SABR-COMET

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

scarbrtj

I Don't Like To Bragg
7+ Year Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2015
Messages
3,216
Reaction score
4,930
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
5-year OS also very impressive: 46 vs 24%, favoring SBRT. Numbers like that are too good for medoncs to ignore.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
5-year OS also very impressive: 46 vs 24%, favoring SBRT. Numbers like that are too good for medoncs to ignore.

Where there is a will, there is a way. I personally think that SBRT will improve OS in appropriately selected patients. Not because it cures them, but because it can delay systemic therapy and clonal selection of resistant and mobile tumor populations. While this data is encouraging, there are a lot of holes I could punch in it if I wanted to and I am sure that some will.

I feel very fortunate to work in an environment where our med oncs, urologists, and surgeons all already believe SBRT is the way to go for oligometastatic progression in patients with favorable characteristics. There is no question that in the right patient it can delay the need for chemo or ADT. Will that translate to better survival? It is looking more like the answer is yes, but even if it didn't, keeping people off therapy is clinically meaningful in and of its self.
 
3/60 died of SBRT, which will capture some attention. Still, that makes survival effect of SBRT even more pronounced in this study.
 
3/60 died of SBRT, which will capture some attention. Still, that makes survival effect of SBRT even more pronounced in this study.

only one of those deaths (pneumonitis) is probably attributable to SABR
 
Agreed with above, but nice to finally have a survival benefit as well. Especially with Gomez trial I believe presenting OS improvement as well? Or was this the only oligometastatic SBRT trial presenting at ASTRO?
 
Pulmonary cavity happens after SBRT to a central lung lesion, so count all 3.

Gastric perf surgery related to sbrt in another case iirc
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Noone should die because of SBRT, especially not in the palliative setting. We should learn from what happened in SABR-COMET.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
None of these lessons are new. There have always been two distinct camps in the SBRT crowd: those who will blast hollow organs and central airways, and those who will decline to accept even a remote chance of mortality. It is a personal professional choice.

Noone should die because of SBRT, especially not in the palliative setting. We should learn from what happened in SABR-COMET.
 
None of these lessons are new. There have always been two distinct camps in the SBRT crowd: those who will blast hollow organs and central airways, and those who will decline to accept even a remote chance of mortality. It is a personal professional choice.
There is a happy medium. I still do 70/17 for central lung lesions with very good control rates and I don't do pancreatic sbrt.

I sleep better at night doing it that way
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Noone should die because of SBRT, especially not in the palliative setting. We should learn from what happened in SABR-COMET.

I agree for palliative SBRT only. Sometimes in definitive cases I could see pushing past if absolutely necessary (or fractionationating more)

Underdose if necessary, but don't cause toxicity.

I wonder how a proposed 10-met trial would work in terms of toxicity. I worry about toxicity from SBRTing multiple lung lesions in short succession now.... how is the lung going to handle getting up to 10 lesions SBRT'd in short succession across bilateral lungs in multiple lobes?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Members don't see this ad :)
This is an amazing prospective result and great for the field. We can destroy tumors in pretty much any part of the body, non-invasively with minimal toxicity. As rad oncs I think we are almost trained to care more about toxicity than survival! Why focus on the toxicity?? These patients have recurrent disease which will take their lives away anyway if we dont try to erradicate it. Look at the OS data. Use this amazing tool that we have developed and honed. We can learn how to do it even better and safer, but these results are remarkable and use a technology which no one else has.
 
agree that we as rad oncs should not focus on the toxicity too much - it's a surprising finding but we know how safe sbrt is in most situations. small trial, so a few surprising things happening and all of a sudden there is a 5% mortality.
 
agree that we as rad oncs should not focus on the toxicity too much - it's a surprising finding but we know how safe sbrt is in most situations. small trial, so a few surprising things happening and all of a sudden there is a 5% mortality.

Ok so a few things here. First this was not a “small trial”, 99 patients is not a small trial by any means. Second we should try to minimize toxicity as much as safely possible, but this should not be the singular focus of our work. SBRT reportedly improved the 5 year survival by 22%!! Yes there were very rare but serious side effects, but that can occur with any radical therapy. Do we not perform organ transplants because there is perioperative mortality, or bone marrow transplants because there is also mortality? No we do these procedures because they can improve survival. If you read closely 2 of the 3 patients that died were likely from secondary complications (subdural bleed after surgery, and infection) both of these may have been associated with comorbidities the patients had and not caused by SBRT directly. In any case, also the concept that “ok well we need a phase III and nothing matters until we have a phase III study”. Well that is not true, these patients were Randomized. This is Level I evidence for the benefit of SBRT in improving OS in oligometastatic disease. The data also appears to agree with other Phase II studies in this space which are reporting improved PFS and OS with SBRT in oligometastatic disease.

I am not involved with either of these studies, but really looking forward to learning more about the data at ASTRO, for these potentially practice changing or practice confirming studies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
I doubt we will see a phase 3 trial actually accrue - the I don't think many referring docs have clinical equipoise (ditto with rad oncs). Amazing study.

Toxicity is real and should be disclosed to patients. I'm not sure I'd say the risk of grade 5 toxicity is 5% like in SABR-COMET, but considering there is a real 5-year survival in the control arm, we should have some degree of pause and make sure we discuss with patients. To me, it speaks to similar principles to brain SRS - if you can't do it safely, you should revert to whole brain. Similarly, if you can't safely do SBRT for mets, you should do conventional fractionation. There is no one-size-fits-all approach.
 
So I love this trial and think its a great starting point. Really looking forward to the paper that is likely soon to follow. My one worry is were indolent and aggressive histologies balanced between arms. In the SBRT arm there was clearly higher proportions of prostate and breast cancers which live very long and take a long time to progress. A prostate with a single para-aortic LN met could take years to progress without SBRT given how good hormones were. He presented a sensitivity analysis taking out the prostate cancer patients but he didn't report the p-values in that analysis. In addition David didn't break down what the "other" histologies were. We do see a good number of indolent GISTs, salivary gland, thyroid, and renal cell tumors that are perfect for oligomet SBRT, and they live very long afterwards and take a long time to progress regardless if they got SBRT or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I stepped in right after they finished speaking about that so only heard about that part second hand. I know they talked about the merits of limiting histologies (eg NCSLC) vs multiple, and probably there is some dependent on what type of cancer is being treated. Even still, with the phase II being what it was, I’m glad that they chose the design that they did, given the results that they presented. It supports oligomet treatment for many many more patients than just what would be the result if it were a positive trial for say just lung or just prostate patients. (How is NRG BR 002 acruing, by the way?). In either case, the two phase III followup studies will follow. SABR-COMET 3 and SABR-COMET ... 11 is it? Those will be able to give us much higher quality data, and the phase II did it’s purpose - screened for a potential signal and probably will direct some practice.

Talking with people at my center now, I think it will be a harder sell to randomize people for 1–3 mets for the phase III if people are mostly being treated that way. On the other hand the 4-however many mets(11?) will be the interesting one. Also will be interesting to see if/how the protocol changes with any DVH deviations to try and avoid any further SBRT toxicity in the followup trials.
 
How many patients had bone mets sbrt’d? What done/frac do you guys do for a iliac or femur met? How did you find data on how the 3 patients died?
 
And like Marvell said: "At my back I always hear time's winged chariot hurrying near..." I wonder if imaging advances will teach us something we don't know we don't know right now...
DgyO4rqXcAATsAz.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
How many patients had bone mets sbrt’d? What done/frac do you guys do for a iliac or femur met? How did you find data on how the 3 patients died?

Site of metastasis wasn't presented IIRC. Will likely be in the paper.

Bone mets get either 9Gy or 10Gy x 3 generally.

I'm sure the paper will elucidate exactly what the 3 toxicities were and hopefully discuss what dose was given in that area. I believe 1 of them was pneumonitis, and one was a GI bleed (likely from GI SBRT). I didn't see anything about a subdural bleed.
 
Ok so a few things here. First this was not a “small trial”, 99 patients is not a small trial by any means. Second we should try to minimize toxicity as much as safely possible, but this should not be the singular focus of our work. SBRT reportedly improved the 5 year survival by 22%!! Yes there were very rare but serious side effects, but that can occur with any radical therapy. Do we not perform organ transplants because there is perioperative mortality, or bone marrow transplants because there is also mortality? No we do these procedures because they can improve survival. If you read closely 2 of the 3 patients that died were likely from secondary complications (subdural bleed after surgery, and infection) both of these may have been associated with comorbidities the patients had and not caused by SBRT directly. In any case, also the concept that “ok well we need a phase III and nothing matters until we have a phase III study”. Well that is not true, these patients were Randomized. This is Level I evidence for the benefit of SBRT in improving OS in oligometastatic disease. The data also appears to agree with other Phase II studies in this space which are reporting improved PFS and OS with SBRT in oligometastatic disease.

I am not involved with either of these studies, but really looking forward to learning more about the data at ASTRO, for these potentially practice changing or practice confirming studies.

Certainly agreed overall, but the main hurdle to this is going to be the people that go "you have a 5% mortality rate with your treatment!!111" and don't refer because of it. Unfortunately as ROs we need to have extremely non-toxic data to cause a paradigm shift.

99 patients is a small trial when you're asking for a radical shift in thought process (and not just x drug is better than y drug), especially when you separate it out by histology. OS P-value was 0.09, which was lower than their 0.2 cut-off, but not 'definitive' per the trials own definition. PFS was LU-002 is accruing just fine from what I've heard. Not sure about BR-002.

Palma mentioned they were going to decrease prescription doses (not sure which ones, or to what) in the upcoming phase IIIs (SABR-COMET 2 and SABR-COMET 10, for 1-3 mets and 4-10 mets, respectively), which I think is a very reasonable response to a 5% treatment related mortality rate.
 
The three grade 5 toxicities are detailed in the article in post #1. Someone actually uploaded the presentation to YouTube called "SABR-COMET part 1" and "part 2."

The doses were

1. Lung 54/3, 55/5, 60/8
2. Bone 35/3, 30/3, 16-20/1
3. Brain 18-24/1, 40/5
4. LIver 45-60 in 3-8
5. Adrenal 60/8

Interestingly they appear to have mandated that normal tissue tolerances were never to be exceeded but instead the PTV was to be compromised. Not clear if they used TG-101 or something else. Interestingly, some # of fractions above are greater than 5 because the trial was conducted outside of the US.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The three grade 5 toxicities are detailed in the article in post #1. Someone actually uploaded the presentation to YouTube called "SABR-COMET part 1" and "part 2."

The doses were

1. Lung 54/3, 55/5, 60/8
2. Bone 35/3, 30/3, 16-20/1
3. Brain 18-24/1, 40/5
4. LIver 45-60 in 3-8
5. Adrenal 60/8

Interestingly they appear to have mandated that normal tissue tolerances were never to be exceeded but instead the PTV was to be compromised. Not clear if they used TG-101 or something else. Interestingly, some # of fractions above are greater than 5 because the trial was conducted outside of the US.
As we all know anything more than 5 fractions is not SBRT ("any course of radiation treatment extending beyond five fractions is not considered SBRT") so, really, how can they even include that data.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The three grade 5 toxicities are detailed in the article in post #1. Someone actually uploaded the presentation to YouTube called "SABR-COMET part 1" and "part 2."

The doses were

1. Lung 54/3, 55/5, 60/8
2. Bone 35/3, 30/3, 16-20/1
3. Brain 18-24/1, 40/5
4. LIver 45-60 in 3-8
5. Adrenal 60/8

Interestingly they appear to have mandated that normal tissue tolerances were never to be exceeded but instead the PTV was to be compromised. Not clear if they used TG-101 or something else. Interestingly, some # of fractions above are greater than 5 because the trial was conducted outside of the US.

That brain dose is very high.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Can certainly bring those in line with more common US doses. Don't think it really changes the overall principles.

Lung - 54/3, 50-60/5, 60/8
Bone - 27-30/3, 16-20/1
Brain - 18-24/1, 24-27/3, 30-35/5
Liver - 54/3, 50/5 (decrease as necessary to meet liver constraints)
Adrenal - 50/5
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
On a somewhat related note, can anyone comment (or PM me) about how you bill for sequential SBRT treatments for oligomets? I'm getting conflicting info from our billing folks about how to handle, for example, two consecutive 5-fraction treatments for different lung nodules as SBRT x2 courses vs IMRT x10 fractions.
 
Top