Patient & Survivor Care

TOPLINE:

The risk for abdominal morbidity, complications, and additional operations are the most important factors weighing on women who are considering postmastectomy breast reconstruction, a new survey suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• As many as 40% of women feel dissatisfied after breast reconstruction because of unexpected outcomes that are poorly aligned with their personal preferences. Identifying what women value when considering breast reconstruction surgery could improve shared decision-making.
• Researchers used an adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis, a survey-based method used in marketing research, to identify attributes of breast reconstruction that are most important to women considering it.
• A total of 406 women completed the survey, which assessed the relative importance of breast appearance (flap or implant), abdominal morbidity, recovery time, additional operations, and complications of breast reconstruction.
• The survey included 105 women from Duke University, Durham, N.C., who had a new diagnosis of, or genetic predisposition to, breast cancer and were considering mastectomy with reconstruction. The survey also included another 301 women, identified through the Love Research Army registry, who had a history of breast cancer or a genetic predisposition.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the risk for abdominal morbidity was most important to patients (mean relative importance, 28%); women also rated the chance for major complications (RI, 25%), the number of additional surgeries (RI, 23%), breast appearance (RI, 13%), and recovery time (RI, 11%) as important factors.
• Most women preferred implant-based reconstruction (85%), and these women cared most about abdominal morbidity (RI, 30%), risk for complications (RI, 26%), and added operations (RI, 21%).
• Women who preferred flap reconstruction cared most about additional operations (RI, 31%), followed by breast appearance (RI, 27%) and risk of complications (RI, 18%), which suggests that the appearance of the reconstruction procedure was particularly important, the authors noted.
• Participants who preferred the flap appearance were willing to accept an increased risk for abdominal morbidity and a slightly higher risk for complications; among the participants who preferred the implant option, one-third actually preferred the flap appearance.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study provides information on how women value different aspects of their care when making decisions for breast reconstruction,” the authors conclude, adding that “developing decision aids that elicit individual-level preferences and align patient values with treatment may provide an avenue to improve patient-centered care.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by first author Ronnie Shammas, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., was published online in JAMA Surgery.

LIMITATIONS:

The attributes included in the survey may not represent all factors that women consider during the decision-making process. The cohort was composed of predominately upper-middle class and White women, which may reflect an increased preference toward implant, compared with flap reconstruction, as suggested in previous studies.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding for the research was provided by a grant from the National Endowment for Plastic Surgery awarded by the Plastic Surgery Foundation. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The risk for abdominal morbidity, complications, and additional operations are the most important factors weighing on women who are considering postmastectomy breast reconstruction, a new survey suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• As many as 40% of women feel dissatisfied after breast reconstruction because of unexpected outcomes that are poorly aligned with their personal preferences. Identifying what women value when considering breast reconstruction surgery could improve shared decision-making.
• Researchers used an adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis, a survey-based method used in marketing research, to identify attributes of breast reconstruction that are most important to women considering it.
• A total of 406 women completed the survey, which assessed the relative importance of breast appearance (flap or implant), abdominal morbidity, recovery time, additional operations, and complications of breast reconstruction.
• The survey included 105 women from Duke University, Durham, N.C., who had a new diagnosis of, or genetic predisposition to, breast cancer and were considering mastectomy with reconstruction. The survey also included another 301 women, identified through the Love Research Army registry, who had a history of breast cancer or a genetic predisposition.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the risk for abdominal morbidity was most important to patients (mean relative importance, 28%); women also rated the chance for major complications (RI, 25%), the number of additional surgeries (RI, 23%), breast appearance (RI, 13%), and recovery time (RI, 11%) as important factors.
• Most women preferred implant-based reconstruction (85%), and these women cared most about abdominal morbidity (RI, 30%), risk for complications (RI, 26%), and added operations (RI, 21%).
• Women who preferred flap reconstruction cared most about additional operations (RI, 31%), followed by breast appearance (RI, 27%) and risk of complications (RI, 18%), which suggests that the appearance of the reconstruction procedure was particularly important, the authors noted.
• Participants who preferred the flap appearance were willing to accept an increased risk for abdominal morbidity and a slightly higher risk for complications; among the participants who preferred the implant option, one-third actually preferred the flap appearance.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study provides information on how women value different aspects of their care when making decisions for breast reconstruction,” the authors conclude, adding that “developing decision aids that elicit individual-level preferences and align patient values with treatment may provide an avenue to improve patient-centered care.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by first author Ronnie Shammas, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., was published online in JAMA Surgery.

LIMITATIONS:

The attributes included in the survey may not represent all factors that women consider during the decision-making process. The cohort was composed of predominately upper-middle class and White women, which may reflect an increased preference toward implant, compared with flap reconstruction, as suggested in previous studies.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding for the research was provided by a grant from the National Endowment for Plastic Surgery awarded by the Plastic Surgery Foundation. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The risk for abdominal morbidity, complications, and additional operations are the most important factors weighing on women who are considering postmastectomy breast reconstruction, a new survey suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• As many as 40% of women feel dissatisfied after breast reconstruction because of unexpected outcomes that are poorly aligned with their personal preferences. Identifying what women value when considering breast reconstruction surgery could improve shared decision-making.
• Researchers used an adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis, a survey-based method used in marketing research, to identify attributes of breast reconstruction that are most important to women considering it.
• A total of 406 women completed the survey, which assessed the relative importance of breast appearance (flap or implant), abdominal morbidity, recovery time, additional operations, and complications of breast reconstruction.
• The survey included 105 women from Duke University, Durham, N.C., who had a new diagnosis of, or genetic predisposition to, breast cancer and were considering mastectomy with reconstruction. The survey also included another 301 women, identified through the Love Research Army registry, who had a history of breast cancer or a genetic predisposition.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the risk for abdominal morbidity was most important to patients (mean relative importance, 28%); women also rated the chance for major complications (RI, 25%), the number of additional surgeries (RI, 23%), breast appearance (RI, 13%), and recovery time (RI, 11%) as important factors.
• Most women preferred implant-based reconstruction (85%), and these women cared most about abdominal morbidity (RI, 30%), risk for complications (RI, 26%), and added operations (RI, 21%).
• Women who preferred flap reconstruction cared most about additional operations (RI, 31%), followed by breast appearance (RI, 27%) and risk of complications (RI, 18%), which suggests that the appearance of the reconstruction procedure was particularly important, the authors noted.
• Participants who preferred the flap appearance were willing to accept an increased risk for abdominal morbidity and a slightly higher risk for complications; among the participants who preferred the implant option, one-third actually preferred the flap appearance.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study provides information on how women value different aspects of their care when making decisions for breast reconstruction,” the authors conclude, adding that “developing decision aids that elicit individual-level preferences and align patient values with treatment may provide an avenue to improve patient-centered care.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by first author Ronnie Shammas, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., was published online in JAMA Surgery.

LIMITATIONS:

The attributes included in the survey may not represent all factors that women consider during the decision-making process. The cohort was composed of predominately upper-middle class and White women, which may reflect an increased preference toward implant, compared with flap reconstruction, as suggested in previous studies.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding for the research was provided by a grant from the National Endowment for Plastic Surgery awarded by the Plastic Surgery Foundation. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – In low- and middle-income countries with high incidence and mortality from head and neck cancer, resources remain limited. Patients often can’t travel far for treatment or afford to stay near a treatment center for the length of time required for conventionally fractionated radiotherapy.

A hypofractionated radiotherapy regimen with or without weekly cisplatin may be a viable alternative for patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer in these settings.

The phase 3 randomized HYPNO trial, conducted in 10 low- and middle-income countries, revealed that the hypofractionated regimen shortened total treatment time by a median of 11.5 days and was noninferior to conventional fractionation for tumor control and safety.

The primary trial results were presented by Søren Bentzen, PhD, DMSc, at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

“It was Usain Bolt who said, ‘I train for 4 years to run 9 seconds,’ and that was the feeling that I had when we did the noninferiority test,” said Dr. Bentzen, from the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore. “We had not looked at the data while the data were being accumulated, and guess what? It actually turned out that we had noninferiority with respect to both locoregional control and the late effects.”

In the HYPNO trial, Dr. Bentzen and colleagues wanted to determine whether a streamlined approach to the treatment of patients in low- and middle-income countries could improve access to care and still achieve strong outcomes.

The investigators used mathematical modeling to devise a strategy to reduce the number of fractions and put this hypothesis to the test in a pragmatic trial.

Patients from Uruguay, Brazil, Argentina, Cuba, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines were enrolled. After stratification by performance status, tumor subsite, institution, and previous treatment with chemotherapy, the 792 patients in the trial were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 66 Gy in 33 fractions 6 days each week over 5.5 weeks, or 55 Gy in 20 fractions 5 days per week over 4 weeks. In both groups, weekly cisplatin was optional.

Compliance with the regimens was high in both arms, with 95% of patients assigned to conventional fractionation and 99% assigned to hypofractionation receiving the total planned doses.

At 3 years’ follow-up, the rates of locoregional control were 50.7% in the hypofractionation arm and 51.2% in the conventional fractionation arm (P = .40). No significant differences between the groups have emerged over 5 years, Dr. Bentzen said.

Rates of late toxicities of grade 3 or greater at 3 years’ follow-up were similar between the groups, at 18.8% in the hypofractionation arm and 20.2% in the conventional fractionation arm (P = .68).

Three-year overall survival rates also did not differ between the groups – 54.1% in the hypofractionation arm vs. 55.5% in the conventional arm (P = .62) – nor did rates of progression-free survival – 44.0% vs. 45.3%.

“Head and neck cancer caused by factors other than the human papillomavirus (HPV) remains a significant burden especially in lower- and middle-income countries,” Dr. Bentzen said in a press release. “This is a trial that directly informs how you can effectively deliver radiation therapy to patients in a resource-scarce environment.”

Beth Beadle, MD, PhD, the invited discussant at a media briefing where Dr. Bentzen summarized the findings, said, “I think this trial is going to change practice in low- and middle-income countries and will improve access to care.”

Although the approach used in the HYPNO trial will likely allow more patients to receive treatment and will save lives in countries with limited resources, the strategy likely won’t apply to U.S. practice, noted Dr. Beadle, a professor of radiation oncology at Stanford University, California.

“The one thing I do caution, and that Dr. Bentzen brought up, is that this is a very different population than the one that we see in the United States now,” Dr. Beadle said. “In fact, it’s very challenging to find a similar patient population to even serve as a comparison in the modern era and modern techniques.”

The HYPNO trial was sponsored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Dr. Bentzen and Dr. Beadle have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – In low- and middle-income countries with high incidence and mortality from head and neck cancer, resources remain limited. Patients often can’t travel far for treatment or afford to stay near a treatment center for the length of time required for conventionally fractionated radiotherapy.

A hypofractionated radiotherapy regimen with or without weekly cisplatin may be a viable alternative for patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer in these settings.

The phase 3 randomized HYPNO trial, conducted in 10 low- and middle-income countries, revealed that the hypofractionated regimen shortened total treatment time by a median of 11.5 days and was noninferior to conventional fractionation for tumor control and safety.

The primary trial results were presented by Søren Bentzen, PhD, DMSc, at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

“It was Usain Bolt who said, ‘I train for 4 years to run 9 seconds,’ and that was the feeling that I had when we did the noninferiority test,” said Dr. Bentzen, from the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore. “We had not looked at the data while the data were being accumulated, and guess what? It actually turned out that we had noninferiority with respect to both locoregional control and the late effects.”

In the HYPNO trial, Dr. Bentzen and colleagues wanted to determine whether a streamlined approach to the treatment of patients in low- and middle-income countries could improve access to care and still achieve strong outcomes.

The investigators used mathematical modeling to devise a strategy to reduce the number of fractions and put this hypothesis to the test in a pragmatic trial.

Patients from Uruguay, Brazil, Argentina, Cuba, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines were enrolled. After stratification by performance status, tumor subsite, institution, and previous treatment with chemotherapy, the 792 patients in the trial were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 66 Gy in 33 fractions 6 days each week over 5.5 weeks, or 55 Gy in 20 fractions 5 days per week over 4 weeks. In both groups, weekly cisplatin was optional.

Compliance with the regimens was high in both arms, with 95% of patients assigned to conventional fractionation and 99% assigned to hypofractionation receiving the total planned doses.

At 3 years’ follow-up, the rates of locoregional control were 50.7% in the hypofractionation arm and 51.2% in the conventional fractionation arm (P = .40). No significant differences between the groups have emerged over 5 years, Dr. Bentzen said.

Rates of late toxicities of grade 3 or greater at 3 years’ follow-up were similar between the groups, at 18.8% in the hypofractionation arm and 20.2% in the conventional fractionation arm (P = .68).

Three-year overall survival rates also did not differ between the groups – 54.1% in the hypofractionation arm vs. 55.5% in the conventional arm (P = .62) – nor did rates of progression-free survival – 44.0% vs. 45.3%.

“Head and neck cancer caused by factors other than the human papillomavirus (HPV) remains a significant burden especially in lower- and middle-income countries,” Dr. Bentzen said in a press release. “This is a trial that directly informs how you can effectively deliver radiation therapy to patients in a resource-scarce environment.”

Beth Beadle, MD, PhD, the invited discussant at a media briefing where Dr. Bentzen summarized the findings, said, “I think this trial is going to change practice in low- and middle-income countries and will improve access to care.”

Although the approach used in the HYPNO trial will likely allow more patients to receive treatment and will save lives in countries with limited resources, the strategy likely won’t apply to U.S. practice, noted Dr. Beadle, a professor of radiation oncology at Stanford University, California.

“The one thing I do caution, and that Dr. Bentzen brought up, is that this is a very different population than the one that we see in the United States now,” Dr. Beadle said. “In fact, it’s very challenging to find a similar patient population to even serve as a comparison in the modern era and modern techniques.”

The HYPNO trial was sponsored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Dr. Bentzen and Dr. Beadle have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – In low- and middle-income countries with high incidence and mortality from head and neck cancer, resources remain limited. Patients often can’t travel far for treatment or afford to stay near a treatment center for the length of time required for conventionally fractionated radiotherapy.

A hypofractionated radiotherapy regimen with or without weekly cisplatin may be a viable alternative for patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer in these settings.

The phase 3 randomized HYPNO trial, conducted in 10 low- and middle-income countries, revealed that the hypofractionated regimen shortened total treatment time by a median of 11.5 days and was noninferior to conventional fractionation for tumor control and safety.

The primary trial results were presented by Søren Bentzen, PhD, DMSc, at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

“It was Usain Bolt who said, ‘I train for 4 years to run 9 seconds,’ and that was the feeling that I had when we did the noninferiority test,” said Dr. Bentzen, from the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore. “We had not looked at the data while the data were being accumulated, and guess what? It actually turned out that we had noninferiority with respect to both locoregional control and the late effects.”

In the HYPNO trial, Dr. Bentzen and colleagues wanted to determine whether a streamlined approach to the treatment of patients in low- and middle-income countries could improve access to care and still achieve strong outcomes.

The investigators used mathematical modeling to devise a strategy to reduce the number of fractions and put this hypothesis to the test in a pragmatic trial.

Patients from Uruguay, Brazil, Argentina, Cuba, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines were enrolled. After stratification by performance status, tumor subsite, institution, and previous treatment with chemotherapy, the 792 patients in the trial were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 66 Gy in 33 fractions 6 days each week over 5.5 weeks, or 55 Gy in 20 fractions 5 days per week over 4 weeks. In both groups, weekly cisplatin was optional.

Compliance with the regimens was high in both arms, with 95% of patients assigned to conventional fractionation and 99% assigned to hypofractionation receiving the total planned doses.

At 3 years’ follow-up, the rates of locoregional control were 50.7% in the hypofractionation arm and 51.2% in the conventional fractionation arm (P = .40). No significant differences between the groups have emerged over 5 years, Dr. Bentzen said.

Rates of late toxicities of grade 3 or greater at 3 years’ follow-up were similar between the groups, at 18.8% in the hypofractionation arm and 20.2% in the conventional fractionation arm (P = .68).

Three-year overall survival rates also did not differ between the groups – 54.1% in the hypofractionation arm vs. 55.5% in the conventional arm (P = .62) – nor did rates of progression-free survival – 44.0% vs. 45.3%.

“Head and neck cancer caused by factors other than the human papillomavirus (HPV) remains a significant burden especially in lower- and middle-income countries,” Dr. Bentzen said in a press release. “This is a trial that directly informs how you can effectively deliver radiation therapy to patients in a resource-scarce environment.”

Beth Beadle, MD, PhD, the invited discussant at a media briefing where Dr. Bentzen summarized the findings, said, “I think this trial is going to change practice in low- and middle-income countries and will improve access to care.”

Although the approach used in the HYPNO trial will likely allow more patients to receive treatment and will save lives in countries with limited resources, the strategy likely won’t apply to U.S. practice, noted Dr. Beadle, a professor of radiation oncology at Stanford University, California.

“The one thing I do caution, and that Dr. Bentzen brought up, is that this is a very different population than the one that we see in the United States now,” Dr. Beadle said. “In fact, it’s very challenging to find a similar patient population to even serve as a comparison in the modern era and modern techniques.”

The HYPNO trial was sponsored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Dr. Bentzen and Dr. Beadle have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Surgery of the primary tumor in patients with de novo metastatic breast cancer does not prolong overall survival, except potentially in younger, premenopausal patients. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Given conflicting results from prospective trials and improved outcomes reported in retrospective studies, removing the primary tumor in patients with metastatic breast cancer remains common practice but also “controversial,” the authors explained.
• To clarify whether to remove the primary tumor in metastatic breast cancer, investigators performed a meta-analysis of the five randomized clinical trials evaluating the issue.
• The five trials, published from 2015 to 2023, included 1,381 women with de novo metastatic breast cancer; half had their primary tumor removed, half did not.

TAKEAWAY:  

• The analysis revealed no overall survival benefit for patients who underwent surgical excision of their primary breast tumor (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-1.14).
• Surgery was not associated with an overall survival benefit in subgroup analyses by receptor status, pattern of metastasis (bone vs. viscera or oligometastatic vs nonoligometastatic disease), number of metastatic sites, or location of metastatic lesions.
• The one possible exception: Surgery did appear to improve overall survival in younger, premenopausal women (HR, 0.74; 95% CI 0.58-0.94), but “the lack of uniform definitions and inconsistent trial results suggest that this subgroup analysis should be viewed as exploratory and requiring further validation,” the authors said.
• Breast surgery was associated with improved local progression-free survival (HR, 0.37) but not distant progression-free survival or patient-reported quality of life. 

IN PRACTICE:

“We conclude that surgical excision of the primary tumor in case of de novo metastatic breast cancer is not associated with improved patient survival,” with a “potential exception” among younger patients, the authors said. “As such, besides the need to palliate local symptoms, surgery should not be routinely offered to patients with metastatic disease.”

SOURCE:

The work, led by Guillermo Villacampa of the SOLTI Breast Cancer Research Group in Barcelona, was published Sept. 12 in The Oncologist.

LIMITATIONS:

The five trials had various weaknesses, including imbalances in patient characteristics, protocol violations regarding planned and administered treatment, and missing information on associations between surgical margins and outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

There was no funding for the work. Investigators reported speaker fees, consultant fees, and/or research funding from various companies, including Merck, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Novartis.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Surgery of the primary tumor in patients with de novo metastatic breast cancer does not prolong overall survival, except potentially in younger, premenopausal patients. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Given conflicting results from prospective trials and improved outcomes reported in retrospective studies, removing the primary tumor in patients with metastatic breast cancer remains common practice but also “controversial,” the authors explained.
• To clarify whether to remove the primary tumor in metastatic breast cancer, investigators performed a meta-analysis of the five randomized clinical trials evaluating the issue.
• The five trials, published from 2015 to 2023, included 1,381 women with de novo metastatic breast cancer; half had their primary tumor removed, half did not.

TAKEAWAY:  

• The analysis revealed no overall survival benefit for patients who underwent surgical excision of their primary breast tumor (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-1.14).
• Surgery was not associated with an overall survival benefit in subgroup analyses by receptor status, pattern of metastasis (bone vs. viscera or oligometastatic vs nonoligometastatic disease), number of metastatic sites, or location of metastatic lesions.
• The one possible exception: Surgery did appear to improve overall survival in younger, premenopausal women (HR, 0.74; 95% CI 0.58-0.94), but “the lack of uniform definitions and inconsistent trial results suggest that this subgroup analysis should be viewed as exploratory and requiring further validation,” the authors said.
• Breast surgery was associated with improved local progression-free survival (HR, 0.37) but not distant progression-free survival or patient-reported quality of life. 

IN PRACTICE:

“We conclude that surgical excision of the primary tumor in case of de novo metastatic breast cancer is not associated with improved patient survival,” with a “potential exception” among younger patients, the authors said. “As such, besides the need to palliate local symptoms, surgery should not be routinely offered to patients with metastatic disease.”

SOURCE:

The work, led by Guillermo Villacampa of the SOLTI Breast Cancer Research Group in Barcelona, was published Sept. 12 in The Oncologist.

LIMITATIONS:

The five trials had various weaknesses, including imbalances in patient characteristics, protocol violations regarding planned and administered treatment, and missing information on associations between surgical margins and outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

There was no funding for the work. Investigators reported speaker fees, consultant fees, and/or research funding from various companies, including Merck, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Novartis.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Surgery of the primary tumor in patients with de novo metastatic breast cancer does not prolong overall survival, except potentially in younger, premenopausal patients. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Given conflicting results from prospective trials and improved outcomes reported in retrospective studies, removing the primary tumor in patients with metastatic breast cancer remains common practice but also “controversial,” the authors explained.
• To clarify whether to remove the primary tumor in metastatic breast cancer, investigators performed a meta-analysis of the five randomized clinical trials evaluating the issue.
• The five trials, published from 2015 to 2023, included 1,381 women with de novo metastatic breast cancer; half had their primary tumor removed, half did not.

TAKEAWAY:  

• The analysis revealed no overall survival benefit for patients who underwent surgical excision of their primary breast tumor (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-1.14).
• Surgery was not associated with an overall survival benefit in subgroup analyses by receptor status, pattern of metastasis (bone vs. viscera or oligometastatic vs nonoligometastatic disease), number of metastatic sites, or location of metastatic lesions.
• The one possible exception: Surgery did appear to improve overall survival in younger, premenopausal women (HR, 0.74; 95% CI 0.58-0.94), but “the lack of uniform definitions and inconsistent trial results suggest that this subgroup analysis should be viewed as exploratory and requiring further validation,” the authors said.
• Breast surgery was associated with improved local progression-free survival (HR, 0.37) but not distant progression-free survival or patient-reported quality of life. 

IN PRACTICE:

“We conclude that surgical excision of the primary tumor in case of de novo metastatic breast cancer is not associated with improved patient survival,” with a “potential exception” among younger patients, the authors said. “As such, besides the need to palliate local symptoms, surgery should not be routinely offered to patients with metastatic disease.”

SOURCE:

The work, led by Guillermo Villacampa of the SOLTI Breast Cancer Research Group in Barcelona, was published Sept. 12 in The Oncologist.

LIMITATIONS:

The five trials had various weaknesses, including imbalances in patient characteristics, protocol violations regarding planned and administered treatment, and missing information on associations between surgical margins and outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

There was no funding for the work. Investigators reported speaker fees, consultant fees, and/or research funding from various companies, including Merck, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Novartis.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – In a 10-year analysis, a landmark study of partial-breast and reduced-dose radiotherapy in early breast cancer continues to show that the treatments are noninferior to full-breast therapy despite reduced radiation exposure.

The follow-up analysis of the 2,016-subject IMPORT LOW study found that 10-year overall survival rates were 87.8% (95% confidence interval, 84.9-90.1) for a full-breast radiation group, 87.2% (95% CI, 84.3-89.6) for a reduced-dose group, and 90.3% (95% CI, 87.7-92.4) in a partial-breast group. Breast cancer radiotherapy specialist Anna Kirby, MB, MD (Res), MA, of the Royal Marsden and Institute of Cancer Research, London, reported the results at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

Ipsilateral breast tumor relapse was also similar in the three groups at the 10-year mark at 2.8% (95% CI, 1.8-4.5), 1.9% (95% CI, 1.1-3.4), and 2.8% (95% CI, 1.7-4.5), respectively. Moderate/marked adverse effects were deemed to be low.

Dr. Kirby said the new findings are not “practice-changing.” However, “this complementary data supporting the change in practice that happened in the UK and elsewhere following the publication back in 2017.”

The findings are “reassuring,” breast cancer radiology specialist Robert W. Mutter, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in an interview after reviewing the study findings. While the outcomes and adverse events are similar between the groups, “partial-breast irradiation is attractive because it exposes less normal tissue such as the heart and lungs than whole-breast irradiation. This could lead to fewer side effects for patients later in life at a population level. Partial-breast irradiation should be considered a standard of care in selected patients.”

In a presentation at ASTRO, Dr. Kirby provided background about the motivation for the study. It was clear that radiotherapy reduces local recurrence by up to two-thirds in early breast cancer, she said. “But in a population with excellent prognosis, this translates into relatively small absolute benefits from radiotherapy for many of our lower-risk patients,” she said. “All patients treated are at risk of radiotherapy side effects, and these become the main hazard for many women. Radiotherapy that’s focused on the part of the breast that contained the tumor – the so-called tumor bed – may reduce the long-term complications from radiotherapy, particularly in the breast, and potentially in the heart and lung, whilst hopefully maintaining low local recurrence rates.”

The initial 5-year study was a randomized, multicenter, phase III trial of patients ≥ age 50 in the United Kingdom who were tracked since recruitment in 2007-2010 (median age, 63). All had undergone breast conservation surgery. The patients were assigned to the control group (n = 674, 40 Gy), reduced-dose (n = 673, 40 Gy) and partial-breast (n = 669, 40 Gy to partial breast only) in 15 daily treatment fractions. The initial results, published in The Lancet, reported noninferiority for both reduced-dose and partial-breast radiotherapy. Adverse effects were similar in the three groups except for change in breast appearance, which was better in partial-breast therapy vs. whole-breast, and breast harder or firmer, which was better in both partial- and reduced-dose groups vs. whole-breast.

Dr. Mutter described the IMPORT LOW trial as “a practice-changing study.”

The trial was unique since both the whole-breast and partial-breast arms received the same dosing schedule, he said, which “enables an unbiased assessment of the impact of target volume on treatment outcomes.” This contrasts “with other partial-breast irradiation studies where a different dosing schedule was employed for whole-breast and partial-breast irradiation.”

The new analysis tracked patients for a median of 121 months. “There is no difference in local recurrence rate across the three arms,” Dr. Kirby said. There were no differences in overall survival, breast cancer or cardiac deaths, she added, and “neither was there any difference in the time to any moderate or marked clinician-assessed breast normal tissue endpoint.”

Heart and lung outcomes may improve over time in the lower-dose groups because of less radiation exposure, “but we haven’t shown that yet with this data set.”

Dr. Mutter cautioned that “the results of this trial may not necessarily be extrapolated to other partial-breast irradiation techniques that treat a much smaller volume of breast tissue such as intracavitary brachytherapy and intraoperative radiotherapy. Whether these same excellent outcomes can be achieved with smaller treatment volumes is an area for further investigation.”

Funding information was not provided; the initial study was funded by Cancer Research UK. Dr. Kirby discloses travel costs paid by European Society of Radiotherapy and Oncology, and other authors have various disclosures including relationships with companies such as Pfizer, Seagen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Bayer, and Janssen. Dr. Mutter has no disclosures.
 

SAN DIEGO – In a 10-year analysis, a landmark study of partial-breast and reduced-dose radiotherapy in early breast cancer continues to show that the treatments are noninferior to full-breast therapy despite reduced radiation exposure.

The follow-up analysis of the 2,016-subject IMPORT LOW study found that 10-year overall survival rates were 87.8% (95% confidence interval, 84.9-90.1) for a full-breast radiation group, 87.2% (95% CI, 84.3-89.6) for a reduced-dose group, and 90.3% (95% CI, 87.7-92.4) in a partial-breast group. Breast cancer radiotherapy specialist Anna Kirby, MB, MD (Res), MA, of the Royal Marsden and Institute of Cancer Research, London, reported the results at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

Ipsilateral breast tumor relapse was also similar in the three groups at the 10-year mark at 2.8% (95% CI, 1.8-4.5), 1.9% (95% CI, 1.1-3.4), and 2.8% (95% CI, 1.7-4.5), respectively. Moderate/marked adverse effects were deemed to be low.

Dr. Kirby said the new findings are not “practice-changing.” However, “this complementary data supporting the change in practice that happened in the UK and elsewhere following the publication back in 2017.”

The findings are “reassuring,” breast cancer radiology specialist Robert W. Mutter, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in an interview after reviewing the study findings. While the outcomes and adverse events are similar between the groups, “partial-breast irradiation is attractive because it exposes less normal tissue such as the heart and lungs than whole-breast irradiation. This could lead to fewer side effects for patients later in life at a population level. Partial-breast irradiation should be considered a standard of care in selected patients.”

In a presentation at ASTRO, Dr. Kirby provided background about the motivation for the study. It was clear that radiotherapy reduces local recurrence by up to two-thirds in early breast cancer, she said. “But in a population with excellent prognosis, this translates into relatively small absolute benefits from radiotherapy for many of our lower-risk patients,” she said. “All patients treated are at risk of radiotherapy side effects, and these become the main hazard for many women. Radiotherapy that’s focused on the part of the breast that contained the tumor – the so-called tumor bed – may reduce the long-term complications from radiotherapy, particularly in the breast, and potentially in the heart and lung, whilst hopefully maintaining low local recurrence rates.”

The initial 5-year study was a randomized, multicenter, phase III trial of patients ≥ age 50 in the United Kingdom who were tracked since recruitment in 2007-2010 (median age, 63). All had undergone breast conservation surgery. The patients were assigned to the control group (n = 674, 40 Gy), reduced-dose (n = 673, 40 Gy) and partial-breast (n = 669, 40 Gy to partial breast only) in 15 daily treatment fractions. The initial results, published in The Lancet, reported noninferiority for both reduced-dose and partial-breast radiotherapy. Adverse effects were similar in the three groups except for change in breast appearance, which was better in partial-breast therapy vs. whole-breast, and breast harder or firmer, which was better in both partial- and reduced-dose groups vs. whole-breast.

Dr. Mutter described the IMPORT LOW trial as “a practice-changing study.”

The trial was unique since both the whole-breast and partial-breast arms received the same dosing schedule, he said, which “enables an unbiased assessment of the impact of target volume on treatment outcomes.” This contrasts “with other partial-breast irradiation studies where a different dosing schedule was employed for whole-breast and partial-breast irradiation.”

The new analysis tracked patients for a median of 121 months. “There is no difference in local recurrence rate across the three arms,” Dr. Kirby said. There were no differences in overall survival, breast cancer or cardiac deaths, she added, and “neither was there any difference in the time to any moderate or marked clinician-assessed breast normal tissue endpoint.”

Heart and lung outcomes may improve over time in the lower-dose groups because of less radiation exposure, “but we haven’t shown that yet with this data set.”

Dr. Mutter cautioned that “the results of this trial may not necessarily be extrapolated to other partial-breast irradiation techniques that treat a much smaller volume of breast tissue such as intracavitary brachytherapy and intraoperative radiotherapy. Whether these same excellent outcomes can be achieved with smaller treatment volumes is an area for further investigation.”

Funding information was not provided; the initial study was funded by Cancer Research UK. Dr. Kirby discloses travel costs paid by European Society of Radiotherapy and Oncology, and other authors have various disclosures including relationships with companies such as Pfizer, Seagen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Bayer, and Janssen. Dr. Mutter has no disclosures.
 

SAN DIEGO – In a 10-year analysis, a landmark study of partial-breast and reduced-dose radiotherapy in early breast cancer continues to show that the treatments are noninferior to full-breast therapy despite reduced radiation exposure.

The follow-up analysis of the 2,016-subject IMPORT LOW study found that 10-year overall survival rates were 87.8% (95% confidence interval, 84.9-90.1) for a full-breast radiation group, 87.2% (95% CI, 84.3-89.6) for a reduced-dose group, and 90.3% (95% CI, 87.7-92.4) in a partial-breast group. Breast cancer radiotherapy specialist Anna Kirby, MB, MD (Res), MA, of the Royal Marsden and Institute of Cancer Research, London, reported the results at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

Ipsilateral breast tumor relapse was also similar in the three groups at the 10-year mark at 2.8% (95% CI, 1.8-4.5), 1.9% (95% CI, 1.1-3.4), and 2.8% (95% CI, 1.7-4.5), respectively. Moderate/marked adverse effects were deemed to be low.

Dr. Kirby said the new findings are not “practice-changing.” However, “this complementary data supporting the change in practice that happened in the UK and elsewhere following the publication back in 2017.”

The findings are “reassuring,” breast cancer radiology specialist Robert W. Mutter, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in an interview after reviewing the study findings. While the outcomes and adverse events are similar between the groups, “partial-breast irradiation is attractive because it exposes less normal tissue such as the heart and lungs than whole-breast irradiation. This could lead to fewer side effects for patients later in life at a population level. Partial-breast irradiation should be considered a standard of care in selected patients.”

In a presentation at ASTRO, Dr. Kirby provided background about the motivation for the study. It was clear that radiotherapy reduces local recurrence by up to two-thirds in early breast cancer, she said. “But in a population with excellent prognosis, this translates into relatively small absolute benefits from radiotherapy for many of our lower-risk patients,” she said. “All patients treated are at risk of radiotherapy side effects, and these become the main hazard for many women. Radiotherapy that’s focused on the part of the breast that contained the tumor – the so-called tumor bed – may reduce the long-term complications from radiotherapy, particularly in the breast, and potentially in the heart and lung, whilst hopefully maintaining low local recurrence rates.”

The initial 5-year study was a randomized, multicenter, phase III trial of patients ≥ age 50 in the United Kingdom who were tracked since recruitment in 2007-2010 (median age, 63). All had undergone breast conservation surgery. The patients were assigned to the control group (n = 674, 40 Gy), reduced-dose (n = 673, 40 Gy) and partial-breast (n = 669, 40 Gy to partial breast only) in 15 daily treatment fractions. The initial results, published in The Lancet, reported noninferiority for both reduced-dose and partial-breast radiotherapy. Adverse effects were similar in the three groups except for change in breast appearance, which was better in partial-breast therapy vs. whole-breast, and breast harder or firmer, which was better in both partial- and reduced-dose groups vs. whole-breast.

Dr. Mutter described the IMPORT LOW trial as “a practice-changing study.”

The trial was unique since both the whole-breast and partial-breast arms received the same dosing schedule, he said, which “enables an unbiased assessment of the impact of target volume on treatment outcomes.” This contrasts “with other partial-breast irradiation studies where a different dosing schedule was employed for whole-breast and partial-breast irradiation.”

The new analysis tracked patients for a median of 121 months. “There is no difference in local recurrence rate across the three arms,” Dr. Kirby said. There were no differences in overall survival, breast cancer or cardiac deaths, she added, and “neither was there any difference in the time to any moderate or marked clinician-assessed breast normal tissue endpoint.”

Heart and lung outcomes may improve over time in the lower-dose groups because of less radiation exposure, “but we haven’t shown that yet with this data set.”

Dr. Mutter cautioned that “the results of this trial may not necessarily be extrapolated to other partial-breast irradiation techniques that treat a much smaller volume of breast tissue such as intracavitary brachytherapy and intraoperative radiotherapy. Whether these same excellent outcomes can be achieved with smaller treatment volumes is an area for further investigation.”

Funding information was not provided; the initial study was funded by Cancer Research UK. Dr. Kirby discloses travel costs paid by European Society of Radiotherapy and Oncology, and other authors have various disclosures including relationships with companies such as Pfizer, Seagen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Bayer, and Janssen. Dr. Mutter has no disclosures.
 

SAN DIEGO – Patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC) had improved overall survival and progression-free survival when they received higher-dose thoracic radiotherapy instead of the standard treatment, according to a new multicenter, open-label, randomized phase III trial.

Among 224 patients in China, aged 18-70, those randomly assigned to receive volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy of high-dose, hypofractionated thoracic radiotherapy of 54 Gy in 30 fractions had a much higher median overall survival (62.4 months) than those who received the standard dose of 45 Gy in 30 fractions (43.1 months, P = .001), reported Jiayi Yu, PhD, of Beijing University Cancer Hospital and Institute and colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

Median progression-free survival was also higher in the 54 Gy group (30.5 months vs. 16.7 months in the 45 Gy group, P = .044).

Kristin Higgins, MD, of Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, provided perspective at the ASTRO session following Dr. Yu’s presentation. She noted that the study population is quite different than that of LS-SCLC patients in the United States, where patients are often older and more likely to have a history of smoking.

“We need more technical details to understand how to deliver this regimen in clinical practice, and it may not be applicable for all patients,” she said. Still, she added that “a key takeaway here is that optimizing the radiotherapy component of treatment is very important.”

Both groups received chemotherapy. “Higher-dose thoracic radiation therapy concurrently with chemotherapy is an alternative therapeutic option,” Dr. Yu said at an ASTRO presentation.

As Dr. Yu noted, twice-daily thoracic radiotherapy of 45 Gy in 30 fractions and concurrent chemotherapy has been the standard treatment for LS-SCLC for the last 20 years. Trials failed to show benefits for once-daily 66-Gy (33 fractions) or 70-Gy treatment (35 fractions), but a phase 2 trial published in 2023 did indicate that twice-daily treatment of 60 Gy (40 fractions) improved survival without boosting side effects.

For the new study, researchers tracked 224 patients from 2017 to 2021 who were previously untreated or had received specific chemotherapy treatments and had ECOG performance status scores of 0 or 1; 108 patients were randomly assigned to the 54-Gy arm and 116 to the 45-Gy arm. All were recruited at 16 public hospitals in China.

The median age in the two groups were 60 in the 54-Gy arm and 62 in the 45-Gy arm; the percentages of women were similar (45.4% and 45.7%, respectively). Most were current or former smokers (62.0% and 61.2%, respectively).

The researchers closed the trial in April 2021 because of the survival benefit in the 54-Gy arm, and patients were tracked through January 2023 for a median 45 months.

Nearly three-quarters of patients in the 54-Gy arm survived to 2 years (77.7%) vs. 53.4% in the 45-Gy arm, a 41% reduction in risk of death. Adverse events were similar between the groups, with 1 reported treatment-related death (myocardial infarction), in the 54-Gy group.

In an interview, Kenneth Rosenzweig, MD, chairman of the department of radiation oncology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, praised the study. It’s “no surprise” that higher radiation doses are well-tolerated since “our ability to shield normal tissue has improved” over the years, said Dr. Rosenzweig, who served as a moderator of the ASTRO session where the research was presented.

However, he cautioned that hypofractionation is still “intense” and may not be appropriate for certain patients. And he added that some clinics may not be set up to provide twice-daily treatments.

Information about study funding was not provided. The study authors have no disclosures. Dr. Higgins discloses relationships with AstraZeneca and Regeneron (advisory board), Jazz (funded research), and Janssen and Picture Health (consulting). Dr. Rosenzweig has no disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – Patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC) had improved overall survival and progression-free survival when they received higher-dose thoracic radiotherapy instead of the standard treatment, according to a new multicenter, open-label, randomized phase III trial.

Among 224 patients in China, aged 18-70, those randomly assigned to receive volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy of high-dose, hypofractionated thoracic radiotherapy of 54 Gy in 30 fractions had a much higher median overall survival (62.4 months) than those who received the standard dose of 45 Gy in 30 fractions (43.1 months, P = .001), reported Jiayi Yu, PhD, of Beijing University Cancer Hospital and Institute and colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

Median progression-free survival was also higher in the 54 Gy group (30.5 months vs. 16.7 months in the 45 Gy group, P = .044).

Kristin Higgins, MD, of Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, provided perspective at the ASTRO session following Dr. Yu’s presentation. She noted that the study population is quite different than that of LS-SCLC patients in the United States, where patients are often older and more likely to have a history of smoking.

“We need more technical details to understand how to deliver this regimen in clinical practice, and it may not be applicable for all patients,” she said. Still, she added that “a key takeaway here is that optimizing the radiotherapy component of treatment is very important.”

Both groups received chemotherapy. “Higher-dose thoracic radiation therapy concurrently with chemotherapy is an alternative therapeutic option,” Dr. Yu said at an ASTRO presentation.

As Dr. Yu noted, twice-daily thoracic radiotherapy of 45 Gy in 30 fractions and concurrent chemotherapy has been the standard treatment for LS-SCLC for the last 20 years. Trials failed to show benefits for once-daily 66-Gy (33 fractions) or 70-Gy treatment (35 fractions), but a phase 2 trial published in 2023 did indicate that twice-daily treatment of 60 Gy (40 fractions) improved survival without boosting side effects.

For the new study, researchers tracked 224 patients from 2017 to 2021 who were previously untreated or had received specific chemotherapy treatments and had ECOG performance status scores of 0 or 1; 108 patients were randomly assigned to the 54-Gy arm and 116 to the 45-Gy arm. All were recruited at 16 public hospitals in China.

The median age in the two groups were 60 in the 54-Gy arm and 62 in the 45-Gy arm; the percentages of women were similar (45.4% and 45.7%, respectively). Most were current or former smokers (62.0% and 61.2%, respectively).

The researchers closed the trial in April 2021 because of the survival benefit in the 54-Gy arm, and patients were tracked through January 2023 for a median 45 months.

Nearly three-quarters of patients in the 54-Gy arm survived to 2 years (77.7%) vs. 53.4% in the 45-Gy arm, a 41% reduction in risk of death. Adverse events were similar between the groups, with 1 reported treatment-related death (myocardial infarction), in the 54-Gy group.

In an interview, Kenneth Rosenzweig, MD, chairman of the department of radiation oncology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, praised the study. It’s “no surprise” that higher radiation doses are well-tolerated since “our ability to shield normal tissue has improved” over the years, said Dr. Rosenzweig, who served as a moderator of the ASTRO session where the research was presented.

However, he cautioned that hypofractionation is still “intense” and may not be appropriate for certain patients. And he added that some clinics may not be set up to provide twice-daily treatments.

Information about study funding was not provided. The study authors have no disclosures. Dr. Higgins discloses relationships with AstraZeneca and Regeneron (advisory board), Jazz (funded research), and Janssen and Picture Health (consulting). Dr. Rosenzweig has no disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – Patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC) had improved overall survival and progression-free survival when they received higher-dose thoracic radiotherapy instead of the standard treatment, according to a new multicenter, open-label, randomized phase III trial.

Among 224 patients in China, aged 18-70, those randomly assigned to receive volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy of high-dose, hypofractionated thoracic radiotherapy of 54 Gy in 30 fractions had a much higher median overall survival (62.4 months) than those who received the standard dose of 45 Gy in 30 fractions (43.1 months, P = .001), reported Jiayi Yu, PhD, of Beijing University Cancer Hospital and Institute and colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

Median progression-free survival was also higher in the 54 Gy group (30.5 months vs. 16.7 months in the 45 Gy group, P = .044).

Kristin Higgins, MD, of Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, provided perspective at the ASTRO session following Dr. Yu’s presentation. She noted that the study population is quite different than that of LS-SCLC patients in the United States, where patients are often older and more likely to have a history of smoking.

“We need more technical details to understand how to deliver this regimen in clinical practice, and it may not be applicable for all patients,” she said. Still, she added that “a key takeaway here is that optimizing the radiotherapy component of treatment is very important.”

Both groups received chemotherapy. “Higher-dose thoracic radiation therapy concurrently with chemotherapy is an alternative therapeutic option,” Dr. Yu said at an ASTRO presentation.

As Dr. Yu noted, twice-daily thoracic radiotherapy of 45 Gy in 30 fractions and concurrent chemotherapy has been the standard treatment for LS-SCLC for the last 20 years. Trials failed to show benefits for once-daily 66-Gy (33 fractions) or 70-Gy treatment (35 fractions), but a phase 2 trial published in 2023 did indicate that twice-daily treatment of 60 Gy (40 fractions) improved survival without boosting side effects.

For the new study, researchers tracked 224 patients from 2017 to 2021 who were previously untreated or had received specific chemotherapy treatments and had ECOG performance status scores of 0 or 1; 108 patients were randomly assigned to the 54-Gy arm and 116 to the 45-Gy arm. All were recruited at 16 public hospitals in China.

The median age in the two groups were 60 in the 54-Gy arm and 62 in the 45-Gy arm; the percentages of women were similar (45.4% and 45.7%, respectively). Most were current or former smokers (62.0% and 61.2%, respectively).

The researchers closed the trial in April 2021 because of the survival benefit in the 54-Gy arm, and patients were tracked through January 2023 for a median 45 months.

Nearly three-quarters of patients in the 54-Gy arm survived to 2 years (77.7%) vs. 53.4% in the 45-Gy arm, a 41% reduction in risk of death. Adverse events were similar between the groups, with 1 reported treatment-related death (myocardial infarction), in the 54-Gy group.

In an interview, Kenneth Rosenzweig, MD, chairman of the department of radiation oncology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, praised the study. It’s “no surprise” that higher radiation doses are well-tolerated since “our ability to shield normal tissue has improved” over the years, said Dr. Rosenzweig, who served as a moderator of the ASTRO session where the research was presented.

However, he cautioned that hypofractionation is still “intense” and may not be appropriate for certain patients. And he added that some clinics may not be set up to provide twice-daily treatments.

Information about study funding was not provided. The study authors have no disclosures. Dr. Higgins discloses relationships with AstraZeneca and Regeneron (advisory board), Jazz (funded research), and Janssen and Picture Health (consulting). Dr. Rosenzweig has no disclosures.

When planning for palliative radiotherapy, clinicians can forgo an additional CT scan on the same day as treatment and instead use a recent diagnostic CT scan, according to a results from a randomized trial presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

The aim of this same-day CT scan, called a CT simulation scan, is to optimize radiation targeting by mimicking the conditions under which radiation is delivered using the latest information on the size and location of lesions.

But investigators reported that skipping the CT simulation scan saves patients hours in the clinic, allows patients to experience pain relief faster, and saves radiation oncologists time without compromising dosimetric coverage of cancerous lesions.

“This is huge in a symptomatic patient population,” said Melissa O’Neil, an advanced practice radiation therapist at the London, Ont., Health Sciences Centre and the lead investigator on the trial, dubbed DART (Diagnostic CT-Enabled Radiation Therapy).

“Diagnostic CT-based radiation planning substantially reduces time in the [treatment] center without a detriment in plan deliverability or quality,” Ms. O’Neil said.

In addition, patients are exposed to less radiation, and staff doesn’t have to spend as much time tending to symptomatic patients before treatment. Omitting this scan “should be considered for patients with a recent diagnostic CT scan who are undergoing simple palliative radiation,” Ms. O’Neil said.

CT simulation scans are standard of care in cases involving palliative radiation, but they create bottlenecks in the workflow. When a CT simulation is performed on the day of treatment, patients must wait hours as the results are translated into a treatment plan.

In the DART analysis, 33 patients with 42 treatment sites were randomly assigned to CT simulation planning or diagnostic CT planning.

Patients received up to 30 Gy in up to 10 fractions for bone or soft tissue metastases or primary tumor targets in the thorax, abdomen, pelvis, or proximal limbs. Single-fraction treatments were most common.

Three-quarters of the patients were men (median age, 72 years). Lung cancer was the most common type of primary tumor, followed by prostate and breast cancer.

The eight participants for whom the CT simulation approach was used waited 3-4 hours for treatment planning and overall spent a median of 4.8 hours in the cancer center on their day of treatment.

The 25 patients for whom diagnostic CT planning was used spent a median of 0.4 hours, or about 24 minutes, in the center on their day of treatment because radiation plans were completed before they arrived. The median time between their diagnostic CTs and radiation treatment was 13 days (range, 8-22 days).

Ms. O’Neil and her team found that if the original diagnostic CT was performed within 28 days, lesion anatomy would not have changed enough to warrant a new scan.

On the day of treatment, the study team used surface-guided radiation therapy techniques to ensure patients in the diagnostic CT planning group were positioned within 3 mm of where they were during their diagnostic scans, an essential step to ensure that radiation is delivered to the correct location. Ms. O’Neil noted that other investigators have used anatomic landmarks, a simpler approach, to achieve these results.

Overall, radiation oncologists rated radiation dose distribution as “acceptable” in about 80% of cases in both arms of DART and “acceptable with minor deviation” in the remaining 20% of cases.

Every radiation oncologist and medical physicists in the trial gave the workflow with diagnostic CT planning a 5 out of 5 rating for acceptability, and 90% of patients in this group rated the amount of time they spent for treatment as “acceptable.”

In contrast, only half of patients in the simulation arm said the amount of time spent was acceptable.

These findings align with several previous studies that support the diagnostic approach.

Jacob Scott, MD, a radiation oncologist at the Cleveland Clinic, said, “The comparable results using a recent diagnostic CT in place of a CT simulation for palliative radiation is an exciting step forward in radiation oncology. We may soon be in a world where we no longer need simulations.”

Dr. Scott also noted that combining diagnostic scans with cone beam or surface-guided positioning in lieu of CT simulations could further save “the health system and patients time and money.”

No external funding for the study was reported. The investigators, Ms. O’Neil, and Dr. Scott have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One investigator reported receiving honoraria from Knight Therapeutics, AbbVie, Tersera, and Eisai and owns stock in Myovant.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When planning for palliative radiotherapy, clinicians can forgo an additional CT scan on the same day as treatment and instead use a recent diagnostic CT scan, according to a results from a randomized trial presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

The aim of this same-day CT scan, called a CT simulation scan, is to optimize radiation targeting by mimicking the conditions under which radiation is delivered using the latest information on the size and location of lesions.

But investigators reported that skipping the CT simulation scan saves patients hours in the clinic, allows patients to experience pain relief faster, and saves radiation oncologists time without compromising dosimetric coverage of cancerous lesions.

“This is huge in a symptomatic patient population,” said Melissa O’Neil, an advanced practice radiation therapist at the London, Ont., Health Sciences Centre and the lead investigator on the trial, dubbed DART (Diagnostic CT-Enabled Radiation Therapy).

“Diagnostic CT-based radiation planning substantially reduces time in the [treatment] center without a detriment in plan deliverability or quality,” Ms. O’Neil said.

In addition, patients are exposed to less radiation, and staff doesn’t have to spend as much time tending to symptomatic patients before treatment. Omitting this scan “should be considered for patients with a recent diagnostic CT scan who are undergoing simple palliative radiation,” Ms. O’Neil said.

CT simulation scans are standard of care in cases involving palliative radiation, but they create bottlenecks in the workflow. When a CT simulation is performed on the day of treatment, patients must wait hours as the results are translated into a treatment plan.

In the DART analysis, 33 patients with 42 treatment sites were randomly assigned to CT simulation planning or diagnostic CT planning.

Patients received up to 30 Gy in up to 10 fractions for bone or soft tissue metastases or primary tumor targets in the thorax, abdomen, pelvis, or proximal limbs. Single-fraction treatments were most common.

Three-quarters of the patients were men (median age, 72 years). Lung cancer was the most common type of primary tumor, followed by prostate and breast cancer.

The eight participants for whom the CT simulation approach was used waited 3-4 hours for treatment planning and overall spent a median of 4.8 hours in the cancer center on their day of treatment.

The 25 patients for whom diagnostic CT planning was used spent a median of 0.4 hours, or about 24 minutes, in the center on their day of treatment because radiation plans were completed before they arrived. The median time between their diagnostic CTs and radiation treatment was 13 days (range, 8-22 days).

Ms. O’Neil and her team found that if the original diagnostic CT was performed within 28 days, lesion anatomy would not have changed enough to warrant a new scan.

On the day of treatment, the study team used surface-guided radiation therapy techniques to ensure patients in the diagnostic CT planning group were positioned within 3 mm of where they were during their diagnostic scans, an essential step to ensure that radiation is delivered to the correct location. Ms. O’Neil noted that other investigators have used anatomic landmarks, a simpler approach, to achieve these results.

Overall, radiation oncologists rated radiation dose distribution as “acceptable” in about 80% of cases in both arms of DART and “acceptable with minor deviation” in the remaining 20% of cases.

Every radiation oncologist and medical physicists in the trial gave the workflow with diagnostic CT planning a 5 out of 5 rating for acceptability, and 90% of patients in this group rated the amount of time they spent for treatment as “acceptable.”

In contrast, only half of patients in the simulation arm said the amount of time spent was acceptable.

These findings align with several previous studies that support the diagnostic approach.

Jacob Scott, MD, a radiation oncologist at the Cleveland Clinic, said, “The comparable results using a recent diagnostic CT in place of a CT simulation for palliative radiation is an exciting step forward in radiation oncology. We may soon be in a world where we no longer need simulations.”

Dr. Scott also noted that combining diagnostic scans with cone beam or surface-guided positioning in lieu of CT simulations could further save “the health system and patients time and money.”

No external funding for the study was reported. The investigators, Ms. O’Neil, and Dr. Scott have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One investigator reported receiving honoraria from Knight Therapeutics, AbbVie, Tersera, and Eisai and owns stock in Myovant.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When planning for palliative radiotherapy, clinicians can forgo an additional CT scan on the same day as treatment and instead use a recent diagnostic CT scan, according to a results from a randomized trial presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

The aim of this same-day CT scan, called a CT simulation scan, is to optimize radiation targeting by mimicking the conditions under which radiation is delivered using the latest information on the size and location of lesions.

But investigators reported that skipping the CT simulation scan saves patients hours in the clinic, allows patients to experience pain relief faster, and saves radiation oncologists time without compromising dosimetric coverage of cancerous lesions.

“This is huge in a symptomatic patient population,” said Melissa O’Neil, an advanced practice radiation therapist at the London, Ont., Health Sciences Centre and the lead investigator on the trial, dubbed DART (Diagnostic CT-Enabled Radiation Therapy).

“Diagnostic CT-based radiation planning substantially reduces time in the [treatment] center without a detriment in plan deliverability or quality,” Ms. O’Neil said.

In addition, patients are exposed to less radiation, and staff doesn’t have to spend as much time tending to symptomatic patients before treatment. Omitting this scan “should be considered for patients with a recent diagnostic CT scan who are undergoing simple palliative radiation,” Ms. O’Neil said.

CT simulation scans are standard of care in cases involving palliative radiation, but they create bottlenecks in the workflow. When a CT simulation is performed on the day of treatment, patients must wait hours as the results are translated into a treatment plan.

In the DART analysis, 33 patients with 42 treatment sites were randomly assigned to CT simulation planning or diagnostic CT planning.

Patients received up to 30 Gy in up to 10 fractions for bone or soft tissue metastases or primary tumor targets in the thorax, abdomen, pelvis, or proximal limbs. Single-fraction treatments were most common.

Three-quarters of the patients were men (median age, 72 years). Lung cancer was the most common type of primary tumor, followed by prostate and breast cancer.

The eight participants for whom the CT simulation approach was used waited 3-4 hours for treatment planning and overall spent a median of 4.8 hours in the cancer center on their day of treatment.

The 25 patients for whom diagnostic CT planning was used spent a median of 0.4 hours, or about 24 minutes, in the center on their day of treatment because radiation plans were completed before they arrived. The median time between their diagnostic CTs and radiation treatment was 13 days (range, 8-22 days).

Ms. O’Neil and her team found that if the original diagnostic CT was performed within 28 days, lesion anatomy would not have changed enough to warrant a new scan.

On the day of treatment, the study team used surface-guided radiation therapy techniques to ensure patients in the diagnostic CT planning group were positioned within 3 mm of where they were during their diagnostic scans, an essential step to ensure that radiation is delivered to the correct location. Ms. O’Neil noted that other investigators have used anatomic landmarks, a simpler approach, to achieve these results.

Overall, radiation oncologists rated radiation dose distribution as “acceptable” in about 80% of cases in both arms of DART and “acceptable with minor deviation” in the remaining 20% of cases.

Every radiation oncologist and medical physicists in the trial gave the workflow with diagnostic CT planning a 5 out of 5 rating for acceptability, and 90% of patients in this group rated the amount of time they spent for treatment as “acceptable.”

In contrast, only half of patients in the simulation arm said the amount of time spent was acceptable.

These findings align with several previous studies that support the diagnostic approach.

Jacob Scott, MD, a radiation oncologist at the Cleveland Clinic, said, “The comparable results using a recent diagnostic CT in place of a CT simulation for palliative radiation is an exciting step forward in radiation oncology. We may soon be in a world where we no longer need simulations.”

Dr. Scott also noted that combining diagnostic scans with cone beam or surface-guided positioning in lieu of CT simulations could further save “the health system and patients time and money.”

No external funding for the study was reported. The investigators, Ms. O’Neil, and Dr. Scott have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One investigator reported receiving honoraria from Knight Therapeutics, AbbVie, Tersera, and Eisai and owns stock in Myovant.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For patients with up to 10 brain metastases from small cell lung cancer (SCLC), stereotactic radiosurgery was associated with less cognitive impairment than whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) without compromising overall survival, results of the randomized ENCEPHALON (ARO 2018-9) trial suggest.

Among 56 patients with one to 10 SCLC brain metastases, 24% of those who received WBRT demonstrated significant declines in memory function 3 months after treatment, compared with 7% of patients whose metastases were treated with stereotactic radiosurgery alone. Preliminary data showed no significant differences in overall survival between the treatment groups at 6 months of follow-up, Denise Bernhardt, MD, from the Technical University of Munich, reported at the American Society of Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) annual meeting.

“We propose stereotactic radiosurgery should be an option for patients with up to 10 brain metastases in small cell lung cancer,” Dr. Bernhardt said during her presentation.

Vinai Gondi, MD, who was not involved in the study, said that the primary results from the trial – while limited by the study’s small size and missing data – are notable.

Patients with brain metastases from most cancer types typically receive stereotactic radiosurgery but WBRT has remained the standard of care to control brain metastases among patients with SCLC.

“This is the first prospective trial of radiosurgery versus whole-brain radiotherapy for small cell lung cancer brain metastases, and it’s important to recognize how important this is,” said Dr. Gondi, director of Radiation Oncology and codirector of the Brain Tumor Center at Northwestern Medicine Cancer Center, Warrenville, Ill.

Prior trials that have asked the same question did not include SCLC because many of those patients received prophylactic cranial irradiation, Dr. Gondi explained. Prophylactic cranial irradiation, however, has been on the decline among patients with brain metastases from SCLC, following a study from Japan showing no difference in survival among those who received the therapy and those followed with observation as well as evidence demonstrating significant toxicities associated with the technique.

Now “with the declining use of prophylactic cranial irradiation, the emergence of brain metastases is increasing significantly in volume in the small cell lung cancer population,” said Dr. Gondi, who is principal investigator on a phase 3 trial exploring stereotactic radiosurgery versus WBRT in a similar patient population.

In a previous retrospective trial), Dr. Bernhardt and colleagues found that first-line stereotactic radiosurgery did not compromise survival, compared with WBRT, but patients receiving stereotactic radiosurgery did have a higher risk for intracranial failure.

In the current study, the investigators compared the neurocognitive responses in patients with brain metastases from SCLC treated with stereotactic radiosurgery or WBRT.

Enrolled patients had histologically confirmed extensive disease with up to 10 metastatic brain lesions and had not previously received either therapeutic or prophylactic brain irradiation. After stratifying patients by synchronous versus metachronous disease, 56 patients were randomly assigned to either WBRT, at a total dose of 30 Gy delivered in 10 fractions, or to stereotactic radiosurgery with 20 Gy, 18 Gy, or fractionated stereotactic radiosurgery with 30 Gy in 5 Gy fractions for lesions larger than 3 cm.

The primary endpoint was neurocognition after radiation therapy as defined by a decline from baseline of at least five points on the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised (HVLT-R) total recall subscale at 3 months. Secondary endpoints included survival outcomes, additional neurocognitive assessments of motor skills, executive function, attention, memory, and processing as well as quality-of-life measures.

The investigators expected a high rate of study dropout and planned their statistical analysis accordingly, using a method for estimating the likely values of missing data based on observed data.

Among 26 patients who eventually underwent stereotactic radiosurgery, 18 did not meet the primary endpoint and 2 (7%) demonstrated declines on the HVLT-R subscale of 5 or more points. Data for the remaining 6 patients were missing.

Among the 25 who underwent WBRT, 13 did not meet the primary endpoint and 6 (24%) demonstrated declines of at least 5 points. Data for 6 of the remaining patients were missing.

Although more patients in the WBRT arm had significant declines in neurocognitive function, the difference between the groups was not significant, due to the high proportion of study dropouts – approximately one-fourth of patients in each arm. But the analysis suggested that the neuroprotective effect of stereotactic radiosurgery was notable, Dr. Bernhardt said.

At 6 months, the team also found no significant difference in the survival probability between the treatment groups (P = .36). The median time to death was 124 days among patients who received stereotactic radiosurgery and 131 days among patients who received WBRT. 

Dr. Gondi said the data from ENCEPHALON, while promising, need to be carefully scrutinized because of the small sample sizes and the possibility for unintended bias.

ARO 2018-9 is an investigator-initiated trial funded by Accuray. Dr. Bernhardt disclosed consulting actives, fees, travel expenses, and research funding from Accuray and others. Dr. Gondi disclosed honoraria from UpToDate.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For patients with up to 10 brain metastases from small cell lung cancer (SCLC), stereotactic radiosurgery was associated with less cognitive impairment than whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) without compromising overall survival, results of the randomized ENCEPHALON (ARO 2018-9) trial suggest.

Among 56 patients with one to 10 SCLC brain metastases, 24% of those who received WBRT demonstrated significant declines in memory function 3 months after treatment, compared with 7% of patients whose metastases were treated with stereotactic radiosurgery alone. Preliminary data showed no significant differences in overall survival between the treatment groups at 6 months of follow-up, Denise Bernhardt, MD, from the Technical University of Munich, reported at the American Society of Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) annual meeting.

“We propose stereotactic radiosurgery should be an option for patients with up to 10 brain metastases in small cell lung cancer,” Dr. Bernhardt said during her presentation.

Vinai Gondi, MD, who was not involved in the study, said that the primary results from the trial – while limited by the study’s small size and missing data – are notable.

Patients with brain metastases from most cancer types typically receive stereotactic radiosurgery but WBRT has remained the standard of care to control brain metastases among patients with SCLC.

“This is the first prospective trial of radiosurgery versus whole-brain radiotherapy for small cell lung cancer brain metastases, and it’s important to recognize how important this is,” said Dr. Gondi, director of Radiation Oncology and codirector of the Brain Tumor Center at Northwestern Medicine Cancer Center, Warrenville, Ill.

Prior trials that have asked the same question did not include SCLC because many of those patients received prophylactic cranial irradiation, Dr. Gondi explained. Prophylactic cranial irradiation, however, has been on the decline among patients with brain metastases from SCLC, following a study from Japan showing no difference in survival among those who received the therapy and those followed with observation as well as evidence demonstrating significant toxicities associated with the technique.

Now “with the declining use of prophylactic cranial irradiation, the emergence of brain metastases is increasing significantly in volume in the small cell lung cancer population,” said Dr. Gondi, who is principal investigator on a phase 3 trial exploring stereotactic radiosurgery versus WBRT in a similar patient population.

In a previous retrospective trial), Dr. Bernhardt and colleagues found that first-line stereotactic radiosurgery did not compromise survival, compared with WBRT, but patients receiving stereotactic radiosurgery did have a higher risk for intracranial failure.

In the current study, the investigators compared the neurocognitive responses in patients with brain metastases from SCLC treated with stereotactic radiosurgery or WBRT.

Enrolled patients had histologically confirmed extensive disease with up to 10 metastatic brain lesions and had not previously received either therapeutic or prophylactic brain irradiation. After stratifying patients by synchronous versus metachronous disease, 56 patients were randomly assigned to either WBRT, at a total dose of 30 Gy delivered in 10 fractions, or to stereotactic radiosurgery with 20 Gy, 18 Gy, or fractionated stereotactic radiosurgery with 30 Gy in 5 Gy fractions for lesions larger than 3 cm.

The primary endpoint was neurocognition after radiation therapy as defined by a decline from baseline of at least five points on the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised (HVLT-R) total recall subscale at 3 months. Secondary endpoints included survival outcomes, additional neurocognitive assessments of motor skills, executive function, attention, memory, and processing as well as quality-of-life measures.

The investigators expected a high rate of study dropout and planned their statistical analysis accordingly, using a method for estimating the likely values of missing data based on observed data.

Among 26 patients who eventually underwent stereotactic radiosurgery, 18 did not meet the primary endpoint and 2 (7%) demonstrated declines on the HVLT-R subscale of 5 or more points. Data for the remaining 6 patients were missing.

Among the 25 who underwent WBRT, 13 did not meet the primary endpoint and 6 (24%) demonstrated declines of at least 5 points. Data for 6 of the remaining patients were missing.

Although more patients in the WBRT arm had significant declines in neurocognitive function, the difference between the groups was not significant, due to the high proportion of study dropouts – approximately one-fourth of patients in each arm. But the analysis suggested that the neuroprotective effect of stereotactic radiosurgery was notable, Dr. Bernhardt said.

At 6 months, the team also found no significant difference in the survival probability between the treatment groups (P = .36). The median time to death was 124 days among patients who received stereotactic radiosurgery and 131 days among patients who received WBRT. 

Dr. Gondi said the data from ENCEPHALON, while promising, need to be carefully scrutinized because of the small sample sizes and the possibility for unintended bias.

ARO 2018-9 is an investigator-initiated trial funded by Accuray. Dr. Bernhardt disclosed consulting actives, fees, travel expenses, and research funding from Accuray and others. Dr. Gondi disclosed honoraria from UpToDate.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For patients with up to 10 brain metastases from small cell lung cancer (SCLC), stereotactic radiosurgery was associated with less cognitive impairment than whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) without compromising overall survival, results of the randomized ENCEPHALON (ARO 2018-9) trial suggest.

Among 56 patients with one to 10 SCLC brain metastases, 24% of those who received WBRT demonstrated significant declines in memory function 3 months after treatment, compared with 7% of patients whose metastases were treated with stereotactic radiosurgery alone. Preliminary data showed no significant differences in overall survival between the treatment groups at 6 months of follow-up, Denise Bernhardt, MD, from the Technical University of Munich, reported at the American Society of Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) annual meeting.

“We propose stereotactic radiosurgery should be an option for patients with up to 10 brain metastases in small cell lung cancer,” Dr. Bernhardt said during her presentation.

Vinai Gondi, MD, who was not involved in the study, said that the primary results from the trial – while limited by the study’s small size and missing data – are notable.

Patients with brain metastases from most cancer types typically receive stereotactic radiosurgery but WBRT has remained the standard of care to control brain metastases among patients with SCLC.

“This is the first prospective trial of radiosurgery versus whole-brain radiotherapy for small cell lung cancer brain metastases, and it’s important to recognize how important this is,” said Dr. Gondi, director of Radiation Oncology and codirector of the Brain Tumor Center at Northwestern Medicine Cancer Center, Warrenville, Ill.

Prior trials that have asked the same question did not include SCLC because many of those patients received prophylactic cranial irradiation, Dr. Gondi explained. Prophylactic cranial irradiation, however, has been on the decline among patients with brain metastases from SCLC, following a study from Japan showing no difference in survival among those who received the therapy and those followed with observation as well as evidence demonstrating significant toxicities associated with the technique.

Now “with the declining use of prophylactic cranial irradiation, the emergence of brain metastases is increasing significantly in volume in the small cell lung cancer population,” said Dr. Gondi, who is principal investigator on a phase 3 trial exploring stereotactic radiosurgery versus WBRT in a similar patient population.

In a previous retrospective trial), Dr. Bernhardt and colleagues found that first-line stereotactic radiosurgery did not compromise survival, compared with WBRT, but patients receiving stereotactic radiosurgery did have a higher risk for intracranial failure.

In the current study, the investigators compared the neurocognitive responses in patients with brain metastases from SCLC treated with stereotactic radiosurgery or WBRT.

Enrolled patients had histologically confirmed extensive disease with up to 10 metastatic brain lesions and had not previously received either therapeutic or prophylactic brain irradiation. After stratifying patients by synchronous versus metachronous disease, 56 patients were randomly assigned to either WBRT, at a total dose of 30 Gy delivered in 10 fractions, or to stereotactic radiosurgery with 20 Gy, 18 Gy, or fractionated stereotactic radiosurgery with 30 Gy in 5 Gy fractions for lesions larger than 3 cm.

The primary endpoint was neurocognition after radiation therapy as defined by a decline from baseline of at least five points on the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised (HVLT-R) total recall subscale at 3 months. Secondary endpoints included survival outcomes, additional neurocognitive assessments of motor skills, executive function, attention, memory, and processing as well as quality-of-life measures.

The investigators expected a high rate of study dropout and planned their statistical analysis accordingly, using a method for estimating the likely values of missing data based on observed data.

Among 26 patients who eventually underwent stereotactic radiosurgery, 18 did not meet the primary endpoint and 2 (7%) demonstrated declines on the HVLT-R subscale of 5 or more points. Data for the remaining 6 patients were missing.

Among the 25 who underwent WBRT, 13 did not meet the primary endpoint and 6 (24%) demonstrated declines of at least 5 points. Data for 6 of the remaining patients were missing.

Although more patients in the WBRT arm had significant declines in neurocognitive function, the difference between the groups was not significant, due to the high proportion of study dropouts – approximately one-fourth of patients in each arm. But the analysis suggested that the neuroprotective effect of stereotactic radiosurgery was notable, Dr. Bernhardt said.

At 6 months, the team also found no significant difference in the survival probability between the treatment groups (P = .36). The median time to death was 124 days among patients who received stereotactic radiosurgery and 131 days among patients who received WBRT. 

Dr. Gondi said the data from ENCEPHALON, while promising, need to be carefully scrutinized because of the small sample sizes and the possibility for unintended bias.

ARO 2018-9 is an investigator-initiated trial funded by Accuray. Dr. Bernhardt disclosed consulting actives, fees, travel expenses, and research funding from Accuray and others. Dr. Gondi disclosed honoraria from UpToDate.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – With just five fractions of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), men with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer can have 5-year disease control as good as that provided by conventional external-beam radiation therapy delivered at higher doses in 20-39 fractions, according to new data from the phase 3 randomized PACE-B trial.

Overall, the 5-year event-free survival rates were 95.8% among patients who received SBRT and 94.6% among those who had conventional radiation. The incidence of adverse events was also low in both groups, with no significant differences observed between the trial arms.

The similar event-free survival and toxicity profiles in both groups provide more support for SBRT, which treats prostate cancer with larger radiation fractions over a shorter time period.

“I think we can also say now with a high level of confidence that SBRT can be considered a new standard of care for low and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer,” said Nicholas van As, MD, MB, from the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Cancer Research in London, who presented efficacy and safety results from the noninferiority trial at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) annual meeting. SBRT is more convenient for patients and more cost-effective for health care providers, Dr. Van As added.

Invited discussant Alejandro Berlin, MD, MSc, from Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, agreed “that this should be a standard of care for low and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer,” an option already endorsed by relevant guidelines.

But, Dr. Berlin noted, SBRT requires careful attention to technique to achieve the desired results. Further research will be needed to identify and potentially reduce variability among radiation oncology practice regarding margins, dosimetry goals, dose heterogeneity, treatment schedules, and other factors, he said.
 

An international trial

PACE-B is one of three branches of a multi-center collaboration among 37 radiation therapy centers in the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Canada.

In the trial, investigators enrolled 874 patients with T1c or T2c prostate cancer, Gleason score of 3+4 or less, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level no higher than 20 ng/mL, MRI staging, and no prior androgen deprivation therapy. Investigators then randomly assigned them on a 1:1 basis to receive either conventional radiation (n = 441) or SBRT (n = 433).

At the start of the trial, patients who were assigned to the conventional radiation group received 78 Gy in 39 fractions over 4-8 weeks. However, after results from the CHHiP trial, which showed that a 60-Gy, 20-fraction regimen was not inferior to a 74-Gy, 37-fraction regimen, the PACE-B investigators modified the protocol to 62 Gy delivered in 20 fractions.

Patients assigned to SBRT received 36.25 Gy divided into give fractions delivered over 1-2 weeks, with 40 Gy to the clinical target volume.

The primary outcome was noninferiority of SBRT, measured as whether patients remained free of biochemical clinical failure. Biochemical clinical failure was defined as evidence that the cancer was returning, such as an increase in PSA levels or distant metastases or death from prostate cancer.

At a median follow-up of 73.1 months, 5-year event-free survival rates were 94.6% for patients who received conventional radiation therapy and 95.8% for patients who received SBRT, meeting the prespecified criteria for noninferiority of SBRT (P = .007).

Freedom from biochemical and clinical failure, the trial’s primary endpoint, “was significantly better on both arms than our original power calculation, where we expected control rates of approximately 85%,” Dr. Van As said in an ASTRO plenary session.

Toxicity rates were also low in both study arms. The rate of grade 2 or greater urogenital side effects at 5 years was 5.5% in the SBRT arm and 3.2% in the conventional therapy arm. Grade 2 or greater gastrointestinal side effects occurred in only two patients, one in each study arm.

Given the findings, “I think it’s now imperative that our surgeons discuss this data with their patients before they perform prostatectomies,” Dr. Van As said.

Neha Vapiwala, MD, president-elect of ASTRO who moderated a media briefing where Dr. Van As summarized the PACE-B data, commented that “this study was conducted very rigorously, with excellent quality assurance.”

The study also highlights that clinicians in the United States have considerable catching up to do, said Dr. Vapiwala, from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

In the United States, “we are way behind our colleagues on the other side of the pond,” she said. “We are way behind in our uptake of ultra-hypofractionated radiation [such as SBRT], and I do believe that some of that comes from the lack of feeling comfortable with the techniques that are needed and the expertise that is needed.”

PACE-B was funded by Accuray. Dr. Van As disclosed research grants from the company and consulting fees from Varian. Dr. Berlin reported no conflict of interest relevant to the study. Dr. Vapiwala has disclosed a consulting or advisory role with Bayer.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – With just five fractions of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), men with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer can have 5-year disease control as good as that provided by conventional external-beam radiation therapy delivered at higher doses in 20-39 fractions, according to new data from the phase 3 randomized PACE-B trial.

Overall, the 5-year event-free survival rates were 95.8% among patients who received SBRT and 94.6% among those who had conventional radiation. The incidence of adverse events was also low in both groups, with no significant differences observed between the trial arms.

The similar event-free survival and toxicity profiles in both groups provide more support for SBRT, which treats prostate cancer with larger radiation fractions over a shorter time period.

“I think we can also say now with a high level of confidence that SBRT can be considered a new standard of care for low and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer,” said Nicholas van As, MD, MB, from the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Cancer Research in London, who presented efficacy and safety results from the noninferiority trial at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) annual meeting. SBRT is more convenient for patients and more cost-effective for health care providers, Dr. Van As added.

Invited discussant Alejandro Berlin, MD, MSc, from Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, agreed “that this should be a standard of care for low and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer,” an option already endorsed by relevant guidelines.

But, Dr. Berlin noted, SBRT requires careful attention to technique to achieve the desired results. Further research will be needed to identify and potentially reduce variability among radiation oncology practice regarding margins, dosimetry goals, dose heterogeneity, treatment schedules, and other factors, he said.
 

An international trial

PACE-B is one of three branches of a multi-center collaboration among 37 radiation therapy centers in the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Canada.

In the trial, investigators enrolled 874 patients with T1c or T2c prostate cancer, Gleason score of 3+4 or less, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level no higher than 20 ng/mL, MRI staging, and no prior androgen deprivation therapy. Investigators then randomly assigned them on a 1:1 basis to receive either conventional radiation (n = 441) or SBRT (n = 433).

At the start of the trial, patients who were assigned to the conventional radiation group received 78 Gy in 39 fractions over 4-8 weeks. However, after results from the CHHiP trial, which showed that a 60-Gy, 20-fraction regimen was not inferior to a 74-Gy, 37-fraction regimen, the PACE-B investigators modified the protocol to 62 Gy delivered in 20 fractions.

Patients assigned to SBRT received 36.25 Gy divided into give fractions delivered over 1-2 weeks, with 40 Gy to the clinical target volume.

The primary outcome was noninferiority of SBRT, measured as whether patients remained free of biochemical clinical failure. Biochemical clinical failure was defined as evidence that the cancer was returning, such as an increase in PSA levels or distant metastases or death from prostate cancer.

At a median follow-up of 73.1 months, 5-year event-free survival rates were 94.6% for patients who received conventional radiation therapy and 95.8% for patients who received SBRT, meeting the prespecified criteria for noninferiority of SBRT (P = .007).

Freedom from biochemical and clinical failure, the trial’s primary endpoint, “was significantly better on both arms than our original power calculation, where we expected control rates of approximately 85%,” Dr. Van As said in an ASTRO plenary session.

Toxicity rates were also low in both study arms. The rate of grade 2 or greater urogenital side effects at 5 years was 5.5% in the SBRT arm and 3.2% in the conventional therapy arm. Grade 2 or greater gastrointestinal side effects occurred in only two patients, one in each study arm.

Given the findings, “I think it’s now imperative that our surgeons discuss this data with their patients before they perform prostatectomies,” Dr. Van As said.

Neha Vapiwala, MD, president-elect of ASTRO who moderated a media briefing where Dr. Van As summarized the PACE-B data, commented that “this study was conducted very rigorously, with excellent quality assurance.”

The study also highlights that clinicians in the United States have considerable catching up to do, said Dr. Vapiwala, from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

In the United States, “we are way behind our colleagues on the other side of the pond,” she said. “We are way behind in our uptake of ultra-hypofractionated radiation [such as SBRT], and I do believe that some of that comes from the lack of feeling comfortable with the techniques that are needed and the expertise that is needed.”

PACE-B was funded by Accuray. Dr. Van As disclosed research grants from the company and consulting fees from Varian. Dr. Berlin reported no conflict of interest relevant to the study. Dr. Vapiwala has disclosed a consulting or advisory role with Bayer.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – With just five fractions of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), men with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer can have 5-year disease control as good as that provided by conventional external-beam radiation therapy delivered at higher doses in 20-39 fractions, according to new data from the phase 3 randomized PACE-B trial.

Overall, the 5-year event-free survival rates were 95.8% among patients who received SBRT and 94.6% among those who had conventional radiation. The incidence of adverse events was also low in both groups, with no significant differences observed between the trial arms.

The similar event-free survival and toxicity profiles in both groups provide more support for SBRT, which treats prostate cancer with larger radiation fractions over a shorter time period.

“I think we can also say now with a high level of confidence that SBRT can be considered a new standard of care for low and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer,” said Nicholas van As, MD, MB, from the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Cancer Research in London, who presented efficacy and safety results from the noninferiority trial at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) annual meeting. SBRT is more convenient for patients and more cost-effective for health care providers, Dr. Van As added.

Invited discussant Alejandro Berlin, MD, MSc, from Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, agreed “that this should be a standard of care for low and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer,” an option already endorsed by relevant guidelines.

But, Dr. Berlin noted, SBRT requires careful attention to technique to achieve the desired results. Further research will be needed to identify and potentially reduce variability among radiation oncology practice regarding margins, dosimetry goals, dose heterogeneity, treatment schedules, and other factors, he said.
 

An international trial

PACE-B is one of three branches of a multi-center collaboration among 37 radiation therapy centers in the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Canada.

In the trial, investigators enrolled 874 patients with T1c or T2c prostate cancer, Gleason score of 3+4 or less, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level no higher than 20 ng/mL, MRI staging, and no prior androgen deprivation therapy. Investigators then randomly assigned them on a 1:1 basis to receive either conventional radiation (n = 441) or SBRT (n = 433).

At the start of the trial, patients who were assigned to the conventional radiation group received 78 Gy in 39 fractions over 4-8 weeks. However, after results from the CHHiP trial, which showed that a 60-Gy, 20-fraction regimen was not inferior to a 74-Gy, 37-fraction regimen, the PACE-B investigators modified the protocol to 62 Gy delivered in 20 fractions.

Patients assigned to SBRT received 36.25 Gy divided into give fractions delivered over 1-2 weeks, with 40 Gy to the clinical target volume.

The primary outcome was noninferiority of SBRT, measured as whether patients remained free of biochemical clinical failure. Biochemical clinical failure was defined as evidence that the cancer was returning, such as an increase in PSA levels or distant metastases or death from prostate cancer.

At a median follow-up of 73.1 months, 5-year event-free survival rates were 94.6% for patients who received conventional radiation therapy and 95.8% for patients who received SBRT, meeting the prespecified criteria for noninferiority of SBRT (P = .007).

Freedom from biochemical and clinical failure, the trial’s primary endpoint, “was significantly better on both arms than our original power calculation, where we expected control rates of approximately 85%,” Dr. Van As said in an ASTRO plenary session.

Toxicity rates were also low in both study arms. The rate of grade 2 or greater urogenital side effects at 5 years was 5.5% in the SBRT arm and 3.2% in the conventional therapy arm. Grade 2 or greater gastrointestinal side effects occurred in only two patients, one in each study arm.

Given the findings, “I think it’s now imperative that our surgeons discuss this data with their patients before they perform prostatectomies,” Dr. Van As said.

Neha Vapiwala, MD, president-elect of ASTRO who moderated a media briefing where Dr. Van As summarized the PACE-B data, commented that “this study was conducted very rigorously, with excellent quality assurance.”

The study also highlights that clinicians in the United States have considerable catching up to do, said Dr. Vapiwala, from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

In the United States, “we are way behind our colleagues on the other side of the pond,” she said. “We are way behind in our uptake of ultra-hypofractionated radiation [such as SBRT], and I do believe that some of that comes from the lack of feeling comfortable with the techniques that are needed and the expertise that is needed.”

PACE-B was funded by Accuray. Dr. Van As disclosed research grants from the company and consulting fees from Varian. Dr. Berlin reported no conflict of interest relevant to the study. Dr. Vapiwala has disclosed a consulting or advisory role with Bayer.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – Women with breast cancer who underwent postmastectomy breast reconstruction benefited from shorter bursts of higher-dose radiation, compared with the standard therapy, according to a new prospective, randomized study.

Side effects and physical well-being scores were similar among 400 women who received the two treatment regimens, and outcomes were similar or slightly better in the higher-dose group, reported Rinaa Punglia, MD, MPH, an associate professor of radiation oncology at Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center in Boston and colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology. In a press statement, Dr. Punglia noted that the outcomes weren’t as impressive as researchers had hoped, but it’s positive that higher doses didn’t cause more side effects.

The use of the higher-dose approach, known as hypofractionation, “resulted in fewer treatment breaks and less financial toxicity” vs. conventional fractionation, Dr. Punglia said at a news briefing. The findings of the FABREC study “support the use of hypofractionated postmastectomy radiation for patients with basic reconstruction.”

According to Dr. Punglia, “postmastectomy radiation therapy is indicated for almost one-third of mastectomy patients and improves the lives of patients who are at an elevated risk for recurrence.” However, “the addition of radiation therapy greatly increases the risk of reconstruction complications.”

The typical radiation treatment period is 5-6 weeks in these patients, a major hardship for patients that can take them away from their families for extended periods of time. The researchers sought to understand whether another approach – hypofractionation over 3-4 weeks – is a better option. The strategy is widely used after breast-conserving surgery, she said, and has been linked to similar cancer outcomes, improved quality of life, and improved breast appearance.

From 2018 to 2021, the researchers recruited 400 patients with stage 0-III breast cancer who were treated with mastectomy and immediately underwent implant-based reconstruction (median age = 47.0, 23-79). None had tumors growing into the chest wall or skin.

The patients, spread nationwide across 16 institutions, were randomized to receive conventional fractionation (n = 201, 25 fractions, 5 days a week for 5 weeks of 200 cGy) or hypofractionation (n=199, 16 fractions, 5 days a week, for about 3 weeks of 266 cGy).

The researchers tracked 385 patients over a median follow-up of 40.4 months. There was no statistically significant difference in distant recurrence (12 in conventional fractionation arm, 11 in hypofractionation arm), death (2 in each arm), local recurrence (1 in each arm), or toxicity in the chest wall area (20 in conventional fractionation arm, 19 in hypofractionation arm). Changes in physical well-being scores, the primary endpoint, were similar after controlling for age.

“We found that younger patients randomized to hypofractionation were less bothered by side effects of treatment at 6 months relative to their counterparts who received conventional fractionation,” Dr. Punglia said.

Treatment breaks were more common in the conventional fractionation arm (7.7%, mean = 3.3 days) vs. the hypofractionation arm (2.7%, mean = 2.8 days, P = .03).

Among 51 patients who took unpaid time off work, those who underwent hypofractionation took fewer mean days off (73.7 days vs. 125.8 days for conventional fractionation, P = .046).

The study is the first of its kind to compare conventional fractionation to hypofractionation in this population in a randomized, phase III study, Dr. Punglia said.

At the news briefing, an independent expert – Lori Pierce, MD, a professor of radiation oncology at the University of Michigan – said the new study is a “game changer.”

The findings about the benefits of hypofractionation “will potentially impact thousands of women,” said Dr. Pierce, former president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. The shorter course of radiation is more convenient for patients, she said, and reduces hardship.

“Without a doubt, these results should be discussed with all patients who have had mastectomy and implant-based reconstruction,” she said.

In an interview, Bruce G. Haffty, MD, MS, professor and chair of Radiation Oncology at Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, said the study adds to existing data suggesting that shorter courses of therapy “are probably OK.” The new findings “give people a little more confidence that [short courses are] safe in terms of well-being and toxicity.”

However, the follow-up in the trial is relatively short, he said, and longer-term research will be needed to change the standard of care in these patients. “It’ll be an evolving story over the next 5-10 years,” he said.

The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Punglia has no disclosures; disclosures for other authors were not provided. Disclosure information for Dr. Pierce was not provided. Dr. Haffty is an investigator in a similar study called RT CHARM.

SAN DIEGO – Women with breast cancer who underwent postmastectomy breast reconstruction benefited from shorter bursts of higher-dose radiation, compared with the standard therapy, according to a new prospective, randomized study.

Side effects and physical well-being scores were similar among 400 women who received the two treatment regimens, and outcomes were similar or slightly better in the higher-dose group, reported Rinaa Punglia, MD, MPH, an associate professor of radiation oncology at Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center in Boston and colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology. In a press statement, Dr. Punglia noted that the outcomes weren’t as impressive as researchers had hoped, but it’s positive that higher doses didn’t cause more side effects.

The use of the higher-dose approach, known as hypofractionation, “resulted in fewer treatment breaks and less financial toxicity” vs. conventional fractionation, Dr. Punglia said at a news briefing. The findings of the FABREC study “support the use of hypofractionated postmastectomy radiation for patients with basic reconstruction.”

According to Dr. Punglia, “postmastectomy radiation therapy is indicated for almost one-third of mastectomy patients and improves the lives of patients who are at an elevated risk for recurrence.” However, “the addition of radiation therapy greatly increases the risk of reconstruction complications.”

The typical radiation treatment period is 5-6 weeks in these patients, a major hardship for patients that can take them away from their families for extended periods of time. The researchers sought to understand whether another approach – hypofractionation over 3-4 weeks – is a better option. The strategy is widely used after breast-conserving surgery, she said, and has been linked to similar cancer outcomes, improved quality of life, and improved breast appearance.

From 2018 to 2021, the researchers recruited 400 patients with stage 0-III breast cancer who were treated with mastectomy and immediately underwent implant-based reconstruction (median age = 47.0, 23-79). None had tumors growing into the chest wall or skin.

The patients, spread nationwide across 16 institutions, were randomized to receive conventional fractionation (n = 201, 25 fractions, 5 days a week for 5 weeks of 200 cGy) or hypofractionation (n=199, 16 fractions, 5 days a week, for about 3 weeks of 266 cGy).

The researchers tracked 385 patients over a median follow-up of 40.4 months. There was no statistically significant difference in distant recurrence (12 in conventional fractionation arm, 11 in hypofractionation arm), death (2 in each arm), local recurrence (1 in each arm), or toxicity in the chest wall area (20 in conventional fractionation arm, 19 in hypofractionation arm). Changes in physical well-being scores, the primary endpoint, were similar after controlling for age.

“We found that younger patients randomized to hypofractionation were less bothered by side effects of treatment at 6 months relative to their counterparts who received conventional fractionation,” Dr. Punglia said.

Treatment breaks were more common in the conventional fractionation arm (7.7%, mean = 3.3 days) vs. the hypofractionation arm (2.7%, mean = 2.8 days, P = .03).

Among 51 patients who took unpaid time off work, those who underwent hypofractionation took fewer mean days off (73.7 days vs. 125.8 days for conventional fractionation, P = .046).

The study is the first of its kind to compare conventional fractionation to hypofractionation in this population in a randomized, phase III study, Dr. Punglia said.

At the news briefing, an independent expert – Lori Pierce, MD, a professor of radiation oncology at the University of Michigan – said the new study is a “game changer.”

The findings about the benefits of hypofractionation “will potentially impact thousands of women,” said Dr. Pierce, former president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. The shorter course of radiation is more convenient for patients, she said, and reduces hardship.

“Without a doubt, these results should be discussed with all patients who have had mastectomy and implant-based reconstruction,” she said.

In an interview, Bruce G. Haffty, MD, MS, professor and chair of Radiation Oncology at Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, said the study adds to existing data suggesting that shorter courses of therapy “are probably OK.” The new findings “give people a little more confidence that [short courses are] safe in terms of well-being and toxicity.”

However, the follow-up in the trial is relatively short, he said, and longer-term research will be needed to change the standard of care in these patients. “It’ll be an evolving story over the next 5-10 years,” he said.

The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Punglia has no disclosures; disclosures for other authors were not provided. Disclosure information for Dr. Pierce was not provided. Dr. Haffty is an investigator in a similar study called RT CHARM.

SAN DIEGO – Women with breast cancer who underwent postmastectomy breast reconstruction benefited from shorter bursts of higher-dose radiation, compared with the standard therapy, according to a new prospective, randomized study.

Side effects and physical well-being scores were similar among 400 women who received the two treatment regimens, and outcomes were similar or slightly better in the higher-dose group, reported Rinaa Punglia, MD, MPH, an associate professor of radiation oncology at Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center in Boston and colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology. In a press statement, Dr. Punglia noted that the outcomes weren’t as impressive as researchers had hoped, but it’s positive that higher doses didn’t cause more side effects.

The use of the higher-dose approach, known as hypofractionation, “resulted in fewer treatment breaks and less financial toxicity” vs. conventional fractionation, Dr. Punglia said at a news briefing. The findings of the FABREC study “support the use of hypofractionated postmastectomy radiation for patients with basic reconstruction.”

According to Dr. Punglia, “postmastectomy radiation therapy is indicated for almost one-third of mastectomy patients and improves the lives of patients who are at an elevated risk for recurrence.” However, “the addition of radiation therapy greatly increases the risk of reconstruction complications.”

The typical radiation treatment period is 5-6 weeks in these patients, a major hardship for patients that can take them away from their families for extended periods of time. The researchers sought to understand whether another approach – hypofractionation over 3-4 weeks – is a better option. The strategy is widely used after breast-conserving surgery, she said, and has been linked to similar cancer outcomes, improved quality of life, and improved breast appearance.

From 2018 to 2021, the researchers recruited 400 patients with stage 0-III breast cancer who were treated with mastectomy and immediately underwent implant-based reconstruction (median age = 47.0, 23-79). None had tumors growing into the chest wall or skin.

The patients, spread nationwide across 16 institutions, were randomized to receive conventional fractionation (n = 201, 25 fractions, 5 days a week for 5 weeks of 200 cGy) or hypofractionation (n=199, 16 fractions, 5 days a week, for about 3 weeks of 266 cGy).

The researchers tracked 385 patients over a median follow-up of 40.4 months. There was no statistically significant difference in distant recurrence (12 in conventional fractionation arm, 11 in hypofractionation arm), death (2 in each arm), local recurrence (1 in each arm), or toxicity in the chest wall area (20 in conventional fractionation arm, 19 in hypofractionation arm). Changes in physical well-being scores, the primary endpoint, were similar after controlling for age.

“We found that younger patients randomized to hypofractionation were less bothered by side effects of treatment at 6 months relative to their counterparts who received conventional fractionation,” Dr. Punglia said.

Treatment breaks were more common in the conventional fractionation arm (7.7%, mean = 3.3 days) vs. the hypofractionation arm (2.7%, mean = 2.8 days, P = .03).

Among 51 patients who took unpaid time off work, those who underwent hypofractionation took fewer mean days off (73.7 days vs. 125.8 days for conventional fractionation, P = .046).

The study is the first of its kind to compare conventional fractionation to hypofractionation in this population in a randomized, phase III study, Dr. Punglia said.

At the news briefing, an independent expert – Lori Pierce, MD, a professor of radiation oncology at the University of Michigan – said the new study is a “game changer.”

The findings about the benefits of hypofractionation “will potentially impact thousands of women,” said Dr. Pierce, former president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. The shorter course of radiation is more convenient for patients, she said, and reduces hardship.

“Without a doubt, these results should be discussed with all patients who have had mastectomy and implant-based reconstruction,” she said.

In an interview, Bruce G. Haffty, MD, MS, professor and chair of Radiation Oncology at Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, said the study adds to existing data suggesting that shorter courses of therapy “are probably OK.” The new findings “give people a little more confidence that [short courses are] safe in terms of well-being and toxicity.”

However, the follow-up in the trial is relatively short, he said, and longer-term research will be needed to change the standard of care in these patients. “It’ll be an evolving story over the next 5-10 years,” he said.

The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Punglia has no disclosures; disclosures for other authors were not provided. Disclosure information for Dr. Pierce was not provided. Dr. Haffty is an investigator in a similar study called RT CHARM.

SAN DIEGO – Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) appeared to delay the need for changes in systemic therapy in postmenopausal patients with oligoprogressive luminal ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, according to a new phase 2 study.

In the AVATAR trial, patients with one to five metastatic lesions who’d been treated with cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors and aromatase inhibitors for at least 6 months underwent SABR. Of those, 47% had event-free survival of more than 6 months, an unexpectedly high figure, reported radiation oncologist Steven David, MBBS, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, and colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

“We found surprisingly that SABR delayed a change in therapy by 10 months, which is great for patients. Also, one in three patients had a second round of SABR,” said Dr. David in an interview. “This trial provides the first prospective evidence to delay a change in therapy in this population, and this strategy is ready to go now.”

According to Dr. David, oligoprogressive luminal, ER-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer cannot be cured. However, patients can live more than 10 years in some cases, and an early treatment – CDK 4/6 inhibitors and aromatase inhibitors – is well tolerated. “Patients can lead a normal life and avoid chemo” as long as those medications keep working.

The goal of the study was to determine if SABR is helpful in these patients. The treatment, which produces highly focused radiation, “has very few side effects and does a great job in eliminating progressing metastases,” Dr. David said.

For the study, researchers recruited 32 subjects at 13 Australian sites. Participants could not have had leptomeningeal disease, previous chemotherapy for metastatic disease, or prior radiotherapy to an oligoprogressing lesion. Most metastases were to bone (n = 44, 71%), node (systemic, n = 8; 13%) and lung (n = 4; 6%).

The patients were treated with SABR, most commonly 24 Gy (n = 25; 43%) and 20 Gy (n = 10; 17%); half had one lesion treated (50%), and 25% had two lesions treated.

The median follow-up was 15.8 months. The median event-free survival was 5.2 months (95% confidence interval, 3.1-9.4 months), with events defined as progression within 6 months or in at least three lesions. Fifteen patients (47%) reached event-free survival of 6 or more months.

Elysia Donovan, MD, MSc, a radiation oncologist at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview that the new study is thoughtfully designed, although it’s not definitive. “At this point we still do not know the optimal treatment regimen for oligoprogressive breast cancer. The findings of this trial are promising and exciting. However, further randomized trials are required before routine implementation in clinical practice. For now, patients should be considered in a case by case basis with multidisciplinary discussion to determine the optimal systemic therapy regimen at oligoprogression and whether SABR may provide benefit.”

Median modified progression-free survival was 10.4 months, and median progression-free survival was 5.2 months; 31% of patients received SABR for further oligoprogression, and 46% patients remained on CDK4/6 inhibitors and aromatase inhibitors for 12 months. Overall survival was 100%.

A total of 14 patients had grade 1 adverse events, 2 had grade 2 events, and none had grade 3 or higher events; 47% had no treatment-related toxicity.

The strategy “potentially has a place in other cancer types and other breast cancer types,” Dr. David said.

In an interview, Katarzyna Jerzak, MD, MSc, a medical oncologist with Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Center in Toronto, said the findings are promising, although the study is small and the patients are similar. Toxicity was limited, and a 12-month delay in a switch to therapy – reached by 46% – “is very meaningful for patients.” She added that “the positive results should serve as motivation to investigate the strategy further.”

Dr. David said a larger trial called AVATAR 2 is funded and in the works. It will have more patients and more breast cancer subtypes.

The study was funded by the Donald Ratcliffe and Phyllis McLeod Trust. Dr. David disclosed grant/research funding from Roche Genentech, and other authors reported various disclosures including relationships with AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Gilead, and others. Dr. Jerzak disclosed speaker/advisor board/consultant relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Apobiologix, Eli Lilly, Esai, Genomic Health, Gilead, Knight Therapeutics, Merck, Myriad Genetics, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, and Novartis and research funding from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Seagen. Dr. Donovan disclosed a Bright Foundation grant for a prospective trial of SABR for oligoprogressive breast cancer.

SAN DIEGO – Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) appeared to delay the need for changes in systemic therapy in postmenopausal patients with oligoprogressive luminal ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, according to a new phase 2 study.

In the AVATAR trial, patients with one to five metastatic lesions who’d been treated with cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors and aromatase inhibitors for at least 6 months underwent SABR. Of those, 47% had event-free survival of more than 6 months, an unexpectedly high figure, reported radiation oncologist Steven David, MBBS, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, and colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

“We found surprisingly that SABR delayed a change in therapy by 10 months, which is great for patients. Also, one in three patients had a second round of SABR,” said Dr. David in an interview. “This trial provides the first prospective evidence to delay a change in therapy in this population, and this strategy is ready to go now.”

According to Dr. David, oligoprogressive luminal, ER-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer cannot be cured. However, patients can live more than 10 years in some cases, and an early treatment – CDK 4/6 inhibitors and aromatase inhibitors – is well tolerated. “Patients can lead a normal life and avoid chemo” as long as those medications keep working.

The goal of the study was to determine if SABR is helpful in these patients. The treatment, which produces highly focused radiation, “has very few side effects and does a great job in eliminating progressing metastases,” Dr. David said.

For the study, researchers recruited 32 subjects at 13 Australian sites. Participants could not have had leptomeningeal disease, previous chemotherapy for metastatic disease, or prior radiotherapy to an oligoprogressing lesion. Most metastases were to bone (n = 44, 71%), node (systemic, n = 8; 13%) and lung (n = 4; 6%).

The patients were treated with SABR, most commonly 24 Gy (n = 25; 43%) and 20 Gy (n = 10; 17%); half had one lesion treated (50%), and 25% had two lesions treated.

The median follow-up was 15.8 months. The median event-free survival was 5.2 months (95% confidence interval, 3.1-9.4 months), with events defined as progression within 6 months or in at least three lesions. Fifteen patients (47%) reached event-free survival of 6 or more months.

Elysia Donovan, MD, MSc, a radiation oncologist at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview that the new study is thoughtfully designed, although it’s not definitive. “At this point we still do not know the optimal treatment regimen for oligoprogressive breast cancer. The findings of this trial are promising and exciting. However, further randomized trials are required before routine implementation in clinical practice. For now, patients should be considered in a case by case basis with multidisciplinary discussion to determine the optimal systemic therapy regimen at oligoprogression and whether SABR may provide benefit.”

Median modified progression-free survival was 10.4 months, and median progression-free survival was 5.2 months; 31% of patients received SABR for further oligoprogression, and 46% patients remained on CDK4/6 inhibitors and aromatase inhibitors for 12 months. Overall survival was 100%.

A total of 14 patients had grade 1 adverse events, 2 had grade 2 events, and none had grade 3 or higher events; 47% had no treatment-related toxicity.

The strategy “potentially has a place in other cancer types and other breast cancer types,” Dr. David said.

In an interview, Katarzyna Jerzak, MD, MSc, a medical oncologist with Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Center in Toronto, said the findings are promising, although the study is small and the patients are similar. Toxicity was limited, and a 12-month delay in a switch to therapy – reached by 46% – “is very meaningful for patients.” She added that “the positive results should serve as motivation to investigate the strategy further.”

Dr. David said a larger trial called AVATAR 2 is funded and in the works. It will have more patients and more breast cancer subtypes.

The study was funded by the Donald Ratcliffe and Phyllis McLeod Trust. Dr. David disclosed grant/research funding from Roche Genentech, and other authors reported various disclosures including relationships with AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Gilead, and others. Dr. Jerzak disclosed speaker/advisor board/consultant relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Apobiologix, Eli Lilly, Esai, Genomic Health, Gilead, Knight Therapeutics, Merck, Myriad Genetics, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, and Novartis and research funding from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Seagen. Dr. Donovan disclosed a Bright Foundation grant for a prospective trial of SABR for oligoprogressive breast cancer.

SAN DIEGO – Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) appeared to delay the need for changes in systemic therapy in postmenopausal patients with oligoprogressive luminal ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, according to a new phase 2 study.

In the AVATAR trial, patients with one to five metastatic lesions who’d been treated with cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors and aromatase inhibitors for at least 6 months underwent SABR. Of those, 47% had event-free survival of more than 6 months, an unexpectedly high figure, reported radiation oncologist Steven David, MBBS, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, and colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

“We found surprisingly that SABR delayed a change in therapy by 10 months, which is great for patients. Also, one in three patients had a second round of SABR,” said Dr. David in an interview. “This trial provides the first prospective evidence to delay a change in therapy in this population, and this strategy is ready to go now.”

According to Dr. David, oligoprogressive luminal, ER-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer cannot be cured. However, patients can live more than 10 years in some cases, and an early treatment – CDK 4/6 inhibitors and aromatase inhibitors – is well tolerated. “Patients can lead a normal life and avoid chemo” as long as those medications keep working.

The goal of the study was to determine if SABR is helpful in these patients. The treatment, which produces highly focused radiation, “has very few side effects and does a great job in eliminating progressing metastases,” Dr. David said.

For the study, researchers recruited 32 subjects at 13 Australian sites. Participants could not have had leptomeningeal disease, previous chemotherapy for metastatic disease, or prior radiotherapy to an oligoprogressing lesion. Most metastases were to bone (n = 44, 71%), node (systemic, n = 8; 13%) and lung (n = 4; 6%).

The patients were treated with SABR, most commonly 24 Gy (n = 25; 43%) and 20 Gy (n = 10; 17%); half had one lesion treated (50%), and 25% had two lesions treated.

The median follow-up was 15.8 months. The median event-free survival was 5.2 months (95% confidence interval, 3.1-9.4 months), with events defined as progression within 6 months or in at least three lesions. Fifteen patients (47%) reached event-free survival of 6 or more months.

Elysia Donovan, MD, MSc, a radiation oncologist at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview that the new study is thoughtfully designed, although it’s not definitive. “At this point we still do not know the optimal treatment regimen for oligoprogressive breast cancer. The findings of this trial are promising and exciting. However, further randomized trials are required before routine implementation in clinical practice. For now, patients should be considered in a case by case basis with multidisciplinary discussion to determine the optimal systemic therapy regimen at oligoprogression and whether SABR may provide benefit.”

Median modified progression-free survival was 10.4 months, and median progression-free survival was 5.2 months; 31% of patients received SABR for further oligoprogression, and 46% patients remained on CDK4/6 inhibitors and aromatase inhibitors for 12 months. Overall survival was 100%.

A total of 14 patients had grade 1 adverse events, 2 had grade 2 events, and none had grade 3 or higher events; 47% had no treatment-related toxicity.

The strategy “potentially has a place in other cancer types and other breast cancer types,” Dr. David said.

In an interview, Katarzyna Jerzak, MD, MSc, a medical oncologist with Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Center in Toronto, said the findings are promising, although the study is small and the patients are similar. Toxicity was limited, and a 12-month delay in a switch to therapy – reached by 46% – “is very meaningful for patients.” She added that “the positive results should serve as motivation to investigate the strategy further.”

Dr. David said a larger trial called AVATAR 2 is funded and in the works. It will have more patients and more breast cancer subtypes.

The study was funded by the Donald Ratcliffe and Phyllis McLeod Trust. Dr. David disclosed grant/research funding from Roche Genentech, and other authors reported various disclosures including relationships with AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Gilead, and others. Dr. Jerzak disclosed speaker/advisor board/consultant relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Apobiologix, Eli Lilly, Esai, Genomic Health, Gilead, Knight Therapeutics, Merck, Myriad Genetics, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, and Novartis and research funding from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Seagen. Dr. Donovan disclosed a Bright Foundation grant for a prospective trial of SABR for oligoprogressive breast cancer.