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 ).

Background: Patients with human papillomavirus-positive (HPV+) oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPC) have substantially better treatment response and overall survival (OS) than patients with HPV-negative disease. Treatment options for HPV+ OPC can involve either a primary radiotherapy (RT) approach (± concomitant chemotherapy) or a primary surgical approach (± adjuvant radiation) with transoral surgery (TOS). These two treatment paradigms have different spectrums of toxicity. The goals of this study are to assess the OS of two de-escalation approaches (primary radiotherapy and primary TOS) compared to historical control, and to compare survival, toxicity and quality of life (QOL) profiles between the two approaches. Methods: This is a multicenter phase II study randomizing one hundred and forty patients with T1–2 N0–2 HPV+ OPC in a 1:1 ratio between de-escalated primary radiotherapy (60 Gy) ± concomitant chemotherapy and TOS ± de-escalated adjuvant radiotherapy (50–60 Gy based on risk factors). Patients will be stratified based on smoking status (< 10 vs. ≥ 10 pack-years). The primary endpoint is OS of each arm compared to historical control; we hypothesize that a 2-year OS of 85% or greater will be achieved. Secondary endpoints include progression free survival, QOL and toxicity. Discussion: This study will provide an assessment of two de-escalation approaches to the treatment of HPV+ OPC on oncologic outcomes, QOL and toxicity. Results will inform the design of future definitive phase III trials. Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03210103. Date of registration: July 6, 2017, Current version: 1.3 on March 15, 2019.

Radiotherapy (RT) and transoral robotic surgery (TORS) are both curative-intent treatment options for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC). Herein, we report the final outcomes of the ORATOR trial comparing these modalities, 5 years after enrollment completion. We randomly assigned 68 patients with T1-2N0-2 OPSCC to RT (with chemotherapy if node-positive) versus TORS plus neck dissection (± adjuvant RT/chemoradiation). The primary end point was swallowing quality of life (QOL) assessed with the MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI). Secondary end points included overall and progression-free survival (OS, PFS), adverse events (AEs), and other QOL metrics. The primary end point has been previously reported (Nichols 2019). In this report, the median follow-up was 5.1 years (IQR, 5.0-5.3 years). MDADI total scores converged by 5 years and were not significantly different across the follow-up period ( P = .11). EORTC QLQ-C30 and H&N35 scores demonstrated differing profiles, including worse dry mouth in the RT arm ( P = .032) and worse pain in the TORS arm ( P = .002). Grade 2-5 AE rates did not differ between arms (91% [n = 31] v 97% [n = 33] respectively, P = .61), with more neutropenia and hearing loss in the RT arm, and more dysphagia and other pain in the TORS arm based on grades 2-5 (all P < .05). There were no differences in OS or PFS. In conclusion, toxicity and QOL profiles differ in some domains between RT and TORS, but oncologic outcomes were excellent in both arms. Choice of treatment should remain a shared decision between the patient and their providers.

Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) is emerging as a non-invasive method for precision irradiation of lung tumours. However, the ideal dose/fractionation schedule is not yet known. The primary purpose of this study is to assess safety and efficacy profile of single and multi-fraction SABR in the context of pulmonary oligometastases. The TROG 13.01/ALTG 13.001 clinical trial is a multicentre unblinded randomised phase II study. Eligible patients have up to three metastases to the lung from any non-haematological malignancy, each < 5 cm in size, non-central targets, and have all primary and extrathoracic disease controlled with local therapies. Patients are randomised 1:1 to a single fraction of 28Gy versus 48Gy in four fractions of SABR. The primary objective is to assess the safety of each treatment arm, with secondary objectives including assessment of quality of life, local efficacy, resource use and costs, overall and disease free survival and time to distant failure. Outcomes will be stratified by number of metastases and origin of the primary disease (colorectal versus non-colorectal primary). Planned substudies include an assessment of the impact of online e-Learning platforms for lung SABR and assessment of the effect of SABR fractionation on the immune responses. A total of 84 patients are required to complete the study. Fractionation schedules have not yet been investigated in a randomised fashion in the setting of oligometastatic disease. Assuming the likelihood of similar clinical efficacy in both arms, the present study design allows for exploration of the hypothesis that cost implications of managing potentially increased toxicities from single fraction SABR will be outweighed by costs associated with delivering multiple-fraction SABR. ACTRN12613001157763 , registered 17th October 2013

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. In a randomized phase II clinical trial, the Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group compared single- versus multifraction stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) in 90 patients with 133 oligometastases to the lung. The study found no differences in safety, efficacy, systemic immunogenicity, or survival between arms, with single-fraction SABR picked as the winner on the basis of cost-effectiveness. In this article, we report the final updated survival outcome analysis. The protocol mandated no concurrent or post-therapy systemic therapy until progression. Modified disease-free survival (mDFS) was defined as any progression not addressable by local therapy, or death. At a median follow-up of 5.4 years, the 3- and 5-year estimates for overall survival (OS) were 70% (95% CI, 59 to 78) and 51% (95% CI, 39 to 61). There were no significant differences between the multi- and single-fraction arms for OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.1 [95% CI, 0.6 to 2.0]; P = .81). The 3- and 5-year estimates for disease-free survival were 24% (95% CI, 16 to 33) and 20% (95% CI, 13 to 29), with no differences between arms (HR, 1.0 [95% CI, 0.6 to 1.6]; P = .92). The 3- and 5-year estimates for mDFS were 39% (95% CI, 29 to 49) and 34% (95% CI, 24 to 44), with no differences between arms (HR, 1.0 [95% CI, 0.6 to 1.8]; P = .90). In this patient population, where patients receive SABR in lieu of systemic therapy, one-in-three patients are alive without disease in the long term. There were no differences in outcomes by fractionation schedule.

Accurately characterizing DNA double-stranded breaks (DSBs) and understanding the DNA damage response (DDR) is crucial for assessing cellular genotoxicity, maintaining genomic integrity, and advancing gene editing technologies. Immunofluorescence-based techniques have proven to be invaluable for quantifying and visualizing DSB repair, providing valuable insights into cellular repair processes. However, the selection of appropriate markers for analysis can be challenging due to the intricate nature of DSB repair mechanisms, often leading to ambiguous interpretations. This comprehensively summarizes the significance of immunofluorescence-based techniques, with their capacity for spatiotemporal visualization, in elucidating complex DDR processes. By evaluating the strengths and limitations of different markers, we identify where they are most relevant chronologically from DSB detection to repair, better contextualizing what each assay represents at a molecular level. This is valuable for identifying biases associated with each assay and facilitates accurate data interpretation. This review aims to improve the precision of DSB quantification, deepen the understanding of DDR processes, assay biases, and pathway choices, and provide practical guidance on marker selection. Each assay offers a unique perspective of the underlying processes, underscoring the need to select markers that are best suited to specific research objectives.