Search

Background: For patients who are node positive to start at presentation and are found to have a complete nodal tumour response (ypN0) post neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT), we do not yet know whether local axillary therapy can be modified based on the response to NACT. ATNEC randomised trial specifically address axillary management following NACT in patients with proven axillary node metastases. Methods: Design: ATNEC is a phase III, randomised (1:1), multi-centre trial, with embedded economic evaluation. Patients with proven axillary node metastases on needle biopsy receive NACT followed by sentinel node biopsy (SNB). If the sentinel nodes have converted to benign (ypN0), ATNEC randomly assigns patients to axillary treatment (nodal radiotherapy or axillary nodal clearance) vs. no axillary treatment (without further surgery). Aims: To assess whether, omitting further axillary treatment (ALND and ART) for patients with early stage breast cancer and axillary nodal metastases on needle biopsy - who after NACT have no residual nodal disease on SNB - is non-inferior to axillary treatment in terms of disease free survival, and reduces the risk of lymphoedema at 5 years. Stratification: Institution, type of surgery (breast conserving surgery [BCS] vs mastectomy), receptor status (triple negative vs HER2 positive vs ER status positive and/or PR status positive and HER2 negative). Inclusion criteria:. • Age ≥ 18. • Male or female. • T1-3N1M0 breast cancer at diagnosis (pre-NACT). • FNA or core biopsy confirmed axillary nodal metastases at presentation. • ER and HER2 status evaluated on primary tumour. • Received standard NACT as per local guidelines. • Imaging assessment of the axilla at completion of NACT. • Dual tracer SNB after NACT and at least 3 nodes removed (sentinel nodes and marked node). o If a single tracer is used, the patient is eligible if the involved node is marked before NACT and at least 3 nodes removed (including the marked node). o If axillary node sampling is performed following failed localisation of sentinel nodes, patient is eligible if at least 3 nodes removed (including the marked node). o If node is not marked, or marked node is not removed, patient is eligible if the histology report shows evidence of down-staging with complete pathological response in at least one node and at least 3 nodes removed. • No evidence of nodal metastases post NACT (ypN0). Exclusion criteria:. • Bilateral invasive breast cancer. • SNB prior to NACT. • Previous ipsilateral axillary nodal surgery. • Previous cancer within last 5 years or concomitant malignancy. Radiotherapy Quality Assurance: ATNEC has in-built radiotherapy QA programme that is coordinated by National Radiotherapy Trials QA (RTTQA) group. Target accrual: 1900 Number of sites: 100 Trial Status: Recruiting. Trial is open to new sites. Disclaimer: This study is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme (Reference - HTA NIHR128311). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. Citation Format: Amit Goyal, Sophie Cramp, Andrea Marshall, Duncan Wheatley, Natalie Hammonds, Shama Puri, Tara Homer, Luke Vale, Roeum Butt, Romaana Mir, Janice Rose, Helen Teresa Edwards, Samreen Ahmed, Abeer Shaaban, Beatrix Elsberger, Julie Bruce, Sophie Gasson, Valerie Speirs, Jacqui Shaw, Helen Higgins, Janet Dunn. ATNEC: A multi-centre, randomised trial investigating whether axillary treatment can be avoided in T1-3N1M0 breast cancer patients with no residual cancer in the lymph glands after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (clinicaltrials.gov: nct04109079) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr OT1-04-01.

BackgroundRadiotherapy quality assurance (QA) is integral to radiotherapy delivery. Here we report comprehensive contouring, dosimetry, and treatment delivery QA, describe protocol compliance, and detail the impact of protocol variations on acute grade ≥3 toxicity, progression free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) in the phase III CONVERT trial.Materials/MethodsRadiotherapy planning data from one hundred randomly selected patients were requested. Members of the CONVERT Trial Management Group (TMG) recontoured the heart, lung, and spinal cord organs at risk (OAR) according to the trial guideline. The existing radiotherapy plan were re-applied to the new structures and the new dosimetric data were recollected. Compliance with radiotherapy QA components were recorded and radiotherapy QA components were pooled into protocol variations: acceptable, acceptable variation, and unacceptable variation. Univariable analysis with a Cox proportional hazards model established the relationship between protocol variations and patient outcome.ResultsNinety-three cases were submitted for retrospective radiotherapy QA review. Demographics of the radiotherapy QA cohort (n=93) matched the non-QA (n=450) cohort. 97.8% of gross tumour volume (GTV) contours were protocol compliant. OAR contours were non-compliant in 79.6% instances of the heart, 37.6% lung, and 75.3% spinal cord. Of the non-compliant heart contours, 86.5% and 2.7% had contours caudal and cranial to the protocol-defined heart borders. 10.8% did not include the pericardial sac and 2.7% did not include the anterior aspect of the pericardium. Eleven (11.8%) submissions exceeded protocol-defined dosimetric heart constraints; six of which were only noted on the application of protocol-compliant contours. Unacceptable variations were not associated with an increase in grade 3 toxicity (p=0.808), PFS (p=0.232), or OS (p=0.743).ConclusionNon-protocol compliant heart contours were associated with increased dose delivered to the heart OAR, with 11.8 % of submitted heart structures exceeding protocol-defined constraints. In this QA cohort of patients with small cell lung cancer, unacceptable variations were not associated with acute grade ≥3 toxicity, PFS, or OS. Radiotherapy QA remains the cornerstone of high-quality radiotherapy delivery and should be embedded into clinical trial and non-clinical trial practice; clinical trials should report standardised radiotherapy QA parameters alongside trial outcomes.

Background and purpose The Global Quality Assurance of Radiation Therapy Clinical Trials Harmonization Group (GHG) is a collaborative group of Radiation Therapy Quality Assurance (RTQA) Groups harmonizing and improving RTQA for multi-institutional clinical trials. The objective of the GHG OAR Working Group was to unify OAR contouring guidance across RTQA groups by compiling a single reference list of OARs in line with AAPM TG 263 and ASTRO, together with peer-reviewed, anatomically defined contouring guidance for integration into clinical trial protocols independent of the radiation therapy delivery technique. Materials and methods The GHG OAR Working Group comprised of 22 multi-professional members from 6 international RTQA Groups and affiliated organizations conducted the work in 3 stages: (1) Clinical trial documentation review and identification of structures of interest (2) Review of existing contouring guidance and survey of proposed OAR contouring guidance (3) Review of survey feedback with recommendations for contouring guidance with standardized OAR nomenclature. Results 157 clinical trials were examined; 222 OAR structures were identified. Duplicates, non-anatomical, non-specific, structures with more specific alternative nomenclature, and structures identified by one RTQA group were excluded leaving 58 structures of interest. 6 OAR descriptions were accepted with no amendments, 41 required minor amendments, 6 major amendments, 20 developed as a result of feedback, and 5 structures excluded in response to feedback. The final GHG consensus guidance includes 73 OARs with peer-reviewed descriptions (Appendix A). Conclusion We provide OAR descriptions with standardized nomenclature for use in clinical trials. A more uniform dataset supports the delivery of clinically relevant and valid conclusions from clinical trials.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (IO) have changed the landscape of treatment of advanced cancer. Substantial and durable responses may be experienced in patients who previously had few or no efficacious systemic treatment options available to them. IO are often well tolerated; however, uncontrolled and unexpected off-target effects can occur, resulting in wide-ranging and varied toxicities. This review discusses the current management of organ-specific IO-associated toxicity in metastatic melanoma, with a focus on skin toxicity, colitis, endocrinopathies, and IO-induced kidney injury. Furthermore, we describe the immunology behind IO-induced toxicity, propose improvements on current practice, and highlight areas in need of further research.

TPS600 Background: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) results in eradication of cancer in the axillary nodes in 40% to 70% of patients. This raises questions about the benefit of further axillary treatment in those patients with no evidence of residual nodal disease (ypN0) after NACT. Methods: Design: ATNEC is a phase 3, randomised (1:1), multi-centre trial, with embedded economic evaluation, comparing standard axillary treatment (axillary lymph node dissection [ALND] or axillary radiotherapy [ART]) with no further axillary treatment in T1-3N1M0 breast cancer patients with needle biopsy proven axillary nodal metastases, who after NACT have no residual nodal disease (ypN0) on dual tracer sentinel node biopsy (SNB) and removal of at least 3 nodes (sentinel nodes and marked involved node). Stratification: Institution, type of surgery (breast conserving surgery vs mastectomy), receptor status (triple negative vs HER2 positive vs ER positive and/or PR positive and HER2 negative). Inclusion criteria are: Age ≥ 18, Male or female, T1-3N1M0 breast cancer at diagnosis (pre-NACT), FNA or core biopsy confirmed axillary nodal metastases at presentation, ER and HER2 status evaluated on primary tumour, received standard NACT as per local guidelines, ultrasound of the axilla at completion of NACT, dual tracer SNB after NACT and at least 3 nodes removed (sentinel nodes and marked node), no evidence of nodal metastases post NACT (ypN0). Exclusion criteria are: bilateral invasive breast cancer, SNB prior to NACT, marked node not removed except where at least one node removed shows evidence of down-staging with complete pathological response e.g. fibrosis/scarring and at least 3 nodes removed, previous ipsilateral axillary surgery, previous cancer within last 5 years or concomitant malignancy except basal or squamous cell carcinoma of the skin, in situ carcinoma of the cervix, in situ or stage 1 melanoma, contra- or ipsilateral in situ breast cancer. Aims: To assess whether, omitting further axillary treatment (ALND and ART) for patients with early stage breast cancer and axillary nodal metastases on needle biopsy - who after NACT have no residual nodal disease on SNB (ypN0) - is non-inferior to axillary treatment in terms of disease free survival, and reduces the risk of lymphoedema at 5 years. Statistical methods: All analyses will be carried out on an intention-to-treat basis to preserve randomisation, avoid bias from exclusions and preserve statistical power. Radiotherapy quality assurance: Study has in-built radiotherapy QA programme that will be co-ordinated by National Radiotherapy Trials QA (RTTQA) group. Target accrual: 1900. Trial status: Recruiting. Number of sites: 100. Clinical trial information: NCT04109079.

Background: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) results in eradication of cancer in the axillary lymph nodes in 40% to 70% of patients. This has raised questions about the benefit of further axillary treatment in these patients with no evidence of residual disease in the lymph nodes. Trial design: A multi-centre phase III randomised controlled trial with embedded economic evaluation in which participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio. Study participants: T1-3N1M0 breast cancer patients aged 18 years or older, with needle biopsy proven nodal metastases, who after NACT have no residual cancer in the lymph nodes on dual tracer sentinel node biopsy and removal of at least 3 lymph nodes (sentinel nodes and marked involved node). Intervention: Participants in the experimental group will not receive further axillary treatment (axillary lymph node dissection [ALND] or axillary radiotherapy [ART]), after NACT and surgery. Participants in the control group will receive further axillary treatment (ALND or ART) after NACT and surgery, as per local guidelines. Stratification: Institution, type of breast surgery (breast conserving surgery (BCS) vs mastectomy), receptor status (triple negative vs HER2 positive vs ER status positive and/or PR status positive and HER2 negative) Eligible participants will be/should have:•Age ≥ 18•Male or female •T1-3N1M0 breast cancer at diagnosis (prior to NACT) •FNA or core biopsy confirmed axillary nodal metastases at presentation •Oestrogen receptor and HER2 status evaluated on primary tumour •Received standard NACT as per local guidelines (Patients undergoing neoadjuvant endocrine therapy as part of another clinical trial are eligible) •Ultrasound of the axilla at completion of NACT •Undergo dual tracer sentinel node biopsy after NACT and at least 3 nodes removed (sentinel nodes and marked node). If axillary node sampling is performed following failed localisation of sentinel nodes, patient will be eligible if at least 3 nodes removed (including the marked node) •No evidence of nodal metastases post NACT (isolated tumour cells, micro or macro metastasis) Participants will be excluded if they have any one of the following:•Bilateral invasive breast cancer•Sentinel node biopsy prior to NACT•Marked node not removed except where at least one node removed showsoevidence of down-staging with complete pathological response e.g. fibrosis or scarring and at least 3 nodes removed•Previous axillary surgery on the same body side as the scheduled targeted sampling•Any previous cancer within last 5 years or concomitant malignancy except basal or squamous cell carcinoma of the skin, in situ carcinoma of the cervix oin situ or stage 1 melanoma, contra- or ipsilateral in situ breast cancer Specific aims: To assess whether, omitting further axillary treatment (ALND and ART) for patients with early stage breast cancer and axillary nodal metastases on needle biopsy, who after NACT have no residual cancer in the lymph nodes on sentinel node biopsy, is non-inferior to axillary treatment in terms of disease free survival (DFS), and reduces the risk of lymphoedema at 5 years.Statistical methods: All analyses will be carried out on an intention-to-treat basis to preserve randomisation, avoid bias from exclusions and preserve statistical power. Target accrual: 1900, Number of sites: ~100 ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04109079 Contact information: atnec@warwick.ac.uk Disclaimer: This study is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme (Reference - HTA NIHR128311). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. Citation Format: Amit Goyal, Sophie Cramp, Duncan Wheatley, Andrea Marshall, Shama Puri, Tara Homer, Luke Vale, Romaana Mir, Zohal Nabi, Janice Rose, Helen Teresa Edwards, Samreen Ahmed, Abeer Shaaban, Beatrix Elsberger, Julie Bruce, Sophie Gasson, Valerie Speirs, Jacqui Shaw, Helen Higgins, Janet Dunn. Axillary management in T1-3N1M0 breast cancer patients with needle biopsy proven nodal metastases at presentation after neoadjuvant chemotherapy - ATNEC (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04109079) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr OT-04-01.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (IO) induced colitis is primarily managed with corticosteroids. Most patients have a rapid resolution of symptoms and do not require additional immunosuppressants. Many patients, however, require prolonged corticosteroid courses to maintain control of toxicity. Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) is the prodrug of mycophenolic acid; which in turn directly inhibits activated T and B lymphocytes. MMF, in addition to corticosteroids, may enable reduction of corticosteroids without precipitating resurgence of colitis. Metastatic melanoma patients between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2017 with combination IO-induced colitis were managed with a novel treatment algorithm: upfront oral enteric-coated MMF alongside high-dose corticosteroids. Outcome measures included incidence of colitis flare, time to grade 1 colitis, time to patient-reported normal bowel habit and overall cumulative corticosteroid exposure. Thirteen patients developed high-grade combination IO-induced colitis; 11 were managed with the combination of high-dose corticosteroid and MMF. Median patient age was 59 (range: 28-73) years. Four (36%) developed flare of colitis; flares occurred at a median of 11 (interquartile range: 4.5-16.75) days. All colitis flares responded fully to infliximab (5 mg/kg). The remaining seven patients did not develop colitis flare during corticosteroid wean. All patients were successfully weaned from corticosteroids and none had a resurgence of colitis at 8 weeks following discontinuation of MMF. Concomitant enteric-coated MMF alongside high-dose corticosteroids may hasten the improvement of high-grade colitis to normal bowel habit and reduce the incidence of colitis flare.

e21010 Background: Despite significant gains from systemic immunotherapy, prompt recognition and management of immune related adverse events (irAEs) remains key to minimising acute and chronic morbidity, and can sometimes allow treatment to be re-initiated. Active management of irAEs is corticosteroid based, with additional immunosuppressants used for steroid-refractory toxicity. Although the majority of irAEs resolve promptly, prolonged steroid exposure is required to maintain irAE control. Patients are therefore frequently exposed to cumulative high doses of steroids that in turn can be associated with significant long-term morbidity. Methods: Melanoma patients treated at Mount Vernon Cancer Centre (UK) with ipilimumab, pembrolizumab or combination ipilimumab and nivolumab; who were managed for checkpoint inhibitor-induced colitis had their corticosteroid exposure calculated. Data was collected on patient characteristics, onset of colitis and the subsequent use of corticosteroids, immunosuppressant and anti-TNFα agents until complete resolution of symptoms. Results: Of 137 patients, 18 (13.1%) had grade 3-4 colitis. Median time to onset of colitic symptoms was 13 days (IQR 7-20) with 8 (44%) requiring intravenous corticosteroid. Median time from commencement of steroid treatment to grade 1 colitis was 11.5 days (IQR 6.75-25.25), with resolution of symptoms seen at a median of 43 days. Median total corticosteroid exposure was 3000mg oral prednisolone equivalent (range 540-7580mg) with median duration of corticosteroid exposure being 103.5 days (IQR 67-136). 8 patients experienced flare of colitis during corticosteroid dose reduction. In all cases of colitis flare, the anti-TNFα agent infliximab resulted in improvement to grade 1 toxicity within 48 hours. Conclusions: Patients requiring treatment with corticosteroids for checkpoint inhibitor induced colitis are exposed to high doses of corticosteroids for prolonged periods of time, with the potential for significant steroid-associated sequelae. Alternative steroid-sparing regimens to manage checkpoint inhibitor induced autoimmune toxicities are required.