Search

Purpose: NRG Oncology RTOG 9704 was the first adjuvant trial to validate the prognostic value of postresection CA19-9 levels for survival in patients with pancreatic carcinoma. The data resulting from this study also provide information about predictors of recurrence that may be used to tailor individualized management in this disease setting. This secondary analysis assessed the prognostic value of postresection CA19-9 and surgical margin status (SMS) in predicting patterns of disease recurrence. Methods and materials: This multicenter cooperative trial included participants who were enrolled as patients at oncology treatment sites in the United States and Canada. The study included 451 patients analyzable for SMS, of whom 385 were eligible for postresection CA19-9 analysis. Postresection CA19-9 was analyzed at cut points of 90, 180, and continuously. Patterns of disease recurrence included local/regional recurrence (LRR) and distant failure (DF). Multivariable analyses included treatment, tumor size, and nodal status. To adjust for multiple comparisons, a P value of ≤ .01 was considered statistically significant and > .01 to ≤ .05 to be a trend. Results: For CA19-9, 132 (34%) patients were Lewis antigen–negative (no CA19-9 expression), 200 (52%) had levels

347 Background: 9,704 was the first phase 3 pancreatic cancer trial to validate the prognostic value of postresection CA19-9 for overall survival (OS), with values > 90/180 associated with worse OS. All pts received adjuvant gemcitabine or 5-FU and chemo-radiotherapy (RT). This analysis evaluates patterns of disease failure. Methods: SMS was negative, positive, or unknown. CA19-9 was analyzed at cut points 90, 180 and continuously. LRF and DF were estimated by cumulative incidence and Gray’s test compared. Cox hazard models were used for multivariate analyses (MVA) and included treatment, tumor site, size and nodal status. To adjust for multiple comparisons a p-value < 0.01 is statistically significant and 0.01 to < 0.05 a trend. Results: 538 pts accrued, with 451 eligible and analyzable for SMS and 385 for CA19-9. For CA19-9, 132 (34%) were Lewis Antigen negative (no CA19-9 expression), 200 (52%) < 90 and 220 (57%) < 180. 188 (42%) had negative margins, 152 (34%) positive and 111 (25%) unknown (i.e., no margin comment in path report; shown to have outcomes similar to negative margin pts). Pts with CA19-9 ≥ 180 were more likely to have tumors ≥ 3 cm and pts with positive SMS more likely to have KPS 60 - 80, T3/T4, or N1 disease. On univariate analysis (UVA) CA19-9 cut at 90 was associated with significant increases in both LRF (trend) and DF; in the gemcitabine arm this was seen in DF, not in LRF; in the 5-FU arm it was seen in both. Results were similar at the 180 cut point and continuously. SMS on UVA was not associated with increase in LRF/DF; see Table. On MVA, CA19-9 > 90 was significantly associated with LRF and DF; positive SMS showed only a trend for DF. Conclusions: Postresection CA19-9 has significant association with both LRF and DF not seen with SMS. These findings support continued use of RT in trials and consideration of dose intensification among pts with elevated postresection CA19-9. Grants: NCI U10, CA21661, CA37422, CA180868, CA180822. Clinical trial information: 0000000. [Table: see text]

Background and purpose To implement an on-line correction scheme based on implanted markers to reduce treatment margins in external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) of carcinoma of the prostate. In turn reduction in treatment margins reduces irradiated volumes and offers the possibility of reduced normal tissue complications or escalated target dose. Patients and methods Five or six gold markers were implanted in 10 patients treated for prostate carcinoma using EBRT. All patients were enlisted in an IRB-approved protocol. Before each fraction two portal images were obtained using a low dose (2MU). Positions of the markers were calculated from these images using an in-house developed program. Corrections were applied with a threshold of 2mm displacement. After correction the procedure was repeated. Results Overall systematic errors were reduced from 7.45, 1.29, and 5.12mm to 0.65, 0.11, and 0.46mm in, respectively, the antero-posterior, lateral, and cranio-caudal directions. Likewise, the overall SD were reduced from 5.99, 5.34, and 4.44mm to 2.82, 2.64, and 2.22mm, respectively. All reductions were highly significant ( P t -test for systematic and an F -test for random errors. On an individual level all but three patients showed significant improvements in all directions for the random errors. All patients improved in at least one direction. Systematic errors were significantly lower in all patients. Simulated correction schemes using this data suggest that margin reduction using off-line reduction does not benefit substantially from on-line corrections in the first few fractions. Conclusions Use of marker-based correction improves the patient position. Factors influencing the accuracy were: (1) number of seeds usable for correction, (2) distribution of markers throughout the volume of interest, and (3) objective instructions for patient realignment.