September 28, 2016
4 min read
Save

Hypofractionated radiation therapy offers shorter treatment for poor-performance NSCLC

You've successfully added to your alerts. You will receive an email when new content is published.

Click Here to Manage Email Alerts

We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact customerservice@slackinc.com.

The use of accelerated hypofractionated radiation therapy produced equivalent OS and PFS outcomes as conventional radiation therapy in patients with non–small cell lung cancer who were not considered candidates for standard-of-care therapy, according to an interim analysis of a phase 3 trial presented at the ASTRO Annual Meeting.

However, accelerated hypofractionated radiation therapy resulted in fewer high-grade toxicities and reduced treatment time by half, results showed.

Puneeth Iyengar, MD, PhD,

“The standard of care for a patient with stage III NSCLC is to receive concurrent chemotherapy and radiation,” Puneeth Iyengar, MD, PhD, assistant professor of radiation oncology at University of Texas Southwestern at Dallas, said during a press conference. “For patients with stage II disease, the standard of care is surgery. However, there is a distinct population within these two groups who cannot receive standard-of-care surgery or chemoradiation due to existing medical comorbidities.”

Iyengar and colleagues first conducted a phase 1 dose-escalation study, which showed a 3-week hypofractionated course of radiation therapy did not increase toxicities compared with conventional chemotherapy and radiation.

The current phase 3 study included data from 60 patients (median age, 68 years; stage II, n = 7; stage III, n = 53) who had poor performance–status disease and, thus, were not candidates for standard of care for their disease stage. Fifty-three percent of patients had squamous cell carcinoma, and 47% had adenocarcinoma.

Researchers randomly assigned patients to 60 Gy of radiation therapy, given in 30 to 33 treatments over the course of 6 weeks (arm A; n = 28) or in 15 treatments over the course of 3 weeks (arm B; n = 32).

OS served as the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included toxicity, PFS, quality of life and cost-effectiveness.

The researchers permitted patients to receive sequential chemotherapy before or after radiation therapy; however, due to their performance status, they could not receive concurrent chemotherapy.

The interim analysis included data from 48 patients, of whom 56% (n = 27) were alive at the most recent follow-up.

Patients evaluable for the interim analysis had a median OS of 14 months and a median PFS of 11.5 months. The researchers observed no statistical differences in survival between the treatment arms.

The researchers observed three deaths caused by hypoxia (arm A, n = 2; arm B, n = 1) which potentially could be linked to treatment.

Ten grade 3 toxicities occurred in arm A and six occurred in arm B. The researchers did not observe any grade 4 toxicities attributable to radiation.

“We would hope that the completion of this study would eventually change the paradigm of how we treat patients who cannot receive their standard of care,” Iyengar said. – by Cameron Kelsall

Reference:

Iyengar P, et al. Abstract 3110. Presented at: ASTRO Annual Meeting; Sept. 25-28, 2016; Boston.

Disclosure: Iyengar reports no relevant financial disclosures. One researcher reports honoraria from Varian and stock in Global Oncology. Another researcher reports honoraria from Varian and scientific advice to D3 Corporation.