NRG-RTOG 1106/ACRIN 6697: A phase IIR trial of standard versus adaptive (mid-treatment PET-based) chemoradiotherapy for stage III NSCLC—Results and comparison to NRG-RTOG 0617 (non-personalized RT dose escalation).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
8548 Background: NRG-RTOG 0617 (R0617) found that non-personalized dose escalation of radiotherapy (RT) with concurrent chemotherapy was deleterious. NRG-RTOG 1106/ACRIN 6697 (R1106) studied adaptive chemoradiotherapy, using tumor and patient individualized RT dose intensification simultaneously with field reduction, based upon mid-treatment FDG-PET. Methods: The control arms of both studies used 60 Gy (+ weekly carboplatin/paclitaxel). The investigational arm of R0617 used 74 Gy in 37 fractions, with no field/dose adaptation, while R1106 used mid-treatment FDG-PET (after ̃40 Gy) to design an individualized dose adaptive RT plan with daily-fraction size 2.2 to 3.8 Gy (up to 80.4 Gy/30 fractions), based upon a model of isotoxic lung risk. Nearly all (93%) patients had IMRT. No patients had consolidation immunotherapy. The primary endpoint for R1106 was local-regional-progression freedom (LRPF) assessed by central review. Other endpoints reported here were survival, toxicity, and institution-defined local/regional control. Results: From 2012-2017, 127 patients were enrolled to R1106 (43 in the standard and 84 in the adaptive arms), with a median follow-up of 3.6 years. The median actual RT dose in the adaptive arm was 71 Gy (Q1-Q3 68-76 Gy). The 2-year LRPF was 59.5% versus 54.6% (p=0.66) for standard versus adaptive RT; the 3-year survival rates were 49.1% versus 47.5% (p=0.80). An exploratory analysis of 2-year in-field local primary tumor control and local-regional tumor control (institution-assessed) were 58.5% and 55.6% for standard RT, and 75.6% and 66.3% for adaptive RT, respectively. As shown in the table, there were no significant differences in cardiac or esophageal adverse events between the two arms; the adaptive RT arm had more Grade 3+ respiratory events (23.8% versus 14.3%). Conclusions: NRG-RTOG1106 did not meet its primary endpoint of demonstrating improved LRPF. Unlike R0617, there was no suggestion of a detrimental effect of adaptive dose-intensified RT on survival and cardiac events. Studies to refine personalized RT, especially in the immunotherapy era, should be considered. Outcome comparison between R0617 and R1106. Clinical trial information: NCT01507428. [Table: see text]
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | high |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".