» Articles » PMID: 39066879

Patient-reported Outcomes (PROs) in NRG Oncology RTOG 0436: a Phase III Trial Evaluating the Addition of Cetuximab to Paclitaxel, Cisplatin, and Radiation for Esophageal Cancer Treated Without Surgery

Abstract

Purpose/objectives: NRG/RTOG 0436 evaluated cetuximab added to chemoradiation (CRT) for non-operative esophageal cancer management. PRO objectives assessed improvement in the FACT-Esophageal cancer subscale (ECS), version 4, with cetuximab, and if improved ECS correlated with clinical complete response (cCR).

Materials/methods: Patients were randomized to cisplatin/paclitaxel/radiation ± cetuximab. Overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint, with a 420 patient target, which also provided 82% power to detect ≥ 15 increase in the proportion of cetuximab patients with ECS improvement from baseline to 6-8 weeks post-CRT; α = 0.05, using a χ test. Improvement in ECS and its Swallowing and Eating Indices (SI, EI) was defined as 5, 4 and 2 point increases, respectively, from baseline to 6-8 weeks post-CRT. Univariate logistic regression assessed if cCR was associated with improved ECS.

Results: This study was stopped early for not meeting a pre-specified OS endpoint and did not show survival benefit. Of 420 planned patients, 344 enrolled and 281 consented to PROs. ECS was completed by 261 (93%) at baseline, 173 (66%) 6-8 weeks post-CRT, and 117 (64%) at 1 year. At 6-8 weeks, patients receiving CRT + Cetuximab didn't have improved ECS; they experienced a lower proportion of improvement compared to standard CRT (37% vs. 53%; P = 0.04). The proportion of CRT patients with improvement in SI was 9% higher than with cetuximab, but not statistically significant (39% vs. 30%, P = 0.22). There was no association between treatment and EI. When examining ECS scores at 1 year by cCR vs. residual disease, a higher proportion of cCR patients improved, but not statistically significant (48% vs. 45%, P = 0.74).

Conclusions: The addition of cetuximab to CRT for the nonoperative management of esophageal cancer did not improve PROs.

Citing Articles

Management and outcomes of localized esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer in older patients.

Qu X, Biagi J, Banashkevich A, Mercer C, Tremblay L, Mahmud A Curr Oncol. 2015; 22(6):e435-42.

PMID: 26715880 PMC: 4687668. DOI: 10.3747/co.22.2661.

References
1.
Kelsen D, Winter K, Gunderson L, Mortimer J, Estes N, Haller D . Long-term results of RTOG trial 8911 (USA Intergroup 113): a random assignment trial comparison of chemotherapy followed by surgery compared with surgery alone for esophageal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25(24):3719-25. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2006.10.4760. View

2.
Bedenne L, Michel P, Bouche O, Milan C, Mariette C, Conroy T . Chemoradiation followed by surgery compared with chemoradiation alone in squamous cancer of the esophagus: FFCD 9102. J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25(10):1160-8. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.04.7118. View

3.
Jacobs M, Macefield R, Blazeby J, Korfage I, van Berge Henegouwen M, de Haes H . Systematic review reveals limitations of studies evaluating health-related quality of life after potentially curative treatment for esophageal cancer. Qual Life Res. 2012; 22(7):1787-803. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-012-0290-8. View

4.
Crosby T, Hurt C, Falk S, Gollins S, Mukherjee S, Staffurth J . Chemoradiotherapy with or without cetuximab in patients with oesophageal cancer (SCOPE1): a multicentre, phase 2/3 randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013; 14(7):627-37. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70136-0. View

5.
Rees J, Hurt C, Gollins S, Mukherjee S, Maughan T, Falk S . Patient-reported outcomes during and after definitive chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal cancer. Br J Cancer. 2015; 113(4):603-10. PMC: 4647690. DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2015.258. View