An international survey on liver metastases radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: An international survey of radiation therapy (RT) of liver metastases was undertaken by the Liver Cancer Workgroup of the Third International Consensus on Metastases Workshop at the 2010 American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) meeting. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Canadian, European, Australian, New Zealand and American centers participated in this online survey. The survey had four objectives: 1) to describe the practice patterns for RT of liver metastases; 2) to report on the use of low-dose RT for symptomatic liver metastases; 3) to report on the use of technology; and 4) to describe the regional differences in the management of liver metastases. RESULTS: A total of 69 individuals treating liver metastases with radiotherapy responded to the survey. Regional response rates ranged from 39% to 50%. The primary professional affiliation of all respondents was evenly distributed amongst ASTRO, CARO, ESTRO and TROG/RANZCR. A 36% increase in the average annual number of referrals over the past five years is reported. The majority of referrals were for radical RT. The most common technologies used were 4D-CT (61%), SBRT (55%), IGRT (50%), and/or IMRT (28%). A uniform treatment approach was not found. The most commonly employed radical regimens were 45 Gy in 3 fractions, 40-50 Gy in 5 fractions, and 45 Gy in 15 fractions. Palliative regimens included 20 Gy in 5 fractions, 30 Gy in 10 fractions, 8 Gy in 1 fraction, and 10 Gy in 2 fractions. CONCLUSIONS: This survey suggests radiation oncologists will be seeing more referrals for liver RT. The majority of experience in liver metastases RT is with radical SBRT for focal metastases rather than low-dose palliative RT for symptom control. There is significant variation in technology utilization and dose regimens. Prospective studies or registries may allow for comparison of regimens and identification of parameters to optimize patient selection.

Quality of Life Implications of Dose-Escalated External Beam Radiation for Localized Prostate Cancer: Results of a Prospective Randomized Phase 3 Clinical Trial, NRG/RTOG 0126.

PURPOSE: External beam radiation therapy (EBRT) dose escalation has been tested in multiple prospective trials. However, the impact on patient reported outcomes (PROs) associated with higher doses of EBRT remain poorly understood. We sought to assess the differences in PROs between men treated with a dose of 70.2 Gy versus 79.2 Gy of EBRT for prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The phase 3 clinical trial RTOG 0126 randomized 1532 patients with prostate cancer between March 2002 and August 2008 to 79.2 Gy over 44 fractions versus 70.2 Gy over 39 fractions. Eligible patients participated in the PRO data collection. PROs completed included the International Index of Erectile Function Questionnaire (IIEF), Functional Alterations due to Changes in Elimination (FACE), and the Spitzer Quality of Life Index (SQLI). The timepoints for the IIEF were collected pre-entry and at 6, 12, and 24 months. The FACE and SQLI were collected pre-entry and at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. The impact of EBRT dose to normal structures (penile bulb, rectum, and bladder) on PROs was also examined. Mixed effects models were used to analyze trends across time. RESULTS: In total, 1144 patients completed baseline IIEF forms and of these, 56%, 64%, and 61% completed the IIEF at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively; 1123 patients completed the FACE score at baseline and 50%, 61%, 73%, 61%, and 65% completed all 15 items for the FACE metric at timepoints of 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, respectively. Erectile dysfunction at 12 months based on the single question was not significantly different between arms (38.1% for the standard dose radiation therapy arm vs 49.7% for the dose escalated radiation therapy arm; P = .051). Treatment arm (70.2 vs 79.2) had no significant impact on any PRO metrics measured across all collected domains. Comprehensive dosimetric analyses are presented and reveal multiple significant differences to regional organs at risk. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with PRO data collection was lower than anticipated in this phase 3 trial. Examining the available data, dose escalated EBRT did not appear to be associated with any detriment to PROs across numerous prospectively collected domains. These data, notwithstanding limitations, add to our understanding of the implications of EBRT dose escalation in prostate cancer. Furthermore, these results illustrate challenges associated with PRO data collection.

Patterns of Failure Observed in the 2-Step Institution Credentialing Process for NRG Oncology/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 1005 (NCT01349322) and Lessons Learned.

PURPOSE: To investigate patterns of failure in institutional credentialing submissions to NRG/RTOG 1005 with the aim of improving the quality and consistency for future breast cancer protocols. METHODS AND MATERIALS: NRG/RTOG 1005 allowed the submission of 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT), intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) breast plans. Credentialing required institutions to pass a 2-step quality assurance (QA) process: (1) benchmark, requiring institutions to create a plan with no unacceptable deviations and ≤1 acceptable variation among the dose volume (DV) criteria, and (2) rapid review, requiring each institution's first protocol submission to have no unacceptable deviations among the DV criteria or contours. Overall rates, number of resubmissions, and reasons for resubmission were analyzed for each QA step. RESULTS: In total, 352 institutions participated in benchmark QA and 280 patients enrolled had rapid review QA. Benchmark initial failure rates were similar for 3DCRT (18%), IMRT (17%), and SIB (18%) plans. For 3DCRT and IMRT benchmark plans, ipsilateral lung most frequently failed the DV criteria, and SIB DV failures were seen most frequently for the heart. Rapid review contour initial failures (35%) were due to target rather than organs at risk. For 29% of the rapid review initial failures, the planning target volume boost eval volume was deemed an unacceptable deviation. CONCLUSIONS: The review of the benchmark and rapid review QA submissions indicates that acceptable variations or unacceptable deviations for the ipsilateral lung and heart dose constraints were the most commonly observed cause of benchmark QA failure, and unacceptable deviations in target contouring, rather than normal structure contouring, were the most common cause of rapid review QA failure. These findings suggest that a rigorous QA process is necessary for high quality and homogeneity in radiation therapy in multi-institutional trials of breast cancer to ensure that the benefits of radiation therapy far outweigh the risks.

The Utility of Penile Bulb Contouring to Localise the Prostate Apex as Compared to Urethrography.

PURPOSE: High-precision radiotherapy relies on accurate anatomic localisation. Urethrography is often used to localise the prostatic apex. However, urethrography is an invasive localisation procedure and may introduce a systemic error. The penile bulb (PB) is contoured to minimise the risk of erectile dysfunction. The purpose of this study is to assess the value of using the PB, as an alternative to urethrography, to localise the prostate. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The PB was localised on 10 patients treated with simplified intensity-modulated arc radiotherapy at computed tomography simulation during treatment weeks 1 and 7. All patients underwent placement of fiducial markers. Urethrography was used only at simulation. Distances from the superior PB contour to the inferior prostate contour, the apex fiducial marker, and to the inferior prostate contour were obtained as well. The PB was contoured by two observers independently. Agreement coefficients and analysis of variance were used to assess reliability between rates and consistency of measurements over time. RESULTS: The PB-apex distance was greater than or equal to the urethrogram-apex distance in 24/30 (80%) measurements, and the median difference was 3 mm and was consistent between raters. The greatest variation in PB-IM distance between weeks was 6 mm, the median was 3 mm, and the agreements of measurements between weeks for raters 1 and 2 were 0.79 and 0.69, respectively. These differences were not statistically different and were consistent with the computed tomography slice thickness. CONCLUSIONS: The PB can be used to identify the prostate apex and can be reliably contoured between observers. Measurements are consistent between patients and through the duration of treatment. The PB distance measurements support studies indicating that urethrography causes a shift of the prostate superiorly. The distance from the PB to prostate apex remains stable during treatment for individual patients but varies between patients.

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Current Trends and Controversies.

Hepatocellular carcinoma is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Depending on the extent of disease and competing comorbidities for mortality, multiple liver-directed therapy options exist for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Advancements in radiation oncology have led to the emergence of stereotactic body radiation therapy as a promising liver-directed therapy, which delivers high doses of radiation with a steep dose gradient to maximize local tumor control and minimize radiation-induced treatment toxicity. In this study, we review the current clinical data as well as the unresolved issues and controversies regarding stereotactic body radiation therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: (1) Is there a radiation dose-response relationship with hepatocellular carcinoma? (2) What are the optimal dosimetric predictors of radiation-induced liver disease, and do they differ for patients with varying liver function? (3) How do we assess treatment response on imaging? (4) How does stereotactic body radiation therapy compare to other liver-directed therapy modalities, including proton beam therapy? Based on the current literature discussed, this review highlights future possible research and clinical directions.

Effect of Standard vs Dose-Escalated Radiation Therapy for Patients With Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: The NRG Oncology RTOG 0126 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Optimizing radiation therapy techniques for localized prostate cancer can affect patient outcomes. Dose escalation improves biochemical control, but no prior trials were powered to detect overall survival (OS) differences. Objective: To determine whether radiation dose escalation to 79.2 Gy compared with 70.2 Gy would improve OS and other outcomes in prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: The NRG Oncology/RTOG 0126 randomized clinical trial randomized 1532 patients from 104 North American Radiation Therapy Oncology Group institutions March 2002 through August 2008. Men with stage cT1b to T2b, Gleason score 2 to 6, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of 10 or greater and less than 20 or Gleason score of 7 and PSA less than 15 received 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy or intensity-modulated radiation therapy to 79.2 Gy in 44 fractions or 70.2 Gy in 39 fractions. Main Outcomes and Measures: Time to OS measured from randomization to death due to any cause. American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO)/Phoenix definitions were used for biochemical failure. Acute (≤90 days of treatment start) and late radiation therapy toxic effects (>90 days) were graded using the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria, version 2.0, and the RTOG/European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Late Radiation Morbidity Scoring Scheme, respectively. Results: With a median follow-up of 8.4 (range, 0.02-13.0) years in 1499 patients (median [range] age, 71 [33-87] years; 70% had PSA <10 ng/mL, 84% Gleason score of 7, 57% T1 disease), there was no difference in OS between the 751 men in the 79.2-Gy arm and the 748 men in the 70.2-Gy arm. The 8-year rates of OS were 76% with 79.2 Gy and 75% with 70.2 Gy (hazard ratio [HR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.83-1.20; P = .98). The 8-year cumulative rates of distant metastases were 4% for the 79.2-Gy arm and 6% for the 70.2-Gy arm (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.42-1.01; P = .05). The ASTRO and Phoenix biochemical failure rates at 5 and 8 years were 31% and 20% with 79.2 Gy and 47% and 35% with 70.2 Gy, respectively (both P < .001; ASTRO: HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.50-0.70; Phoenix: HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.44-0.65). The high-dose arm had a lower rate of salvage therapy use. The 5-year rates of late grade 2 or greater gastrointestinal and/or genitourinary toxic effects were 21% and 12% with 79.2 Gy and 15% and 7% with 70.2 Gy (P = .006 [HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.10-1.77] and P = .003 [HR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.17-2.16], respectively). Conclusions and Relevance: Despite improvements in biochemical failure and distant metastases, dose escalation did not improve OS. High doses caused more late toxic effects but lower rates of salvage therapy. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00033631.

Advances in external beam stereotactic body radiotherapy: principle concerns in implementing a liver radiation program.

Despite significant advances in diagnosis, surgery and medical oncology, patients with primary and secondary liver cancer have some of the worst prognoses in oncology. In addition, the incidence of liver cancer is expected to increase. For this reason, centres are seeking new treatments and establishing specialized multidisciplinary teams. This article will focus on the evidence and practical data to assist in setting up or improving current process pathways, to provide an efficient and safe radiotherapy program for liver. Technical data on the primary safety concerns and components of a liver external beam radiation program will be presented.

Strategies to tackle the challenges of external beam radiotherapy for liver tumors.

Primary and metastatic liver cancer is an increasingly common and difficult to control disease entity. Radiation offers a non-invasive treatment alternative for these patients who often have few options and a poor prognosis. However, the anatomy and aggressiveness of liver cancer poses significant challenges such as accurate localization at simulation and treatment, management of motion and appropriate selection of dose regimen. This article aims to review the options available and provide information for the practical implementation and/or improvement of liver cancer radiation programs within the context of stereotactic body radiotherapy and image-guided radiotherapy guidelines. Specific patient inclusion and exclusion criteria are presented given the significant toxicity found in certain sub-populations treated with radiation. Indeed, certain sub-populations, such as those with tumor thrombosis or those with larger lesions treated with transarterial chemoembolization, have been shown to have significant improvements in outcome with the addition of radiation and merit special consideration. Implementing a liver radiation program requires three primary challenges to be addressed: (1) immobilization and motion management; (2) localization; and (3) dose regimen and constraint selection. Strategies to deal with motion include simple internal target volume (ITV) expansions, non-gated ITV reduction strategies, breath hold methods, and surrogate marker methods to enable gating or tracking. Localization of the tumor and organs-at-risk are addressed using contrast infusion techniques to take advantage of different normal liver and cancer vascular anatomy, imaging modalities, and margin management. Finally, a dose response has been demonstrated and dose regimens appear to be converging. A more uniform approach to treatment in terms of technique, dose selection and patient selection will allow us to study liver radiation in larger and, hopefully, multicenter randomized studies.

Evaluation of Health Economics in Radiation Oncology: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: Despite the rising costs in radiation oncology, the impact of health economics research on radiation therapy practice analysis patterns is unclear. We performed a systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) and cost-utility analyses (CUAs) to identify trends in reporting quality in the radiation oncology literature over time. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A systematic review of radiation oncology economic evaluations up to 2014 was performed, using MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards guideline informed data abstraction variables including study demographics, economic parameters, and methodological details. Tufts Medical Center CEA registry quality scores provided a basis for qualitative assessment of included studies. Studies were stratified by 3 time periods (1995-2004, 2005-2009, and 2010-2014). The Cochran-Armitage trend test and linear trend test were used to identify trends over time. RESULTS: In total, 102 articles were selected for final review. Most studies were in the context of a model (61%) or clinical trial (28%). Many studies lacked a conflict of interest (COI) statement (67%), a sponsorship statement (48%), a reported study time horizon (35%), and the use of discounting (29%). There was a significant increase over time in the reporting of a COI statement (P<.001), health care payer perspective (P=.019), sensitivity analyses using multivariate (P=.043) or probabilistic methods (P=.011), incremental cost-effectiveness threshold (P<.001), secondary source utility weights (P=.010), and cost effectiveness acceptability curves (P=.049). There was a trend toward improvement in Tuft scores over time (P=.065). CONCLUSIONS: Recent reports demonstrate improved reporting rates in economic evaluations; however, there remains significant room for improvement as reporting rates are still suboptimal. As fiscal pressures rise, we will rely on economic assessments to guide our practice decisions and policies. We recommend improved adherence to published guidelines and further research to determine the clinical implications of our findings.