Long-Term Outcomes of TROG 13.01 SAFRON II Randomized Trial of Single- Versus Multifraction Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy for Pulmonary Oligometastases.

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.In a randomized phase II clinical trial, the Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group compared single- versus multifraction stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) in 90 patients with 133 oligometastases to the lung. The study found no differences in safety, efficacy, systemic immunogenicity, or survival between arms, with single-fraction SABR picked as the winner on the basis of cost-effectiveness. In this article, we report the final updated survival outcome analysis. The protocol mandated no concurrent or post-therapy systemic therapy until progression. Modified disease-free survival (mDFS) was defined as any progression not addressable by local therapy, or death. At a median follow-up of 5.4 years, the 3- and 5-year estimates for overall survival (OS) were 70% (95% CI, 59 to 78) and 51% (95% CI, 39 to 61). There were no significant differences between the multi- and single-fraction arms for OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.1 [95% CI, 0.6 to 2.0]; P = .81). The 3- and 5-year estimates for disease-free survival were 24% (95% CI, 16 to 33) and 20% (95% CI, 13 to 29), with no differences between arms (HR, 1.0 [95% CI, 0.6 to 1.6]; P = .92). The 3- and 5-year estimates for mDFS were 39% (95% CI, 29 to 49) and 34% (95% CI, 24 to 44), with no differences between arms (HR, 1.0 [95% CI, 0.6 to 1.8]; P = .90). In this patient population, where patients receive SABR in lieu of systemic therapy, one-in-three patients are alive without disease in the long term. There were no differences in outcomes by fractionation schedule.

Identification of a novel recurrent EEF2 gene amplification in familial prostate tumors.

Recurrent tumor copy number variations (CNVs) in prostate cancer (PrCa) have predominantly been discovered in sporadic tumor cohorts. Here, we examined familial prostate tumors for novel CNVs as prior studies suggest these harbor distinct CNVs. Array comparative genomic hybridization of 12 tumors from an Australian PrCa family, PcTas9, highlighted multiple recurrent CNVs, including amplification of EEF2 (19p13.3) in 100% of tumors. The EEF2 CNV was examined in a further 26 familial and seven sporadic tumors from the Australian cohort and in 494 tumors unselected for family history from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). EEF2 overexpression was observed in seven PcTas9 tumors, in addition to seven other predominantly familial tumors (ntotal  = 34%). EEF2 amplification was only observed in 1.4% of TCGA tumors, however 7.5% harbored an EEF2 deletion. Analysis of genes co-expressed with EEF2 revealed significant upregulation of two genes, ZNF74 and ADSL, and downregulation of PLSCR1 in both EEF2 amplified familial tumors and EEF2 deleted TCGA tumors. Furthermore, in TCGA tumors, EEF2 amplification and deletion were significantly associated with a higher Gleason score. In summary, we identified a novel PrCa CNV that was predominantly amplified in familial tumors and deleted in unselected tumors. Our results provide further evidence that familial tumors harbor distinct CNVs, potentially due to an inherited predisposition, but also suggest that regardless of how EEF2 is dysregulated, a similar set of genes involved in key cancer pathways are impacted. Given the current lack of gene-based biomarkers and clinical targets in PrCa, further investigation of EEF2 is warranted.

Urban-rural prostate cancer disparities in a regional state of Australia.

Men living in regional and remote areas experience disparities in prostate cancer (PrCa) diagnosis, clinical characteristics and treatment modalities. We sought to determine whether such disparities exist in PrCa patients from Tasmania; a regional state of Australia with the second-highest rate of diagnosis and where over a third of residents live in outer regional and remote areas. Our study included clinicopathological data from 1526 patients enrolled in the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry-Tasmania. Regression analyses were undertaken to determine whether demographic, clinical and treatment variables differed between inner regional and outer regional/remote patients. Men from outer regional/remote areas were significantly more likely to reside in lower socio-economic areas, be diagnosed at a later age and with more clinically aggressive features. However, in contrast to previous studies, there were no overall differences in diagnostic or treatment method, although men from outer regional/remote areas took longer to commence active treatment and travelled further to do so. This study is the first to investigate PrCa disparities in a wholly regional Australian state and highlights the need to develop systematic interventions at the patient and healthcare level to improve outcomes in outer regional and remote populations in Australia and across the globe.

Analysis of a large prostate cancer family identifies novel and recurrent gene fusion events providing evidence for inherited predisposition.

There is strong interest in the characterisation of gene fusions and their use to enhance clinical practices in prostate cancer (PrCa). Significantly, ~50% of prostate tumours harbour a gene fusion. Inherited factors are thought to predispose to these events but, to date, only one study has investigated gene fusions in a familial context. Here, we examined the prevalence and diversity of gene fusions in 14 tumours from a single large PrCa family, PcTas9, using the TruSight® RNA Fusion Panel and Sanger sequencing validation. These fusions were then explored in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) PrCa data set (n = 494). Overall, 64.3% of PcTas9 tumours harboured a gene fusion, including known erythroblast transformation-specific (ETS) fusions involving ERG and ETV1, and two novel gene fusions, C19orf48:ETV4 and RYBP:FOXP1. Although 3' ETS genes were overexpressed in PcTas9 and TCGA tumour samples, 3' fusion of FOXP1 did not appear to alter its expression. In addition, PcTas9 fusion carriers were more likely to have lower-grade disease than noncarriers (p = 0.02). Likewise, TCGA tumours with high-grade disease were less likely to harbour fusions (p = 0.03). Our study further implicates an inherited predisposition to PrCa gene fusion events, which are associated with less aggressive tumours. This knowledge could lead to clinical strategies to predict men at risk for fusion-positive PrCa and, thus, identify patients who are more or less at risk of aggressive disease and/or responsive to particular therapies.

Evaluation of Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy Use and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Men With Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer in Australia and New Zealand.

Importance: Randomized clinical trials in prostate cancer have reported noninferior outcomes for hypofractionated radiation therapy (HRT) compared with conventional RT (CRT); however, uptake of HRT across jurisdictions is variable. Objective: To evaluate the use of HRT vs CRT in men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer and compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at a population level. Design, Setting, and Participants: Registry-based cohort study from the Australian and New Zealand Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry (PCOR-ANZ). Participants were men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer treated with primary RT (excluding brachytherapy) from January 2016 to December 2019. Data were analyzed in March 2021. Exposures: HRT defined as 2.5 to 3.3 Gy and CRT defined as 1.7 to 2.3 Gy per fraction. Main Outcomes and Measures: Temporal trends and institutional, clinicopathological, and sociodemographic factors associated with use of HRT were analyzed. PROs were assessed 12 months following RT using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC)-26 Short Form questionnaire. Differences in PROs were analyzed by adjusting for age and National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk category. Results: Of 8305 men identified as receiving primary RT, 6368 met the inclusion criteria for CRT (n = 4482) and HRT (n = 1886). The median age was 73.1 years (IQR, 68.2-77.3 years), 2.6% (168) had low risk, 45.7% (2911) had intermediate risk, 44.5% (2836) had high-/very high-risk, and 7.1% (453) had regional nodal disease. Use of HRT increased from 2.1% (9 of 435) in the first half of 2016 to 52.7% (539 of 1023) in the second half of 2019, with lower uptake in the high-/very high-risk (1.9% [4 of 215] to 42.4% [181 of 427]) compared with the intermediate-risk group (2.2% [4 of 185] to 67.6% [325 of 481]) (odds ratio, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.15-0.45). Substantial variability in the use of HRT for intermediate-risk disease remained at the institutional level (median 53.3%; range, 0%-100%) and clinician level (median 57.9%; range, 0%-100%) in the last 2 years of the study period. There were no clinically significant differences across EPIC-26 urinary and bowel functional domains or bother scores. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, use of HRT for prostate cancer increased substantially from 2016. This population-level data demonstrated clinically equivalent PROs and supports the continued implementation of HRT into routine practice. The wide variation in practice observed at the jurisdictional, institutional, and clinician level provides stakeholders with information that may be useful in targeting implementation strategies and benchmarking services.

Single-Fraction vs Multifraction Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy for Pulmonary Oligometastases (SAFRON II): The Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group 13.01 Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Evidence is lacking from randomized clinical trials to guide the optimal approach for stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) in patients with pulmonary oligometastases. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether single-fraction or multifraction SABR is more effective for the treatment of patients with pulmonary oligometastases. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This multicenter, unblinded, phase 2 randomized clinical trial of 90 patients across 13 centers in Australia and New Zealand enrolled patients with 1 to 3 lung oligometastases less than or equal to 5 cm from any nonhematologic malignant tumors located away from the central airways, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1, and all primary and extrathoracic disease controlled with local therapy. Enrollment was from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2018, with a minimum patient follow-up of 2 years. INTERVENTIONS: Single fraction of 28 Gy (single-fraction arm) or 4 fractions of 12 Gy (multifraction arm) to each oligometastasis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The main outcome was grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurring within 1 year of SABR. Secondary outcomes were freedom from local failure, overall survival, disease-free survival, and patient-reported outcomes (MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Lung Cancer and EuroQol 5-dimension visual analog scale). RESULTS: Ninety participants were randomized, of whom 87 were treated for 133 pulmonary oligometastases. The mean (SD) age was 66.6 [11.6] years; 58 (64%) were male. Median follow-up was 36.5 months (interquartile range, 24.8-43.9 months). The numbers of grade 3 or higher AEs related to treatment at 1 year were 2 (5%; 80% CI, 1%-13%) in the single-fraction arm and 1 (3%; 80% CI, 0%-10%) in the multifraction arm, with no significant difference observed between arms. One grade 5 AE occurred in the multifraction arm. No significant differences were found between the multifraction arm and single-fraction arm for freedom from local failure (hazard ratio [HR], 0.5; 95% CI, 0.2-1.3; P = .13), overall survival (HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 0.6-3.7; P = .44), or disease-free survival (HR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.6-1.6; P > .99). There were no significant differences observed in patient-reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this randomized clinical trial, neither arm demonstrated evidence of superior safety, efficacy, or symptom burden; however, single-fraction SABR is more efficient to deliver. Therefore, single-fraction SABR, as assessed by the most acceptable outcome profile from all end points, could be chosen to escalate to future studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01965223.

DNA methylation changes following DNA damage in prostate cancer cells.

Many cancer therapies operate by inducing double-strand breaks (DSBs) in cancer cells, however treatment-resistant cells rapidly initiate mechanisms to repair damage enabling survival. While the DNA repair mechanisms responsible for cancer cell survival following DNA damaging treatments are becoming better understood, less is known about the role of the epigenome in this process. Using prostate cancer cell lines with differing sensitivities to radiation treatment, we analysed the DNA methylation profiles prior to and following a single dose of radiotherapy (RT) using the Illumina Infinium HumanMethylation450 BeadChip platform. DSB formation and repair, in the absence and presence of the DNA hypomethylating agent, 5-azacytidine (5-AzaC), were also investigated using γH2A.X immunofluorescence staining. Here we demonstrate that DNA methylation is generally stable following a single dose of RT; however, a small number of CpG sites are stably altered up to 14 d following exposure. While the radioresistant and radiosensitive cells displayed distinct basal DNA methylation profiles, their susceptibility to DNA damage appeared similar demonstrating that basal DNA methylation has a limited influence on DSB induction at the regions examined. Recovery from DSB induction was also similar between these cells. Treatment with 5-AzaC did not sensitize resistant cells to DNA damage, but rather delayed recruitment of phosphorylated BRCA1 (S1423) and repair of DSBs. These results highlight that stable epigenetic changes are possible following a single dose of RT and may have significant clinical implications for cancer treatment involving recurrent or fractionated dosing regimens.

Radiotherapy for node-positive prostate cancer: 2019 Recommendations of the Australian and New Zealand Radiation Oncology Genito-Urinary group.

The management of node-positive prostate cancer is highly variable, with both locoregional and systemic treatment options available. With the increasing use of novel imaging techniques such as PSMA-PET and MRI, combined with the increasing use of surgery for high-risk prostate cancer, clinical and pathological regional nodal disease is being detected at a higher rate and at an earlier stage than previously. This creates a window for a potentially curative management approach. The role of radiotherapy including optimal radiation target volumes and dose, as well as the timing and duration of accompanying systemic therapy remains uncertain. At a workshop in 2017, the Australian and New Zealand Faculty of Radiation Oncology Genito-Urinary Group (FROGG) identified variations in the management of node-positive prostate cancer identified on primary staging or on histopathology at radical prostatectomy. FROGG reviewed the literature and developed a set of evidence-based recommendations on the appropriate investigation and management of clinically and pathologically node-positive prostate cancer. These recommendations encompass imaging techniques, radiation treatment target volumes and doses, as well as the use of androgen deprivation therapy.

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus standard radiotherapy in stage 1 non-small-cell lung cancer (TROG 09.02 CHISEL): a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) is widely used to treat inoperable stage 1 non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), despite the absence of prospective evidence that this type of treatment improves local control or prolongs overall survival compared with standard radiotherapy. We aimed to compare the two treatment techniques. METHODS: We did this multicentre, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial in 11 hospitals in Australia and three hospitals in New Zealand. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, had biopsy-confirmed stage 1 (T1-T2aN0M0) NSCLC diagnosed on the basis of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET, and were medically inoperable or had refused surgery. Patients had to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and the tumour had to be peripherally located. Patients were randomly assigned after stratification for T stage and operability in a 2:1 ratio to SABR (54 Gy in three 18 Gy fractions, or 48 Gy in four 12 Gy fractions if the tumour was <2 cm from the chest wall) or standard radiotherapy (66 Gy in 33 daily 2 Gy fractions or 50 Gy in 20 daily 2·5 Gy fractions, depending on institutional preference) using minimisation, so no sequence was pre-generated. Clinicians, patients, and data managers had no previous knowledge of the treatment group to which patients would be assigned; however, the treatment assignment was subsequently open label (because of the nature of the interventions). The primary endpoint was time to local treatment failure (assessed according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.0), with the hypothesis that SABR would result in superior local control compared with standard radiotherapy. All efficacy analyses were based on the intention-to-treat analysis. Safety analyses were done on a per-protocol basis, according to treatment that the patients actually received. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01014130) and the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12610000479000). The trial is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between Dec 31, 2009, and June 22, 2015, 101 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive SABR (n=66) or standard radiotherapy (n=35). Five (7·6%) patients in the SABR group and two (6·5%) in the standard radiotherapy group did not receive treatment, and a further four in each group withdrew before study end. As of data cutoff (July 31, 2017), median follow-up for local treatment failure was 2·1 years (IQR 1·2-3·6) for patients randomly assigned to standard radiotherapy and 2·6 years (IQR 1·6-3·6) for patients assigned to SABR. 20 (20%) of 101 patients had progressed locally: nine (14%) of 66 patients in the SABR group and 11 (31%) of 35 patients in the standard radiotherapy group, and freedom from local treatment failure was improved in the SABR group compared with the standard radiotherapy group (hazard ratio 0·32, 95% CI 0·13-0·77, p=0·0077). Median time to local treatment failure was not reached in either group. In patients treated with SABR, there was one grade 4 adverse event (dyspnoea) and seven grade 3 adverse events (two cough, one hypoxia, one lung infection, one weight loss, one dyspnoea, and one fatigue) related to treatment compared with two grade 3 events (chest pain) in the standard treatment group. INTERPRETATION: In patients with inoperable peripherally located stage 1 NSCLC, compared with standard radiotherapy, SABR resulted in superior local control of the primary disease without an increase in major toxicity. The findings of this trial suggest that SABR should be the treatment of choice for this patient group. FUNDING: The Radiation and Optometry Section of the Australian Government Department of Health with the assistance of Cancer Australia, and the Cancer Society of New Zealand and the Cancer Research Trust New Zealand (formerly Genesis Oncology Trust).

Radiotherapy for recurrent prostate cancer: 2018 Recommendations of the Australian and New Zealand Radiation Oncology Genito-Urinary group.

The management of patients with biochemical, local, nodal, or oligometastatic relapsed prostate cancer has become more challenging and controversial. Novel imaging modalities designed to detect recurrence are increasingly used, particularly PSMA-PET scans in Australia, New Zealand and some European countries. Imaging techniques such as MRI and PET scans using other prostate cancer-specific tracers are also being utilised across the world. The optimal timing for commencing salvage treatment, and the role of local and/or systemic therapies remains controversial. Through surveys of the membership, the Australian and New Zealand Faculty of Radiation Oncology Genito-Urinary Group (FROGG) identified wide variation in the management of recurrent prostate cancer. Following a workshop conducted in April 2017, the FROGG management committee reviewed the literature and developed a set of recommendations based on available evidence and expert opinion, for the appropriate investigation and management of recurrent prostate cancer. These recommendations cover the role and timing of post-prostatectomy radiotherapy, the management of regional nodal metastases and oligometastases, as well as the management of local prostate recurrence after definitive radiotherapy.

Development of quality indicators to monitor radiotherapy care for men with prostate cancer: A modified Delphi method.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Quality indicators (QIs) have been developed for many aspects of prostate cancer care, but are under-developed with regard to radiotherapy treatment. We aimed to develop a valid, relevant and feasible set of core QIs to measure quality of radiotherapy care in men with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a RAND-modified Delphi process to select QIs that were regarded as both important and feasible measures of quality radiotherapy care. This involved two phases: (1) a literature review to identify a list of proposed QIs; and (2) a QI selection process by an expert panel (n = 12) conducted in a series of three rounds: two online questionnaires' and one face-to-face meeting. The RAND criterion identified variation in ratings and determined the level of agreement after each round of voting. RESULTS: A total of 144 candidate QIs, which included measures from pre-treatment to post-treatment and survivorship care were identified. After three rounds of voting, the panel approved a comprehensive set of 17 QIs, with most assessing a process of care (n = 16, 94.1%) and the remaining assessing a health outcome. CONCLUSION: This study developed a core set of 17 QIs which will be used to report from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry-Australia & New Zealand, to monitor the quality of radiotherapy care prostate cancer patients receive.

Development of Indicators to Assess Quality of Care for Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The development, monitoring, and reporting of indicator measures that describe standard of care provide the gold standard for assessing quality of care and patient outcomes. Although indicator measures have been reported, little evidence of their use in measuring and benchmarking performance is available. A standard set, defining numerator, denominator, and risk adjustments, will enable global benchmarking of quality of care. OBJECTIVE: To develop a set of indicators to enable assessment and reporting of quality of care for men with localised prostate cancer (PCa). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Candidate indicators were identified from the literature. An international panel was invited to participate in a modified Delphi process. Teleconferences were held before and after each voting round to provide instruction and to review results. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Panellists were asked to rate each proposed indicator on a Likert scale of 1-9 in a two-round iterative process. Calculations required to report on the endorsed indicators were evaluated and modified to reflect the data capture of the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry-Australia and New Zealand (PCOR-ANZ). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 97 candidate indicators were identified, of which 12 were endorsed. The set includes indicators covering pre-, intra-, and post-treatment of PCa care, within the limits of the data captured by PCOR-ANZ. CONCLUSIONS: The 12 endorsed quality measures enable international benchmarking on the quality of care of men with localised PCa. Reporting on these indicators enhances safety and efficacy of treatment, reduces variation in care, and can improve patient outcomes. PATIENT SUMMARY: PCa has the highest incidence of all cancers in men. Early diagnosis and relatively high survival rates mean issues of quality of care and best possible health outcomes for patients are important. This paper identifies 12 important measurable quality indicators in PCa care.

Development of an International Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry.

OBJECTIVES: To establish a Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry-Australia and New Zealand (PCOR-ANZ) for monitoring outcomes of prostate cancer treatment and care, in a cost-effective manner. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Stakeholders were recruited based on their interest, importance in achieving the monitoring and reporting of clinical practice and patient outcomes, and in amalgamation of existing registries. Each participating jurisdiction is responsible for local governance, site recruitment, data collection, and data transfer into the PCOR-ANZ. To establish each local registry, hospitals and clinicians within a jurisdiction were approached to voluntarily contribute to the registry following relevant ethical approval. Patient contact occurs following notification of prostate cancer through a hospital or pathology report, or from a cancer registry. Patient registration is based on an opt-out model. The PCOR-ANZ is a secure web-based registry adhering to ISO 27001 standards. Based on a standardised minimum data set, information on demographics, diagnosis, treatment, outcomes, and patient reported quality of life, are collected. RESULTS: Eight of nine jurisdictions have agreed to contribute to the PCOR-ANZ. Each jurisdiction has commenced implementation of necessary infrastructure to support rapid rollout. PCOR-ANZ has defined a minimum data set for collection, to enable analysis of key quality indicators that will aid in assessing clinical practice and patient focused outcomes. CONCLUSION: PCOR-ANZ will provide a useful resource of risk-adjusted evidence-based data to clinicians, hospitals, and decision makers on prostate cancer clinical practice.

RNA-seq profiling of a radiation resistant and radiation sensitive prostate cancer cell line highlights opposing regulation of DNA repair and targets for radiosensitization.

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy is a chosen treatment option for prostate cancer patients and while some tumours respond well, up to 50% of patients may experience tumour recurrence. Identification of functionally relevant predictive biomarkers for radioresponse in prostate cancer would enable radioresistant patients to be directed to more appropriate treatment options, avoiding the side-effects of radiotherapy. METHODS: Using an in vitro model to screen for novel biomarkers of radioresistance, transcriptome analysis of a radioresistant (PC-3) and radiosensitive (LNCaP) prostate cancer cell line was performed. Following pathway analysis candidate genes were validated using qRT-PCR. The DNA repair pathway in radioresistant PC-3 cells was then targeted for radiation sensitization using the PARP inhibitor, niacinimide. RESULTS: Opposing regulation of a DNA repair and replication pathway was observed between PC-3 and LNCaP cells from RNA-seq analysis. Candidate genes BRCA1, RAD51, FANCG, MCM7, CDC6 and ORC1 were identified as being significantly differentially regulated post-irradiation. qRT-PCR validation confirmed BRCA1, RAD51 and FANCG as being significantly differentially regulated at 24 hours post radiotherapy (p-value =0.003, 0.045 and 0.003 respectively). While the radiosensitive LNCaP cells down-regulated BRCA1, FANCG and RAD51, the radioresistant PC-3 cell line up-regulated these candidates to promote cell survival post-radiotherapy and a similar trend was observed for MCM7, CDC6 and ORC1. Inhibition of DNA repair using niacinamide sensitised the radioresistant cells to irradiation, reducing cell survival at 2 Gy from 66% to 44.3% (p-value =0.02). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the DNA repair candidates identified via RNA-seq hold potential as both targets for radiation sensitization and predictive biomarkers in prostate cancer.

The outcome of a multi-centre feasibility study of online adaptive radiotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer TROG 10.01 BOLART.

PURPOSE: To assess whether online adaptive radiotherapy for bladder cancer is feasible across multiple Radiation Oncology departments using different imaging, delivery and recording technology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multi-centre feasibility study of online adaptive radiotherapy, using a choice of three "plan of the day", was conducted at 12 departments. Patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer were included. Departments were activated if part of the pilot study or after a site-credentialing visit. There was real time review of the first two cases from each department. RESULTS: 54 patients were recruited, with 50 proceeding to radiotherapy. There were 43 males and 7 females with a mean age of 78 years. The tumour stages treated included T1 (1 patient), T2 (35), T3 (10) and T4 (4). One patient died of an unrelated cause during radiotherapy. The three adaptive plans were created before the 10th fraction in all cases. In 8 (16%) of the patients, a conventional plan using a 'standard' CTV to PTV margin of 1.5cm was used for one or more fractions where the pre-treatment bladder CTV was larger than any of the three adaptive plans. The bladder CTV extended beyond the PTV on post treatment imaging in 9 (18%) of the 49 patients. CONCLUSIONS: From a technical perspective an online adaptive radiotherapy technique can be instituted in a multi-centre setting. However, without further bladder filling control or imaging, a CTV to PTV margin of 7mm is insufficient.

FROGG high-risk prostate cancer workshop: patterns of practice and literature review: part I: intact prostate.

Australian and New Zealand radiation oncologists with an interest in uro-oncology were invited to participate in a pattern-of-practice survey dealing with the management of intact high-risk prostate cancer. Responses from 46 practitioners (representing 73% of all potential respondents) revealed that high-dose radiation therapy is the standard of care. However, there is variability in practice with regard to the methods used to achieve dose escalation, the use of whole-pelvic radiation therapy and the optimal duration of androgen deprivation therapy employed. A review of the literature outlining the current body of knowledge and the planned and ongoing studies in intact high-risk prostate cancer is presented.

FROGG high-risk prostate cancer workshop: patterns of practice and literature review. Part II post-radical prostatectomy.

Australian and New Zealand radiation oncologists with an interest in uro-oncology were invited to undertake a pattern of practice survey dealing with issues encountered in the management of high-risk prostate cancer in the post-prostatectomy setting. Responses from practitioners revealed a lack of consensus regarding the optimal timing of radiation therapy, the use of whole pelvic radiation therapy and the use of androgen deprivation therapy. A review of the literature outlining the current body of knowledge and the clinical studies that will inform future practice is presented.

Australian & New Zealand Faculty of Radiation Oncology Genito-Urinary Group: 2011 consensus guidelines for curative radiotherapy for urothelial carcinoma of the bladder.

Curative radiotherapy, with or without concurrent chemotherapy, is recognized as a standard treatment option for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. It is commonly used for two distinct groups of patients: either for those medically unfit for surgery, or as part of a 'bladder preserving' management plan incorporating the possibility of salvage cystectomy. However, in both situations, the approach to radiotherapy varies widely around the world. The Australian and New Zealand Faculty of Radiation Oncology Genito-Urinary Group recognised a need to develop consistent, evidence-based guidelines for patient selection and radiotherapy technique in the delivery of curative radiotherapy. Following a workshop convened in May 2009, a working party collated opinions and conducted a wide literature appraisal linking each recommendation with the best available evidence. This process was subject to ongoing re-presentation to the Faculty of Radiation Oncology Genito-Urinary Group members prior to final endorsement. These Guidelines include patient selection, radiation target delineation, dose and fractionation schedules, normal tissue constraints and investigational techniques. Particular emphasis is given to the rationale for the target volumes described. These Guidelines provide a consensus-based framework for the delivery of curative radiotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Widespread input from radiation oncologists treating bladder cancer ensures that these techniques are feasible in practice. We recommend these Guidelines be adopted widely in order to encourage a uniformly high standard of radiotherapy in this setting, and to allow for better comparison of outcomes.

Inverse relationship between biochemical outcome and acute toxicity after image-guided radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Prostate cancer patients exhibit variability in normal tissue reactions and biochemical failure. With the use of image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT), there is a greater likelihood that the differences in normal tissue and tumor response are due to biological rather than physical factors. We tested the hypothesis that prospectively scored acute toxicity is associated with biochemical failure-free rate (BFFR) in prostate cancer patients treated with IGRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We retrospectively analyzed BFFR in 362 patients with localized prostate cancer treated with IGRT. We compared BFFR with prospectively collected Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) maximum acute gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity scores. Median follow-up for all patients was 58.3 months after total radiotherapy doses of 75.6-79.8 Gy. RESULTS: Patients reporting RTOG acute GU or GI toxicity scores of ≥ 2 were considered "sensitive" (n = 141, 39%) and patients reporting scores <2 were considered "nonsensitive" (n = 221, 61%). When calculating biochemical failure (BF) using the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology definition at 5 years, 76% (CI 70-82%) of the "nonsensitive" patients were failure free, compared with only 53% (CI 43-62%) of the "sensitive" patients (log-rank test, p < 0.0001). This difference was also observed using the Phoenix definition; "nonsensitive" 5-year BFFR was 81% (CI 74-86%) vs. "sensitive" BFFR was 68% (CI 58-76%; log-rank test p = 0.0012). The difference in BF between cohorts remained significant when controlled for radiation dose (75.6 vs. 79.8 Gy), prognostic stratification (T category, prostate-specific antigen, and Gleason score), and prostate volume. CONCLUSIONS: This study unexpectedly shows that prostate cancer patients who develop ≥ Grade 2 RTOG acute toxicity during radiotherapy are less likely to remain BFF at 5 years. These results deserve further study and, if validated in other large IGRT cohorts, additional models would be required to study interaction between normal tissue and tumor biology in prostate cancer patients.

Patient-assessed late toxicity rates and principal component analysis after image-guided radiation therapy for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to determine the incidence of patient-assessed late toxicity after high-dose, image-guided radiation therapy in a cohort of men with prostate cancer; and to correlate toxicity with conventional dosimetric parameters and rectal and bladder dose-volume histograms (DVH) reduced using principal component analysis. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Toxicity questionnaires were sent to 690 men treated for localized prostate cancer to 75.6 Gy or 79.8 Gy using three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) or intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) between 1997 and 2003 at the Princess Margaret Hospital. Toxicity was graded according to the modified Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG)-late effects normal tissue (LENT) scoring system. Late rectal and bladder toxicity scores were dichotomized as < Grade 2 and > or = Grade 2, and correlated with dosimetric parameters and with the first three principal components of rectal and bladder DVHs. RESULTS: In all, 63% of the patients completed the questionnaire. At a median follow-up of 37 months, the incidence of late rectal toxicity RTOG Grades 1, 2, and 3 was 25.2%, 2.5%, and 0.7% respectively. The incidence of late urinary toxicity RTOG Grade 1, 2, and 3 was 16.5%, 8.8%, and 0.9% respectively. Maintenance of erectile function sufficient for intercourse was reported in 68%. No dosimetric parameter analyzed, including principal component analysis reduction of DVHs, correlated with late toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Postal questionnaire was effective for collection of patient-assessed late toxicity data. The incidence of late toxicity was low, with a lack of correlation to dosimetric parameters. We attribute this to the use of conformal techniques and daily image guidance.