Impact of 18F-Choline PET scan acquisition time on delineation of GTV in prostate cancer [Poster Abstract]

Background: Dose painting radiotherapy requires accurate outlining of primary tumour volumes in the prostate. T2-Weighted (T2W) Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is the best imaging method for defining the gross tumour volume (GTV). Choline positron emission tomography (PET) is currently a controversial tracer. The image acquisition differs significantly in published studies. Many used early static imaging. One study found that 18F-choline PET/CT with late image acquisition has superior accuracy to T2W MR and functional MR alone1. We investigate whether increasing 18F-Choline PET scan acquisition time from 60 (PET-60) to 90 (PET-90) minutes improves GTV TVD. Methods. Analysis was performed on 9 18F-Choline PET scans. Patients were injected with 370MBq of activity. Three clinicians (C1, C2 and C3) independently and without reference to each other contoured GTVs on each of the T2W-MRI, PET-60 and PET-90 scans at differing times. Scans were registered by a clinician using rigid co-registration. The treating clinicians MRI contour was used as a reference contour. The resulting PET and MRI GTVs were transferred to the PET-60 and PET-90 scans after image registration. The Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC), Specificity (Sp) and Sensitivity (S) were calculated from contour mask voxel analysis. Results. Table 1 shows the mean and range DSC, S and Sp scores on MRI, PET-60 and PET-90 for C1, C2 and C3 in comparison to the treating clinicians contour on MRI (C1). A 2 sampled T-test (P < 0.01) showed, no significant difference in the Sp, S and DSC between GTVs on PET-60 and PET-90 scans. Further to this, as shown in Figure 1, variability in GTV delineation is significant between observers in a singular case as well as across imaging modalities. Conclusion. Compared to MRI delineated GTVs, 18F-Choline PET GTVs are significantly different. This study found however that increasing the PET scan acquisition time from 60 to 90 minutes did not improve the performance of GTV TVD in comparison to MRI delineated GTV

Estimates of Alpha/Beta (alpha/beta) Ratios for Individual Late Rectal Toxicity Endpoints: An Analysis of the CHHiP Trial

Purpose: Changes in fraction size of external beam radiation therapy exert nonlinear effects on subsequent toxicity. Commonly described by the linear-quadratic model, fraction size sensitivity of normal tissues is expressed by the α/β ratio. We sought to study individual α/β ratios for different late rectal effects after prostate external beam radiation therapy. Methods and Materials: The CHHiP trial (ISRCTN97182923) randomized men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer 1:1:1 to 74 Gy/37 fractions (Fr), 60 Gy/20 Fr, or 57 Gy/19 Fr. Patients in the study had full dosimetric data and zero baseline toxicity. Toxicity scales were amalgamated to 6 bowel endpoints: bleeding, diarrhea, pain, proctitis, sphincter control, and stricture. Lyman-Kutcher-Burman models with or without equivalent dose in 2 Gy/Fr correction were log-likelihood fitted by endpoint, estimating α/β ratios. The α/β ratio estimate sensitivity was assessed using sequential inclusion of dose modifying factors (DMFs): age, diabetes, hypertension, inflammatory bowel or diverticular disease (IBD/diverticular), and hemorrhoids. 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were bootstrapped. Likelihood ratio testing of 632 estimator log-likelihoods compared the models. Results: Late rectal α/β ratio estimates (without DMF) ranged from bleeding (G1 + α/β = 1.6 Gy; 95% CI, 0.9-2.5 Gy) to sphincter control (G1 + α/β = 3.1 Gy; 95% CI, 1.4-9.1 Gy). Bowel pain modelled poorly (α/β, 3.6 Gy; 95% CI, 0.0-840 Gy). Inclusion of IBD/diverticular disease as a DMF significantly improved fits for stool frequency G2+ (P = .00041) and proctitis G1+ (P = .00046). However, the α/β ratios were similar in these no-DMF versus DMF models for both stool frequency G2+ (α/β 2.7 Gy vs 2.5 Gy) and proctitis G1+ (α/β 2.7 Gy vs 2.6 Gy). Frequency-weighted averaging of endpoint α/β ratios produced: G1 + α/β ratio = 2.4 Gy; G2 + α/β ratio = 2.3 Gy. Conclusions: We estimated α/β ratios for several common late adverse effects of rectal radiation therapy. When comparing dose-fractionation schedules, we suggest using late a rectal α/β ratio ≤ 3 Gy

Genitourinary α/β Ratios in the CHHiP Trial the Fraction Size Sensitivity of Late Genitourinary Toxicity: Analysis of Alpha/Beta (α/β) Ratios in the CHHiP Trial

PURPOSE: Moderately hypofractionated external beam intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer is now standard-of-care. Normal tissue toxicity responses to fraction size alteration are non-linear: the linear-quadratic model is a widely-used framework accounting for this, through the α/β ratio. Few α/β ratio estimates exist for human late genitourinary endpoints; here we provide estimates derived from a hypofractionation trial. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The XXXXXX trial randomised 3216 men with localised prostate cancer 1:1:1 between conventionally fractionated IMRT (74Gy/37 fractions (Fr)) and two moderately hypofractionated regimens (60Gy/20Fr & 57Gy/19Fr). Radiotherapy plan and suitable follow-up assessment was available for 2206 men. Three prospectively assessed clinician-reported toxicity scales were amalgamated for common genitourinary endpoints: Dysuria, Haematuria, Incontinence, Reduced flow/Stricture, Urine Frequency. Per endpoint, only patients with baseline zero toxicity were included. Three models for endpoint grade ≥1 (G1+) and G2+ toxicity were fitted: Lyman Kutcher-Burman (LKB) without equivalent dose in 2Gy/Fr (EQD2) correction [LKB-NoEQD2]; LKB with EQD2-correction [LKB-EQD2]; LKB-EQD2 with dose-modifying-factor (DMF) inclusion [LKB-EQD2-DMF]. DMFs were: age, diabetes, hypertension, pelvic surgery, prior transurethral resection of prostate (TURP), overall treatment time and acute genitourinary toxicity (G2+). Bootstrapping generated 95% confidence intervals and unbiased performance estimates. Models were compared by likelihood ratio test. RESULTS: The LKB-EQD2 model significantly improved performance over LKB-NoEQD2 for just three endpoints: Dysuria G1+ (α/β=2.0 Gy, 95%CI 1.2-3.2Gy), Haematuria G1+ (α/β=0.9 Gy, 95%CI 0.1-2.2Gy) and Haematuria G2+ (α/β=0.6Gy, 95%CI 0.1-1.7Gy). For these three endpoints, further incorporation of two DMFs improved on LKB-EQD2: acute genitourinary toxicity and Prior TURP (Haematuria G1+ only), but α/β ratio estimates remained stable. CONCLUSIONS: Inclusion of EQD2-correction significantly improved model fitting for Dysuria and Haematuria endpoints, where fitted α/β ratio estimates were low: 0.6-2 Gy. This suggests therapeutic gain for clinician-reported GU toxicity, through hypofractionation, might be lower than expected by typical late α/β ratio assumptions of 3-5 Gy

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

Hypofractionated breast radiotherapy for 1 week versus 3 weeks (FAST-Forward): 5-year efficacy and late normal tissue effects results from a multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to identify a five-fraction schedule of adjuvant radiotherapy (radiation therapy) delivered in 1 week that is non-inferior in terms of local cancer control and is as safe as an international standard 15-fraction regimen after primary surgery for early breast cancer. Here, we present 5-year results of the FAST-Forward trial. METHODS: FAST-Forward is a multicentre, phase 3, randomised, non-inferiority trial done at 97 hospitals (47 radiotherapy centres and 50 referring hospitals) in the UK. Patients aged at least 18 years with invasive carcinoma of the breast (pT1-3, pN0-1, M0) after breast conservation surgery or mastectomy were eligible. We randomly allocated patients to either 40 Gy in 15 fractions (over 3 weeks), 27 Gy in five fractions (over 1 week), or 26 Gy in five fractions (over 1 week) to the whole breast or chest wall. Allocation was not masked because of the nature of the intervention. The primary endpoint was ipsilateral breast tumour relapse; assuming a 2% 5-year incidence for 40 Gy, non-inferiority was predefined as ≤1·6% excess for five-fraction schedules (critical hazard ratio [HR] of 1·81). Normal tissue effects were assessed by clinicians, patients, and from photographs. This trial is registered at isrctn.com, ISRCTN19906132. FINDINGS: Between Nov 24, 2011, and June 19, 2014, we recruited and obtained consent from 4096 patients from 97 UK centres, of whom 1361 were assigned to the 40 Gy schedule, 1367 to the 27 Gy schedule, and 1368 to the 26 Gy schedule. At a median follow-up of 71·5 months (IQR 71·3 to 71·7), the primary endpoint event occurred in 79 patients (31 in the 40 Gy group, 27 in the 27 Gy group, and 21 in the 26 Gy group); HRs versus 40 Gy in 15 fractions were 0·86 (95% CI 0·51 to 1·44) for 27 Gy in five fractions and 0·67 (0·38 to 1·16) for 26 Gy in five fractions. 5-year incidence of ipsilateral breast tumour relapse after 40 Gy was 2·1% (1·4 to 3·1); estimated absolute differences versus 40 Gy in 15 fractions were -0·3% (-1·0 to 0·9) for 27 Gy in five fractions (probability of incorrectly accepting an inferior five-fraction schedule: p=0·0022 vs 40 Gy in 15 fractions) and -0·7% (-1·3 to 0·3) for 26 Gy in five fractions (p=0·00019 vs 40 Gy in 15 fractions). At 5 years, any moderate or marked clinician-assessed normal tissue effects in the breast or chest wall was reported for 98 of 986 (9·9%) 40 Gy patients, 155 (15·4%) of 1005 27 Gy patients, and 121 of 1020 (11·9%) 26 Gy patients. Across all clinician assessments from 1-5 years, odds ratios versus 40 Gy in 15 fractions were 1·55 (95% CI 1·32 to 1·83, p<0·0001) for 27 Gy in five fractions and 1·12 (0·94 to 1·34, p=0·20) for 26 Gy in five fractions. Patient and photographic assessments showed higher normal tissue effect risk for 27 Gy versus 40 Gy but not for 26 Gy versus 40 Gy. INTERPRETATION: 26 Gy in five fractions over 1 week is non-inferior to the standard of 40 Gy in 15 fractions over 3 weeks for local tumour control, and is as safe in terms of normal tissue effects up to 5 years for patients prescribed adjuvant local radiotherapy after primary surgery for early-stage breast cancer. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme

Sequencing of Androgen-Deprivation Therapy of Short Duration With Radiotherapy for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer (SANDSTORM): A Pooled Analysis of 12 Randomized Trials

PURPOSE: The sequencing of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) with radiotherapy (RT) may affect outcomes for prostate cancer in an RT-field size-dependent manner. Herein, we investigate the impact of ADT sequencing for men receiving ADT with prostate-only RT (PORT) or whole-pelvis RT (WPRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individual patient data from 12 randomized trials that included patients receiving neoadjuvant/concurrent or concurrent/adjuvant short-term ADT (4-6 months) with RT for localized disease were obtained from the Meta-Analysis of Randomized trials in Cancer of the Prostate consortium. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was performed with propensity scores derived from age, initial prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, T stage, RT dose, and mid-trial enrollment year. Metastasis-free survival (primary end point) and overall survival (OS) were assessed by IPTW-adjusted Cox regression models, analyzed independently for men receiving PORT versus WPRT. IPTW-adjusted Fine and Gray competing risk models were built to evaluate distant metastasis (DM) and prostate cancer-specific mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 7,409 patients were included (6,325 neoadjuvant/concurrent and 1,084 concurrent/adjuvant) with a median follow-up of 10.2 years (interquartile range, 7.2-14.9 years). A significant interaction between ADT sequencing and RT field size was observed for all end points (P interaction < .02 for all) except OS. With PORT (n = 4,355), compared with neoadjuvant/concurrent ADT, concurrent/adjuvant ADT was associated with improved metastasis-free survival (10-year benefit 8.0%, hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.79; P < .0001), DM (subdistribution HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.82; P = .0046), prostate cancer-specific mortality (subdistribution HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.54; P < .0001), and OS (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.83; P = .0001). However, in patients receiving WPRT (n = 3,049), no significant difference in any end point was observed in regard to ADT sequencing except for worse DM (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.20 to 2.05; P = .0009) with concurrent/adjuvant ADT. CONCLUSION: ADT sequencing exhibits a significant impact on clinical outcomes with a significant interaction with field size. Concurrent/adjuvant ADT should be the standard of care where short-term ADT is indicated in combination with PORT

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone for metastatic patients starting hormone therapy: 5-year follow-up results from the STAMPEDE randomised trial (NCT00268476)

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone (AAP) previously demonstrated improved survival in STAMPEDE, a multiarm, multistage platform trial in men starting long-term hormone therapy for prostate cancer. This long-term analysis in metastatic patients was planned for 3 years after the first results. Standard-of-care (SOC) was androgen deprivation therapy. The comparison randomised patients 1:1 to SOC-alone with or without daily abiraterone acetate 1000 mg + prednisolone 5 mg (SOC + AAP), continued until disease progression. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. Metastatic disease risk group was classified retrospectively using baseline CT and bone scans by central radiological review and pathology reports. Analyses used Cox proportional hazards and flexible parametric models, accounting for baseline stratification factors. One thousand and three patients were contemporaneously randomised (November 2011 to January 2014): median age 67 years; 94% newly-diagnosed; metastatic disease risk group: 48% high, 44% low, 8% unassessable; median PSA 97 ng/mL. At 6.1 years median follow-up, 329 SOC-alone deaths (118 low-risk, 178 high-risk) and 244 SOC + AAP deaths (75 low-risk, 145 high-risk) were reported. Adjusted HR = 0.60 (95% CI: 0.50-0.71; P = 0.31 × 10−9) favoured SOC + AAP, with 5-years survival improved from 41% SOC-alone to 60% SOC + AAP. This was similar in low-risk (HR = 0.55; 95% CI: 0.41-0.76) and high-risk (HR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.43-0.69) patients. Median and current maximum time on SOC + AAP was 2.4 and 8.1 years. Toxicity at 4 years postrandomisation was similar, with 16% patients in each group reporting grade 3 or higher toxicity. A sustained and substantial improvement in overall survival of all metastatic prostate cancer patients was achieved with SOC + abiraterone acetate + prednisolone, irrespective of metastatic disease risk group

Dose-escalated Adaptive Radiotherapy for Bladder Cancer: Results of the Phase 2 RAIDER Randomised Controlled Trial

Delivering radiotherapy to the bladder is challenging as it is a mobile, deformable structure. Dose-escalated adaptive image-guided radiotherapy could improve outcomes. RAIDER aimed to demonstrate the safety of such a schedule. RAIDER is an international phase 2 noncomparative randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN26779187). Patients with unifocal T2-T4a urothelial bladder cancer were randomised (1:1:2) to standard whole bladder radiotherapy (WBRT), standard-dose adaptive radiotherapy (SART), or dose-escalated adaptive radiotherapy (DART). Two fractionation (f) schedules recruited independently. WBRT and SART dose was 55 Gy/20f or 64 Gy/32f, and DART dose was 60 Gy/20f or 70 Gy/32f. For SART and DART, a radiotherapy plan (small, medium, or large) was chosen daily. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with radiotherapy-related late Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade ≥3 toxicity; the trial was designed to rule out >20% toxicity with DART. A total of 345 patients were randomised between October 2015 and April 2020: 41/46 WBRT, 41/46 SART, and 81/90 DART patients in the 20f/32f cohorts, respectively. The median age was 72/73 yr; 78%/85% had T2 tumours, 46%/52% had neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and 70%/71% had radiosensitising therapy. The median follow-up was 42.1/38.2 mo. Sixty-six of 77 (86%) 20f and 74 of 82 (90%) 32f participants planned for DART met the mandatory medium plan dose constraints. Radiotherapy-related grade ≥3 toxicity was reported in one of 58 patients (90% confidence interval [CI] 0.1, 7.9) with 20f DART and zero of 56 patients with 32f DART. Two-year overall survival was 77% (95% CI 69, 82) for WBRT + SART and 80% (95% CI 73, 85) for DART (hazard ratio = 0.84, 95% CI 0.59, 1.21, p = 0.4). Thirteen of 345 (3.8%) participants had salvage cystectomy. Grade ≥3 late toxicity was low. DART was safe and feasible to deliver, meeting preset toxicity thresholds. Disease-related outcomes are promising for dose-escalated treatments, with a low salvage cystectomy rate and overall survival similar to that seen in cystectomy cohorts

Multiple novel prostate cancer susceptibility signals identified by fine-mapping of known risk loci among Europeans

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified numerous common prostate cancer (PrCa) susceptibility loci. We have fine-mapped 64 GWAS regions known at the conclusion of the iCOGS study using large-scale genotyping and imputation in 25 723 PrCa cases and 26 274 controls of European ancestry. We detected evidence for multiple independent signals at 16 regions, 12 of which contained additional newly identified significant associations. A single signal comprising a spectrum of correlated variation was observed at 39 regions; 35 of which are now described by a novel more significantly associated lead SNP, while the originally reported variant remained as the lead SNP only in 4 regions. We also confirmed two association signals in Europeans that had been previously reported only in East-Asian GWAS. Based on statistical evidence and linkage disequilibrium (LD) structure, we have curated and narrowed down the list of the most likely candidate causal variants for each region. Functional annotation using data from ENCODE filtered for PrCa cell lines and eQTL analysis demonstrated significant enrichment for overlap with bio-features within this set. By incorporating the novel risk variants identified here alongside the refined data for existing association signals, we estimate that these loci now explain ∼38.9% of the familial relative risk of PrCa, an 8.9% improvement over the previously reported GWAS tag SNPs. This suggests that a significant fraction of the heritability of PrCa may have been hidden during the discovery phase of GWAS, in particular due to the presence of multiple independent signals within the same regio