onc brain

About ยท curated by Nick Boehling, MD ยท @nb2276

Caveats dominate

10 studies Subscribe via RSS โ†’

FIRESTORM

ForHigh-risk meningioma (WHO grade 2 or recurrent), post-resection (mostly subtotal

TL;DR5-yr PFS 65.8% vs 38.8%, HR 0.40 favoring dose-escalated RT in high-risk meningioma; retrospective IPD meta-analysis.

Radiation Curative Meta-analysis Caveats dominate

8 details 3 trials watching
  • ๐Ÿ” IPD meta-analysis, 7 institutions, N=248 (59 DE-RT, 189 SD-RT); DE-RT = BED โ‰ฅ79.2 Gy (โ‰ก66 Gy/33 fr)
  • ๐Ÿ” 75.8% WHO grade 2; 41.5% recurrent; 75.2% subtotal resection
  • ๐Ÿ“Š 5-yr PFS: DE-RT 65.8% vs SD-RT 38.8%; 3-yr PFS 86.4% vs 55.6% (log-rank P=.0022)
  • ๐Ÿ“ MVA: HR 0.40 (95% CI 0.24-0.69), P=.001; IPTW-adjusted HR 0.45 (95% CI 0.24-0.83), P=.01
  • โš ๏ธ Radionecrosis higher with DE-RT
    • Any grade RN: 33.9% DE-RT vs 13.2% SD-RT, P=.001
    • Grade 3+ RN: 5.1% vs 3.2% (not significant)
  • โš ๏ธ Retrospective non-randomized design; selection bias in who received dose escalation not fully eliminated by IPTW
  • โš ๏ธ DE-RT arm small (N=59); 3:1 imbalance limits subgroup stability
  • โš ๏ธ No OS endpoint reported in source
๐Ÿ“š Sources ยท ๐Ÿ“„ 1 paper
๐Ÿ“„ PAPER Singh, Raj; Koempel, Andrew; French, Beck et al. ยท International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics (2026-07)
Improved Progression-Free Survival Following Dose-Escalated Versus Standard-Dose Postoperative Radiation Therapy for High-Risk Meningiomas: An International Multicenter Individual Patientโ€“Level Meta-Analysis (FIRESTORM)
Abstract
Purpose: We performed an individual patientโˆ’level meta-analysis of high-risk meningiomas to compare the outcomes of dose-escalated radiation therapy (DE-RT) versus standard-dose postoperative radiation therapy (SD-RT).<br/>Methods and Materials: A total of 7 institutions participated. DE-RT was defined as treatment with a biologically effective dose of โ‰ฅ79.2 Gy (equivalent of 66 Gy in 33 fractions). We compared progression-free survival (PFS) with DE-RT versus SD-RT via Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank t tests, a Cox proportional hazards multivariable model, and propensity score analyses with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). We also compared incidences of central nervous system radionecrosis (RN) with DE-RT versus SD-RT.<br/>Results: The analysis included 248 patients with high-risk meningioma (59 received DE-RT and 189 received SD-RT). One hundred and eighty-eight cases (75.8%) were World Health Organization grade 2, and 103 cases (41.5%) were recurrent meningiomas. Extent of resection was subtotal resection in 182 of 248 (75.2%). Three- and 5-year PFS rates were 62.8% (95% CI, 55.8%-69.0%) and 45.0% (95% CI, 37.3%-52.3%), respectively. DE-RT was associated with superior PFS rates (P = .0022), with 3-year (86.4% vs 55.6%) and 5-year (65.8% vs 38.8%) PFS rates favoring DE-RT. On multivariable analysis, DE-RT was associated with superior PFS (hazard ratio, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.24-0.69; P = .001). On IPTW, DE-RT continued to be associated with superior PFS (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.24-0.83; P = .01). A greater incidence of any grade RN was observed following DE-RT (20 of 59; 33.9%) versus SD-RT (25 of 189; 13.2%) (P = .001) but with similar grade 3 or greater RN events (DE-RT 5.1% vs SD-RT 3.2%).<br/>Conclusions: DE-RT resulted in superior PFS for patients with high-risk meningiomas over SD-RT without an increase in severe toxicities.

DeLLphi-304 (tarlatamab CNS outcomes)

For2L ES-SCLC; brain mets subgroup โ‰ฅ1 BM at baseline, >70% prior CNS treatment

TL;DRCNS PFS HR 0.54 (ITT), HR 0.40 in brain mets; CNS CR 14.9% vs 5.4% with tarlatamab vs chemo 2L SCLC.

vs leading data
  • DeLLphi-304 primary results: tarlatamab OS + PFS benefit in 2L SCLC; CNS data extends intracranial signal

Systemic Palliative Phase 3 RCT Caveats dominate

DeLLphi-304 (tarlatamab CNS outcomes)
ArmnMedian CNS PFS (mo)HR (95% CI)
Tarlatamab676.5 (4.3-13.7)0.40 (0.24-0.66)
Chemotherapy564.2 (2.9-5.5)ref
+2 more figures
DeLLphi-304 (tarlatamab CNS outcomes)
ArmnMedian CNS PFS (mo)HR (95% CI)
Tarlatamab254NE (13.7, NE)0.54 (0.39-0.75)
Chemotherapy2557.2 (5.6, NE)ref
DeLLphi-304 (tarlatamab CNS outcomes)
EndpointTarlatamab (n=67)Chemo (n=56)
CNS CR10 (14.9%)3 (5.4%)
Non-CR/Non-PD42 (62.7%)37 (66.1%)
CNS DCR52 (77.6%)40 (71.4%)
Median duration CNS CR (mo)NE3.6
Median duration CNS DC (mo)8.25.2
5 details
  • ๐Ÿ” Post-hoc subgroup analysis of DeLLphi-304 phase 3 RCT; ITT n=509 (254 tarlatamab / 255 chemo)
  • ๐Ÿ” Brain mets subgroup: n=67 (tarlatamab) vs n=56 (chemo); >70% had prior CNS treatment
  • ๐Ÿ” Data cutoff Jan 29 2025; median f/u 11.4 mo (tarlatamab), 11.5 mo (chemo)
  • ๐Ÿ“Š Ongoing CNS complete response at cutoff: 5 (50%) tarlatamab vs 0 chemo
  • โš ๏ธ CNS outcomes not prespecified; interpretability limited without a confirmatory prospective CNS endpoint
  • Does tarlatamab CNS activity change the role of PCI in ES-SCLC?
  • Confirmatory prospective CNS endpoint needed from DeLLphi-304 or successor trial
  • Durability of CNS CR beyond 11mo median f/u
๐Ÿ“š Sources ยท ๐Ÿฆ 1 tweet

PROTEUS

ForBiochemically recurrent prostate cancer, post-radical prostatectomy

TL;DR53.0% (APA) and 60.7% (ADT) of MFS events PSMA PET-detected; APA+ADT vs ADT benefit in BCR prostate hotly contested.

Systemic Curative Phase 3 RCT Caveats dominate

6 details
  • ๐Ÿ” Phase 3 RCT, APA + ADT vs ADT alone in BCR prostate cancer, post-RP setting
  • ๐Ÿ“Š Full primary endpoint data pending ASCO26 presentation; no effect size reported in source tweets
  • ๐Ÿ“Š NEJM paper: 53.0% (APA arm) and 60.7% (ADT arm) of distant mets identified by PSMA PET, not conventional imaging
  • โš ๏ธ Majority of MFS events PSMA PET-only: magnitude of conventional-imaging MFS benefit unclear
  • โš ๏ธ ASCO26 preview framing: 'some may call this a homerun, others may call this the largest negative'
  • โ“ PSMA PET-detected MFS not an established OS surrogate; does EFS benefit translate to survival?
  • Does PSMA PET-detected EFS/MFS benefit translate to OS?
  • Magnitude of benefit by conventional imaging alone
๐Ÿ“š Sources ยท ๐Ÿฆ 3 tweets
๐Ÿ“ Note until the trial is released later this is preview
๐Ÿ“ note add commentary to proteus discussion
๐Ÿ“ add to proteus data

COMPPARE

ForDe novo localized prostate cancer, excluding very high risk and metastatic

TL;DRNo sig difference (bowel urgency 5.7% vs 6%, p=0.28; 3-yr BCF 98.0% vs 97.9%) between proton and IMRT in de novo localized prostate.

vs leading data
  • vs PARTIQoL RCT: also null for bowel toxicity at 2yr in randomized proton vs IMRT; COMPPARE extends to larger N but non-randomized

Radiation Curative Caveats dominate

COMPPARE
OutcomeIMRT (actual)PT (actual)p
Bowel urgency (EPIC)6%5.7%0.28
Bowel frequency (EPIC)4%3.5%0.43
โ‰ฅG2 GI toxicity (CTCAEv5)5.6%5.2%0.60
3-yr freedom from progression97.9%98.0%0.90
+2 more figures
COMPPARE
Group2-yr โ‰ฅG2 GI toxicity (95% CI)
IMRT, no spacer7.2% (5.0-9.9%)
Proton, no spacer8.7% (5.0-14%)
IMRT, spacer4.4% (2.8-6.4%)
Proton, spacer4.7% (3.6-6.0%)
COMPPARE
6 details
  • ๐Ÿ” Prospective non-randomized comparative effectiveness study, N=2524, 51 PT + IMRT centers, Jul 2018-Oct 2022
  • ๐Ÿ” De novo localized prostate cancer; very high risk and metastatic excluded; proton cohort 1500, photon 1000
  • ๐Ÿ“Š All 4 primary endpoints non-significant (p range 0.28-0.90); both modalities performed substantially better than hypothesized event rates
  • ๐Ÿ“Š Rectal spacers significantly reduced 2-yr โ‰ฅG2 GI toxicity regardless of modality (p=0.009, Gray's Test); spacer benefit exceeded modality effect
  • โš ๏ธ Severely underpowered: hypothesized bowel urgency 15% (IMRT) vs actual 6%; study cannot establish equivalence at these event rates
  • โš ๏ธ Non-randomized design; selection into proton vs IMRT may confound any toxicity signal
  • Whether underpowering masks a real late toxicity advantage for proton therapy
  • Role of rectal spacers in abrogating any modality-specific GI difference
  • Long-term BCR and MFS as follow-up matures
๐Ÿ“š Sources ยท ๐Ÿฆ 1 tweet

ENZAMET + Decipher Biomarker Analysis

FormHSPC, ADT + enzalutamide backbone, tumor tissue available for Decipher testing

TL;DRDecipher >0.85 identifies mHSPC pts with OS benefit from docetaxel intensification; IPTW interaction p=0.04, HR 0.75 (0.43-1.33).

vs leading data
  • Framed as Level 1B evidence; consistent with CHARTED and STAMPEDE docetaxel predictive patterns

Systemic Palliative Phase 3 RCT Caveats dominate

ENZAMET + Decipher Biomarker Analysis
AnalysisDecipherDocetaxel HR (95% CI)pInteraction p
Unweightedโ‰ค0.852.78 (1.49, 5.21)0.0010.02
Unweighted>0.851.13 (0.71, 1.79)0.60โ€”
IPTWโ‰ค0.851.94 (0.95, 3.96)0.070.04
IPTW>0.850.75 (0.43, 1.33)0.33โ€”
+1 more figure
ENZAMET + Decipher Biomarker Analysis
DecipherOS HR triplet vs doublet (95% CI)p
โ‰ค0.853.02 (1.50-5.76)โ€”
>0.851.08 (0.60-1.71)0.73
4 details
  • ๐Ÿ” Biomarker analysis within ENZAMET phase 3 RCT; ADT+enza+doce cohort N=320 with evaluable Decipher; DPMC 0.85 cutoff per statistical analysis plan
  • โš ๏ธ Individual arm HRs non-significant in IPTW-MVA (Decipher >0.85: HR 0.75, p=0.33; Decipher โ‰ค0.85: HR 1.94, p=0.07); signal rests on interaction term only
  • โš ๏ธ Tissue available in only ~427/3816 ENZAMET pts; representativeness of the analyzed subset uncertain
  • โš ๏ธ ENZAMET predated current ARSI-doublet SOC; Decipher model trained pre-ARPI โ€” applicability to modern ADT+ARSI backbone unvalidated
  • Prospective Decipher-guided triplet selection trial in ARPI-era mHSPC needed
  • Optimal DPMC cutoff in pts receiving ADT+ARSI (not ENZA) doublets
๐Ÿ“š Sources ยท ๐Ÿฆ 2 tweets

SPIN Score (Celiac Plexus SRS) NCT03323489

ForPancreatic cancer, intractable retroperitoneal pain, planned celiac plexus SRS

TL;DR89% pain response in SPIN-2 pts (baseline pain >6 + no prior neurotoxic chemo) vs 32% SPIN-0 after celiac SRS.

Radiation Supportive Caveats dominate

SPIN Score (Celiac Plexus SRS)
SPIN scoreResponse raten
032%31
153%40
289%19
8 details
  • ๐Ÿ” Post-hoc analysis of 90 evaluable pts from pivotal ph2 (NCT03323489; Lancet Oncol 2024:25:1070-79)
  • ๐Ÿ“Š Pain response by SPIN score
  • ๐Ÿ“Š Pivotal ph2 overall response: 53% (95% CI 42-64%)
  • ๐Ÿ“ Multivariate predictors: no prior neurotoxic chemo (OR 5.1, p=0.009); baseline pain >6 (OR 1.8, p=0.003)
  • ๐Ÿ“ Optimism-corrected AUC 0.714 (bootstrap 500 iterations)
  • ๐Ÿ“ Pain threshold dose-response: >6 optimal (65.8%); >7 (83.3%); >8 (85.7%)
  • โš ๏ธ Post-hoc design; internal validation only; external validation required before clinical use
  • โš ๏ธ SPIN-2 subgroup N=19; response estimate imprecise
  • External validation before clinical implementation
  • Applicability to non-pancreatic retroperitoneal malignancies
  • How early before neurotoxic chemo should SRS be offered?
๐Ÿ“š Sources ยท ๐Ÿฆ 1 tweet

SWOG S1007 RNI analysis

ForHR+/HER2-, Oncotype DX โ‰ค25, N1 (1-3 nodes) breast cancer, adjuvant

TL;DR5-yr LRR <1% with or without RNI in HR+/HER2-, Oncotype โ‰ค25, N1 breast; IDFS not associated with RNI receipt.

vs leading data
  • vs MA.20/EORTC 22922 (RNI benefit in N+ disease broadly): S1007 population (Oncotype โ‰ค25) is a biologically favorable subgroup potentially below the threshold for RNI benefit

Radiation Curative Caveats dominate

7 details
  • ๐Ÿ” Secondary analysis of S1007 phase 3 RCT (chemo vs ET); N=4871 with prospective RT data; median f/u 6.1 yrs
  • ๐Ÿ” RT practice patterns
    • 81% received any RT
    • 59% of RT recipients received RNI (supraclavicular region minimum)
    • Practice divided on RNI use in this biologically favorable N1 setting
  • ๐Ÿ” Low LRR also observed in pts randomized to ET alone without chemo
  • ๐Ÿ“Š 5-yr cumulative LRR by locoregional treatment
    Treatment5-yr LRR
    BCS + RT + RNI0.85%
    BCS + RT, no RNI0.55%
    Mastectomy + PMRT0.11%
    Mastectomy, no RT1.7%
  • ๐Ÿ“ IDFS by RNI receipt (observational; RNI not randomized)
    Menopausal statusHR (95% CI)p
    Premenopausal1.03 (0.74-1.43)0.87
    Postmenopausal0.85 (0.68-1.07)0.16
  • โš ๏ธ RNI not randomized: confounding by indication likely (lower-risk pts selected for omission by treating physicians)
  • โš ๏ธ Survival analyses landmarked at 1 yr; RT data recorded only in first year post-randomization
  • Dedicated RCT of RNI omission in Oncotype โ‰ค25 N1 disease needed to confirm safety
  • Does chemo vs ET assignment (original randomization) modify RNI benefit?
  • Durability of low LRR beyond 6 yrs in this favorable-biology population?
๐Ÿ“š Sources ยท ๐Ÿ“„ 1 paper
๐Ÿ“„ PAPER Jagsi; Barlow; Woodward et al. ยท JAMA oncology (2023-08)
Radiotherapy Use and Incidence of Locoregional Recurrence in Patients With Favorable-Risk, Node-Positive Breast Cancer Enrolled in the SWOG S1007 Trial.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Little is known about regional nodal irradiation (RNI) practice patterns or rates of locoregional recurrence (LRR) with and without RNI in patients with limited nodal disease and favorable biology treated with modern surgical and systemic therapy, including approaches that de-escalate those latter treatments.<br/><br/>OBJECTIVE: To investigate how often patients with low-recurrence score breast cancer with 1 to 3 nodes involved receive RNI, incidence and predictors of LRR, and associations between locoregional therapy and disease-free survival.<br/><br/>DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this secondary analysis of the SWOG S1007 trial, patients with hormone receptor-positive, ERBB2-negative breast cancer, and a Oncotype DX 21-gene Breast Recurrence Score assay result of no more than 25, were randomized to endocrine therapy alone vs chemotherapy then endocrine therapy. Prospectively collected radiotherapy information was collected from 4871 patients treated in diverse settings. Data were analyzed June 2022 to April 2023.<br/><br/>EXPOSURE: Receipt of RNI (targeting at least the supraclavicular region).<br/><br/>MAIN OUTCOME(S) AND MEASURE(S): Cumulative incidence of LRR was calculated by locoregional treatment received. Analyses were assessed for associations between invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and locoregional therapy, adjusted for menopausal status, treatment group, recurrence score, tumor size, nodes involved, and axillary surgery. Radiotherapy information was recorded in the first year after randomization, so survival analyses were landmarked as starting at 1 year among those still at risk.<br/><br/>RESULTS: Of 4871 female patients (median [range] age, 57 [18-87] years) with radiotherapy forms, 3947 (81.0%) reported radiotherapy receipt. Of 3852 patients who received radiotherapy and had complete information on targets, 2274 (59.0%) received RNI. With a median follow-up of 6.1 years, the cumulative incidence of LRR by 5 years was 0.85% among patients who received breast-conserving surgery and radiotherapy with RNI; 0.55% after breast-conserving surgery with radiotherapy without RNI; 0.11% after mastectomy with postmastectomy radiotherapy; and 1.7% after mastectomy without radiotherapy. Similarly low LRR was observed within the group assigned to endocrine therapy without chemotherapy. The rate of IDFS did not differ by RNI receipt (premenopausal: hazard ratio [HR], 1.03; 95% CI, 0.74-1.43; P&#x2009;=&#x2009;.87; postmenopausal: HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.68-1.07; P&#x2009;=&#x2009;.16).<br/><br/>CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this secondary analysis of a clinical trial, RNI use was divided in the setting of biologically favorable N1 disease, and rates of LRR were low even in patients who did not receive RNI. Disease-free survival was not associated with RNI receipt; omission of chemotherapy among patients similar to those enrolled in the S1007 trial is not an independent indication for use of RNI.

Proton vs Photon PMRT Capsular Contracture (Zerey et al.)

ForPost-mastectomy breast cancer, subpectoral TE/I or DTI reconstruction, PMRT cand

TL;DRMVA HR 1.76 (P=0.083) proton vs photon CC, non-significant; proton+DTI 2yr CC 50% vs photon+DTI 35%.

vs leading data
  • Proton PMRT improves cardiac/pulmonary dosimetry vs photon; this CC signal is the risk to weigh in reconstruction planning

Radiation Curative Retrospective Caveats dominate

8 details
  • ๐Ÿ” Retrospective, 2 centers/single institution, N=175 (89 proton, 86 photon), Jan 2017-Dec 2023; median f/u 42 vs 47 mo
  • ๐Ÿ“Š 2-year CC rates by modality and reconstruction type
    ReconstructionProtonPhoton
    DTI50%35%
    TE/I23%12%
  • ๐Ÿ“ MVA HR 1.76 (95% CI 0.93-3.32), P=0.083 for proton vs photon
  • ๐Ÿ“ Univariate HR 2.3 (95% CI 1.26-4.30), P=0.007 for proton vs photon
  • ๐Ÿ“ DTI vs TE/I in MVA: HR 3.0 (95% CI 1.7-5.5), P<.001
  • โš ๏ธ Groups unbalanced for reconstruction type (TE/I vs DTI, P<.001); this is the dominant confounder and MVA adjustment may be insufficient
  • โš ๏ธ Groups also unbalanced for tumor laterality (P<.001); uncontrolled institutional practice patterns, not randomization
  • โš ๏ธ MVA primary result is P=0.083, below conventional significance; framed as a trend, not a confirmed signal
  • Does proton-CC signal replicate in a prospective matched or randomized cohort?
  • Optimal reconstruction type (TE/I vs DTI) when proton PMRT is indicated for cardiac/pulmonary dosimetry reasons?
๐Ÿ“š Sources ยท ๐Ÿ“„ 2 papers
๐Ÿ“„ PAPER Zerey; Gal; Feenstra et al. ยท International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics (2026-04)
Does Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Therapy Impart a Higher Risk of Capsular Contracture Compared With Intensity Modulated Photon Radiation Therapy in the Postmastectomy Reconstruction Setting?
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) may cause adverse events in the reconstruction setting. Proton-based PMRT is increasingly used and has been shown to improve cardiac and pulmonary dosimetry. Data on the risk of capsular contracture (CC) with proton versus photon PMRT remain scarce. We compared the CC rate of the largest cohort of patients undergoing reconstruction after pencil beam scanning proton PMRT reported to date with an intensity modulated radiation therapy photon cohort, hypothesizing that the proton cohort would have a higher rate of CC.<br/><br/>METHODS AND MATERIALS: An institutional review board -approved retrospective study was conducted on patients with breast cancer who underwent subpectoral 2-stage tissue expander/implant (TE/I) or direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction and received either pencil beam scanning proton or intensity modulated radiation therapy photon PMRT between January 2017 and December 2023 at 2 centers within a single institution. All patients undergoing TE/I had the TE irradiated. CC rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazards analysis, denoted as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs, was used to assess variables potentially associated with the outcome, and a binary logistic regression model was used to verify the results.<br/><br/>RESULTS: The study cohort comprised 175 patients (89 proton; 86 photon). The median age was 49 years (range, 24-78), 63% were Hispanic. Patient demographics were well balanced between the groups, except in tumor laterality (P < .001) and reconstruction type (TE/I vs DTI; P < .001). The median follow-up was 42 and 47 months for the proton and photon groups, respectively. In a multivariable analysis, DTI patients had a significantly higher risk of CC compared with TE/I patients (HR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.7-5.5; P < .001). Proton patients had a higher risk of developing CC compared with the photon group in univariate analysis (HR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.26-4.30; P = .007), although this effect did not reach statistical significance in the multivariable model (HR, 1.76; 95% CI, 0.93-3.32; P = .083). The 2-year CC rate for patients treated with protons and DTI (n = 36), photons and DTI (n = 15), protons and TE/I (n = 53), and photons and TE/I (n = 71) was 50%, 35%, 23%, 12%, respectively (P < .001). No other factors were significantly associated with CC development.<br/><br/>CONCLUSION: In this contemporary large proton versus photon PMRT cohort, patients treated with proton showed a trend toward an increased risk of CC. Patients undergoing DTI who were treated with protons had the highest risk of CC (50%). Careful consideration of reconstruction and radiation therapy modalities, assessing CC risk, and also involving patient input, is important for treatment selection.
๐Ÿ“„ PAPER Zerey, M.M.; Gal, O.; Feenstra, N. et al. ยท International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics (2025-09)
Does Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Therapy Impart a Higher Risk of Capsular Contracture when Compared with Intensity Modulated Photon Radiotherapy in the Post-Mastectomy Reconstruction Setting?
๐Ÿ“ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2025.07.1298

OPERA Trial (5-year, rectal preservation)

ForLocally advanced rectal cancer, post-neoadjuvant therapy

TL;DR76% good response at W14 by clinical exam; 5yr OP 81% cCR vs 77% nCR; W14 assessment safely identifies W&W candidates.

Radiation Curative Caveats dominate

OPERA Trial (5-year, rectal preservation)
Arm AArm Bp
W14 good response (cCR+nCR)65%88%0.004
5yr OP75%83%0.24
+1 more figure
OPERA Trial (5-year, rectal preservation)
7 details
  • ๐Ÿ” OPERA primary: tumor response assessed at W24 via DRE + rectoscopy + MRI triad
  • ๐Ÿ” Post-hoc tests W14 CTRE (DRE + rectoscopy) as earlier OP decision gate, ~1mo after NAT end
  • ๐Ÿ” nCR reflects RT-induced tissue change, not incomplete clearance; should not trigger radical surgery
  • ๐Ÿ“Š W14 CTRE in 122/141 pts (87%): 76% good response (cCR+nCR), 24% PR
  • ๐Ÿ“Š MRI concordance at W14: TRG1-2 in 98% (80/82) of CR pts
  • ๐Ÿ“Š 5yr OP by response depth: cCR 81% vs nCR 77%
  • โš ๏ธ Post-hoc analysis of OPERA RCT; W14 timing not pre-specified as the primary assessment endpoint
  • Can W14 assessment replace W24, or is it additive?
  • Management of nCR pts at W14 who may convert to cCR by W24?
  • MRI TRG added value vs clinical exam alone at W14?
๐Ÿ“š Sources ยท ๐Ÿฆ 1 tweet

RADIOSA

ForOligorecurrent prostate cancer, SBRT candidates, median f/u ~4yr

TL;DRPost-hoc: SBRT + 6mo ADT vs SBRT alone in oligorecurrent prostate; median MFS 16.6mo vs NR, HR 0.39, p=0.0012.

Combined Curative Phase 2 trial Caveats dominate

RADIOSA
EndpointArm A (SBRT)Arm B (SBRT+ADT)
Metastatic progression32/51 (62.7%)19/51 (37.3%)
Median MFS16.6mo (95% CI 12.83-NA)Not reached
HR (95% CI)0.3894 (0.2201-0.6888)โ€”
p (Cox)0.00119โ€”
p (log-rank)0.00079โ€”
8 details
  • ๐Ÿ” Phase II RCT, N=102, 1:1; Arm A: SBRT alone vs Arm B: SBRT + 6mo ADT; oligorecurrent prostate cancer
  • ๐Ÿ” 49/51 Arm B pts achieved testosterone recovery within follow-up; benefit persisted after castration resolved
CONSORT flow
Randomized 102
โ†“
Arm A (SBRT)
allocated 51
Arm B (SBRT + ADT)
allocated 51
  • ๐Ÿ“ Median follow-up 49.23mo (95% CI 42.47-54.8) by reverse KM
  • ๐Ÿ“Š Metastatic progression: 32/51 (62.7%) Arm A vs 19/51 (37.3%) Arm B
  • ๐Ÿ“Š Median MFS 16.6mo (95% CI 12.83-NR) Arm A vs not reached Arm B; HR 0.3894 (0.2201-0.6888), p=0.00119
  • ๐Ÿ“Š Eugonadal MFS (post-testosterone recovery) significantly longer in Arm B (p<0.05)
  • โš ๏ธ Post-hoc analysis of MFS and eugonadal MFS; neither was a prespecified primary endpoint of the parent RADIOSA trial
  • โš ๏ธ Small N (51/arm); post-hoc design; MFS not powered; results hypothesis-generating only
  • OS benefit of adding short-term ADT to SBRT in oligorecurrent disease?
  • Which pts benefit most: PSA kinetics, lesion count, PSMA avidity?
  • Optimal ADT duration (6mo vs longer) for oligorecurrent SBRT candidates?
๐Ÿ“š Sources ยท ๐Ÿฆ 1 tweet