onc brain

About Β· curated by Nick Boehling, MD Β· @nb2276

Practice-changing

6 studies Subscribe via RSS β†’

PrTK03 (aglatimagene besadenovec + EBRT) NCT01436968

ForIntermediate/high-risk localized prostate cancer, ECOG 0–2, planning definitive

TL;DRDFS HR 0.70 (0.52–0.94), p=0.016 favoring aglatimagene + valacyclovir + EBRT vs placebo in intermediate/high-risk localized prostate cancer.

Combined Curative Phase 3 RCT Practice-changing

10 details
  • πŸ” Phase 3 double-blind placebo-controlled, N=745, 2:1 allocation, 51 US/Puerto Rico centers
  • πŸ” Intermediate or high-risk M0 localized prostate cancer; ECOG 0–2; EBRT 78 Gy/2 Gy or hypofractionated; ADT optional
  • πŸ’Š Intraprostatic aglatimagene (CAN-2409, replication-defective adenoviral HSV-TK vector) Γ— 3 courses + valacyclovir prodrug; immune bystander cytotoxicity mechanism
CONSORT flow
Randomized 745
↓
Aglatimagene + valacyclovir + EBRT
allocated 496
analyzed 479
Placebo + valacyclovir + EBRT
allocated 249
analyzed 232
  • πŸ“Š 1Β° EP: DFS HR 0.70 (95% CI 0.52–0.94), p=0.016
  • πŸ“Š Median DFS not reached (aglatimagene) vs 86.1 months (IQR 29.7–143.0) in placebo
  • πŸ“ Median follow-up 50.3 months (IQR 35.2–63.3)
  • ⚠️ G3+ TEAEs similar between arms
    • Aglatimagene: 8% (40/479); placebo: 7% (17/232)
    • Most common G3+: AKI β€” 2% both arms
    • SAEs: 6% aglatimagene vs 7% placebo; treatment-related SAEs 2% both arms
    • No treatment-related deaths
  • ⚠️ 1Β° EP is DFS (composite: recurrence or death), not OS; OS data not reported in source
  • ⚠️ 50-month median f/u likely underpowers late events; prostate cancer recurrences extend 10+ years post-RT
  • ⚠️ Sponsor-funded (Candel Therapeutics + NIH); 79% White cohort β€” generalizability to diverse populations limited
  • OS benefit not yet established; long-term follow-up ongoing
  • Differential effect by risk category (intermediate vs high-risk)?
  • Sequencing with ARPI intensification for STAMPEDE-eligible pts
πŸ“š Sources Β· πŸ“„ 1 paper
πŸ“„ PAPER Dykstra, Michael P.; Regan, Samuel N.; Yin, Huiying (Maggie) et al. Β· JCO Oncology Practice (2025-09)
Androgen Deprivation Therapy Practice Patterns in High-Risk Prostate Cancer Treated With Definitive Radiotherapy: Prospective Results From a Statewide Quality Consortium
Abstract
PURPOSE The 2022 AUA/ASTRO guidelines recommend 18-36 months of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with definitive radiotherapy for localized, high-risk prostate cancer. The STAMPEDE M0 trial supports intensification with androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) for patients with β‰₯2 cT3/T4, Grade Group [GG] 4-5, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) β‰₯40 ng/mL, or cN1. Given advances in imaging, risk stratification, and treatment delivery, we characterized contemporary practice patterns using prospective data from the Michigan Radiation Oncology Quality Consortium (MROQC). METHODS Patients enrolled in MROQC with intact, high-risk M0/N0-1 prostate cancer were included. Clinical information, including intended ADT duration and ARPI use, was prospectively collected. The primary outcome was intended guideline-concordant ADT (GC-ADT, β‰₯18 months). Multivariable analyses (MVA) assessed associations between clinical factors and GC-ADT recommendations. We compared the adoption of ARPI with standard therapies before and after the publication of STAMPEDE M0. Facility-level variability was evaluated using a mixed-effects model, with the treatment site as a random intercept. RESULTS Between June 2020 and November 2024, 553 patients across 26 centers were included: cT3/4 (13.3%), cN1 (19.9%), GG 4-5 (75.0%), and PSA β‰₯20 ng/mL (40.0%). Overall, 91.3% were recommended ADT, with 67.0% being guideline-concordant. On MVA, GC-ADT was significantly associated with cN1 (odds ratio [OR], 2.94 [95% CI, 1.44 to 5.99]), GG (GG4 OR, 6.23 [95% CI, 2.85 to 13.62]; GG5 OR, 9.45 [95% CI, 4.46 to 20.06]), and PSA β‰₯40 (OR, 3.64 [95% CI, 1.22–10.87]). Facility-level variability persisted in the MVA ( P < .0001). Among the 27.9% who met meeting STAMPEDE criteria, ARPI recommendations increased from 0% prepublication to 23.2% afterward. CONCLUSION Within a statewide quality consortium, guideline-concordant ADT recommendations occurred in two thirds of patients, with ARPI intensification in under 25% among STAMPEDE-eligible patients. These findings highlight the need for individualized ADT strategies and collaborative efforts to standardize high-quality care.

AREST

ForpT1-2 pN0 OSCC, intermediate-risk (DOI/PNI/LVE/poor diff), post-curative surgery

TL;DR3-yr LRFS 89.2% vs 80.9%, HR 0.52 (p=0.02) favoring adj RT in pT1-2 pN0 OSCC with intermediate-risk features; DFS/OS NS.

Radiation Curative Phase 3 RCT Practice-changing

8 details
  • πŸ” Phase III open-label RCT, N=392; 1:1 stratified by subsite, PNI/LVE, differentiation
  • πŸ” Eligibility: pT1-2 pN0 OSCC, β‰₯1 intermediate-risk factor (DOI 5-10mm, PNI, LVE, poor diff); margins β‰₯5mm, β‰₯16 nodes dissected
  • πŸ’Š Adj RT: 60Gy/30fr to tumor-bed + at-risk neck nodes; median f/u 47.2mo (IQR 30-59)
CONSORT flow
Randomized 392
↓
Adjuvant RT
allocated 191
Observation
allocated 201
  • πŸ“Š 1Β° EP LRFS ITT: 3-yr 89.2% RT vs 80.9% obs, HR 0.52 (95%CI 0.30-0.91), p=0.02
  • πŸ“Š Competing-risk cumulative LR failure: 10.6% RT vs 18.9% obs, HR 0.52, p=0.021
  • πŸ“ PP analysis: HR 0.43 (0.23-0.80), p=0.01
  • πŸ“Š Subgroup: oral tongue derives greater LRFS benefit than buccal mucosa
  • ⚠️ DFS and OS not significantly different; LRC benefit does not translate to survival gain at 47mo
  • Does LRC benefit translate to OS with longer follow-up?
  • Should adj RT selection favor oral tongue over buccal mucosa?
  • Does benefit differ by number of risk factors (1 vs β‰₯2)?
πŸ“š Sources Β· πŸ“„ 1 paper
πŸ“„ PAPER Nair, Sudhir Vasudevan; Gupta, Tejpal; Rane, Swapnil Ulhas et al. Β· 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) β‰₯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 β‰₯5mm and at least ipsilateral level I-III neck dissection with β‰₯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 Ξ± 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.
πŸ“ https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.2026.44.16_suppl.6000

RASolute 302

ForPrev-treated metastatic PDAC, RAS G12 mutation, β‰₯1 prior systemic line

TL;DRDaraxonrasib vs IC chemo in 2L RAS G12 mPDAC: mOS 13.2 vs 6.6 mo, HR 0.40 (0.30-0.54), p<0.001.

vs leading data
  • 2L PDAC historical: IC chemo (FOLFOX, nalirinotecan-based regimens) mOS ~5-7 mo; daraxonrasib more than doubles median in RAS G12-selected pts

Systemic Palliative Phase 3 RCT Practice-changing

RASolute 302
DaraxonrasibChemotherapy
RAS G12: N228231
RAS G12: mOS (95% CI)13.2 mo (10.0-NR)6.6 mo (5.4-8.2)
RAS G12: HR (95% CI), p0.40 (0.30-0.54), p<0.001ref
RAS G12: 12-mo OS53.3%8.7%
Overall: N248252
Overall: mOS (95% CI)13.2 mo (10.0-NR)6.7 mo (5.8-8.0)
Overall: HR (95% CI), p0.40 (0.30-0.53), p<0.001ref
Overall: 12-mo OS53.2%17.3%
6 details
  • πŸ” Phase 3 RCT; RAS G12 primary analysis N=459 (228 vs 231); overall N=500 (248 vs 252); control: investigator's choice chemotherapy
CONSORT flow
Randomized 500
↓
Daraxonrasib
allocated 248
Chemotherapy
allocated 252
  • πŸ“Š 1Β° EP (RAS G12 population): mOS 13.2 mo (95% CI 10.0-NR) vs 6.6 mo (5.4-8.2); HR 0.40 (0.30-0.54), p<0.001
  • πŸ“ 12-mo OS (RAS G12): 53.3% daraxonrasib vs 8.7% chemo
  • πŸ“Š Consistent in overall population (all RAS mutations + no-mutation pts, N=500): HR 0.40 (0.30-0.53), p<0.001; mOS 13.2 vs 6.7 mo
  • ⚠️ Event maturity asymmetric at datacut: 32% events in daraxonrasib arm vs 55% chemo; upper OS CI not reached (NR); follow-up ongoing
  • ⚠️ G12 variant breakdown (G12D vs G12V vs G12R) not reported in source
  • Activity by specific G12 variant (G12D vs G12V vs G12R)
  • Durability beyond current f/u; upper OS CI not yet reached
  • Optimal sequencing and potential 1L investigation
πŸ“š Sources Β· 🐦 1 tweet

TALAPRO-3

ForHRR-deficient metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer

TL;DR3yr rPFS 77% vs 56% (HR 0.48, p<0.001) favoring talazoparib+enza+ADT in HRR-deficient mHSPC.

vs leading data
  • vs TALAPRO-2 (talazoparib+enza, mCRPC, HRR+, HR ~0.46): class effect now established in hormone-sensitive setting

Systemic Palliative Phase 3 RCT Practice-changing

TALAPRO-3
Subgroupn (exp/ctrl)Median rPFS expMedian rPFS ctrlHR (95% CI)
ITT300/299NC (NC-NC)45.8 (37.7-NC) mo0.48 (0.36-0.65), p<0.001
BRCA104/103NC (NC-NC)35.1 (18.6-NC) mo0.37 (0.22-0.61)
Non-BRCA196/196NC (NC-NC)NC (40.5-NC) mo0.57 (0.39-0.82)
3 details
  • πŸ” Phase 3 RCT; N=599; HRR-deficient mHSPC; talazoparib+enza+ADT vs placebo+enza+ADT
CONSORT flow
Randomized 599
↓
Talazoparib+enzalutamide
allocated 300
analyzed 300
Placebo+enzalutamide
allocated 299
analyzed 299
  • ⚠️ Primary endpoint imaging-based rPFS, not OS; OS maturity not reported in source
  • ⚠️ Non-BRCA HRR effect attenuated (HR 0.57 vs BRCA HR 0.37); non-BRCA HRR subset heterogeneous
  • OS benefit magnitude and maturity
  • Which non-BRCA HRR alterations drive clinically meaningful rPFS benefit
  • Post-progression sequencing in PARP-pretreated pts transitioning to mCRPC
πŸ“š Sources Β· 🐦 1 tweet

ROADS

ForResected brain mets >2cm

TL;DRSurg bed recurrence 1% (GT) vs 12% (SRS); 2yr OS 62% vs 36% favoring GammaTile in resected brain mets >2cm.

vs leading data
  • vs Alliance N107C: established SRS as post-resection standard; ROADS directly randomizes vs GammaTile for the first time

Radiation Curative Practice-changing

ROADS
EndpointGammaTileSRS
Time to surg bed recurrenceNR17 mo
Surg bed recurrence-FSNR11 mo
2-yr OS62%36%
6 details
  • πŸ” Randomized, N=230, resected brain mets >2cm; GammaTile brachytherapy vs post-op SRS
  • πŸ“Š Surg bed recurrence 1% GammaTile vs 12% SRS β€” primary EP
  • πŸ“Š Radiation necrosis similar: 8% GammaTile vs 7% SRS
  • ⚠️ LMD 10% GammaTile vs 3% SRS β€” leptomeningeal spread higher with brachytherapy
  • ⚠️ OS 62% vs 36% is a secondary endpoint; trial powered for cavity control, not OS confirmation
  • ⚠️ Trial phase not stated in source; primary EPs both NR suggests follow-up still maturing for OS
  • Does LMD increase with GammaTile translate to OS detriment at longer follow-up?
  • Benefit extend to resected mets <2cm?
  • Optimal GammaTile activity prescription for cavity control
πŸ“š Sources Β· 🐦 1 tweet

NRG/RTOG 1005 NCT01349322

ForPost-lumpectomy high-risk early breast: grade 3, ER-neg, LVI, or close margins

TL;DR7-yr IBR 2.6% vs 2.2%, HR 1.31 (90% CI 0.84-2.04); concurrent boost noninferior, reducing treatment to 15 fractions.

vs leading data
  • vs EORTC 22881-10882 (Bartelink): addresses delivery timing, not boost vs no boost; landmark context only

Radiation Curative Phase 3 RCT Practice-changing

9 details
  • πŸ” Phase III unblinded RCT, N=2,255 analyzed; 278 sites, North America + 6 countries; median f/u 7.3 yr
  • πŸ” High-risk post-lumpectomy: grade 3 (52.7%), ER-neg (29.6%), LVI (16.7%), close margins (16.7%), chemo (61.8%)
  • πŸ’Š Concurrent arm: WBI 40 Gy/15F + simultaneous boost 0.53 Gy/fx (15 total fractions)
  • πŸ’Š Sequential arm: WBI 50 Gy/25F or 42.7 Gy/16F + boost 12-14 Gy/6-7F after (22-32 total fractions)
  • πŸ“Š 1Β° EP (IBR noninferiority): HR 1.31 (90% CI 0.84-2.04), p=0.037; upper bound 2.04 < NI margin 2.12
  • πŸ“Š 7-yr IBR: 2.6% concurrent vs 2.2% sequential; 5-yr: 1.9% vs 2.1%; 56 total events
  • πŸ“Š No significant differences in DFS, DDFS, OS, or RNR between arms; 7-yr RNR 1.2% overall
  • πŸ“Š Cosmesis at 3yr: NI met by both measures
    • Physician-rated excellent/good: 82.4% concurrent vs 85.9% sequential, p=0.34
    • Central digital photo review excellent/good: 72.0% vs 64.2%, p=0.11
    • BCTOS mean change from baseline: 0.18 concurrent vs 0.16 sequential (NI met)
  • ⚠️ G3-4 AEs similar between arms (p=0.81); radiation dermatitis, fatigue, breast pain most prevalent
  • Long-term cosmesis and fibrosis beyond 3-yr QoL endpoint
  • Applicability to pts on hormonal therapy without chemo (lower baseline risk)
  • Integration with APBI or partial-breast techniques
πŸ“š Sources Β· πŸ“„ 1 paper
πŸ“„ PAPER Vicini; Winter; Freedman et al. Β· Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (2026-05)
Concurrent Versus Sequential Radiation Dose Escalation to the Surgical Cavity for Conservative Treatment of High-Risk Early Breast Cancer: NRG/RTOG 1005 Phase III Trial.
Abstract
PURPOSE: For patients with breast cancer undergoing breast conservation, escalating the dose (boost) of radiation to the lumpectomy cavity after whole-breast irradiation (WBI) reduces ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR) but extends treatment duration. This phase III trial investigated whether boost delivery during WBI versus after WBI provides noninferior IBR and preserves cosmetic appearance.<br/><br/>METHODS: NRG/RTOG 1005 randomly assigned patients at higher risk for IBR after lumpectomy and axillary surgery to either a sequential boost of 12 Gy in six fractions(F) or 14 Gy in 7F after WBI of 50 Gy in 25F or 42.7 Gy in 16F (sequential arm) or a concurrent boost of 8 Gy in 15F of 0.53 Gy per day with WBI of 40 Gy in 15F (concurrent arm) using 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (RT) or intensity-modulated RT. Based on 1.59% 5-year IBR for the sequential arm, defining the noninferiority margin as a hazard ratio upper limit on the 90% CI of 2.12, 2,312 patients provide 80% power for noninferiority of IBR as first recurrence for the concurrent arm. Secondary end points included disease-free survival and overall survival, adverse events (AEs), and cosmetic outcomes.<br/><br/>RESULTS: Between May 24, 2011, and June 20, 2014, 2,354 patients were randomly assigned, with 2,255 eligible for analysis (sequential arm, n = 1,118; concurrent arm, n = 1,137). With median follow-up of 7.3 years, there were 56 IBR events; 5- and 7-year IBR were 2.1% and 2.2% on the sequential arm and 1.9% and 2.6% on the concurrent arm, respectively. The noninferiority criterion was met: HR (90% CI): 1.31 (0.84 to 2.04), P = .037. No differences were observed in AEs, cosmetic outcomes, or survival between arms.<br/><br/>CONCLUSION: Concurrent boost during WBI results in noninferior IBR compared with sequential boost without worsening toxicity or cosmetic outcomes and reduces overall treatment time.
πŸ“ Vicini FA, Winter K, Freedman GM, Arthur DW, Rosenstein BS, Bentzen SM, Li XA, Halyard MY, Woodward WA, Bleicher RJ, Taghian A, Lyons J, Tomberlin JK, Seaward SA, Cheston SB, Hoover AC, Anderson BM, Perera FE, Poppe MM, Petersen IA, Jhawar S, Hijal T, Moughan J, Movsas B, White JR. Concurrent Versus Sequential Radiation Dose Escalation to the Surgical Cavity for Conservative Treatment of High-Risk Early Breast Cancer: NRG/RTOG 1005 Phase III Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2026 May 11:JCO2502465. ; PMCID: PMC13166090.