Radical Prostatectomy Versus Stereotactic Radiotherapy for Clinically Localised Prostate Cancer: Results of the PACE-A Randomised Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Randomised data on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and prostatectomy in localised prostate cancer are lacking. PACE-A compared patient-reported health-related quality of life after SBRT with that after prostatectomy. METHODS: PACE is a phase 3 open-label, randomised controlled trial. PACE-A randomised men with low- to intermediate-risk localised prostate cancer to SBRT or prostatectomy (1:1). Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was not permitted. The coprimary outcomes were the Expanded Prostate Index Composite (EPIC-26) number of absorbent urinary pads required daily and bowel domain score at 2 yr. The secondary endpoints were clinician-reported toxicity, sexual functioning, and other PROs. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: In total, 123 men were randomised (60 undergoing prostatectomy and 63 SBRT) from August 2012 to February 2022. The median follow-up time was 60.7 mo. The median age was 65.5 yr and the median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) value 7.9 ng/ml; 92% had National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) intermediate-risk disease. Fifty participants received prostatectomy and 60 received SBRT. At 2 yr, 16/32 (50%) prostatectomy and three of 46 (6.5%) SBRT participants used one or more urinary pads daily (p < 0.001; 15 and two, respectively, used one pad daily); the estimated difference was 43% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 25%, 62%). At 2 yr, bowel scores were better for prostatectomy (median [interquartile range] 100 [100-100]) than for SBRT (87.5 [79.2-100]; p < 0.001), with an estimated mean difference of 8.9 between these (95% CI: 4.2, 13.7); sexual scores were worse for prostatectomy (18 [13.8-40.3]) than for SBRT (62.5 [32.0-87.5]). The limitations were slow recruitment and incomplete 2-yr PRO response rates. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: SBRT was associated with less patient-reported urinary incontinence and sexual dysfunction, and slightly more bowel bother than prostatectomy. These randomised data should inform treatment decision-making for patients with localised, intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Impact of on-trial IGRT quality assurance in an international adaptive radiotherapy trial for participants with bladder cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Radiotherapy trial quality assurance (RT QA) is crucial for ensuring the safe and reliable delivery of radiotherapy trials, and minimizing inter-institutional variations. While previous studies focused on outlining and planning quality assurance (QA), this work explores the process of Image-Guided Radiotherapy (IGRT), and adaptive radiotherapy. This study presents findings from during-accrual QA in the RAIDER trial, evaluating concordance between online and offline plan selections for bladder cancer participants undergoing adaptive radiotherapy. RAIDER had two seamless stages; stage 1 assessed adherence to dose constraints of dose escalated radiotherapy (DART) and stage 2 assessed safety. The RT QA programme was updated from stage 1 to stage 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from all participants in the adaptive arms (standard dose adaptive radiotherapy (SART) and DART) of the trial was requested (33 centres across the UK, Australia and New Zealand). Data collection spanned September 2015 to December 2022 and included the plans selected online, on Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) data. Concordance with the plans selected offline by the independent RT QA central reviewer was evaluated. RESULTS: Analysable data was received for 72 participants, giving a total of 884 CBCTs. The overall concordance rate was 83% (723/884). From stage 1 to stage 2 the concordance in the plans selected improved from 75% (369/495) to 91% (354/389). CONCLUSION: During-accrual IGRT QA positively influenced plan selection concordance, highlighting the need for ongoing support when introducing a new technique. Overall, it contributes to advancing the understanding and implementation of QA measures in adaptive radiotherapy trials.

International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Gleason Grade Groups stratify outcomes in the CHHiP Phase 3 prostate radiotherapy trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the results of Gleason Grade Group (GGG) classification following central pathology review with previous local pathology assessment, and to examine the difference between using overall and worst GGG in a large patient cohort treated with radiotherapy and short-course hormone therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with low- to high-risk localized prostate cancer were randomized into the multicentre CHHiP fractionation trial between 2002 and 2011. Patients received short-course hormone therapy (≤6 month) and radical intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Of 2749 consented patients, 1875 had adequate diagnostic biopsy tissue for blinded central pathology review. The median follow-up was 9.3 years. Agreement between local pathology and central pathology-derived GGG and between central pathology-derived overall and worst GGG was assessed using kappa (κ) statistics. Multivariate Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier methods were used to compare the biochemical/clinical failure (BCF) and distant metastases (DM) outcomes of patients with GGG 1-5. RESULTS: There was poor agreement between local pathology- and central pathology-derived GGG (κ = 0.19) but good agreement between overall and worst GGG on central pathology review (κ = 0.89). Central pathology-derived GGG stratified BCF and DM outcomes better than local pathology, while overall and worst GGG on central pathology review performed similarly. GGG 3 segregated with GGG 4 for BCF, with BCF-free rates of 90%, 82%, 74%, 71% and 58% for GGGs 1-5, respectively, at 8 years when assessed using overall GGG. There was a progressive decrease in DM-free rates from 98%, 96%, 92%, 88% and 83% for GGGs 1-5, respectively, at 8 years with overall GGG. Patients (n = 57) who were upgraded from GGG 2-3 using worst GS had BCF-free and DM-free rates of 74% and 92% at 8 years. CHHiP eligibility criteria limit the interpretation of these results. CONCLUSION: Contemporary review of International Society of Urological Pathology GGG successfully stratified patients treated with short-course hormone therapy and IMRT with regard to both BCF-free and DM-free outcomes. Patients upgraded from GGG 2 to GGG 3 using worst biopsy GS segregate with GGG 3 on long-term follow-up. We recommend that both overall and worst GS be used to derive GGG.

Dose-escalated simultaneous integrated boost radiotherapy in early breast cancer (IMPORT HIGH): a multicentre, phase 3, non-inferiority, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A tumour-bed boost delivered after whole-breast radiotherapy increases local cancer-control rates but requires more patient visits and can increase breast hardness. IMPORT HIGH tested simultaneous integrated boost against sequential boost with the aim of reducing treatment duration while maintaining excellent local control and similar or reduced toxicity. METHODS: IMPORT HIGH is a phase 3, non-inferiority, open-label, randomised controlled trial that recruited women after breast-conserving surgery for pT1-3pN0-3aM0 invasive carcinoma from radiotherapy and referral centres in the UK. Patients were randomly allocated to receive one of three treatments in a 1:1:1 ratio, with computer-generated random permuted blocks used to stratify patients by centre. The control group received 40 Gy in 15 fractions to the whole breast and 16 Gy in 8 fractions sequential photon tumour-bed boost. Test group 1 received 36 Gy in 15 fractions to the whole breast, 40 Gy in 15 fractions to the partial breast, and 48 Gy in 15 fractions concomitant photon boost to the tumour-bed volume. Test group 2 received 36 Gy in 15 fractions to the whole breast, 40 Gy in 15 fractions to the partial breast, and 53 Gy in 15 fractions concomitant photon boost to the tumour-bed volume. The boost clinical target volume was the clip-defined tumour bed. Patients and clinicians were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was ipsilateral breast tumour relapse (IBTR) analysed by intention to treat; assuming 5% 5-year incidence with the control group, non-inferiority was predefined as 3% or less absolute excess in the test groups (upper limit of two-sided 95% CI). Adverse events were assessed by clinicians, patients, and photographs. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN47437448, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between March 4, 2009, and Sept 16, 2015, 2617 patients were recruited. 871 individuals were assigned to the control group, 874 to test group 1, and 872 to test group 2. Median boost clinical target volume was 13 cm3 (IQR 7 to 22). At a median follow-up of 74 months there were 76 IBTR events (20 for the control group, 21 for test group 1, and 35 for test group 2). 5-year IBTR incidence was 1·9% (95% CI 1·2 to 3·1) for the control group, 2·0% (1·2 to 3·2) for test group 1, and 3·2% (2·2 to 4·7) for test group 2. The estimated absolute differences versus the control group were 0·1% (-0·8 to 1·7) for test group 1 and 1·4% (0·03 to 3·8) for test group 2. The upper confidence limit for test group 1 versus the control group indicated non-inferiority for 48 Gy. Cumulative 5-year incidence of clinician-reported moderate or marked breast induration was 11·5% for the control group, 10·6% for test group 1 (p=0·40 vs control group), and 15·5% for test group 2 (p=0·015 vs control group). INTERPRETATION: In all groups 5-year IBTR incidence was lower than the 5% originally expected regardless of boost sequencing. Dose-escalation is not advantageous. 5-year moderate or marked adverse event rates were low using small boost volumes. Simultaneous integrated boost in IMPORT HIGH was safe and reduced patient visits. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

Multi-candidate immunohistochemical markers to assess radiation response and prognosis in prostate cancer: results from the CHHiP trial of radiotherapy fractionation.

BACKGROUND: Protein markers of cellular proliferation, hypoxia, apoptosis, cell cycle checkpoints, growth factor signalling and inflammation in localised prostate tumours have previously shown prognostic ability. A translational substudy within the CHHiP trial of radiotherapy fractionation evaluated whether these could improve prediction of prognosis and assist treatment stratification following either conventional or hypofractionated radiotherapy. METHODS: Using case:control methodology, patients with biochemical or clinical failure after radiotherapy (BCR) were matched to patients without recurrence according to established prognostic factors (Gleason score, presenting PSA, tumour-stage) and fractionation schedule. Immunohistochemical (IHC) staining of diagnostic biopsy sections was performed and scored for HIF1α, Bcl-2, Ki67, Geminin, p16, p53, p-chk1 and PTEN. Univariable and multivariable conditional logistic regression models, adjusted for matching strata and age, estimated the prognostic value of each IHC biomarker, including interaction terms to determine BCR prediction according to fractionation. FINDINGS: IHC results were available for up to 336 tumours. PTEN, Geminin, mean Ki67 and max Ki67 were prognostic after adjusting for multiple comparisons and were fitted in a multivariable model (n = 212, 106 matched pairs). Here, PTEN and Geminin showed significant prediction of prognosis. No marker predicted BCR according to fractionation. INTERPRETATION: Geminin or Ki67, and PTEN, predicted response to radiotherapy independently of established prognostic factors. These results provide essential independent external validation of previous findings and confirm a role for these markers in treatment stratification. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK (BIDD) grant (A12518), Cancer Research UK (C8262/A7253), Department of Health, Prostate Cancer UK, Movember Foundation, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Royal Marsden/ICR.

TORPEdO: A phase III trial of intensity-modulated proton beam therapy versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy for multi-toxicity reduction in oropharyngeal cancer.

•There is a lack of prospective level I evidence for the use of PBT for most adult cancers including oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC).•TORPEdO is the UK's first PBT clinical trial and aims to determine the benefits of PBT for OPSCC.•Training and support has been provided before and during the trial to reduce variations of contouring and radiotherapy planning.•There is a strong translational component within TORPEdO. Imaging and physics data along with blood, tissue collection will inform future studies in refining patient selection for IMPT.

PEARLS - A multicentre phase II/III trial of extended field radiotherapy for androgen sensitive prostate cancer patients with PSMA-avid pelvic and/or para-aortic lymph nodes at presentation.

PEARLS is a multi-stage randomised controlled trial for prostate cancer patients with pelvic and/or para-aortic PSMA-avid lymph node disease at presentation. The aim of the trial is to determine whether extending the radiotherapy field to cover the para-aortic lymph nodes (up to L1/L2 vertebral interspace) can improve outcomes for this patient group.

Observation versus screening spinal MRI and pre-emptive treatment for spinal cord compression in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and spinal metastases in the UK (PROMPTS): an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Early diagnosis of malignant spinal cord compression (SCC) is crucial because pretreatment neurological status is the major determinant of outcome. In metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, SCC is a clinically significant cause of disease-related morbidity and mortality. We investigated whether screening for SCC with spinal MRI, and pre-emptive treatment if radiological SCC (rSCC) was detected, reduced the incidence of clinical SCC (cSCC) in asymptomatic patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and spinal metastasis. METHODS: We did a parallel-group, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3, superiority trial. Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were recruited from 45 National Health Service hospitals in the UK. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years, with an Eastern Co-operative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, asymptomatic spinal metastasis, no previous SCC, and no spinal MRI in the past 12 months. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using a minimisation algorithm with a random element (balancing factors were treatment centre, alkaline phosphatase [normal vs raised, with the upper limit of normal being defined at each participating laboratory], number of previous systemic treatments [first-line vs second-line or later], previous spinal treatment, and imaging of thorax and abdomen), to no MRI (control group) or screening spinal MRI (intervention group). Serious adverse events were monitored in the 24 h after screening MRI in the intervention group. Participants with screen-detected rSCC were offered pre-emptive treatment (radiotherapy or surgical decompression was recommended per treating physician's recommendation) and 6-monthly spinal MRI. All patients were followed up every 3 months, and then at month 30 and 36. The primary endpoint was time to and incidence of confirmed cSCC in the intention-to-treat population (defined as all patients randomly assigned), with the primary timepoint of interest being 1 year after randomisation. The study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN74112318, and is now complete. FINDINGS: Between Feb 26, 2013, and April 25, 2017, 420 patients were randomly assigned to the control (n=210) or screening MRI (n=210) groups. Median age was 74 years (IQR 68 to 79), 222 (53%) of 420 patients had normal alkaline phosphatase, and median prostate-specific antigen concentration was 48 ng/mL (IQR 17 to 162). Screening MRI detected rSCC in 61 (31%) of 200 patients with assessable scans in the intervention group. As of data cutoff (April 23, 2020), at a median follow-up of 22 months (IQR 13 to 31), time to cSCC was not significantly improved with screening (hazard ratio 0·64 [95% CI 0·37 to 1·11]; Gray's test p=0·12). 1-year cSCC rates were 6·7% (95% CI 3·8-10·6; 14 of 210 patients) for the control group and 4·3% (2·1-7·7; nine of 210 patients) for the intervention group (difference -2·4% [95% CI -4·2 to 0·1]). Median time to cSCC was not reached in either group. No serious adverse events were reported within 24 h of screening. INTERPRETATION: Despite the substantial incidence of rSCC detected in the intervention group, the rate of cSCC in both groups was low at a median of 22 months of follow-up. Routine use of screening MRI and pre-emptive treatment to prevent cSCC is not warranted in patients with asymptomatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with spinal metastasis. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

Nonrandomized Comparison of Efficacy and Side Effects of Bicalutamide Compared With Luteinizing Hormone-Releasing Hormone (LHRH) Analogs in Combination With Radiation Therapy in the CHHiP Trial.

PURPOSE: CHHiP is a randomized trial evaluating moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy for treatment of localized prostate cancer. Of all participants, 97% of them had concurrent short-course hormone therapy (HT), either luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analog (LHRHa) or 150 mg of bicalutamide daily. This exploratory analysis compares efficacy and side effects in a nonrandomized comparison. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In our study, 2700 patients received LHRHa and 403 received bicalutamide. The primary endpoint was biochemical/clinical failure. Groups were compared with Cox regression adjusted for various prognostic factors and stratified by radiation therapy dose. A key secondary endpoint was erectile dysfunction (ED) assessed by clinicians (using scores from Late Effects on Normal Tissues: Subjective/Objective/Management [LENT-SOM] subjective erectile function for vaginal penetration) and patients (single items within the University of California-Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index [UCLA PCI] and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite [EPIC]-50 questionnaires) at 2 years and compared between HT regimens by χ2 trend test. RESULTS: Bicalutamide patients were significantly younger (median 67 vs 69 years LHRHa). Median follow-up was 9.3 years. There was no difference in biochemical or clinical failure with an adjusted hazard ratio or 0.97 (95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.23; P = .8). At 2 years, grade ≥2 LENT-SOM ED was reported in significantly more LHRHa patients (313 out of 590; 53%) versus bicalutamide (17 out of 68; 25%) (P < .0001). There were no differences in ED seen with UCLA-PCI and EPIC-50 questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: In this nonrandomized comparison, there was no evidence of a difference in efficacy according to type of HT received. Bicalutamide preserved clinician assessed (LENT-SOM) erectile function at 2 years but patient-reported outcomes were similar between groups.

Dose-escalated intensity-modulated radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced laryngeal and hypopharyngeal cancers: ART DECO, a phase III randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Radical (chemo)radiotherapy offers potentially curative treatment for patients with locally advanced laryngeal or hypopharyngeal cancer. We aimed to show that dose-escalated intensity-modulated radiotherapy (DE-IMRT) improved locoregional control. METHODS: We performed a phase III open-label randomised controlled trial in patients with laryngeal or hypopharyngeal cancer (AJCC III-IVa/b, TNM 7). Patients were randomised (1:1) to DE-IMRT or standard dose IMRT (ST-IMRT) using a minimisation algorithm, balancing for centre, tumour site, nodal status and chemotherapy use. DE-IMRT was 67.2 gray (Gy) in 28 fractions (f) to the primary tumour and 56Gy/28f to at-risk nodes; ST-IMRT was 65Gy/30f to primary tumour and 54Gy/30f to at-risk nodes. Suitable patients received 2 cycles of concomitant cisplatin and up to 3 cycles of platinum-based induction chemotherapy. The primary end-point was time to locoregional failure analysed by intention-to-treat analysis using competing risk methodology. FINDINGS: Between February 2011 and October 2015, 276 patients (138 ST-IMRT; 138 DE-IMRT) were randomised. A preplanned interim futility analysis met the criterion for early closure. After a median follow-up of 47.9 months (interquartile range 37.5-60.5), there were locoregional failures in 38 of 138 (27.5%) ST-IMRT patients and 42 of 138 (30.4%) DE-IMRT patients; an adjusted subhazard ratio of 1.16 (95% confidence interval: 0.74-1.83, p = 0.519) indicated no evidence of benefit with DE-IMRT. Acute grade 2 pharyngeal mucositis was reported more frequently with DE-IMRT than with ST-IMRT (42% vs. 32%). No differences in grade ≥3 acute or late toxicity rates were seen. CONCLUSION: DE-IMRT did not improve locoregional control in patients with laryngeal or hypopharyngeal cancer. The trial is registered: ISRCTN01483375.

PIVOTALboost: A phase III randomised controlled trial of prostate and pelvis versus prostate alone radiotherapy with or without prostate boost (CRUK/16/018).

•PIVOTALboost evaluates benefits/toxicity of pelvic node RT and focal boost dose escalation.•Unfavourable intermediate/high risk and bulky local disease are most likely to benefit.•Functional MRI imaging is used to select patients for different types of dose escalation.•HDR brachytherapy or focal dose escalation with IMRT are used as options.•Training and support is provided to reduce variations of contouring and radiotherapy planning.•The trial is recruiting patients in 38 radiotherapy centres through the UK.

Linkage of the CHHiP randomised controlled trial with primary care data: a study investigating ways of supplementing cancer trials and improving evidence-based practice.

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evidence-based practice. However, RCTs can have limitations. For example, translation of findings into practice can be limited by design features, such as inclusion criteria, not accurately reflecting clinical populations. In addition, it is expensive to recruit and follow-up participants in RCTs. Linkage with routinely collected data could offer a cost-effective way to enhance the conduct and generalisability of RCTs. The aim of this study is to investigate how primary care data can support RCTs. METHODS: Secondary analysis following linkage of two datasets: 1) multicentre CHHiP radiotherapy trial (ISRCTN97182923) and 2) primary care database from the Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre. Comorbidities and medications recorded in CHHiP at baseline, and radiotherapy-related toxicity recorded in CHHiP over time were compared with primary care records. The association of comorbidities and medications with toxicity was analysed with mixed-effects logistic regression. RESULTS: Primary care records were extracted for 106 out of 2811 CHHiP participants recruited from sites in England (median age 70, range 44 to 82). Complementary information included longitudinal body mass index, blood pressure and cholesterol, as well as baseline smoking and alcohol usage but was limited by the considerable missing data. In the linked sample, 9 (8%) participants were recorded in CHHiP as having a history of diabetes and 38 (36%) hypertension, whereas primary care records indicated incidence prior to trial entry of 11 (10%) and 40 (38%) respectively. Concomitant medications were not collected in CHHiP but available in primary care records. This indicated that 44 (41.5%) men took aspirin, 65 (61.3%) statins, 14 (13.2%) metformin and 46 (43.4%) phosphodiesterase-5-inhibitors at some point before or after trial entry. CONCLUSIONS: We provide a set of recommendations on linkage and supplementation of trials. Data recorded in primary care are a rich resource and linkage could provide near real-time information to supplement trials and an efficient and cost-effective mechanism for long-term follow-up. In addition, standardised primary care data extracts could form part of RCT recruitment and conduct. However, this is at present limited by the variable quality and fragmentation of primary care data.

Evaluation of erectile potency and radiation dose to the penile bulb using image guided radiotherapy in the CHHiP trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The penile bulb (PB) dose may be critical in development of post prostate radiotherapy erectile dysfunction (ED). This study aimed to generate PB dose constraints based on dose-volume histograms (DVHs) in patients treated with prostate radiotherapy, and to identify clinical and dosimetric parameters that predict the risk of ED post prostate radiotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Penile bulb DVHs were generated for 276 patients treated within the randomised IGRT substudy of the multicentre randomised trial, CHHiP. Incidence of ED in relation to dose and randomised IGRT groups were evaluated using Wilcoxon rank sum, Chi-squared test and atlases of complication incidence. Youden index was used to find dose-volume constraints that discriminated for ED. Multivariate analysis (MVA) of effect of dosimetry, clinical and patient-related variables was performed. RESULTS: Reduced treatment margins using IGRT (IGRT-R) produced significantly reduced mean PB dose compared with standard margins (IGRT-S) (median: 25 Gy (IGRT-S) versus 11 Gy (IGRT-R); p < 0.0001). Significant difference in both mean (median: 23 Gy (ED) vs. 18 Gy (no ED); p = 0.011) and maximum (median: 59 Gy (ED) vs. 52 Gy (no ED); p = 0.018) PB doses between those with and without clinician reported ED were identified. Mean PB dose cut-point for ED was derived at around 20 Gy. On MVA, PB mean dose and age predicted for impotence. CONCLUSION: PB dose appears predictive of post-radiotherapy ED with calculated threshold mean dose of around 20 Gy, substantially lower than published recommendations. IGRT-R enables favourable PB dosimetry and can be recommended provided prostate coverage is not compromised.

A randomised assessment of image guided radiotherapy within a phase 3 trial of conventional or hypofractionated high dose intensity modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) improves treatment set-up accuracy and provides the opportunity to reduce target volume margins. We introduced IGRT methods using standard (IGRT-S) or reduced (IGRT-R) margins in a randomised phase 2 substudy within CHHiP trial. We present a pre-planned analysis of the impact of IGRT on dosimetry and acute/late pelvic side effects using gastrointestinal and genitourinary clinician and patient-reported outcomes (PRO) and evaluate efficacy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CHHiP is a randomised phase 3, non-inferiority trial for men with localised prostate cancer. 3216 patients were randomly assigned to conventional (74 Gy in 2 Gy/fraction (f) daily) or moderate hypofractionation (60 or 57 Gy in 3 Gy/f daily) between October 2002 and June 2011. The IGRT substudy included a second randomisation assigning to no-IGRT, IGRT-S (standard CTV-PTV margins), or IGRT-R (reduced CTV-PTV margins). Primary substudy endpoint was late RTOG bowel and urinary toxicity at 2 years post-radiotherapy. RESULTS: Between June 2010 to July 2011, 293 men were recruited from 16 centres. Median follow-up is 56.9(IQR 54.3-60.9) months. Rectal and bladder dose-volume and surface percentages were significantly lower in IGRT-R compared to IGRT-S group; (p < 0.0001). Cumulative proportion with RTOG grade ≥ 2 toxicity reported to 2 years for bowel was 8.3(95% CI 3.2-20.7)%, 8.3(4.7-14.6)% and 5.8(2.6-12.4)% and for urinary 8.4(3.2-20.8)%, 4.6(2.1-9.9)% and 3.9(1.5-9.9)% in no IGRT, IGRT-S and IGRT-R groups respectively. In an exploratory analysis, treatment efficacy appeared similar in all three groups. CONCLUSION: Introduction of IGRT was feasible in a national randomised trial and IGRT-R produced dosimetric benefits. Overall side effect profiles were acceptable in all groups but lowest with IGRT and reduced margins. ISRCTN: 97182923.

Protocol for tumour-focused dose-escalated adaptive radiotherapy for the radical treatment of bladder cancer in a multicentre phase II randomised controlled trial (RAIDER): radiotherapy planning and delivery guidance.

INTRODUCTION: Daily radiotherapy delivered with radiosensitisation offers patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) comparable outcomes to cystectomy with functional organ preservation. Most recurrences following radiotherapy occur within the bladder. Increasing the delivered radiotherapy dose to the tumour may further improve local control. Developments in image-guided radiotherapy have allowed bladder tumour-focused 'plan of the day' radiotherapy delivery. We aim to test within a randomised multicentre phase II trial whether this technique will enable dose escalation with acceptable rates of toxicity. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Patients with T2-T4aN0M0 unifocal MIBC will be randomised (1:1:2) between standard/control whole bladder single plan radiotherapy, standard dose adaptive tumour-focused radiotherapy or dose-escalated adaptive tumour-focused radiotherapy (DART). Adaptive tumour-focused radiotherapy will use a library of three plans (small, medium and large) for treatment. A cone beam CT taken prior to each treatment will be used to visualise the anatomy and inform selection of the most appropriate plan for treatment.Two radiotherapy fractionation schedules (32f and 20f) are permitted. A minimum of 120 participants will be randomised in each fractionation cohort (to ensure 57 evaluable DART patients per cohort).A comprehensive radiotherapy quality assurance programme including pretrial and on-trial components is instituted to ensure standardisation of radiotherapy planning and delivery.The trial has a two-stage non-comparative design. The primary end point of stage I is the proportion of patients meeting predefined normal tissue constraints in the DART group. The primary end point of stage II is late Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3 or worse toxicity aiming to exclude a rate of >20% (80% power and 5% alpha, one sided) in each DART fractionation cohort. Secondary end points include locoregional MIBC control, progression-free survival overall survival and patient-reported outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This clinical trial is approved by the London-Surrey Borders Research Ethics Committee (15/LO/0539). The results when available will be disseminated via peer-reviewed scientific journals, conference presentations and submission to regulatory authorities. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02447549; Pre-results.

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.

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.

Methodology for tissue sample collection within a translational sub-study of the CHHiP trial (CRUK/06/016), a large randomised phase III trial in localised prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: This article presents the methodology for tissue sample collection in Trans-CHHiP, the main translational study within the CHHiP (Conventional or Hypofractionated High dose intensity modulated radiotherapy in Prostate cancer, ISRCTN 97182923) trial. The CHHiP trial randomised 3216 men with localised prostate cancer to 3 different radiotherapy fractionation schedules. Trans-CHHiP aims to identify biomarkers of fraction sensitivity. METHODS: We outline the process of tissue collection, including central review by a study-specific specialist uropathologist and comparison of the centrally-assigned Gleason grade group with that assigned by the recruiting-centre pathologist. RESULTS: 2047 patients provided tissue from 107 pathology departments between August 2012 and April 2014. A highly motivated Clinical Trials Unit chasing samples and a central Trans-CHHiP group that regularly reviewed progress were important for successful sample collection. Agreement in Gleason grade group assigned by the recruiting centre pathologist and the central study-specific uropathologist occurred in 886 out of 1854 (47.8%) cases. Key lessons learned were the need for prospective consent for tissue collection when recruiting patients to the main trial, and the importance of Material Transfer Agreement (MTA) integration into the initial trial site agreement. CONCLUSIONS: This methodology enabled collection of 2047 patient samples from a large randomised radiotherapy trial. Central pathological review is important to minimise subjectivity in Gleason grade grouping and the impact of grade shift.