Search

Background and purpose The ultimate challenge in dose-escalation trials lies in finding the balance between benefit and toxicity. We examined patient-reported outcomes (PROs), including health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC), treated with dose-escalated radiotherapy. Materials and methods The international, randomised, phase 2 ARTFORCE PET-Boost study (NCT01024829) aimed to improve 1-year freedom from local failure rates in patients with stage II-III NSCLC, with a ≥ 4 cm primary tumour. Treatment consisted of an individualised, escalated fraction dose, either to the primary tumour as a whole or to its most FDG-avid subvolume (24 x 3.0–5.4 Gy). Patients received sequential or concurrent chemoradiotherapy, or radiotherapy only. Patients were asked to complete the EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-LC13, and the EuroQol-5D at eight timepoints. We assessed the effect of dose-escalation on C30 sum score through mixed-modelling and evaluated clinically meaningful changes for all outcomes. Results Between Apr-2010 and Sep-2017, 107 patients were randomised; 102 were included in the current analysis. Compliance rates: baseline 86.3%, 3-months 85.3%, 12-months 80.3%; lowest during radiation treatment 35.0%. A linear mixed-effect (LME) model revealed no significant change in overall HRQoL over time, and no significant difference between the two treatment groups. Physical functioning showed a gradual decline in both groups during treatment and at 18-months follow-up, while clinically meaningful worsening of dyspnoea was seen mainly at 3- and 6-months. Conclusion In patients with LA-NSCLC treated with two dose-escalation strategies, the average patient-reported HRQoL remained stable in both groups, despite frequent patient-reported symptoms, including dyspnoea, dysphagia, and fatigue., Background and purpose: The ultimate challenge in dose-escalation trials lies in finding the balance between benefit and toxicity. We examined patient-reported outcomes (PROs), including health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC), treated with dose-escalated radiotherapy. Materials and methods: The international, randomised, phase 2 ARTFORCE PET-Boost study (NCT01024829) aimed to improve 1-year freedom from local failure rates in patients with stage II-III NSCLC, with a ≥ 4 cm primary tumour. Treatment consisted of an individualised, escalated fraction dose, either to the primary tumour as a whole or to its most FDG-avid subvolume (24 x 3.0–5.4 Gy). Patients received sequential or concurrent chemoradiotherapy, or radiotherapy only. Patients were asked to complete the EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-LC13, and the EuroQol-5D at eight timepoints. We assessed the effect of dose-escalation on C30 sum score through mixed-modelling and evaluated clinically meaningful changes for all outcomes. Results: Between Apr-2010 and Sep-2017, 107 patients were randomised; 102 were included in the current analysis. Compliance rates: baseline 86.3%, 3-months 85.3%, 12-months 80.3%; lowest during radiation treatment 35.0%. A linear mixed-effect (LME) model revealed no significant change in overall HRQoL over time, and no significant difference between the two treatment groups. Physical functioning showed a gradual decline in both groups during treatment and at 18-months follow-up, while clinically meaningful worsening of dyspnoea was seen mainly at 3- and 6-months. Conclusion: In patients with LA-NSCLC treated with two dose-escalation strategies, the average patient-reported HRQoL remained stable in both groups, despite frequent patient-reported symptoms, including dyspnoea, dysphagia, and fatigue.

Background and purpose: We aimed to assess if radiation dose escalation to either the whole primary tumour, or to an 18F-FDG-PET defined subvolume within the primary tumour known to be at high risk of local relapse, could improve local control in patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Materials and methods: Patients with inoperable, stage II-III NSCLC were randomised (1:1) to receive dose-escalated radiotherapy to the whole primary tumour or a PET-defined subvolume, in 24 fractions. The primary endpoint was freedom from local failure (FFLF), assessed by central review of CT-imaging. A phase II ‘pick-the-winner’ design (alpha = 0.05; beta = 0.80) was applied to detect a 15 % increase in FFLF at 1-year. ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT01024829. Results: 150 patients were enrolled. 54 patients were randomised to the whole tumour group and 53 to the PET-subvolume group. The trial was closed early due to slow accrual. Median dose/fraction to the boosted volume was 3.30 Gy in the whole tumour group, and 3.50 Gy in the PET-subvolume group. The 1-year FFLF rate was 97 % (95 %CI 91–100) in whole tumour group, and 91 % (95 %CI 82–100) in the PET-subvolume group. Acute grade ≥ 3 adverse events occurred in 23 (43 %) and 20 (38 %) patients, and late grade ≥ 3 in 12 (22 %) and 17 (32 %), respectively. Grade 5 events occurred in 19 (18 %) patients in total, of which before disease progression in 4 (7 %) in the whole tumour group, and 5 (9 %) in the PET-subvolume group. Conclusion: Both strategies met the primary objective to improve local control with 1-year rates. However, both strategies led to unexpected high rates of grade 5 toxicity. Dose differentiation, improved patient selection and better sparing of central structures are proposed to improve dose-escalation strategies.

Background: Lung cancer treatment decisions are typically made among clinical experts in a multidisciplinary tumour board (MTB) based on clinical data and guidelines. The rise of artificial intelligence and cultural shifts towards patient autonomy are changing the nature of clinical decision-making towards personalized treatments. This can be supported by clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) that generate personalized treatment information as a basis for shared decision-making (SDM). Little is known about lung cancer patients' treatment decisions and the potential for SDM supported by CDSSs. The aim of this study is to understand to what extent SDM is done in current practice and what clinicians need to improve it. Objective: To explore (1) the extent to which patient preferences are taken into consideration in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment decisions; (2) clinician perspectives on using CDSSs to support SDM. Design: Mixed methods study consisting of a retrospective cohort study on patient deviation from MTB advice and reasons for deviation, qualitative interviews with lung cancer specialists and observations of MTB discussions and patient consultations. Setting and Participants: NSCLC patients (N = 257) treated at a single radiotherapy clinic and nine lung cancer specialists from six Dutch clinics. Results: We found a 10.9% (n = 28) deviation rate from MTB advice; 50% (n = 14) were due to patient preference, of which 85.7% (n = 12) chose a less intensive treatment than MTB advice. Current MTB recommendations are based on clinician experience, guidelines and patients' performance status. Most specialists (n = 7) were receptive towards CDSSs but cited barriers, such as lack of trust, lack of validation studies and time. CDSSs were considered valuable during MTB discussions rather than in consultations. Conclusion: Lung cancer decisions are heavily influenced by clinical guidelines and experience, yet many patients prefer less intensive treatment

Treatment of glioblastoma xenografts with chloroquine results in macroautophagy/autophagy inhibition, resulting in a reduction of tumor hypoxia and sensitization to radiation. Preclinical data show thatEGFRvIII-expressing glioblastoma may benefit most from chloroquine because of autophagy dependency. This study is the first to explore the safety, pharmacokinetics and maximum tolerated dose of chloroquine in combination with radiotherapy and concurrent daily temozolomide in patients with a newly diagnosed glioblastoma. This study is a single-center, open-label, dose-finding phase I trial. Patients received oral chloroquine daily starting one week before the course of chemoradiation (temozolomide 75 mg/m(2)/d) until the end of radiotherapy (59.4 Gy/33 fractions). Thirteen patients were included in the study (n = 6: 200 mg, n = 3: 300 mg, n = 4: 400 mg chloroquine). A total of 44 adverse events, possibly related to chloroquine, were registered including electrocardiogram QTc prolongation, irreversible blurred vision and nausea/vomiting resulting in cessation of temozolomide or delay of adjuvant cycles. The maximum tolerated dose was 200 mg chloroquine. Median overall survival was 16 months (range 2-32). Median survival was 11.5 months forEGFRvIII- patients and 20 months forEGFRvIII+ patients. A daily dose of 200 mg chloroquine was determined to be the maximum tolerated dose when combined with radiotherapy and concurrent temozolomide for newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Favorable toxicity and promising overall survival support further clinical studies.

Purpose Methods Automated techniques for estimating the contours of organs and structures in medical images have become more widespread and a variety of measures are available for assessing their quality. Quantitative measures of geometric agreement, for example, overlap with a gold-standard delineation, are popular but may not predict the level of clinical acceptance for the contouring method. Therefore, surrogate measures that relate more directly to the clinical judgment of contours, and to the way they are used in routine workflows, need to be developed. The purpose of this study is to propose a method (inspired by the Turing Test) for providing contour quality measures that directly draw upon practitioners' assessments of manual and automatic contours. This approach assumes that an inability to distinguish automatically produced contours from those of clinical experts would indicate that the contours are of sufficient quality for clinical use. In turn, it is anticipated that such contours would receive less manual editing prior to being accepted for clinical use. In this study, an initial assessment of this approach is performed with radiation oncologists and therapists. Eight clinical observers were presented with thoracic organ-at-risk contours through a web interface and were asked to determine if they were automatically generated or manually delineated. The accuracy of the visual determination was assessed, and the proportion of contours for which the source was misclassified recorded. Contours of six different organs in a clinical workflow were for 20 patient cases. The time required to edit autocontours to a clinically acceptable standard was also measured, as a gold standard of clinical utility. Established quantitative measures of autocontouring performance, such as Dice similarity coefficient with respect to the original clinical contour and the misclassification rate accessed with the proposed framework, were evaluated as surrogates of the editing