onc brain

About · curated by Nick Boehling, MD · @nb2276

2026-06-02 ASCO Annual Meeting 2026

LBA8005: Concurrent TRT + Chemoimmunotherapy in ES-SCLC

ForExtensive-stage SCLC, treatment-naive, ECOG 0-1, stable brain mets allowed

TL;DROS 10.0 vs 11.8mo, HR 1.14 (0.84-1.56), p=0.40: concurrent thoracic RT added no survival benefit to 1L chemoimmunotherapy in ES-SCLC.

Why it mattersRadiation oncology

Concurrent thoracic RT (30 Gy/10 fx) adds nothing to 1L chemoimmunotherapy in ES-SCLC, and the subgroups where CREST's late benefit would be expected (chemoIO completers, no brain/liver mets) were null too. But this tested concurrent-during-induction RT in an unselected population, not CREST's consolidative-to-responders design, so consolidative TRT stays an open question.

vs leading data
  • vs CREST (Slotman, Lancet 2015): same 30Gy/10fx but consolidative in the chemo-only era; that late-OS signal does not carry into the IO era here

Radiation Palliative Phase 3 RCT Challenges SOC ASCO Annual Meeting 2026

LBA8005: Concurrent TRT + Chemoimmunotherapy in ES-SCLC
ArmMedian OSHR (95% CI)p
ChemoIO + TRT10.0 mo (8.3-11.7)1.14 (0.84-1.56)0.40
ChemoIO11.8 mo (10.0-13.6)ref
+2 more figures
LBA8005: Concurrent TRT + Chemoimmunotherapy in ES-SCLC
ArmMedian PFSHR (95% CI)p
ChemoIO + TRT5.1 mo (4.7-5.4)1.10 (0.84-1.45)0.49
ChemoIO5.0 mo (4.6-5.4)ref
LBA8005: Concurrent TRT + Chemoimmunotherapy in ES-SCLC
SubgroupTRT median OSChemoIO median OSHR (95% CI)p
Completed all 4 chemoIO courses11.9 mo (9.7-14.1)12.1 mo (9.4-14.8)1.02 (0.72-1.44)0.92
No brain/liver mets11.9 mo (6.2-17.7)13.2 mo (10.4-16.1)1.10 (0.65-1.87)0.72
7 details 5 trials watching
  • 🔍 Randomized phase III, concurrent TRT n=115 vs chemoIO alone n=113, 1° endpoint OS
  • 🔍 TRT 30 Gy/10 fx given concurrently (start day 21-28, cycle 2), not as post-chemo consolidation
  • 💊 Backbone: durvalumab 1500mg + carboplatin AUC5 + etoposide x4, then durvalumab maintenance to PD
  • 🔍 PCI 25-30 Gy optional to responders
  • 📊 Even in the subgroups most likely to benefit (chemoIO completers, no brain/liver mets), TRT showed no OS advantage
  • ⚠️ Concurrent timing and an unselected (not response-enriched) population differ from CREST's design; not a clean replication
  • ⚠️ Toxicity was a key secondary; no AE numbers reported in source
📚 Sources · 🐦 1 tweet

2026-06-01 ASCO Annual Meeting 2026

DeLLphi-304

ForRelapsed SCLC (2L), baseline brain mets, >70% prior CNS-directed therapy

TL;DRIn brain mets, CNS-PFS 6.5 vs 4.2mo HR 0.40 and CNS CR 14.9% vs 5.4% favoring tarlatamab over chemo in 2L SCLC.

Why it mattersRadiation oncology

The RT read is intracranial control on a pre-treated brain: >70% of brain-mets pts had prior CNS-directed therapy (typically cranial RT), yet tarlatamab extended CNS-PFS to 6.5 vs 4.2 mo (HR 0.40) with CNS CR 14.9% vs 5.4%. Bears on deferring or spacing salvage WBRT/SRS in 2L SCLC with brain mets, not omitting upfront RT.

vs leading data
  • Short median f/u 11.4 vs 11.5 mo (tarla vs chemo); intracranial durability beyond ~1y unknown

Systemic Palliative Phase 3 RCT Caveats dominate ASCO Annual Meeting 2026

DeLLphi-304
Arm (brain mets)Median CNS PFSHR (95% CI)
Tarlatamab (n=67)6.5 mo (4.3, 13.7)0.40 (0.24, 0.66)
Chemotherapy (n=56)4.2 mo (2.9, 5.5)ref
+2 more figures
DeLLphi-304
Endpoint (brain mets)Tarlatamab (n=67)Chemotherapy (n=56)
CNS complete response14.9% (7.4, 25.7)5.4% (1.1, 14.9)
CNS disease control rate77.6% (65.8, 86.9)71.4% (57.8, 82.7)
Median duration CNS DC8.2 mo (6.3, NE)5.2 mo (4.2, 6.2)
DeLLphi-304
Arm (ITT)Median CNS PFSHR (95% CI)
Tarlatamab (n=254)NE (13.7, NE)0.54 (0.39, 0.75)
Chemotherapy (n=255)7.2 mo (5.6, NE)ref
6 details 3 trials watching
  • 🔍 Post hoc intracranial analysis of DeLLphi-304 (phase 3 RCT, tarlatamab vs chemo, 2L SCLC); CNS-PFS ITT n=254 vs 255, brain-mets subgroup n=67 vs 56
  • 🔍 >70% of brain-mets pts had prior CNS-directed therapy (typically cranial RT); intracranial activity is on a pre-treated brain, not RT-naive
  • 📊 Ongoing CNS response at data cutoff: 50.0% tarlatamab vs 0% chemo
  • 📊 CNS tumor shrinkage ≥30%: 56.3% (9/16) tarlatamab vs 38.5% (5/13) chemo
  • 📐 Brain-mets HR from unstratified Cox (small subgroup); ITT HR from a stratified model
  • ⚠️ CNS criteria differ across the two analyses: ITT used RECIST per investigator, brain-mets subgroup used mRANO-BM by BICR
  • Can tarlatamab defer or replace salvage cranial RT in SCLC brain mets?
    n=35 · primary completion 2029-02 · systemic intracranial efficacy in active brain mets
  • Durability of intracranial control beyond ~1y median follow-up
    n=35 · primary completion 2029-02 · intracranial efficacy readout, f/u to 2029
  • Activity in CNS-treatment-naive brain mets (most here had prior CNS therapy)
    n=35 · primary completion 2029-02 · intracranial efficacy in active SCLC brain mets
📚 Sources · 🐦 1 tweet

2026-05-30 ASCO Annual Meeting 2026

CHRYSALIS-2

For1L treatment-naïve atypical EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC

TL;DRmOS 41.0mo (95% CI 27.7-NE) with 1L ami+laz in treatment-naïve atypical EGFR-mutant NSCLC; single-arm, n=49.

vs leading data
  • vs common EGFR-mutant 1L ami+laz (MARIPOSA, NEJM 2025): durable OS now extended to atypical EGFR

Systemic Palliative Phase 2 trial Early signal ASCO Annual Meeting 2026

OS: median 41.0 mo (95% CI 27.7-NE). Median follow-up 31.3 mo.
OS: median 41.0 mo (95% CI 27.7-NE). Median follow-up 31.3 mo.
+1 more figure
Median treatment duration 13.3 mo (range <0.1-53.2); 39% on treatment >2 yr.
Median treatment duration 13.3 mo (range <0.1-53.2); 39% on treatment >2 yr.
8 details 3 trials watching
  • 🔍 single-arm, n=49, 1L treatment-naïve atypical EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC
  • 💊 amivantamab (EGFR×MET bispecific) + lazertinib (3rd-gen EGFR TKI)
  • 📊 mOS 41.0 mo (95% CI 27.7-NE), median f/u 31.3 mo
  • 📊 median tx duration 13.3 mo (range <0.1-53.2)
  • 📊 39% of 1L pts remained on treatment >2 yr
  • 📊 no clear association between EGFR variant subtype and outcome
  • ⚠️ single-arm, no randomized comparator; small N limits subtype-specific conclusions
  • ⚠️ atypical EGFR is heterogeneous (S768I, L861Q, G719X, ex20ins); pooled n=49 can't resolve per-subtype benefit
📚 Sources · 🐦 1 tweet

ESAONA

For1L EGFR-mutant metastatic NSCLC with brain metastases

TL;DRIntracranial ORR 95.5% vs 79.6% (p=0.0004) and iPFS not reached vs 17.5mo, asandeutertinib beating osimertinib in 1L EGFR-mutant NSCLC brain mets.

Why it mattersRadiation oncology

The RT-relevant read is upfront brain-RT deferral: intracranial ORR 95.5% and iPFS not reached (vs 17.5mo for osimertinib) argue a more CNS-penetrant TKI can hold brain disease without immediate SRS/WBRT. No RT comparator and CNS failure patterns aren't reported, so this informs deferral, not omission.

vs leading data
  • Osimertinib (FLAURA-era SOC) already has CNS activity; this positions asandeutertinib as a more CNS-penetrant next-gen TKI, head-to-head

Systemic Palliative Phase 2 trial Early signal ASCO Annual Meeting 2026

7 details 5 trials watching
  • 🔍 Randomized phase II, N=224 (asandeutertinib 111 vs osimertinib 113), 1L EGFR-mutant NSCLC with brain mets, BICR-assessed endpoints
CONSORT flow
Randomized 224
Asandeutertinib
allocated 111
Osimertinib
allocated 113
  • 📊 Efficacy by arm (BICR), asandeutertinib vs osimertinib
    EndpointAsandeutertinibOsimertinibHR / p
    Intracranial ORR95.5% (89.8-98.5)79.6% (71.0-86.6)p=0.0004
    Intracranial PFSNR17.5 mo (15.18-NA)HR 0.46, p=0.0020
    Overall PFSNR17.2 mo (15.18-19.55)HR 0.64, p=0.0473
  • 📊 TRAEs by arm
    TRAEAsandeutertinibOsimertinib
    Any99.1%95.6%
    Serious10.8%7.1%
  • ⚠️ Surrogate endpoints only (iORR, PFS); no OS reported in source
  • ⚠️ Overall PFS edge is marginal, p=0.0473 just clears significance; the intracranial signal is the stronger result
  • ⚠️ Phase II, both PFS medians not reached in experimental arm → follow-up still immature
  • ⚠️ Source is a branded social-media infographic of an LBA, not peer-reviewed primary data
📚 Sources · 🐦 1 tweet

OptiTROP-Lung05 NCT06448312

For1L metastatic/unresectable NSCLC, PD-L1 TPS≥1%, no EGFR/ALK alteration

TL;DRmPFS NR vs 5.7mo, HR 0.35, adding TROP2 ADC sac-TMT to 1L pembro in PD-L1+ NSCLC; OS immature (HR 0.55).

vs leading data
  • 1L TROP2-ADC+IO data in NSCLC; single-agent TROP2 ADCs (e.g. dato-DXd) showed modest activity in pretreated disease

Systemic Palliative Phase 3 RCT Challenges SOC ASCO Annual Meeting 2026

OptiTROP-Lung05
ArmmPFS, mo (95% CI)PFS events n (%)HR (95% CI)
Sac-TMT + PembroNR (13.6-NE)66 (31.7)0.35 (0.26-0.47)
Pembro5.7 (4.3-7.0)128 (62.4)
+2 more figures
OptiTROP-Lung05
PD-L1 TPSmPFS Sac-TMT+P vs Pembro, moHR (95% CI)
≥50%NR vs 9.5 (6.9-13.8)0.47 (0.29-0.77)
1-49%NR vs 4.3 (2.9-5.5)0.28 (0.19-0.41)
OptiTROP-Lung05
ArmOS events n (%)Median OSHR (95% CI)
Sac-TMT + Pembro33 (15.9)NR0.55 (0.36-0.85)
Pembro54 (26.3)NR
8 details 4 trials watching
  • 🔍 Phase 3, randomized 1:1, open-label, multicenter; N=413 (208 vs 205)
  • 🔍 1L NSCLC, PD-L1 TPS≥1% (22C3), no EGFR/ALK, stage IIIB/IIIC or IV, ECOG 0-1
  • 💊 Sac-TMT (TROP2 ADC) 4 mg/kg Q2W + pembro 400 mg Q6W vs pembro mono; pembro max 18 cycles
CONSORT flow
Randomized 413
Sac-TMT + Pembro
allocated 208
Pembro
allocated 205
  • 📊 ORR 70.2% vs 42.0%
  • ⚠️ OS immature: descriptive at PFS interim analysis, median f/u 10.5 mo; await mature OS
  • ⚠️ Open-label, but primary PFS by blinded independent central review (BICR) limits assessment bias
  • ⚠️ Comparator is pembro mono; in PD-L1 TPS 1-49% chemo-IO is standard, so benefit partly vs weaker comparator
  • ⚠️ No safety/AE data in source tweets; adding a TROP2 ADC carries toxicity beyond pembro alone
📚 Sources · 🐦 2 tweets

2026-05-29 ASCO Annual Meeting 2026

Wait or Treat — Upfront vs Delayed Cranial RT in Asymptomatic Brain Mets, Oncogene-Mutated NSCLC (NCT05236946) NCT05236946

ForMetastatic EGFR/ALK+ NSCLC, asymptomatic measurable brain mets, ECOG 0-2

TL;DRicPFS sub-HR 0.35 favoring upfront RT but no OS gain (2y OS 48% vs 60%, HR 1.45 favoring delayed).

Why it mattersRadiation oncology

The RT read is local control without a survival payoff: upfront cranial RT cut 2y intracranial progression to 21.7% vs 50% (sub-HR 0.35), but 2y OS ran 48% vs 60% favoring delayed and added radiation necrosis (6% vs 0%). Supports deferring RT, letting TKI hold the CNS, reserving RT for intracranial PD.

vs leading data
  • Consistent with TKI-first/defer-RT direction in oncogene-driven NSCLC (CNS-penetrant osimertinib, lorlatinib)

Radiation Palliative Phase 3 RCT Confirmatory ASCO Annual Meeting 2026

Wait or Treat — Upfront vs Delayed Cranial RT in Asymptomatic Brain Mets, Oncogene-Mutated NSCLC (NCT05236946)
Intracranial progressionUpfront RTDelayed RT
1-year8.7% (2.9-14.5)25.7% (16.8-34.7)
2-year21.7% (12.6-30.8)50% (39.2-60.9)
Sub-HR0.35 (0.21-0.59)ref
Events2047
7 details 4 trials watching
  • 🔍 Phase III open-label RCT, N=208 (1:1), EGFR/ALK+ metastatic NSCLC w/ asymptomatic measurable brain mets; both arms TKI + chemo
  • 🔍 Delayed arm got cranial RT only at intracranial PD or patient wish; MRI brain q3mo yr 1, then q6mo; median f/u 30.6mo
  • 🔍 RT dose, fractionation, and modality (SRS vs WBRT) not reported in source
  • 🔍 Stratified by GPA score (0-2 vs >2) and synchronous vs metachronous BM
CONSORT flow
Randomized 208
Upfront cranial RT
allocated 105
Delayed cranial RT
allocated 103
  • 📊 OS not improved by upfront RT: 2y OS 48% upfront vs 60% delayed, OS HR 1.45 (favoring delayed)
  • ⚠️ Radiation necrosis 6% upfront vs none in delayed arm; less severe with delay (per @DrRiyazShah, @StephenVLiu)
  • ⚠️ Open-label: neurocognition, PROM, toxicity (secondary endpoints) subject to assessment bias; not reported in source
📚 Sources · 🐦 3 tweets

2026-05-26

SWOG/NRG S1914 NCT04214262

ForInoperable/surgery-declined T1-3N0M0 NSCLC ≤7cm, ≥1 recurrence risk factor

TL;DROS no different adding atezolizumab to SBRT in high-risk early-stage NSCLC: HR 1.15 (0.65-2.01), p=0.63; more local failure and G3+ AEs with IO.

Why it mattersRadiation oncology

The RT read is local control: adding atezo numerically worsened it (local failure 13% vs 7%), opposite the radiosensitization rationale, while SBRT alone held 82% 2-yr OS. No basis to add IO to SBRT off-protocol for inoperable early-stage NSCLC. Former/never smokers fared worse with IO (OS HR 2.50).

vs leading data
  • First phase III to test IO + SBRT in early-stage NSCLC; refutes the positive phase II signal (I-SABR, PMID 37478883)

Combined Curative Phase 3 RCT Confirmatory

8 details
  • 🔍 Phase III RCT, 403 eligible (201 SBRT alone / 202 atezo+SBRT); accrual goal was 432
  • 🔍 Pts: T1-3N0M0 NSCLC ≤7cm, medically inoperable or surgery-declined, ≥1 recurrence risk factor (tumor ≥2cm, higher-grade histology)
  • 🔍 SBRT 3-8 fx, BED ≥100 Gy; atezo 1200mg Q3wk ×8, SBRT from cycle 3 (neoadj/concurrent/adjuvant)
  • 💊 G≥3 AEs far higher with added IO: 12% (AS) vs 2% (S)
    • AS: 21 G3, 1 G4, 1 G5 (fatal respiratory failure)
    • S: 3 G3, 1 G4
CONSORT flow
Assessed / enrolled 417
Randomized 403
SBRT alone (S)
allocated 201
Atezo + SBRT (AS)
allocated 202
  • 📊 Efficacy + failure patterns by arm (SBRT alone vs atezo+SBRT)
    EndpointSBRT (S)Atezo+SBRT (AS)HR (95% CI), p
    2-yr OS82%80%1.15 (0.65-2.01), p=0.63
    2-yr PFS71%60%1.35 (0.89-2.06), p=0.16
    Local failure7%13%
    Regional failure2%3%
    Distant failure4%5%
  • ⚠️ Closed at first interim for futility (OS + PFS) per design; median f/u only 12 mo, 49 deaths — OS immature
  • ⚠️ Added IO trended toward worse local control, opposite the radiosensitization rationale
  • ⚠️ Former (53%) / never (3%) smokers did worse with added IO — unplanned subgroup, hypothesis-generating
    • OS: HR 2.50 (1.11-5.59), p=0.03
    • PFS: HR 2.16 (1.15-4.04), p=0.01
  • Whether a PD-L1 or biomarker subset benefits from IO added to SBRT
  • Why former/never smokers did worse with added atezolizumab
  • Whether central review confirms the higher local-failure rate with IO
📚 Sources · 📄 1 paper
📄 PAPER Simone, Charles B.; Daly, Megan Eileen; Redman, Mary Weber et al. · Journal of Clinical Oncology (2025-06)
SWOG/NRG S1914: Randomized phase III trial of induction/consolidation atezolizumab + SBRT versus SBRT alone in high risk, early-stage NSCLC.
Abstract
8003 Background: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is the standard of care (SoC) for early stage, medically inoperable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). While rates of in-field control exceed 90%, regional and distant control after SBRT remain suboptimal. A prior phase II randomized trial suggested a benefit to adding immunotherapy (PMID 37478883). SWOG/NRG S1914 (NCT#04214262) is a randomized phase III trial evaluating neoadjuvant, concurrent and adjuvant atezolizumab plus SBRT for early-stage NSCLC vs SoC. Methods: Eligible patients (pts) had T1-3N0M0 NSCLC ≤7cm, were medically inoperable or declined surgery, and had ≥1 risk factor for increased recurrence: tumor diameter ≥2 cm, ≥6.2, moderately/poorly/undifferentiated histology. Randomization was to SoC SBRT (S [3-8 fractions, biologically effective dose ≥100 Gy]) or neoadjuvant, concurrent and adjuvant atezolizumab (AS [1200 mg IV Q3 week, 8 cycles]) with SBRT initiated with cycle 3, stratifying by tumor location (central vs peripheral), size (&lt;4 cm vs ≥4cm) and ECOG performance status (PS, 0-1 vs 2). The primary objective was to compare overall survival (OS) between the arms. Secondary objectives included comparisons of progression free survival (PFS), failure patterns, toxicity and quality of life (QoL). OS and PFS were compared using a 1-sided stratified log-rank test at the 2.5% level, confidence intervals (CI) are 95%. The accrual goal was 432 eligible pts. Results: From 8/13/20 - 9/6/24, 417 pts were randomized, 403 met eligibility [201 to S, 202 to AS]. Accrual closed at the first interim analysis for futility based on OS and PFS per design. Median follow-up for pts still alive was 12 (range: 0.03-49) months. Median age was 73 (41-91) years and 89% had PS 0-1. Median tumor diameter was 2.3 cm. No protocol treatment was received for 6 pts on S and 8 on AS. With 49 deaths, OS was not different between the arms (HR (CI): 1.15(0.65-2.01), p=0.63; 2-year OS: 82% S vs 80% AS). With 88 events, PFS was not better with AS (HR (CI): 1.35(0.89-2.06), p=0.16); 2-year PFS was 71% on S vs 60% on AS. Regional (2% vs 3%) and distant (4% vs 5%) failures were not different; there were more local failures with AS (13% vs 7%). Among former (53%)/never (3%) smokers, AS had worse OS and PFS than S (HR(CI): 2.50 (1.11-5.59), p=0.03); HR(CI): 2.16(1.15-4.04), p=0.01), respectively. Grade (G) ≥3 adverse event (AE) rates were 12% on AS (N=21 G3, 1 G4, 1 G5 respiratory failure) vs 2% on S (N=3 G3, 1 G4). Conclusions: In the first reported phase III trial to assess immunotherapy (IO) added to SBRT in early-stage NSCLC, IO failed to improve survival. More G ≥3 adverse events were reported with AS. Central review of local recurrence events is ongoing. Additional investigation into subgroups, PD-L1 status, QoL and blood/tissue are pending to determine whether there are subsets who can benefit from this combination and shed further insights into these findings. Clinical trial information: NCT04214262 .
📝 https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.2025.43.16_suppl.8003

2026-05-20

LS-SCLC High-Dose Hyperfractionated RT (54 Gy vs 45 Gy) Phase 3 NCT03214003

ForLimited-stage SCLC, ECOG 0-1, age 18-70, untreated or 1 prior chemo cycle

TL;DRmOS 60.7 vs 39.5mo, HR 0.55 (0.37-0.72), p=0.003 favoring 54Gy twice-daily SIB over 45Gy in LS-SCLC.

Why it mattersRadiation oncology

The transferable detail: the 54Gy boost hit only the GTV, the PTV stayed at 45Gy/30fx, so G3-4 oesophagitis (13 vs 12%) and pneumonitis (5 vs 6%) held flat despite the mOS jump to 60.7 vs 39.5mo. The lever here is SIB dose-escalation of the twice-daily schedule, not once-daily escalation.

vs leading data
  • Standard LS-SCLC RT is 45Gy twice-daily (Turrisi, NEJM 1999); CONVERT found no OS gain from once-daily dose escalation. This escalates the twice-daily schedule itself to 54Gy

Radiation Curative Phase 3 RCT Challenges SOC

8 details 2 trials watching
  • 🔍 Phase 3 open-label RCT, 16 Chinese sites, N=224 (54Gy 108 / 45Gy 116); median f/u 46mo
  • 🔍 SIB technique: 54Gy/30fx boost to GTV only; PTV held at 45Gy/30fx in both arms
  • 🔍 Both arms accelerated twice-daily VMAT, 10fx/week, concurrent platinum-etoposide; PCI 25Gy/10fx for responders
CONSORT flow
Assessed / enrolled 224
Randomized 224
54 Gy SIB
allocated 108
45 Gy
allocated 116
  • 📊 1° EP OS (ITT): mOS 60.7mo (95% CI 49.2-62.0) with 54Gy vs 39.5mo (27.5-51.4) with 45Gy
  • 📐 OS HR 0.55 (95% CI 0.37-0.72), p=0.003
  • 📊 G3-4 radiotherapy toxicity by arm — comparison values omitted (cell value "0.84" not verified in source)
  • ⚠️ DSMB-terminated early (Apr 2021) for sufficient benefit; early stopping can overestimate effect size
  • ⚠️ Open-label, modest N=224, single-country (China); the unusually large OS gain warrants Western confirmation
📚 Sources · 📄 1 paper
📄 PAPER Jiayi Yu; Leilei Jiang; Lina Zhao et al. · Lancet Respiratory Medicine (2024-08)
High-dose hyperfractionated simultaneous integrated boost radiotherapy versus standard-dose radiotherapy for limited-stage small-cell lung cancer in China: a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial

2026-05-19

Single-fraction SABR: pooled analysis (n=1687)

ForPrimary NSCLC (n=1200) or pulmonary oligometastases (n=487)

TL;DR2yr local control 90-93% with G3+ AEs 2.9%, across 1687 pts (1200 primary NSCLC, 487 oligomets) on single-fraction SABR.

Why it mattersRadiation oncology

The RT read is toxicity, not the survival curves: chest wall pain (14%) dominates and G3+ sits at just 2.9% (n=789), so single-fraction earns its 'one-stop' pitch. But the prescription dose (Gy) isn't in the source, which gates whether this transfers to your practice.

vs leading data
  • Supports single-fraction approach; cf. RTOG 0915 (34Gy x1 for peripheral stage I NSCLC)

Radiation Retrospective Confirmatory

Local control 90-93% at 2yr; median PFS 30mo (NSCLC), 11mo (oligomets).
Local control 90-93% at 2yr; median PFS 30mo (NSCLC), 11mo (oligomets).
+2 more figures
Single-fraction SABR: pooled analysis (n=1687)
Cohort1yr OS2yr OSMedian OS
Primary NSCLC84% (82-86)67% (64-69)40mo (36-43)
Oligomets90% (86-92)75% (71-79)51mo (42-58)
Primary NSCLC AEs (n=789): G2+ 15.7%, G3+ 2.9%, any AE 27%.
Primary NSCLC AEs (n=789): G2+ 15.7%, G3+ 2.9%, any AE 27%.
6 details 2 trials watching
  • 🔍 Pooled retrospective analysis, 3 institutions (Peter Mac, Cleveland Clinic, Roswell Park); 1200 primary NSCLC + 487 pulmonary oligomets
  • 🔍 Single-fraction SABR (one fraction); total dose (Gy) not reported in source
  • 📊 Isolated local/locoregional failure very uncommon across both cohorts
  • 📊 Most common AEs, primary NSCLC (n=789)
    • Chest wall pain 114 (14%), most common
    • Pneumonitis 52 (7%)
    • Fatigue 29 (4%)
    • Rib fracture 4 (1%)
  • ⚠️ No randomised comparator; dose/fractionation heterogeneity across 3 sites not detailed in source
  • ⚠️ AE data missing for Roswell Park (n=789 of 1687); toxicity may be undercounted
📚 Sources · 🐦 1 tweet