Radiation Therapy Techniques and Treatment-Related Toxicity in the PORTEC-3 Trial:Comparison of 3-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy Versus Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy

Purpose Radiation therapy techniques have developed from 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) to intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), with better sparing of the surrounding normal tissues. The current analysis aimed to investigate whether IMRT, compared to 3DCRT, resulted in fewer adverse events (AEs) and patient-reported symptoms in the randomized PORTEC-3 trial for high-risk endometrial cancer. Methods and Materials Data on AEs and patient-reported quality of life (QoL) of the PORTEC-3 trial were available for analysis. Physician-reported AEs were graded using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0. QoL was assessed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQC30, CX24, and OV28 questionnaires. Data were compared between 3DCRT and IMRT. A P value of ≤ .01 was considered statistically significant due to the risk of multiple testing. For QoL, combined scores 1 to 2 (“not at all” and “a little”) versus 3 to 4 (“quite a bit” and “very much”) were compared between the techniques. Results Of 658 evaluable patients, 559 received 3DCRT and 99 IMRT. Median follow-up was 74.6 months. During treatment no significant differences were observed, with a trend for more grade ≥3 AEs, mostly hematologic and gastrointestinal, after 3DCRT (37.7% vs 26.3%, P = .03). During follow-up, 15.4% (vs 4%) had grade ≥2 diarrhea, and 26.1% (vs 13.1%) had grade ≥2 hematologic AEs after 3DCRT (vs IMRT) (both P < .01). Among 574 (87%) patients evaluable for QoL, 494 received 3DCRT and 80 IMRT. During treatment, 37.5% (vs 28.6%) reported diarrhea after 3DCRT (vs IMRT) (P = .125); 22.1% (versus 10.0%) bowel urgency (P = 0039), and 18.2% and 8.6% abdominal cramps (P = .058). Other QoL scores showed no differences. Conclusions IMRT resulted in fewer grade ≥3 AEs during treatment and significantly lower rates of grade ≥2 diarrhea and hematologic AEs during follow-up. Trends toward fewer patient-reported bowel urgency and abdominal cramps were observed after IMRT compared to 3DCRT

Molecular Classification of the PORTEC-3 Trial for High-Risk Endometrial Cancer:Impact on Prognosis and Benefit From Adjuvant Therapy

PURPOSE The randomized Adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Versus Radiotherapy Alone in Women With High-Risk Endometrial Cancer (PORTEC-3) trial investigated the benefit of combined adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy (CTRT) versus radiotherapy alone (RT) for women with high-risk endometrial cancer (EC). Because The Cancer Genome Atlas defined an EC molecular classification with strong prognostic value, we investigated prognosis and impact of chemotherapy for each molecular subgroup using tissue samples from PORTEC-3 trial participants. METHODS Paraffin-embedded tissues of 423 consenting patients were collected. Immunohistochemistry for p53 and mismatch repair (MMR) proteins, and DNA sequencing for POLE exonuclease domain were done to classify tumors as p53 abnormal (p53abn), POLE-ultramutated (POLEmut), MMR-deficient (MMRd), or no specific molecular profile (NSMP). The primary end point was recurrence-free survival (RFS). Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, and Cox model were used for analysis. RESULTS Molecular analysis was successful in 410 high-risk EC (97%), identifying the 4 subgroups: P53abn EC (n = 93; 23%), POLEmut (n = 51; 12%), MMRd (n = 137; 33%), and NSMP (n = 129; 32%). Five-year RFS was 48% for patients with p53abn EC, 98% for POLEmut EC, 72% for MMRd EC, and 74% for NSMP EC (P <001). The 5-year RFS with CTRT versus RT for p53abn EC was 59% versus 36% (P =019); 100% versus 97% for patients with POLEmut EC (P =637); 68% versus 76% (P =428) for MMRd EC; and 80% versus 68% (P =243) for NSMP EC. CONCLUSION Molecular classification has strong prognostic value in high-risk EC, with significantly improved RFS with adjuvant CTRT for p53abn tumors, regardless of histologic type. Patients with POLEmut EC had an excellent RFS in both trial arms. EC molecular classification should be incorporated in the risk stratification of these patients as well as in future trials to target specific subgroups of patients

Patterns of recurrence in the randomised PORTEC-3 trial of chemoradiotherapy for endometrial cancer

n/

Defining and analysing symptom palliation in cancer clinical trials: a deceptively difficult exercise

The assessment of symptom palliation is an essential component of many treatment comparisons in clinical trials, yet an extensive literature search revealed no consensus as to its precise definition, which could embrace relief of symptoms, time to their onset, duration, degree, as well as symptom control and prevention. In an attempt to assess the importance of these aspects and to compare different methods of analysis, we used one symptom (cough) from a patient self-assessment questionnaire (the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist) in a large (>300 patient) multicentre randomized clinical trial (conducted by the Medical Research Council Lung Cancer Working Party) of palliative chemotherapy in small-cell lung cancer. The regimens compared were a two-drug regimen (2D) and a four-drug regimen (4D). No differences were seen between the regimens in time of onset of palliation or its duration. The degree of palliation was strongly related to the initial severity: 90% of the patients with moderate or severe cough at baseline reported improvement, compared with only 53% of those with mild cough. Analyses using different landmark time points gave conflicting results: the 4D regimen was superior at 1 month and at 3 months, whereas at 2 months the 2D regimen appeared superior. When improvement at any time up to 3 months was considered, the 4D regimen showed a significant benefit (4D 79%, 2D 60%, P = 0.02). These findings emphasize the need for caution in interpreting results, and the importance of working towards a standard definition of symptom palliation. The current lack of specified criteria makes analysis and interpretation of trial results difficult, and comparison across trials impossible. A standard definition of palliation for use in the analysis of clinical trials data is proposed, which takes into account aspects of onset, duration and degree of palliation, and symptom improvement, control and prevention. © 1999 Cancer Research Campaig