14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Concurrent once-daily versus twice-daily chemoradiotherapy in patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (CONVERT): an open-label, phase 3, randomised, superiority trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Summary

          Background

          Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is the standard of care in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, but the optimal radiotherapy schedule and dose remains controversial. The aim of this study was to establish a standard chemoradiotherapy treatment regimen in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer.

          Methods

          The CONVERT trial was an open-label, phase 3, randomised superiority trial. We enrolled adult patients (aged ≥18 years) who had cytologically or histologically confirmed limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, and adequate pulmonary function. Patients were recruited from 73 centres in eight countries. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 45 Gy radiotherapy in 30 twice-daily fractions of 1·5 Gy over 19 days, or 66 Gy in 33 once-daily fractions of 2 Gy over 45 days, starting on day 22 after commencing cisplatin–etoposide chemotherapy (given as four to six cycles every 3 weeks in both groups). The allocation method used was minimisation with a random element, stratified by institution, planned number of chemotherapy cycles, and performance status. Treatment group assignments were not masked. The primary endpoint was overall survival, defined as time from randomisation until death from any cause, analysed by modified intention-to-treat. A 12% higher overall survival at 2 years in the once-daily group versus the twice-daily group was considered to be clinically significant to show superiority of the once-daily regimen. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00433563) and is currently in follow-up.

          Findings

          Between April 7, 2008, and Nov 29, 2013, 547 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive twice-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy (274 patients) or once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy (273 patients). Four patients (one in the twice-daily group and three in the once-daily group) did not return their case report forms and were lost to follow-up; these patients were not included in our analyses. At a median follow-up of 45 months (IQR 35–58), median overall survival was 30 months (95% CI 24–34) in the twice-daily group versus 25 months (21–31) in the once-daily group (hazard ratio for death in the once daily group 1·18 [95% CI 0·95–1·45]; p=0·14). 2-year overall survival was 56% (95% CI 50–62) in the twice-daily group and 51% (45–57) in the once-daily group (absolute difference between the treatment groups 5·3% [95% CI −3·2% to 13·7%]). The most common grade 3–4 adverse event in patients evaluated for chemotherapy toxicity was neutropenia (197 [74%] of 266 patients in the twice-daily group vs 170 [65%] of 263 in the once-daily group). Most toxicities were similar between the groups, except there was significantly more grade 4 neutropenia with twice-daily radiotherapy (129 [49%] vs 101 [38%]; p=0·05). In patients assessed for radiotherapy toxicity, was no difference in grade 3–4 oesophagitis between the groups (47 [19%] of 254 patients in the twice-daily group vs 47 [19%] of 246 in the once-daily group; p=0·85) and grade 3–4 radiation pneumonitis (4 [3%] of 254 vs 4 [2%] of 246; p=0·70). 11 patients died from treatment-related causes (three in the twice-daily group and eight in the once-daily group).

          Interpretation

          Survival outcomes did not differ between twice-daily and once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, and toxicity was similar and lower than expected with both regimens. Since the trial was designed to show superiority of once-daily radiotherapy and was not powered to show equivalence, the implication is that twice-daily radiotherapy should continue to be considered the standard of care in this setting.

          Funding

          Cancer Research UK (Clinical Trials Awards and Advisory Committee), French Ministry of Health, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (Cancer Research Fund, Lung Cancer, and Radiation Oncology Groups).

          Related collections

          Most cited references17

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A meta-analysis of thoracic radiotherapy for small-cell lung cancer.

          In spite of 16 randomized trials conducted during the past 15 years, the effect of thoracic radiotherapy on the survival of patients with limited small-cell lung cancer remains controversial. The majority of these trials did not have enough statistical power to detect a difference in survival of 5 to 10 percent at five years. This meta-analysis was designed to evaluate the hypothesis that thoracic radiotherapy contributes to a moderate increase in overall survival in limited small-cell lung cancer. We collected individual data on all patients enrolled before December 1988 in randomized trials comparing chemotherapy alone with chemotherapy combined with thoracic radiotherapy. Trials that included only patients with extensive disease were excluded. The meta-analysis included 13 trials and 2140 patients with limited disease. A total of 433 patients with extensive disease were excluded. Overall, 1862 of 2103 patients who could be evaluated died; the median follow-up period for the surviving patients was 43 months. The relative risk of death in the combined-therapy group as compared with the chemotherapy group was 0.86 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.78 to 0.94; P = 0.001), corresponding to a 14 percent reduction in the mortality rate. The benefit in terms of overall survival at three years (+/- SD) was 5.4 +/- 1.4 percent. Indirect comparison of early with late radiotherapy and of sequential with non-sequential radiotherapy did not reveal any optimal time for treatment. There was a trend toward a larger reduction in mortality among younger patients: the relative risk of death in the combined-therapy as compared with the chemotherapy group ranged from 0.72 for patients less than 55 years old (95 percent confidence interval, 0.56 to 0.93) to 1.07 (0.70 to 1.64) for patients over 70. Thoracic radiotherapy moderately improves survival in patients with limited small-cell lung cancer who are treated with combination chemotherapy. Identification of the optimal combination of chemotherapy and radiotherapy will require further trials.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Treatment of small cell lung cancer: Diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines.

            Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is a lethal disease for which there have been only small advances in diagnosis and treatment in the past decade. Our goal was to revise the evidence-based guidelines on staging and best available treatment options. A comprehensive literature search covering 2004 to 2011 was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and five Cochrane databases using SCLC terms. This was cross-checked with the authors' own literature searches and knowledge of the literature. Results were limited to research in humans and articles written in English. The staging classification should include both the old Veterans Administration staging classification of limited stage (LS) and extensive stage (ES), as well as the new seventh edition American Joint Committee on Cancer/International Union Against Cancer staging by TNM. The use of PET scanning is likely to improve the accuracy of staging. Surgery is indicated for carefully selected stage I SCLC. LS disease should be treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with good performance status. Thoracic radiotherapy should be administered early in the course of treatment, preferably beginning with cycle 1 or 2 of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy should consist of four cycles of a platinum agent and etoposide. ES disease should be treated primarily with chemotherapy consisting of a platinum agent plus etoposide or irinotecan. Prophylactic cranial irradiation prolongs survival in those individuals with both LS and ES disease who achieve a complete or partial response to initial therapy. To date, no molecularly targeted therapy agent has demonstrated proven efficacy against SCLC. Evidence-based guidelines are provided for the staging and treatment of SCLC. LS-SCLC is treated with curative intent with 20% to 25% 5-year survival. ES-SCLC is initially responsive to standard treatment, but almost always relapses, with virtually no patients surviving for 5 years. Targeted therapies have no proven efficacy against SCLC.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The IASLC Lung Cancer Staging Project: proposals regarding the relevance of TNM in the pathologic staging of small cell lung cancer in the forthcoming (seventh) edition of the TNM classification for lung cancer.

              For more than 50 years, small cell lung cancer (SCLC) has been staged mainly as either limited or extensive stage disease. Small published series of resected SCLC have suggested that the tumor, node, metastases (TNM) pathologic staging correlates with the survival of resected patients. Recent analysis of the 8088 cases of SCLC in the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) database demonstrated the usefulness of clinical TNM staging in this malignancy. The IASLC data bank contains an unprecedented number of resected SCLC cases with pathologic staging information. This analysis was undertaken to examine the impact of the TNM system on the pathologic staging of SCLC and to assess the new IASLC proposals in this subtype of lung cancer. Using the IASLC database, survival analyses were performed for resected patients with SCLC. Prognostic groups were compared, and the new IASLC TNM proposals were applied to this population and to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. The IASLC database contained 349 cases of resected SCLC where pathologic TNM staging was available. Survival after resection correlated with both T and N category with nodal status having a stronger influence on survival. Stage groupings using the 6th edition of TNM clearly identify patient subgroups with different prognoses. The IASLC proposals for the 7th edition of TNM classification also apply to this population and to the SEER database. This analysis further strengthens our previous recommendation to use TNM staging for all SCLC cases.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Lancet Oncol
                Lancet Oncol
                The Lancet. Oncology
                Lancet Pub. Group
                1470-2045
                1474-5488
                1 August 2017
                August 2017
                : 18
                : 8
                : 1116-1125
                Affiliations
                [a ]Division of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
                [b ]Department of Radiotherapy Related Research, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
                [c ]St James Institute of Oncology, Leeds, UK
                [d ]Manchester Academic Health Science Centre Trials Co-ordination Unit, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
                [e ]Rosemere Cancer Centre, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Preston, UK
                [f ]Multidisciplinary Oncology & Therapeutic Innovations Department, Aix Marseille Univ, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Marseille, Marseille, France
                [g ]Department of Clinical Oncology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
                [h ]Canadian Cancer Trials Group, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, ON, Canada
                [i ]GECP, Department of Medical Oncology, Institut Català'Oncologia, L'Hospitalet (Barcelona), Barcelona, Spain
                [j ]GFPC, Département d'Oncologie Médicale, Institut de Cancérologie Lucien Neuwirth, Saint-Étienne, France
                [k ]Department of Oncology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
                [l ]Département d'Oncologie Radiothérapie, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif, France
                [m ]Northern Centre for Cancer Care, Newcastle Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
                [n ]Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow, UK
                [o ]Department of Medicine, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Surrey, UK
                [p ]Division of Radiation Oncology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
                [q ]Department of Respiratory Medicine/Thoracic Oncology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
                [r ]Thoracic Oncology, Antwerp University Hospital, Antwerp, Belgium
                [s ]Department of Oncology & Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to: Prof Corinne Faivre-Finn, Department of Radiotherapy Related Research, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M20 4BX, UKCorrespondence to: Prof Corinne Faivre-FinnDepartment of Radiotherapy Related ResearchThe Christie NHS Foundation TrustManchesterM20 4BXUK corinne.finn@ 123456christie.nhs.uk
                Article
                S1470-2045(17)30318-2
                10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30318-2
                5555437
                28642008
                97efaba5-0d68-4bdc-be1b-d4776bc2d0d7
                © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC-BY 4.0 license

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                Categories
                Articles

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                Oncology & Radiotherapy

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content214

                Cited by173

                Most referenced authors328