Whole brain radiotherapy in patients with NSCLC and brain metastases
Authors: Cécile Le Pechoux, Frederic Dhermain, Benjamin Besse
Journal: The Lancet (2016)

Radiation oncologists are often challenged because of the paucity of randomised trials supporting their clinical practice. In terms of brain metastases treatment, it should be emphasised that there have been five randomised trials assessing whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT): four studies1Aoyama H Shirato H Tago M et al.Stereotactic radiosurgery plus whole-brain radiation therapy vs stereotactic radiosurgery alone for treatment of brain metastases: a randomized controlled trial.JAMA. 2006; 295: 2483-2491Crossref PubMed Scopus (1696) Google Scholar, 2Chang EL Wefel JS Hess KR et al.Neurocognition in patients with brain metastases treated with radiosurgery or radiosurgery plus whole-brain irradiation: a randomised controlled trial.Lancet Oncol. 2009; 10: 1037-1044Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1754) Google Scholar, 3Kocher M Soffietti R Abacioglu U et al.Adjuvant whole-brain radiotherapy versus observation after radiosurgery or surgical resection of one to three cerebral metastases: results of the EORTC 22952-26001 study.J Clin Oncol. 2011; 29: 134-141Crossref PubMed Scopus (1404) Google Scholar, 4Brown PD Asher AL Ballman KV et al.NCCTG N0574 (Alliance): a phase III randomized trial of whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) in addition to radiosurgery (SRS) in patients with 1–3 brain metastases.J Clin Oncol. 2015; 33 (abstr).: LBA4Google Scholar assessing stereotactic radiotherapy with or without WBRT for patients with four or less brain metastases, and the present trial by Paula Mulvenna and colleagues5Mulvenna P Nankivell M Barton R et al.Dexamethasone and supportive care with or without whole brain radiotherapy in treating patients with non-small cell lung cancer with brain metastases unsuitable for resection or stereotactic radiotherapy (QUARTZ): results from a phase 3, non-inferiority, randomised trial.Lancet. 2016; (published online Sept 4.)http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30825-XGoogle Scholar in The Lancet assessing optimum supportive care with or without WBRT in a much poorer prognostic population of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). None of these trials has shown any survival improvement with WBRT, but the first four have shown improved intracranial control with the addition of WBRT. It is only in small-cell lung cancer that prophylactic WBRT improves survival because emergence and development of brain metastases is prevented; but this does not apply to patients with NSCLC6Le Pechoux C Sun A Slotman BJ De Ruysscher D Belderbos J Gore E Prophylactic cranial irradiation for patients with lung cancer.Lancet Oncol. 2016; 17: e277-e293Summary Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (82) Google Scholar Because of advances in the management of NSCLC, the risk of developing brain metastases seems to increase as survival is prolonged. NSCLC management in 2016 still represents a real challenge because detectable brain metastases might be responsible for life-threatening symptoms and serious impairment of quality of life, possibly ameliorated with WBRT.7Li J Bentzen SM Renschler M Mehta MP Regression after whole-brain radiation therapy for brain metastases correlates with survival and improved neurocognitive function.J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25: 1260-1266Crossref PubMed Scopus (272) Google Scholar Mulvenna and colleagues are to be congratulated for conducting this non-inferiority phase 3 trial assessing the omission of WBRT in patients with NSCLC and brain metastases.5Mulvenna P Nankivell M Barton R et al.Dexamethasone and supportive care with or without whole brain radiotherapy in treating patients with non-small cell lung cancer with brain metastases unsuitable for resection or stereotactic radiotherapy (QUARTZ): results from a phase 3, non-inferiority, randomised trial.Lancet. 2016; (published online Sept 4.)http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30825-XGoogle Scholar They chose quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) as the primary outcome measure, and a group of 538 patients between 2007 and 2014 were randomly assigned to receive either WBRT (20 Gy in five daily fractions) and optimal supportive care, including dexamethasone (n=269), or optimal supportive care alone (n=269). The benefits in terms of length of life were adjusted to reflect the quality of life assessed with weekly questionnaires. 536 patients died by October, 2015. The authors concluded that there was no evidence of a difference in terms of QALYs, overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 1·06, 95% CI 0·90–1·26), or quality of life; the median survival from randomisation was less than 3 months. The difference between the mean QALYs was 4·7 days (46·4 QALY days for the optimal supportive care plus WBRT group vs 41·7 QALY days for the optimal supportive care only group), with two-sided 90% CI of −12·7 to 3·3. There is no question that this is a large and well designed trial, and that patients were well assessed, with more than 90% of the expected follow-up forms and more than 80% of the quality-of-life forms received. It should be emphasised that owing to poor survival, only 289 (53%, 149 WBRT patients and 140 optimal supportive care patients who were assessed for quality of life at 4 weeks) and 97 (18%, 54 WBRT patients and 43 optimal supportive care patients assessed at 12 weeks) of all enrolled patients answered quality-of-life questionnaires at 4 weeks and 12 weeks, respectively. Should we then consider that there is no place for WBRT in such a group of patients with NSCLC because it gives little, if any, additional clinically significant benefit? The limitations of the study include that it is generally accepted that the maximum benefit of radiotherapy is achieved 6 weeks after the end of the treatment. Given the median overall survival of 8 weeks and considering the time to deliver WBRT, about half of patients died before an optimum symptomatic assessment could be done. This might also explain why WBRT did not have any effect on steroid consumption, because patients did not live long enough for an effect to be seen. Of course, the decision to deliver WBRT should be put into perspective with the fatigue and neurocognitive toxicity it might generate. This trial raises another question: are the conclusions applicable to patients with NSCLC treated by today's standards? A one size fits all policy was applied to all eligible patients, ranging from those unsuitable for surgery or stereotactic cranial radiotherapy to any patient for whom there was uncertainty over the benefit of WBRT. As expected, the population was quite heterogeneous, but of poor outcome. The recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) and DS-GPA (Diagnosis Specific Graded Prognostic Assessment) prognostic classes taking into account Karnofsky performance status (KPS), age, presence of extracranial disease, and status of primary tumour or number of brain metastases were designed to select the patients most eligible for radiotherapy.8Sperduto PW Kased N Roberge D et al.Summary report on the graded prognostic assessment: an accurate and facile diagnosis-specific tool to estimate survival for patients with brain metastases.J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30: 419-425Crossref PubMed Scopus (991) Google Scholar As an example, this trial confirms that WBRT should not be given to RPA class 3 patients, which represented more than a third of the enrolled population. There was no evidence that WBRT offered a survival advantage within any prognostic class, but this should be interpreted with caution. The results of this trial emphasise the robustness of prognostic factors such as age and KPS.5Mulvenna P Nankivell M Barton R et al.Dexamethasone and supportive care with or without whole brain radiotherapy in treating patients with non-small cell lung cancer with brain metastases unsuitable for resection or stereotactic radiotherapy (QUARTZ): results from a phase 3, non-inferiority, randomised trial.Lancet. 2016; (published online Sept 4.)http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30825-XGoogle Scholar Improved survival with WBRT was indeed shown for younger patients, particularly those younger than 60 years, and there was a trend for better outcome in patients with a KPS of at least 70 and those with controlled primary NSCLC. It now seems clear that an elderly patient, with a KPS of less than 70 and uncontrolled primary, should not have WBRT. Indications of stereotactic radiotherapy have become broader, especially in elderly patients and in patients with expected longer term survival.9Yamamoto M Serizawa T Shuto T et al.Stereotactic radiosurgery for patients with multiple brain metastases (JLGK0901): a multi-institutional prospective observational study.Lancet Oncol. 2014; 15: 387-395Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (857) Google Scholar, 10Besse B Adjei A Baas P et al.2nd ESMO Consensus Conference on Lung Cancer: non-small-cell lung cancer first-line/second and further lines of treatment in advanced disease.Ann Oncol. 2014; 25: 1475-1484Crossref PubMed Scopus (198) Google Scholar As outlined by the authors, there have been considerable changes within the past 10 years in the systemic treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC, but also in the development and widespread use of stereotactic radiotherapy and MRI to strictly monitor some of these patients who might need several treatments. Identification of oncogenic driver mutations, and more sophisticated pre-treatment tumour characterisation has transformed the outcome of a subgroup of patients with metastatic NSCLC; survival has been increased by at least three times over the past 15 years in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated or anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-rearranged NSCLC. EGFR mutation as well as the absence of (or little) tobacco consumption, considered as a surrogate marker of these molecular abnormalities, were not captured in this study, and this is another key limitation to the interpretation of these results. The intracranial efficacy of targeted drugs such as EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) or ALK inhibitors has been shown, justifying their use as first-line treatment in case of EGFR mutation or ALK rearrangement.11Zhang I Zaorsky NG Palmer JD Mehra R Lu B Targeting brain metastases in ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer.Lancet Oncol. 2015; 16: e510-e521Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (140) Google Scholar, 12Heon S Yeap BY Lindeman NI et al.The impact of initial gefitinib or erlotinib versus chemotherapy on central nervous system progression in advanced non-small cell lung cancer with EGFR mutations.Clin Cancer Res. 2012; 18: 4406-4414Crossref PubMed Scopus (150) Google Scholar WBRT might also enhance penetration of some drugs, thus possibly improving their efficacy.13Shi W Dicker AP CNS metastases in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer and ALK gene rearrangement.J Clin Oncol. 2016; 34: 107-109Crossref Scopus (30) Google Scholar Finally, this trial might not rule out use of WBRT in all patients with NSCLC and brain metastases. Is there still a place for WBRT in patients with NSCLC and brain metastases? Yes, we believe that optimised WBRT, given at the right time to appropriate patients, could lead to more individualised strategies. Both systemic and local treatments of brain metastases need to be discussed with patients, taking into account the results of this trial, classic prognostic factors, and the molecular status. We declare no competing interests. Dexamethasone and supportive care with or without whole brain radiotherapy in treating patients with non-small cell lung cancer with brain metastases unsuitable for resection or stereotactic radiotherapy (QUARTZ): results from a phase 3, non-inferiority, randomised trialAlthough the primary outcome measure result includes the prespecified non-inferiority margin, the combination of the small difference in QALYs and the absence of a difference in survival and quality of life between the two groups suggests that WBRT provides little additional clinically significant benefit for this patient group. Full-Text PDF Open Access