Stereotactic vs Hypofractionated Radiotherapy for Inoperable Stage I Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: The LUSTRE Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Swaminath A ，Parpia S ，Wierzbicki M ，Kundapur V ，Faria S ，Okawara GS ，Tsakiridis TK ，Ahmed N ，Bujold A ，Hirmiz K ，Owen T ，Leong N ，Ramchandar K ，Filion E ，Lau H ，Gabos Z ，Thompson R ，Yaremko B ，Mehiri S ，Louie AV ，Quan K ，Levine MN ，Wright JR ，Whelan TJ ... -  《-》

Toxicity in patients receiving radiotherapy for ultracentral stage I non-small cell lung cancer: A secondary analysis of the LUSTRE randomized trial.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) carries potentially higher risks for ultracentral (UC) NSCLC with limited prospective data to guide decision making. We conducted a secondary analysis from a randomized trial of SBRT and conventionally hypofractionated radiation (CRT) to assess these risks. Patients (n = 233) with medically inoperable stage I NSCLC were recruited from 2014 to 2020. Patients with UC targets directly overlapping the proximal bronchial tree (PBT) were identified. The primary objective was the occurrence of related grade 3-5 toxicity > 3 months following radiation. Secondary endpoints included local control, survival, and evaluation of PBT dose and its association with late toxicity. Thirty UC tumors were identified (23 - SBRT 60 Gy/8 fractions, 7 - CRT 60 Gy/15 fractions). Median age was 72 years, and median tumor size was 2.8 cm. Most patients (67 %) had histologically confirmed NSCLC. At a median follow-up of 2.9 years, 3 and 1 patients developed grade 3 and 5 toxicity respectively (all SBRT). 3-year local control was 85 %. Mean PBT dose (converted to 2 Gy dose equivalents) was higher in patients with grade ≥ 3 toxicity, particularly for 4 cc (105.5 vs 51.8 Gy, p = 0.0004), 5 cc (84 vs 46.1 Gy, p = 0.003), and volumetric doses (V65 - V100Gy). The patient with grade 5 toxicity had the highest 5 cc dose (117 Gy), V90Gy (8.2 cc), and V100Gy (7 cc). SBRT for UC NSCLC provides good local control but carries a high rate of late grade 3-5 toxicity. An apparent association between toxicity and PBT volumetric dose was observed, which should be considered if SBRT is offered.

Wu CHD ，Wierzbicki M ，Parpia S ，Kundapur V ，Bujold A ，Filion E ，Lau H ，Faria S ，Ahmed N ，Leong N ，Okawara G ，Hirmiz K ，Owen T ，Louie AV ，Wright JR ，Whelan TJ ，Swaminath A ... -  《-》

Primary lung tumour stereotactic body radiotherapy followed by concurrent mediastinal chemoradiotherapy and adjuvant immunotherapy for locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial.

Patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who undergo concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy often experience synergistic toxicity, and local regional control rates remain poor. We assessed the activity and safety outcomes of primary tumour stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) followed by conventional chemoradiotherapy to the lymph nodes and consolidation immunotherapy in patients with unresectable locally advanced NSCLC. In this multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial, patients aged 18 years and older were enrolled at eight regional cancer centres in North Carolina and South Carolina, USA. Patients were eligible if they had stage II-III, unresectable, locally advanced NSCLC (any histology), with peripheral or central primary tumours that were 7 cm or smaller, excluding central tumours within 2 cm of involved nodal disease, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Patients who had previously received systemic therapy or radiotherapy were excluded. Participants received SBRT to the primary tumour (50-54 Gy in three to five fractions) followed by standard radiotherapy (planned up to 60 Gy in 30 2 Gy fractions) to the involved lymph nodes with concurrent platinum doublet chemotherapy (either paclitaxel 50 mg/m2 intravenously plus carboplatin area under the curve 2 mg/mL per min every 7 days for a total of six 1-week cycles or etoposide 50 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1-5 and days 29-33 plus cisplatin 50 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1, 8, 29, and 36 for two cycles of 4 weeks). An amendment to the protocol (Dec 11, 2017) permitted the administration of consolidation durvalumab at the discretion of the treating investigator. An additional protocol amendment on Jan 13, 2021, directed patients without disease progression after chemoradiotherapy to receive consolidation durvalumab (10 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 and day 15 of a 4-week cycle for up to 12 cycles or 1500 mg intravenously on day 1 of a 4-week cycle for up to 12 cycles). The primary endpoint was 1-year progression-free survival (per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1), assessed in all participants who received at least one fraction of SBRT and had radiological follow-up data up to 1 year. A 1-year progression-free survival rate of greater than 60% was required to reject the null hypothesis and show significant improvement in 1-year progression-free survival. One-sided exact binomial tests were used to compare the primary endpoint versus the historical control 1-year progression-free survival rate used to determine the sample size. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one fraction of SBRT. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03141359, and is closed to accrual. Between May 11, 2017, and June 27, 2022, 61 patients were enrolled and received at least one dose of fractionated SBRT, of whom 59 were evaluable for the primary endpoint. Median age was 67 years (IQR 61-72), 28 (46%) of 61 were female, 33 (54%) were male, 51 (84%) were White, seven (11%) were Black, and three (5%) were of other or unknown race. Of the 61 patients enrolled, 47 received at least one dose of consolidation durvalumab. As of data cutoff (July 12, 2023), median follow-up was 29·5 months (IQR 14·9-47·1). 1-year progression-free survival was 62·7% (90% CI 51·2-73·2; one-sided p=0·39, compared with the historical control rate), with 37 of 59 evaluable participants progression free and alive 1 year after enrolment (n=14 progressed, n=8 died). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were decreased neutrophil count (nine [15%] of 61 patients), decreased white blood cell count (five [8%]), and anaemia (four [7%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 11 (18%) of 61 patients, which included lung infection (three [5%]), pneumonitis (two [3%]), decreased neutrophil count (two [3%]), febrile neutropenia (two [3%]), and dyspnoea, hypoxia, respiratory failure, sinus tachycardia, bronchial infection, and acute kidney injury (each in one [2%] patient). Treatment-related deaths occurred in four (7%) of 61 patients (one each of respiratory failure, respiratory failure and dyspnoea, lung infection, and pneumonitis). Although this study did not meet the primary endpoint, activity and safety profiles of primary lung tumour SBRT followed by concurrent mediastinal chemoradiotherapy were favourable compared with other modern trials treating locally advanced NSCLC with chemoradiotherapy. These findings serve as the basis for the ongoing randomised phase 3 study NRG Oncology LU008 (NCT05624996). AstraZeneca and Atrium Health Levine Cancer Institute.

Heinzerling JH ，Mileham KF ，Robinson MM ，Symanowski JT ，Induru RR ，Brouse GM ，Corso CD ，Prabhu RS ，Haggstrom DE ，Moeller BJ ，Bobo WE ，Fasola CE ，Thakkar VV ，Pal SE ，Gregory JM ，Norek SL ，Begic XJ ，Kesarwala AH ，Burri SH ，Simone CB 2nd ... -  《-》

Impact of residual disease as a prognostic factor for survival in women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer after primary surgery.

Ovarian cancer is the seventh most common cancer among women and a leading cause of death from gynaecological malignancies. Epithelial ovarian cancer is the most common type, accounting for around 90% of all ovarian cancers. This specific type of ovarian cancer starts in the surface layer covering the ovary or lining of the fallopian tube. Surgery is performed either before chemotherapy (upfront or primary debulking surgery (PDS)) or in the middle of a course of treatment with chemotherapy (neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and interval debulking surgery (IDS)), with the aim of removing all visible tumour and achieving no macroscopic residual disease (NMRD). The aim of this review is to investigate the prognostic impact of size of residual disease nodules (RD) in women who received upfront or interval cytoreductive surgery for advanced (stage III and IV) epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). To assess the prognostic impact of residual disease after primary surgery on survival outcomes for advanced (stage III and IV) epithelial ovarian cancer. In separate analyses, primary surgery included both upfront primary debulking surgery (PDS) followed by adjuvant chemotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery (IDS). Each residual disease threshold is considered as a separate prognostic factor. We searched CENTRAL (2021, Issue 8), MEDLINE via Ovid (to 30 August 2021) and Embase via Ovid (to 30 August 2021). We included survival data from studies of at least 100 women with advanced EOC after primary surgery. Residual disease was assessed as a prognostic factor in multivariate prognostic models. We excluded studies that reported fewer than 100 women, women with concurrent malignancies or studies that only reported unadjusted results. Women were included into two distinct groups: those who received PDS followed by platinum-based chemotherapy and those who received IDS, analysed separately. We included studies that reported all RD thresholds after surgery, but the main thresholds of interest were microscopic RD (labelled NMRD), RD 0.1 cm to 1 cm (small-volume residual disease (SVRD)) and RD > 1 cm (large-volume residual disease (LVRD)). Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. Where possible, we synthesised the data in meta-analysis. To assess the adequacy of adjustment factors used in multivariate Cox models, we used the 'adjustment for other prognostic factors' and 'statistical analysis and reporting' domains of the quality in prognosis studies (QUIPS) tool. We also made judgements about the certainty of the evidence for each outcome in the main comparisons, using GRADE. We examined differences between FIGO stages III and IV for different thresholds of RD after primary surgery. We considered factors such as age, grade, length of follow-up, type and experience of surgeon, and type of surgery in the interpretation of any heterogeneity. We also performed sensitivity analyses that distinguished between studies that included NMRD in RD categories of < 1 cm and those that did not. This was applicable to comparisons involving RD < 1 cm with the exception of RD < 1 cm versus NMRD. We evaluated women undergoing PDS and IDS in separate analyses. We found 46 studies reporting multivariate prognostic analyses, including RD as a prognostic factor, which met our inclusion criteria: 22,376 women who underwent PDS and 3697 who underwent IDS, all with varying levels of RD. While we identified a range of different RD thresholds, we mainly report on comparisons that are the focus of a key area of clinical uncertainty (involving NMRD, SVRD and LVRD). The comparison involving any visible disease (RD > 0 cm) and NMRD was also important. SVRD versus NMRD in a PDS setting In PDS studies, most showed an increased risk of death in all RD groups when those with macroscopic RD (MRD) were compared to NMRD. Women who had SVRD after PDS had more than twice the risk of death compared to women with NMRD (hazard ratio (HR) 2.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.80 to 2.29; I2 = 50%; 17 studies; 9404 participants; moderate-certainty). The analysis of progression-free survival found that women who had SVRD after PDS had nearly twice the risk of death compared to women with NMRD (HR 1.88, 95% CI 1.63 to 2.16; I2 = 63%; 10 studies; 6596 participants; moderate-certainty). LVRD versus SVRD in a PDS setting When we compared LVRD versus SVRD following surgery, the estimates were attenuated compared to NMRD comparisons. All analyses showed an overall survival benefit in women who had RD < 1 cm after surgery (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.32; I2 = 0%; 5 studies; 6000 participants; moderate-certainty). The results were robust to analyses of progression-free survival. SVRD and LVRD versus NMRD in an IDS setting The one study that defined the categories as NMRD, SVRD and LVRD showed that women who had SVRD and LVRD after IDS had more than twice the risk of death compared to women who had NMRD (HR 2.09, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.66; 310 participants; I2 = 56%, and HR 2.23, 95% CI 1.49 to 3.34; 343 participants; I2 = 35%; very low-certainty, for SVRD versus NMRD and LVRD versus NMRD, respectively). LVRD versus SVRD + NMRD in an IDS setting Meta-analysis found that women who had LVRD had a greater risk of death and disease progression compared to women who had either SVRD or NMRD (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.11; 6 studies; 1572 participants; I2 = 58% for overall survival and HR 1.76, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.52; 1145 participants; I2 = 60% for progression-free survival; very low-certainty). However, this result is biased as in all but one study it was not possible to distinguish NMRD within the < 1 cm thresholds. Only one study separated NMRD from SVRD; all others included NMRD in the SVRD group, which may create bias when comparing with LVRD, making interpretation challenging. MRD versus NMRD in an IDS setting Women who had any amount of MRD after IDS had more than twice the risk of death compared to women with NMRD (HR 2.11, 95% CI 1.35 to 3.29, I2 = 81%; 906 participants; very low-certainty). In a PDS setting, there is moderate-certainty evidence that the amount of RD after primary surgery is a prognostic factor for overall and progression-free survival in women with advanced ovarian cancer. We separated our analysis into three distinct categories for the survival outcome including NMRD, SVRD and LVRD. After IDS, there may be only two categories required, although this is based on very low-certainty evidence, as all but one study included NMRD in the SVRD category. The one study that separated NMRD from SVRD showed no improved survival outcome in the SVRD category, compared to LVRD. Further low-certainty evidence also supported restricting to two categories, where women who had any amount of MRD after IDS had a significantly greater risk of death compared to women with NMRD. Therefore, the evidence presented in this review cannot conclude that using three categories applies in an IDS setting (very low-certainty evidence), as was supported for PDS (which has convincing moderate-certainty evidence).

Bryant A ，Hiu S ，Kunonga PT ，Gajjar K ，Craig D ，Vale L ，Winter-Roach BA ，Elattar A ，Naik R ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Antioxidants for female subfertility.

M.G. Showell, R. Mackenzie‐Proctor, V. Jordan, and R.J. Hart, “Antioxidants for Female Subfertility,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, no. 8 (2020): CD007807, https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007807.pub4 This Editorial Note is for the above article, published online on August 27, 2020, in Cochrane Library (cochranelibrary.com), and has been issued by the Publisher, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, in agreement with Cochrane. The Editorial note has been agreed due to concerns discovered by the Cochrane managing editor regarding the retraction of six studies in the Review (Badawy et al. 2006, 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.02.097; El Refaeey et al. 2014, 10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.03.011; El Sharkwy & Abd El Aziz 2019a, https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12902; Gerli et al. 2007, https://doi.org/10.26355/eurrev_202309_33752, full text: https://europepmc.org/article/MED/18074942; Ismail et al. 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.06.008; Hashemi et al. 2017, https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2017.1372413). In addition, expressions of concern have been published for two studies (Jamilian et al. 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-017-1236-3; Zadeh Modarres 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-017-1148-2). The retracted studies will be moved to the Excluded Studies table, and their impact on the review findings will be investigated and acted on accordingly in a future update. Initial checks indicate that removal of the six retracted studies did not make an appreciable difference to the results. Likewise, the studies for which Expressions of Concern were issued will be moved to the Awaiting classification table; they did not report any review outcomes, so removal will have no impact on the review findings. A couple may be considered to have fertility problems if they have been trying to conceive for over a year with no success. This may affect up to a quarter of all couples planning a child. It is estimated that for 40% to 50% of couples, subfertility may result from factors affecting women. Antioxidants are thought to reduce the oxidative stress brought on by these conditions. Currently, limited evidence suggests that antioxidants improve fertility, and trials have explored this area with varied results. This review assesses the evidence for the effectiveness of different antioxidants in female subfertility. To determine whether supplementary oral antioxidants compared with placebo, no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant improve fertility outcomes for subfertile women. We searched the following databases (from their inception to September 2019), with no language or date restriction: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and AMED. We checked reference lists of relevant studies and searched the trial registers. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type, dose or combination of oral antioxidant supplement with placebo, no treatment or treatment with another antioxidant, among women attending a reproductive clinic. We excluded trials comparing antioxidants with fertility drugs alone and trials that only included fertile women attending a fertility clinic because of male partner infertility. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was live birth; secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy rates and adverse events. We included 63 trials involving 7760 women. Investigators compared oral antioxidants, including: combinations of antioxidants, N-acetylcysteine, melatonin, L-arginine, myo-inositol, carnitine, selenium, vitamin E, vitamin B complex, vitamin C, vitamin D+calcium, CoQ10, and omega-3-polyunsaturated fatty acids versus placebo, no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant. Only 27 of the 63 included trials reported funding sources. Due to the very low-quality of the evidence we are uncertain whether antioxidants improve live birth rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (odds ratio (OR) 1.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.36 to 2.43; P < 0.001, I2 = 29%; 13 RCTs, 1227 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected live birth rate of 19%, the rate among women using antioxidants would be between 24% and 36%. Low-quality evidence suggests that antioxidants may improve clinical pregnancy rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.43 to 1.89; P < 0.001, I2 = 63%; 35 RCTs, 5165 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected clinical pregnancy rate of 19%, the rate among women using antioxidants would be between 25% and 30%. Heterogeneity was moderately high. Overall 28 trials reported on various adverse events in the meta-analysis. The evidence suggests that the use of antioxidants makes no difference between the groups in rates of miscarriage (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.55; P = 0.46, I2 = 0%; 24 RCTs, 3229 women; low-quality evidence). There was also no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of multiple pregnancy (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.56; P = 0.99, I2 = 0%; 9 RCTs, 1886 women; low-quality evidence). There was also no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of gastrointestinal disturbances (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.47 to 5.10; P = 0.47, I2 = 0%; 3 RCTs, 343 women; low-quality evidence). Low-quality evidence showed that there was also no difference between the groups in rates of ectopic pregnancy (OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.27 to 7.20; P = 0.69, I2 = 0%; 4 RCTs, 404 women). In the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison, low-quality evidence shows no difference in a lower dose of melatonin being associated with an increased live-birth rate compared with higher-dose melatonin (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.15; P = 0.89, I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 140 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected live-birth rate of 24%, the rate among women using a lower dose of melatonin compared to a higher dose would be between 12% and 40%. Similarly with clinical pregnancy, there was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates between a lower and a higher dose of melatonin (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.15; P = 0.89, I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 140 women). Three trials reported on miscarriage in the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison (two used doses of melatonin and one compared N-acetylcysteine versus L-carnitine). There were no miscarriages in either melatonin trial. Multiple pregnancy and gastrointestinal disturbances were not reported, and ectopic pregnancy was reported by only one trial, with no events. The study comparing N-acetylcysteine with L-carnitine did not report live birth rate. Very low-quality evidence shows no evidence of a difference in clinical pregnancy (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.00; 1 RCT, 164 women; low-quality evidence). Low quality evidence shows no difference in miscarriage (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.42 to 5.67; 1 RCT, 164 women; low-quality evidence). The study did not report multiple pregnancy, gastrointestinal disturbances or ectopic pregnancy. The overall quality of evidence was limited by serious risk of bias associated with poor reporting of methods, imprecision and inconsistency. In this review, there was low- to very low-quality evidence to show that taking an antioxidant may benefit subfertile women. Overall, there is no evidence of increased risk of miscarriage, multiple births, gastrointestinal effects or ectopic pregnancies, but evidence was of very low quality. At this time, there is limited evidence in support of supplemental oral antioxidants for subfertile women.

Showell MG ，Mackenzie-Proctor R ，Jordan V ，Hart RJ ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》