Purpose: Preclinical models have shown that the effectiveness of GL-ONC1, a modified oncolytic vaccinia virus, is enhanced by radiation and chemotherapy. The purpose of this study was to determine the safety of GL-ONC1 when delivered intravenously with chemoradiotherapy to patients with primary, nonmetastatic head and neck cancer.Experimental Design: Patients with locoregionally advanced unresected, nonmetastatic carcinoma of the head/neck, excluding stage III-IVA p16-positive oropharyngeal cancers, were treated with escalating doses and cycles of intravenous GL-ONC1, along with radiotherapy and chemotherapy. The primary aims were to define the MTD and dose-limiting toxicities, and to recommend a dose for phase II trials.Results: Between May 2012 and December 2014, 19 patients were enrolled. The most frequent adverse reactions included grade 1-2 rigors, fever, fatigue, and rash. Grade 3 adverse reactions included hypotension, mucositis, nausea, and vomiting. In 2 patients, the rash was confirmed as viral in origin by fluorescence imaging and viral plaque assay. In 4 patients, viral presence in tumor was confirmed on midtreatment biopsy by quantitative PCR. In 1 patient, live virus was confirmed in a tongue tumor 7 days after receiving the first dose of virus. The MTD was not reached. With median follow-up of 30 months, 1-year (2-year) progression-free survival and overall survival were 74.4% (64.1%) and 84.6% (69.2%), respectively.Conclusions: Delivery of GL-ONC1 is safe and feasible in patients with locoregionally advanced head/neck cancer undergoing standard chemoradiotherapy. A phase II study is warranted to further investigate this novel treatment strategy.

Compared with standard modeling approaches, GCE models improve stratification of elderly patients with cancer according to their risk of dying from cancer relative to overall mortality.

IMPORTANCE Patients with nonmetastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) are primarily treated by radiotherapy with curative intent with or without chemotherapy and often experience substantial treatment-related toxic effects even with modern radiation techniques, such as intensitymodulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) may improve the toxicity profile; however, there is a paucity of data given the limited availability of IMPT in regions with endemic NPC. OBJECTIVE To compare toxic effects and oncologic outcomes among patients with newly diagnosed nonmetastatic NPC when treated with IMPT vs IMRT with or without chemotherapy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis retrospective cohort study included 77 patients with newly diagnosed nonmetastatic NPC who received curative-intent radiotherapy with IMPT or IMRT at a tertiary academic cancer center from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2019. Forty-eight patients with Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-positive tumors were included in a 1:1 propensity score-matched analysis for survival outcomes. The end of the follow-up period was March 31, 2021.EXPOSURES IMPT vs IMRT with or without chemotherapy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe main outcomes were the incidence of acute and chronic treatment-related adverse events (AEs) and oncologic outcomes, including locoregional failure-free survival (LRFS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTSWe identified 77 patients (25 [32.5%] women; 52 [67.5%] men; median [interquartile range] age, 48.7 [42.2-60.3] years), among whom 28 (36.4%) were treated with IMPT and 49(63.6%) were treated with IMRT. Median (interquartile range) follow-up was 30.3 (17.9-41.5) months.On multivariable logistic regression analyses, IMPT was associated with lower likelihood of developing grade 2 or higher acute AEs compared with IMRT (odds ratio [OR], 0.15; 95% CI, 0.03-0.60; P = .01). Only 1 case (3.8%) of a chronic grade 3 or higher AE occurred in the IMPT group compared with 8 cases (16.3%) in the IMRT group (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.01-1.21; P = .15). Propensity score matching generated a balanced cohort of 48 patients (24 IMPT vs 24 IMRT) and found similar PFS in the IMPT and IMRT groups (2-year PFS, 95.7% [95% CI, 87.7%-100%] vs 76.7% [95% CI, 60.7%-97.0%]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.31; 95% CI, 0.07-1.47; P = .14). No locoregional recurrence or death was observed in the IMPT group from the matched cohort. Two-year LRFS was 100% (95% CI, 100%-100%) in the IMPT group and 86.2% (95% CI, 72.8%-100%) in the IMRT group (P = .08).Three-year OS was 100% (95% CI, 100%-100%) in the IMPT group and 94.1% (95% CI, 83.6%-100%) in the IMRT group (P = .42). Smoking history was the only clinical factor significantly (continued) Key Points Question Is intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) associated with fewer treatment-related adverse events and comparable oncologic outcomes for patients with nonmetastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) compared with patients treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)? Findin...