onc brain

About · curated by Nick Boehling, MD · @nb2276

2026-06-15

KEYNOTE-689 vs NIVOPOSTOP

TL;DR3y DFS ~63% vs 53% adding adjuvant nivo to post-op chemoRT (NIVOPOSTOP); perioperative pembro hits EFS (KEYNOTE-689) in resectable LA-HNSCC.

Trials discussed

KEYNOTE-689NIVOPOSTOP

Why it mattersRadiation oncology

The RT read: neither trial touches dose, volume, or fractionation, both keep adjuvant cisplatin chemoRT and add IO around it. NIVOPOSTOP layers nivo onto post-op CRT in ENE/positive-margin pts (3y DFS 63 vs 53%); KEYNOTE-689 moves pembro neoadjuvant. The decision is whether to add peri-RT immunotherapy, not how to irradiate.

vs leading data
  • Sequencing contrast: KEYNOTE-689 starts IO before surgery (neoadjuvant); NIVOPOSTOP adds it only after, gated on high-risk pathology.

Systemic Curative

8 details 3 trials watching
  • 🔍 Two-trial teaching round-up: phase III peri/post-operative IO in resectable stage III-IVA LA-HNSCC; RT/chemoRT backbone unchanged, IO added around it.
  • 🔍 Trial design contrast
    FeatureKEYNOTE-689NIVOPOSTOP
    DrugPembrolizumabNivolumab
    Timing of IOPerioperative (neoadj + adj + maintenance)Purely postoperative
    PopulationResectable stage III-IVAHigh-risk resected (ENE, +margin, ≥4 nodes)
    RT backboneAdjuvant RT/CRT + cisplatinPost-op cisplatin chemoRT
    Primary endpointEvent-free survivalDisease-free survival
  • 🔍 NIVOPOSTOP high-risk eligibility (post-op)
    • Positive margins
    • Extranodal extension (ENE)
    • ≥4 involved nodes
    • Extensive perineural invasion
  • 💊 Benefit tracks PD-L1: higher CPS appears to derive greater benefit (KEYNOTE-689).
  • 📊 NIVOPOSTOP (ASCO 2025): 3y DFS ~63% vs 53% adding nivo to standard post-op CRT in high-risk resected pts.
  • 📊 KEYNOTE-689 (NEJM 2025): significant EFS benefit; no effect size reported in source. First positive perioperative IO trial in >2 decades.
  • ⚠️ Source is a single-author exam-framing infographic, not primary trial data; most effect sizes absent (KEYNOTE-689 EFS HR not in source).
  • ⚠️ RT contribution not isolable: both trials layer IO on an unchanged chemoRT backbone, so the IO effect can't be separated from RT.
📚 Sources · 🐦 1 tweet

2026-06-04 ASCO Annual Meeting 2026

AREST

ForpT1-2N0 oral SCC, ≥1 intermediate-risk feature, post adequate surgery

TL;DR3yr LRFS 89.2% vs 80.9% with adjuvant RT, HR 0.52 (0.30-0.91), p=0.02; no DFS/OS benefit.

Why it mattersRadiation oncology

Offer 60Gy/30fx to tumor bed plus at-risk neck for pT1-2N0 OSCC with one intermediate-risk feature, where observation was common. Absolute 3yr loco-regional failure fell 8.3% (ITT CIF 10.6 vs 18.9%), more on per-protocol (8.7 vs 18.9%), oral tongue most. No survival gain, so weigh LRC against RT toxicity.

vs leading data
  • vs high-risk adjuvant landmarks (RTOG 9501, EORTC 22931: ECE / +margins): AREST fills the intermediate-risk N0 gap previously guided only by retrospective data

Radiation Curative Phase 3 RCT Confirmatory ASCO Annual Meeting 2026

AREST
Arm3yr LRFS95% CIHR (95% CI)p
Adjuvant RT89.2%84.3-93.3%0.52 (0.30-0.91)0.02
Observation80.9%74.6-86.1%n/an/a
8 details
  • 🔍 Phase III open-label RCT (India), N=392, randomized 1:1 to adjuvant RT vs observation; 1° EP loco-regional recurrence-free survival
  • 🔍 Eligibility (≥1 intermediate-risk feature required)
    • pT1-2N0 OSCC, clear margins ≥5mm
    • ipsilateral level I-III neck dissection, ≥16 nodes
    • DOI 5-10mm, PNI, LVE, or poor differentiation
  • 🔍 Exploratory subgroup: oral tongue derived greater benefit than buccal mucosa (hypothesis-generating) ⚠️
CONSORT flow
Randomized 392
Adjuvant RT
allocated 191
Observation
allocated 201
  • 📐 RT: 60Gy/30fx over 6 wks to resected tumor-bed + at-risk neck nodal region
  • 📊 PP analysis stronger: LRFS 91.1% vs 80.9%, HR 0.43 (0.23-0.80), p=0.01
  • 📊 Loco-regional failure (cumulative incidence, death as competing event)
  • ⚠️ No DFS or OS benefit at 47.2mo median f/u; LRC gain did not translate to survival
  • ⚠️ Powered for LRFS (HR 0.6256, 80% power, assumed 70% 3yr obs); obs arm hit 80.9%, leaving trial underpowered for survival
  • Does adjuvant RT benefit extend to buccal mucosa subsites?
  • Which single intermediate-risk feature justifies adjuvant RT?
  • Late RT toxicity vs salvage morbidity trade-off over time
📚 Sources · 🐦 1 tweet · 📄 1 paper
📄 PAPER Nair, Sudhir Vasudevan; Gupta, Tejpal; Rane, Swapnil Ulhas et al. · Journal of Clinical Oncology (2026-06)
Adjuvant radiotherapy versus observation following curative surgery for early-stage oral squamous cell carcinoma (AREST; CTRI/2017/07/009114).
Abstract
6000 Background: The role of adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) in early-stage, node-negative oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) with one or more intermediate risk factors - such as depth of invasion (DOI) ≥5 to ≤10mm, perineural invasion (PNI), lymphovascular emboli (LVE), or poor differentiation - remains debatable and is largely based on retrospective data. This multicenter, open-label, phase III randomized controlled trial was designed to assess the impact of post-operative adjuvant RT in this setting. Methods: Patients with early-stage (pT1-T2), node-negative (pN0) OSCC undergoing adequate surgery (defined as clear margins ≥5mm and at least ipsilateral level I-III neck dissection with ≥16 nodes) with presence of one or more intermediate risk factors were screened. Eligible patients underwent stratified randomization (oral cavity subsite, PNI/LVE, and differentiation) in 1:1 ratio to either observation or adjuvant RT (60Gy in 30 fractions over 6-weeks) to the resected tumor-bed and at-risk neck nodal region after written informed consent. Primary endpoint was loco-regional recurrence-free survival (LRFS) measured from randomization to first documented event of local and/or regional recurrence from index cancer. All time-to-event outcomes were computed using Kaplan-Meier (KM) method with log-rank test for comparison and expressed as 3-year point estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The planned sample size (N=392) provided 80% power at an α of 0.05 to detect a Hazard Ratio (HR) of 0.6256, assuming 3-year LRFS of 70% in the observation arm. Results: Following curative surgery, a total of 392 patients were randomized (191 to adjuvant RT; 201 to observation). Baseline characteristics were balanced between the two arms. At a median follow-up of 47.2 months (inter-quartile range=30-59.4 months), 3-year KM estimate of LRFS was 89.2% in adjuvant RT arm vs 80.9% in observation arm (HR=0.52, 95%CI=0.30-0.91; p=0.02) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and 91.1% vs 80.9% (HR=0.43, 95%CI=0.23-0.80; p=0.01) on per-protocol (PP) analyses. Cumulative incidence of loco-regional failure with death as competing event was 10.6% (95%CI=6.1%-15.1%) with adjuvant RT and 18.9% (95%CI=13.3%-24.6%) with observation (HR=0.52, 95%CI=0.30-0.91; p=0.021) in the ITT population and 8.7% (95%CI=4.3%-13.1%) vs 18.9% (95%CI=13.3%-24.6%) (HR=0.43, 95%CI=0.23-0.79; p=0.007) on PP analyses. Disease-free and overall survival were not significantly different between the two arms. Subgroup analysis identified oral tongue deriving higher benefit of adjuvant RT compared to buccal mucosa. Conclusions: Adjuvant RT significantly reduces risk of loco-regional recurrence for early-stage, node-negative adequately resected OSCC, particularly oral tongue. However, such reduction in loco-regional failure does not translate into significant survival benefit. Clinical trial information: CTRI/2017/07/009114.
📝 https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.2026.44.16_suppl.6000

2026-05-18

TORPEdO (CRUK/18/010)

ForOropharyngeal SCC requiring concurrent chemoRT, bilateral neck treatment

TL;DRNo HR-QoL difference IMPT vs IMRT in OPSCC: UW-QoL physical composite similar at 3/12/24 mo, undercutting the toxicity-reduction case for protons.

Why it mattersRadiation oncology

The RT read is proton referral for OPSCC: no UW-QoL physical-composite separation IMPT vs IMRT from 6 wk to 24 mo, so protons' toxicity-reduction premise isn't supported here. But identical constraints and novel UK proton centres may cap IMPT's contrast, and the clinician co-primary (gastrostomy/grade-3 weight loss) plus 5-yr late effects aren't in source.

vs leading data
  • Parallel Lancet correspondence (McBride et al, May 2026) on proton vs photon for oropharyngeal cancer

Radiation Curative Phase 3 RCT Confirmatory

UW-QoL physical composite (saliva, taste, chewing, swallowing, appearance, speech) change from baseline, 90% CI; 3/12/24 mo
UW-QoL physical composite (saliva, taste, chewing, swallowing, appearance, speech) change from baseline, 90% CI; 3/12/24 mo
+1 more figure
IMPT vs IMRT 2:1; 70/56 Gy in 33 fx over 6.5 wk; cisplatin 100 mg/m² D1+D22; N=205
IMPT vs IMRT 2:1; 70/56 Gy in 33 fx over 6.5 wk; cisplatin 100 mg/m² D1+D22; N=205
8 details 3 trials watching
  • 🔍 Phase 3 RCT, N=205, 2:1 IMPT vs IMRT, OPSCC requiring concurrent chemoRT with bilateral neck treatment
  • 🔍 70 Gy / 56 Gy in 33 fx over 6.5 wk, same prescription both arms
  • 💊 Concurrent cisplatin 100 mg/m² D1 + D22
  • 🔍 Two co-primary endpoints (late-effect reduction at 12 mo)
    • Clinician: CTCAE grade 3 weight loss (≥20% from baseline) or gastrostomy dependence
    • Patient: UW-QoL physical composite (saliva, taste, chewing, swallowing, appearance, speech)
  • 📊 PRO co-primary (UW-QoL physical composite) showed no between-arm difference IMPT vs IMRT at 3/12/24 mo post-RT
  • ⚠️ Only the PRO co-primary appears in this readout; clinician co-primary (gastrostomy/weight loss) not in source
  • ⚠️ Discussant: identical planning + constraints and novel UK proton centres may have limited IMPT's contrast vs experienced centres
  • ⚠️ Some pts had meaningful HR-QoL deterioration to 2 yr post-CRT; follow-up ongoing to 5 yr
📚 Sources · 🐦 2 tweets · 📄 1 paper
📄 PAPER McBride; Riaz; Sherman et al. · Lancet (London, England) (2026-05)
Proton versus photon therapy for oropharyngeal cancer.
📝 McBride SM, Riaz N, Sherman EJ, Tsai CJ, Mell LK. Proton versus photon therapy for oropharyngeal cancer. Lancet. 2026 May 16;407(10542):1917.

INRT-AIR & DARTBOARD (ENI omission in HNSCC)

ForHNSCC oropharynx/larynx/hypopharynx, stage I-IVB (excl T1-2N0 larynx)

TL;DR5y solitary elective nodal recurrence 0% with ENI omission (INRT) in HNSCC; 5y OS 87%, PFS 74%, n=117 pooled.

Why it mattersRadiation oncology

The number licensing ENI omission is the 0% 5y solitary elective nodal recurrence: out-of-field nodal failures didn't materialize. The 9.5% 3y local recurrence is in-field, a dose/target question not an omission failure. Preserved MDADI (84.9 at 12mo) is the toxicity payoff for narrowing target volumes. Moves the elective-nodal-coverage decision.

Radiation Curative Meta-analysis Early signal

8 details 1 trial watching
  • 🔍 Patient-level pooled analysis of 2 prospective single-arm INRT trials (INRT-AIR + DARTBOARD), n=117, median f/u 3.4y
  • 🔍 HNSCC oropharynx/larynx/hypopharynx, stage I-IVB (excl T1-2N0 larynx); AI model flagged suspicious nodes for inclusion
  • 📊 5y solitary elective nodal recurrence 0%, the key safety signal for ENI omission
  • 📊 3y cumulative incidence
    • Local recurrence 9.5%
    • Regional recurrence 4.3%
    • Distant metastasis 11%
  • 📊 5y OS 87%, PFS 74%
  • 📊 MDADI composite 84.9 at 12mo, no significant decline post-treatment (swallowing QoL preserved)
  • ⚠️ 3y local recurrence 9.5% is in-field (dose/target question), not an out-of-field ENI-omission failure
  • ⚠️ Single-arm pooled, no randomized comparator vs standard ENI; authors call for RCT before non-trial use
📚 Sources · 🐦 1 tweet

2026-05-17

DIREKHT

ForResected HNSCC, post-operative RT candidates

TL;DRPrimary CTV de-escalated to 56 Gy and/or contralateral neck spared in resected HNSCC; no outcome data reported in source.

Why it mattersRadiation oncology

Two RT levers are explicit: primary CTV cut to 56 Gy and contralateral neck omitted in selected pts, both aimed at reducing late toxicity (xerostomia, dysphagia, neck morbidity) in resected HNSCC. This is the post-op dose de-escalation plus elective contralateral-nodal-omission decision, though the source gives the design without a locoregional-control or toxicity readout to act on.

vs leading data
  • 56 Gy primary CTV sits below conventional post-op dose — a deliberate de-escalation

Radiation Curative Unclear

6 details 5 trials watching
  • 🔍 Post-operative RT de-intensification in resected HNSCC
  • 🔍 Lever 1: primary CTV dose reduced to 56 Gy
  • 🔍 Lever 2: contralateral neck spared in a specified pt subgroup
  • ⚠️ Source is a framing tweet on trial design; no 1° endpoint, effect size, or CI reported
  • ⚠️ No locoregional control, survival, or toxicity readout in source
  • ⚠️ Contralateral neck sparing criteria undefined in source — applicability gate unknown
📚 Sources · 🐦 1 tweet