The Lancet. Oncology 2015-02
Standard-dose versus high-dose conformal radiotherapy with concurrent and consolidation carboplatin plus paclitaxel with or without cetuximab for patients with stage IIIA or IIIB non-small-cell lung cancer (RTOG 0617): a randomised, two-by-two factorial phase 3 study.
Abstract
Background
We aimed to compare overall survival after standard-dose versus high-dose conformal radiotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy and the addition of cetuximab to concurrent chemoradiation for patients with inoperable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer.
Methods
In this open-label randomised, two-by-two factorial phase 3 study in 185 institutions in the USA and Canada, we enrolled patients (aged ≥ 18 years) with unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer, a Zubrod performance status of 0-1, adequate pulmonary function, and no evidence of supraclavicular or contralateral hilar adenopathy. We randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) patients to receive either 60 Gy (standard dose), 74 Gy (high dose), 60 Gy plus cetuximab, or 74 Gy plus cetuximab. All patients also received concurrent chemotherapy with 45 mg/m(2) paclitaxel and carboplatin once a week (AUC 2); 2 weeks after chemoradiation, two cycles of consolidation chemotherapy separated by 3 weeks were given consisting of paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)) and carboplatin (AUC 6). Randomisation was done with permuted block randomisation methods, stratified by radiotherapy technique, Zubrod performance status, use of PET during staging, and histology; treatment group assignments were not masked. Radiation dose was prescribed to the planning target volume and was given in 2 Gy daily fractions with either intensity-modulated radiation therapy or three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy. The use of four-dimensional CT and image-guided radiation therapy were encouraged but not necessary. For patients assigned to receive cetuximab, 400 mg/m(2) cetuximab was given on day 1 followed by weekly doses of 250 mg/m(2), and was continued through consolidation therapy. The primary endpoint was overall survival. All analyses were done by modified intention-to-treat. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00533949.
Findings
Between Nov 27, 2007, and Nov 22, 2011, 166 patients were randomly assigned to receive standard-dose chemoradiotherapy, 121 to high-dose chemoradiotherapy, 147 to standard-dose chemoradiotherapy and cetuximab, and 110 to high-dose chemoradiotherapy and cetuximab. Median follow-up for the radiotherapy comparison was 22.9 months (IQR 27.5-33.3). Median overall survival was 28.7 months (95% CI 24.1-36.9) for patients who received standard-dose radiotherapy and 20.3 months (17.7-25.0) for those who received high-dose radiotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 1.38, 95% CI 1.09-1.76; p=0.004). Median follow-up for the cetuximab comparison was 21.3 months (IQR 23.5-29.8). Median overall survival in patients who received cetuximab was 25.0 months (95% CI 20.2-30.5) compared with 24.0 months (19.8-28.6) in those who did not (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.84-1.35; p=0.29). Both the radiation-dose and cetuximab results crossed protocol-specified futility boundaries. We recorded no statistical differences in grade 3 or worse toxic effects between radiotherapy groups. By contrast, the use of cetuximab was associated with a higher rate of grade 3 or worse toxic effects (205 [86%] of 237 vs 160 [70%] of 228 patients; p<0.0001). There were more treatment-related deaths in the high-dose chemoradiotherapy and cetuximab groups (radiotherapy comparison: eight vs three patients; cetuximab comparison: ten vs five patients). There were no differences in severe pulmonary events between treatment groups. Severe oesophagitis was more common in patients who received high-dose chemoradiotherapy than in those who received standard-dose treatment (43 [21%] of 207 patients vs 16 [7%] of 217 patients; p<0.0001).
Interpretation
74 Gy radiation given in 2 Gy fractions with concurrent chemotherapy was not better than 60 Gy plus concurrent chemotherapy for patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer, and might be potentially harmful. Addition of cetuximab to concurrent chemoradiation and consolidation treatment provided no benefit in overall survival for these patients.
Funding
National Cancer Institute and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Related Questions
How do you construct your target volumes for superior sulcus tumors?
This is one of my favorite topics, so I apologize in advance for my verbosity. Tumors invade: I worry that our RT fields, in general, are getting too tight (i.e., cancer often invades beyond what we can see on our imaging, and our CTV margins are often small). This is especially true for Pancoast tu...
When planning concurrent chemoradiation for locally advanced NSCLC, do you consider prescribing primary tumor disease to a lower isodose line, such as 75%, if OAR constraints for standard prescribing are met?
For stage III NSCLC, we routinely deliver 60 Gy to PTV with SIB 66 Gy to GTV in 30 fractions using IMRT with concurrent chemotherapy. Some clinical data indicated that primary tumors might need higher dose in order to achieve optimal local control. Therefore, it could be reasonable to consider an ev...
What BED10 do you aim for when prescribing hypofractionated treatment for ultra-central tumors of the lung?
BED10 (3) for the regimens listed above (and a few others) 50 Gy/5 fx: 100 Gy (216.67 Gy) 60 Gy/8 fx: 105 Gy (210 Gy) 70 Gy/10 fx: 119 Gy (233.33 Gy) 62.5 Gy/10 fx: 101.56 Gy (192.71 Gy) 60 Gy/15 fx: 84 Gy (140 Gy) 72 Gy/18 fx: 100.8 Gy (168 Gy) 77 Gy/25 fx: 100.7 Gy (156.05 Gy) 79.5 Gy/30 fx: 100.6...
Should we repeat a dose-escalation trial for stage III NSCLC in the era of modern radiotherapy techniques and dose constraints?
Yes to a study with modern techniques. The outcome was so odd that high dose was killing patients at a higher rate than with standard dose, despite many phase II and retrospective studies showing good outcomes. The subset analyses showing that IMRT was associated with better outcomes as well as more...
Do you consider NSCLC with multistation N2 involvement appropriate for treatment with neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy followed by surgery?
Interesting question and something that is frequently discussed in tumor boards. Multistation N2 patients were not included in neoadjuvant trials and hence, any adaptation of this strategy to patients with advanced N staging would not be appropriate at this time. Further, given level 1 evidence from...
How many missed fractions will you allow for a definitive lung CRT before recommending treatment on the weekend?
The clinical scenario posted in this question is not rare, since patient compliance or machine issues could result in missing fractions (i.e. treatment break) as originally planned & scheduled in a conventionally fractionated radiotherapy course (including definitive lung CRT that typically aims to ...
How do you interpret NCCN chemoRT dose recommendations for SCLC which start higher than NSCLC?
I understand the questioner's logic that because SCLC is traditionally considered more radiosenstive than NSCLC, it may seem discordant that guidelines recommend 66Gy for SCLC but 60Gy for NSCLC. However, I would still abide by these guidelines because as the questioner suggests, these doses are bas...
What brachial plexus dose constraints do you apply when treating conventionally fractionated NSCLC?
Yes. I am presuming you are discussing treating definitively with CRT for locally advanced NSCLC.Since RTOG 0617, most people that treat NSCLC prescribe to a dose of 60-66 Gy in 30-33 fx, as this is a feared toxicity that is very painful and decreases QOL. We try to keep the brachial plexus dose to ...
For a patient with locally advanced lung cancer and mediastinal but not hilar involvement, would you electively treat the ipsilateral hilum?
As Dr. @Dr. First Last eludes, the lymphatic drainage pattern justifies buzzing the hilar basin. It's unclear if we need to prescribe a full (60 Gy) or microscopic dose (45-50 Gy). The hilar region often receives an incidental microscopic dose anyway due to dose spillage from the 60 Gy targets. But,...
What ITV to PTV expansions do you use for free-breathing definitive IMRT for locally advanced NSCLC using CT sim with 4DCT?
This seems like a simple question, but it is not! It is missing something...the concept of the CTV (clinical target volume) is missing within the question. The idea of the CTV is to include microscopic disease within the region receiving full dose. In the case of locally-advanced lung cancer, CTV is...
What heart dose constraint should be used when treating locally advanced NSCLC?
I use V50 <25%, then again I was the senior author on one of those 3 papers, so I'm a bit biased! To be clear, though, I think the punchline here is that the metric being use is fundamentally less important than just using a metric that is more stringent than the historic constraints. It is well est...
What is the optimal treatment of medically inoperable T3N0 non-small cell lung cancer that is too large for standard SBRT?
As we see it, there is more than one way to skin the cat. RTOG 0617 has condemned protracted fractions to 70 Gy...it just might be that 70 Gy is the wrong way to treat in 35 fractions, +/- cetuximab added to weakly carbo taxol. But the study to look at thoracic dose is contaminated by those systemic...
Is there a role for post-treatment PET/CT following chemoRT for Stage III NSCLC?
The data from RTOG 0235 are certainly intriguing, but I don't think we have sufficient information to employ this in routine clinical practice.In fact, I think there are quite a few challenges, including, but not limited to:1. What is the true sensitivity for post-CRT PET/CT for LR failure? This was...
How do you define involved field radiotherapy for lung cancer?
Although, there is no consensus definition for “involved field” for the mediastinal nodes, my practice is to target mediastinal lymph nodes with involved field radiotherapy using the following algorithm: We start by contouring the lymph node GTV using a PET/CT with IV contrast. All FDG-avid and/or s...
What is the standard RT dose in locally advanced NSCLC with concurrent chemotherapy?
I have an opinion on this topic....several opinions actually! The paper is coming out soon. We included a tremendous amount of data. I hope you will read through it in your journal clubs. I agree with @Dr. First Last that the results of RTOG 0617 were a 'kick in the gut'. They were (and are) certain...
Do you use minimum cutoff values for any PFTs below which you would not offer conventionally fractionated chemoradiation or SBRT for NSCLC?
We have historically not used a cut-off lower-limit for FEV1 or DLCO when selecting patients for SBRT for stage I NSCLC. This is supported by both our own (PMID 19487961) and the Indiana University (PMID 18394819) series in which patients were divided into quartiles by baseline PFT's. In both series...
Is it acceptable to use once daily fractionation for small cell lung cancer?
This question is still very relevant of further discussion. This particular poll and commentary began in June 2016! For the record, as of today I still prefer 45 Gy in 30 fractions delivered BID. For those that cannot come to treatment twice-daily, I use 60-66 Gy in 30-33 fractions based on OAR cons...