Search

Purpose/Objective(s) Randomized trials have shown improved local control (LC) but no overall survival (OS) benefit with the addition of non-ablative radiation therapy (RT) dose compared to chemotherapy (CT) alone for pancreas cancer (PCa). Emerging data suggest that dose-escalated RT may improve LC and OS. A few studies suggest that stereotactic magnetic resonance-guided adaptive RT (SMART) can facilitate the safe delivery of ablative dose for inoperable PCa, although long-term outcomes are not well understood. Materials/Methods Inoperable PCa patients who received SMART were identified from the RSSearch Registry. Patients with Results A total of 148 PCa patients were treated on a 0.35T MR LINAC across 3 institutions between 2018-2020. Median age was 68 years (range 47-91), and 73.6% had ECOG 0-1 performance status. Patients had locally advanced (57.4%), borderline resectable (29.1%), or medically inoperable (13.5%) disease. Median CA19-9 at diagnosis was 202.1 U/mL (range 0.9-21,281). Induction CT was delivered to 89.2% for a median 3.9 mo (range 0.2-11.3); FOLFIRINOX (52.7%) or gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (23.4%) were common. Median prescribed RT dose was 50 Gy (range 40-50) in 5 fractions, mostly in consecutive days (96.6%) and in breath hold (95.3%). Median biologically effective dose (BED10) was 100 Gy10. All patients were treated with real-time tissue tracking and automated beam gating without fiducial markers. An elective target volume was rarely used (25%). Pancreaticoduodenectomy was performed in 23% at a median 46 days (range 34-304) after SMART. Median follow-up was 16 mo. from diagnosis for all patients (range, 4-39). Median, 1-year, and 2-year LC was not reached (NR), 94.6%, and 83%, respectively. Median, 1-year, and 2-year PFS was 18 mo., 72%, and 35.9%, respectively. Median, 1-year, and 2-year OS was 26 mo., 82%, and 52.7%, respectively. Acute and late grade 3 toxicity possibly related to SMART occurred in 4.1% and 12.8%, respectively. There was no reported grade 4+ toxicity. Conclusion To our knowledge, this is the largest reported analysis of 5-fraction SMART for inoperable PCa. These data add to the evidence that ablative radiation dose may improve long-term outcomes including OS. Prospective evaluation of this novel approach is warranted with attention directed at optimizing patient selection, understanding the clinical significance of cumulative dose delivered across all adapted fractions, and assessing treatment response after the delivery of ablative dose.

8513 Background: In advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), high Programmed-Death-1 Ligand (PD-L1) (>50%) expression demonstrate superior response and survival with immune checkpoint inhibitors compared to chemotherapy. We hypothesize that it is safe and feasible to substitute durvalumab instead of chemotherapy concurrently with radiotherapy (RT) in patients with Locally Advanced-NSCLC (LA-NSCLC) and high PD-L1. Methods: NRG-LU004 (NCT03801902) is a Phase I study for patients with stage II-III unresectable or inoperable, LA-NSCLC with PD-L1> 50% (Dako 22C3 or Ventana SP263) expression. There were safety and expansion phases with a primary endpoint of safety. Patients started with 1500 mg durvalumab Q4 weeks and thoracic RT within 2 weeks from 1st infusion. Durvalumab continued once a month up to 1 year. In the safety cohort, 6 patients in cohort 1 were treated with accelerated fractionated RT (ACRT) to 60 Gy in 15 fractions, followed by a required safety hold for 90 days. During cohort 1 safety hold, cohort 2 patients were treated with conventional RT 60 Gy in 30 fractions (CONV) followed by a 60-day safety hold. A cohort advanced to the expansion phase to enroll 6 more patients if safety criteria (0-1 patients with a dose limiting toxicity [DLT]) were met. If both cohorts were deemed safe, patients would be randomized 1:1 to ACRT or CONV with safety defined as < 4 of 12 evaluable patients per arm experiencing a DLT. Feasibility was defined as at least 80% of patients in each arm receiving at least 80% of the planned dose of durvalumab during the first 8 weeks. Results: 24 evaluable patients enrolled between January 2019 and June 2021. No DLTs were reported in cohort 1, and 1 (unrelated bronchopulmonary hemorrhage leading to discontinuation of durvalumab) in cohort 2. Both safety cohorts advanced to the expansion phase. All but one patient (CONV) received RT per protocol/with an acceptable variation. At the time of analysis, 24% had received all 13 cycles of durvalumab. For the ACRT cohort, there were 4 grade 3, 1 grade 4 (lymphopenia), and 1 grade 5 AE (lung infection, assessed as unrelated to therapy). For CONV, there were 8 grade 3, 0 grade 4, and 1 grade 5 AE (respiratory failure, unrelated to therapy). For feasibility, 10 of 12 (85%) patients in the ACRT cohort received the second dose of durvalumab (2 not received due to shingles and unrelated death), while 9 of 12 (75%) of the CONV cohort received the second dose (reasons for not receiving: viral hepatitis, bronchopulmonary hemorrhage, and respiratory failure, all assessed as unrelated to therapy). Conclusions: Chemotherapy-free thoracic RT approaches (ACRT or CONV RT) are safe, when given with concurrent durvalumab in patients with PD-L1 high LA-NSCLC. A trial to compare immunoradiotherapy and consolidation durvalumab to standard chemoradiation and consolidation durvalumab is planned. Clinical trial information: NCT03801902.

The integration of adaptive radiation therapy (ART), or modifying the treatment plan during the treatment course, is becoming more widely available in clinical practice. ART offers strong potential for minimizing treatment-related toxicity while escalating or de-escalating target doses based on the dose to organs at risk. Yet, ART workflows add complexity into the radiation therapy planning and delivery process that may introduce additional uncertainties. This work sought to review presently available ART workflows as well as technological considerations such as image quality, deformable image registration, and dose accumulation. Quality assurance considerations for ART components and minimum recommendations are described. Personnel and workflow efficiency recommendations are provided as well as a summary of currently available clinical evidence supporting the implementation of ART. Finally, to guide future clinical trial protocols, an example ART physician directive and a physics template following standard NRG Oncology protocol is provided.

Importance Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has relatively poor outcomes. Metformin has significant data supporting its use as an antineoplastic agent. Objective To compare chemoradiation alone vs chemoradiation and metformin in stage III NSCLC. Design, setting, and participants The NRG-LU001 randomized clinical trial was an open-label, phase 2 study conducted from August 24, 2014, to December 15, 2016. Patients without diabetes who were diagnosed with unresectable stage III NSCLC were stratified by performance status, histology, and stage. The setting was international and multi-institutional. This study examined prespecified endpoints, and data were analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis. Data were analyzed from February 25, 2019, to March 6, 2020. Interventions Chemoradiation and consolidation chemotherapy with or without metformin. Main outcomes and measures The primary outcome was 1-year progression-free survival (PFS), designed to detect 15% improvement in 1-year PFS from 50% to 65% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.622). Secondary end points included overall survival, time to local-regional recurrence, time to distant metastasis, and toxicity per Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.03. Results A total of 170 patients were enrolled, with 167 eligible patients analyzed after exclusions (median age, 64 years [interquartile range, 58-72 years]; 97 men [58.1%]; 137 White patients [82.0%]), with 81 in the control group and 86 in the metformin group. Median follow-up was 27.7 months (range, 0.03-47.21 months) among living patients. One-year PFS rates were 60.4% (95% CI, 48.5%-70.4%) in the control group and 51.3% (95% CI, 39.8%-61.7%) in the metformin group (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.77-1.73; P = .24). Clinical stage was the only factor significantly associated with PFS on multivariable analysis (HR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.19-2.69; P = .005). One-year overall survival was 80.2% (95% CI, 69.3%-87.6%) in the control group and 80.8% (95% CI, 70.2%-87.9%) in the metformin group. There were no significant differences in local-regional recurrence or distant metastasis at 1 or 2 years. No significant difference in adverse events was observed between treatment groups. Conclusions and relevance In this randomized clinical trial, the addition of metformin to concurrent chemoradiation was well tolerated but did not improve survival among patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02186847.

8502 Background: Metformin, a diabetes agent that inhibits mitochondria complex I, enhances radiotherapy and chemotherapy responses in pre-clinical models of NSCLC. NRG-LU001 examined whether metformin can improve outcomes of curative CRT in locally advanced (LA)-NSCLC. Methods: The primary endpoint of this trial was 1-year progression free survival (PFS). Unresected, non-diabetic, stage IIIA/B NSCLC patients were randomized (1:1) to either carboplatin-paclitaxel chemotherapy concurrent with chest RT (60Gy), followed by consolidation carboplatin-paclitaxel chemotherapy (Control Arm) or the same and oral metformin (2000mg daily) during cytotoxic therapy (Experimental Arm). PFS and overall survival (OS) were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method; time to local-regional progression (TTLRP), time to distant metastasis (TTDM) were estimated using the cumulative incidence method. Adverse events (AEs) were graded with CTCAE v.4.0. Results: Between Aug.2014 and Dec.2016, 170 patients were accrued. Analysis was planned at 102 PFS events (Feb. 2019). There was no significant difference in rates or grade of toxicity between the two arms. 1- and 2-year PFS was 60.4% (95% CI: 48.5, 70.4) and 40.1% (95% CI: 29.0, 51.0) in Control vs 51.3% (95% CI: 39.8, 61.7) and 34.5% (95% CI: 24.2, 45.1) in the Metformin arm (multivariable Cox proportional HR=1.20 (95% CI: 0.81, 1.78), p=0.36). OS at 2 years was 65.4% (95% CI: 53.5, 75.0) for Control vs 64.9% (95% CI: 53.1, 74.5) for the Metformin arm (HR=1.03 (95% CI: 0.64, 1.68)), while deaths due to disease were 90% vs 71%, respectively. No significant differences were found for TTLRP or TTDM. Conclusions: NRG-LU001 center reported outcomes show that oral daily metformin was well-tolerated in combination with CRT treatment for LA-NSCLC. However, metformin did not improve PFS and OS and did not alter the rates of local-regional failure or distant metastasis. Acknowledgements: TT and HS are Co-Principal Investigators. This project was supported by National Cancer Institute (NCI) grants: U10CA180868 (NRG Oncology Operations), U10CA180822 (NRG SDMC), UG1CA189867 (NCORP), U24CA180803 (IROC). Clinical trial information: NCT02186847.

© 2016 The Authors. Purpose The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Physics Core Curriculum Subcommittee (PCCSC) has updated the recommended physics curriculum for radiation oncology resident education to improve consistency in teaching, intensity, and subject matter. Methods and Materials The ASTRO PCCSC is composed of physicists and physicians involved in radiation oncology residency education. The PCCSC updated existing sections within the curriculum, created new sections, and attempted to provide additional clinical context to the curricular material through creation of practical clinical experiences. Finally, we reviewed the American Board of Radiology (ABR) blueprint of examination topics for correlation with this curriculum. Results The new curriculum represents 56 hours of resident physics didactic education, including a 4-hour initial orientation. The committee recommends completion of this curriculum at least twice to assure both timely presentation of material and re-emphasis after clinical experience. In addition, practical clinical physics and treatment planning modules were created as a supplement to the didactic training. Major changes to the curriculum include addition of Fundamental Physics, Stereotactic Radiosurgery/Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy, and Safety and Incidents sections, and elimination of the Radiopharmaceutical Physics and Dosimetry and Hyperthermia sections. Simulation and Treatment Verification and optional Research and Development in Radiation Oncology sections were also added. A feedback loop was established with the ABR to help assure that the physics component of the ABR radiation oncology initial certification examination remains consistent with this curriculum. Conclusions The ASTRO physics core curriculum for radiation oncology residents has been updated in an effort to identify the most important physics topics for preparing residents for careers in radiation oncology, to reflect changes in technology and practice since the publication of previous recommended curricula, and to provide practical training modules in clinical radiation oncology physics and treatment planning. The PCCSC is committed to keeping the curriculum current and consistent with the ABR examination blueprint.

Significantly reduced expression of immunoproteasome components and their regulators was observed to be associated with epithelial to mesenchymal transition in 42 NSCLC cell lines using proteomic profiling and microarray analysis. A highly variable immunoproteasome expression was also observed among NSCLC tissues. Immunohistochemistry data revealed loss of immunoproteasome subunit is significantly correlated with expression of CDH2 and concomitant loss of CDH1 in NSCLC tumors. Loss of immunoproteasome subunits was also significantly associated with advanced stage (p1⁄40.014), recurrence (p1⁄40.002) and metastasis (p

Purpose To describe and evaluate a method for generating synthetic computed tomography (synCT) images from magnetic resonance simulation (MR-SIM) data for accurate digitally reconstructed radiograph (DRR) generation and dose calculations in prostate cancer radiation therapy. Methods and Materials A retrospective evaluation was performed in 9 prostate cancer patients who had undergone MR-SIM in addition to CT simulation (CT-SIM). MR-SIM data were used to generate synCT images by using a novel, voxel-based weighted summation approach. A subset of patients was used for weight optimization, and the number of patients to use during optimization was determined. Hounsfield unit (HU) differences between CT-SIM and synCT images were analyzed via mean absolute error (MAE). Original, CT-based treatment plans were mapped onto synCTs. DRRs were generated, and agreement between CT and synCT-generated DRRs was evaluated via Dice similarity coefficient (DSC). Dose was recalculated, and dose-volume metrics and gamma analysis were used to evaluate resulting treatment plans. Results Full field-of-view synCT MAE across all patients was 74.3 ± 10.9 HU with differences from CTs of 2.0 ± 8.1 HU and 11.9 ± 46.7 HU for soft tissue structures (prostate, bladder, and rectum) and femoral bones, respectively. Calculated DSCs for anterior-posterior and lateral DRRs were 0.90 ± 0.04 and 0.92 ± 0.05, respectively. Differences in D99%, mean dose, and maximum dose to the clinical target volume from CT-SIM dose calculations were 0.75% ± 0.35%, 0.63% ± 0.34%, and 0.54% ± 0.33%, respectively, for synCT-generated plans. Gamma analysis (2%/2 mm dose difference/distance to agreement) revealed pass rates of 99.9% ± 0.1% (range, 99.7%-100%). Conclusion Generated synCTs enabled accurate DRR generation and dose computation for prostate MR-only simulation. Dose recalculated on synCTs agreed well with original planning distributions. Further validation using a larger patient cohort is warranted.

Purpose To report on a prospective clinical trial of the use of daily kilovoltage cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) to evaluate the interfraction and residual error motion of patients undergoing intensity-modulated radiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer. Methods and Materials Patients were treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy with an Elekta linear accelerator using a mounted CBCT scanner. CBCT was performed before every treatment, and translational (but not rotational) corrections were performed. At least once per week, a CBCT scan was obtained after intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Variations were measured in the medial–lateral, superoinferior, and anteroposterior dimensions, as well as in the rotation around these axes. Results A total of 28 consecutive patients (1,013 CBCT scans) were studied. The average interfraction shift was 1.4 ± 1.4, 1.7 ± 1.9, and 1.8 ± 2.1 mm in the medial–lateral, superoinferior, and anteroposterior dimensions, respectively. The corresponding average residual error shifts were 0.7 ± 0.8, 0.9 ± 0.9, and 0.9 ± 0.9 mm. These data indicate that in the absence of daily CBCT image-guided radiotherapy, a clinical target volume to planning target volume margin of 3.9, 4.1, and 4.9 mm is needed in the medial–lateral, superoinferior, and anteroposterior dimensions, respectively. With daily CBCT, corresponding margins of 1.6, 2.5, and 1.9 mm should be acceptable. Subgroup analyses showed that larynx cancers and/or intratreatment weight loss indicate a need for slightly larger clinical target volume to planning target volume margins. Conclusion The results of our study have shown that image-guided radiotherapy using CBCT for head-and-neck cancer is effective. These data suggest it allows a reduction in the clinical target volume to planning target volume margins by about 50%, which could facilitate future studies of dose escalation and/or improved toxicity reduction. Caution is particularly warranted for cases in which the targets are mobile ( e.g., the tongue).