ONCOLOGY.
No. 4
NCI Workshop
Current Status and Future Potential of Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology
Part 2. State of the Science by Anatomic Site
By BHADRASAIN VIKRAM, MD
Chief
Clinical Radiation Oncology Branch
C. NORMAN COLEMAN, MD
Associate Director
Radiation Research Program
JAMES A. DEYE, PhD,
Program Director
Medical Physics
Radiation Research Program
Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis
National Cancer Institute
Rockville, Maryland
|
April 14, 2009
Financial Disclosure: The authors have no significant financial interest or other relationship with the manufacturers of any products or providers of any service mentioned in this article.
Disclaimer: The opinions and conclusions in this report are those of the individual authors and participants and do not reflect an opinion or policy of the National Cancer Institute or the US Government.
A total of 240 patients (79%) with 5-year photographs were available for analysis. Change in breast appearance was identified in 71 of 122 patients (58%) who were allocated conventional treatment, compared to 47 of 118 patients (40%) allocated IMRT. Patients in the control arm were 1.7 times more likely to have a change in breast appearance than those in the IMRT arm, after adjustment for year of photographic assessment (95% confidence interval = 1.2–2.5; P = .008). No significant differences between the two treatment groups were found in patient-reported breast discomfort, breast hardness, or quality of life.
In another prospective randomized trial,[30] 358 women were randomized after lumpectomy to conventional radiation therapy (using wedges) or IMRT between 2003 and 2005. It was hypothesized that 36% of patients in the control arm would suffer moderate to severe acute skin toxicity, whereas in the IMRT group, no more than 21% would. Analysis showed that 36.7% of patients in the control arm suffered such toxicity vs 27.1% in the IMRT arm. Thus, this study did not meet its primary objective. However, it was noted by the authors that among the controls, 48% developed moist desquamation vs 31% of those receiving IMRT. They also noted that women with larger breasts were more likely to suffer moist desquamation.
These two studies therefore suggest that moist desquamation in the short term (especially in large-breasted women) and a change in breast appearance in the long term are less likely among women treated by IMRT after lumpectomy. Some workshop participants objected to the use of the term “IMRT” for describing the techniques employed in those trials. They felt that—billing considerations aside—the use of multiple subfields in order to mainly improve dose heterogeneity within the target volume did not rise to the level of IMRT designed to spare the organs at risk.
As yet, no phase III trial can tell us whether the survival or local control of patients with breast cancer is better or worse, if after lumpectomy they are treated by advanced technologies instead of or in addition to traditional conformal radiation therapy.
Locally Advanced, High-Risk Prostate Cancer
In one arm of a prospective randomized trial,[19-21] traditional conformal radiation therapy (70 Gy in 35 fractions over 7 weeks) was delivered to 198 patients suffering from locally advanced prostate cancer. Following treatment, 38% of patients died within 5 years (21% due to prostate cancer). The patterns of failure revealed that 16% suffered local failure within 5 years, while 29% developed distant metastases.
On another arm of the same study, 203 patients received androgen suppression in addition to traditional conformal radiation therapy. Following treatment, 22% of patients died within 5 years (6% due to prostate cancer). The patterns of failure revealed that 2% suffered local failure, while 10% developed distant metastases.
The incidence of side effects (other than erectile dysfunction) was not different between those treated with and without androgen suppression. Fatal toxicity developed in 1% (4 patients, all of whom died due to urinary strictures). In addition, grade 3 toxicity developed in 2.7% (10 patients, including 9 with urinary strictures/toxicity and 1 with small bowel obstruction). Grade 2 toxicity developed in 19%, the most common being urinary effects (cystitis, hematuria, urinary strictures, and incontinence), proctitis, and leg edema. Erectile potency decreased in 41% of patients after treatment by radiation alone, vs 68% of patients receiving androgen suppression.
• Proton Radiotherapy—At present, no evidence from randomized clinical trials has shown that survival or side effects of patients with locally advanced prostate cancer are improved if they are treated by advanced technologies instead of or in addition to traditional conformal radiation therapy.
A prospective randomized trial[31,32] compared photon radiotherapy delivered with vs without proton radiotherapy. The investigators found no difference in survival between the two groups, but patients receiving proton radiation were more likely to suffer rectal bleeding (32% vs 12%; P = .002) and urethral strictures (19% vs 8%; P = .07). In this study, the addition of an advanced technology unexpectedly resulted in an inferior result.
Summary
The advanced technologies offer exciting and potentially substantial advantages in radiation dose distributions that may help improve patient outcomes. Many early cooperative group clinical trials involving advanced technologies primarily focused on “feasibility in the cooperative group setting” as an endpoint. We are pleased to note that since this workshop, a number of trials have incorporated specific hypotheses regarding improvements in outcomes, and some have also incorporated early stopping rules in case the outcomes prove unsatisfactory in comparison to predefined thresholds.
1. Andrews DW, Scott CB, Sperduto PW, et al: Whole brain radiation therapy with or without stereotactic radiosurgery boost for patients with one to three brain metastases: Phase III results of the RTOG 9508 randomised trial. Lancet 363:1665-1672, 2004.
2. Stupp R, Mason WP, van den Bent MJ, et al, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Brain Tumor and Radiotherapy Groups; National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group: Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma. N Engl J Med 352:987-996, 2005.
3. Bonner JA, Harari PM, Giralt J, et al: Radiotherapy plus cetuximab for squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. N Engl J Med 354:567-578, 2006.
4. Cooper JS, Pajak TF, Forastiere AA, et al, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9501/Intergroup: Postoperative concurrent radiotherapy and chemotherapy for high-risk squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. N Engl J Med 350:1937-1944, 2004.
5. Forastiere AA, Goepfert H, Maor M, et al: Concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy for organ preservation in advanced laryngeal cancer. N Engl J Med 349:2091-2098, 2003.
6. Al-Sarraf M, LeBlanc M, Giri PG, et al: Chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy in patients with advanced nasopharyngeal cancer: Phase III randomized Intergroup study 0099. J Clin Oncol 16:1310-1317, 1998.
7. Saunders M, Dische S, Barrett A, et al: Continuous, hyperfractionated, accelerated radiotherapy (CHART) versus conventional radiotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: Mature data from the randomised multicentre trial. CHART Steering committee. Radiother Oncol 52:137-148, 1999.
8. Sause W, Kolesar P, Taylor S IV, et al: Final results of phase III trial in regionally advanced unresectable non-small cell lung cancer: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, and Southwest Oncology Group. Chest 117:358-364, 2000.
9. Komaki R, Scott CB, Sause WT, et al: Induction cisplatin/vinblastine and irradiation vs. irradiation in unresectable squamous cell lung cancer: Failure patterns by cell type in RTOG 88-08/ECOG 4588. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 39:537-544, 1997.
10. Turrisi AT 3rd, Kim K, Blum R, et al: Twice-daily compared with once-daily thoracic radiotherapy in limited small-cell lung cancer treated concurrently with cisplatin and etoposide. N Engl J Med 340:265-271, 1999.
11. Minsky BD, Pajak TF, Ginsberg RJ, et al: INT 0123 (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 94-05) phase III trial of combined-modality therapy for esophageal cancer: High-dose versus standard-dose radiation therapy. J Clin Oncol 20:1167-1174, 2002.
12. Fyles AW, McCready DR, Manchul LA, et al: Tamoxifen with or without breast irradiation in women 50 years of age or older with early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 351:963-970, 2004.
13. Ragaz J, Olivotto IA, Spinelli JJ, et al: Locoregional radiation therapy in patients with high-risk breast cancer receiving adjuvant chemotherapy: 20-year results of the British Columbia randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 97:116-1126, 2005.
14. Regine WF, Winter KA, Abrams RA, et al: Fluorouracil vs gemcitabine chemotherapy before and after fluorouracil-based chemoradiation following resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 299:1019-1026, 2008.
15. Lawton CA, DeSilvio M, Lee WR, et al: Results of a phase II trial of transrectal ultrasound-guided permanent radioactive implantation of the prostate for definitive management of localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 98-05). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 67:39-47, 2007.
16. Thompson IM Jr, Tangen CM, Paradelo J, et al: Adjuvant radiotherapy for pathologically advanced prostate cancer: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA 296:2329-2335, 2006.
17. D’Amico AV, Manola J, Loffredo M, et al: 6-month androgen suppression plus radiation therapy vs radiation therapy alone for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 292:821-827, 2004.
18. D’Amico AV, Chen MH, Renshaw AA, et al: Androgen suppression and radiation vs radiation alone for prostate cancer: A randomized trial. JAMA 299:289-295, 2008.
19. Bolla M, Gonzalez D, Warde P, et al: Improved survival in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy and goserelin. N Engl J Med 337:295-300, 1997.
20. Bolla M, Collette L, Blank L, et al: Long-term results with immediate androgen suppression and external irradiation in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer (an EORTC study): A phase III randomised trial. Lancet 360:103-108, 2002.
21. Ataman F, Zurlo A, Artignan X, et al: Late toxicity following conventional radiotherapy for prostate cancer: Analysis of the EORTC trial 22863. Eur J Cancer 40:1674-1681, 2004.
22. Morris M, Eifel PJ, Lu J, et al: Pelvic radiation with concurrent chemotherapy compared with pelvic and para-aortic radiation for high-risk cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 340:1137-1143, 1999.
23. Creutzberg CL, van Putten WL, Koper PC, et al: Surgery and postoperative radiotherapy versus surgery alone for patients with stage-1 endometrial carcinoma: Multicentre randomised trial. PORTEC Study Group. Post Operative Radiation Therapy in Endometrial Carcinoma. Lancet 355:1404-1411, 2000.
24. Sauer R, Becker H, Hohenberger W, et al; German Rectal Cancer Study Group: Preoperative versus postoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 351:1731-1740, 2004.
25. Ajani JA, Winter KA, Gunderson LL, et al: Fluorouracil, mitomycin, and radiotherapy vs fluorouracil, cisplatin, and radiotherapy for carcinoma of the anal canal: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 299:1914-1921, 2008.
26. Souhami L, Seiferheld W, Brachman D, et al: Randomized comparison of stereotactic radiosurgery followed by conventional radiotherapy with carmustine to conventional radiotherapy with carmustine for patients with glioblastoma multiforme: Report of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 93-05 protocol. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 60:853-860, 2004.
27. Pow EH, Kwong DL, McMillan AS, et al: Xerostomia and quality of life after intensity-modulated radiotherapy vs. conventional radiotherapy for early-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma: Initial report on a randomized controlled clinical trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 66:981-991, 2006.
28. Kam MK, Leung SF, Zee B, et al: Prospective randomized study of intensity-modulated radiotherapy on salivary gland function in early-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients. J Clin Oncol 25:4873-4879, 2007.
29. Donovan E, Bleakley N, Denholm E, et al; Breast Technology Group: Randomised trial of standard 2D radiotherapy (RT) versus intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in patients prescribed breast radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 82:254-64, 2007.
30. Pignol JP, Olivotto I, Rakovitch E, et al: A multicenter randomized trial of breast intensity-modulated radiation therapy to reduce acute radiation dermatitis. J Clin Oncol 26:2085-2092, 2008.
31. Shipley WU, Verhey LJ, Munzenrider JE, et al: Advanced prostate cancer: The results of a randomized comparative trial of high dose irradiation boosting with conformal protons compared with conventional dose irradiation using photons alone. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 32:3-12, 1995.
32. Gardner BG, Zietman AL, Shipley WU, et al: Late normal tissue sequelae in the second decade after high dose radiation therapy with combined photons and conformal protons for locally advanced prostate cancer. J Urol 167:123-126, 2002.
This series of case presentations (five individual cases) will provide oncologists and other healthcare professionals with strategies for evaluating evidence-based data on the latest treatments in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and the application of that data into the development of individualized approaches to care, including overcoming resistance, in order to optimize management and outcomes for patients.
