for the Stereotactic Ablative Fractionated Radiotherapy Versus Radiosurgery for Oligometastatic Neoplasia to the Lung (SAFRON) II Study Investigators IMPORTANCE Evidence is lacking from randomized clinical trials to guide the optimal approach for stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) in patients with pulmonary oligometastases.OBJECTIVE To assess whether single-fraction or multifraction SABR is more effective for the treatment of patients with pulmonary oligometastases.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This multicenter, unblinded, phase 2 randomized clinical trial of 90 patients across 13 centers in Australia and New Zealand enrolled patients with 1 to 3 lung oligometastases less than or equal to 5 cm from any nonhematologic malignant tumors located away from the central airways, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1, and all primary and extrathoracic disease controlled with local therapy. Enrollment was from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2018, with a minimum patient follow-up of 2 years.INTERVENTIONS Single fraction of 28 Gy (single-fraction arm) or 4 fractions of 12 Gy (multifraction arm) to each oligometastasis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe main outcome was grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurring within 1 year of SABR. Secondary outcomes were freedom from local failure, overall survival, disease-free survival, and patient-reported outcomes (MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Lung Cancer and EuroQol 5-dimension visual analog scale).RESULTS Ninety participants were randomized, of whom 87 were treated for 133 pulmonary oligometastases. The mean (SD) age was 66.6 [11.6] years; 58 (64%) were male. Median follow-up was 36.5 months (interquartile range, 24.8-43.9 months). The numbers of grade 3 or higher AEs related to treatment at 1 year were 2 (5%; 80% CI, 1%-13%) in the single-fraction arm and 1 (3%; 80% CI, 0%-10%) in the multifraction arm, with no significant difference observed between arms. One grade 5 AE occurred in the multifraction arm. No significant differences were found between the multifraction arm and single-fraction arm for freedom from local failure (hazard ratio [HR], 0.5; 95% CI, 0.2-1.3; P = .13), overall survival (HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 0.6-3.7; P = .44), or disease-free survival (HR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.6-1.6; P > .99). There were no significant differences observed in patient-reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this randomized clinical trial, neither arm demonstrated evidence of superior safety, efficacy, or symptom burden; however, single-fraction SABR is more efficient to deliver. Therefore, single-fraction SABR, as assessed by the most acceptable outcome profile from all end points, could be chosen to escalate to future studies.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Since the early days of megavoltage Radiation Therapy (RT), the potential of delivering treatment to a sub group of patients in an upright position has been recognized. Compared to lying horizontally, treating patients in an upright position offers potential benefits in terms of patient comfort especially for patients experiencing dyspnoea and saliva accumulation when lying down. Dosimetric benefits can also be gained from changes in the volume and location of lungs and heart in an upright position, which are potentially advantageous for clinical situations including Hodgkin's disease, lung and breast malignancies. Since the 1950's, upright stabilization mechanisms have ranged from standalone chair based apparatus to couch-top attachments with increasingly customizable solutions. The introduction of Computed-Tomography (CT) based three-dimensional (3D) dosimetry in the 1980's−90's necessitated image acquisition in a horizontal position (supine or prone), significantly reducing options for alternative patient positioning and upright techniques. Despite this, upright techniques have still been utilized where clinically indicated for palliative and novel approaches often involving non-standard treatment scenarios. More recently, a small number of centers have reported on specialized equipment capable of acquiring planning data with the patient in a vertical position. The possibility of acquiring planning quality Cone Beam CT (CBCT) on linear accelerators has recently reinvigorated the potential to deliver highly accurate and targeted treatments to patients in an upright position. This paper reflects on the historical applications of upright RT and explores new possibilities for this technology in modern RT departments.