Omitting Radiotherapy after Breast-Conserving Surgery in Luminal A Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant radiotherapy is prescribed after breast-conserving surgery to reduce the risk of local recurrence. However, radiotherapy is inconvenient, costly, and associated with both short-term and long-term side effects. Clinicopathologic factors alone are of limited use in the identification of women at low risk for local recurrence in whom radiotherapy can be omitted. Molecularly defined intrinsic subtypes of breast cancer can provide additional prognostic information. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study involving women who were at least 55 years of age, had undergone breast-conserving surgery for T1N0 (tumor size <2 cm and node negative), grade 1 or 2, luminal A-subtype breast cancer (defined as estrogen receptor positivity of ≥1%, progesterone receptor positivity of >20%, negative human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, and Ki67 index of ≤13.25%), and had received adjuvant endocrine therapy. Patients who met the clinical eligibility criteria were registered, and Ki67 immunohistochemical analysis was performed centrally. Patients with a Ki67 index of 13.25% or less were enrolled and did not receive radiotherapy. The primary outcome was local recurrence in the ipsilateral breast. In consultation with radiation oncologists and patients with breast cancer, we determined that if the upper boundary of the two-sided 90% confidence interval for the cumulative incidence at 5 years was less than 5%, this would represent an acceptable risk of local recurrence at 5 years. RESULTS: Of 740 registered patients, 500 eligible patients were enrolled. At 5 years after enrollment, recurrence was reported in 2.3% of the patients (90% confidence interval [CI], 1.3 to 3.8; 95% CI, 1.2 to 4.1), a result that met the prespecified boundary. Breast cancer occurred in the contralateral breast in 1.9% of the patients (90% CI, 1.1 to 3.2), and recurrence of any type was observed in 2.7% (90% CI, 1.6 to 4.1). CONCLUSIONS: Among women who were at least 55 years of age and had T1N0, grade 1 or 2, luminal A breast cancer that were treated with breast-conserving surgery and endocrine therapy alone, the incidence of local recurrence at 5 years was low with the omission of radiotherapy. (Funded by the Canadian Cancer Society and the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation; LUMINA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01791829.).

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer (PACE-B): 2-year toxicity results from an open-label, randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Localised prostate cancer is commonly treated with external beam radiotherapy and moderate hypofractionation is non-inferior to longer schedules. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) allows shorter treatment courses without impacting acute toxicity. We report 2-year toxicity findings from PACE-B, a randomised trial of conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy versus SBRT. METHODS: PACE is an open-label, multicohort, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial conducted at 35 hospitals in the UK, Ireland, and Canada. In PACE-B, men aged 18 years and older with a WHO performance status 0-2 and low-risk or intermediate-risk histologically-confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma (Gleason 4 + 3 excluded) were randomly allocated (1:1) by computerised central randomisation with permuted blocks (size four and six), stratified by centre and risk group to control radiotherapy (CRT; 78 Gy in 39 fractions over 7·8 weeks or, following protocol amendment on March 24, 2016, 62 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks) or SBRT (36·25 Gy in five fractions over 1-2 weeks). Androgen deprivation was not permitted. Co-primary outcomes for this toxicity analysis were Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grade 2 or worse gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity at 24 months after radiotherapy. Analysis was by treatment received and included all patients with at least one fraction of study treatment assessed for late toxicity. Recruitment is complete. Follow-up for oncological outcomes continues. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01584258. FINDINGS: We enrolled and randomly assigned 874 men between Aug 7, 2012, and Jan 4, 2018 (441 to CRT and 433 to SBRT). In this analysis, 430 patients were analysed in the CRT group and 414 in the SBRT group; a total of 844 (97%) of 874 randomly assigned patients. At 24 months, RTOG grade 2 or worse genitourinary toxicity was seen in eight (2%) of 381 participants assigned to CRT and 13 (3%) of 384 participants assigned to SBRT (absolute difference 1·3% [95% CI -1·3 to 4·0]; p=0·39); RTOG grade 2 or worse gastrointestinal toxicity was seen in 11 (3%) of 382 participants in the CRT group versus six (2%) of 384 participants in the SBRT group (absolute difference -1·3% [95% CI -3·9 to 1·1]; p=0·32). No serious adverse events (defined as RTOG grade 4 or worse) or treatment-related deaths were reported within the analysis timeframe. INTERPRETATION: In the PACE-B trial, 2-year RTOG toxicity rates were similar for five fraction SBRT and conventional schedules of radiotherapy. Prostate SBRT was found to be safe and associated with low rates of side-effects. Biochemical outcomes are awaited. FUNDING: Accuray.

Intensity-modulated fractionated radiotherapy versus stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer (PACE-B): acute toxicity findings from an international, randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Localised prostate cancer is commonly treated with external-beam radiotherapy. Moderate hypofractionation has been shown to be non-inferior to conventional fractionation. Ultra-hypofractionated stereotactic body radiotherapy would allow shorter treatment courses but could increase acute toxicity compared with conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy. We report the acute toxicity findings from a randomised trial of standard-of-care conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy versus five-fraction stereotactic body radiotherapy for low-risk to intermediate-risk localised prostate cancer. METHODS: PACE is an international, phase 3, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial. In PACE-B, eligible men aged 18 years and older, with WHO performance status 0-2, low-risk or intermediate-risk prostate adenocarcinoma (Gleason 4 + 3 excluded), and scheduled to receive radiotherapy were recruited from 37 centres in three countries (UK, Ireland, and Canada). Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) by computerised central randomisation with permuted blocks (size four and six), stratified by centre and risk group, to conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (78 Gy in 39 fractions over 7·8 weeks or 62 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks, respectively) or stereotactic body radiotherapy (36·25 Gy in five fractions over 1-2 weeks). Neither participants nor investigators were masked to allocation. Androgen deprivation was not permitted. The primary endpoint of PACE-B is freedom from biochemical or clinical failure. The coprimary outcomes for this acute toxicity substudy were worst grade 2 or more severe Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxic effects score up to 12 weeks after radiotherapy. Analysis was per protocol. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01584258. PACE-B recruitment is complete and follow-up is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Aug 7, 2012, and Jan 4, 2018, we randomly assigned 874 men to conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (n=441) or stereotactic body radiotherapy (n=433). 432 (98%) of 441 patients allocated to conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy and 415 (96%) of 433 patients allocated to stereotactic body radiotherapy received at least one fraction of allocated treatment. Worst acute RTOG gastrointestinal toxic effect proportions were as follows: grade 2 or more severe toxic events in 53 (12%) of 432 patients in the conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy group versus 43 (10%) of 415 patients in the stereotactic body radiotherapy group (difference -1·9 percentage points, 95% CI -6·2 to 2·4; p=0·38). Worst acute RTOG genitourinary toxicity proportions were as follows: grade 2 or worse toxicity in 118 (27%) of 432 patients in the conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy group versus 96 (23%) of 415 patients in the stereotactic body radiotherapy group (difference -4·2 percentage points, 95% CI -10·0 to 1·7; p=0·16). No treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: Previous evidence (from the HYPO-RT-PC trial) suggested higher patient-reported toxicity with ultrahypofractionation. By contrast, our results suggest that substantially shortening treatment courses with stereotactic body radiotherapy does not increase either gastrointestinal or genitourinary acute toxicity. FUNDING: Accuray and National Institute of Health Research.

Long-Term Analysis of NRG Oncology RTOG 0415: A Randomized Phase III Noninferiority Study Comparing Two Fractionation Schedules in Patients With Low-Risk Prostate Cancer.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.NRG Oncology RTOG 0415 is a randomized phase III noninferiority (NI) clinical trial comparing conventional fractionation (73.8 Gy in 41 fractions) radiotherapy (C-RT) with hypofractionation (H-RT; 70 Gy in 28) in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. The study included 1,092 protocol-eligible patients initially reported in 2016 with a median follow-up of 5.8 years. Updated results with median follow-up of 12.8 years are now presented. The estimated 12-year disease-free survival (DFS) is 56.1% (95% CI, 51.5 to 60.5) for C-RT and 61.8% (95% CI, 57.2 to 66.0) for H-RT. The DFS hazard ratio (H-RT/C-RT) is 0.85 (95% CI, 0.71 to 1.03), confirming NI (P < .001). Twelve-year cumulative incidence of biochemical failure (BF) was 17.0% (95% CI, 13.8 to 20.5) for C-RT and 9.9% (95% CI, 7.5 to 12.6) for H-RT. The HR (H-RT/C-RT) comparing biochemical recurrence between the two arms was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.39 to 0.78). Late grade ≥3 GI adverse event (AE) incidence is 3.2% (C-RT) versus 4.4% (H-RT), with relative risk (RR) for H-RT versus C-RT 1.39 (95% CI, 0.75 to 2.55). Late grade ≥3 genitourinary (GU) AE incidence is 3.4% (C-RT) versus 4.2% (H-RT), RR 1.26 (95% CI, 0.69 to 2.30). Long-term DFS is noninferior with H-RT compared with C-RT. BF is less with H-RT. No significant differences in late grade ≥3 GI/GU AEs were observed between assignments (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00331773).

Low-Dose Hemibody Radiation, a Treatment Option for Recurrent Prostate Cancer: A Phase 2 Single-Arm Trial.

Purpose: Nontargeted low-dose ionizing radiation has been proposed as a cancer therapeutic for several decades; however, questions remain about the duration of hematological changes and optimal dosing regimen. Early studies delivering fractionated low doses of radiation to patients with cancer used varying doses and schedules, which make it difficult to standardize a successful dose and scheduling system for widespread use. The aim of this phase 2 two-stage trial was to determine whether low-dose radiation therapy (LD-RT) reduced prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in patients with recurrent prostate cancer in efforts to delay initiation of conventional therapies that are known to decrease quality of life. The primary study outcome was reduction in PSA levels by at least 50%. Methods and Materials: Sixteen patients with recurrent prostate cancer were recruited and received 2 doses of 150 mGy of nontargeted radiation per week, for 5 consecutive weeks, with 15 participants completing the study. Results: A maximal response of 40.5% decrease in PSA at 3 months was observed. A total of 8 participants remained off any additional interventions, of whom 3 had minor fluctuations in PSA for at least 1 year after treatment. The most common adverse event reported was mild fatigue during active treatment (n = 4), which did not persist in the follow-up period. No participants withdrew due to safety concerns or hematological abnormalities (ie, platelet ≤50 × 109/L, leukocyte ≤3 × 109/L, granulocyte ≤2 × 109/L). Conclusions: Our study did not meet the primary objective; however, LD-RT may be a potential therapy for some patients with recurrent prostate cancer by stalling rising PSA. This study also demonstrates that low-dose radiation is well tolerated by participants with minimal toxicities and no change in quality of life.

Impact of 18F-Labeled Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography-Computed Tomography Versus Conventional Staging in Patients With Locally Advanced Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Patients with locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) typically undergo staging tests at presentation. If staging does not detect metastases, treatment consists of curative intent combined modality therapy (neoadjuvant chemotherapy, surgery, and regional radiation). Positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) may detect more asymptomatic distant metastases, but the evidence is based on uncontrolled studies. METHODS: For inclusion, patients had histological evidence of invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast and TNM stage III or IIb (T3N0, but not T2N1). Consenting patients from six regional cancer centers in Ontario were randomly assigned to 18F-labeled fluorodeoxyglucose PET-CT or conventional staging (bone scan, CT of the chest/abdomen and pelvis). The primary end point was upstaging to stage IV. A key secondary outcome was receiving curative intent combined modality therapy (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02751710). RESULTS: Between December 2016 and April 2022, 184 patients were randomly assigned to whole-body PET-CT and 185 patients to conventional staging. Forty-three (23%) PET-CT patients were upstaged to stage IV compared with 21 (11%) conventional staged patients (absolute difference, 12.3% [95% CI, 3.9 to 19.9]; P = .002). Consequently, treatment was changed in 35 (81.3%) of 43 upstaged PET-CT patients and 20 (95.2%) of the 21 upstaged conventional patients. Subsequently, 149 (81%) patients in the PET-CT group received combined modality treatment versus 165 (89.2%) patients in the conventional staging group (absolute difference, 8.2% [95% CI, 0.1 to 15.4]; P = .03). CONCLUSION: In patients with LABC, PET-CT detected more distant metastases than conventional staging, and fewer PET-CT patients received combined modality therapy. Our randomized trial demonstrates the utility of the PET-CT staging strategy.

Neighborhood Deprivation and Rurality Associated With Patient-Reported Outcomes and Survival in Men With Prostate Cancer in NRG Oncology RTOG 0415.

PURPOSE: Rurality and neighborhood deprivation can contribute to poor patient-reported outcomes, which have not been systematically evaluated in patients with specific cancers in national trials. Our objective was to examine the effect of rurality and neighborhood socioeconomic and environmental deprivation on patient-reported outcomes and survival in men with prostate cancer in NRG Oncology RTOG 0415. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Data from men with prostate cancer in trial NRG Oncology RTOG 0415 were analyzed; 1,092 men were randomized to receive conventional radiation therapy or hypofractionated radiation therapy. Rurality was categorized as urban or rural. Neighborhood deprivation was assessed using the area deprivation index and air pollution indicators (nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter with a diameter less than 2.5 micrometers) via patient ZIP codes. Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite measured cancer-specific quality of life. The Hopkins symptom checklist measured anxiety and depression. EuroQoL-5 Dimension assessed general health. RESULTS: We analyzed 751 patients in trial NRG Oncology RTOG 0415. At baseline, patients from the most deprived neighborhoods had worse bowel (P = .011), worse sexual (P = .042), and worse hormonal (P = .015) scores; patients from the most deprived areas had worse self-care (P = .04) and more pain (P = .047); and patients from rural areas had worse urinary (P = .03) and sexual (P = .003) scores versus patients from urban areas. Longitudinal analyses showed that the 25% most deprived areas (P = .004) and rural areas (P = .002) were associated with worse EuroQoL-5 Dimension visual analog scale score. Patients from urban areas (hazard ratio, 1.81; P = .033) and the 75% less-deprived neighborhoods (hazard ratio, 0.68; P = .053) showed relative decrease in risk of recurrence or death (disease-free survival). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with prostate cancer from the most deprived neighborhoods and rural areas had low quality of life at baseline, poor general health longitudinally, and worse disease-free survival. Interventions should screen populations from deprived neighborhoods and rural areas to improve patient access to supportive care services.

Five-Year Patient-Reported Outcomes in NRG Oncology RTOG 0938, Evaluating Two Ultrahypofractionated Regimens for Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: There is considerable interest in very short (ultrahypofractionated) radiation therapy regimens to treat prostate cancer based on potential radiobiological advantages, patient convenience, and resource allocation benefits. Our objective is to demonstrate that detectable changes in health-related quality of life measured by the bowel and urinary domains of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-50) were not substantially worse than baseline scores. METHODS AND MATERIALS: NRG Oncology's RTOG 0938 is a nonblinded randomized phase 2 study of National Comprehensive Cancer Network low-risk prostate cancer in which each arm is compared with a historical control. Patients were randomized to 5 fractions (7.25 Gy in 2 week and a day [twice a week]) or 12 fractions (4.3Gy in 2.5 weeks [5 times a week]). Secondary objectives assessed patient-reported toxicity at 5 years using the EPIC. Chi-square tests were used to assess the proportion of patients with a deterioration from baseline of >5 points for bowel, >2 points for urinary, and >11 points for sexual score. RESULTS: The study enrolled 127 patients to 5 fractions (121 eligible) and 128 patients to 12 fractions (125 eligible). The median follow-up for all patients at the time of analysis was 5.38 years. The 5-year frequency for >5 point change in bowel score were 38.4% (P = .27) and 23.4% (P = 0.98) for 5 and 12 fractions, respectively. The 5-year frequencies for >2 point change in urinary score were 46.6% (P = .15) and 36.4% (P = .70) for 5 and 12 fractions, respectively. For 5 fractions, 49.3% (P = .007) of patients had a drop in 5-year EPIC-50 sexual score of ≥11 points; for 12 fractions, 54% (P < .001) of patients had a drop in 5-year EPIC-50 sexual score of ≥11 points. Disease-free survival at 5 years is 89.6% (95% CI: 84.0-95.2) in the 5-fraction arm and 92.3% (95% CI: 87.4-97.1) in the 12-fraction arm. There was no late grade 4 or 5 treatment-related urinary or bowel toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that, based on long-term changes in bowel and urinary domains and toxicity, the 5- and 12-fraction regimens are well tolerated. These ultrahypofractionated approaches need to be compared with current standard radiation therapy regimens.

Genomic Classifier Performance in Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: Results From NRG Oncology/RTOG 0126 Randomized Phase 3 Trial.

PURPOSE: Intermediate-risk prostate cancer is a heterogeneous disease state with diverse treatment options. The 22-gene Decipher genomic classifier (GC) retrospectively has shown to improve risk stratification in these patients. We assessed the performance of the GC in men with intermediate-risk disease enrolled in NRG Oncology/RTOG 01-26 with updated follow-up. METHODS AND MATERIALS: After National Cancer Institute approval, biopsy slides were collected from NRG Oncology/RTOG 01-26, a randomized phase 3 trial of men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer randomized to 70.2 Gy versus 79.2 Gy of radiation therapy without androgen deprivation therapy. RNA was extracted from the highest-grade tumor foci to generate the locked 22-gene GC model. The primary endpoint for this ancillary project was disease progression (composite of biochemical failure, local failure, distant metastasis, prostate cancer-specific mortality, and use of salvage therapy). Individual endpoints were also assessed. Fine-Gray or cause-specific Cox multivariable models were constructed adjusting for randomization arm and trial stratification factors. RESULTS: Two-hundred fifteen patient samples passed quality control for analysis. The median follow-up was 12.8 years (range, 2.4-17.7). On multivariable analysis, the 22-gene GC (per 0.1 unit) was independently prognostic for disease progression (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR], 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.26; P = .04), biochemical failure (sHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.10-1.37; P < .001), distant metastasis (sHR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.06-1.55; P = .01), and prostate cancer-specific mortality (sHR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.20-1.76; P < .001). Ten-year distant metastasis in GC low-risk patients was 4% compared with 16% for GC high-risk patients. In patients with lower GC scores, the 10-year difference in metastasis-free survival rate between arms was -7%, compared with 21% for higher GC patients (P-interaction = .04). CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the first validation of a biopsy-based gene expression classifier, assessing both its prognostic and predictive value, using data from a randomized phase 3 trial of intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Decipher improves risk stratification and can aid in treatment decision-making in men with intermediate-risk disease.

Methodological Comparison of Mapping the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite to EuroQoL-5D-3L Using Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Data: Secondary Analysis of NRG/RTOG 0415.

PURPOSE: To compare the predictive ability of mapping algorithms derived using cross-sectional and longitudinal data. METHODS: This methodological assessment used data from a randomized controlled noninferiority trial of patients with low-risk prostate cancer, conducted by NRG Oncology (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00331773), which examined the efficacy of conventional schedule versus hypofractionated radiation therapy (three-dimensional conformal external beam radiation therapy/IMRT). Health-related quality-of-life data were collected using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), and health utilities were obtained using EuroQOL-5D-3L (EQ-5D) at baseline and 6, 12, 24, and 60 months postintervention. Mapping algorithms were estimated using ordinary least squares regression models through five-fold cross-validation in baseline cross-sectional data and combined longitudinal data from all assessment periods; random effects specifications were also estimated in longitudinal data. Predictive performance was compared using root mean square error. Longitudinal predictive ability of models obtained using baseline data was examined using mean absolute differences in the reported and predicted utilities. RESULTS: A total of 267 (and 199) patients in the estimation sample had complete EQ-5D and EPIC domain (and subdomain) data at baseline and at all subsequent assessments. Ordinary least squares models using combined data showed better predictive ability (lowest root mean square error) in the validation phase for algorithms with EPIC domain/subdomain data alone, whereas models using baseline data outperformed other specifications in the validation phase when patient covariates were also modeled. The mean absolute differences were lower for models using EPIC subdomain data compared with EPIC domain data and generally decreased as the time of assessment increased. CONCLUSION: Overall, mapping algorithms obtained using baseline cross-sectional data showed the best predictive performance. Furthermore, these models demonstrated satisfactory longitudinal predictive ability.

Management of the Axilla in Early-Stage Breast Cancer: Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) and ASCO Guideline.

PURPOSE: To provide recommendations on the best strategies for the management and on the best timing and treatment (surgical and radiotherapeutic) of the axilla for patients with early-stage breast cancer. METHODS: Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) and ASCO convened a Working Group and Expert Panel to develop evidence-based recommendations informed by a systematic review of the literature. RESULTS: This guideline endorsed two recommendations of the ASCO 2017 guideline for the use of sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with early-stage breast cancer and expanded on that guideline with recommendations for radiotherapy interventions, timing of staging after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), and mapping modalities. Overall, the ASCO 2017 guideline, seven high-quality systematic reviews, 54 unique studies, and 65 corollary trials formed the evidentiary basis of this guideline. RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommendations are issued for each of the objectives of this guideline: (1) To determine which patients with early-stage breast cancer require axillary staging, (2) to determine whether any further axillary treatment is indicated for women with early-stage breast cancer who did not receive NAC and are sentinel lymph node-negative at diagnosis, (3) to determine which axillary strategy is indicated for women with early-stage breast cancer who did not receive NAC and are pathologically sentinel lymph node-positive at diagnosis (after a clinically node-negative presentation), (4) to determine what axillary treatment is indicated and what the best timing of axillary treatment for women with early-stage breast cancer is when NAC is used, and (5) to determine which are the best methods for identifying sentinel nodes.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.

Mapping expanded prostate cancer index composite to EQ5D utilities to inform economic evaluations in prostate cancer: Secondary analysis of NRG/RTOG 0415.

PURPOSE: The Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) is the most commonly used patient reported outcome (PRO) tool in prostate cancer (PC) clinical trials, but health utilities associated with the different health states assessed with this tool are unknown, limiting our ability to perform cost-utility analyses. This study aimed to map EPIC tool to EuroQoL-5D-3L (EQ5D) to generate EQ5D health utilities. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This is a secondary analysis of a prospective, randomized non-inferiority clinical trial, conducted between 04/2006 and 12/2009 at cancer centers across the United States, Canada, and Switzerland. Eligible patients included men >18 years with a known diagnosis of low-risk PC. Patient HRQoL data were collected using EPIC and health utilities were obtained using EQ5D. Data were divided into an estimation sample (n = 765, 70%) and a validation sample (n = 327, 30%). The mapping algorithms that capture the relationship between the instruments were estimated using ordinary least squares (OLS), Tobit, and two-part models. Five-fold cross-validation (in-sample) was used to compare the predictive performance of the estimated models. Final models were selected based on root mean square error (RMSE). RESULTS: A total of 565 patients in the estimation sample had complete information on both EPIC and EQ5D questionnaires at baseline. Mean observed EQ5D utility was 0.90±0.13 (range: 0.28-1) with 55% of patients in full health. OLS models outperformed their counterpart Tobit and two-part models for all pre-determined model specifications. The best model fit was: "EQ5D utility = 0.248541 + 0.000748*(Urinary Function) + 0.001134*(Urinary Bother) + 0.000968*(Hormonal Function) + 0.004404*(Hormonal Bother)- 0.376487*(Zubrod) + 0.003562*(Urinary Function*Zubrod)"; RMSE was 0.10462. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to identify a comprehensive set of mapping algorithms to generate EQ5D utilities from EPIC domain/ sub-domain scores. The study results will help estimate quality-adjusted life-years in PC economic evaluations.

Outcomes of trimodality bladder-sparing therapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Although radical cystectomy is considered the standard of care for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), recent data has suggested comparable survival outcomes for bladder-sparing trimodality therapy (TMT). We conducted a retrospective, single-institution analysis of MIBC patients to evaluate the efficacy of TMT as an alternative, curative approach to surgical intervention. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of MIBC patients assessed by a multidisciplinary team at the Juravinski Cancer Centre from 2010-2016. Patients underwent transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) followed by radiotherapy with or without concurrent chemotherapy. Patients could receive neoadjuvant treatment. Clinical data and response rates were summarized, and overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Our analytic cohort included 115 patients, of whom 53 underwent TMT and 62 underwent radiotherapy alone following TURBT. Median age at diagnosis was 79 years and median followup was 21 months. Complete response rates in those receiving TMT and radiation without chemotherapy were 84.4% and 66.7%, respectively. For TMT patients, three-year OS and DFS were 68.5% and 49.6%, respectively. Patients who received TMT had reduction in risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.49; p=0.026) and disease recurrence (HR 0.55; p=0.017) compared to those who had radiation without chemotherapy. Overall, four patients had grade 3 or higher late toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: In this single-institution analysis, TMT appears to be a safe and effective approach in the short-term management of MIBC in appropriately selected patients. Extended followup and analysis are necessary to validate these results.

Quality of Life in Patients With Low-Risk Prostate Cancer Treated With Hypofractionated vs Conventional Radiotherapy: A Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Hypofractionated radiotherapy (HRT) would be more convenient for men with low-risk prostate cancer and cost less than conventional radiotherapy (CRT) as long as HRT is noninferior to CRT in terms of survival and quality of life (QOL) is not found to be worse. OBJECTIVE: To assess differences in QOL between men with low-risk prostate cancer who are treated with HRT vs CRT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this phase 3 randomized clinical trial, men with low-risk prostate cancer were enrolled from sites within the National Cancer Institute's National Clinical Trials Network in the United States, Canada, and Switzerland. INTERVENTIONS: Random assignment to CRT (73.8 Gy in 41 fractions over 8.2 weeks) or to HRT (70 Gy in 28 fractions over 5.6 weeks). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Quality of life was assessed using the Expanded Prostate Index Composite questionnaire measuring bowel, urinary, sexual, and hormonal domains; the 25-item Hopkins Symptom Checklist measuring anxiety and depression; and the EuroQol-5 Dimension questionnaire measuring global QOL. All data were collected at baseline and 6, 12, 24, and 60 months. Change scores were compared between treatment arms using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A significance level of .0125 to adjust for multiple comparisons was used for an overall 2-sided type 1 error of .05. Clinical significance was determined for the Expanded Prostate Index Composite change scores by an effect size of 0.5. RESULTS: Of 1092 patients analyzable for the primary end point, 962 (mean [SD] age, 66.6 [7.4] years) consented to the QOL component. No statistically significant differences with regard to baseline characteristics nor any of the QOL baseline domains were measured between arms. There were no differences in change score between arms with respect to any of the Expanded Prostate Index Composite questionnaire domain scores except at 12 months when the HRT arm had a larger decline than the CRT arm in the bowel domain (mean score, -7.5 vs -3.7, respectively; P<.001), but it did not reach clinical significance (effect size = 0.29). There were no differences between arms at any time point for the Hopkins Symptom Checklist nor EuroQol-5 Dimension questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Treatment with HRT is noninferior to CRT in men with low-risk prostate cancer in terms of disease-free survival and, as shown in the present study, in prostate cancer-specific (eg, bowel, bladder, sexual) and general QOL, as well as in anxiety and depression. This study provides evidence to affirm that HRT is a practice standard for men with low-risk prostate cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00331773.

Tolerance doses for late adverse events after hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer on trial NRG Oncology/RTOG 0415.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE: Hypofractionated radiotherapy (HRT) regimens for prostate cancer are emerging, but tolerance doses for late adverse events are scarce. The purpose of this study is to define dose-volume predictors for late gastrointestinal and genitourinary (GI and GU) toxicities after HRT in the multi-center NRG Oncology/RTOG 0415 low-risk prostate cancer trial (N = 521). MATERIAL/METHODS: Treatment in the studied HRT arm was delivered as 70 Gy at 2.5 Gy/fraction with 3D-CRT/IMRT (N = 108/413). At a median follow-up of 5.9 years, the crude late ≥Grade 2 GI and GU toxicities were 19% and 29%, respectively. For modeling, the complete HRT cohort was randomly split into training and validation (70% and 30%; preserved toxicity rates). Within training, dose-response modeling was based on dose-volume cut-points (EQD2Gy; bladder/rectum: α/ß = 6 Gy/3Gy), age, acute ≥Grade 2 toxicity, and treatment technique using univariate and multivariate logistic regression on bootstrapping (UVA and MVA). Candidate predictors were determined at p ≤ 0.05, and the selected MVA models were explored on validation where model generalizability was judged if the area under the receiver-operating curve in validation (AUCvalidation) was within AUCtraining ±â€¯SD with p ≤ 0.05, and with an Hosmer-Lemeshow p-value (pHL) > 0.05. RESULTS: Three candidate predictors were suggested for late GI toxicity: the minimum dose to the hottest 5% rectal volume (D5%[Gy]), the absolute rectal volume <35 Gy, and acute GI toxicity (AUC = 0.59-0.63; p = 0.02-0.04). The two generalizable MVA models, i.e., D5%[Gy] with or without acute GI toxicity (AUCvalidation = 0.64, 0.65; p = 0.01, 0.03; pHL = 0.45-0.56), suggest that reducing late GI toxicity from 20% to 10% would require reducing D5%[Gy] from ≤65 Gy to ≤62 Gy (logistic function argument: 17+(0.24D5%[Gy])). Acute GU toxicity showed only a trend to predict late GU toxicity (AUCtraining = 0.57; p = 0.07). CONCLUSION: Late GI toxicity, following moderate HRT for low-risk prostate cancer, increases with higher doses to small rectal volumes. This work provides quantitative evidence that limiting small rectal dose 'hotspots' in clinical practice of such HRT regimens is likely to further reduce the associated rates of GI toxicity.

Lymphedema in women with breast cancer: characteristics of patients screened for a randomized trial.

INTRODUCTION: Accrual rates for a randomized trial of decongestive therapy in breast cancer patients with lymphedema were lower than anticipated. In two centres, patients presenting to lymphedema clinic were screened for eligibility to understand the accrual process and help define the patient population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All breast cancer patients presenting to two lymphedema clinics in regional cancer centres were screened for study entry. Circumferential arm measurements were taken and volumes calculated. Patients were then screened for trial eligibility. All report forms were sent to the trial coordinating centre. RESULTS: A total of 408 patients were screened. Median arm volume excess was 239 ml (9.5%). One third of patients had little or no excess volume. Only 28.3% of patients had sufficient excess volume for trial eligibility. Of these, a significant number of patients were excluded because of active malignancy or previous decongestive therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The finding of moderate to severe lymphedema observed in clinics screening for trial eligibility was less than expected. The natural history of lymphedema in breast cancer patients is potentially changing. Some patients may be presenting with sensory changes suggestive of lymphedema but due to other causes, such as nerve disruption following axillary dissection.

Patient Reported Outcomes in NRG Oncology RTOG 0938, Evaluating Two Ultrahypofractionated Regimens for Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: There is considerable interest in very short (ultrahypofractionated) radiation therapy regimens to treat prostate cancer based on potential radiobiological advantages, patient convenience, and resource allocation benefits. Our objective is to demonstrate that detectable changes in health-related quality of life measured by the bowel and urinary domains of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-50) were not substantially worse than baseline scores. METHODS AND MATERIALS: NRG Oncology's RTOG 0938 is a nonblinded randomized phase 2 study of National Comprehensive Cancer Network low-risk prostate cancer in which each arm is compared with a historical control. Patients were randomized to 5 fractions (7.25 Gy in 2 weeks) or 12 fractions (4.3 Gy in 2.5 weeks). The co-primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with a change in EPIC-50 bowel score at 1 year (baseline to 1 year) >5 points and in EPIC-50 urinary score >2 points tested with a 1-sample binomial test. RESULTS: The study enrolled 127 patients to 5 fractions (121 analyzed) and 128 patients to 12 fractions (125 analyzed). Median follow-up for all patients at the time of analysis was 3.8 years. The 1-year frequency for >5 point change in bowel score were 29.8% (P < .001) and 28.4% (P < .001) for 5 and 12 fractions, respectively. The 1-year frequencies for >2 point change in urinary score were 45.7% (P < .001) and 42.2% (P < .001) for 5 and 12 fractions, respectively. For 5 fractions, 32.9% of patients had a drop in 1-year EPIC-50 sexual score of ≥11 points (P = .34); for 12 fractions, 30.9% of patients had a drop in 1-year EPIC-50 sexual score of ≥ 11 points (P = .20). Disease-free survival at 2 years is 99.2% (95% confidence interval: 97.5-100) in the 5-fraction arm and 97.5% (95% confidence interval: 94.6-100) in the 12-fraction arm. There was no late grade 4 or 5 treatment-related urinary or bowel toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that, based on changes in bowel and urinary domains and toxicity (acute and late), the 5- and 12-fraction regimens are well tolerated. These ultrahypofractionated approaches need to be compared with current standard radiation therapy regimens.

Long-Term Results of a Randomized Trial Comparing Iridium Implant Plus External Beam Radiation Therapy With External Beam Radiation Therapy Alone in Node-Negative Locally Advanced Cancer of the Prostate.

PURPOSE: To determine the impact on long-term survival from the addition of brachytherapy to external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) in patients with prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 1992 and 1997, 104 men with cT2-3, surgically staged node-negative prostate cancer were randomized to receive either EBRT (40 Gy/20 fractions) with iridium implant (35 Gy/48 hours) or EBRT alone (66 Gy/33 fractions) to the prostate. According to T stage, Gleason score, and prostate-specific antigen level, 60% of patients had high-risk disease. Substantial improvements in biochemical control at 8 years have previously been reported. Additional follow-up was collected on deaths and metastases. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 14 years. Five patients were lost to follow-up. All other patients have been followed a minimum of 13 years. There have been 75 deaths, including 21 from prostate cancer and 25 from second cancers. No patients developing a second cancer have died from prostate cancer. There was no difference in overall survival between the 2 treatment groups: 34 deaths (67%) in the implant arm and 41 (77%) in the EBRT arm (hazard ratio [HR] 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-1.59). Similarly, there was no difference in prostate cancer-specific deaths: 9 (18%) patients in the implant arm compared with 12 (23%) in the EBRT arm (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.34-1.87). There was no statistically significant difference in the number of patients developing metastatic disease: 10 (20%) in the implant arm and 15 (28%) in the EBRT arm (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.32-1.57). Improvements in biochemical control were maintained (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.31-0.88). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a dramatic reduction of biochemical recurrence rates, the addition of iridium implant to EBRT did not translate into improved overall survival or prostate cancer-specific survival.

Randomized Trial of a Hypofractionated Radiation Regimen for the Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer.

Purpose Men with localized prostate cancer often are treated with external radiotherapy (RT) over 8 to 9 weeks. Hypofractionated RT is given over a shorter time with larger doses per treatment than standard RT. We hypothesized that hypofractionation versus conventional fractionation is similar in efficacy without increased toxicity. Patients and Methods We conducted a multicenter randomized noninferiority trial in intermediate-risk prostate cancer (T1 to 2a, Gleason score ≤ 6, and prostate-specific antigen [PSA] 10.1 to 20 ng/mL; T2b to 2c, Gleason ≤ 6, and PSA ≤ 20 ng/mL; or T1 to 2, Gleason = 7, and PSA ≤ 20 ng/mL). Patients were allocated to conventional RT of 78 Gy in 39 fractions over 8 weeks or to hypofractionated RT of 60 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks. Androgen deprivation was not permitted with therapy. The primary outcome was biochemical-clinical failure (BCF) defined by any of the following: PSA failure (nadir + 2), hormonal intervention, clinical local or distant failure, or death as a result of prostate cancer. The noninferiority margin was 7.5% (hazard ratio, < 1.32). Results Median follow-up was 6.0 years. One hundred nine of 608 patients in the hypofractionated arm versus 117 of 598 in the standard arm experienced BCF. Most of the events were PSA failures. The 5-year BCF disease-free survival was 85% in both arms (hazard ratio [short v standard], 0.96; 90% CI, 0.77 to 1.2). Ten deaths as a result of prostate cancer occurred in the short arm and 12 in the standard arm. No significant differences were detected between arms for grade ≥ 3 late genitourinary and GI toxicity. Conclusion The hypofractionated RT regimen used in this trial was not inferior to conventional RT and was not associated with increased late toxicity. Hypofractionated RT is more convenient for patients and should be considered for intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Randomized trial comparing iridium implant plus external-beam radiation therapy with external-beam radiation therapy alone in node-negative locally advanced cancer of the prostate.

PURPOSE: To determine if iridium implant (IM) and external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) is better than standard EBRT in locally advanced prostate cancer. METHODS: Patients with T2 and T3 prostate cancer with no evidence of metastatic disease were randomly assigned to EBRT of 66 Gy in 33 fractions during 6.5 weeks or to IM of 35 Gy delivered to the prostate during 48 hours plus EBRT of 40 Gy in 20 fractions during 4 weeks. The primary outcome consisted of biochemical or clinical failure (BCF). BCF was defined by biochemical failure, clinical failure, or death as a result of prostate cancer. Secondary outcomes included 2-year postradiation biopsy positivity, toxicity, and survival. RESULTS: Between 1992 and 1997, 51 patients were randomly assigned to receive IM plus EBRT, and 53 patients were randomly assigned to receive EBRT alone. The median follow-up was 8.2 years. In the IM plus EBRT arm, 17 patients (29%) experienced BCF compared with 33 patients (61%) in the EBRT arm (hazard ratio, 0.42; P = .0024). Eighty-seven patients (84%) had a postradiation biopsy; 10 (24%) of 42 in the IM plus EBRT arm had biopsy positivity compared with 23 (51%) of 45 in the EBRT arm (odds ratio, 0.30; P = .015). Overall survival was 94% in the IM plus EBRT arm versus 92% in the EBRT arm. CONCLUSION: The combination of IM plus EBRT was superior to EBRT alone for BCF and postradiation biopsy. This trial provides evidence that higher doses of radiation delivered in a shorter duration result in better local as well as biochemical control in locally advanced prostrate cancer.