypoxia, one lung infection, one weight loss, one dyspnoea, and one fatigue) related to treatment compared with two grade 3 events (chest pain) in the standard treatment group. Interpretation: In patients with inoperable peripherally located stage 1 NSCLC, compared with standard radiotherapy, SABR resulted in superior local control of the primary disease without an increase in major toxicity. The findings of this trial suggest that SABR should be the treatment of choice for this patient group. Funding: The Radiation and Optometry Section of the Australian Government Department of Health with the assistance of Cancer Australia, and the Cancer Society of New Zealand and the Cancer Research Trust New Zealand (formerly Genesis Oncology Trust).

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus standard radiotherapy in stage 1 non-small-cell lung cancer (TROG 09.02 CHISEL): a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. In a randomized phase II clinical trial, the Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group compared single- versus multifraction stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) in 90 patients with 133 oligometastases to the lung. The study found no differences in safety, efficacy, systemic immunogenicity, or survival between arms, with single-fraction SABR picked as the winner on the basis of cost-effectiveness. In this article, we report the final updated survival outcome analysis. The protocol mandated no concurrent or post-therapy systemic therapy until progression. Modified disease-free survival (mDFS) was defined as any progression not addressable by local therapy, or death. At a median follow-up of 5.4 years, the 3- and 5-year estimates for overall survival (OS) were 70% (95% CI, 59 to 78) and 51% (95% CI, 39 to 61). There were no significant differences between the multi- and single-fraction arms for OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.1 [95% CI, 0.6 to 2.0]; P = .81). The 3- and 5-year estimates for disease-free survival were 24% (95% CI, 16 to 33) and 20% (95% CI, 13 to 29), with no differences between arms (HR, 1.0 [95% CI, 0.6 to 1.6]; P = .92). The 3- and 5-year estimates for mDFS were 39% (95% CI, 29 to 49) and 34% (95% CI, 24 to 44), with no differences between arms (HR, 1.0 [95% CI, 0.6 to 1.8]; P = .90). In this patient population, where patients receive SABR in lieu of systemic therapy, one-in-three patients are alive without disease in the long term. There were no differences in outcomes by fractionation schedule.

Long-Term Outcomes of TROG 13.01 SAFRON II Randomized Trial of Single- Versus Multifraction Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy for Pulmonary Oligometastases

Adeline Lim

Papers

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus standard radiotherapy in stage 1 non-small-cell lung cancer (TROG 09.02 CHISEL): a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial

Long-Term Outcomes of TROG 13.01 SAFRON II Randomized Trial of Single- Versus Multifraction Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy for Pulmonary Oligometastases

Gynecological intrauterine brachytherapy training for radiation therapists: The development and implementation of a training program.