88
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Protocol for a phase II randomised controlled trial of TKI alone versus TKI and local consolidative radiation therapy in patients with oncogene driver-mutated oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer

      other

      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.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have significantly improved the progression-free survival (PFS) of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with oncogene mutations of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) compared with systemic therapy alone. However, the majority eventually develop resistance with a median PFS of 8–12 months. The pattern of failure studies showed disease relapse at the original sites of the disease-harbouring resistant tumour cells.

          Methods and analysis

          This study is designed as a phase II randomised controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of local consolidative radiation therapy (LCRT) in addition to TKI in upfront oligometastatic NSCLC. Patients will be screened at presentation for oligometastases (≤5 sites) and will start on TKI after confirmation of EGFR or ALK mutation status. After initial TKI for 2–4 months, eligible patients will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio with stratification of oligometastatic sites (1–3 vs 4–5), performance status of 0–1 versus 2 and brain metastases. The standard arm will continue to receive TKI, and the intervention arm will receive TKI plus LCRT. Stereotactic body radiation therapy will be delivered to all the oligometastatic sites.

          The primary end point is PFS, and secondary end points are overall survival, local control of oligometastatic sites, toxicity and patient-reported outcomes. The sample size calculation took a median PFS of 10 months in the standard arm. To detect an absolute improvement of 7 months in the interventional arm, with a one-sided alpha of 5% and 80% power, a total of 106 patients will be accrued over a period of 48 months.

          Ethics and dissemination

          The study is approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee II of Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, and registered with Clinical Trials Registry—India, CTRI/2019/11/021872, dated 5 November 2019. All eligible participants will be provided with a participant information sheet and will be required to provide written informed consent for participation in the study. The study results will be presented at a national/international conference and will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

          Related collections

          Most cited references61

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

          New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1).

          Assessment of the change in tumour burden is an important feature of the clinical evaluation of cancer therapeutics: both tumour shrinkage (objective response) and disease progression are useful endpoints in clinical trials. Since RECIST was published in 2000, many investigators, cooperative groups, industry and government authorities have adopted these criteria in the assessment of treatment outcomes. However, a number of questions and issues have arisen which have led to the development of a revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Evidence for changes, summarised in separate papers in this special issue, has come from assessment of a large data warehouse (>6500 patients), simulation studies and literature reviews. HIGHLIGHTS OF REVISED RECIST 1.1: Major changes include: Number of lesions to be assessed: based on evidence from numerous trial databases merged into a data warehouse for analysis purposes, the number of lesions required to assess tumour burden for response determination has been reduced from a maximum of 10 to a maximum of five total (and from five to two per organ, maximum). Assessment of pathological lymph nodes is now incorporated: nodes with a short axis of 15 mm are considered measurable and assessable as target lesions. The short axis measurement should be included in the sum of lesions in calculation of tumour response. Nodes that shrink to <10mm short axis are considered normal. Confirmation of response is required for trials with response primary endpoint but is no longer required in randomised studies since the control arm serves as appropriate means of interpretation of data. Disease progression is clarified in several aspects: in addition to the previous definition of progression in target disease of 20% increase in sum, a 5mm absolute increase is now required as well to guard against over calling PD when the total sum is very small. Furthermore, there is guidance offered on what constitutes 'unequivocal progression' of non-measurable/non-target disease, a source of confusion in the original RECIST guideline. Finally, a section on detection of new lesions, including the interpretation of FDG-PET scan assessment is included. Imaging guidance: the revised RECIST includes a new imaging appendix with updated recommendations on the optimal anatomical assessment of lesions. A key question considered by the RECIST Working Group in developing RECIST 1.1 was whether it was appropriate to move from anatomic unidimensional assessment of tumour burden to either volumetric anatomical assessment or to functional assessment with PET or MRI. It was concluded that, at present, there is not sufficient standardisation or evidence to abandon anatomical assessment of tumour burden. The only exception to this is in the use of FDG-PET imaging as an adjunct to determination of progression. As is detailed in the final paper in this special issue, the use of these promising newer approaches requires appropriate clinical validation studies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Osimertinib in Untreated EGFR-Mutated Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

            Osimertinib is an oral, third-generation, irreversible epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) that selectively inhibits both EGFR-TKI-sensitizing and EGFR T790M resistance mutations. We compared osimertinib with standard EGFR-TKIs in patients with previously untreated, EGFR mutation-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Osimertinib or Platinum–Pemetrexed in EGFR T790M–Positive Lung Cancer

              Background Osimertinib is an epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) that is selective for both EGFR-TKI sensitizing and T790M resistance mutations in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. The efficacy of osimertinib as compared with platinum-based therapy plus pemetrexed in such patients is unknown. Methods In this randomized, international, open-label, phase 3 trial, we assigned 419 patients with T790M-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, who had disease progression after first-line EGFR-TKI therapy, in a 2:1 ratio to receive either oral osimertinib (at a dose of 80 mg once daily) or intravenous pemetrexed (500 mg per square meter of body-surface area) plus either carboplatin (target area under the curve, 5 [AUC5]) or cisplatin (75 mg per square meter) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles; maintenance pemetrexed was allowed. In all the patients, disease had progressed during receipt of first-line EGFR-TKI therapy. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Results The median duration of progression-free survival was significantly longer with osimertinib than with platinum therapy plus pemetrexed (10.1 months vs. 4.4 months; hazard ratio; 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23 to 0.41; P<0.001). The objective response rate was significantly better with osimertinib (71%; 95% CI, 65 to 76) than with platinum therapy plus pemetrexed (31%; 95% CI, 24 to 40) (odds ratio for objective response, 5.39; 95% CI, 3.47 to 8.48; P<0.001). Among 144 patients with metastases to the central nervous system (CNS), the median duration of progression-free survival was longer among patients receiving osimertinib than among those receiving platinum therapy plus pemetrexed (8.5 months vs. 4.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.49). The proportion of patients with adverse events of grade 3 or higher was lower with osimertinib (23%) than with platinum therapy plus pemetrexed (47%). Conclusions Osimertinib had significantly greater efficacy than platinum therapy plus pemetrexed in patients with T790M-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (including those with CNS metastases) in whom disease had progressed during first-line EGFR-TKI therapy. (Funded by AstraZeneca; AURA3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02151981 .).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2021
                15 February 2021
                : 11
                : 2
                : e041345
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentRadiation Oncology , Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute , Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
                [2 ]departmentMedical Oncology , Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute , Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
                [3 ]departmentNuclear Medicine , Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute , Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
                [4 ]departmentRadiodiagnosis , Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute , Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
                [5 ]departmentPathology , Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute , Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
                [6 ]departmentClinical Research Secreariat , Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute , Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Anil Tibdewal; aniltibdewal@ 123456gmail.com
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0374-0800
                Article
                bmjopen-2020-041345
                10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041345
                7887350
                33589450
                cce9bdb1-341d-45f4-9120-1730b4665bef
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 09 June 2020
                : 19 November 2020
                : 01 December 2020
                Categories
                Oncology
                1506
                1717
                Protocol
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                radiotherapy,chemotherapy,oncology,thoracic medicine
                Medicine
                radiotherapy, chemotherapy, oncology, thoracic medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article