Radiation Therapy Oncology Group RTOG

Philadelphia, PA, United States

Radiation Therapy Oncology Group RTOG

Philadelphia, PA, United States
Time filter
Source Type

Barnholtz-Sloan J.S.,Case Western Reserve University | Yu C.,Cleveland Clinic | Sloan A.E.,University Hospitals Case Medical Center | Vengoechea J.,University Hospitals Case Medical Center | And 7 more authors.
Neuro-Oncology | Year: 2012

Purpose: An estimated 2445 of patients with cancer develop brain metastases. Individualized estimation of survival for patients with brain metastasis could be useful for counseling patients on clinical outcomes and prognosis. Methods: De-identified data for 2367 patients with brain metastasis from 7 Radiation Therapy Oncology Group randomized trials were used to develop and internally validate a prognostic nomogram for estimation of survival among patients with brain metastasis. The prognostic accuracy for survival from 3 statistical approaches (Cox proportional hazards regression, recursive partitioning analysis [RPA], and random survival forests) was calculated using the concordance index. A nomogram for 12-month, 6-month, and median survival was generated using the most parsimonious model. Results: The majority of patients had lung cancer, controlled primary disease, no surgery, Karnofsky performance score (KPS) < 70, and multiple brain metastases and were in RPA class II or had a Diagnosis-Specific Graded Prognostic Assessment (DS-GPA) score of 1.252.5. The overall median survival was 136 days (95 confidence interval, 126144 days). We built the nomogram using the model that included primary site and histology, status of primary disease, metastatic spread, age, KPS, and number of brain lesions. The potential use of individualized survival estimation is demonstrated by showing the heterogeneous distribution of the individual 12-month survival in each RPA class or DS-GPA score group. Conclusion: Our nomogram provides individualized estimates of survival, compared with current RPA and DS-GPA group estimates. This tool could be useful for counseling patients with respect to clinical outcomes and prognosis. © 2012 The Author(s).

Chakravarti A.,Ohio State University | Wang M.,Radiation Therapy Oncology Group RTOG | Robins H.I.,University of Wisconsin - Madison | Lautenschlaeger T.,Ohio State University | And 15 more authors.
International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics | Year: 2013

Purpose: To determine the safety and efficacy of gefitinib, an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in combination with radiation for newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM) patients. Methods and Materials: Between March 21, 2002, and May 3, 2004, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0211 enrolled 31 and 147 GBM patients in the phase 1 and 2 arms, respectively. Treatment consisted of daily oral gefinitnib started at the time of conventional cranial radiation therapy (RT) and continued post RT for 18 months or until progression. Tissue microarrays from 68 cases were analyzed for EGFR expression. Results: The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of gefitinib was determined to be 500 mg in patients on non-enzyme-inducing anticonvulsant drugs (non-EIAEDs). All patients in the phase 2 component were treated at a gefitinib dose of 500 mg; patients receiving EIADSs could be escalated to 750 mg. The most common side effects of gefitinib in combination with radiation were dermatologic and gastrointestinal. Median survival was 11.5 months for patients treated per protocol. There was no overall survival benefit for patients treated with gefitinib + RT when compared with a historical cohort of patients treated with RT alone, matched by RTOG recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class distribution. Younger age was significantly associated with better outcome. Per protocol stratification, EGFR expression was not found to be of prognostic value for gefitinib + RT-treated patients. Conclusions: The addition of gefitinib to RT is well tolerated. Median survival of RTOG 0211 patients treated with RT with concurrent and adjuvant gefitinib was similar to that in a historical control cohort treated with radiation alone. © 2013 Elsevier Inc.

Ellingson B.M.,University of California at Los Angeles | Ellingson B.M.,The American College | Bendszus M.,University of Heidelberg | Bendszus M.,European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer EORTC | And 40 more authors.
Neuro-Oncology | Year: 2015

A recent joint meeting was held on January 30, 2014, with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Cancer Institute (NCI), clinical scientists, imaging experts, pharmaceutical and biotech companies, clinical trials cooperative groups, and patient advocate groups to discuss imaging endpoints for clinical trials in glioblastoma. This workshop developed a set of priorities and action items including the creation of a standardized MRI protocol for multicenter studies. The current document outlines consensus recommendations for a standardized Brain Tumor Imaging Protocol (BTIP), along with the scientific and practical justifications for these recommendations, resulting from a series of discussions between various experts involved in aspects of neuro-oncology neuroimaging for clinical trials. The minimum recommended sequences include: (i) parameter-matched precontrast and postcontrast inversion recovery-prepared, isotropic 3D T1-weighted gradient-recalled echo; (ii) axial 2D T2-weighted turbo spin-echo acquired after contrast injection and before postcontrast 3D T1-weighted images to control timing of images after contrast administration; (iii) precontrast, axial 2D T2-weighted fluid-attenuated inversion recovery; and (iv) precontrast, axial 2D, 3-directional diffusion-weighted images. Recommended ranges of sequence parameters are provided for both 1.5 T and 3 T MR systems. © 2015 The Author(s).

Gregoire V.,Catholic University of Leuven | Ang K.,University of Houston | Budach W.,Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf | Grau C.,Aarhus University Hospital | And 10 more authors.
Radiotherapy and Oncology | Year: 2014

In 2003, a panel of experts published a set of consensus guidelines for the delineation of the neck node levels in node negative patients (Radiother Oncol, 69: 227-36, 2003). In 2006, these guidelines were extended to include the characteristics of the node positive and the post-operative neck (Radiother Oncol, 79: 15-20, 2006) these guidelines did not fully address all nodal regions and some of the anatomic descriptions were ambiguous, thereby limiting consistent use of the recommendations. In this framework, a task force comprising opinion leaders in the field of head and neck radiation oncology from European, Asian, Australia/New Zealand and North American clinical research organizations was formed to review and update the previously published guidelines on nodal level delineation. Based on the nomenclature proposed by the American Head and Neck Society and the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, and in alignment with the TNM atlas for lymph nodes in the neck, 10 node groups (some being divided into several levels) were defined with a concise description of their main anatomic boundaries, the normal structures juxtaposed to these nodes, and the main tumor sites at risk for harboring metastases in those levels. Emphasis was placed on those levels not adequately considered previously (or not addressed at all); these included the lower neck (e.g. supraclavicular nodes), the scalp (e.g. retroauricular and occipital nodes), and the face (e.g. buccal and parotid nodes). Lastly, peculiarities pertaining to the node-positive and the post-operative clinical scenarios were also discussed. In conclusion, implementation of these guidelines in the daily practice of radiation oncology should contribute to the reduction of treatment variations from clinician to clinician and facilitate the conduct of multi-institutional clinical trials. © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Vicini F.,William Beaumont Hospital | Winter K.,Radiation Therapy Oncology Group RTOG | Wong J.,Johns Hopkins University | Pass H.,Columbia University | And 6 more authors.
International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics | Year: 2010

Purpose: This prospective study (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0319) examines the use of three-dimensional conformal external beam radiotherapy (3D-CRT) to deliver accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI). Initial data on efficacy and toxicity are presented. Methods and Materials: Patients with Stage I or II breast cancer with lesions ≤3 cm, negative margins and with ≤3 positive nodes were eligible. The 3D-CRT was 38.5 Gy in 3.85 Gy/fraction delivered 2×/day. Ipsilateral breast, ipsilateral nodal, contralateral breast, and distant failure (IBF, INF, CBF, DF) were estimated using the cumulative incidence method. Mastectomy-free, disease-free, and overall survival (MFS, DFS, OS) were recorded. The National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3, was used to grade acute and late toxicity. Results: Fifty-eight patients were entered and 52 patients are eligible and evaluable for efficacy. The median age of patients was 61 years with the following characteristics: 46% tumor size <1 cm; 87% invasive ductal histology; 94% American Joint Committee on Cancer Stage I; 65% postmenopausal; 83% no chemotherapy; and 71% with no hormone therapy. Median follow-up is 4.5 years (1.7-4.8). Four-year estimates (95% CI) of efficacy are: IBF 6% (0-12%) [4% within field (0-9%)]; INF 2% (0-6%); CBF 0%; DF 8% (0-15%); MFS 90% (78-96%); DFS 84% (71-92%); and OS 96% (85-99%). Only two (4%) Grade 3 toxicities were observed. Conclusions: Initial efficacy and toxicity using 3D-CRT to deliver APBI appears comparable to other experiences with similar follow-up. However, additional patients, further follow-up, and mature Phase III data are needed to evaluate the extent of application, limitations, and value of this particular form of APBI. © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Dignam J.J.,University of Chicago | Dignam J.J.,Radiation Therapy Oncology Group RTOG | Zhang Q.,Radiation Therapy Oncology Group RTOG | Kocherginsky M.,University of Chicago
Clinical Cancer Research | Year: 2012

Purpose: Competing risks observations, in which patients are subject to a number of potential failure events, are a feature of most clinical cancer studies. With competing risks, several modeling approaches are available to evaluate the relationship of covariates to cause-specific failures. We discuss the use and interpretation of commonly used competing risks regression models. Experimental Design: For competing risks analysis, the influence of covariate can be evaluated in relation to cause-specific hazard or on the cumulative incidence of the failure types. We present simulation studies to illustrate how covariate effects differ between these approaches. We then show the implications of model choice in an example from a Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) clinical trial for prostate cancer. Results: The simulation studies illustrate that, depending on the relationship of a covariate to both the failure type of principal interest and the competing failure type, different models can result in substantially different effects. For example, a covariate that has no direct influence on the hazard of a primary event can still be significantly associated with the cumulative probability of that event, if the covariate influences the hazard of a competing event. This is a logical consequence of a fundamental difference between the model formulations. The example from RTOG similarly shows differences in the influence of age and tumor grade depending on the endpoint and the model type used. Conclusions: Competing risks regression modeling requires that one considers the specific question of interest and subsequent choice of the best model to address it. ©2012 AACR.

MacHtay M.,Case Western Reserve University | Bae K.,Radiation Therapy Oncology Group RTOG | Movsas B.,Ford Motor Company | Paulus R.,Radiation Therapy Oncology Group RTOG | And 5 more authors.
International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics | Year: 2012

Purpose: Patients treated with chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced non-small-cell lung carcinoma (LA-NSCLC) were analyzed for local-regional failure (LRF) and overall survival (OS) with respect to radiotherapy dose intensity. Methods and Materials: This study combined data from seven Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) trials in which chemoradiotherapy was used for LA-NSCLC: RTOG 88-08 (chemoradiation arm only), 90-15, 91-06, 92-04, 93-09 (nonoperative arm only), 94-10, and 98-01. The radiotherapeutic biologically effective dose (BED) received by each individual patient was calculated, as was the overall treatment time-adjusted BED (tBED) using standard formulae. Heterogeneity testing was done with chi-squared statistics, and weighted pooled hazard ratio estimates were used. Cox and Fine and Gray's proportional hazard models were used for OS and LRF, respectively, to test the associations between BED and tBED adjusted for other covariates. Results: A total of 1,356 patients were analyzed for BED (1,348 for tBED). The 2-year and 5-year OS rates were 38% and 15%, respectively. The 2-year and 5-year LRF rates were 46% and 52%, respectively. The BED (and tBED) were highly significantly associated with both OS and LRF, with or without adjustment for other covariates on multivariate analysis (p < 0.0001). A 1-Gy BED increase in radiotherapy dose intensity was statistically significantly associated with approximately 4% relative improvement in survival; this is another way of expressing the finding that the pool-adjusted hazard ratio for survival as a function of BED was 0.96. Similarly, a 1-Gy tBED increase in radiotherapy dose intensity was statistically significantly associated with approximately 3% relative improvement in local-regional control; this is another way of expressing the finding that the pool-adjusted hazard ratio as a function of tBED was 0.97. Conclusions: Higher radiotherapy dose intensity is associated with improved local-regional control and survival in the setting of chemoradiotherapy. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.

Loading Radiation Therapy Oncology Group RTOG collaborators
Loading Radiation Therapy Oncology Group RTOG collaborators