PURPOSE Photon involved-field radiotherapy (IFRT) is the standard-of-care radiotherapy for patients with leptomeningeal metastasis (LM) from solid tumors. We tested whether proton craniospinal irradiation (pCSI) encompassing the entire CNS would result in superior CNS progression-free survival (PFS) compared with IFRT. PATIENTS AND METHODS We conducted a randomized, phase II trial of pCSI versus IFRT in patients with non–small-cell lung cancer and breast cancers with LM. We enrolled patients with other solid tumors to an exploratory pCSI group. For the randomized groups, patients were assigned (2:1), stratified by histology and systemic disease status, to pCSI or IFRT. The primary end point was CNS PFS. Secondary end points included overall survival (OS) and treatment-related adverse events (TAEs). RESULTS Between April 16, 2020, and October 11, 2021, 42 and 21 patients were randomly assigned to pCSI and IFRT, respectively. At planned interim analysis, a significant benefit in CNS PFS was observed with pCSI (median 7.5 months; 95% CI, 6.6 months to not reached) compared with IFRT (2.3 months; 95% CI, 1.2 to 5.8 months; P < .001). We also observed OS benefit with pCSI (9.9 months; 95% CI, 7.5 months to not reached) versus IFRT (6.0 months; 95% CI, 3.9 months to not reached; P = .029). There was no difference in the rate of grade 3 and 4 TAEs ( P = .19). In the exploratory pCSI group, 35 patients enrolled, the median CNS PFS was 5.8 months (95% CI, 4.4 to 9.1 months) and OS was 6.6 months (95% CI, 5.4 to 11 months). CONCLUSION Compared with photon IFRT, we found pCSI improved CNS PFS and OS for patients with non–small-cell lung cancer and breast cancer with LM with no increase in serious TAEs.
2639 Background: Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) is an oncolytic immunotherapy made from a modified herpes virus expressing granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor and is FDA approved for the treatment of advanced melanoma. Laboratory studies suggest radiotherapy (RT) may interact with oncolytic immunotherapy to facilitate an immune-mediated anticancer response. We hypothesized that the combination of T-VEC+RT would produce tumor responses in distant (non-irradiated and non-injected) metastases. Methods: A prospective phase II, randomized, Simon two-stage clinical trial of T-VEC with or without RT was conducted with the primary objective of determining if the response rate of the largest non-injected and non-irradiated metastasis was ≥27%. Eligible patients had ≥1 cutaneous metastasis from a solid tumor amenable to T-VEC and RT and 1 measurable metastasis that would not be treated with T-VEC or RT. Using type I and II error probabilities of 10% and 20%, it was calculated that 9 patients would be enrolled in each arm, and if at least 1 of 9 patients subjects exhibited a response, then 6 additional patients would be enrolled in the second stage. Tumor and overall response was assessed using modified World Health Organization (mWHO) and immune related response criteria (irRC). Treatment-emergent and treatment-related adverse events (TEAEs and TRAEs) were characterized using CTCAE v4.0. Results: 19 patients were enrolled and randomized to receive T-VEC alone (n=9) or T-VEC+RT (n=10). One patient in each arm demonstrated a complete response in the largest non-irradiated and non-injected metastasis but progressed in new metastases. The composite response rate in target tumors not injected or irradiated was 13% and 0% in the T-VEC alone and T-VEC+RT arms, respectively. The composite response rate in target tumors treated with T-VEC alone or T-VEC+RT was 7% and 22%, respectively. Because no patient exhibited an overall mWHO or irRC defined response and due to slow accrual, the trial was closed after the first stage of enrollment despite meeting the prespecified response rate to continue enrollment in the second stage. Grade 3-4 TEAEs and TRAEs occurred in 9 and 2 patients, with similar frequencies between study arms. The most common AE was fever and occurred in 47% of patients. Peripheral blood-based immunologic analyses will be presented. Conclusions: The response rate in the largest non-injected or non-irradiated metastasis following T-VEC with or without RT given to a cutaneous metastasis from solid tumor could be ≥27% but was not determined in this trial due to premature closure, in part due to slow accrual rate and no observed mWHO defined overall responses. Cutaneous metastases responded more often after TVEC+RT than T-VEC alone, but the response in non-injected and non-irradiated tumors was more frequent after T-VEC alone. Clinical trial information: NCT02819843 .
Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.