Evaluating the utility of knowledge-based planning for clinical trials using the TROG 08.03 post prostatectomy radiation therapy planning data.

Background and purpose: Poor quality radiotherapy can detrimentally affect outcomes in clinical trials. Our purpose was to explore the potential of knowledge-based planning (KBP) for quality assurance (QA) in clinical trials. Materials and methods: Using 30 in-house post-prostatectomy radiation treatment (PPRT) plans, an iterative KBP model was created according to the multicentre clinical trial protocol, delivering 64 Gy in 32 fractions. KBP was used to replan 137 plans. The KB (knowledge based) plans were evaluated for their ability to fulfil the trial constraints and were compared against their corresponding original treatment plans (OTP). A second analysis between only the 72 inversely planned OTPs (IP-OTPs) and their corresponding KB plans was performed. Results: All dose constraints were met in 100% of KB plans versus 69% of OTPs. KB plans demonstrated significantly less variation in PTV coverage (Mean dose range: KB plans 64.1 Gy-65.1 Gy vs OTP 63.1 Gy-67.3 Gy, p < 0.01). KBP resulted in significantly lower doses to OARs. Rectal V60Gy and V40Gy were 17.7% vs 27.7% (p < 0.01) and 40.5% vs 53.9% (p < 0.01) for KB plans and OTP respectively. Left femoral head (FH) V45Gy and V35Gy were 0.4% vs 7.4% (p < 0.01) and 7.9% vs 34.9% (p < 0.01) respectively. In the second analysis plan improvements were maintained. Conclusions: KBP created high quality PPRT plans using the data from a multicentre clinical trial in a single optimisation. It is a powerful tool for utilisation in clinical trials for patient specific QA, to reduce dose to surrounding OARs and variations in plan quality which could impact on clinical trial outcomes.

Adjuvant or early salvage radiotherapy for the treatment of localised and locally advanced prostate cancer: a prospectively planned systematic review and meta-analysis of aggregate data.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether adjuvant or early salvage radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy is more appropriate for men who present with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer. We aimed to prospectively plan a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing these radiotherapy approaches. METHODS: We used a prospective framework for adaptive meta-analysis (FAME), starting the review process while eligible trials were ongoing. RCTs were eligible if they aimed to compare immediate adjuvant radiotherapy versus early salvage radiotherapy, following radical prostatectomy in men (age ≥18 years) with intermediate-risk or high-risk, localised or locally advanced prostate cancer. We searched trial registers and conference proceedings until July 8, 2020, to identify eligible RCTs. By establishing the ARTISTIC collaboration with relevant trialists, we were able to anticipate when eligible trial results would emerge, and we developed and registered a protocol with PROSPERO before knowledge of the trial results (CRD42019132669). We used a harmonised definition of event-free survival, as the time from randomisation until the first evidence of either biochemical progression (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] ≥0·4 ng/mL and rising after completion of any postoperative radiotherapy), clinical or radiological progression, initiation of a non-trial treatment, death from prostate cancer, or a PSA level of at least 2·0 ng/mL at any time after randomisation. We predicted when we would have sufficient power to assess whether adjuvant radiotherapy was superior to early salvage radiotherapy. Investigators supplied results for event-free survival, both overall and within predefined patient subgroups. Hazard ratios (HRs) for the effects of radiotherapy timing on event-free survival and subgroup interactions were combined using fixed-effect meta-analysis. FINDINGS: We identified three eligible trials and were able to obtain updated results for event-free survival for 2153 patients recruited between November, 2007, and December, 2016. Median follow-up ranged from 60 months to 78 months, with a maximum follow-up of 132 months. 1075 patients were randomly assigned to receive adjuvant radiotherapy and 1078 to a policy of early salvage radiotherapy, of whom 421 (39·1%) had commenced treatment at the time of analysis. Patient characteristics were balanced within trials and overall. Median age was similar between trials at 64 or 65 years (with IQRs ranging from 59 to 68 years) across the three trials and most patients (1671 [77·6%]) had a Gleason score of 7. All trials were assessed as having low risk of bias. Based on 270 events, the meta-analysis showed no evidence that event-free survival was improved with adjuvant radiotherapy compared with early salvage radiotherapy (HR 0·95, 95% CI 0·75-1·21; p=0·70), with only a 1 percentage point (95% CI -2 to 3) change in 5-year event-free survival (89% vs 88%). Results were consistent across trials (heterogeneity p=0·18; I2=42%). INTERPRETATION: This collaborative and prospectively designed systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that adjuvant radiotherapy does not improve event-free survival in men with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer. Until data on long-term outcomes are available, early salvage treatment would seem the preferable treatment policy as it offers the opportunity to spare many men radiotherapy and its associated side-effects. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council.

Adjuvant radiotherapy versus early salvage radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy (TROG 08.03/ANZUP RAVES): a randomised, controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant radiotherapy has been shown to halve the risk of biochemical progression for patients with high-risk disease after radical prostatectomy. Early salvage radiotherapy could result in similar biochemical control with lower treatment toxicity. We aimed to compare biochemical progression between patients given adjuvant radiotherapy and those given salvage radiotherapy. METHODS: We did a phase 3, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial across 32 oncology centres in Australia and New Zealand. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years and had undergone a radical prostatectomy for adenocarcinoma of the prostate with pathological staging showing high-risk features defined as positive surgical margins, extraprostatic extension, or seminal vesicle invasion; had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and had a postoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration of 0·10 ng/mL or less. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a minimisation technique via an internet-based, independently generated allocation to either adjuvant radiotherapy within 6 months of radical prostatectomy or early salvage radiotherapy triggered by a PSA of 0·20 ng/mL or more. Allocation sequence was concealed from investigators and patients, but treatment assignment for individual randomisations was not masked. Patients were stratified by radiotherapy centre, preoperative PSA, Gleason score, surgical margin status, and seminal vesicle invasion status. Radiotherapy in both groups was 64 Gy in 32 fractions to the prostate bed without androgen deprivation therapy with real-time review of plan quality on all cases before treatment. The primary endpoint was freedom from biochemical progression. Salvage radiotherapy would be deemed non-inferior to adjuvant radiotherapy if freedom from biochemical progression at 5 years was within 10% of that for adjuvant radiotherapy with a hazard ratio (HR) for salvage radiotherapy versus adjuvant radiotherapy of 1·48. The primary analysis was done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00860652. FINDINGS: Between March 27, 2009, and Dec 31, 2015, 333 patients were randomly assigned (166 to adjuvant radiotherapy; 167 to salvage radiotherapy). Median follow-up was 6·1 years (IQR 4·3-7·5). An independent data monitoring committee recommended premature closure of enrolment because of unexpectedly low event rates. 84 (50%) patients in the salvage radiotherapy group had radiotherapy triggered by a PSA of 0·20 ng/mL or more. 5-year freedom from biochemical progression was 86% (95% CI 81-92) in the adjuvant radiotherapy group versus 87% (82-93) in the salvage radiotherapy group (stratified HR 1·12, 95% CI 0·65-1·90; pnon-inferiority=0·15). The grade 2 or worse genitourinary toxicity rate was lower in the salvage radiotherapy group (90 [54%] of 167) than in the adjuvant radiotherapy group (116 [70%] of 166). The grade 2 or worse gastrointestinal toxicity rate was similar between the salvage radiotherapy group (16 [10%]) and the adjuvant radiotherapy group (24 [14%]). INTERPRETATION: Salvage radiotherapy did not meet trial specified criteria for non-inferiority. However, these data support the use of salvage radiotherapy as it results in similar biochemical control to adjuvant radiotherapy, spares around half of men from pelvic radiation, and is associated with significantly lower genitourinary toxicity. FUNDING: New Zealand Health Research Council, Australian National Health Medical Research Council, Cancer Council Victoria, Cancer Council NSW, Auckland Hospital Charitable Trust, Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group Seed Funding, Cancer Research Trust New Zealand, Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists, Cancer Institute NSW, Prostate Cancer Foundation Australia, and Cancer Australia.

Contour variation is a primary source of error when delivering post prostatectomy radiotherapy: Results of the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group 08.03 Radiotherapy Adjuvant Versus Early Salvage (RAVES) benchmarking exercise.

INTRODUCTION: Variation in target volume delineation from clinical trial protocols has been shown to contribute to poorer patient outcomes. A clinical trial quality assurance framework can support compliance with trial protocol. Results of the TROG 08.03 RAVES benchmarking exercise considering variation from protocol, inter-observer variability and impact on dosimetry are reported in this paper. METHODS: Clinicians were required to contour and plan a benchmarking case according to trial protocol. Geometric pjmirometers including volume, Hausdorff Distance, Mean Distance to Agreement and DICE similarity coefficient were analysed for targets and organs at risk. Submitted volumes were compared to a STAPLE and consensus 'reference' volume for each structure. Dosimetric analysis was performed using dose volume histogram data. RESULTS: Benchmarking exercise submissions were received from 96 clinicians. In total 205 protocol variations were identified. The most common variation was inadequate contouring of the CTV in 84/205 (41%). The CTV volume ranged from 65.3 to 193.1 cm3 with a median of 113.2 cm3 . The most common dosimetric protocol variation related to rectal dosimetry. The mean submitted rectal volume receiving 40 Gy and 60 Gy, respectively, was 56.14% ± 5.55% and 30.25% ± 6.15%. When corrected to the protocol defined length the mean rectal volume receiving 40 Gy was 60.8% ± 7.92%, while the volume receiving 60 Gy was 33.86% ± 8.21%. CONCLUSION: Variations from protocol were found in the RAVES benchmarking exercise, most notably in CTV and rectum delineation. Inter-observer variability was evident. Incorrect delineation of the rectum impacted on dosimetric compliance with protocol.

A randomised controlled trial evaluating the utility of a patient Decision Aid to improve clinical trial (RAVES 08.03) related decision-making.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the 'gold-standard' for evaluating medical treatments. However, patients and clinicians report difficulties with informed consent and recruitment. We evaluated the utility of a Decision Aid (DA) in reducing RCT-related decisional conflict, and improving RCT knowledge and recruitment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Potential participants for a radiotherapy RCT were invited to participate in the current study. Participants were randomised to receive the RCT's participant information sheet with or without a DA. Questionnaires were administered at baseline, one and six months. The primary outcome measure was decisional conflict. Secondary outcome measures included knowledge regarding and recruitment to the RCT. RESULTS: 129 men were randomised to the DA (63) and control (66) arms. Decisional conflict was significantly lower over 6-months (p=0.048) in the DA arm. Knowledge regarding the RCT was significantly higher at 6months (p=0.033) in the DA arm. 20.6% of the DA arm (13 of 63) and 9% of the control arm (6 of 66) entered the RCT. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the utility of a DA in reducing decisional conflict and improving trial knowledge in men with cancer who are making decisions regarding RCT participation.

Knowledge, attitudes and decision-making preferences of men considering participation in the TROG RAVES Prostate Cancer Trial (TROG 08.03).

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The RAVES (Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group 08.03) randomised controlled trial (RCT), compares adjuvant radiotherapy with early salvage radiotherapy in men with high risk histopathological features at prostatectomy. The RAVES Decision Aid study evaluates the utility of a decision aid for men considering participation in the RAVES RCT. We report the RAVES Decision Aid study participants' attitudes and knowledge regarding RCTs, decision-making preferences and decisional-conflict. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Baseline questionnaires assessed knowledge and attitudes towards RCTs and RAVES RCT. Sociodemographic and clinical predictors of knowledge were examined. Involvement in decision-making and difficulties with the decision-making process were assessed using validated tools. RESULTS: 127 men (median age=63years) were recruited through urologists (n=91) and radiation oncologists (n=36). Men preferred collaborative (35%) or semi-active (35%) decision-making roles. Most (>75%) felt the RAVES RCT was worthwhile and important with participation being wise. However, nearly half had high decisional-conflict regarding participation. Scores of objective knowledge regarding RCTs and RAVES RCT were low. CONCLUSIONS: Most men with high-risk histopathological features at prostatectomy desire active involvement in decision-making regarding further management. Despite positive attitudes towards RCTs and the RAVES RCT, there were gaps in knowledge and high decisional-conflict surrounding participation.

Optimizing Radiation Therapy Quality Assurance in Clinical Trials: A TROG 08.03 RAVES Substudy.

PURPOSE: To explore site- and clinician-level factors associated with protocol violations requiring real-time-review (RTR) resubmission in a multicenter clinical trial to help tailor future quality assurance (QA) protocols. METHODS AND MATERIALS: RAVES (Radiation Therapy-Adjuvant vs Early Salvage) (Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group 08.03) is a randomized trial comparing adjuvant with early salvage radiation therapy in men with positive surgical margins or pT3 disease after prostatectomy. Quality assurance in RAVES required each clinician and site to submit a credentialing dummy run (DR) and for each patient's radiation therapy plan to undergo external RTR before treatment. Prospectively defined major violations from trial protocol required remedy and resubmission. Site and clinician factors associated with RTR resubmission were examined using hierarchical modeling. RESULTS: Data were collected from 171 consecutive patients, treated by 46 clinicians at 32 hospitals. There were 47 RTR resubmissions (27%) due to 65 major violations. The relative rate of resubmission decreased by 29% per year as the study progressed (odds ratio OR. 0.71, P=.02). The majority of resubmissions were due to contouring violations (39 of 65) and dosimetric violations (22 of 65). For each additional patient accrued, significant decreases in RTR resubmission were seen at both clinician level (OR 0.75, P=.02) and site level (OR 0.72, P=.01). The rate of resubmission due to dosimetric violations was only 1.6% after the first 5 patients. Use of IMRT was associated with lower rates of resubmission compared with 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (OR 0.38, P=.05). CONCLUSION: Several low- and high-risk factors that may assist with tailoring future clinical trial QA were identified. Because the real-time resubmission rate was largely independent of the credentialing exercise, some form of RTR QA is recommended. The greatest benefit from QA was derived early in trial activation and clinician experience.

A Phase III trial to investigate the timing of radiotherapy for prostate cancer with high-risk features: background and rationale of the Radiotherapy -- Adjuvant Versus Early Salvage (RAVES) trial.

OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that observation with early salvage radiotherapy (SRT) is not inferior to 'standard' treatment with adjuvant RT (ART) with respect to biochemical failure in patients with pT3 disease and/or positive surgical margins (SMs) after radical prostatectomy (RP). To compare the following secondary endpoints between the two arms: patient-reported outcomes, adverse events, biochemical failure-free survival, overall survival, disease-specific survival, time to distant failure, time to local failure, cost utility analysis, quality adjusted life years and time to androgen deprivation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Radiotherapy - Adjuvant Versus Early Salvage (RAVES) trial is a phase III multicentre randomised controlled trial led by the Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (TROG), in collaboration with the Urological Society of Australia and New Zealand (USANZ), and the Australian and New Zealand Urogenital and Prostate Cancer Trials Group (ANZUP). In all, 470 patients are planned to be randomised 1:1 to either ART commenced at ≤4 months of RP (standard of care) or close observation with early SRT triggered by a PSA level of >0.20 ng/mL (experimental arm). Eligible patients have had a RP for adenocarcinoma of the prostate with at least one of the following risk factors: positive SMs ± extraprostatic extension ± seminal vesicle involvement. The postoperative PSA level must be ≤0.10 ng/mL. Rigorous investigator credentialing and a quality assurance programme are designed to promote consistent RT delivery among patients. RESULTS: Trial is currently underway, with 258 patients randomised as of 31 October 2013. International collaborations have developed, including a planned meta-analysis to be undertaken with the UK Medical Research Council/National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group RADICALS (Radiotherapy and Androgen Deprivation In Combination with Local Surgery) trial and an innovative psycho-oncology sub-study to investigate a patient decision aid resource. CONCLUSION: On the current evidence available, it remains unclear if ART is equivalent or superior to observation with early SRT.

Rectal cancer: future directions and priorities for treatment, research and policy in New Zealand.

New Zealand has one of the highest incidences of rectal cancer in the world, and its optimal management requires a multidisciplinary approach. A National Rectal Cancer Summit was convened in August 2013 to discuss management of rectal cancer in the New Zealand context, to highlight controversies and discuss domestic priorities for the future. This paper summarises the priorities for treatment, research and policy for rectal cancer services in New Zealand identified as part of the Summit in August. The following priorities were identified: - Access to high-quality information for service planning, review of outcomes, identification of inequities and gaps in provision, and quality improvement; - Engagement with the entire sector, including private providers; - Focus on equity; - Emerging technologies; - Harmonisation of best practice; - Importance of multidisciplinary team meetings. In conclusion, improvements in outcomes for patients with rectal cancer in New Zealand will require significant engagement between policy makers, providers, researchers, and patients in order to ensure equitable access to high quality treatment, and strategic incorporation of emerging technologies into clinical practice. A robust clinical information framework is required in order to facilitate monitoring of quality improvements and to ensure that equitable care is delivered.

Clinical tumour size and nodal status predict pathologic complete response following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer.

PURPOSE: Pathologic complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant treatment for rectal cancer has been associated with improved local control, reduced distant disease and a survival advantage when compared with non-complete responders. Approximately 10-25 % of patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer achieve pCR; however, predictors for its occurrence are inadequately defined. This study aimed to identify clinical and tumour factors that predict pCR in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. METHODS: Consecutive rectal cancer patients diagnosed and treated in the Auckland region between 1 January 2002 and 1 February 2013 were retrospectively identified. Cases were stratified by the occurrence of pCR or non-pCR. Predictive capacity of several patient, tumour and treatment-related variables were then assessed by univariate and regression analyses. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-seven patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, of whom 34 (11.4 %) achieved pCR. There were no significant differences in age, gender, ethnicity, BMI, pretreatment clinical T or N stage, tumour distance from the anal verge, tumour differentiation, chemoradiotherapy regimen and time interval to surgery between the pCR and non-pCR groups. Univariate analysis identified pretreatment serum CEA levels, a reduction in pre- to post-treatment serum CEA and smaller tumours as significant correlates of pCR. Logistic regression analysis found smaller tumour size and pretreatment clinical N stage as independent clinical predictors for achieving pCR. CONCLUSIONS: Smaller tumour size and pretreatment clinical N stage were independent clinical predictors for achieving pCR. Prospective analysis is recommended for more rigorous risk factor assessment.

Evaluating the utility of a patient decision aid for potential participants of a prostate cancer trial (RAVES-TROG 08.03).

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can be hampered by poor patient accrual and retention. Decision aids (DAs) containing simple, evidence-based information, may assist patients with decision-making regarding trial participation. The current DA was of use for 95% of participants. Further evaluation of the DA in a RCT is currently underway.

Efficacy of salvage radiotherapy plus 2-year androgen suppression for postradical prostatectomy patients with PSA relapse.

PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy of a combined approach of radiotherapy (RT) plus 2-year androgen suppression (AS) as salvage treatment for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) relapse after radical prostatectomy (RP). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Seventy-five patients with PSA relapse after RP were treated with salvage RT plus 2-year AS, as per a pilot, prospective study. AS started within 1 month after completion of salvage RT and consisted of nilutamide for 4 weeks and buserelin acetate depot subcutaneously every 2 months for 2 years. Relapse-free rate including freedom from PSA relapse was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. PSA relapse was defined as a PSA rise above 0.2 ng/mL with two consecutive increases over a minimum of 3 months. A Cox regression analysis was performed to evaluate prognostic factors for relapse. RESULTS: Median age of the cohort was 63 years at the time of salvage RT. Median follow-up from salvage RT was 6.4 years. All achieved initially complete PSA response (< 0.2) with the protocol treatment. Relapse-free rate including the freedom from PSA relapse was 91.5% at 5 years and 78.6% at 7 years. Overall survival rate was 93.2% at both 5 and 7 years. On Cox regression analysis, pT3 stage and PSA relapse less than 2 years after RP were significant prognostic factors for relapse. CONCLUSION: The combined treatment of salvage RT plus 2-year AS yielded an encouraging result for patients with PSA relapse after RP and needs a confirmatory study.

Prospective study evaluating postoperative radiotherapy plus 2-year androgen suppression for post-radical prostatectomy patients with pathologic T3 disease and/or positive surgical margins.

PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy of a combined approach of postoperative radiotherapy (RT) plus 2-year androgen suppression (AS) for patients with pathologic T3 disease (pT3) and/or positive surgical margins (PSM) after radical prostatectomy (RP). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 78 patients with pT3 and/or PSM after RP were treated with RT plus 2-year AS, as per a pilot, prospective study. Androgen suppression started within 1 month after the completion of RT and consisted of nilutamide for 4 weeks and buserelin acetate depot subcutaneously every 2 months for 2 years. Relapse-free rate, including freedom from prostate-specific antigen (PSA) relapse, was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. A Cox regression analysis was performed to evaluate prognostic factors for relapse. Prostate-specific antigen relapse was defined as a PSA rise above 0.2 ng/mL, with two consecutive increases over a minimum of 3 months. RESULTS: The median age was 61 years at the time of RP. The median interval between RP and postoperative RT was 4.2 months. Forty-nine patients had undetectable PSA (<0.2 ng/mL), and 29 had persistently detectable postoperative PSA at the time of the protocol treatment. Median follow-up from RT was 6.4 years. Relapse-free rates at 5 and 7 years were 94.4% and 86.3%, respectively. Survival rates were 96% at 5 years and 93.1% at 7 years. On Cox regression analysis, persistently detectable postoperative PSA and pT3b-T4 were significant predictors for relapse. CONCLUSION: The combined treatment of postoperative RT plus 2-year AS yielded encouraging results for patients with pT3 and/or PSM and warrants a confirmatory study.

Prospective assessment of gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity of salvage radiotherapy for patients with prostate-specific antigen relapse or local recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: To assess the acute and late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity of salvage radiotherapy (RT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 75 patients with prostate-specific antigen relapse or clinically isolated local recurrence after radical prostatectomy were accrued between 1998 and 2002 for a Phase II study to evaluate the efficacy of salvage RT plus 2-year androgen suppression. Acute and late GI and GU toxicity was prospectively assessed using the National Cancer Institute Expanded Common Toxicity Criteria Version 2. For acute toxicity, prevalence was examined. For late toxicity, cumulative incidences of Grade 2 or higher and Grade 3 toxicity were calculated. RESULTS: Median age was 67 years at the time of salvage RT. Median time from radical prostatectomy to RT was 36.2 months. Median follow-up was 45.1 months. Seventy-five patients were available for acute toxicity analysis, and 72 for late toxicity. Twelve percent and 40% had preexisting GI and GU dysfunction before RT, respectively. Sixty-eight percent, 21%, and 5% experienced Grade 1, 2, and 3 acute GI or GU toxicity, respectively. Cumulative incidences of Grade 2 or higher late GI and GU toxicity at 36 months were 8.7% and 22.6%, and Grade 3 late GI and GU toxicity, 1.6% and 2.8%, respectively. None had Grade 4 late toxicity. The severity of acute GU toxicity (Grade < 2 vs. >/= 2) was a significant predictor factor for Grade 2 or higher late GU toxicity after adjusting for preexisting GU dysfunction. CONCLUSION: Salvage RT generally was well tolerated. Grade 3 or higher late GI or GU toxicity was uncommon.

Analysis of gastrointestinal and genitourinary morbidity of postoperative radiotherapy for pathologic T3 disease or positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy using national cancer institute expanded common toxicity criteria.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the acute and late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity of postoperative radiotherapy (RT) after radical prostatectomy (RP). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 78 patients with pT3 or positive surgical margins after RP were treated with RT plus 2 years of androgen suppression, according to a Phase II study. Acute and late GI and GU toxicity was prospectively assessed using the National Cancer Institute's Expanded Common Toxicity Criteria, version 2.0. The incidence of late GI and GU toxicity was estimated using a cumulative incidence method. A Cox proportional regression analysis was performed to evaluate the predictive factors for late toxicity. RESULTS: The median patient age was 61 years at RP. The median interval between RP and postoperative RT was 4.2 months. The median follow-up was 42.4 months. Of the 78 patients, 76 and 74 were available for the acute and late toxicity analysis, respectively. Of these patients, 66%, 29%, and 1% experienced Grade 1, 2, and 3 acute GI or GU toxicity, respectively. The cumulative incidence of Grade 2 or greater and Grade 3 or greater late GI toxicity at 36 months was 8.1% and 0%, respectively. The cumulative incidence of Grade 2 or greater and Grade 3 or greater late GU toxicity at 36 months was 16.4% and 2.7%, respectively. None had Grade 4 or greater late toxicity. The severity of acute GU toxicity (less than Grade 2 vs. Grade 2 or greater) was a significant predictor factor for Grade 2 or greater late GU toxicity after adjusting for pre-existing GU dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative RT was generally well tolerated. Grade 3 or greater late GI or GU toxicity was uncommon.