Virtual Library
Start Your Search
L. Nedzi
Author of
-
+
PL03 - Presidential Symposium Including Top Rated Abstracts (ID 85)
- Event: WCLC 2013
- Type: Plenary Session
- Track:
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:M. Boyer, K. Fong
- Coordinates: 10/29/2013, 08:15 - 09:45, Plenary Hall, Ground Level
-
+
PL03.05 - An intergroup randomized phase III comparison of standard-dose (60 Gy) versus high-dose (74 Gy) chemoradiotherapy (CRT) +/- cetuximab (cetux) for stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): Results on cetux from RTOG 0617 (ID 1424)
08:59 - 09:11 | Author(s): L. Nedzi
- Abstract
Background
The two primary objectives of RTOG 0617 were to compare the overall survival(OS) differences of 1) standard-dose(SD)(60Gy) versus high-dose(HD)(74Gy) radiotherapy (RT) with concurrent chemotherapy(CT); and 2) the addition of cetux to standard CRT. Cetux is a monoclonal Ab targeting EGFR with activity when combined with CT in metastatic NSCLC and head and neck cancer (HNC), and with RT in locally advanced HNC.Methods
This Phase III Intergroup trial randomized pts in a 2 x 2 factorial design. Concurrent CRT included weekly paclitaxel(45 mg/m2) & carboplatin(AUC=2). Pts randomized to cetux received a 400 mg/m2 loading dose on Day 1 followed by weekly doses of 250 mg/m2. All pts were to receive 2 cycles of consolidation CT. This is the initial report of survival outcome based on cetux. The trial was designed for 450 evaluable patients with 80% power and a 1-sided alpha of 0.0125 to detect a 29% reduction in OS failure for each comparison (RT and cetux).Results
544 pts were accrued, and 419 and 465 are eligible for RT and cetux analyses. Median follow up is 18.7 months. Cetux delivery was acceptable in both the concurrent and consolidation phases. Therapy related ≥Grade 3 non-hematologic toxicity was higher in the cetux group; 70.5% vs 50.7% (p<.0001). Grade 4 and 5 events were 35.8% and 28.2%, respectively. Median survival was 23.1 vs 23.5 months, & 18-month OS rates were 60.8% vs 60.2% on the cetux vs non-cetux arms, respectively (p=0.484, HR=0.99), which crossed a protocol-specified futility boundary for early reporting. As previously reported, median survival times and 18-month OS rates for SD and HD arms were 28.7 vs 19.5 months, and 66.9% vs 53.9% respectively (p=0.0007, HR=1.56). There was no significant interaction between RT dose and the use of cetux. The OS rates for the 4 arms of this trial are shown in Table. An H-score analysis, a measure EFGR positivity, is forthcoming.Table: Overall Survival Rates with 95% CI (pts accrued while all 4 arms were open)
Time 60 Gy 74 Gy 60 Gy + Cetux 74 Gy + Cetux 12m 78.4% (68.9, 85.4) 62.6% (51.7, 71.6) 80.0% (70.8, 86.6) 74.7% (64.9, 82.2) 18m 67.9% (57.6, 76.2) 52.3% (41.5, 62.0) 67.1% (56.8, 75.5) 58.0% (47.6, 67.1) Conclusion
In pts receiving CRT for Stage III NSCLC, 74 Gy is not superior to and may be worse than 60 Gy in terms of OS. Cetux provides no survival benefit in the setting of CRT for Stage III NSCLC.
