Effect of Pembrolizumab after Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy vs Pembrolizumab Alone on Tumor Response in Patients with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Results of the PEMBRO-RT Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance: Many patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving immunotherapy show primary resistance. High-dose radiotherapy can lead to increased tumor antigen release, improved antigen presentation, and T-cell infiltration. This radiotherapy may enhance the effects of checkpoint inhibition. Objective: To assess whether stereotactic body radiotherapy on a single tumor site preceding pembrolizumab treatment enhances tumor response in patients with metastatic NSCLC. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, randomized phase 2 study (PEMBRO-RT) of 92 patients with advanced NSCLC enrolled between July 1, 2015, and March 31, 2018, regardless of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) status. Data analysis was of the intention-to-treat population. Interventions: Pembrolizumab (200 mg/kg every 3 weeks) either alone (control arm) or after radiotherapy (3 doses of 8 Gy) (experimental arm) to a single tumor site until confirmed radiographic progression, unacceptable toxic effects, investigator decision, patient withdrawal of consent, or a maximum of 24 months. Main Outcomes and Measures: Improvement in overall response rate (ORR) at 12 weeks from 20% in the control arm to 50% in the experimental arm with P <.10. Results: Of the 92 patients enrolled, 76 were randomized to the control arm (n = 40) or the experimental arm (n = 36). Of those, the median age was 62 years (range, 35-78 years), and 44 (58%) were men. The ORR at 12 weeks was 18% in the control arm vs 36% in the experimental arm (P =.07). Median progression-free survival was 1.9 months (95% CI, 1.7-6.9 months) vs 6.6 months (95% CI, 4.0-14.6 months) (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.42-1.18; P =.19), and median overall survival was 7.6 months (95% CI, 6.0-13.9 months) vs 15.9 months (95% CI, 7.1 months to not reached) (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.37-1.18; P =.16). Subgroup analyses showed the largest benefit from the addition of radiotherapy in patients with PD-L1-negative tumors. No increase in treatment-related toxic effects was observed in the experimental arm. Conclusions and Relevance: Stereotactic body radiotherapy prior to pembrolizumab was well tolerated. Although a doubling of ORR was observed, the results did not meet the study's prespecified end point criteria for meaningful clinical benefit. Positive results were largely influenced by the PD-L1-negative subgroup, which had significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival. These results suggest that a larger trial is necessary to determine whether radiotherapy may activate noninflamed NSCLC toward a more inflamed tumor microenvironment. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02492568

Development of a consensus-based delineation guideline for locally recurrent rectal cancer

Background and purpose: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) is used in locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) to increase chances of a radical surgical resection. Delineation in LRRC is hampered by complex disease presentation and limited clinical exposure. Within the PelvEx II trial, evaluating the benefit of chemotherapy preceding nCRT for LRRC, a delineation guideline was developed by an expert LRRC team. Materials and methods: Eight radiation oncologists, from Dutch and Swedish expert centres, participated in two meetings, delineating GTV and CTV in six cases. Regions at-risk for re-recurrence or irradical resection were identified by eleven expert surgeons and one expert radiologist. Target volumes were evaluated multidisciplinary. Inter-observer variation was analysed. Results: Inter-observer variation in delineation of LRRC appeared large. Multidisciplinary evaluation per case is beneficial in determining target volumes. The following consensus regarding target volumes was reached. GTV should encompass all tumour, including extension into OAR if applicable. If the tumour is in fibrosis, GTV should encompass the entire fibrotic area. Only if tumour can clearly be distinguished from fibrosis, GTV may be reduced, as long as the entire fibrotic area is covered by the CTV. CTV is GTV with a 1 cm margin and should encompass all at-risk regions for irradical resection or re-recurrence. CTV should not be adjusted towards other organs. Multifocal recurrences should be encompassed in one CTV. Elective nodal delineation is only advised in radiotherapy-naïve patients. Conclusion: This study provides a first consensus-based delineation guideline for LRRC. Analyses of re-recurrences is needed to understand disease behaviour and to optimize delineation guidelines accordingly

Development of a consensus-based delineation guideline for locally recurrent rectal cancer

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) is used in locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) to increase chances of a radical surgical resection. Delineation in LRRC is hampered by complex disease presentation and limited clinical exposure. Within the PelvEx II trial, evaluating the benefit of chemotherapy preceding nCRT for LRRC, a delineation guideline was developed by an expert LRRC team. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight radiation oncologists, from Dutch and Swedish expert centres, participated in two meetings, delineating GTV and CTV in six cases. Regions at-risk for re-recurrence or irradical resection were identified by eleven expert surgeons and one expert radiologist. Target volumes were evaluated multidisciplinary. Inter-observer variation was analysed. RESULTS: Inter-observer variation in delineation of LRRC appeared large. Multidisciplinary evaluation per case is beneficial in determining target volumes. The following consensus regarding target volumes was reached. GTV should encompass all tumour, including extension into OAR if applicable. If the tumour is in fibrosis, GTV should encompass the entire fibrotic area. Only if tumour can clearly be distinguished from fibrosis, GTV may be reduced, as long as the entire fibrotic area is covered by the CTV. CTV is GTV with a 1 cm margin and should encompass all at-risk regions for irradical resection or re-recurrence. CTV should not be adjusted towards other organs. Multifocal recurrences should be encompassed in one CTV. Elective nodal delineation is only advised in radiotherapy-naïve patients. CONCLUSION: This study provides a first consensus-based delineation guideline for LRRC. Analyses of re-recurrences is needed to understand disease behaviour and to optimize delineation guidelines accordingly

Intraoperative Electron Beam Radiation Therapy (IOERT) Versus High-Dose-Rate Intraoperative Brachytherapy (HDR-IORT) in Patients With an R1 Resection for Locally Advanced or Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer

PURPOSE: Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT), delivered by intraoperative electron beam radiation therapy (IOERT) or high-dose-rate intraoperative brachytherapy (HDR-IORT), may reduce the local recurrence rate in patients with locally advanced and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LARC and LRRC, respectively). The aim of this study was to compare the oncological outcomes between both IORT modalities in patients with LARC or LRRC who underwent a microscopic irradical (R1) resection. METHODS: All consecutive patients who received IORT because of an R1 resection of LARC or LRRC between 2000 and 2016 in two tertiary referral centers were included. In LARC, a resection margin of ≤2 mm was considered R1. A resection margin of 0 mm was considered R1 in LRRC. RESULTS: In total, 215 patients with LARC were included, of whom 151 (70%) received IOERT and 64 (30%) received HDR-IORT; in addition, 158 patients with LRRC were included, of whom 112 (71%) received IOERT and 46 (29%) received HDR-IORT. After multivariable analyses, the overall survival was not significantly different between the two IORT modalities. The local recurrence-free survival was significantly longer in patients treated with HDR-IORT, both in LARC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.496; 95% CI, 0.253-0.973; P = .041) and LRRC (HR, 0.567; 95% CI, 0.349-0.920; P = .021). In patients with LARC, major postoperative complications were similar for both IORT modalities (IOERT, 30%; HDR-IORT, 27%), whereas in patients with LRRC, the incidence of major postoperative complications was higher after HDR-IORT (IOERT, 26%; HDR-IORT, 46%). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed a significantly better local recurrence-free survival in favor of HDR-IORT in patients with an R1 resection for LARC or LRRC. Optimization of the IOERT technique seems warranted

Intraoperative Electron Beam Radiation Therapy (IOERT) Versus High-Dose-Rate Intraoperative Brachytherapy (HDR-IORT) in Patients With an R1 Resection for Locally Advanced or Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer

PURPOSE: Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT), delivered by intraoperative electron beam radiation therapy (IOERT) or high-dose-rate intraoperative brachytherapy (HDR-IORT), may reduce the local recurrence rate in patients with locally advanced and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LARC and LRRC, respectively). The aim of this study was to compare the oncological outcomes between both IORT modalities in patients with LARC or LRRC who underwent a microscopic irradical (R1) resection. METHODS: All consecutive patients who received IORT because of an R1 resection of LARC or LRRC between 2000 and 2016 in two tertiary referral centers were included. In LARC, a resection margin of ≤2 mm was considered R1. A resection margin of 0 mm was considered R1 in LRRC. RESULTS: In total, 215 patients with LARC were included, of whom 151 (70%) received IOERT and 64 (30%) received HDR-IORT; in addition, 158 patients with LRRC were included, of whom 112 (71%) received IOERT and 46 (29%) received HDR-IORT. After multivariable analyses, the overall survival was not significantly different between the two IORT modalities. The local recurrence-free survival was significantly longer in patients treated with HDR-IORT, both in LARC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.496; 95% CI, 0.253-0.973; P = .041) and LRRC (HR, 0.567; 95% CI, 0.349-0.920; P = .021). In patients with LARC, major postoperative complications were similar for both IORT modalities (IOERT, 30%; HDR-IORT, 27%), whereas in patients with LRRC, the incidence of major postoperative complications was higher after HDR-IORT (IOERT, 26%; HDR-IORT, 46%). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed a significantly better local recurrence-free survival in favor of HDR-IORT in patients with an R1 resection for LARC or LRRC. Optimization of the IOERT technique seems warranted

Narrowing the difference in dose delivery for IOERT and IOBT for locally advanced and locally recurrent rectal cancer

Purpose: Intra-operative radiotherapy (IORT) has been used as a tool to provide a high-dose radiation boost to a limited volume of patients with fixed tumors with a likelihood of microscopically involved resection margins, in order to improve local control. Two main techniques to deliver IORT include high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy, termed 'intra-operative brachytherapy' (IOBT), and electrons, termed 'intra-operative electron radiotherapy' (IOERT), both having very different dose distributions. A recent paper described an improved local recurrence-free survival favoring IOBT over IOERT for patients with locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer and microscopically irradical resections. Although several factors may have contributed to this result, an important difference between the two techniques was the higher surface dose delivered by IOBT. This article described an adaptation of IOERT technique to achieve a comparable surface dose as dose delivered by IOBT. Material and methods: Two steps were taken to increase the surface dose for IOERT: 1. Introducing a bolus to achieve a maximum dose on the surface, and 2. Re-normalizing to allow for the same prescribed dose at reference depth. Conclusions: We describe and propose an adaptation of IOERT technique to increase surface dose, decreasing the differences between these two techniques, with the aim of further improving local control. In addition, an alternative method of dose prescription is suggested, to consider improved comparison with other techniques in the future

Pembrolizumab with or without radiotherapy for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: a pooled analysis of two randomised trials

Background: Radiotherapy might augment systemic antitumoral responses to immunotherapy. In the PEMBRO-RT (phase 2) and MDACC (phase 1/2) trials, patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer were randomly allocated immunotherapy (pembrolizumab) with or without radiotherapy. When the trials were analysed individually, a potential benefit was noted in the combination treatment arm. However, owing to the small sample size of each trial, differences in response rates and outcomes were not statistically significant but remained clinically notable. We therefore did a pooled analysis to infer whether radiotherapy improves responses to immunotherapy in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. Methods: Inclusion criteria for the PEMBRO-RT and MDACC trials were patients (aged ≥18 years) with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer and at least one unirradiated lesion to monitor for out-of-field response. In the PEMBRO-RT trial, patients had previously received chemotherapy, whereas in the MDACC trial, patients could be either previously treated or newly diagnosed. Patients in both trials were immunotherapy-naive. In the PEMBRO-RT trial, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) and stratified by smoking status (<10 vs ≥10 pack-years). In the MDACC trial, patients were entered into one of two cohorts based on radiotherapy schedule feasibility and randomly assigned (1:1). Because of the nature of the intervention in the combination treatment arm, blinding to radiotherapy was not feasible in either trial. Pembrolizumab was administered intravenously (200 mg every 3 weeks) with or without radiotherapy in both trials. In the PEMBRO-RT trial, the first dose of pembrolizumab was given sequentially less than 1 week after the last dose of radiotherapy (24 Gy in three fractions), whereas in the MDACC trial, pembrolizumab was given concurrently with the first dose of radiotherapy (50 Gy in four fractions or 45 Gy in 15 fractions). Only unirradiated lesions were measured for response. The endpoints for this pooled analysis were best out-of-field (abscopal) response rate (ARR), best abscopal disease control rate (ACR), ARR at 12 weeks, ACR at 12 weeks, progression-free survival, and overall survival. The intention-to-treat populations from both trials were included in analyses. The PEMBRO-RT trial (NCT02492568) and the MDACC trial (NCT02444741) are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov. Findings: Overall, 148 patients were included in the pooled analysis, 76 of whom had been assigned pembrolizumab and 72 who had been assigned pembrolizumab plus radiotherapy. Median follow-up for all patients was 33 months (IQR 32·4–33·6). 124 (84%) of 148 patients had non-squamous histological features and 111 (75%) had previously received chemotherapy. Baseline variables did not differ between treatment groups, including PD-L1 status and metastatic disease volume. The most frequently irradiated sites were lung metastases (28 of 72 [39%]), intrathoracic lymph nodes (15 of 72 [21%]), and lung primary disease (12 of 72 [17%]). Best ARR was 19·7% (15 of 76) with pembrolizumab versus 41·7% (30 of 72) with pembrolizumab plus radiotherapy (odds ratio [OR] 2·96, 95% CI 1·42–6·20; p=0·0039), and best ACR was 43·4% (33 of 76) with pembrolizumab versus 65·3% (47 of 72) with pembrolizumab plus radiotherapy (2·51, 1·28–4·91; p=0·0071). Median progression-free survival was 4·4 months (IQR 2·9–5·9) with pembrolizumab alone versus 9·0 months (6·8–11·2) with pembrolizumab plus radiotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0·67, 95% CI 0·45–0·99; p=0·045), and median overall survival was 8·7 months (6·4–11·0) with pembrolizumab versus 19·2 months (14·6–23·8) with pembrolizumab plus radiotherapy (0·67, 0·54–0·84; p=0·0004). No new safety concerns were noted in the pooled analysis. Interpretation: Adding radiotherapy to pembrolizumab immunotherapy significantly increased responses and outcomes in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. These results warrant validation in a randomised phase 3 trial. Funding: Merck Sharp & Dohme