Toxicity and patient-reported outcomes of a phase 2 randomized trial of prostate and pelvic lymph node versus prostate only radiotherapy in advanced localised prostate cancer (PIVOTAL)

Purpose To establish the toxicity profile of high-dose pelvic lymph node intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and to assess whether it is safely deliverable at multiple centers. Methods and Materials In this phase 2 noncomparative multicenter trial, 124 patients with locally advanced, high-risk prostate cancer were randomized between prostate-only IMRT (PO) (74 Gy/37 fractions) and prostate and pelvic lymph node IMRT (P&P; 74 Gy/37 fractions to prostate, 60 Gy/37 fractions to pelvis). The primary endpoint was acute lower gastrointestinal (GI) Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) toxicity at week 18, aiming to exclude a grade 2 or greater (G2+) toxicity-free rate of 80% in the P&P group. Key secondary endpoints included patient-reported outcomes and late toxicity. Results One hundred twenty-four participants were randomized (62 PO, 62 P&P) from May 2011 to March 2013. Median follow-up was 37.6 months (interquartile range [IQR], 35.4-38.9 months). Participants had a median age of 69 years (IQR, 64-74 years) and median diagnostic prostate-specific androgen level of 21.6 ng/mL (IQR, 11.8-35.1 ng/mL). At week 18, G2+ lower GI toxicity-free rates were 59 of 61 (96.7%; 90% confidence interval [CI], 90.0-99.4) for the PO group and 59 of 62 (95.2%; 90% CI, 88.0-98.7) for the P&P group. Patients in both groups reported similarly low Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire symptoms and Vaizey incontinence scores. The largest difference occurred at week 6 with 4 of 61 (7%) and 16 of 61 (26%) PO and P&P patients, respectively, experiencing G2+ toxicity. At 2 years, the cumulative proportion of RTOG G2+ GI toxicity was 16.9% (95% CI, 8.9%-30.9%) for the PO group and 24.0% (95% CI, 8.4%-57.9%) for the P&P group; in addition, RTOG G2+ bladder toxicity was 5.1% (95% CI, 1.7%-14.9%) for the PO group and 5.6% (95% CI, 1.8%-16.7%) for the P&P group. Conclusions PIVOTAL demonstrated that high-dose pelvic lymph node IMRT can be delivered at multiple centers with a modest side effect profile. Although safety data from the present study are encouraging, the impact of P&P IMRT on disease control remains to be established

A multicentre study of the evidence for customized margins in photon breast boost radiotherapy

Objective:To determine if subsets of patients may benefit from smaller or larger margins when using laser setup and bony anatomy verification of breast tumour bed (TB) boost radiotherapy (RT).Methods: Verification imaging data acquired using cone-beam CT, megavoltage CT or two-dimensional kilovoltage imaging on 218 patients were used (1574 images). TB setup errors for laser-only setup (dlaser) and for bony anatomy verification (dbone) were determined using clips implanted into the TB as a gold standard for the TB position. Cases were grouped by centre-, patient- and treatment-related factors, including breast volume, TB position, seroma visibility and surgical technique. Systematic (?) and random (?) TB setup errors were compared between groups, and TB planning target volume margins (MTB) were calculated.Results: For the study population, ?laser was between 2.8 and 3.4?mm, and ?bone was between 2.2 and 2.6?mm, respectively. Females with larger breasts (p?=?0.03), easily visible seroma (p???0.02) and open surgical technique (p???0.04) had larger ?laser. ?bone was larger for females with larger breasts (p?=?0.02) and lateral tumours (p?=?0.04). Females with medial tumours (p?<?0.01) had smaller ?bone.Conclusion:If clips are not used, margins should be 8 and 10?mm for bony anatomy verification and laser setup, respectively. Individualization of TB margins may be considered based on breast volume, TB and seroma visibility.Advances in knowledge:Setup accuracy using lasers and bony anatomy is influenced by patient and treatment factors. Some patients may benefit from clip-based image guidance more than others

A national dosimetry audit for stereotactic ablative radiotherapy in lung

Background and purpose: A UK national dosimetry audit was carried out to assess the accuracy of Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy (SABR) lung treatment delivery. Methods and materials: This mail-based audit used an anthropomorphic thorax phantom containing nine alanine pellets positioned in the lung region for dosimetry, as well as EBT3 film in the axial plane for isodose comparison. Centres used their local planning protocol/technique, creating 27 SABR plans. A range of delivery techniques including conformal, volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and Cyberknife (CK) were used with six different calculation algorithms (collapsed cone, superposition, pencil-beam (PB), AAA, Acuros and Monte Carlo). Results: The mean difference between measured and calculated dose (excluding PB results) was 0.4 ± 1.4% for alanine and 1.4 ± 3.4% for film. PB differences were �6.1% and �12.9% respectively. The median of the absolute maximum isodose-to-isodose distances was 3 mm (�6 mm to 7 mm) and 5 mm (�10 mm to +19 mm) for the 100% and 50% isodose lines respectively. Conclusions: Alanine and film is an effective combination for verifying dosimetric and geometric accuracy. There were some differences across dose algorithms, and geometric accuracy was better for VMAT and CK compared with conformal techniques. The alanine dosimetry results showed that planned and delivered doses were within ±3.0% for 25/27 SABR plans

Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: preliminary safety results from the CHHiP randomised controlled trial

<p>Background: Prostate cancer might have high radiation-fraction sensitivity, implying a therapeutic advantage of hypofractionated treatment. We present a pre-planned preliminary safety analysis of side-effects in stages 1 and 2 of a randomised trial comparing standard and hypofractionated radiotherapy.</p> <p>Methods: We did a multicentre, randomised study and recruited men with localised prostate cancer between Oct 18, 2002, and Aug 12, 2006, at 11 UK centres. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive conventional or hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radio therapy, and all were given with 3-6 months of neoadjuvant androgen suppression. Computer-generated random permuted blocks were used, with risk of seminal vesicle involvement and radiotherapy-treatment centre as stratification factors. The conventional schedule was 37 fractions of 2 Gy to a total of 74 Gy. The two hypofractionated schedules involved 3 Gy treatments given in either 20 fractions to a total of 60 Gy, or 19 fractions to a total of 57 Gy. The primary endpoint was proportion of patients with grade 2 or worse toxicity at 2 years on the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) scale. The primary analysis included all patients who had received at least one fraction of radiotherapy and completed a 2 year assessment. Treatment allocation was not masked and clinicians were not blinded. Stage 3 of this trial completed the planned recruitment in June, 2011. This study is registered, number ISRCTN97182923.</p> <p>Findings: 153 men recruited to stages 1 and 2 were randomly assigned to receive conventional treatment of 74 Gy, 153 to receive 60 Gy, and 151 to receive 57 Gy. With 50.5 months median follow-up (IQR 43.5-61.3), six (4.3%; 95% CI 1.6-9.2) of 138 men in the 74 Gy group had bowel toxicity of grade 2 or worse on the RTOG scale at 2 years, as did five (3.6%; 1.2-8.3) of 137 men in the 60 Gy group, and two (1.4%; 0.2-5.0) of 143 men in the 57 Gy group. For bladder toxicities, three (2.2%; 0.5-6.2) of 138 men, three (2.2%; 0.5-6.3) of 137, and none (0.0%; 97.5% CI 0.0-2.6) of 143 had scores of grade 2 or worse on the RTOG scale at 2 years.</p> <p>Interpretation: Hypofractionated high-dose radiotherapy seems equally well tolerated as conventionally fractionated treatment at 2 years.</p&gt

A multicentre observational study evaluating image-guided radiotherapy for more accurate partial-breast intensity-modulated radiotherapy: comparison with standard imaging technique

Background: Whole-breast radiotherapy (WBRT) is the standard treatment for breast cancer following breast-conserving surgery. Evidence shows that tumour recurrences occur near the original cancer: the tumour bed. New treatment developments include increasing dose to the tumour bed during WBRT (synchronous integrated boost) and irradiating only the region around the tumour bed, for patients at high and low risk of tumour recurrence, respectively. Currently, standard imaging uses bony anatomy to ensure accurate delivery of WBRT. It is debatable whether or not more targeted treatments such as synchronous integrated boost and partial-breast radiotherapy require image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) focusing on implanted tumour bed clips (clip-based IGRT). Objectives: Primary – to compare accuracy of patient set-up using standard imaging compared with clip-based IGRT. Secondary – comparison of imaging techniques using (1) tumour bed radiotherapy safety margins, (2) volume of breast tissue irradiated around tumour bed, (3) estimated breast toxicity following development of a normal tissue control probability model and (4) time taken. Design: Multicentre observational study embedded within a national randomised trial: IMPORT-HIGH (Intensity Modulated and Partial Organ Radiotherapy – HIGHer-risk patient group) testing synchronous integrated boost and using clip-based IGRT. Setting: Five radiotherapy departments, participating in IMPORT-HIGH. Participants: Two-hundred and eighteen patients receiving breast radiotherapy within IMPORT-HIGH. Interventions: There was no direct intervention in patients’ treatment. Experimental and control intervention were clip-based IGRT and standard imaging, respectively. IMPORT-HIGH patients received clip-based IGRT as routine; standard imaging data were obtained from clip-based IGRT images. Main outcome measures: Difference in (1) set-up errors, (2) safety margins, (3) volume of breast tissue irradiated, (4) breast toxicity and (5) time, between clip-based IGRT and standard imaging. Results: The primary outcome of overall mean difference in clip-based IGRT and standard imaging using daily set-up errors was 2–2.6 mm (p < 0.001). Heterogeneity testing between centres found a statistically significant difference in set-up errors at one centre. For four centres (179 patients), clip-based IGRT gave a mean decrease in the systematic set-up error of between 1 mm and 2 mm compared with standard imaging. Secondary outcomes were as follows: clip-based IGRT and standard imaging safety margins were less than 5 mm and 8 mm, respectively. Using clip-based IGRT, the median volume of tissue receiving 95% of prescribed boost dose decreased by 29 cm3 (range 11–193 cm3) compared with standard imaging. Difference in median time required to perform clip-based IGRT compared with standard imaging was X-ray imaging technique dependent (range 8–76 seconds). It was not possible to estimate differences in breast toxicity, the normal tissue control probability model indicated that for breast fibrosis maximum radiotherapy dose is more important than volume of tissue irradiated. Conclusions and implications for clinical practice: Margins of less than 8 mm cannot be used safely without clip-based IGRT for patients receiving concomitant tumour bed boost, as there is a risk of geographical miss of the tumour bed being treated. In principle, smaller but accurately placed margins may influence local control and toxicity rates, but this needs to be evaluated from mature clinical trial data in the future. Funding: This project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme, a MRC and NIHR partnership