Perspectives on the model-based approach to proton therapy trials: A retrospective study of a lung cancer randomized trial.
Model-based approach
NTCP
Non-small cell lung cancer
Proton therapy
Randomized clinical trial
Journal
Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology
ISSN: 1879-0887
Titre abrégé: Radiother Oncol
Pays: Ireland
ID NLM: 8407192
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2020
06 2020
Historique:
received:
04
09
2019
revised:
25
02
2020
accepted:
27
02
2020
pubmed:
1
4
2020
medline:
15
4
2021
entrez:
1
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The goal of this study was to assess whether a model-based approach applied retrospectively to a completed randomized controlled trial (RCT) would have significantly altered the selection of patients of the original trial, using the same selection criteria and endpoint for testing the potential clinical benefit of protons compared to photons. A model-based approach, based on three widely used normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models for radiation pneumonitis (RP), was applied retrospectively to a completed non-small cell lung cancer RCT (NCT00915005). It was assumed that patients were selected by the model-based approach if their expected ΔNTCP value was above a threshold of 5%. The endpoint chosen matched that of the original trial, the first occurrence of severe (grade ≥3) RP. Our analysis demonstrates that NTCP differences between proton and photon therapy treatments may be too small to support a model-based trial approach for lung cancer using RP as the normal tissue endpoint. The analyzed lung trial showed that less than 19% (32/165) of patients enrolled in the completed trial would have been enrolled in a model-based trial, prescribing photon therapy to all other patients. The number of patients enrolled was also found to be dependent on the type of NTCP model used for evaluating RP, with the three models enrolling 3%, 13% or 19% of patients. This result does show limitations in NTCP models which would affect the success of a model-based trial approach. No conclusion regarding the development of RP in patients randomized by the model-based approach could statistically be made. Uncertainties in the outcome models to predict NTCP are the inherent drawback of a model-based approach to clinical trials. The impact of these uncertainties on enrollment in model-based trials depends on the predicted difference between the two treatment arms and on the set threshold for patient stratification. Our analysis demonstrates that NTCP differences between proton and photon therapy treatments may be too small to support a model-based trial approach for specific treatment sites, such as lung cancer, depending on the chosen normal tissue endpoint.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32224318
pii: S0167-8140(20)30103-1
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.02.022
pmc: PMC7311259
mid: NIHMS1571452
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Protons
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
8-14Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : U19 CA021239
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Références
Radiother Oncol. 2020 Jan;142:253-260
pubmed: 31630864
Radiother Oncol. 2018 Nov;129(2):249-256
pubmed: 30241789
Radiother Oncol. 2013 Jun;107(3):267-73
pubmed: 23759662
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Dec 1;66(5):1399-407
pubmed: 16997503
Radiother Oncol. 2005 May;75(2):157-64
pubmed: 15890421
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018 Jul 15;101(4):809-819
pubmed: 29976493
Clin Lung Cancer. 2011 Jul;12(4):252-7
pubmed: 21726825
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016 May 1;95(1):30-36
pubmed: 26684410
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015 Apr 1;91(5):1081-9
pubmed: 25832698
J Clin Oncol. 2008 May 20;26(15):2590-1; author reply 2593-6
pubmed: 18443349
J Thorac Dis. 2016 May;8(5):942-9
pubmed: 27162670
Acta Oncol. 2017 Nov;56(11):1444-1450
pubmed: 28828923
Br J Radiol. 1996 Sep;69(825):839-46
pubmed: 8983588
Acta Oncol. 2014 May;53(5):605-12
pubmed: 23957623
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Jul 15;65(4):1087-96
pubmed: 16682145
Radiother Oncol. 2008 Feb;86(2):148-53
pubmed: 18237800
J Clin Oncol. 2018 Jun 20;36(18):1813-1822
pubmed: 29293386
Acta Oncol. 2012 Nov;51(8):975-83
pubmed: 22950387
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019 Feb 1;103(2):403-410
pubmed: 30291994
Radiother Oncol. 2005 Nov;77(2):176-81
pubmed: 16256230
Radiother Oncol. 2018 Jul;128(1):147-153
pubmed: 29352608
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Mar 1;76(3 Suppl):S77-85
pubmed: 20171522
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013 Feb 1;85(2):522-7
pubmed: 22580121
Radiother Oncol. 2000 May;55(2):153-62
pubmed: 10799727
Radiother Oncol. 2016 Dec;121(3):381-386
pubmed: 27641784
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Feb 1;97(2):228-235
pubmed: 28068231
Radiother Oncol. 2019 Sep;138:45-51
pubmed: 31146070
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Apr 1;97(5):1087-1094
pubmed: 28332994
Cancer J. 2009 Jul-Aug;15(4):319-24
pubmed: 19672149
Radiother Oncol. 2012 Apr;103(1):5-7
pubmed: 22326572
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2013 Jul;10(7):411-24
pubmed: 23689752
Radiother Oncol. 2008 Feb;86(2):142-7
pubmed: 18237799
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Jan 10;26(2):175-6
pubmed: 18182658
Semin Radiat Oncol. 2013 Apr;23(2):134-41
pubmed: 23473691
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Mar 1;76(3 Suppl):S70-6
pubmed: 20171521
Br J Radiol. 2020 Mar;93(1107):20190334
pubmed: 31738081
Semin Radiat Oncol. 2018 Apr;28(2):79-87
pubmed: 29735194
Radiother Oncol. 2012 Apr;103(1):8-11
pubmed: 22405807