PURPOSE: The oligometastatic paradigm hypothesizes that patients with a limited number of metastases may achieve long-term disease control, or even cure, if all sites of disease can be ablated. However, long-term randomized data that test this paradigm are lacking. METHODS: We enrolled patients with a controlled primary malignancy and 1-5 metastatic lesions, with all metastases amenable to stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). We stratified by the number of metastases (1-3 v 4-5) and randomized in a 1:2 ratio between palliative standard-of-care (SOC) treatments (arm 1) and SOC plus SABR (arm 2). We used a randomized phase II screening design with a primary end point of overall survival (OS), using an α of .20 (wherein P < .20 indicates a positive trial). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), toxicity, and quality of life (QOL). Herein, we present long-term outcomes from the trial. RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2016, 99 patients were randomly assigned at 10 centers internationally. The most common primary tumor types were breast (n = 18), lung (n = 18), colorectal (n = 18), and prostate (n = 16). Median follow-up was 51 months. The 5-year OS rate was 17.7% in arm 1 (95% CI, 6% to 34%) versus 42.3% in arm 2 (95% CI, 28% to 56%; stratified log-rank P = .006). The 5-year PFS rate was not reached in arm 1 (3.2%; 95% CI, 0% to 14% at 4 years with last patient censored) and 17.3% in arm 2 (95% CI, 8% to 30%; P = .001). There were no new grade 2-5 adverse events and no differences in QOL between arms. CONCLUSION: With extended follow-up, the impact of SABR on OS was larger in magnitude than in the initial analysis and durable over time. There were no new safety signals, and SABR had no detrimental impact on QOL.

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) has emerged as a new treatment option for patients with oligometastatic disease. SABR delivers precise, high-dose, hypofractionated radiotherapy, and achieves excellent rates of local control for primary tumors or metastases. A recent randomized phase II trial evaluated SABR in a group of patients with a small burden of oligometastatic disease (mostly with 1–3 metastatic lesions), and found that SABR was associated with benefits in progression-free survival and overall survival. The goal of this phase III trial is to assess the impact of SABR in patients with 4–10 metastatic cancer lesions. One hundred and fifty-nine patients will be randomized in a 1:2 ratio between the control arm (consisting of standard of care palliative-intent treatments), and the SABR arm (consisting of standard of care treatment + SABR to all sites of known disease). Randomization will be stratified by two factors: histology (Group 1: prostate, breast, or renal; Group 2: all others), and type of pre-specified systemic therapy (Group 1: immunotherapy/targeted; Group 2: cytotoxic; Group 3: observation). SABR is to be completed within 2 weeks, allowing for rapid initiation of systemic therapy. Recommended SABR doses are 20 Gy in 1 fraction, 30 Gy in 3 fractions, or 35 Gy in 5 fractions, chosen to minimize risks of toxicity. The primary endpoint is overall survival, and secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, time to development of new metastatic lesions, quality of life, and toxicity. Translational endpoints include assessment of circulating tumor cells, cell-free DNA, and tumor tissue as prognostic and predictive markers, including assessment of immunological predictors of response and long-term survival. This study will provide an assessment of the impact of SABR on clinical outcomes and quality of life, to determine if long-term survival can be achieved for selected patients with 4–10 oligometastatic lesions. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03721341 . Date of registration: October 26, 2018.

PURPOSE: The incidence of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) has risen rapidly, because of an epidemic of human papillomavirus infection. The optimal management of early-stage OPSCC with surgery or radiation continues to be a clinical controversy. Long-term randomized data comparing these paradigms are lacking. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with T1-T2, N0-2 (≤ 4 cm) OPSCC to radiotherapy (RT) (with chemotherapy if N1-2) versus transoral robotic surgery plus neck dissection (TORS + ND) (with or without adjuvant therapy). The primary end point was swallowing quality of life (QOL) at 1-year using the MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory. Secondary end points included adverse events, other QOL outcomes, overall survival, and progression-free survival. All analyses were intention-to-treat. Herein, we present long-term outcomes from the trial. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients were randomly assigned (n = 34 per arm) between August 10, 2012, and June 9, 2017. Median follow-up was 45 months. Longitudinal MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory analyses demonstrated statistical superiority of RT arm over time ( P = .049), although the differences beyond 1 year were of smaller magnitude than at the 1-year timepoint (year 2: 86.0 ± 13.5 in the RT arm v 84.8 ± 12.5 in the TORS + ND arm, P = .74; year 3: 88.9 ± 11.3 v 83.3 ± 13.9, P = .12). These differences did not meet the threshold to qualify as a clinically meaningful change at any timepoint. Certain differences in QOL concerns including more pain and dental concerns in the TORS + ND arm seen at 1 year resolved at 2 and 3 years; however, TORS patients started to use more nutritional supplements at 3 years ( P = .015). Dry mouth scores were higher in RT patients over time ( P = .041). CONCLUSION: On longitudinal analysis, the swallowing QOL difference between primary RT and TORS + ND approaches persists but decreases over time. Patients with OPSCC should be informed about the pros and cons of both treatment options (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01590355 ).

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused radiotherapy resource pressures and led to increased risks for lung cancer patients and healthcare staff. An international group of experts in lung cancer radiotherapy established this practice recommendation pertaining to whether and how to adapt radiotherapy for lung cancer in the COVID-19 pandemic. For this ESTRO & ASTRO endorsed project, 32 experts in lung cancer radiotherapy contributed to a modified Delphi consensus process. We assessed potential adaptations of radiotherapy in two pandemic scenarios. The first, an early pandemic scenario of risk mitigation, is characterized by an altered risk-benefit ratio of radiotherapy for lung cancer patients due to their increased susceptibility for severe COVID-19 infection, and minimization of patient travelling and exposure of radiotherapy staff. The second, a later pandemic scenario, is characterized by reduced radiotherapy resources requiring patient triage. Six common lung cancer cases were assessed for both scenarios: peripherally located stage I NSCLC, locally advanced NSCLC, postoperative radiotherapy after resection of pN2 NSCLC, thoracic radiotherapy and prophylactic cranial irradiation for limited stage SCLC and palliative thoracic radiotherapy for stage IV NSCLC. In a risk-mitigation pandemic scenario, efforts should be made not to compromise the prognosis of lung cancer patients by departing from guideline-recommended radiotherapy practice. In that same scenario, postponement or interruption of radiotherapy treatment of COVID-19 positive patients is generally recommended to avoid exposure of cancer patients and staff to an increased risk of COVID-19 infection. In a severe pandemic scenario characterized by reduced resources, if patients must be triaged, important factors for triage include potential for cure, relative benefit of radiation, life expectancy, and performance status. Case-specific consensus recommendations regarding multimodality treatment strategies and fractionation of radiotherapy are provided. This joint ESTRO-ASTRO practice recommendation established pragmatic and balanced consensus recommendations in common clinical scenarios of radiotherapy for lung cancer in order to address the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic.