Dataset Information

Checkpoint inhibition in combination with an immunoboost of external beam radiotherapy in solid tumors (CHEERS): study protocol for a phase 2, open-label, randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

While the introduction of checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) as standard of care treatment for various tumor types has led to considerable improvements in clinical outcome, the majority of patients still fail to respond. Preclinical data suggest that stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) could work synergistically with CPIs by acting as an in situ cancer vaccine, thus potentially increasing response rates and prolonging disease control. Though SBRT administered concurrently with CPIs has been shown to be safe, evidence of its efficacy from large randomized trials is still lacking. The aim of this multicenter randomized phase II trial is to assess whether SBRT administered concurrently with CPIs could prolong progression-free survival as compared to standard of care in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Methods/design

Ninety-eight patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion to receive CPI treatment combined with SBRT (Arm A) or CPI monotherapy (Arm B). Randomization will be stratified according to tumor histology (melanoma, renal, urothelial, head and neck squamous cell or non-small cell lung carcinoma) and disease burden (≤ or > 3 cancer lesions). The recommended SBRT dose is 24Gy in 3 fractions, which will be administered to a maximum of 3 lesions and is to be completed prior to the second or third CPI cycle (depending on CPI treatment schedule). The study's primary endpoint is progression-free survival as per iRECIST. Secondary endpoints include overall survival, objective response, local control, quality of life and toxicity. Translational analyses will be performed using blood, fecal and tissue samples.

Discussion

The CHEERS trial will provide further insights into the clinical and immunological impact of SBRT when combined with CPIs in patients with advanced solid tumors. Furthermore, study results will inform the design of future immuno-radiotherapy trials.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03511391 . Registered 17 April 2018.

SUBMITTER: Spaas M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8106163 | biostudies-literature | 2021 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Checkpoint inhibition in combination with an immunoboost of external beam radiotherapy in solid tumors (CHEERS): study protocol for a phase 2, open-label, randomized controlled trial.

Spaas Mathieu M Sundahl Nora N Hulstaert Eva E Kruse Vibeke V Rottey Sylvie S De Maeseneer Daan D Surmont Veerle V Meireson Annabel A Brochez Lieve L Reynders Dries D Goetghebeur Els E Van den Begin Robbe R Van Gestel Dirk D Renard Vincent V Dirix Piet P Mestdagh Pieter P Ost Piet P

BMC cancer 20210507 1

<h4>Background</h4>While the introduction of checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) as standard of care treatment for various tumor types has led to considerable improvements in clinical outcome, the majority of patients still fail to respond. Preclinical data suggest that stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) could work synergistically with CPIs by acting as an in situ cancer vaccine, thus potentially increasing response rates and prolonging disease control. Though SBRT administered concurrently with CPI ...[more]

PMID: 33962592

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAlthough immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) targeting programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and PD-1 ligand 1 have improved the outcome for many cancer types, the majority of patients fails to respond to ICI monotherapy. Hypofractionated radiotherapy has the potential to improve the therapeutic ratio of ICIs.ObjectiveTo assess the addition of radiotherapy to ICIs compared with ICI monotherapy in patients with advanced solid tumors.Design, setting, and participantsThis open-label, multicenter, randomized phase 2 trial was conducted in 5 Belgian hospitals and enrolled participants between March 2018 and October 2020. Patients 18 years or older with locally advanced or metastatic melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, urothelial carcinoma, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, or non-small cell lung carcinoma were eligible. A total of 99 patients were randomly assigned to either the control arm (n = 52) or the experimental arm (n = 47). Of those, 3 patients (1 in the control arm vs 2 in the experimental arm) withdrew consent and thus were not included in the analysis. Data analyses were performed between April 2022 and March 2023.InterventionsPatients were randomized (1:1) to receive anti-PD-1/PD-1 ligand 1 ICIs alone as per standard of care (control arm) or combined with stereotactic body radiotherapy 3 × 8 gray to a maximum of 3 lesions prior to the second or third ICI cycle, depending on the frequency of administration (experimental arm). Randomization was stratified according to tumor histologic findings and disease burden (3 and fewer or more than 3 cancer lesions).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) as per immune Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Key secondary end points included overall survival (OS), objective response rate, local control rate, and toxic effects. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population, while safety was evaluated in the as-treated population.ResultsAmong 96 patients included in the analysis (mean age, 66 years; 76 [79%] female), 72 (75%) had more than 3 tumor lesions and 65 (68%) had received at least 1 previous line of systemic treatment at time of inclusion. Seven patients allocated to the experimental arm did not complete the study-prescribed radiotherapy course due to early disease progression (n = 5) or intercurrent illness (n = 2). With a median (range) follow-up of 12.5 (0.7-46.2) months, median PFS was 2.8 months in the control arm compared with 4.4 months in the experimental arm (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.58-1.53; P = .82). Between the control and experimental arms, no improvement in median OS was observed (11.0 vs 14.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.48-1.41; P = .47), and objective response rate was not statistically significantly different (22% vs 27%; P = .56), despite a local control rate of 75% in irradiated patients. Acute treatment-related toxic effects of any grade and grade 3 or higher occurred in 79% and 18% of patients in the control arm vs 78% and 18% in the experimental arm, respectively. No grade 5 adverse events occurred.Conclusions and relevanceThis phase 2 randomized clinical trial demonstrated that while safe, adding subablative stereotactic radiotherapy of a limited number of metastatic lesions to ICI monotherapy failed to show improvement in PFS or OS.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03511391.

Project description:Primary and metastatic liver cancer is an increasingly common and difficult to control disease entity. Radiation offers a non-invasive treatment alternative for these patients who often have few options and a poor prognosis. However, the anatomy and aggressiveness of liver cancer poses significant challenges such as accurate localization at simulation and treatment, management of motion and appropriate selection of dose regimen. This article aims to review the options available and provide information for the practical implementation and/or improvement of liver cancer radiation programs within the context of stereotactic body radiotherapy and image-guided radiotherapy guidelines. Specific patient inclusion and exclusion criteria are presented given the significant toxicity found in certain sub-populations treated with radiation. Indeed, certain sub-populations, such as those with tumor thrombosis or those with larger lesions treated with transarterial chemoembolization, have been shown to have significant improvements in outcome with the addition of radiation and merit special consideration. Implementing a liver radiation program requires three primary challenges to be addressed: (1) immobilization and motion management; (2) localization; and (3) dose regimen and constraint selection. Strategies to deal with motion include simple internal target volume (ITV) expansions, non-gated ITV reduction strategies, breath hold methods, and surrogate marker methods to enable gating or tracking. Localization of the tumor and organs-at-risk are addressed using contrast infusion techniques to take advantage of different normal liver and cancer vascular anatomy, imaging modalities, and margin management. Finally, a dose response has been demonstrated and dose regimens appear to be converging. A more uniform approach to treatment in terms of technique, dose selection and patient selection will allow us to study liver radiation in larger and, hopefully, multicenter randomized studies.

Project description:Patients with metastatic cancer refractory to standard systemic therapies have a poor prognosis and few therapeutic options. Radiotherapy can shape the tumor microenvironment (TME) by inducing immunogenic cell death and promoting tumor recognition by natural killer cells and T lymphocytes. Granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) was known to promote dendric cell maturation and function, and might also induce the macrophage polarization with anti-tumor capabilities. A phase II trial (ChiCTR1900026175) was conducted to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of radiotherapy, PD-1 inhibitor and GM-CSF (PRaG regimen). This trial was registered at http://www.chictr.org.cn/index.aspx. A PRaG cycle consisted of 3 fractions of 5 or 8 Gy delivered for one metastatic lesion from day 1, followed by 200 μg subcutaneous injection of GM-CSF once daily for 2 weeks, and intravenous infusion of PD-1 inhibitor once within one week after completion of radiotherapy. The PRaG regimen was repeated every 21 days for at least two cycles. Once the PRaG therapy was completed, the patient continued PD-1 inhibitor monotherapy until confirmed disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). A total of 54 patients were enrolled with a median follow-up time of 16.4 months. The ORR was 16.7%, and the disease control rate was 46.3% in intent-to-treat patients. Median progression-free survival was 4.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.3 to 4.8), and median overall survival was 10.5 months (95% CI, 8.7 to 12.2). Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in five patients (10.0%) and grade 4 in one patient (2.0%). Therefore, the PRaG regimen was well tolerated with acceptable toxicity and may represent a promising salvage treatment for patients with chemotherapy-refractory solid tumors. It is likely that PRaG acts via heating upthe TME with radiotherapy and GM-CSF, which was further boosted by PD-1 inhibitors.

Project description:BackgroundAdavosertib is a first-in-class, selective small-molecule inhibitor of Wee1. Olaparib is an inhibitor of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP). Preclinical data suggest that adavosertib enhances the antitumor effect of PARP inhibitors.ObjectiveThe safety, tolerability, and efficacy of adavosertib plus olaparib were evaluated in patients with refractory solid tumors to define the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase II dose (RP2D).Patients and methodsEligible patients in part A (dose finding) had a refractory solid tumor for which there is no established treatment and had received ≥ 1 prior course of systemic therapy; in part B (dose expansion), patients had platinum-sensitive extensive-stage or relapsed small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). Patients received adavosertib [once (qd) or twice daily (bid)] for 3 consecutive days with 4 days off treatment (3/4), or 5 consecutive days with 2 days off (5/2), plus olaparib (bid) for 14 or 21 days of a 21-day cycle.ResultsA total of 130 patients were enrolled in the study, 120 in part A and 10 in part B. The MTD for adavosertib bid was 175 mg (days 1-3, 8-10/21-day cycle) plus continuous olaparib 200 mg bid; the once-daily MTD (and RP2D) was adavosertib 200 mg (days 1-3, 8-10/21-day cycle) plus continuous olaparib 200 mg bid. In the MTD/RP2D cohort, one patient (7%) experienced a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) of thrombocytopenia. The most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) in the cohorts in which MTD/RP2D for bid dosing and RP2D for qd dosing were determined were fatigue (64.3% and 15.4%, respectively), diarrhea (42.9% and 30.8%), decreased appetite (35.7% and 23.1%), nausea (35.7% and 15.4%), and anemia (35.7% and 38.5%). In the SCLC dose-expansion cohort, TRAEs occurred in eight patients (88.9%), including thrombocytopenia (66.7%) and anemia (55.6%). In part A, objective response rate (ORR) was 14.8% [95% confidence interval (CI) 8.7-22.9] overall; for the cohorts in which MTD/RP2D for bid dosing and RP2D for qd dosing were determined, ORR was 30.8% (9.1-61.4) and 9.1% (0.2-41.3), respectively. ORR was 11.1% [95% CI 0.3-48.2; one partial response (PR)], disease control rate was 22.2% (2.8-60.0; one PR, one stable disease), and median progression-free survival was 1.5 months (1.3-4.2) in the SCLC dose-expansion cohort.ConclusionsAdverse events and DLTs observed in the bid MTD and once-daily MTD/RP2D dosing schedules were manageable and consistent with known adavosertib and olaparib safety profiles. Limited antitumor activity was observed with adavosertib plus olaparib combination therapy.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02511795 (registration: 28 July 2015).

Project description:To compare the outcomes of localized prostate cancer treatment with high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) and low-dose-rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT), we examined 924 patients treated with HDR-BT + external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and 500 patients treated with LDR-BT ± EBRT using multi-institutional retrospective data. The HDR-BT treated advanced disease with more hormonal therapy than LDR-BT. To reduce background selection bias, we performed inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis using propensity scores and excluded patients with T3b-4 disease/ initial prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels > 50 ng/ml. The actuarial 5-year biochemical control rates (5y-bNED) were 96.3% and 95.7% in the HDR-BT and LDR-BT groups, respectively. The corresponding values were 100% and 96.5% in the low-risk group; 97.4% and 97.1% in the intermediate-risk group (97.2% and 97% in the higher titer group and 97.5% and 94.6% in the lower titer group, respectively); and 95.7% and 94.9% in the selected high-risk group, respectively. IPTW correction indicated no significant difference among the groups. The 5y-bNED in the HDR-BT + EBRT, LDR-BT + EBRT, and LDR-BT alone groups were 96.3%, 95.5%, and 97%, respectively (P = 0.3011). The corresponding values were 97.4%, 94.7%, and 96.6% (P = 0.1004) in the intermediate-risk group (97.5%, 100%, and 94.5% in the lower titer group [P = 0.122] and 97.2%, 96.2%, and 100% [P = 0.664] in the higher titer group, respectively) and 95.7%, 95.5%, and 100% (P = 0.859) in the high-risk group, respectively. The HDR-BT group showed a lower incidence of acute grade ≥ 2 genitourinary toxicities; the incidence of other early and late grade ≥ 2 toxicities were similar between the HDR-BT and LDR-BT groups. Acute genitourinary toxicity predicted the occurrence of late genitourinary toxicity. EBRT increased the risk of grade ≥ 2 gastrointestinal toxicity. HDR-BT + EBRT is a good alternative to LDR-BT ± EBRT for low-, intermediate-, and selected high-risk patients.

Dataset Information

Checkpoint inhibition in combination with an immunoboost of external beam radiotherapy in solid tumors (CHEERS): study protocol for a phase 2, open-label, randomized controlled trial.

Background

Methods/design

Discussion

Trial registration

Publications

Checkpoint inhibition in combination with an immunoboost of external beam radiotherapy in solid tumors (CHEERS): study protocol for a phase 2, open-label, randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets