Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for the comprehensive treatment of 4-10 oligometastatic tumors (SABR-COMET-10): Study protocol for a randomized phase III trial

Background: Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) has emerged as a new treatment option for patients with oligometastatic disease. SABR delivers precise, high-dose, hypofractionated radiotherapy, and achieves excellent rates of local control for primary tumors or metastases. A recent randomized phase II trial evaluated SABR in a group of patients with a small burden of oligometastatic disease (mostly with 1-3 metastatic lesions), and found that SABR was associated with benefits in progression-free survival and overall survival. The goal of this phase III trial is to assess the impact of SABR in patients with 4-10 metastatic cancer lesions. Methods: One hundred and fifty-nine patients will be randomized in a 1:2 ratio between the control arm (consisting of standard of care palliative-intent treatments), and the SABR arm (consisting of standard of care treatment + SABR to all sites of known disease). Randomization will be stratified by two factors: histology (Group 1: prostate, breast, or renal; Group 2: all others), and type of pre-specified systemic therapy (Group 1: immunotherapy/targeted; Group 2: cytotoxic; Group 3: observation). SABR is to be completed within 2 weeks, allowing for rapid initiation of systemic therapy. Recommended SABR doses are 20 Gy in 1 fraction, 30 Gy in 3 fractions, or 35 Gy in 5 fractions, chosen to minimize risks of toxicity. The primary endpoint is overall survival, and secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, time to development of new metastatic lesions, quality of life, and toxicity. Translational endpoints include assessment of circulating tumor cells, cell-free DNA, and tumor tissue as prognostic and predictive markers, including assessment of immunological predictors of response and long-term survival. Discussion: This study will provide an assessment of the impact of SABR on clinical outcomes and quality of life, to determine if long-term survival can be achieved for selected patients with 4-10 oligometastatic lesions. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03721341. Date of registration: October 26, 2018

Palliative Radiation for Advanced Central Lung Tumors With Intentional Avoidance of the Esophagus (PROACTIVE): A Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance: Palliative thoracic radiotherapy (RT) can alleviate local symptoms associated with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but esophagitis is a common treatment-related adverse event. Whether esophageal-sparing intensity-modulated RT (ES-IMRT) achieves a clinically relevant reduction in esophageal symptoms remains unclear. Objective: To examine whether ES-IMRT achieves a clinically relevant reduction in esophageal symptoms compared with standard RT. Design, Setting, and Participants: Palliative Radiation for Advanced Central Lung Tumors With Intentional Avoidance of the Esophagus (PROACTIVE) is a multicenter phase 3 randomized clinical trial that enrolled patients between June 24, 2016, and March 6, 2019. Data analysis was conducted from January 23, 2020, to October 22, 2021. Patients had up to 1 year of follow-up. Ninety patients at 6 tertiary academic cancer centers who had stage III/IV NSCLC and were eligible for palliative thoracic RT (20 Gy in 5 fractions or 30 Gy in 10 fractions) were included. Interventions: Patients were randomized (1:1) to standard RT (control arm) or ES-IMRT. Target coverage was compromised to ensure the maximum esophagus dose was no more than 80% of the RT prescription dose. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was esophageal quality of life (QOL) 2 weeks post-RT, measured by the esophageal cancer subscale (ECS) of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy: Esophagus questionnaire. Higher esophageal cancer subscale scores correspond with improved QOL, with a 2- to 3-point change considered clinically meaningful. Secondary outcomes included overall survival, toxic events, and other QOL metrics. Intention-to-treat analysis was used. Results: Between June 24, 2016, and March 6, 2019, 90 patients were randomized to standard RT or ES-IMRT (median age at randomization, 72.0 years [IQR, 65.6-80.3]; 50 [56%] were female). Thirty-six patients (40%) received 20 Gy and 54 (60%) received 30 Gy. For the primary end point, the mean (SD) 2-week ECS score was 50.5 (10.2) in the control arm (95% CI, 47.2-53.8) and 54.3 (7.6) in the ES-IMRT arm (95% CI, 51.9-56.7) (P = .06). Symptomatic RT-associated esophagitis occurred in 24% (n = 11) of patients in the control arm vs 2% (n = 1) in the ES-IMRT arm (P = .002). In a post hoc subgroup analysis based on the stratification factor, reduction in esophagitis was most evident in patients receiving 30 Gy (30% [n = 8] vs 0%; P = .004). Overall survival was similar with standard RT (median, 8.6; 95% CI, 5.7-15.6 months) and ES-IMRT (median, 8.7; 95% CI, 5.1-10.2 months) (P = .62). Conclusions and Relevance: In this phase 3 randomized clinical trial, ES-IMRT did not significantly improve esophageal QOL but significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic esophagitis. Because post hoc analysis found that reduced esophagitis was most evident in patients receiving 30 Gy of RT, these findings suggest that ES-IMRT may be most beneficial when the prescription dose is higher (30 Gy). Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02752126

Is SABR cost-effective in oligometastatic cancer?: An economic analysis of the SABR-COMET randomized trial

Purpose: The phase 2 randomized study SABR-COMET demonstrated that in patients with controlled primary tumors and 1 to 5 oligometastatic lesions, SABR was associated with improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with standard of care (SoC), but with higher costs and treatment-related toxicities. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of SABR versus SoC in this setting. Methods and Materials: A Markov model was constructed to perform a cost-utility analysis from the Canadian health care system perspective. Utility values and transition probabilities were derived from individual-level data from the SABR-COMET trial. One-way, 2-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Costs were expressed in 2018 CAD. A separate analysis based on US payer's perspective was performed. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was used. Results: In the base case scenario, SABR was cost-effective at an ICER of$37,157 per QALY gained. This finding was most sensitive to the number of metastatic lesions treated with SABR (ICER: $28,066 per QALY for 2, increasing to$64,429 per QALY for 5), difference in chemotherapy use (ICER: $27,173-$53,738 per QALY), and PFS hazard ratio (HR) between strategies (ICER: $31,548-$53,273 per QALY). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that SABR was cost-effective in 97% of all iterations. Two-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated a nonlinear relationship between the number of lesions and the PFS HR. To maintain cost-effectiveness for each additional metastasis, the HR must decrease by approximately 0.047. The US cost analysis yielded similar results, with an ICER of $54,564 (2018 USD per QALY) for SABR. Conclusions: SABR is cost-effective for patients with 1 to 5 oligometastatic lesions compared with SoC

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus standard of care palliative treatment in patients with oligometastatic cancers (SABR-COMET): a randomised, phase 2, open-label trial

Background: The oligometastatic paradigm suggests that some patients with a limited number of metastases might be cured if all lesions are eradicated. Evidence from randomised controlled trials to support this paradigm is scarce. We aimed to assess the effect of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) on survival, oncological outcomes, toxicity, and quality of life in patients with a controlled primary tumour and one to five oligometastatic lesions. Methods: This randomised, open-label phase 2 study was done at 10 hospitals in Canada, the Netherlands, Scotland, and Australia. Patients aged 18 or older with a controlled primary tumour and one to five metastatic lesions, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score of 0–1, and a life expectancy of at least 6 months were eligible. After stratifying by the number of metastases (1–3 vs 4–5), we randomly assigned patients (1:2) to receive either palliative standard of care treatments alone (control group), or standard of care plus SABR to all metastatic lesions (SABR group), using a computer-generated randomisation list with permuted blocks of nine. Neither patients nor physicians were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival. We used a randomised phase 2 screening design with a two-sided α of 0·20 (wherein p<0·20 designates a positive trial). All analyses were intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01446744. Findings: 99 patients were randomised between Feb 10, 2012, and Aug 30, 2016. Of 99 patients, 33 (33%) were assigned to the control group and 66 (67%) to the SABR group. Two (3%) patients in the SABR group did not receive allocated treatment and withdrew from the trial; two (6%) patients in the control group also withdrew from the trial. Median follow-up was 25 months (IQR 19–54) in the control group versus 26 months (23–37) in the SABR group. Median overall survival was 28 months (95% CI 19–33) in the control group versus 41 months (26–not reached) in the SABR group (hazard ratio 0·57, 95% CI 0·30–1·10; p=0·090). Adverse events of grade 2 or worse occurred in three (9%) of 33 controls and 19 (29%) of 66 patients in the SABR group (p=0·026), an absolute increase of 20% (95% CI 5–34). Treatment-related deaths occurred in three (4·5%) of 66 patients after SABR, compared with none in the control group. Interpretation: SABR was associated with an improvement in overall survival, meeting the primary endpoint of this trial, but three (4·5%) of 66 patients in the SABR group had treatment-related death. Phase 3 trials are needed to conclusively show an overall survival benefit, and to determine the maximum number of metastatic lesions wherein SABR provides a benefit. Funding: Ontario Institute for Cancer Research and London Regional Cancer Program Catalyst Grant

Stereotactic Radiation for the Comprehensive Treatment of Oligometastases (SABR-COMET): Extended Long-Term Outcomes

Purpose: Long-term randomized data assessing the effect of ablative therapies in patients with oligometastases are lacking. The Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy for the Comprehensive Treatment of Oligometastases (SABR-COMET) randomized phase 2 trial was originally designed with 5 years of follow-up, but the trial was amended in 2016 to extend follow-up to 10 years. Herein we report oncologic outcomes beyond 5 years. Methods and Materials: Patients were eligible if they had a controlled primary tumor and 1 to 5 metastases, with all metastases amenable to SABR. Patients were randomized in a 1:2 ratio between palliative standard-of-care treatment (control arm) versus SABR to all metastases plus standard of care (SABR arm). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) and secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), toxicity, quality of life (using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy: General [FACT-G]), and time to new metastases. Results: Ninety-nine patients were randomized between 2012 and 2016 (n = 33 in arm 1 vs n = 66 in arm 2). Primary tumor sites included lung (n = 18), breast (n = 18), colon (n = 18), prostate (n = 16), and other (n = 29). Eight-year OS was 27.2% in the SABR arm versus 13.6% in the control arm (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.84; P = .008). Eight-year PFS estimates were 21.3% versus 0.0%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.72; P 5 years of survival without recurrence

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for the comprehensive treatment of oligometastatic cancers: Long-term results of the SABR-COMET Phase II randomized trial

PURPOSE The oligometastatic paradigm hypothesizes that patients with a limited number of metastases may achieve long-term disease control, or even cure, if all sites of disease can be ablated. However, long-term randomized data that test this paradigm are lacking. METHODS We enrolled patients with a controlled primary malignancy and 1-5 metastatic lesions, with all metastases amenable to stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). We stratified by the number of metastases (1-3 v 4-5) and randomized in a 1:2 ratio between palliative standard-of-care (SOC) treatments (arm 1) and SOC plus SABR (arm 2). We used a randomized phase II screening design with a primary end point of overall survival (OS), using an a of .20 (wherein P, .20 indicates a positive trial). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), toxicity, and quality of life (QOL). Herein, we present long-term outcomes from the trial. RESULTS Between 2012 and 2016, 99 patients were randomly assigned at 10 centers internationally. The most common primary tumor types were breast (n 5 18), lung (n 5 18), colorectal (n 5 18), and prostate (n 5 16). Median follow-up was 51 months. The 5-year OS rate was 17.7% in arm 1 (95% CI, 6% to 34%) versus 42.3% in arm 2 (95% CI, 28% to 56%; stratified log-rank P 5 .006). The 5-year PFS rate was not reached in arm 1 (3.2%; 95% CI, 0% to 14% at 4 years with last patient censored) and 17.3% in arm 2 (95% CI, 8% to 30%; P 5 .001). There were no new grade 2-5 adverse events and no differences in QOL between arms. CONCLUSION With extended follow-up, the impact of SABR on OS was larger in magnitude than in the initial analysis and durable over time. There were no new safety signals, and SABR had no detrimental impact on QOL