Search

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned coprimary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.The purpose of this update was to determine differences in patient-reported chronic toxicity and disease outcomes with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) compared with conventional pelvic radiation. Patients with cervical and endometrial cancers who received postoperative pelvic radiation were randomly assigned to conventional radiation therapy (CRT) or IMRT. Toxicity and quality of life were assessed using Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) bowel and urinary domains, and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General. Between 2012 and 2015, 279 eligible patients were enrolled to the study with a median follow-up of 37.8 months. There were no differences in overall survival (P = .53), disease-free survival (P = .21), or locoregional failure (P = .81). One year after RT, patients in the CRT arm experienced more high-level diarrhea frequency (5.8% IMRT v 15.1% CRT, P = .042) and a greater number had to take antidiarrheal medication two or more times a day (1.2% IMRT v 8.6% CRT, P = .036). At 3 years, women in the CRT arm reported a decline in urinary function, whereas the IMRT arm continued to improve (mean change in EPIC urinary score = 0.5, standard deviation = 13.0, IMRT v -6.0, standard deviation = 14.3, CRT, P = .005). In conclusion, IMRT reduces patient-reported chronic GI and urinary toxicity with no difference in treatment efficacy at 3 years.

PurposeIn oncology trials, the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) is the standard tool for reporting adverse events (AEs), but it may underreport symptoms experienced by patients. This analysis of the NRG Oncology RTOG 1203 compared symptom reporting by patients and clinicians during radiotherapy (RT).Patients and methodsPatients with cervical or endometrial cancer requiring postoperative RT were randomly assigned to standard 4-field RT or intensity-modulated RT (IMRT). Patients completed the 6-item patient-reported outcomes version of the CTCAE (PRO-CTCAE) for GI toxicity assessing abdominal pain, diarrhea, and fecal incontinence at various time points. Patients reported symptoms on a 5-point scale. Clinicians recorded these AEs as CTCAE grades 1 to 5. Clinician- and patient-reported AEs were compared using McNemar's test for rates > 0%.ResultsOf 278 eligible patients, 234 consented and completed the PRO-CTCAE. Patients reported high-grade abdominal pain 19.1% (P < .0001), high-grade diarrhea 38.5% (P < .0001), and fecal incontinence 6.8% more frequently than clinicians. Similar effects were seen between grade ≥ 1 CTCAE toxicity and any-grade patient-reported toxicity. Between-arm comparison of patient-reported high-grade AEs revealed that at 5 weeks of RT, patients who received IMRT experienced fewer GI AEs than patients who received 4-field pelvic RT with regard to frequency of diarrhea (18.2% difference; P = .01), frequency of fecal incontinence (8.2% difference; P = .01), and interference of fecal incontinence (8.5% difference; P = .04).ConclusionPatient-reported AEs showed a reduction in symptoms with IMRT compared with standard RT, whereas clinician-reported AEs revealed no difference. Clinicians also underreported symptomatic GI AEs compared with patients. This suggests that patient-reported symptomatic AEs are important to assess in this disease setting.

ObjectiveWomen with endometrial or cervical cancer at risk for recurrence receive postoperative radiation therapy (RT). A patient reported outcomes (PRO) instrument to assess bowel and urinary toxicities is the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), which has been validated in men with prostate cancer. As this instrument specifically measures bowel toxicity and the degree to which this is a problem, it was used in NRG Oncology/RTOG 1203 to compare intensity modulated RT (IMRT) to standard RT. This paper reports on the expanded validation of EPIC for use in women receiving pelvic RT.MethodsIn addition to the EPIC bowel domain, urinary toxicity (EPIC urinary domain), patient reported bowel toxicities (PRO-CTCAE) and quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT)) were completed before, during and after treatment. Sensitivity, reliability and concurrent validity were assessed.ResultsMean bowel and urinary scores among 278 women enrolled were significantly worse during treatment and differed between groups. Acceptable to good reliability for bowel and urinary domain scores were obtained at all time points with the exception of one at baseline. Correlations between function and bother scores within the bowel and urinary domains were consistently stronger than those across domains. Correlations between bowel domain scores and PRO-CTCAE during treatment were stronger than those with the FACT.ConclusionCorrelations within and among the instruments indicate EPIC bowel and urinary domains are measuring conceptually discrete components of health. These EPIC domains are valid, reliable and sensitive instruments to measure PRO among women undergoing pelvic radiation.

Purpose NRG Oncology/RTOG 1203 was designed to compare patient-reported acute toxicity and health-related quality of life during treatment with standard pelvic radiation or intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in women with cervical and endometrial cancer. Methods Patients were randomly assigned to standard four-field radiation therapy (RT) or IMRT radiation treatment. The primary end point was change in patient-reported acute GI toxicity from baseline to the end of RT, measured with the bowel domain of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC). Secondary end points included change in patient-reported urinary toxicity, change in GI toxicity measured with the Patient-Reported Outcome Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, and quality of life measured with the Trial Outcome Index. Results From 2012 to 2015, 289 patients were enrolled, of whom 278 were eligible. Between baseline and end of RT, the mean EPIC bowel score declined 23.6 points in the standard RT group and 18.6 points in the IMRT group ( P = .048), the mean EPIC urinary score declined 10.4 points in the standard RT group and 5.6 points in the IMRT group ( P = .03), and the mean Trial Outcome Index score declined 12.8 points in the standard RT group and 8.8 points in the IMRT group ( P = .06). At the end of RT, 51.9% of women who received standard RT and 33.7% who received IMRT reported frequent or almost constant diarrhea ( P = .01), and more patients who received standard RT were taking antidiarrheal medications four or more times daily (20.4% v 7.8%; P = .04). Conclusion Pelvic IMRT was associated with significantly less GI and urinary toxicity than standard RT from the patient's perspective.

OBJECTIVE:With the increasing incidence of endometrial cancer, the high survival rate, and the large number of endometrial cancer survivors, investigations of long-term genitourinary outcomes are important for the management of these outcomes among endometrial cancer survivors. METHODS:Cohorts of 2648 endometrial cancer survivors diagnosed in the state of Utah between 1997 and 2012 and 10,503 general population women were identified. All ICD-9 diagnosis codes were collected from the state's two largest healthcare systems and statewide databases. Multivariate Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios at 1-5years and >5-10years after endometrial cancer diagnosis for genitourinary outcomes. RESULTS:Endometrial cancer survivors were at elevated risk for urinary system disorders between 1 and 5years (HR: 1.64, 95% CI: 1.50-1.78) and >5-10years (HR: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.26-1.56) and genital organ disorders between 1 and 5years (HR: 1.71, 95% CI: 1.58-2.03) and >5-10years (HR: 1.33, 95% CI: 1.19-1.49). Significantly elevated risk was observed among endometrial cancer survivors for renal failure, chronic kidney disease, urinary tract infections, and nonmalignant breast conditions, persisting between >5-10years. Between 1 and 5years after cancer diagnosis, those with higher stage, higher grade, older age and treated with radiation or chemotherapy were at higher risk for urinary disorders. CONCLUSIONS:Endometrial cancer survivors were at higher risk for many genitourinary outcomes compared to women from the general population. This study presents evidence suggesting the necessity of increased monitoring and counseling for genitourinary disorders for endometrial cancer patients both immediately after treatment cessation and for years afterwards.

ObjectiveTo explore the association of a functional germline variant in the 3'-UTR of KRAS with endometrial cancer risk, as well as the association of microRNA (miRNA) signatures and the KRAS-variant with clinical characteristics and survival outcomes in two prospective RTOG endometrial cancer trials.Methods/materialsThe association of the KRAS-variant with endometrial cancer risk was evaluated by case-control analysis of 467 women with type 1 or 2 endometrial cancer and 582 age-matched controls. miRNA and DNA were isolated for expression profiling and genotyping from tumor specimens of 46 women with type 1 endometrial cancer enrolled in RTOG trials 9708 and 9905. miRNA expression levels and KRAS-variant genotype were correlated with patient and tumor characteristics, and survival outcomes were evaluated by variant allele type.ResultsThe KRAS-variant was not significantly associated with overall endometrial cancer risk (14% controls and 17% type 1 cancers), although was enriched in type 2 endometrial cancers (24%, p = 0.2). In the combined analysis of RTOG 9708/9905, miRNA expression differed by age, presence of lymphovascular invasion and KRAS-variant status. Overall survival rates at 3 years for patients with the variant and wild-type alleles were 100% and 77% (HR 0.3, p = 0.24), respectively, favoring the variant.ConclusionsThe KRAS-variant may be a genetic marker of risk for type 2 endometrial cancers. In addition, tumor miRNA expression appears to be associated with patient age, lymphovascular invasion and the KRAS-variant, supporting the hypothesis that altered tumor biology can be measured by miRNA expression, and that the KRAS-variant likely impacts endometrial tumor biology.

Background: Surface‐guided radiation therapy (SGRT) systems have been widely installed and utilized on linear accelerators. However, the use of SGRT with proton therapy is still a newly developing field, and published reports are currently very limited. Purpose: To assess the clinical application and alignment agreement of SGRT with CT‐on‐rails (CTOR) and kV‐2D image‐guided radiation therapy (IGRT) for breast treatment using proton therapy. Methods: Four patients receiving breast or chest wall treatment with proton therapy were the subjects of this study. Patient #1′s IGRT modalities were a combination of kV‐2D and CTOR. CTOR was the only imaging modality for patients #2 and #3, and kV‐2D was the only imaging modality for patient #4. The patients' respiratory motions were assessed using a 2‐min surface position recorded by the SGRT system during treatment. SGRT offsets reported after IGRT shifts were recorded for each fraction of treatment. The agreement between SGRT and either kV‐2D or CTOR was evaluated. Results: The respiratory motion amplitude was <4 mm in translation and <2.0° in rotation for all patients. The mean and maximum amplitude of SGRT offsets after application of IGRT shifts were ≤(2.6 mm, 1.6°) and (6.8 mm, 4.5°) relative to kV‐2D‐based IGRT; ≤(3.0 mm, 2.6°) and (5.0 mm, 4.7°) relative to CTOR‐based IGRT without breast tissue inflammation. For patient #3, breast inflammation was observed for the last three fractions of treatment, and the maximum SGRT offsets post CTOR shifts were up to (14.0 mm, 5.2°). Conclusions: Due to the overall agreement between SGRT and IGRT within reasonable tolerance, SGRT has the potential to serve as a valuable auxiliary IGRT tool for proton breast treatment and may improve the efficiency of proton breast treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]