Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

ANKI- GI > GI > Flashcards

GI Flashcards

1
Q

What is the clinical relevance of RTOG 8704?

A

This trial showed that outcomes for anal cancer are inferior with RT + 5FU when compared to RT + 5FU + MMC (i.e. the MMC is necessary for anal cancer).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What was the patient population studied in RTOG 8704?

A

291 pts; any stage anal SCCa

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What was the regimen studied in RTOG 8704?

A

RT (45Gy) + 5FU +/- MMC

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What were the results of RTOG 8704?

A

Improved with MMC:<div>4 yr colostomy free survival (91% vs 78%)<div>DFS (73% vs 51%)</div><div><br></br></div><div>No differencein OS (76% vs 67%)</div></div><div><br></br></div><div>Worse toxicity with MMC (heme)</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

“<span><span>What is the clinical relevance of EORTC 22861?</span></span>”

A

Showed that adding 5FU and MMC to RT improves outcomes for anal cancer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

“What was the population studied in<span><span>EORTC 22861?</span></span>”

A

103 pts; T3 or T4 or N+

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

“What were the results of<span><span>EORTC 22861?</span></span>”

A

Improved with addition of 5FU/MMC:<div>CR rate (80% vs 54%)</div><div>5 yr LC (68% vs 50%)</div><div>Colostomy free survival (72% vs 40%)</div><div><br></br></div><div>No difference in OS (65% vs 72%)</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

“What was the regimen studied in<span><span>EORTC 22861?</span></span>”

A

RT (45Gy + 15-20Gy boost) +/- 5FU and MMC

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What is the clinical relevance of ACT I?

A

Showed that adding 5FU and MMC to RT improves outcomes for patients with anal SCCa

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What population was studied in ACT I?

A

577 pts; Stage II-IV anal SCCa

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What regimen was studied in ACT I?

A

RT (45Gy + 15Gy boost) +/- 5FU and MMC

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What were the results of ACT I?

A

Improved with addition of 5FU/MMC:<div>3 yr LC (66% vs 41%)</div><div>Cancer specific survival</div><div>Colostomy free survival</div><div><br></br></div><div>No difference in OS</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Did ACT I show that adding chemotherapy to RT in anal cancer caused increased non-cancer related deaths?

A

At 5 years, yes (9.1% increase). However, this difference disappeared at 10 years.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What is the clinical relevance of ACT II?

A

Showed that RT + concurrent 5FU/MMC was equivalent to RT + concurrent 5FU/Cisplatin. Since Cisplatin is harder to administer, MMC remains standard of care.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What population was studied in ACT II?

A

940 pts; anal SCCa; all stages

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What regimen was studied in ACT II?

A

RT (50.4 Gy) + concurrent 5FU with either MMC (1 cycle) or Cisplatin (60mg/m2)<div><br></br></div><div>*Also studied adjuvant 5FU/Cis vs no CHT but there was no benefit to this</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What were the results of ACT II?

A

No difference in outcomes among arms<div>3 yr CR: ~90%</div><div>3 yr CFS: ~75%</div><div>3 yr PFS: ~75%</div><div><br></br></div><div>Also no benefit to adding adjuvant CHT</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What is the clinical relevance of RTOG 9811?

A

Showed that RT + concurrent 5FU/MMC is superior to induction 5FU/Cisplatin followed by RT + concurrent 5FU/Cisplatin.<div><br></br></div><div>(essentially showed that induction is not helpful and 5FU/MMC is at least as good as 5FU/Cisplatin if not better)</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What population was studied in RTOG 9811?

A

644 pts; T2-T4 tumors with any N; anal SCCa

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What was the regimen studied in RTOG 9811?

A

Arm 1: RT (45-59Gy) + concurrent 5FU/MMC<div><br></br><div>Arm 2: Neoadjuvant 5FU/Cisplatin –> RT (45-59Gy) + concurrent 5FU/Cisplatin</div></div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

What were the results of RTOG 9811?

A

Significantly better OS, DFS, and CFS with 5FU/MMC arm:<div>5 yr OS 78% vs 71%</div><div>5 yr DFS 68% vs 58%</div><div>5 yr CFS 72% vs 65% (p=0.05)</div><div><br></br></div><div>Also showed induction not helpful</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

What two trials compared RT + 5FU/MMC with RT + 5FU/Cisplatin? And what are the key differences?

A

ACT II and RTOG 9811<div><br></br></div><div>ACT II: also analyzed adjuvant CHT, MMC was only 1 cycle</div><div><br></br></div><div>RTOG 9811: also analzed neoadjuvant CHT, MMC was 2 cycles</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

What is the key message of RTOG 9811 and ACT II?

A

5FU/MMC is preferred over 5FU/Cisplatin for concurrent treatment with RT for anal SCCa

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

What is the clinical relevance of RTOG 0529?

A

Showed the benefit of IMRT for anal SCCa

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

What population was studied in RTOG 0529?

A

63 pts; T2-4N0-3; anal SCCa

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

What was the RT dosing paradigm established by RTOG 0529?

A

“<div><span>Gross Disease:</span></div><span>T2: 50.4Gy</span><div><span>T3/4: 54Gy</span></div><div>Node <3cm: 50.4 Gy</div><div>Node >3cm: 54 Gy</div><div><br></br></div><div>Elective Nodes:</div><div>T2 Primary: 42 Gy</div><div>T3/4 Primary: 45 Gy</div>”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

What was the treatment paradigm in RTOG 0529?

A

RT + concurrent 5FU/MMC utilizing IMRT

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

What were the key outcomes of RTOG 0529? What trial did they compare their results to?

A

“Compared to RTOG 9811, this trial showed lower Grade 3+ skin and GI, and lower Grade 2+ heme toxicities.<div><br></br></div><div><span>RTOG 0529 vs. 9811:</span><br></br><span>grade 2+ heme: 73% vs. 85%</span><br></br><span>grade 3+ skin 23% vs. 49%</span><br></br><span>grade 3+ GI: 21% vs. 36%</span><br></br></div><div><br></br></div>”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

What are the key dose constraints that came from RTOG 0529?

A

“<div>Small bowel (V45<20cc)</div><div>Femoral heads (V44<5%)</div><div><br></br></div><img></img>”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

What is the clinical relevance of the Dutch rectal cancer study?

A

This trial showed improved outcomes for resectable rectal cancer when combining pre-op short course RT with TME.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

What was the population studied in th Dutch rectal cancer study?

A

1861 patients; resectable rectal cancer (included 31% Stage I patients)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

What was the regimen studied in the Dutch rectal cancer study?

A

TME +/- Pre-op short-course RT (25Gy/5fx) without chemotherapy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

What were the results of the Dutch rectal cancer study?

A

Reduced 10 yr LR: 11% VS 5%<div><br></br><div>No change in OS for allcomers</div><div><br></br></div><div>Subgroup analysis showed OS benefit for Stage III with negative circumferential margins<br></br></div></div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

What is the relevance of the Swedish rectal cancer study?

A

This was the first trial to show a benefit to pre-op short course RT (25Gy/5fx). It was also the only study to show an OS benefit.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

What was the population studied in the Swedish rectal cancer study?

A

1168 patients; resectable rectal cancer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

What was the regimen studied in the Swedish rectal cancer study?

A

Blunt dissection +/- short-course neoadjuvant RT (25Gy/5fx). No chemotherapy.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

What were the results of the Swedish rectal cancer study?

A

Improved OS, CSS, and LR<div><br></br></div><div>13 yr OS 30% vs 38%</div><div>13 yr LR 9% vs 27%</div><div>13 yr CSS 62% vs 72%</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

What is the clinical relevance of the German rectal cancer study?

A

This was the key study to compare pre-op and post-op chemoRT for rectal cancer.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

What was the patient population studied in the German rectal cancer study?

A

823 patients; cT3-4 or N+

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

What was the regimen studied in the German rectal cancer study?

A

Neoadjuvant chemoRT (50.4Gy with 5-FU) vs adjuvant chemoRT (50.4Gy+5.4Gy with 5-FU). All patient s got TME and adjuvant chemotherapy.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

What were the results of the German rectal cancer study?

A

Improved LC, acute and late toxicities, and sphincter sparing rates with neoadjuvant chemoRT.<div><br></br></div><div>10 yr LR: 7% vs 10%</div><div>Acute Grade 3-4: 27% vs 40%</div><div>Late Grade 3-4: 14% vs 24%</div><div><br></br></div><div>Among patients initially thought to require APR, neoadjuvant chemoRT allowed more patients to undergo sphincter-sparing surgery (19% vs 39%). </div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

What was the clinical relevance of NSABP R-03?

A

This study supports the findings of the German rectal cancer study (i.e. neoadjuvant chemoRT preferred over adjuvant chemoRT).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

What was the population studied in NSABP R-03?

A

267 pts; cT3-4 or N+ rectal cancer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

What was the regimen studied in NSABP R-03?

A

Pre-op chemoRT vs post-op chemoRT<div><br></br></div><div>50.4Gy/28fx with 5FU + Leucovorin</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

What were the results of NSABP R-03?

A

Improved DFS but no significant benefit in LC or OS (UNDERPOWERED STUDY)<div><br></br></div><div>DFS: 53% vs 65%</div><div>15% pCR rate</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

In 2001, the Colorectal Cancer Collaborative Group performed a meta-analysis of trials including surgery +/- RT for rectal cancer. What were their key findings?

A
  1. There was a trend to OS benefit for patients receiving RT.<div>2. LR was improved with RT. The biggest benefit came from neoadjuvant RT (46% decrease) compared to adjuvant (37% decrease).</div><div>3. RT reduced risk of death due to rectal cancer (50% with no RT vs 45% with RT).</div>
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

What studies established neoadjuvant chemoradiation as the standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer?

A

German Rectal Study and NSABP R-03

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

What is the clinical relevance of MRC CR07?

A

This trial showed better outcomes for neoadjuvant short-course RT compared to adjuvant chemoradiation for patients with rectal cancer.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

What was the population studied in MRC CR07?

A

1350 pts with operable rectal adenocarcinoma

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

What was the regimen studied in MRC CR07?

A

Neoadjuvant RT alone (25Gy/5fx) vs Adjuvant chemoradiation (45Gy/25fx + 5-FU)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

What were the findings of MRC CR07?

A

Improved 3 year LR (4% vs 11%) and DFS (78% vs 72%) but no change in OS.<div><br></br></div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
52
Q

What is the clinical relevance of the Polish rectal cancer study?

A

This trial compared pre-op short course RT with pre-op long course chemoRT. It showed that pre-op long course chemoRT did not improve survival, local control, or late toxicity. It did improve positive margins though.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
53
Q

What population was studied in the Polish rectal cancer study?

A

312 patients with T3-T4 resectable rectal cancer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
54
Q

What regimen was studied in the Polish rectal cancer study?

A

25Gy/5fx pre-op without chemo vs 50.4Gy/28fx with 5FU/LV

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
55
Q

What were the results of the Polish rectal cancer study?

A

Long-course neoadjuvant chemoradiation resulted in a lower rate of positive margins (13% vs 4%) but higher acute toxicity (3% vs 18%).<div><br></br></div><div>There was no difference between short-course RT and long-course chemoradiation in LC (14% vs 9%), survival, or toxicity.</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
56
Q

What is the clinical relevance of the rectal study TROG 01.04?

A

This trial compared neoadjuvant short-course RT with neoadjuvant long-course chemoradiation. It showed a trend towards better local control with long-course chemoradiation, especially for distal tumors.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
57
Q

What population was studied in the rectal study TROG 01.04?

A

326 patients with T3N0-3 rectal cancer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
58
Q

What regimens were studied in the rectal study TROG 01.04?

A

25Gy/5fx without chemotherapy vs 50.4Gy/28fx with 5FU; all patients received 5FU consolidation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
59
Q

What were the results of the rectal study TROG 01.04?

A

Trend towards better LC with long-course neoadjuvant chemoradiation (4.4% vs 7.5% NS) especially for distal tumors (<5cm from anal verge) (0% vs 12.5%).<div><div><br></br></div><div>No difference in other endpoints.</div></div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
60
Q

What is the clinical relevance of the RAPIDO trial?

A

This trial evaluated a new paradigm for treating advanced rectal tumors: short course RT, aggressive chemo, and then surgery. The comparison was traditional neoadjuvant chemoradiation (and maybe outback chemo).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
61
Q

What population was studied in the RAPIDO trial?

A

920 patients; advanced rectal tumors (cT4a-b, N2, extramural vascular invasion, involved mesorectal fascia, or enlarged lateral nodes)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
62
Q

What regimens were studied in the RAPIDO trial?

A

Experimental Arm: 25Gy/5fx –> CAPOX/FOLFOX –> TME<div><br></br><div>Standard Arm: 50.4Gy/28fx with Capecitabine –> TME –> maybe adjuvant chemo</div></div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
63
Q

What were the results of the RAPIDO trial?

A

Improved pCR rate (28% vs 14%) and disease-related failure (24% vs 30%). The disease-related failure improvement was driven by fewer distant metastases in the experimental arm.<div><br></br></div><div>This illustrates the importance of Oxaliplatin in management of systemic risk for rectal cancer patients.</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
64
Q

What is the clinical relevance of the Stockholm III trial?

A

This trial investigated the optimal duration of time between short-course radiation (25Gy/5fx) and surgery for rectal cancer. Short-course radiation with a 4-8 week waiting period before surgery showed better pCR rates and fewer post-op complications.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
65
Q

What population was studied in Stockholm III?

A

840 patients with resectable rectal cancer [T2-4a (allowable T stage depended on location), N1-2, and no compromise of mesorectal fascia)]

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
66
Q

What were the regimens studied in Stockholm III?

A
  1. Short-course RT (25Gy/5fx) –> 1 week –> surgery<div>2. Short-course RT (25Gy/5fx) –> 4-8 weeks –> surgery</div><div>3. Long-course RT (50Gy/25fx) –> 4-8 weeks –> surgery</div><div><br></br></div><div>No chemo for anyone</div>
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
67
Q

What were the results of Stockholm III?

A

Short-course RT (25Gy/5fx) –> 4-8 weeks –> surgery showed the best pCR rate (10%) and a better post-op complication rate compared to short-course RT followed by immediate surgery (38% vs 50%).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
68
Q

What were the results of the Chines meta-analysis (Zhou et al.) that compared short-course neoadjuvant RT with long-course neoadjuvant chemoRT for rectal cancer?

A

Increased pCR rate and higher acute grade 3-4 toxicity with long-course chemoRT.<div><br></br></div><div>No difference in other outcomes (survival, sphincter preservation, late toxicity, etc.).</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
69
Q

What was the clinical relevance of the Polish study analyzing short-course pre-op RT with consolidation FOLFOX compared to long-course pre-op chemoRT with FOLFOX?

A

This study showed better OS and lower toxicity with short-course RT and consolidation chemo. (Even for patients with T4 and low-lying tumors.)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
70
Q

What population was studied in the Polish study comparing short-course pre-op RT with consolidation FOLFOX vs long-course pre-op chemoRT with concurrent FOLFOX?

A

541 pts; cT4 or fixed cT3 rectal tumors. Included low-lying rectal tumors.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
71
Q

What were the results of the Polish study comparing short-course pre-op RT with consolidation FOLFOX vs long-course pre-op chemoRT with concurrent FOLFOX?

A

Better OS and lower acute toxicity with short-course and consolidation FOLFOX.<div><br></br></div><div>3 yr OS: 73% vs 65%</div><div>Any toxicity: 75% vs 83%</div><div><br></br></div><div>Side note: higher pelvic recurrences in the short-course arm (13% vs 7%)</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
72
Q

What is the clinical relevance of RTOG 0822?

A

It showed no benefit to the use of IMRT for rectal cancer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
73
Q

What was the population studied in RTOG 0822?

A

68 pts with resectable rectal cancer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
74
Q

What was the regimen studied in RTOG 0822?

A

RT (45Gy IMRT + 5.4Gy 3DCRT boost) + concurrent Capecitabine/Oxaliplatin —> surgery —–> FOLFOX<div><br></br></div><div>(Phase II trial comparing the above regimen to historical controls from RTOG 0247)</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
75
Q

What were the results of RTOG 0822?

A

No difference in toxicity when comparing IMRT to historical controls

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
76
Q

What is a key criticism of RTOG 0822?

A

All patients got concurrent Oxaliplatin which likely increased toxicity and may have masked the benefit of IMRT

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
77
Q

What is the clinical relevance of the OPRA trial?

A

This trial showed that watchful waiting may be reasonable for patients with a complete or near-complete response to TNT for rectal cancer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
78
Q

What was the population studied in the OPRA trial?

A

324 pts with stage II or III rectal cancer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
79
Q

What was the regimen studied in the OPRA trial?

A

All pts received long course chemoradiation (54Gy + 5FU or Capecitabine). They were randomized to FOLFOX or CAPEOX before or after chemoradiation (i.e. everyone got TNT). After TNT, they all got DRE, flex sig, and MRI. If complete response or near-complete response then watchful waiting was performed. If partial response then TME.<div><br></br></div><div>Each arm was compared to historical controls with 3 yr DFS of 75%</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
80
Q

What were the results of the OPRA trial?

A

No difference in DFS compared to historical controls when a patient underwent watchful waiting instead of TME after TNT (3 yr DFS 77-78% vs 75%).<div><br></br></div><div>*Underpowered analysis suggested that organ preservation rates were higher when TNT used consolidation chemo rather than neoadjuvant chemo (3 yr rate of 58% vs 43%).</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
81
Q

What is the clinical relevance of the TREC study?

A

This study showed that short-course RT with transanal excision might be an alternative to TME for pts with early stage rectal cancer.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
82
Q

What population was studied in the TREC study?

A

55 pts with T1-2 tumors≤3cm, N0, M0

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
83
Q

What regimen was studied in the TREC study?

A

Short-course RT (25Gy/5fx) followed by transanal excision vs TME with no RT

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
84
Q

What were the results of the TREC study?

A

Organ preservation was achieved in 70% of patients randomized to it (the other 30% were converted to TME instead of transanal excision).<div><br></br></div><div>30% of patients had a complete response after short-course RT.</div><div><br></br></div><div>Better QOL and toxicities with short-course RT and transanal excision compared to TME alone.</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
85
Q

What was the clinical relevance of the GRECCAR 2 study?

A

This study showed that transanal excision (instead of TME) could be feasible for patients with good response (i.e. <2cm residual disease) to chemoradiation for rectal cancer.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
86
Q

What was the population studied in the GRECCAR 2 study?

A

186 pts with initially T2-3 disease <4cm and within 8 cm of anal verge;<b> all patients had <2cm of residual disease after neoadjuvant chemoRT</b>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
87
Q

What was the regimen studied in GRECCAR 2?

A

TME vs transanal excision (after good response to chemoRT)<div><br></br></div><div>If a patient was ypT2-3 after transanal excision they were then required to undergo TME</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
88
Q

What were the results of GRECCAR 2?

A

No difference in outcomes between TME and transanal excision<div><br></br></div><div>(This was a superiority design intended to show that transanal excision would be better than TME for good responders to chemoradiation. However, a noninferiority design would be better).</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
89
Q

What is the clinical relevance of the International Watch and Wait Database?

A

Allows for large scale analysis of outcomes for watch and wait strategy in rectal cancer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
90
Q

What is the patient population studied in the International Watch and Wait Database?

A

> 1000 pts; all pts underwent neoadjuvant chemoRT and then watch and wait instead of TME<div><br></br></div><div>(each certain submitting data decided on their own why a given patient did not get TME)</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
91
Q

What was the regimen studied in the International Watch and Wait Database?

A

ChemoRT and then surveillance instead of TME

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
92
Q

What are the results of the International Watch and Wait Database?

A

For patients with a complete response to chemoRT electing for watch and wait strategy:<div>2 yr local regrowth rate of 25%</div><div>2 yr distant mets rate of 8%</div><div>88% of recurrences occured within 2 years</div><div><br></br></div><div>If a complete response is sustained for 3 years, the likelihood of local or distant failure is <5%.</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
93
Q

How does the local regrowth rate compare for patients in the International Watch and Wait Database compared to other watch and wait studies?

A

It is higher (25% at 2 yrs). This is probably because the database includes a wide variety of patients with no common criteria for eligbility.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
94
Q

What was the clinical significance of the RECTAL-BOOST study?

A

This study showed no benefit to the addition of a radiation boost upfront prior to standard chemoRT for rectal cancer.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
95
Q

What was the population and regimen studied in the RECTAL-BOOST study?

A

128 pts with locally advanced rectal cancer<div><br></br></div><div>Standard chemoRT +/- 15Gy/3fx upfront boost</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
96
Q

What were the results of the RECTAL-BOOST study?

A

No difference in outcomes. No benefit to boost.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
97
Q

What is the clinical relevance of the Garcia-Aguilar study analyzing addition of mFOLFOX to neoadjuvant chemoRT for rectal cancer?

A

This trial showed that pCR rates were improved when mFOLFOX was given after neoadjuvant chemoRT for rectal cancer.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
98
Q

What population was studied in the Garcia-Aguilar mFOLFOX study?

A

381 pts with Stage II-III rectal cancer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
99
Q

What were the regimens studied in the Garcia-Aguilar mFOLFOX study?

A

Standard chemoRT (5FU + 50.4Gy) vs addition of mFOLFOX (2 vs 4 vs 6 cycles)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
100
Q

What were the results of the Garcia-Aguilar mFOLFOX study?

A

Improved pCR rate with addition of mFOLFOX: 18% (none) vs 25% (2 cycles) vs 30% (4 cycles) vs 38% (6 cycles)<div><br></br></div><div>More toxicity and surgical complications in FOLFOX arms<br></br><div><br></br></div></div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
101
Q

What is the clinical relevance of the PRODIGE study?

A

This trial showed that neoadjuvant mFOLFIRINOX is potentially better than adjuvant mFOLFOX for rectal cancer.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
102
Q

What population was studied in the PRODIGE 23 study?

A

460 pts with T3/4 N0-1 rectal cancer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
103
Q

What regimens were studied in the PRODIGE 23 study?

A

Neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX —> chemoRT —> TME —> adjuvant FOLFOX (3)<div><br></br></div><div>VS</div><div><br></br></div><div>chemoRT —> TME —> adjuvant FOLFOX (6)</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
104
Q

What were the results of the PRODIGE 23 study?

A

Improved pCR (28% vs 12%) and PFS<div><br></br></div><div>No improvement in OS (3 YR 88 vs 91%)</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
105
Q

The PROSPECT trial for rectal cancer is ongoing. What regimens are being studied?

A

<div>Standard: pre-op chemoRT then TME and FOLFOX x8<br></br></div>

<div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><br></br></div><div>vs.<br></br><br></br></div><div>Selective arm: FOLFOX x6 →<br></br>if response ≥20%, TME and FOLFOX x6<br></br>if response <20%, chemoRT then TME and FOLFOX x2<br></br></div></div></div></div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div></div></div><div></div><div></div><div><br></br></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div></div><div></div><div></div></div><div><div></div><div></div><div></div></div><div><div></div><div></div><div></div></div><div></div><div><div></div><div></div><div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div></div><div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div></div><div><div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div><div><div><div></div><div><br></br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
106
Q

What is the clinical relevance of EORTC 22921 (rectal cancer study)?

A

This trial showed no survival benefit to the addition of adjuvant 5FU to pre-op chemoRT for rectal cancer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
107
Q

What was the population studied in EORTC 22921 (rectal cancer)?

A

1011 pts with T3/T4 rectal cancer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
108
Q

What was the regimen studied in EORTC 22921 (rectal cancer study)?

A

Pre-op chemoRT vs. chemoRT with adjuvant 5-FU/LV<br></br><br></br>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
109
Q

What were the results of EORTC 22921 (rectal cancer study)?

A

Improvement in LC addition of adjuvant 5FU to neoadjuvant chemoRT.<div><br></br></div><div>No difference in DFS or OS.</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
110
Q

What is the clinical relevance of NSABP R-04?

A

This study examined preop chemoRT for rectal cancer. In particular, 5FU vs Capecitabine and is there any benefit to Oxaliplatin?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
111
Q

What was the population studied in NSABP R-04?

A

1608 pts with Stage II or III rectal cancer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
112
Q

What were the regimens studied in NSABP R-04?

A

Pre-op chemoRT (50.4 Gy with different concurrent chemotherapies):<div><br></br>5-FUvs. cape/ox vs. 5-FU/ox</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
113
Q

What were the results of NSABP R-04?

A

No difference in outcomes among the arms (i.e. Capecitabine can be used instead of 5FU and there was no benefit to adding Oxaliplatin).<div><br></br></div><div>Worse toxicity with addition of Oxaliplatin.</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
114
Q

What is the clinical relevance of the ADORE trial?

A

This trial compared adjuvant 5FU to adjuvant FOLOFX after chemoRT and TME for rectal cancer.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
115
Q

What was the population studied in the ADORE trial?

A

321 pts with ypT3-4N0 or any ypN1-2 after 5FU chemoRT and TME

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
116
Q

What were the regimens studied in the ADORE trial?

A

5FU chemo RT and TME → randomized to:<br></br><br></br>→5FU+LV<br></br>vs. <br></br>→FOLFOX<br></br><br></br>Primary endpoint: DFS

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
117
Q

What were the results of the ADORE trial?

A

Oxaliplatin showed better DFS than 5FU. 6 yr DFS 68% vs 57%.<div><br></br></div><div>No benefit in OS.</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
118
Q

What is the clinical relevance of RTOG 8501?

A

This trial showed a benefit to adding chemo to definitive RT for unresectable esophageal cancer.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
119
Q

What population was studied in RTOG 8501?

A

129 pts; T1-3, N0-1, mostly squamous

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
120
Q

What regimens were studied in RTOG 8501?

A

“<span>50 Gy/25 fx + 5FU/cisplatin <br></br></span>vs. <br></br>64 Gy alone”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
121
Q

What were the outcomes of RTOG 8501?

A

<div>All outcomes improved with addition of CHT.</div>

<div><br></br></div>

<b>5-yr OS 26% CRT vs. 0% RT alone<br></br>Median OS 14.1 vs. 9.3 mos</b><br></br>5-yr LRF 53% vs. 38%<br></br>5-yr DM 16% vs. 30%

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
122
Q

What is the clinical relevance of RTOG 9405/INT 0123 (esophageal trial)?

A

This trial examined whether dose escalation is beneficial for definitive chemoradiation for inoperable pts with esophageal cancer.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
123
Q

What population was studied in RTOG 9405/INT 0123 (esophageal trial)?

A

236 pts; inoperable SCCa or adeno

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
124
Q

What regimens were studied in RTOG 9405/INT 0123 (esophageal trial)?

A

“<span>→50.4 Gy + 5FU/cisplatin <br></br></span>vs. <br></br>→64.8 Gy + 5FU/cisplatin”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
125
Q

What were the results of RTOG 9405/INT 0123 (esophageal trial)?

A

Closed and reached futility early due to deaths in high dose arm (but prior to recieving 50.4 Gy).<div><br></br>No difference in any outcomes<br></br><br></br></div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
126
Q

What is the clinical relevance of the ARTDECO trial (esophageal trial)?

A

This trial examined whether dose escalation would be helpful or pts with unresectable/inoperable esophageal cancer. This trial utilized IMRT for escalating dose.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
127
Q

What population was studied in the ARTDECO trial (esophageal trial)?

A

260 pts; T2-4, N0-3 esophageal cancer, inoperable (either medically or anatomically)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
128
Q

What regimens were studied in the ARTDECO trial (esophageal trial)?

A

“<span>→50.4 Gy + carbo/taxol<br></br></span>vs.<br></br>→61.6/50.4 Gy SIB + carbo/taxol”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
129
Q

What were the results of the ARTDECO trial (esophageal)?

A

No improvement in outcomes with IMRT dose escalation for unresectable/inoperable esophageal cancer.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
130
Q

What regimens were studied in the Japanese cervical esophageal cancer study?

A

60 Gy and concurrent cisplatin and 5FU

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
131
Q

What was the outcome of the Japanese cervical esophageal cancer study?

A

Favorable results:<div><br></br></div><div>3 yr OS 67% and 3 yr laryngectomy free survival 53%</div><div><br></br></div><div>(Outcomes worse for T4 tumors)</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
132
Q

What is the clinical relevance of the Japanese cervical esophageal cancer study?

A

This study showed that definitive chemoRT is feasible and has relatively favorable outcomes.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
133
Q

What is the clinical relevance of the CROSS trial?

A

This trial showed the neoadjuvant chemoRT improves outcomes for resectable esophageal cancer.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
134
Q

What population was studied in the CROSS trial?

A

368 pts with resectable T1N1 and T2/3 N0/1 adeno (75%) or squamous (25%) of esophagus (75%) or GEJ (25%)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
135
Q

What regimens were studied in the CROSS trial?

A

“→surgery alone <br></br>vs. <br></br><span>→pre-op chemoRT to 41.4 Gy + carbo/paclitaxel weekly</span><br></br><br></br>RT did not include SCV or celiac”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
136
Q

What were the results of the CROSS trial?

A

“<span>Improved OS with chemoRT<br></br>Median OS 49 vs. 24 mos <br></br>Median OS SCC 82 vs. 21 mos<br></br>Median OS adeno 43 vs. 27 mos<br></br>5-yr OS 47% vs. 34%</span><br></br><br></br><div><br></br></div>”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
137
Q

What were the findings at surgery after chemoRT in the CROSS trial?

A

R0 resections better with chemoRT: 92% vs. 69%<br></br><br></br><div>pCR rate of 29% (23% in adeno, 49% in SCC)</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
138
Q

What were the recurrence patterns from the CROSS trial?

A

Pre-op chemoRT reduced LRR and peritoneal carcinomatosis.<br></br><br></br>Most LRRs were concominant with outfield recurrences.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
139
Q

What is the clinical relevance of NEOCRTEC5010 (esophageal study)?

A

It provided additional evidence that neoadjuvant chemoRT improves outcomes.

140
Q

What population was studied in NEOCRTEC5010?

A

451 pts; Resectable esophageal cancer T1-4N1M0 or T4N0M0

141
Q

What regimens were studied in NEOCRTEC5010?

A

→surgery alone <br></br>vs. <br></br>→pre-op RT to 40 Gy/2 Gy fx + cisplatin vinorelbine q3 wks

142
Q

What were the results of NEOCRTEC5010?

A

Improved OS and DFS<div><br></br></div><div>Median OS 67 mos vs. 100 mos<br></br>Median DFS 42 mos vs. 100 mos<br></br></div>

143
Q

What was the clinical relevance of CALGB 9781 (esophageal study)?

A

Provided additional evidence that preop chemoRT improves outcomes for esophageal cancer

144
Q

What population was studied in CALGB 9781 (esophageal study)?

A

56 pts with adeno or SCC<br></br>thoracic esophagus to GEJ with less than 2 cm to cardia<br></br>T1-3, N0-1. Nodes <1.5 cm

145
Q

What regimens were studied in CALGB 9781?

A

“→sugery alone <br></br>vs<br></br><span>→pre-op RT to 50.4 Gy + cis/5FU</span><br></br><br></br>Optional inclusion of SCV or celiac <br></br><br></br>Surgery in 3-8 weeks, Ivor-Lewis”

146
Q

What were the outcomes of CALGB 9781?

A

Improved OS and PFS<div><br></br></div><div>Median OS 4.5 yrs vs. 1.8<br></br>5-yr OS 39% vs. 16%<br></br>PFS 3.5 yrs vs. 1<br></br></div>

147
Q

What was the clinical relevance of the Irish esophageal study (Walsh et al.)?

A

Provided additional evidence that preop chemoRT improves outcomes for esophageal cancer.

148
Q

What population was studied in the Irish esophageal study (Walsh et al.)?

A

113 pts with adenocarcinoma

149
Q

What regimen was studied in the Irish esophageal study (Walsh et al.)?

A

“→surgery alone <br></br>vs. <br></br><span>→pre-op chemoRT</span> to 40 Gy/15 fx + cis/5FU”

150
Q

What were the results of the Irish esophageal study (Walsh et al.)?

A

Improved OS<div><br></br></div><div>ChemoRT improved 1-yr OS 52% vs. 32%<br></br>3-yr OS 6% vs. 32%<br></br>Median OS 16 vs. 11 mos<br></br></div>

151
Q

What is the clinical relevance of the Michigan and French studied of preop chemoRT for esophageal cancer?

A

They showed no OS benefit (unlike other trials such as CROSS, CALGB 9781, Irish, etc.).

152
Q

What populations were studied in the Michigan and French studied of preop chemoRT for esophageal cancer?

A

Michigan: Localized adeno and SCC<div><br></br></div><div>French: Esophageal SCC (70%) or adeno (29%), T1-T2N0-1 or T3N0. Celiac and SCV LN excluded</div>

153
Q

What regimens were studied in the Michigan and French studied of preop chemoRT for esophageal cancer?

A

<div>Michigan:</div>

<div>→surgery alone vs. <br></br>→pre-op 45 Gy 1.5 BID + cisplatin/vinblastine/5FU<br></br></div>

<div><br></br></div>

French:<div>→Transthoracic surgery<div>vs. <br></br>→pre-op RT 45 Gy + cis/5FU</div></div>

154
Q

What were the results of the Michigan and French esophageal studies?

A

No significant OS benefit to preop chemoRT.

155
Q

What is the clinical relevance of the Stahl II study?

A

This study showed a trend to improved OS for neoadjuvant chemoRT over neoadjuvant chemo alone for GEJ tumors.

156
Q

What population was studied in the Stahl II study?

A

119 pts with T3-4Nx GE junction adenocarcinoma Type I-III

157
Q

What regimen was studied in the Stahl II study?

A

“<span>→pre-op cisplatin/5FU/leucovorin then 30 Gy concurrent cis/etop </span>vs. <br></br>→pre-op chemo alone<br></br><br></br>RT to cardiac, gastric, celiac, splenic, hepatic nodes”

158
Q

What were the results of the Stahl II study?

A

Trend to improved OS for neoadjuvant chemoRT. Better pCR rate.<div><br></br></div>pCR 16% vs. 2% <br></br>3-yr OS 47% vs. 28%, p=0.07<br></br><br></br>

159
Q

What was the problem with the Stahl II study?

A

Closed early. Underpowered.

160
Q

What is the clinical relevance of the POET study for esophageal cancer?

A

This showed a significant PFS benefit to neoadjuvant chemoRT over chemo alone.

161
Q

What population was studied in the POET study for esophageal cancer?

A

119 pts; T3/T4 GEJ adeno

162
Q

What regimen was studied in the POET study for esophageal cancer?

A

→pre-op cis/5FU/LV x2 then cis/etop x1c + 30 Gy RT<br></br>vs. <br></br>→pre-op cis/5FU/LV x2.5

163
Q

What were the results of the POET study for esophageal cancer?

A

Trend toward OS benefit with chemoRT (HR 0.65; P=0.055)<div>Significant PFS benefit (HR 0.37)</div>

164
Q

What is the clinical relevance of the FFCD 9102 France esophageal cancer study?

A

Showed LC benefit to adding surgery to chemoRT for esophageal cancer.

165
Q

What was the population studied in the FFCD 9102 France esophageal cancer study?

A

259 pts; operable T3N0-1 thoracic esophageal Ca. 90% SCC. 94% transthoracic surgery

166
Q

What was the regimen studied in the FFCD 9102 France esophageal cancer study?

A

→Pre-op RT 46 Gy (or split course) + 5FU/cis x2 –> surgery vs. <br></br>→chemoRT (total dose 66 Gy)

167
Q

What were the results of the FFCD 9102 France esophageal cancer study?

A

Benefit in LC but not OS<div><br></br></div><div>Median OS 18 vs. 19 mos (NS)<br></br>2-yr LC 65% vs. 57% (ss)<br></br><br></br><br></br>Also more stents with chemoRT:<br></br>stents 5% vs. 32%<br></br><div><br></br></div><div><br></br></div></div>

168
Q

What is the clinical relevance of the Stahl I esophageal cancer study?

A

Showed a LC benefit to adding surgery to chemoRT.

169
Q

What population was studied in the Stahl I esophageal cancer study?

A

172 pts; T3-4 SCC

170
Q

What regimen was studied in the Stahl I esophageal cancer study?

A

→Pre-op chemo → RT 40 Gy → surgery vs. <br></br>→chemoRT (HDR or EBRT boost to 64-65 Gy)

171
Q

What were the results of the Stahl I esophageal cancer study?

A

“<div>LC benefit but no OS benefit. Also higher mortality with surgery.</div><div><br></br></div>MS (16 mos vs. 15 mos) and 3-yr OS (31% vs. 24%)<br></br><span>2-yr FFLP 64% surgery vs. 41% chemoRT</span>.<br></br>Treatment mortality 4% vs. 13%”

172
Q

What is the clinical relevance of the London study of salvage vs planned esophagectomy?

A

Salvage esophagectomy showed favorable outcomes compared to planned.

173
Q

What population was studied in the London study of salvage vs planned esophagectomy?

A

848 pts from 30 different centers in Europe

174
Q

What regimen was studied in the London study of salvage vs planned esophagectomy?

A

Retrospective review comparing salvaged vs. planned esophagectomy

175
Q

What rwere the outcomes of the London study of salvage vs planned esophagectomy?

A

“No difference in OS and slightly better DFS.<div><br></br><span>3-yr OS 43% vs. 40%, p=0.542</span><br></br><span>3-yr DFS 39% salvage vs. 33% planned, p=0.046</span><br></br>If persistent disease, OS and DFS were worse</div>”

176
Q

What is the clinical relevance of RTOG 0246 for esophageal cancer?

A

This trial showed that selective esophagectomy after chemoRT leads to good outcomes (although not as good as historical controls getting trimodality therapy).

177
Q

What population was studied in RTOG 0246 for esophageal cancer?

A

43 pts; operable nonmetastatic esophageal cancer

178
Q

What regimen was studied in RTOG 0246 for esophageal cancer?

A

Phase II: Induction 5FU/cis/paclitaxel → 50.4 Gy + concurrent 5-FU/cis<br></br>→ eval response with CT, EUS, and optional PET → observe CR and resect PR or PD

179
Q

What were the results of RTOG 0246 for esophageal cancer?

A

Overall: 5-yr OS 37%<br></br>If CR: 5-yr OS 53%<br></br><br></br><div>These are pretty good but the overall number is lower than the CROSS trial 5 yr OS of 47%</div>

180
Q

What is the clinical relevance of the MDACC proton therapy for esophageal cancer study?

A

It showed that protons improved total toxicity burden and reduced postop complications.

181
Q

What population was studied in the MDACC proton therapy for esophageal cancer study?

A

145 pts with locally advanced esophageal cancer

182
Q

What regimen was studied in the MDACC proton therapy for esophageal cancer study?

A

Phase IIB<br></br>IMRT 50.4 Gy<br></br>vs. <br></br>protons 50.4 Gy<br></br><br></br><div><br></br></div>

183
Q

What were the results of the MDACC protons for esophageal cancer study?

A

<div>-Mean TTB 2.3x more with IMRT<br></br></div>

-Post-op complications 7.6x more with IMRT<br></br><br></br><div>No survival differences</div>

184
Q

What are the criticisms of the MDACC protons for esophageal cancer study?

A

VMAT was not required for IMRT arm.<div>The total toxicity burden endpoint was made up by MDACC and never validated.</div>

185
Q

What population was studied in the MAGIC study for gastric cancer?

A

503 pts with Resectable stomach/GEJ adenoCA, lower esophagus

186
Q

What regimen was studied in the MAGIC study for gastric cancer?

A

“<span>→Periop epirubicin, cisplatin and 5-FU (ECF) x3 pre and post-op then surgery</span> <br></br>vs. <br></br>→surgery alone”

187
Q

What were the results of the MAGIC study for gastric cancer?

A

“<span>5-yr OS 36% chemo vs. 23% <br></br>LR 15% vs. 21%<br></br>No benefit in pathCR<br></br></span><br></br>”

188
Q

What is the clinical relevance of INT0116 for gastric cancer?

A

This trial showed improved outcomes for gastric cancer with adjuvant chemoRT.

189
Q

What population was studied in INT0116 for gastric cancer?

A

“603 pts with<span>completely</span> resected stomach (<span>D0 54%, D1 36%, D2 10%</span>) or GE junction adenoCA, <span>85% node positive</span>”

190
Q

What regimen was studied in INT0116 for gastric cancer?

A

“→obs <br></br>vs. <br></br><span>→5FU/LV x1 → 45 Gy with concurrent 5FU/LV x2 → 5FU/LV x2</span>”

191
Q

What were the results of INT0116 for gastric cancer?

A

“<div>Adjuvant chemoRT improves OS, RFS, LR, and DM in resected gastric cancer.<span><br></br></span></div><span><div><span><br></br></span></div>3-yr OS 50% vs. 42%<br></br>Median OS 36 mos chemoRT vs. 27 mos<br></br>RFS 48% vs. 31%</span><br></br>LR 19% vs. 29%<br></br>DM 33% vs. 18%<div><br></br></div><div><br></br></div>”

192
Q

What is the clinical relevance of the CRITICs trial in gastric cancer?

A

Showed no difference in OS with peri-op chemo compared to adjuvant chemoRT in gastric cancer.

193
Q

What population was studied in the CRITICs trial in gastric cancer?

A

788 pts with Stage IB-IVA gastric or gastric esophageal adenocarcinoma AJCC 6th

194
Q

What regimen was studied in the CRITICs trial in gastric cancer?

A

ECC or EOC (epirubicin/(cis or ox)/cape) → D1 surg → ECC <br></br>vs. <br></br>→ECC → D1 surg → 45 Gy RT cape/cis<div><br></br></div>

195
Q

What were the results of the CRITICs trial in gastric cancer?

A

<div>No OS difference but worse heme toxicity with chemo arm.</div>

<div><br></br></div>

5-yr OS ~41% both arms<br></br>Median OS 43 mos vs. 37 mos (p=0.9)<br></br><br></br>Post-op nonfebrile neutropenia 34% vs. 4%

196
Q

What was the clinical relevance of the ARTIST trial for gastric cancer?

A

Showed that chemo alone can be used adjuvantly for gastric cancer (except for node+ and intestinal subtype).

197
Q

What population was studied in the ARTIST trial for gastric cancer?

A

458 pts with Stage IB-IVA gastric, East Asia

198
Q

What regimen was studied in the ARTIST trial for gastric cancer?

A

D2 surgery, R0 →<br></br><br></br>→cape/cis <br></br>vs. <br></br>→cape/cis → RT+cape -→ cape/cis

199
Q

What were the results of the ARTIST trial for gastric cancer?

A

“Trend to improved DFS ~75% (p=0.09) <br></br>5-yr OS ~75% (NS)<br></br><span>DFS benefit in node positive and intestinal subtype</span>”

200
Q

What is the clinical relevance of the ARTIST2 trial for gastric cancer?

A

Showed no benefit to adding RT to SOX (chemo) adjuvantly for gastric cancer.

201
Q

What population was studied in the ARTIST2 trial for gastric cancer?

A

538 pts with Stage II-III gastric, D2 resected, N+

202
Q

What regimen was studied in the ARTIST2 trial for gastric cancer?

A

→S1 vs.<br></br>→S1+oxaliplatin vs.<br></br>→S1+oxaliplatin+45 Gy RT

203
Q

What were the results of the ARTIST2 trial for gastric cancer?

A

Trial stopped early due to futility<br></br>No difference in OS for SOX vs. SOXRT (p=0.057)<br></br>3-yr DFS 78% vs. 73%

204
Q

What was the clinical relevance of RTOG 9904 for gastric cancer?

A

Explored neoadjuvant chemoRT for gastric cancer. Showed favorable results. Currently being evaluated in TOPGEAR study.

205
Q

What population was studied in RTOG 9904 for gastric cancer?

A

49 pts with localized gastric adenocarcinoma

206
Q

What regimen was studied in RTOG 9904 for gastric cancer?

A

Phase II: pre-op cis/5FU x2 → concurrent chemoRT 45 Gy with 5FU and weekly taxol → resection

207
Q

What were the results of RTOG 9904 for gastric cancer?

A

<div>Favorable results:</div>

<div><br></br></div>

pCR 26%, 1 yr OS 72%, Median OS 23 mos<br></br><br></br>If pCR, then 1 yr OS 82%

208
Q

What was the clinical relevance of CALGB 80101 for gastric cancer?

A

Showed that ECF with RT has less toxicity than 5FU with RT for adjuvant gastric cancer treatment.

209
Q

What population was studied in CALGB 80101 for gastric cancer?

A

546 pts with resected Stage IB-IV(M0) gastric adenocarcinoma

210
Q

What regimen was studied in CALGB 80101 for gastric cancer?

A

→5FU/LV → RT/5FU → 5FU/LV<br></br>vs.<br></br>→ECF → RT/5FU → ECF

211
Q

What were the results of CALGB 80101 for gastric cancer?

A

“<span>No change in OS, but less toxicity with ECF–>RT</span><br></br><br></br><div>Median OS ~37 mos, 5-yr OS 44%<br></br><br></br>With ECF, less diarrhea, mucositis, dehydration, and neutropenia</div>”

212
Q

What was the clinical relevance of the FLOT4 study for gastric cancer?

A

Showed that perioperative FLOT improved survival over ECF/ECX.

213
Q

What population was studied in the FLOT4 study for gastric cancer?

A

“716 pts with Gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma stage ≥cT2 or N+<br></br><br></br><span>(44% gastric, 56% GEJ, 80% N+)</span>”

214
Q

What regimen was studied in the FLOT4 study for gastric cancer?

A

“→periop <span>FLOT</span> (docetaxel, oxaliplatin, 5-FU, LV) (D2 dissections)<br></br>vs. <br></br>→ECF or ECX”

215
Q

What were the results of the FLOT4 study for gastric cancer?

A

“<span>OS improved with FLOT</span><br></br>Median OS 50 mos vs. 35 mos<br></br>5-yr OS 45% vs. 36%<br></br>DFS 30 mos vs. 18 mos<div><br></br>Toxicity similar. Like ECF, FLOT4 is poorly tolerated with 46% completion</div>”

216
Q

What was the clinical relevance of the South Korean adjuvant RT for gastric cancer study (Kim, IJROBP 2005)?

A

Showed that adjuvant chemoRT improves OS for D2 dissected gastric cancer

217
Q

What population was studied in the South Korean adjuvant RT for gastric cancer study (Kim, IJROBP 2005)?

A

544 pts with D2 dissection

218
Q

What regimen was studied in the South Korean adjuvant RT for gastric cancer study (Kim, IJROBP 2005)?

A

→Observational. D2 surgery alone <br></br>vs. <br></br>→D2 surgery with 45 Gy RT + 5FU

219
Q

What were the results of the South Korean adjuvant RT for gastric cancer study (Kim, IJROBP 2005)?

A

Improved OS and PFS with adjuvant chemoRT.<div><br></br></div><div>Median OS 95 mos vs. 63 mos</div><div>PFS 75 mos vs. 52 mos</div>

220
Q

What is the clinical relevance of the ACTS-GC trial for gastric cancer?

A

Showed that adjuvant S1 (oral 5-FU) improved OS in gastric cancer

221
Q

What population was studied in the ACTS-GC trial for gastric cancer?

A

529 pts with Stage II-III gastric, East Asia

222
Q

What regimen was studied in the ACTS-GC trial for gastric cancer?

A

“D2 surgery → <br></br><span>→S1 for one year </span>vs.<br></br><span>→</span>obs”

223
Q

What were the results of the ACTS-GC trial for gastric cancer?

A

3-yr OS improved with adjuvant S1<div>80% vs. 70%</div>

224
Q

What was the clinical relevance of the CLASSIC trial for gastric cancer?

A

This trial showed that adjuvant Cape/Ox improved outcomes for gastric cancer

225
Q

What population was studied in the CLASSIC trial for gastric cancer?

A

1035 pts with Stage II-IIIB gastric, East Asia. Patients in South Koreea, China, and Taiwan

226
Q

What regimen was studied in the CLASSIC trial for gastric cancer?

A

“D2 gastrectomy → <br></br><span>→cape/ox</span> <br></br>vs. <br></br>→obs”

227
Q

What were the results of the CLASSIC trial for gastric cancer?

A

<div>Improved OS and DFS with adjuvant Cape/Ox</div>

<div><br></br></div>

5-yr DFS 68% vs. 53%<br></br>5-yr OS 78% vs. 69%

228
Q

What was the clinical relevance of GITSG 91-73 for pancreatic cancer?

A

Showed that adjuvant chemoRT after surgery improves OS over observation for resected pancreatic cancer.

229
Q

What population was studied in GITSG 91-73 for pancreatic cancer?

A

43 pts with Resected pancreatic cancer with negative margins<br></br><br></br>28% were LN+, 95% pancreatic head

230
Q

What regimen was studied in GITSG 91-73 for pancreatic cancer?

A

“→Surgery alone <br></br>vs. <br></br><span>→Surgery → 40 Gy split course + </span><span>concurrent bolus 5FU –> maintanence 5FU x 2y</span>”

231
Q

What were the results of GITSG 91-73 for pancreatic cancer?

A

“<div>Improved survival with adjuvant chemoRT</div><div><br></br></div>Median OS 21.0 months vs. 10.9 months<br></br>2-yr OS 46% vs. 18%<span><br></br></span><br></br>”

232
Q

What was the clinical relevance of EORTC 40891 for pancreatic cancer?

A

In contrast to GITSG 91-73, adjuvant CRT led to no OS or PFS benefit over observation.

233
Q

What population was studied in EORTC 40891 for pancreatic cancer?

A

“218 pts with Resected <span>pancreas or periampullary </span>cancer”

234
Q

What regimen was studied in EORTC 40891 for pancreatic cancer?

A

“→Split-course 40 Gy <span>conc 5-FU</span> <br></br>vs. <br></br>→obs”

235
Q

What were the results of EORTC 40891 for pancreatic cancer?

A

“No significant difference in 2-yr PFS or OS. Trend to benefit with RT.<br></br><br></br>2-yr OS 37% vs. 23%, p=0.09<br></br>LR 20% both arms<br></br><span>Summary: LF 20%, MS 17 mos, +M 19%</span>”

236
Q

What was the clinical relevance of ESPAC-1 for pancreatic cancer?

A

This trial showed that adjuvant chemo improved OS, and adjuvant chemoRT worsened OS.

237
Q

What was the population studied in ESPAC-1 for pancreatic cancer?

A

289 pts with Resected pancreatic cancer, R0/R1

238
Q

What was the regimen studied in ESPAC-1 for pancreatic cancer?

A

→40 Gy split conc 5FU (EORTC) vs. <br></br>→5FU alone vs.<br></br>→chemoRT → chemo (GITSG) vs.<br></br>→obs

239
Q

What were the results of ESPAC-1 for pancreatic cancer?

A

<div>OS improved with chemo. OS worse with chemoRT.</div>

<div><br></br></div>

5-yr OS 10% chemoRT vs. 20% without<br></br>5-yr OS 21% chemo vs. 8% without<br></br><br></br>

240
Q

What are concerns about ESPAC-1 for pancreatic cancer?

A

“In original design, not all patients were randomized. No RT quality assurance. Option of up to 60 Gy instead of 40. Only 70% had full dose. Optional ““background therapy””.”

241
Q

What was the clinical relevance of the EORTC-FFCD-GERCOR study for pancreatic cancer?

A

Showed a LC benefit to adding RT to Gem adjuvantly for resected pancreatic cancer.

242
Q

What population was studied in the EORTC-FFCD-GERCOR study for pancreatic cancer?

A

90 pts with resected pancreatic cancer

243
Q

What regimen was studied in the EORTC-FFCD-GERCOR study for pancreatic cancer?

A

“Phase II: <br></br>→50.4 Gy <span>conc Gem</span> <br></br>vs. <br></br>→Gem alone”

244
Q

What were the results of the EORTC-FFCD-GERCOR study for pancreatic cancer?

A

“<div>LC benefit to adding RT to Gem</div><div><br></br></div><div>Median OS 24 mos in both arms<br></br></div><span>LR 11% vs. 24%, improved with RT</span><div><span><br></br></span><span></span></div>”

245
Q

What is the clinical relevance of RTOG 9704 for pancreatic cancer?

A

Showed that adding perioperative Gemcitabine to adjuvant regimen of chemoRT for pancreatic trends towards improved OS.

246
Q

What population was studied in RTOG 9704 for pancreatic cancer?

A

451 pts with Gross total resection of adenoCA<br></br>35% with positive margins (highest among trials)

247
Q

What regimen was studied in RTOG 9704 for pancreatic cancer?

A

“<span>→pre and post gem</span> <br></br>vs. <br></br>→pre and post 5FU <br></br><br></br>50.4 Gy to elective nodes and post-op bed with concurrent 5FU for all”

248
Q

What were the results of RTOG 9704 for pancreatic cancer?

A

Gem arm trended to improved OS<br></br>panc head 3-yr OS 31% vs. 22%, p=0.09<br></br><br></br>Grade 3+ heme 58% gem vs. 9% 5FU

249
Q

What was the clinical relevance of CONKO-001 for pancreatic cancer?

A

Showed that adjuvant gemicitabine improves OS.

250
Q

What population was studied in CONKO-001 for pancreatic cancer?

A

368 pts with pancreas R0/R1, no patients with CEA >2.5 ULN

251
Q

What regimen was studied in CONKO-001 for pancreatic cancer?

A

“→obs <br></br>vs. <br></br><span>→gemcitabine 6 cycles</span>”

252
Q

What were the results of CONKO-001 for pancreatic cancer?

A

<div>Adjuvant Gem improved OS and DFS</div>

<div><br></br></div>

Median OS 22 mos gem vs. 20 mos<br></br>OS 23% vs. 12%<br></br>10 yr DFS 14% vs. 6%<div><br></br><br></br></div>

253
Q

What was the clinical relevance of ESPAC-4 for pancreatic cancer?

A

Showed that adding adjuvant capecitabine to gemcitabine improves OS.

254
Q

What population was studied in ESPAC-4 for pancreatic cancer?

A

730 pts with pancreatic cancer patients who underwent surgery, R0 or R1

255
Q

What regimen was studied in ESPAC-4 for pancreatic cancer?

A

→adj gem + capecitabine <br></br>vs. <br></br>→gem alone

256
Q

What were the results of ESPAC-4 for pancreatic cancer?

A

Improved OS with Gem/Capecitabine compared to Gem.<div><br></br>MS 28.0 mos with cape+gem vs. 25.5 gem alone<br></br><br></br></div>

257
Q

What was the clinical relevance of the PRODIGE 24 / CCTG PA.6 study for pancreatic cancer?

A

Showed that adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX improves DFS, DMFS, and OS compared to gemcitabine.

258
Q

What population was studied in the PRODIGE 24 / CCTG PA.6 study for pancreatic cancer?

A

493 pts with resected pancreatic cancer

259
Q

What regimen was studied in the PRODIGE 24 / CCTG PA.6 study for pancreatic cancer?

A

“→adj gem <br></br>vs. <br></br><span>→mFOLFIRINOX</span>”

260
Q

What were the results of the PRODIGE 24 / CCTG PA.6 study for pancreatic cancer?

A

“Adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX improves DFS, DM, and OS over adjuvant Gem<div><br></br>Median DFS 12.8 mos vs. 21.6 mos<br></br>Median OS 35 mos vs. <span>54 mos</span><br></br>Median DMFS 17.7 mos vs. 30.4 mos<br></br><br></br><div><br></br></div></div>”

261
Q

What was the clinical relevance of the LAP07 trial for pancreatic cancer?

A

This trial assessed the value of adding EBRT and Erlotinib to Gemcitabine for unresectable pancreatic cancer.

262
Q

What population was studied in the LAP07 trial for pancreatic cancer?

A

Pts with locally advanced pancreatic cancer

263
Q

What regimen was studied in the LAP07 trial for pancreatic cancer?

A

“→induction gem <br></br>vs. <br></br>→induction gem + erlotinib<br></br><br></br>if disease controlled → <br></br><br></br>→further chemo <br></br>vs. <br></br>→54 Gy 3DCRT <span>conc cape</span>”

264
Q

What were the results of the LAP07 trial for pancreatic cancer?

A

“No OS benefit to adding EBRT or Erlotinib to Gemcitabine<div><br></br></div><div><span>No difference in OS</span><br></br>Median OS 16.5 mos chemo vs. 15.2 mos chemoRT, p=0.83<br></br><span>RT improved LC, 32% vs. 46%, p=0.03<br></br></span><br></br><br></br>No increase in Grade 3-4 toxicity with RT except for nausea <br></br>Erlotinib did not improve OS and increased toxicity<br></br></div>”

265
Q

What were the concerns about the LAP07 trial for pancreatic cancer?

A

IMRT was not used. 18% of pts had major deviations.

266
Q

What was the clinical relevance of the FFCD-SFRO trial for unresectable pancreatic cancer (Chauffert et al. Ann Onc)?

A

This trial showed worse OS for chemoRT over Gemcitabine alone for unresectable pancreatic cancer.

267
Q

What was the population studied in the FFCD-SFRO trial for unresectable pancreatic cancer (Chauffert et al. Ann Onc)?

A

119 pts with locally advanced pancreatic cancer

268
Q

What was the regimen studied in the FFCD-SFRO trial for unresectable pancreatic cancer (Chauffert et al. Ann Onc)?

A

“60 Gy + <span>5FU/</span><span>cis</span> vs. <span>Gem</span> alone<br></br><br></br>maintenance Gem in both arms”

269
Q

What were the results of the FFCD-SFRO trial for unresectable pancreatic cancer (Chauffert et al. Ann Onc)?

A

<div>Worse OS and toxicity with chemoRT.</div>

<div><br></br></div>

8.6 mos RT vs. 13 mos chemo alone<br></br>Grade 3-4 toxicity 65% vs. 40%<br></br>Completion of 75% of therapy: 42% vs. 73%

270
Q

What was the clinical relevance of the GITSG unresectable pancreatic cancer trial?

A

<b>Old trial </b>that showed that CRT with 5FU->SMF resulted in improved OS over SMF alone.

271
Q

What was the population studied in the GITSG unresectable pancreatic cancer trial?

A

43 pts with unresectable, surgically staged pancreatic cancer

272
Q

What was the regimen studied in the GITSG unresectable pancreatic cancer trial?

A

SMF (streptozocin, mitomycin, 5FU) vs. 54 Gy conc 5FU then SMF

273
Q

What were the results of the GITSG unresectable pancreatic cancer trial?

A

Improved OS with addition of chemoRT to SMF chemotherapy<div><br></br></div><div>1-yr OS 19% vs. 42% with RT</div>

274
Q

What was the clinical relevance of the ECOG 4201 trial for unresectable pancreatic cancer?

A

This trial showed that chemoRT with gem seems to result in improved OS over gem alone. The trial is likely underpowered.

275
Q

What population was studied in the ECOG 4201 trial for unresectable pancreatic cancer?

A

74 pts with unresectable pancreatic cancer

276
Q

What regimen was studied in the ECOG 4201 trial for unresectable pancreatic cancer?

A

“→gem alone <br></br>vs. <br></br>→50.4 Gy<span> RT + gem then consolidation gem</span>”

277
Q

What were the results of the ECOG 4201 trial for unresectable pancreatic cancer?

A

Underpowered, terminated early but results showed:<div><br></br>Median OS 9.2 mos vs. 11 mos CRT (p=0.017)<br></br>Grade 4-5 toxicity worse with CRT 9% vs. 41%</div>

278
Q

What was the clinical relevance of the SCALOP trial for unresectable pancreatic cancer?

A

Analyzed induction Gem/Cape then concurrent chemoRT for unresectable pancreatic cancer. The chemoRT was either Gem/RT or Cape/RT. There is a trend to PFS with Cape/RT, though results were nonsignificant.

279
Q

What population was studied in the SCALOP trial for unresectable pancreatic cancer?

A

74 pts with locally advanced pancreatic, size ≤7 cm

280
Q

What regimen was studied in the SCALOP trial for unresectable pancreatic cancer?

A

12 wks induction gem+cape then if stable disease or response, more chemo, then randomized: <br></br><br></br>→Gem + 50.4 Gy RT <br></br>vs. <br></br>→Cape + 50.4 Gy RT

281
Q

What were the results of the SCALOP trial for unresectable pancreatic cancer?

A

“<span>No benefit in OS</span><div><span>Trend to PFS improved with Capecitabine</span></div><div><b>Worse toxicity with Gem<br></br></b><br></br>Median PFS 12.0 mos vs. 10.4 mos, p=.11<br></br><br></br></div>”

282
Q

What was the clinical relevance of the GITSG trial analyzing the addition of 5FU to RT for unresectable pancreatic cancer (Moertel et al. Cancer 1981)?

A

This trial showed chemoRT with 5FU results in improved OS over RT alone.

283
Q

What population was studied in the GITSG trial analyzing the addition of 5FU to RT for unresectable pancreatic cancer (Moertel et al. Cancer 1981)?

A

194 pts with unresectable pancreatic cancer

284
Q

What regimen was studied in the GITSG trial analyzing the addition of 5FU to RT for unresectable pancreatic cancer (Moertel et al. Cancer 1981)?

A

60 Gy vs. 40 Gy + 5FU vs. 60 Gy + 5FU<br></br><br></br>Split course RT

285
Q

What were the results of the GITSG trial analyzing the addition of 5FU to RT for unresectable pancreatic cancer (Moertel et al. Cancer 1981)?

A

1-yr OS 40% CRT vs. 10% without chemo.<div><br></br></div><div>No significant difference b/w dose levels.</div><div><br></br></div>

286
Q

What was the clinical relevance of the PREOPANC study for pancreatic cancer?

A

This trial analyzed use of chemoRT prior to resection for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. Showed improved resection rates with chemoRT and a trend to OS benefit.

287
Q

What population was studied in the PREOPANC study for pancreatic cancer?

A

246 pts with borderline resecatble pancreatic cancer

288
Q

What regimen was studied in the PREOPANC study for pancreatic cancer?

A

“→Surgery → adjuvant gem<br></br>vs.<span> <br></br>→gem → 36 Gy/ 15 fx at 2.4 Gy with concurrent gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2</span> → surgery → adjuvant gem”

289
Q

What were the results of the PREOPANC study for pancreatic cancer?

A

<div>Trend to OS benefit for intention to treat population. Per protocol analysis showed significant OS benefit. More R0 resections with chemoRT and improved DFS and LRF.</div>

<div><br></br></div>

<div>Median OS 14.3 vs. 16.0 mos, p=0.096<br></br>Subanalysis of those who had surgery and started adjuvant gem: OS 19.8 mos vs. 35.2 mos<br></br></div>

R0 40% vs. 71%<br></br>Resection rate 72% vs. 61%, p=0.058<br></br>DFS and LRF also improved<br></br><br></br>

290
Q

What was the clinical relevance of the Italian analysis of SBRT for inoperable pancreatic cancer?

A

Showed that SBRT seems to show favorable outcomes. Randomized trials are needed.

291
Q

What population was included in the Italian analysis of SBRT for inoperable pancreatic cancer?

A

1009 pts with inoperable pancreatic cancer

292
Q

What regimen was included in the Italian analysis of SBRT for inoperable pancreatic cancer?

A

Review and pooled analysis of 19 SBRT studies

293
Q

What were the results of the Italian analysis of SBRT for inoperable pancreatic cancer?

A

1-yr LRC 72%, 1-yr OS 52%, Median OS 17 mos (range 5.7-47 mos)<div><br></br>Severe adverse effects <10%</div><div><br></br>Borderline resected in 50-56% and unresectable removed in 0-20%</div><div><br></br>LRC correlated to dose and # fractions</div>

294
Q

What was the clinical relevance of the T Gen trial for metastatic pancreatic cancer?

A

Showed that Nab-paclitaxel improves OS in metastatic pancreatic cancer.

295
Q

What population was studied in the T Gen trial for metastatic pancreatic cancer?

A

861 pts with metastatic pancreatic cancer

296
Q

What regimen was studied in the T Gen trial for metastatic pancreatic cancer?

A

“<span>→nab-paclitaxel then gem <br></br></span>vs. <br></br>→gem alone”

297
Q

What were the results of the T Gen trial for metastatic pancreatic cancer?

A

OS benefit with nabpaclitaxel<div><br></br>Median OS 8.5 mos vs. 6.7 mos<br></br><br></br><br></br></div>

298
Q

What was the clinical relevance of the Intergroup study (GTDU and PRODIGE) for metastatic pancreatic cancer?

A

This trial showed that FOLFIRINOX improves OS and has lower toxicity than gemcitabine in metastatic pancreatic cancer.

299
Q

What population wa sstudied in the Intergroup study (GTDU and PRODIGE) for metastatic pancreatic cancer?

A

242 pts with metastatic pancreatic cancer

300
Q

What regimen was studied in the Intergroup study (GTDU and PRODIGE) for metastatic pancreatic cancer?

A

“<span>→FOLFIRNOX</span> <br></br>vs. <br></br>→gem”

301
Q

What were the results of the Intergroup study (GTDU and PRODIGE) for metastatic pancreatic cancer?

A

Benefit with FOLFIRINOX over Gemcitabine in Median OS<br></br>11.1 mos vs. 6.8<div><br></br><br></br></div>

302
Q

What was the clinical relevance of the Intergroup 0130 trial analyzing adjuvant RT for resected colon cancer?

A

This trial showed that adjuvant RT does not benefit OS or DFS in advanced colon cancer. However the trial had low power and was terminated early.

303
Q

What population was studied in the Intergroup 0130 trial analyzing adjuvant RT for resected colon cancer?

A

222 pts with resected colon cancer T4 at any location or T3N1/T3N2 in ascending or descending colon

304
Q

What regimen was studied in the Intergroup 0130 trial analyzing adjuvant RT for resected colon cancer?

A

→5FU and levamisole alone <br></br>vs. <br></br>→with radiation therapy

305
Q

What were the results of the Intergroup 0130 trial analyzing adjuvant RT for resected colon cancer?

A

Underpowered, terminated early, no change in OS or DFS, worse toxicity with RT<div><br></br><div>5-yr OS 62% vs. 58% (NS)<br></br>5-yr DFS 51% in both (NS)<br></br>Grade ≥3 toxicity 42% vs. 54% (p=0.04)</div></div>

306
Q

What are some concerns about the Intergroup 0130 trial analyzing adjuvant RT for resected colon cancer?

A

Trial was terminated due to poor accrual (222 out of planned 700 patients). Therefore power was insufficient. LC not assessed. RT was delivered to PA lymph nodes. T3N1 may be too low risk. Chemotherapy used is no longer current. No pre-op imaging or clips required to locate tumor. Margins often not assessed on pathology. <br></br><br></br>Is there a benefit with radiation therapy with modern technique? One obstacle is that small bowel is often adjacent or adherent to site.

307
Q

What was the clinical relevance of the MOSAIC trial for colon cancer?

A

Showed that adding oxaliplatin to 5FU-LV improves OS in resected colon cancer.

308
Q

What population was studied in the MOSAIC trial for colon cancer?

A

2246 pts with Stage II or III colon cancer

309
Q

What regimen was studied in the MOSAIC trial for colon cancer?

A

Curative resection → <br></br><br></br>F5U-L vs. FOLFOX

310
Q

What were the results of the MOSAIC trial for colon cancer?

A

<div>Improved OS with FOLFOX over 5FU alone.</div>

<div><br></br></div>

10-yr OS 67% vs. 72%<br></br>Stage III OS 59% vs. 67%<br></br>No benefit in Stage II (OS ~80%)<br></br><br></br>

311
Q

What was the clinical relevance of the EORTC 40983 trial for colorectal cancer?

A

Showed a trend to OS benefit with perioperative FOLFOX for colorectal cancer with hepatic metastases.

312
Q

What population was studied in the EORTC 40983 trial for colorectal cancer?

A

364 pts with resectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer

313
Q

What regimen was studied in the EORTC 40983 trial for colorectal cancer?

A

→perioperative FOLFOX <br></br>vs. <br></br>→surgery alone

314
Q

What were the results of the EORTC 40983 trial for colorectal cancer?

A

PFS benefit seen on initial publication, but lost on update. Median OS 54 mos vs. 51 mos, trend toward benefit with peri-op

315
Q

What was the clinical relevance of the SWOG 0809 trial for extrahepatic biliary cancer?

A

This trial showed adjuvant chemoRT produced favorable results and low toxicity. Randomized trials are warranted.

316
Q

What population was studied in the SWOG 0809 trial for extrahepatic biliary cancer?

A

79 pts with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma or gallbladder carcinoma, pT2-T4, or N+, or R1

317
Q

What regimen was studied in the SWOG 0809 trial for extrahepatic biliary cancer?

A

adjuvant capecitabine+gem, then 45 Gy RT LNs and tumor bed plus boost to 54-59 Gy with concurrent capecitabine

318
Q

What were the results of the SWOG 0809 trial for extrahepatic biliary cancer?

A

2-yr OS 65%, median OS 35 mos, LR in 14 pts, DM in 24 pts, combined relapse in 9 pts

319
Q

What was the clinical relevance of the Korean study (Yoon et al. JAMA Onc 2018) analyzing EBRT + TACE for HCC?

A

This study showed that for HCC with vascular invasion, TACE+RT led to improved RR, TTP, and OS compared to Sorafenib.

320
Q

What population was included in the Korean study (Yoon et al. JAMA Onc 2018) analyzing EBRT + TACE for HCC?

A

90 pts with HCC with macroscopic vascular invasion

321
Q

What regimen was included in the Korean study (Yoon et al. JAMA Onc 2018) analyzing EBRT + TACE for HCC?

A

“<span>→TACE + RT<span> <br></br>vs. <br></br>→sorafenib<br></br><br></br>TACE done q6 weeks with 45 Gy EBRT 3 weeks after first TACE</span></span>”

322
Q

What were the results of the Korean study (Yoon et al. JAMA Onc 2018) analyzing EBRT + TACE for HCC?

A

<div>Improved outcomes with EBRT+TACE over Sorafenib</div>

<div><br></br></div>

24-week response rate 33% vs. 2%<div>Median TTP 31 weeks vs. 12 weeks<br></br>Median OS 55 weeks vs. 43 weeks</div>

323
Q

What was the clinical relevance of the Chinese study (Sun et al. Radiother Onc 2019) analyzing post-op IMRT for HCC with tumor thrombus?

A

Showed that post-op IMRT after resection of HCC with thrombus improves OS.

324
Q

What population was included in the Chinese study (Sun et al. Radiother Onc 2019) analyzing post-op IMRT for HCC with tumor thrombus?

A

52 pts with resected HCC with tumor vein thrombus

325
Q

What regimen was included in the Chinese study (Sun et al. Radiother Onc 2019) analyzing post-op IMRT for HCC with tumor thrombus?

A

“<span>partial hepatectomy ± thrombectomy →<br></br><br></br>→post-op IMRT<br></br>vs. <br></br>→obs</span>”

326
Q

What were the results of the Chinese study (Sun et al. Radiother Onc 2019) analyzing post-op IMRT for HCC with tumor thrombus?

A

<div>Improved OS with use of post-op IMRT:</div>

<div><br></br></div>

1, 2, 3-yr OS <br></br>77%/19%/12% vs. 27%/12%/0%<br></br><br></br>Median OS 18.9 vs. 10.8 mos<br></br><br></br>

327
Q

What was the clinical relevance of the Chinese study (Wei et al. JCO 2019) analyzing pre-op EBRT for HCC with tumor thrombus?

A

Showed that pre-op RT in HCC with tumor vein thrombosis improved OS and disease control.

328
Q

What population was included in the Chinese study (Wei et al. JCO 2019) analyzing pre-op EBRT for HCC with tumor thrombus?

A

164 pts with resectable HCC with tumor vein thrombus

329
Q

What regimen was included in the Chinese study (Wei et al. JCO 2019) analyzing pre-op EBRT for HCC with tumor thrombus?

A

“<span>→pre-op RT 18 Gy/6 fx, 3DCRT<span><br></br>vs.<br></br>→no RT<br></br><br></br>surgery 1 month after RT</span></span>”

330
Q

What were the results of the Chinese study (Wei et al. JCO 2019) analyzing pre-op EBRT for HCC with tumor thrombus?

A

<div>OS improved with preop EBRT:</div>

<div><br></br></div>

1-yr OS 75% vs. 43%<br></br>2-yr OS 27% vs. 9%<br></br><div>2-yr DFS 13% vs. 3%</div><div><br></br>RT caused grade 3 toxicity in 2 patients that led to inoperability</div>

331
Q

What was the clinical relevance of the Italian study analyzing SBRT vs TACE for HCC after TACE failure?

A

Showed that SBRT improved LC compared to TAE/TACE after incomplete response to TACE.

332
Q

What population was included in the Italian study analyzing SBRT vs TACE for HCC after TACE failure?

A

40 pts with unresectable HCC s/p TAE/TACE and incomplete response

333
Q

What regimen was included in the Italian study analyzing SBRT vs TACE for HCC after TACE failure?

A

“after incomplete response to TAE/TACE:<br></br><br></br><span>SBRT </span>vs. TAE/TACE”

334
Q

What were the results of the Italian study analyzing SBRT vs TACE for HCC after TACE failure?

A

<div>Improved LC with SBRT over TACE:</div>

<div><br></br></div>

Time to LF not reached vs. 8 mos<br></br>2-yr LC 57% vs. 36%

335
Q

What was the clinical relevance of the Chinese study analyzing surgery vs SBRT for resectable HCC (Su et al. IJROBP 2017)?

A

Showed SABR and surgery have similar OS and PFS in this retrospective analysis. SABR is less invasive.

336
Q

What population was included in the Chinese study analyzing surgery vs SBRT for resectable HCC (Su et al. IJROBP 2017)?

A

117 pts with HCC size ≤5 cm, Childs Pugh A, 1-2 nodules

337
Q

What regimen was included in the Chinese study analyzing surgery vs SBRT for resectable HCC (Su et al. IJROBP 2017)?

A

Propensity matched scoring. Retrospective comparison of resection and SABR

338
Q

What were the results of the Chinese study analyzing surgery vs SBRT for resectable HCC (Su et al. IJROBP 2017)?

A

No difference in PFS or OS<br></br><br></br><div>With propensity score matching:<br></br>1, 3, and 5-yr OS<br></br>SABR 100%, 92%, 74%<br></br>Resection 97%, 89%, 69% (p=.405)<br></br><br></br>1, 3, and 5-yr PFS:<br></br>SABR 84%, 59%, 44%<br></br>Resection 69%, 62%, 36% (p=.945)</div>

339
Q

What was the clinical relevance of the Michigan study comparing SBRT and RFA for inoperable HCC (Wahl et al. JCO 2015)?

A

Showed that SBRT for tumors of size >2 cm showed improved LC over RFA.

340
Q

What population was included in the Michigan study comparing SBRT and RFA for inoperable HCC (Wahl et al. JCO 2015)?

A

224 pts with inoperable, M0 HCC treated with SBRT or RFA

341
Q

What regimen was included in the Michigan study comparing SBRT and RFA for inoperable HCC (Wahl et al. JCO 2015)?

A

Retrospective analysis of SBRT vs. RFA on FFLP and toxicity

342
Q

What were the results of the Michigan study comparing SBRT and RFA for inoperable HCC (Wahl et al. JCO 2015)?

A

<div><br></br></div>

1-yr FFLP 97% SBRT vs. 84% RFA<br></br>2-yr FFLP 84% SBRT vs. 80% RFA<br></br><b>SBRT was better for tumors >2 cm</b><br></br>Acute grade 3+ toxicity 11% vs. 5% (nonsignificant but favoring SBRT)

343
Q

What was the clinical relevance of the Chinese meta-analysis analyzing addition of RT to TACE for unresectable HCC (Meng et al. Radiother Onc 2009)?

A

Showed that TACE+RT showed improved OS over TACE alone. Additional randomized trials are warranted.

344
Q

What population was included in the Chinese meta-analysis analyzing addition of RT to TACE for unresectable HCC (Meng et al. Radiother Onc 2009)?

A

1476 pts with unresectable HCC

345
Q

What regimen was included in the Chinese meta-analysis analyzing addition of RT to TACE for unresectable HCC (Meng et al. Radiother Onc 2009)?

A

17 trials, 5 of which were randomized evaluating TACE vs. TACE+RT

346
Q

What were the results of the Chinese meta-analysis analyzing addition of RT to TACE for unresectable HCC (Meng et al. Radiother Onc 2009)?

A

TACE+RT has significantly improved OS over TACE alone

ANKI- GI (8 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions