Search

Jared Deck,1 Marissa Hartley,1 Mohammad Akhter,1 Dongliang Wang,2 Jeffrey A Bogart,1 Michael D Mix1 1Department of Radiation Oncology, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY, USA; 2Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY, USACorrespondence: Jared Deck, Department of Radiation Oncology, SUNY Upstate Medical University, 750 E Adams St, Syracuse, NY, 13202, USA, Tel +1 (315)-464-5276, Email deckj@upstate.eduBackground: Prior studies suggest lymphopenia, systemic immune-inflammatory index, and tumor response all impact clinical outcomes in Stage III NSCLC. We hypothesized that tumor response after CRT would be associated with hematologic metrics and might predict clinical outcomes.Materials and Methods: Patients with stage III NSCLC treated at a single institution between 2011 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Pre-treatment gross tumor volume (GTV) was recorded then reassessed at 1– 4 months post-CRT. Complete blood counts before, during and after treatment were recorded. Systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) was defined as neutrophil × platelet/lymphocyte. Overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) were calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates, and compared with Wilcoxon tests. A multivariate analysis of hematologic factors impacting restricted mean survival was then performed using pseudovalue regression, accounting for other baseline factors.Results: 106 patients were included. After median follow-up of 24 months, median PFS and OS were 16 and 40 months, respectively. Within the multivariate model, baseline SII was associated with OS (p = 0.046) but not PFS (p = 0.09), and baseline ALC correlated with both PFS and OS (p = 0.03 and p = 0.02, respectively). Nadir ALC, nadir SII, and recovery SII were not associated with PFS or OS.Conclusion: In this cohort of patients with stage III NSCLC, baseline hematologic factors were associated with clinical outcomes including baseline ALC, baseline SII and recovery ALC. Disease response was not well correlated with hematologic factors or clinical outcomes.Keywords: lymphopenia, myelosuppression, chemoradiation, tumor response

Progress in the overall treatment of small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) has moved at a slower pace than non–small-cell lung cancer. In fact, the standard treatment regimen for limited stage SCLC has not appreciably shifted in more than 20 years, consisting of four to six cycles of cisplatin and etoposide chemotherapy concurrent with thoracic radiotherapy (TRT) followed by prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) for responsive disease. Nevertheless, long-term outcomes have improved with median survival approaching 25-30 months, and approximately one third of patients now survive 5 years. This is likely attributable in part to improvements in staging, including use of brain magnetic resonance imaging and fluorodeoxyglucose–positron emission tomography imaging, advances in radiation treatment planning, and supportive care. The CONVERT and CALGB 30610 phase III trials failed to demonstrate a survival advantage for high-dose, once-daily TRT compared with standard 45 Gy twice-daily TRT, although high-dose, once-daily TRT remains common in practice. A phase III comparison of high-dose 60 Gy twice-daily TRT versus 45 Gy twice-daily TRT aims to confirm the provocative outcomes reported with 60 Gy twice daily in the phase II setting. Efforts over time have shifted from intensifying PCI, to attempting to reduce treatment-related neurotoxicity, to more recently questioning whether careful magnetic resonance imaging surveillance may obviate the routine need for PCI. The addition of immunotherapy has resulted in mixed success in extensive-stage SCLC with modest benefit observed with programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitors, and several ongoing trials assess programmed death-ligand 1 inhibition concurrent or adjuvant to chemoradiotherapy in limited-stage SCLC. Major advances in future treatment will likely depend on a better understanding and exploiting of molecular characteristics of SCLC with increasing personalization of therapy.

8504 Background: The CALGB 30610 trial demonstrated that 70Gy QD TRT was not associated with a superior overall survival compared to standard BID 45Gy TRT in limited stage small cell lung cancer. Since both arms appeared to provide similar clinical benefit, other factors such as quality of life may help oncologists decide on the best treatment approach for their patients. The present analysis was conducted to compare patients’ quality of life between these regimens in terms of their physical symptoms, physical functioning and psychological state. Methods: In the CALGB 30610 planned sub-study CALGB 70702, patients were administered the FACT-L, FACT Trial Outcome Index-Lung Cancer (FACT-L TOI), FACT-Esophageal Cancer Eating and Swallowing Indices, ECOG Acute Esophagitis Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the EQ-5D at baseline and a single item assessing difficulty swallowing at baseline, 3, 5, 7, 12, 26, and 52 weeks after starting radiation therapy. Patients were also asked to assess treatment inconvenience at these time points. The primary endpoints of CALGB 70702 were FACT-L TOI and FACT eating and swallowing subscales at 12 weeks. Mean changes from baseline were compared between arms using general linear mixed models. Results: 417 patients consented to participate in the patient-reported outcomes substudy. The completion rate of the questionnaires was 87% at baseline and 71% at week 52. The FACT-L total score mean worsening was significantly less in the QD arm compared to the BID arm at week 3 (-1.0 vs -7.0; P=.003), and marginally less at week 5 (-5.3 vs -11.0; P=.06). The FACT-L TOI mean worsening was significantly less in the QD arm than in the BID arm at week 3 (-2.9 vs -7.6; P=.003) and greater at week 12 (-7.6 vs -2.8; P=.03). The QD arm also had a lesser EQ-5D index mean worsening at 3 weeks (-0.04 vs 0.03; P=.002). Mean increase in the acute esophagitis score (1.06 vs 2.89; P

This chapter describes the evolution of therapy for locally advanced breast cancer. Optimal management requires coordinated multidisciplinary care. Current treatment paradigms for LABC include use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy; resection, usually with mastectomy and axillary lymph node dissection; and adjuvant radiation to the chest wall or breast and regional nodes.

8562Background: PBRM1, of the SWI/SNF family, modulates chromatin remodeling. PBRM1 genomic alterations (GA) are enriched in renal cell carcinoma and mesothelioma (MS). Recent evidence suggests tha...