Examining treatment effects in subgroups of patients defined by demographic, genetic, or clinical characteristics is increasingly of interest given the pursuit of personalized medicine and the importance of representation and equity in treatment decisions. The magnitude or even the direction of the treatment effect may vary across subgroups, and these differential treatment effects could have clinical implications. Subgroup analyses require caution in their interpretation, however, because of the high probability of a false-positive or false-negative conclusion. We outline study design and analysis considerations for responsibly investigating and reporting differential treatment effects across subgroups in oncology trials, with examples from the National Cancer Institute’s National Clinical Trials Network and Community Oncology Research Program. Recommendations include ensuring appropriate representation of patients from subgroups of interest, recognizing power and multiplicity limitations, and treating exploratory subgroup analyses as hypothesis generating rather than practice changing.

Longitudinal biomarkers constitute a broad class of potential surrogate endpoints in clinical trials. Several approaches have been proposed for surrogate validation but available methods for validating a longitudinal biomarker as a surrogate of a time-to-event endpoint such as death remain limited. In this work, we propose a method for validating a longitudinal outcome as a surrogate of a time-to-event endpoint using a combination of joint modeling and mediation analysis. The proportion of the total treatment effect on the time-to-event endpoint due to its effect on the biomarker is used as a surrogacy measure. This method is developed to integrate meta-analytic data using a joint model with random effects at both the individual and trial levels. From this model, the indirect treatment effect through the surrogate as well as the direct and total treatment effects is derived using a mediation formula. A simulation study was designed to evaluate the performance of this approach. We applied this method to a multicentric study on prostate cancer to investigate the use of prostate-specific antigen level as a surrogate for disease-free survival.

Purpose NRG/RTOG 1115 was a phase 3 trial evaluating the addition of orteronel, a CYP17A1 inhibitor, to radiation therapy (RT) plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in men with high-risk prostate cancer. Methods and Materials The study was designed to evaluate overall survival for 900 men with high-risk prostate cancer (Gleason 9-10, prostate specific antigen (PSA) > 20, or clinical stage T2 or higher with Gleason ≥ 8). Patients were randomized 1:1 to standard of care (SOC) therapy (RT plus 2 years of ADT) or SOC plus 2 years of orteronel. RT entailed image guided conventionally fractionated dose-escalated external beam RT to the prostate and pelvis to 45 Gy using intensity modulated RT with either intensity modulated RT (to 79.2 Gy) or brachytherapy boost. Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) was measured using the Expanded Prostate cancer Index Composite (EPIC), Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) fatigue, and EQ-5D. Accrual was halted early because of discontinuation of orteronel development and the trial redesigned to focus on a composite biochemical failure endpoint. Results There were a total of 231 eligible randomized patients. Only 29% in the orteronel arm received ≥80% of the planned dose. With median follow-up of 6.2 years, the cumulative incidence of grade 3+ adverse events was higher on orteronel than on the standard arm (P < .001; hazard ratio [HR], 2.32; 95% CI, 1.52-3.47) with 5-year estimates of 59.0% and 35.1%, respectively. No significant differences in overall survival (P = .28; HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.39-1.32) or biochemical failure (P = .56; HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.47-1.51) were observed. Use of orteronel had a transient negative impact on all prostate cancer-specific QOL domains of the EPIC, but did not increase the magnitude of decline once RT started and had minimal impact on other HRQOL measures. Conclusions The addition of orteronel to RT and ADT did not result in significant improvement in any efficacy outcomes, although information was limited by poor drug tolerance and early termination of accrual, thus limiting statistical power.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:The addition of docetaxel to radiotherapy (RT) and long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is not a standard of care for the treatment of high-risk localized prostate cancer (HRLPC). We performed an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis to assess the addition of docetaxel to RT and ADT in HRLPC. METHODS:IPD from patients with HRLPC (as defined by any of the following risk factors: Gleason score ≥8, prostate-specific antigen >20 ng/ml, cT3-T4, and/or N1) treated in trials evaluating RT + ADT ± docetaxel, available in the Intermediate Clinical Endpoints in Carcinoma of the Prostate (ICECaP) repository, were collated. The primary outcome was metastasis-free survival (MFS), and the secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS), prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), and time to metastasis (TTM). Analyses were conducted using a one-stage IPD meta-analysis. Disease risk was defined as high (one risk factor) or very high (two to three risk factors and/or N1). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards and Fine-Gray competing risk models estimated the effect of addition of docetaxel to RT + ADT on each time-to-event outcome. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS:A total of 1690 patients from four trials were included. Docetaxel did not lead to an overall benefit in MFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.89), OS (HR 0.88), and TTM (HR 0.87), but there was a significant benefit in EFS (HR 0.87) and PCSM (HR 0.70). The 5- and 10-yr MFS rates were, respectively, 79% and 57% in patients treated with RT + ADT, and 84% and 62% in those who received RT + ADT + docetaxel. There was no clear evidence of a greater benefit of docetaxel in patients with very-high-risk disease than in those with high-risk disease (MFS: HR 0.87 vs 0.97; OS: HR 0.86 vs 0.95; EFS: HR 0.83 vs 0.93; TTM: HR 0.86 vs 0.92; and PCSM: HR 0.70 vs 0.73), with no statistically significant difference in treatment effect by risk group (all p-interaction >0.1). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS:Addition of docetaxel to RT + ADT did not lead to a significant benefit in MFS or OS. Clinical stratification together with biomarkers should be evaluated to determine whether biologic features can identify HRLPC patients who are more likely to benefit from intensification of therapy with docetaxel.

Externally controlled trials have commonly been used when conducting a randomized controlled trial (RCT) is not feasible or ethical. By allowing the study of new treatments, use of external controls can lead to accelerated advances in the management of rare diseases. The use of external controls, however, introduces new challenges due to potential differences between the population the external controls are enrolled from and the population the patients on the new trial are enrolled from. Some differences include, but are not limited to, differences in how patients are diagnosed and treated, differences in the case mix of the underlying populations, differences in the ability to measure outcomes, and differences in data collection. We discuss the potential benefits and challenges of externally controlled trials, as well as strategies to mitigate bias, including the estimand and target-trial emulation framework. We also provide a brief overview of statistical methodology commonly used in these settings. We note that although the strategies presented may help mitigate some of these challenges, they cannot replace an RCT framework, and investigators should be aware of the potential limitations of externally controlled trials.

The National Cancer Institute organized a virtual Clinical Trials Planning Meeting (CTPM) on 'Defining the next generation of clinical trials with combination therapies in non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC)' led by the Bladder Cancer Task Force of the NCI Genitourinary Cancers Steering Committee. The purpose of this meeting was to accelerate advances in clinical trials for patients with high-risk NMIBC. The meeting delivered a multidisciplinary expert consensus on optimal strategies for next-generation clinical trial designs in NMIBC with prioritization of combination therapies. Two clinical trial concepts were developed for potential implementation within the National Clinical Trials Network.

5013 Background: There is no established role for the use of docetaxel with ADT and RT for HRLPC, with mixed results seen in prior RCTs. Prior work from ICECaP (Ravi et al, Eur Urol 2024) has shown that patients (pts) with very high-risk disease (i.e. 2 or 3 risk factors [RFs]: Gleason ≥8, PSA >20, ≥cT3 and/or cN1) have the poorest outcomes with RT+ADT for HRLPC, with 5-year metastasis-free survival (MFS) of ≤80%. We aimed to perform an IPD meta-analysis of the role of docetaxel with ADT+RT for HRLPC and specifically evaluate whether patients with very high-risk disease benefit from the addition of docetaxel. Methods: IPD from RCTs involving pts with HRLPC treated with RT+ADT +/- docetaxel collated by ICECaP were analyzed. “High-risk” disease was defined as presence of 1 RF and “very high-risk” disease as 2-3 RFs and/or cN1 disease. The primary outcomes of interest were MFS and overall survival (OS). Hazard ratios (HR) for MFS and OS were estimated using Cox regression, stratified by year of randomization and adjusted for age at randomization and ECOG performance status. 5-year MFS and OS rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Subgroup analyses were performed according to the severity of disease (high- and very high-risk), and p-values for interaction were tested using the likelihood ratio test. Results: 1690 pts treated on 4 RCTs (GETUG-12, DFCI 05-043, STAMPEDE, RTOG-0521) between 2002-2015 were eligible. Median age was 65, median PSA was 23 (IQR 10-48); 154 (9%) pts had cN1 disease and 1444 (85%) received long-term ADT with RT. Median follow-up was 10 years (range: <1-15). Overall, the addition of docetaxel to RT+ADT was not associated with a significant benefit in MFS (HR=0.89 [0.76-1.05], p=0.160) or OS (HR=0.88 [0.74-1.05], p=0.167). Though there was some evidence for favoring docetaxel in pts with very high-risk disease (n=1054; MFS HR=0.86 [0.71-1.05]; OS HR=0.85 [0.68-1.07]) compared to high-risk disease (n=636; MFS HR=0.97 [0.74-1.27]; OS HR=0.95 [0.71-1.28]), there was no evidence of a significant difference in treatment effect by risk group (p-interaction >0.1). 5- and 10-yr MFS and OS in pts with high- and very high-risk disease, stratified by receipt of docetaxel, are shown in the Table. Conclusions: Some HRLPC pts with very high-risk disease may benefit from the addition of docetaxel to RT+ADT. Biomarker evaluation within this group may identify those who are candidates for treatment intensification with docetaxel with RT+ADT (+/- androgen receptor pathway inhibitors) in HRLPC. % (95% CI) High risk Very high-risk RT+ADT RT+ADT+docetaxel RT+ADT RT+ADT+docetaxel 5yr MFS 87 (82-90) 90 (86-93) 74 (71-78) 80 (76-83) 5yr OS 90 (86-93) 93 (90-96) 84 (80-86) 89 (86-92) 10yr MFS 67 (61-72) 71 (65-76) 51 (46-55) 55 (49-60) 10yr OS 74 (69-79) 77 (72-82) 62 (57-67) 67 (62-72)

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:To better understand the role of hormone therapy (HT) with postoperative radiotherapy (RT) for nonmetastatic prostate cancer, the DADSPORT Collaboration planned a systematic review and meta-analysis of aggregate data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS:RCTs evaluating HT with postoperative RT in people with nonmetastatic prostate cancer were identified. Methods were prespecified prior to results of recent trials being known (CRD42022325769). The primary outcome was overall survival (OS); metastasis-free survival (MFS) and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) were the secondary outcomes. Summary results, including those by prespecified participant subgroups, were obtained from investigators and combined across trials using a fixed-effect meta-analysis. Sensitivity and network meta-analyses evaluated the consistency of findings. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS:Five RCTs (six trial comparisons, 4411 participants; 96% of all eligible) were included in the primary analysis. There was no clear evidence that OS was improved with HT (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.74-1.00, p = 0.057; absolute effect 2% [0-3.5%] at 8 yr) or that effects varied by HT duration (p = 0.6). Any benefit of HT on OS appears to be confined to people with higher pre-RT prostate specific antigen levels (p = 0.07) and CAPRA-S scores (p = 0.09). HT significantly improved MFS (HR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.69-0.88, p < 0.001) and PCSS (HR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.47-0.79, p < 0.001), with 4% absolute improvements for both outcomes at 8 yr. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS:Short- or long-course HT after postoperative RT improves MFS and PCSS. Observed improvements in OS are small and may be limited to people with higher-risk factors.

PURPOSE:New therapies for glioblastoma are needed, especially MGMT-unmethylated (uMGMT) disease. NRG Oncology BN002 (phase I) demonstrated safety and suggested efficacy of ipilimumab (ipi) with nivolumab (nivo) in newly diagnosed glioblastoma, leading to this phase II/III trial. METHODS:Adults with newly diagnosed uMGMT glioblastoma and Karnofsky performance status (KPS) ≥70 were randomly assigned to radiotherapy with either immunotherapy (ipi and nivo) or temozolomide (TMZ), stratified by recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class and intention to use tumor treating fields. With 95% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) ≤0.58 for progression-free survival (PFS) at a one-sided significance level (P) of .15, superior PFS with immunotherapy in phase II would lead to phase III overall survival (OS) testing. Corticosteroids were disallowed when starting immunotherapy. Diagnosis, biomarkers, and PFS were centrally assessed. RESULTS:One hundred fifty-nine participants were randomly assigned (79 immunotherapy and 80 TMZ). Arms were well balanced for age (median 60 years, range, 28-79), sex (male n = 105, 66%), KPS (90-100 n = 97, 61%), resection extent (gross total, n = 103, 65%), and RPA class (III, n = 16, 10%; IV, n = 116, 73%; V, n = 27, 17%). A preplanned analysis of phase II data conducted after 100 centrally determined PFS events showed no significant PFS improvement for ipi and nivo versus TMZ (median 7.7 months v 8.5 months, HR, 1.47 [70% CI, 1.19 to 1.83]; one-sided P = .96 [95% CI, 0.98 to 2.2]). OS is immature (>50% alive) but with no observed difference between arms (median approximately 13 months each, HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.61 to 1.49]; P = .36). CONCLUSION:Ipi and nivo did not improve PFS among patients with newly diagnosed uMGMT glioblastoma versus TMZ. Accrual closed permanently; the trial will not proceed to phase III. No new safety signals were identified. Molecular correlative analyses and survival follow-up are ongoing.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. NRG Oncology RTOG 0415 is a randomized phase III noninferiority (NI) clinical trial comparing conventional fractionation (73.8 Gy in 41 fractions) radiotherapy (C-RT) with hypofractionation (H-RT; 70 Gy in 28) in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. The study included 1,092 protocol-eligible patients initially reported in 2016 with a median follow-up of 5.8 years. Updated results with median follow-up of 12.8 years are now presented. The estimated 12-year disease-free survival (DFS) is 56.1% (95% CI, 51.5 to 60.5) for C-RT and 61.8% (95% CI, 57.2 to 66.0) for H-RT. The DFS hazard ratio (H-RT/C-RT) is 0.85 (95% CI, 0.71 to 1.03), confirming NI ( P < .001). Twelve-year cumulative incidence of biochemical failure (BF) was 17.0% (95% CI, 13.8 to 20.5) for C-RT and 9.9% (95% CI, 7.5 to 12.6) for H-RT. The HR (H-RT/C-RT) comparing biochemical recurrence between the two arms was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.39 to 0.78). Late grade ≥3 GI adverse event (AE) incidence is 3.2% (C-RT) versus 4.4% (H-RT), with relative risk (RR) for H-RT versus C-RT 1.39 (95% CI, 0.75 to 2.55). Late grade ≥3 genitourinary (GU) AE incidence is 3.4% (C-RT) versus 4.2% (H-RT), RR 1.26 (95% CI, 0.69 to 2.30). Long-term DFS is noninferior with H-RT compared with C-RT. BF is less with H-RT. No significant differences in late grade ≥3 GI/GU AEs were observed between assignments (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00331773 ).

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:Radiotherapy (RT) and long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ltADT; 18-36 mo) is a standard of care in the treatment of high-risk localized/locoregional prostate cancer (HRLPC). We evaluated the outcomes in patients treated with RT + ltADT to identify which patients have poorer prognosis with standard therapy. METHODS:Individual patient data from patients with HRLPC (as defined by any of the following three risk factors [RFs] in the context of cN0 disease-Gleason score ≥8, cT3-4, and prostate-specific antigen [PSA] >20 ng/ml, or cN1 disease) treated with RT and ltADT in randomized controlled trials collated by the Intermediate Clinical Endpoints in Cancer of the Prostate group. The outcome measures of interest were metastasis-free survival (MFS), overall survival (OS), time to metastasis, and prostate cancer-specific mortality. Multivariable Cox and Fine-Gray regression estimated hazard ratios (HRs) for the three RFs and cN1 disease. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS:A total of 3604 patients from ten trials were evaluated, with a median PSA value of 24 ng/ml. Gleason score ≥8 (MFS HR = 1.45; OS HR = 1.42), cN1 disease (MFS HR = 1.86; OS HR = 1.77), cT3-4 disease (MFS HR = 1.28; OS HR = 1.22), and PSA >20 ng/ml (MFS HR = 1.30; OS HR = 1.21) were associated with poorer outcomes. Adjusted 5-yr MFS rates were 83% and 78%, and 10-yr MFS rates were 63% and 53% for patients with one and two to three RFs, respectively; corresponding 10-yr adjusted OS rates were 67% and 60%, respectively. In cN1 patients, adjusted 5- and 10-yr MFS rates were 67% and 36%, respectively, and 10-yr OS was 47%. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS:HRLPC patients with two to three RFs (and cN0) or cN1 disease had the poorest outcomes on RT and ltADT. This will help in counseling patients treated in routine practice and in guiding adjuvant trials in HRLPC. PATIENT SUMMARY:Radiotherapy and long-term hormone therapy are standard treatments for high-risk and locoregional prostate cancer. In this report, we defined prognostic groups within high-risk/locoregional prostate cancer and showed that outcomes to standard therapy are poorest in those with two or more "high-risk" factors or evidence of lymph node involvement. Such patients may therefore be the best candidates for intensification of treatment.

Immuno-oncology has transformed the treatment of cancer, with several immunotherapies becoming the standard treatment across histologies. Despite these advancements, the majority of patients do not experience durable clinical benefits, highlighting the imperative for ongoing advancement in immuno-oncology. Computational immuno-oncology emerges as a forefront discipline that draws on biomedical data science and intersects with oncology, immunology, and clinical research, with the overarching goal to accelerate the development of effective and safe immuno-oncology treatments from the laboratory to the clinic. In this review, we outline 10 critical challenges and opportunities in computational immuno-oncology, emphasizing the importance of robust computational strategies and interdisciplinary collaborations amid the constantly evolving interplay between clinical needs and technological innovation.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the rates, causes, or risk factors for hospital readmission among patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD). We investigated the prevalence, features, and comorbidities of subjects hospitalized with ILD and their subsequent re-hospitalizations in this retrospective study. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of subjects enrolled in the University of Chicago ILD Natural History registry was conducted. Demographic data, comorbidities, and timing and cause of subsequent hospitalizations were collected from the medical record. The primary outcome was time to first readmission via a cause-specific Cox hazards model with a sensitivity analysis with the Fine-Gray cumulative hazard model; the secondary outcome was the number of hospitalizations per subject via a Poisson multivariable model. RESULTS: Among 1,796 patients with ILD, 443 subjects were hospitalized, with 978 total hospitalizations; 535 readmissions were studied, 282 (53%) for a respiratory indication. For the outcome of time to readmission, Black race was the only subject characteristic associated with an increased hazard of readmission in the Cox model (hazard ratio 1.50, P 5 .03) while Black race, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, and sarcoidosis were associated with increased hazard of readmission in the Fine-Gray model. Black race, female sex, atrial fibrillation, obstructive lung disease, and pulmonary hypertension were associated with an increased number of hospitalizations in the Poisson model. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that hospital readmission from any cause was a common occurrence in subjects with ILD. Further efforts to improve quality of life among these subjects could focus on risk scores for readmission, mitigating racial health disparities, and treatment of comorbidities.

BACKGROUND:Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been associated with coronary heart disease and myocardial infarction (MI) in prostate cancer patients, but controversy persists regarding its effects on cardiovascular mortality (CVM). OBJECTIVE:We assessed the long-term relationship between ADT and CVM in a prostate cancer randomized trial (NRG Oncology/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9202). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:From 1992 to 1995, 1554 men with locally advanced prostate cancer (T2c-T4, prostate-specific antigen <150 ng/ml) received radiotherapy with 4 mo (short-term [STADT]) versus 28 mo (longer-term [LTADT]) of ADT. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:Using the Fine-Gray and Cox regression models, the relationship between ADT and mortality was evaluated. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS:With a median follow-up of 19.6 yr, LTADT was associated with improved overall survival (OS) versus STADT (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.88; p = 0.03) and prostate cancer survival (subdistribution HR [sHR] 0.70, p = 0.003). Comparing LTADT with STADT, prostate cancer mortality improved by 6.0% (15.6% [95% confidence interval 13.0-18.3%] vs 21.6% [18.6-24.7%]) at 15 yr, while CVM increased by 2.2% (14.9% [12.4-17.6%] vs 12.7% [10.4-15.3%]). In multivariable analyses, LTADT was not associated with increased CVM versus STADT (sHR 1.22 [0.93-1.59]; p = 0.15). An association between LTADT and MI death was detected (sHR 1.58 [1.00-2.50]; p = 0.05), particularly in patients with prevalent cardiovascular disease (CVD; sHR 2.54 [1.16-5.58]; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS:With 19.6 yr of follow-up, LTADT was not significantly associated with increased CVM in men with locally advanced prostate cancer. Patients may have increased MI mortality with LTADT, particularly those with baseline CVD. Overall, there remained a prostate cancer mortality benefit and no OS detriment with LTADT. PATIENT SUMMARY:In a long-term analysis of a large randomized prostate cancer trial, radiation with 28 mo of hormone therapy did not increase the risk of cardiovascular death significantly versus 4 mo of hormone therapy. Future studies are needed for patients with pre-existing heart disease, who may have an increased risk of myocardial infarction death with longer hormone use.

e13706 Background: External validity and applicability of clinical research relies upon characteristics of trial participants matching those of the respective disease groups in the general population. Understanding the racial/ethnic distribution of patients enrolled in recent US-based, federally sponsored Phase II and III clinical trials could inform strategies to further align characteristics of trial participants with those of disease group populations. As such, we report the racial/ethnic distribution of participants in NRG Oncology studies during 2014-2023 and compare the distribution to that from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program data during 2014-2020 (most recent data available). Methods: Proportions of self-reported race/ethnicity were summarized for the 33,370 trial participants enrolled since Mar 1, 2014 (NRG Oncology inception) to therapeutic, symptoms management, and other interventional trials. SEER proportions were used to benchmark NRG trials for representativeness of disease burden in the population. Results: Among NRG trial participants, 71.5% were non-Hispanic (NH) White, 9.7% NH Black, 4.9% Hispanic, and 7.8% N-H Asian (Table). Examining distributions within selected cancer sites relative to cancer proportional incidence in 2014-2020 SEER data, NRG accrual to prostate, lung, cervix, and breast cancer trials is commensurate with observed disease burden for NH Blacks and modestly lower for Asians. For other sites shown, representation was 2 to 5 percentage points lower than SEER frequencies for Blacks and Asians. For all sites, accrual of individuals of Hispanic background was lower than that reported in SEER. As the NRG trials do not reflect sampling across stages and other features of a given cancer in the population, further analysis to be presented will consist of more detailed breakdowns of trial participant disease-specific cancer stage and tumor subtype and comparison to relevant observations from the 2014-2020 SEER database. Conclusions: This high-level comparison of the racial/ethnic distribution of NRG trial participants provides supportive information for population representative enrollment in several cancer sites, but also identifies opportunities to improve enrollment diversity to represent more closely the respective affected population. Areas of success identified merit further investigation to understand if there are best practices which may be applied more broadly towards expanding access to federally funded clinical trials. [Table: see text]

BACKGROUND:Early salvage radiotherapy (SRT) is the standard of care for biochemical recurrence post-prostatectomy but outcomes are heterogeneous. OBJECTIVE:To develop a risk scoring system based on relevant standard-of-care clinico-pathological prognostic factors for patients treated with SRT with and without hormonal therapy (HT). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:The Intermediate Clinical Endpoints in Cancer of the Prostate (ICECaP) database included three randomized trials (Individual patients' data from 1647 subjects) assessing SRT (GETUG-AFU-16; NRG/RTOG-9601, and a subset of EORTC-22911). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:Outcomes were clinical progression (CP). metastasis free-survival (MFS) and overall survival (OS). Clinico-pathological factors, including pathological Gleason Score (GS), PSA at SRT start, margin status, persistent PSA post-RP and time from RP to SRT were evaluated by multivariable models stratified by type of treatment. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS:On multivariable analysis PSA ≥ 0.5 ng/mL at SRT start, GS ≥ 8 and negative margin status were the three strongest prognostic factors. Three prognostic groups defined by number of these risk features (high risk: 2 or 3; intermediate risk: 1 and low risk: 0) were strongly associated with OS, MFS and CP outcomes with SRT alone or with HT. This prognostic group definition was also relevant for patients with persistent PSA post RP and for patients treated < 1 year from RP to SRT and with and without HT. CONCLUSION:A risk score for patients receiving SRT with or without HT, using three standard-of-care clinico-pathological risk factors provides refined prognostic information for individual patient counselling. PATIENT SUMMARY:By using a composite score of pathology grading (Gleason Score), PSA at start of salvage radiation and margin status data, physicians can provide patients with more refined information on the risk of a second relapse after receiving radiation to the prostate bed after a prostatectomy for a rising or persistent PSA, both with and without hormonal therapy.

Purpose/Objective(s) We hypothesized that for early stage, operable NSCLC, local-regional control (LRC) would not be more than 15% lower in patients treated with SBRT compared with radical surgical resection with nodal sampling/dissection (RODS). Materials/Methods Patients with T1-2N0M0 NSCLC were randomized to: 1) RODS or 2) SBRT of 55 Gy in 5 fractions (BED 118 Gy). The primary endpoint was 2-year LRC, defined as freedom from recurrence in the primary tumor site, involved-lobe, and/or regional-nodal sites. A secondary objective was to assess the logistical feasibility of an RTOG-Foundation SBRT trial at academic centers in China. SBRT credentialing processes, including a dry-run planning case, were required by RTOG before allowing patient registration. Other secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), patterns of failure, and toxicity. Original sample size goal was 76 patients. Results The study opened in 02-2013, and closed to accrual 01-2020, following the recommendations of the RTOG Foundation DMC. Five centers in China were selected for participation; all received IRB approval and satisfied credentials for SBRT and participating surgeons. A total of 47 patients enrolled from 4 centers; 44 patients were randomized, with 22 in each arm. One from each arm withdrew consent after randomization. The median follow-up of surviving patients is 5.0 years. The median patient age was 65 years (range 49-82) and all patients had Zubrod performance status 0-1. Most (59.1%) patients had adenocarcinoma. Median FEV1 was 2.29 L/sec and median DLCO was 90% of predicted. The 2-year LRC rates were 95.2% (95% CI = 70.7-99.3) for RODS and 66.7% (95% CI = 42.5-82.5) for SBRT; this does not satisfy the target criterion of no more than 15% decreased LR control. The HR for local-regional control was 5.11 (95% CI = 1.10-23.7), in favor of surgery. Of 9 patients with local-regional failure in SBRT arm, 3 had major deviations on target delineation and 2 did not have RT data submitted. Regional nodal failure occurred in 6 patients (3 nodal-only failure). Two patients had LR in RODS arm, both at resection margin. There was no significant difference between arms in OS (HR = 0.96, 95% CI =0.28-3.31). The 2-year/5-year OS rates were 85.7%/74.7% and 90.5%/73.0% for RODS and SBRT, respectively. Among 35 patients who received any protocol treatment (16 RODS; 19 SBRT), 6 patients (37.5%) on RODS and 1 patient (5.3%) on SBRT had grade 2 treatment-related toxicities; there were no reported Grade 3-5 toxicities. Conclusion SBRT was feasible and well-tolerated, with survival similar to surgery, but did not achieve the protocol target local-regional tumor-control compared with radical surgery, which should remain the standard of care for operable patients. Review of available RT imaging and patterns of failure in this study are reminders of the importance of nodal staging and rigorous RT quality assurance.