TY - JOUR
T1 - Consolidative radiotherapy for limited metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer
T2 - A phase 2 randomized clinical trial
AU - Iyengar, Puneeth
AU - Wardak, Zabi
AU - Gerber, David E.
AU - Tumati, Vasu
AU - Ahn, Chul
AU - Hughes, Randall S.
AU - Dowell, Jonathan E.
AU - Cheedella, Naga
AU - Nedzi, Lucien
AU - Westover, Kenneth D.
AU - Pulipparacharuvil, Suprabha
AU - Choy, Hak
AU - Timmerman, Robert D.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 American Medical Association.
PY - 2018/1
Y1 - 2018/1
N2 - IMPORTANCE Patterns-of-failure studies suggest that in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) sites of gross disease at presentation are the first to progress when treated with chemotherapy. This knowledge has led to increased adoption of local ablative radiation therapy in patients with stage IV NSCLC, though prospective randomized evidence is limited. OBJECTIVE To determine if intervening with noninvasive stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SAbR) prior to maintenance chemotherapy in patients with non-progressive limited metastatic NSCLC after induction therapy led to significant improvements in progression-free survival (PFS). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This is a single-institution randomized phase 2 study of maintenance chemotherapy alone vs SAbR followed by maintenance chemotherapy for patients with limited metastatic NSCLC (primary plus up to 5metastatic sites) whose tumors did not possess EGFR-targetable or ALK-targetable mutations but did achieve a partial response or stable disease after induction chemotherapy. INTERVENTIONS Maintenance chemotherapy or SAbR to all sites of gross disease (including SAbR or hypofractionated radiation to the primary) followed by maintenance chemotherapy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary end pointwas PFS; secondary end points included toxic effects, local and distant tumor control, patterns of failure, and overall survival. RESULTS A total of 29 patients (9 women and 20 men) were enrolled; 14 patients (median [range] age, 63.5 [51.0-78.0] years) were allocated to the SAbR-plus-maintenance chemotherapy arm, and 15 patients (median [range] age, 70.0 [51.0-79.0] years) were allocated to the maintenance chemotherapy-alone arm. The trial was stopped to accrual early after an interim analysis found a significant improvement in PFS in the SAbR-plusmaintenance chemotherapy arm of 9.7 months vs 3.5 months in the maintenance chemotherapy-alone arm (P = .01). Toxic effects were similar in both arms. There were no in-field failures with fewer overall recurrences in the SAbR arm while those patients receiving maintenance therapy alone had progression at existing sites of disease and distantly. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Consolidative SAbR prior to maintenance chemotherapy appeared beneficial, nearly tripling PFS in patients with limited metastatic NSCLC compared with maintenance chemotherapy alone, with no difference in toxic effects. The irradiation prevented local failures in original disease, the most likely sites of first recurrence. Furthermore, PFS for patients with limited metastatic disease appeared similar to those patients with a greater metastatic burden, further arguing for the potential benefits of local therapy in limited metastatic settings.
AB - IMPORTANCE Patterns-of-failure studies suggest that in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) sites of gross disease at presentation are the first to progress when treated with chemotherapy. This knowledge has led to increased adoption of local ablative radiation therapy in patients with stage IV NSCLC, though prospective randomized evidence is limited. OBJECTIVE To determine if intervening with noninvasive stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SAbR) prior to maintenance chemotherapy in patients with non-progressive limited metastatic NSCLC after induction therapy led to significant improvements in progression-free survival (PFS). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This is a single-institution randomized phase 2 study of maintenance chemotherapy alone vs SAbR followed by maintenance chemotherapy for patients with limited metastatic NSCLC (primary plus up to 5metastatic sites) whose tumors did not possess EGFR-targetable or ALK-targetable mutations but did achieve a partial response or stable disease after induction chemotherapy. INTERVENTIONS Maintenance chemotherapy or SAbR to all sites of gross disease (including SAbR or hypofractionated radiation to the primary) followed by maintenance chemotherapy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary end pointwas PFS; secondary end points included toxic effects, local and distant tumor control, patterns of failure, and overall survival. RESULTS A total of 29 patients (9 women and 20 men) were enrolled; 14 patients (median [range] age, 63.5 [51.0-78.0] years) were allocated to the SAbR-plus-maintenance chemotherapy arm, and 15 patients (median [range] age, 70.0 [51.0-79.0] years) were allocated to the maintenance chemotherapy-alone arm. The trial was stopped to accrual early after an interim analysis found a significant improvement in PFS in the SAbR-plusmaintenance chemotherapy arm of 9.7 months vs 3.5 months in the maintenance chemotherapy-alone arm (P = .01). Toxic effects were similar in both arms. There were no in-field failures with fewer overall recurrences in the SAbR arm while those patients receiving maintenance therapy alone had progression at existing sites of disease and distantly. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Consolidative SAbR prior to maintenance chemotherapy appeared beneficial, nearly tripling PFS in patients with limited metastatic NSCLC compared with maintenance chemotherapy alone, with no difference in toxic effects. The irradiation prevented local failures in original disease, the most likely sites of first recurrence. Furthermore, PFS for patients with limited metastatic disease appeared similar to those patients with a greater metastatic burden, further arguing for the potential benefits of local therapy in limited metastatic settings.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85041634772&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85041634772&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.3501
DO - 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.3501
M3 - Article
C2 - 28973074
AN - SCOPUS:85041634772
SN - 2374-2437
VL - 4
JO - JAMA Oncology
JF - JAMA Oncology
IS - 1
M1 - e173501
ER -