Billy W. Loo Jr, MD, PhD
On its own, stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) has been established in the field as a go-to radiation option for patients with lung cancer, especially in those with oligometastatic disease, explains Billy W. Loo Jr, MD, PhD.
Now, the precise, technological advance is continuing to be explored in novel methods, including in combination with immunotherapy in an effort to delay disease recurrence.
For example, an ongoing phase II clinical trial is randomizing patients with stage I, selected stage IIa, or isolated lung parenchymal recurrent non–small cell lung cancer to the combination of the PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab (Opdivo) plus SABR versus SABR alone (NCT03110978). The primary endpoint of the trial is event-fee survival, with secondary endpoints being overall survival and safety.
Loo, an associate professor of radiation oncology at Stanford Medicine, shed light on the advancements in radiation therapy (RT) options for patients with lung cancer, how SABR has improved outcomes for patients, and the intriguing combinations being explored with RT and immunotherapy. Loo discussed these topics in an interview during the 2017 OncLive®
State of the Science SummitTM
on Advanced Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer.
OncLive: Please provide an overview of your presentation.
I talked about one particular development in RT, which is ablative radiotherapy—SABR—and some of the indications, how it developed first for treatment of early-stage lung cancer for patients primarily who were not candidates for surgery, and how additional emerging indications have come out. These include RT for certain patients with metastatic disease.
I talked a bit about some of the technical developments that allow us to do this type of very precise treatment and the strategies that we use to make the treatments extremely accurate and precise. These allow us to give a high enough dose intensity to ablate the tumors without causing excessive collateral damage to the normal organs. That has been the key technical advance that allows us to use this new type of treatment.
What are some of these strategies to make SABR more precise?
The key principle of SABR is that we’re treating relatively small tumors, and what we're doing is using focused radiation to physically isolate the tumors from the surrounding normal organs. We focus the radiation beams by using beams from many different angles, all of which intersect where the tumor is. That allows us to keep the dose at the tumor very high and, meanwhile, keep it low to the surrounding areas.
The key behind this is to do it very accurately. We gain accuracy by doing what we call image guidance. We use imaging before and during the treatment to ensure that the radiation beams are going exactly where they should go.
We also eliminate sources of uncertainty. For example, we are always treating moving targets when we are treating in the lung. Over time, we have implemented what we refer to as motion management strategies. These include, first of all, imaging to understand how tumors move as patients breathe. There are additional strategies we use to track the tumor to follow it with the radiation beam and turn the beam on or off—to correspond with when the tumors are in a given location. We refer to that as respiratory gating.
We coach patients using biofeedback to get them to hold their breath with the tumor at a given location. There are a lot of different strategies we have implemented over time to make these treatments as precise as possible.
What next steps do you anticipate with SABR?
SABR was first developed, at least in the context of lung cancer, as a treatment for patients with early-stage lung cancer. Normally these patients would go to surgery, but many patients are unable to tolerate surgery because of medical comorbidities. Therefore, SABR emerged as an alternative for those patients as opposed to the conventional RT that we have done in the past, which was an alternative but really not an optimal one.
The outcomes of SABR, with experience now, have become sufficiently good and quite comparable to surgery, and it has become the standard of care for patients who can’t have surgery. In fact, it is becoming an option for many patients who are more borderline candidates and have reasons to avoid surgery or who have contraindications of surgery.