Postoperative stereotactic radiosurgery compared with whole brain radiotherapy for resected metastatic brain disease (NCCTG N107C/CEC·3): a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial

Background Whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) is the standard of care to improve intracranial control following resection of brain metastasis. However, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) to the surgical cavity is widely used in an attempt to reduce cognitive toxicity, despite the absence of high-level comparative data substantiating efficacy in the postoperative setting. We aimed to establish the effect of SRS on survival and cognitive outcomes compared with WBRT in patients with resected brain metastasis. Methods In this randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial, adult patients (aged 18 years or older) from 48 institutions in the USA and Canada with one resected brain metastasis and a resection cavity less than 5·0 cm in maximal extent were randomly assigned (1:1) to either postoperative SRS (12–20 Gy single fraction with dose determined by surgical cavity volume) or WBRT (30 Gy in ten daily fractions or 37·5 Gy in 15 daily fractions of 2·5 Gy; fractionation schedule predetermined for all patients at treating centre). We randomised patients using a dynamic allocation strategy with stratification factors of age, duration of extracranial disease control, number of brain metastases, histology, maximal resection cavity diameter, and treatment centre. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. The co-primary endpoints were cognitive-deterioration-free survival and overall survival, and analyses were done by intention to treat. We report the final analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01372774. Findings Between Nov 10, 2011, and Nov 16, 2015, 194 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to SRS (98 patients) or WBRT (96 patients). Median follow-up was 11·1 months (IQR 5·1–18·0). Cognitive-deterioration-free survival was longer in patients assigned to SRS (median 3·7 months [95% CI 3·45–5·06], 93 events) than in patients assigned to WBRT (median 3·0 months [2·86–3·25], 93 events; hazard ratio [HR] 0·47 [95% CI 0·35–0·63]; p<0·0001), and cognitive deterioration at 6 months was less frequent in patients who received SRS than those who received WBRT (28 [52%] of 54 evaluable patients assigned to SRS vs 41 [85%] of 48 evaluable patients assigned to WBRT; difference −33·6% [95% CI −45·3 to −21·8], p<0·00031). Median overall survival was 12·2 months (95% CI 9·7–16·0, 69 deaths) for SRS and 11·6 months (9·9–18·0, 67 deaths) for WBRT (HR 1·07 [95% CI 0·76–1·50]; p=0·70). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events reported with a relative frequency greater than 4% were hearing impairment (three [3%] of 93 patients in the SRS group vs eight [9%] of 92 patients in the WBRT group) and cognitive disturbance (three [3%] vs five [5%]). There were no treatment-related deaths. Interpretation Decline in cognitive function was more frequent with WBRT than with SRS and there was no difference in overall survival between the treatment groups. After resection of a brain metastasis, SRS radiosurgery should be considered one of the standards of care as a less toxic alternative to WBRT for this patient population. Funding National Cancer Institute

A randomized phase III study of the docetaxel/carboplatin combination versus docetaxel single-agent as second line treatment for patients with advanced/metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To compare the activity and toxicity of docetaxel/carboplatin (DC) doublet vs single agent docetaxel (D) as second-line treatment in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Patients pre-treated with front-line platinum-free regimens, were randomized to receive either docetaxel/carboplatin (DC), (docetaxel 50 mg/m²; carboplatin AUC4; both drugs administered on days 1 and 15) or docetaxel single-agent (D), (docetaxel 50 mg/m²on days 1 and 15).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Response rate was similar between the two arms (DC vs D: 10.4% vs 7.7%; p = 0.764). After a median follow-up time of 28.0 months for DC arm and 34.5 months for D arm, progression free survival (PFS) was significantly higher in the DC arm (DC vs D:3.33 months vs 2.60 months; p-value = 0.012), while no significant difference was observed in terms of overall survival (OS) (DC vs D: 10.3 months vs 7.70 months; p-value = 0.550). Chemotherapy was well-tolerated and grade III/IV toxicities were relatively infrequent. No toxic deaths were observed.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This study has not achieved its primary objective of significant OS prolongation with docetaxel/carboplatin combination over single-agent docetaxel in patients who had not received front-line docetaxel; however, the docetaxel/carboplatin combination was associated with a significant clinical benefit in terms of PFS.</p

Ceacam1 separates graft-versus-host-disease from graft-versus-tumor activity after experimental allogeneic bone marrow transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Allogeneic bone marrow transplantation (allo-BMT) is a potentially curative therapy for a variety of hematologic diseases, but benefits, including graft-versus-tumor (GVT) activity are limited by graft-versus-host-disease (GVHD). Carcinoembryonic antigen related cell adhesion molecule 1 (Ceacam1) is a transmembrane glycoprotein found on epithelium, T cells, and many tumors. It regulates a variety of physiologic and pathological processes such as tumor biology, leukocyte activation, and energy homeostasis. Previous studies suggest that Ceacam1 negatively regulates inflammation in inflammatory bowel disease models. METHODS: We studied Ceacam1 as a regulator of GVHD and GVT after allogeneic bone marrow transplantation (allo-BMT) in mouse models. In vivo, Ceacam1(-/-) T cells caused increased GVHD mortality and GVHD of the colon, and greater numbers of donor T cells were positive for activation markers (CD25(hi), CD62L(lo)). Additionally, Ceacam1(-/-) CD8 T cells had greater expression of the gut-trafficking integrin α(4)β(7), though both CD4 and CD8 T cells were found increased numbers in the gut post-transplant. Ceacam1(-/-) recipients also experienced increased GVHD mortality and GVHD of the colon, and alloreactive T cells displayed increased activation. Additionally, Ceacam1(-/-) mice had increased mortality and decreased numbers of regenerating small intestinal crypts upon radiation exposure. Conversely, Ceacam1-overexpressing T cells caused attenuated target-organ and systemic GVHD, which correlated with decreased donor T cell numbers in target tissues, and mortality. Finally, graft-versus-tumor survival in a Ceacam1(+) lymphoma model was improved in animals receiving Ceacam1(-/-) vs. control T cells. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that Ceacam1 regulates T cell activation, GVHD target organ damage, and numbers of donor T cells in lymphoid organs and GVHD target tissues. In recipients of allo-BMT, Ceacam1 may also regulate tissue radiosensitivity. Because of its expression on both the donor graft and host tissues, this suggests that targeting Ceacam1 may represent a potent strategy for the regulation of GVHD and GVT after allogeneic transplantation

Development and validation of a unifying pre-treatment decision tool for intracranial and extracranial metastasis-directed radiotherapy

BackgroundThough metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) has the potential to improve overall survival (OS), appropriate patient selection remains challenging. We aimed to develop a model predictive of OS to refine patient selection for clinical trials and MDT.Patients and methodsWe assembled a multi-institutional cohort of patients treated with MDT (stereotactic body radiation therapy, radiosurgery, and whole brain radiation therapy). Candidate variables for recursive partitioning analysis were selected per prior studies: ECOG performance status, time from primary diagnosis, number of additional non-target organ systems involved (NOS), and intracranial metastases.ResultsA database of 1,362 patients was assembled with 424 intracranial, 352 lung, and 607 spinal treatments (n=1,383). Treatments were split into training (TC) (70%, n=968) and internal validation (IVC) (30%, n=415) cohorts. The TC had median ECOG of 0 (interquartile range [IQR]: 0-1), NOS of 1 (IQR: 0-1), and OS of 18 months (IQR: 7-35). The resulting model components and weights were: ECOG = 0, 1, and &gt; 1 (0, 1, and 2); 0, 1, and &gt; 1 NOS (0, 1, and 2); and intracranial target (2), with lower scores indicating more favorable OS. The model demonstrated high concordance in the TC (0.72) and IVC (0.72). The score also demonstrated high concordance for each target site (spine, brain, and lung).ConclusionThis pre-treatment decision tool represents a unifying model for both intracranial and extracranial disease and identifies patients with the longest survival after MDT who may benefit most from aggressive local therapy. Carefully selected patients may benefit from MDT even in the presence of intracranial disease, and this model may help guide patient selection for MDT

Validation of clinical acceptability of deep-learning-based automated segmentation of organs-at-risk for head-and-neck radiotherapy treatment planning

IntroductionOrgan-at-risk segmentation for head and neck cancer radiation therapy is a complex and time-consuming process (requiring up to 42 individual structure, and may delay start of treatment or even limit access to function-preserving care. Feasibility of using a deep learning (DL) based autosegmentation model to reduce contouring time without compromising contour accuracy is assessed through a blinded randomized trial of radiation oncologists (ROs) using retrospective, de-identified patient data.MethodsTwo head and neck expert ROs used dedicated time to create gold standard (GS) contours on computed tomography (CT) images. 445 CTs were used to train a custom 3D U-Net DL model covering 42 organs-at-risk, with an additional 20 CTs were held out for the randomized trial. For each held-out patient dataset, one of the eight participant ROs was randomly allocated to review and revise the contours produced by the DL model, while another reviewed contours produced by a medical dosimetry assistant (MDA), both blinded to their origin. Time required for MDAs and ROs to contour was recorded, and the unrevised DL contours, as well as the RO-revised contours by the MDAs and DL model were compared to the GS for that patient.ResultsMean time for initial MDA contouring was 2.3 hours (range 1.6-3.8 hours) and RO-revision took 1.1 hours (range, 0.4-4.4 hours), compared to 0.7 hours (range 0.1-2.0 hours) for the RO-revisions to DL contours. Total time reduced by 76% (95%-Confidence Interval: 65%-88%) and RO-revision time reduced by 35% (95%-CI,-39%-91%). All geometric and dosimetric metrics computed, agreement with GS was equivalent or significantly greater (p&lt;0.05) for RO-revised DL contours compared to the RO-revised MDA contours, including volumetric Dice similarity coefficient (VDSC), surface DSC, added path length, and the 95%-Hausdorff distance. 32 OARs (76%) had mean VDSC greater than 0.8 for the RO-revised DL contours, compared to 20 (48%) for RO-revised MDA contours, and 34 (81%) for the unrevised DL OARs.ConclusionDL autosegmentation demonstrated significant time-savings for organ-at-risk contouring while improving agreement with the institutional GS, indicating comparable accuracy of DL model. Integration into the clinical practice with a prospective evaluation is currently underway