1880P Two thousand consecutive parallel evaluations of Karnofsky and ECOG performance status: looking for a correct comparison

Background/Objective: With the increasing interest in natural products, a phase I openlabel study of OMN54 (Aneustat™) in patients with advanced malignancies was initiated to determine toxicity, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), dose limiting toxicities (DLT), and pharmacokinetics (PK). OMN54 is a multitargeted agent, combining three Chinese botanicals; Ganoderma lucidium, Salvia miltiorrhiza and Scutellaria barbata. Methods: Eligible patients (pts) were >18 years of age with advanced solid tumors, able to swallow oral capsules, ECOG performance status < 2, measurable disease as defined by RECIST 1.1 and adequate organ function. Results: Twenty-two patients were enrolled in 6 dose levels, 2 with daily dosing and 4 with twicedaily dosing ranging from 1 to 5 grams daily. All were evaluated for toxicity and 20 for response. No treatment-related dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were reported and the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) was determined to be 2.5 g twice daily. Seven adverse events in 5 patients were reported as possibly drug-related; 6 were GI toxicity and 1 was a skin disorder. All were grade 1 except one grade 2 vomiting. No RECIST responses were seen. Six pts were treated with > 2 cycles; one for 8 cycles. Four patients had reductions in TGF –β and EGF, exploratory biomarkers possibly suggestive of a drug effect. Plasma half-lives of 1 -2 hours were noted for all parent drug chemical markers with no accumulation over time. Conclusion: OMN54 was well tolerated, with no DLTs observed. Further studies at the RP2D will assess the biological activity.

Download Full-text

Randomized clinical trials and real life studies: Comparison of baseline characteristics of patients in oral target therapies for renal cell carcinoma

Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice ◽

10.1177/10781552211005518 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 107815522110055

Author(s):

Ruggero Lasala ◽

Fiorenzo Santoleri ◽

Alessia Romagnoli ◽

Felice Musicco ◽

Paolo Abrate ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽

Cell Carcinoma ◽

Renal Cell ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Performance Status ◽

Relevant Literature ◽

Real Life ◽

Ecog Performance Status ◽

Target Therapies ◽

Baseline Characteristics

Introduction Pivotal Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) constitute scientific evidence in support of therapeutic choices when a drug is authorized in the market. In RCTs, patients are selected in a rigorous manner, in order to avoid bias that may influence efficacy assessments. Therefore, patients who take the drug in Real Life Studies (RLSs) are not the same as those participating in RCTs, which, in turn, leads to low data transferability from RCTs to RLS. The objective of this study was to evaluate the differences between RCTs and RLS, in terms of patient baseline characteristics. Materials and Methods Our study includes all oral target therapies for RCC (Renal Cell Carcinoma) marketed in Europe before March 31, 2019. For each treatment, we considered both RCTs and RLSs, the former gathered from Summary of Product Characteristics published on the European Medicine Agency (EMA) website, and the latter yielded by our search in relevant literature. For each drug considered, we then compared the baseline characteristics of patients included in the RCT samples with those of the samples included in the RLSs using the Chi-squared and Mann-Whitney tests. Results We considered six medicines, for a total of 9 pivotal RCTs and 31 RLSs. RCTs reported the same type of patient baseline characteristics, whereas RLSs are more varied in reporting. Some patient baseline characteristics (metastases, previous treatments, etc.) were significantly different between RCTs and RLs. Other characteristics, such as ECOG Performance Status, brain metastases, and comorbidities, liver and kidney failure, are comprised in exclusion criteria of RCTs, though are included in RLS. Discussion and Conclusion: While evaluating equal treatments for the same indications, RCTs and RLSs do not always assess patients with the same characteristics. It would be necessary to produce evidence from RLSs so as to have an idea of treatment effectiveness in patients groups that are not eligible or underrepresented in RCTs.

Download Full-text

Biomarker testing patterns and actionability in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) at OneOncology (OneOnc).

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2020.39.28_suppl.287 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽

pp. 287-287

Author(s):

Ari M. Vanderwalde ◽

Esprit Ma ◽

Elaine Yu ◽

Tania Szado ◽

Richard Price ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Performance Status ◽

Ecog Performance Status ◽

Personalized Care ◽

Specimen Collection ◽

Targeted Treatments ◽

Biomarker Testing ◽

Next Generation Sequencing Ngs ◽

To Receive ◽

Testing Patterns ◽

Test Result

287 Background: Recent approvals of targeted treatments (tx) have improved personalized care in aNSCLC. Biomarker testing is crucial for patients (pts) to receive optimal tx expeditiously. This study examined aNSCLC biomarker testing and tx patterns at OneOnc. Methods: Pts diagnosed with aNSCLC (stage ≥ IIIb) from 1/1/2015 to 5/31/2020, aged ≥ 18 years, and with ≥ 1 visit ≤ 90 days of advanced (Adv) diagnosis (Dx) were retrospectively evaluated using the nationwide Flatiron Health electronic health record derived de-identified database from selected OneOnc sites. Descriptive analyses were conducted to evaluate testing patterns for ALK, BRAF, EGFR, KRAS, PD-L1, and ROS-1 biomarkers and actionable mutation tx pattern. Results: Overall 3,860 aNSCLC pts were included, median age was 69 years, 47% females, 66% non-squamous, 29% squamous, 4% histology NOS, and 23% with ECOG performance status 0-1. Of the 3,152 (82%) pts tested for any biomarker, 64% received next-generation sequencing (NGS) vs. 36% received other biomarker tests only. Testing rates varied by biomarker: EGFR (74%), ALK (72%), ROS-1 (66%), PD-L1 (57%), BRAF (56%), KRAS (54%). Pts who received all 6 biomarker tests increased from 12% (2015), 23% (2016), 40% (2017), 41% (2018), 48% (2019) to 56% (2020). Among the tested pts, the median time from Adv Dx to the first test result was 20 days (d) and from specimen collection after Adv Dx to the first test result was 12 d. Pts tested and treated before test result available declined from 28% (2015) to 16% (2020). Of 1,207 pts with actionable mutations, 390 (32%) received tx before the test result: 35% chemotherapy (chemo) only, 28% chemo + cancer immunotherapy (CIT), and 15% CIT only. After the test result, 26% to 81% of pts received no or other tx not specific to actionable mutations [Table]. Conclusions: Findings from this study demonstrated an increase in aNSCLC biomarker testing at OneOnc over time, while 44% pts in 2020 did not receive testing on all 6 biomarkers. Some pts had tx prior to the test result, but this trend appeared to decline. Further studies are warranted to better understand the reasons for pts receiving tx that were not specific to their actionable mutations.[Table: see text]

Download Full-text

Safety and efficacy of apatinib as third or later line treatment for advanced gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: A post-marketing phase IV study.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2021.39.15_suppl.e16034 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽

pp. e16034-e16034

Author(s):

Jin Li ◽

Shukui Qin ◽

Lu Wen ◽

Junsheng Wang ◽

Wenying Deng ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Gastric Cancer ◽

Advanced Gastric Cancer ◽

Performance Status ◽

Gastroesophageal Junction ◽

Line Treatment ◽

Ecog Performance Status ◽

Safety And Efficacy ◽

Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma ◽

Grade 3 ◽

Phase Iv

e16034 Background: Apatinib, a small molecule multi-target tyrosine kinase inhibitor with high selectivity for VEGFR-2, has been approved for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer or gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma in China by significantly improving progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Here, we report safety and efficacy data from an open-label, single-arm, multicenter, phase IV trial of apatinib as a third-line or later line treatment for advanced gastric cancer. Methods: Eligible patients had histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma; and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0–2; and adequate haematological and hepatic function; and failure of at least two lines of chemotherapy. Patients received oral apatinib until disease progression, death or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was safety, and secondary endpoints included PFS and OS. Results: The intention-to-treat population (ITT) included 2004 patients. At baseline, the median age was 59 (range, 19-85) years, ECOG performance status of 0/1/2 (%) was 15.4/68.8/15.1, and stage III/IV was 3.5/96.4; 98.8% had metastases, and among which metastatic foci≤2/ > 2 was 64.5/34.2 (%), respectively. 89.6% of the patients were given apatinib 500mg as the initial does and the median treatment duration was 56 days. After a median follow-up of 126.5 days, adverse events (AEs) occurred in 95.1% of the patients and 70.3% were grade ≥3. 87.9% of the patients experienced treatment-related AEs (TRAEs), of which 51% had grade ≥3, 12.3% and 16.8% reduced dose and discontinued the treatment, respectively. 57 (2.9%) TRAEs-related deaths were reported, mainly because of gastrointestinal bleeding (16 cases), upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage (7), cerebral haemorrhage (2), and gastric perforation (1). The incidence of TRAEs of special interest was 74.3%; 38.1% of patients developed grade≥3, mainly including hypertension (26.3%), bleeding (5.1%), proteinuria (4.5%), and hand-foot syndrome (3.1%). In an ITT population, median PFS was 2.7 months (95%CI 2.23-2.79) and median OS was 5.8 months (95% CI 5.42-6.11). Conclusions: This study confirms that apatinib has a well-established and manageable safety profile and survival benefit as third or later line therapy for patients with advanced gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. Clinical trial information: NCT02426034.

Download Full-text

First-line nivolumab (NIVO) plus ipilimumab (IPI) plus two cycles of chemotherapy (chemo) versus chemo alone (4 cycles) in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): Two-year update from CheckMate 9LA.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2021.39.15_suppl.9000 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽

pp. 9000-9000

Author(s):

Martin Reck ◽

Tudor-Eliade Ciuleanu ◽

Manuel Cobo ◽

Michael Schenker ◽

Bogdan Zurawski ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Benefit ◽

Performance Status ◽

Objective Response ◽

Stage Iv ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Expression Level ◽

First Line ◽

Ecog Performance Status ◽

Grade 3

9000 Background: In the randomized phase 3 CheckMate 9LA trial (NCT03215706), first-line NIVO + IPI combined with 2 cycles of chemo significantly improved overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) vs chemo alone (4 cycles). Clinical benefit was observed regardless of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression level and histology. Here we report data with 2 years’ minimum follow-up from this study. Methods: Adult patients (pts) with stage IV / recurrent NSCLC, ECOG performance status ≤ 1, and no known sensitizing EGFR/ALK alterations were stratified by PD-L1 (< 1% vs ≥ 1%), sex, and histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and were randomized 1:1 to NIVO 360 mg Q3W + IPI 1 mg/kg Q6W + chemo (2 cycles; n = 361) or chemo alone (4 cycles; n = 358). Pts with non-squamous NSCLC in the chemo-alone arm could receive pemetrexed maintenance. The primary endpoint was OS. Secondary endpoints included PFS and ORR by blinded independent central review, and efficacy by different PD-L1 levels. Safety was exploratory. Results: At a minimum follow-up of 24.4 months for OS (database lock: Feb 18, 2021), pts treated with NIVO + IPI + chemo continued to derive OS benefit vs chemo, with a median OS of 15.8 months vs 11.0 months, respectively (HR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.61–0.86]); 2-year OS rates were 38% vs 26%. Median PFS with NIVO + IPI + chemo vs chemo was 6.7 months vs 5.3 months (HR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.56–0.79]); 8% and 37% of pts who had disease progression received subsequent immunotherapy, respectively. ORR was 38% with NIVO + IPI + chemo vs 25% with chemo. Similar clinical benefit with NIVO + IPI + chemo vs chemo was observed in all randomized pts and across the majority of subgroups, including by PD-L1 expression level (Table) or histology. Any grade and grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 92% and 48% of pts in the NIVO + IPI + chemo arm vs 88% and 38% in the chemo arm, respectively. Conclusion: With 2 years’ minimum follow-up, first-line NIVO + IPI + chemo demonstrated durable survival and benefit versus chemo in pts with advanced NSCLC; no new safety signals were identified. Clinical trial information: NCT03215706. [Table: see text]

Download Full-text

Initial experience of TAS-102 chemotherapy in Australian patients with chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2021.39.3_suppl.71 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 39 (3_suppl) ◽

pp. 71-71

Author(s):

Azim Jalali ◽

Hui-Li Wong ◽

Rachel Wong ◽

Margaret Lee ◽

Lucy Gately ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Colorectal Cancer ◽

Overall Survival ◽

Febrile Neutropenia ◽

Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽

Real World ◽

Performance Status ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Median Number ◽

Ecog Performance Status ◽

Number Of Patients

71 Background: For patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treatment with Trifluridine/Tipiracil, also known as TAS-102, improves overall survival. In Australia, TAS-102 was initially made available locally through patients self-funding, later via an industry sponsored Medicine Access Program (MAP) and then via the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). This study aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of TAS-102 in real world Australian population. Methods: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from the Treatment of Recurrent and Advanced Colorectal Cancer (TRACC) registry was undertaken. The characteristics and outcomes of patients receiving TAS-102 were assessed and compared to all TRACC patients and those enrolled in the registration study (RECOURSE). Results: Across 13 sites, 107 patients were treated with TAS-102 (non-PBS n = 27, PBS n = 80), The median number of patients per site was 7 (range: 1-17). The median age was 60 years (range: 31-83), compared to 67 for all TRACC patients and 63 for RECOURSE. Comparing registry TAS-102 and RECOURSE patients, 75% vs 100% were ECOG performance status 0-1, 74% vs 79% had initiated treatment more than 18 months from diagnosis of metastatic disease and 39% vs 49% were RAS wild type. Median time on treatment was 10.4 weeks (range: 1.7-32). Median clinician assessed progression-free survival was 3.3 compared to RECIST defined PFS of 2 months in RECOURSE study, while median overall survival was the same at 7.1 months. Two patients (2.3%) had febrile neutropenia and there were no treatment-related deaths in the real-world series, where TAS102 dose at treatment initiation was at clinician discretion. In the RECOURSE study there was a 4% febrile neutropenia rate and one treatment-related death. Conclusions: TRACC registry patients treated with TAS102 were younger than both TRACC patients overall and those from the RECOURSE trial. Less strict application of RECIST criteria and less frequent imaging may have contributed to an apparently longer PFS. However overall survival outcomes achieved with TAS102 in real world patients were comparable to findings from this pivotal trial with an acceptable rate of major adverse events.

Download Full-text

Preliminary results of a phase II study of alrizomadlin (APG-115), a novel, small-molecule MDM2 inhibitor, in combination with pembrolizumab in patients (pts) with unresectable or metastatic melanoma or advanced solid tumors that have failed immuno-oncologic (I-O) drugs.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2021.39.15_suppl.2506 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽

pp. 2506-2506

Author(s):

Anthony W. Tolcher ◽

James Andrew Reeves ◽

Meredith McKean ◽

Bartosz Chmielowski ◽

Joseph Thaddeus Beck ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Metastatic Melanoma ◽

Solid Tumors ◽

Phase Ii ◽

Phase Ii Study ◽

Performance Status ◽

Nerve Sheath Tumor ◽

Advanced Solid Tumors ◽

Antitumor Effects ◽

Ecog Performance Status ◽

Multiple Tumor

2506 Background: Alrizomadlin (APG-115) restores TP53 function, activating p53-mediated apoptosis in tumor cells with wild-type TP53 and/or MDM2 amplification. Alrizomadlin also functions as a host immunomodulator and hence may restore antitumor activity in pts with cancers failing PD-1/PD-L1 blockade. Methods: This US multicenter trial assessed alrizomadlin combined with pembrolizumab in pts with unresectable/metastatic melanoma or advanced solid tumors that had failed I-O drugs; or pts with malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor (MPNST), liposarcoma, or ATM mutant solid tumors that had failed any standard therapy. Eligible pts had ECOG performance status of 0-2 and no CNS metastases. The phase II study cohorts included pts with melanoma, NSCLC, solid tumor with ATM mutation, well-differentiated/dedifferentiated liposarcoma, urothelial carcinoma, and MPNST. Alrizomadlin was administered orally at 150 mg once every other day for 2 consecutive weeks with 1 week off and pembrolizumab at 200 mg via IV infusion for 30 minutes on Day 1 of a 21-day cycle. Results: As of December 25, 2020, 84 pts had been treated in 6 cohorts: melanoma (n = 26), NSCLC (n = 23), ATM mutation (n = 9), liposarcoma (n = 14), urothelial (n = 9), and MPNST (n = 3). In the PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor-failed melanoma cohort, there was 1 confirmed partial response (PR) out of 5 pts with uveal melanoma, 2 PR (1 confirmed and 1 unconfirmed) of 5 pts with mucosal melanoma, and 1 confirmed PR of 11 pts with cutaneous melanoma. ORR in the melanoma cohort was 17.4% (4/23 evaluable pts), and the disease control rate was 60.9% (14/23). In the MPNST cohort, 1 of 3 pts had an unconfirmed ongoing PR. In I-O drug-failed NSCLC (n = 14 evaluable) and urothelial (n = 5 evaluable) cohorts, each reported 1 confirmed PR. Common treatment (alrizomadlin or pembrolizumab)-related adverse events (TRAEs) (≥ 10%) were nausea (63.1%), thrombocytopenia (36.9%), vomiting (33.3%), fatigue (31.0%), decreased appetite (27.4%), diarrhea (21.4%), neutropenia (15.4%), and anemia (11.9%). Grade ≥ 3 TRAEs (≥ 5%) included thrombocytopenia (20.2%), neutropenia (14.2%), and anemia (8.3%). Eleven pts discontinued treatment due to AEs: 5 were treatment related, including 2 grade 4 thrombocytopenia, and 1 each of grade 2 vomiting, grade 2 fatigue, and grade 2 posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES). Three treatment-related SAEs were PRES, pyrexia, and asthenia. Conclusions: Alrizomadlin combined with pembrolizumab is well tolerated and may restore antitumor effects in pts with cancer resistant to or intolerant of I-O drugs, as suggested by preliminary antitumor activities in multiple tumor types. Internal study identifiers: APG-115-US-002; Keynote MK-3475-B66. Clinical trial information: NCT03611868.

Download Full-text

Nivolumab (NIVO) plus ipilimumab (IPI) versus chemotherapy (chemo) as first-line (1L) treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): 4-year update from CheckMate 227.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2021.39.15_suppl.9016 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽

pp. 9016-9016

Author(s):

Luis G. Paz-Ares ◽

Tudor-Eliade Ciuleanu ◽

Jong-Seok Lee ◽

Laszlo Urban ◽

Reyes Bernabe Caro ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Advanced Nsclc ◽

Performance Status ◽

Stage Iv ◽

Ecog Performance Status ◽

Programmed Death ◽

Long Term Follow Up ◽

To Receive ◽

Clinical Trial Information

9016 Background: 1L NIVO + IPI was shown to provide durable long-term overall survival (OS) benefit vs chemo regardless of tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in patients (pts) with advanced NSCLC in CheckMate 227 Part 1 (NCT02477826); 3-year OS rates were 33% vs 22% in pts with PD-L1 ≥ 1% (HR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.67–0.93]) and 34% vs 15% in pts with PD-L1 < 1% (HR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.51–0.81]). Here we report updated results from the study with 4 years’ minimum follow-up. Methods: Adults with previously untreated stage IV / recurrent NSCLC, no known EGFR/ ALK alterations , and ECOG performance status ≤ 1 were enrolled; pts were stratified by squamous (SQ) and non-squamous (NSQ) histology. Pts with PD-L1 ≥ 1% (n = 1189) were randomized 1:1:1 to receive NIVO (3 mg/kg Q2W) + IPI (1 mg/kg Q6W), NIVO alone (240 mg Q2W), or chemo. Pts with PD-L1 < 1% (n = 550) were randomized 1:1:1 to receive NIVO + IPI, NIVO (360 mg Q3W) + chemo, or chemo. OS with NIVO + IPI vs chemo in pts with PD-L1 ≥ 1% was the primary endpoint. Results: With minimum follow-up of 49.4 months (database lock, Feb 18, 2021), pts were at least 2 years beyond the protocol-specified end of immunotherapy treatment. Pts with PD-L1 ≥ 1% continued to show durable benefit with NIVO + IPI vs chemo (HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.65–0.90]); 4-year OS rates were 29% (NIVO + IPI), 21% (NIVO), and 18% (chemo). At 4 years, 14% (NIVO + IPI), 10% (NIVO), and 4% (chemo) remained progression free. Among responders, 34%, 30%, and 7% remained in response, respectively. In an exploratory analysis in pts with PD-L1 ≥ 50%, 4-year OS rates were 37% (NIVO + IPI), 26% (NIVO), and 20% (chemo). In pts with PD-L1 < 1%, OS HR for NIVO + IPI vs chemo was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.51–0.81); 4-year OS rates were 24% (NIVO + IPI), 13% (NIVO + chemo) and 10% (chemo). At 4 years, 12% (NIVO + IPI), 7% (NIVO + chemo), and 0% (chemo) remained progression free. Among responders, 31%, 13%, and 0% remained in response, respectively. Among pts who progressed on NIVO + IPI vs chemo, 7% vs 40% (PD-L1 ≥ 1%), and 9% vs 33% (PD-L1 < 1%), received subsequent immunotherapy. Benefit with NIVO + IPI vs chemo was observed for both SQ and NSQ histology (Table). With long-term follow-up, no new safety signals were identified. Conclusions: With 4 years’ minimum follow-up, 1L NIVO + IPI continued to provide durable, long-term OS benefit vs chemo in pts with advanced NSCLC regardless of PD-L1 expression or histology. Clinical trial information: NCT02477826. [Table: see text]

Download Full-text

Phase 3 comparison of high-dose once-daily (QD) thoracic radiotherapy (TRT) with standard twice-daily (BID) TRT in limited stage small cell lung cancer (LSCLC): CALGB 30610 (Alliance)/RTOG 0538.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2021.39.15_suppl.8505 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽

pp. 8505-8505

Author(s):

Jeffrey A Bogart ◽

Xiaofei F. Wang ◽

Gregory A. Masters ◽

Junheng Gao ◽

Ritsuko Komaki ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Regional Lymph Node ◽

Performance Status ◽

Lymph Node Involvement ◽

High Dose ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Ecog Performance Status ◽

Once Daily ◽

Concomitant Boost ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Grade 3

8505 Background: Although level 1 evidence is lacking, the majority of patients (pts) with LSCLC are treated with a high dose QD TRT regimen in clinical practice. CALGB 30610/RTOG 0538 was designed to determine if administering high dose TRT would improve overall survival (OS), compared with standard 45 Gy BID TRT, in LSCLC pts treated with chemoradiotherapy. Methods: Eligible pts had LSCLC, ECOG performance status (PS) 0-2 and regional lymph node involvement excluding contralateral hilar or supraclavicular nodes. This phase 3 trial was conducted in 2 stages. In the first stage, pts were randomized 1:1:1 to 45 Gy BID over 3 weeks, 70 Gy QD over 7 weeks, or 61.2 Gy concomitant boost (CB) over 5 weeks. For the second stage, the study planned discontinuation of one high dose arm based on interim toxicity analysis with patients then randomized 1:1 in the two remaining arms. TRT was given starting with either the 1st or 2nd (of 4 total) chemotherapy cycles. The primary endpoint was OS measured from date of randomization. Results: The trial opened 03/15/2008 and closed 12/01/2019 upon completing accrual, with the CB arm discontinued 3/11/2013 after interim analysis. This analysis includes 638 pts randomized to 45 Gy BID TRT (n = 313) or 70 Gy QD TRT (n = 325). Median age was 63 years (range 37-81), the majority of pts were Caucasian (86%), female (52%), and with ECOG PS 0-1 (95%). After median follow-up of 2.84 years (IQR:1.35 -5.61) for surviving pts, QD compared to BID did not result in a significant difference in OS (HR 0.94, 95% CI: 0.76-1.2, p = 0.9). Median, 2- and 4-year OS for QD were 30.5 months (95% CI: 24.4-39.6), 56% (95% CI: 0.51-0.62), and 39% (95% CI: 0.33-0.45), and for BID 28.7 months (95% CI: 26.2-35.5), 59% (95% CI: 0.53-0.65), and 35% (95% CI: 0.29-0.42). QD also did not result in a significant difference in PFS (HR 0.96, 95% CI: 0.78-1.18, p = 0.94). Most grade 3+ hematologic and non-hematologic adverse events (AEs) were similar between cohorts. Rates of grade 3+ febrile neutropenia, dyspnea, esophageal pain and dysphagia for QD were 12.6%,7%, 11.6% and 11.3%, and for BID 13.6%, 4%, 11.2 % and 9.5%. Grade 5 AEs were reported in 3.7% and 1.7% of the QD and BID cohorts, respectively. Results will be updated at presentation. Conclusions: High dose QD TRT to 70 Gy did not significantly improve OS compared with standard 45 Gy BID TRT. Nevertheless, favorable outcomes on the QD arm provide the most robust evidence available supporting high dose once-daily TRT as an acceptable option in LSCLC. Outcomes from this study, the largest conducted in LSCLC to date, will help guide TRT decisions for this patient population. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882; Clinical trial information: NCT00632853.

Download Full-text