Corrigendum to "Androgen Deprivation and Radiotherapy with or Without Docetaxel for Localized High-risk Prostat Cancer: Long-term Follow-up from the Randomized NRG Oncology RTOG 0521 Trial" [Eur. Eurol. 84(2) (2023) 156-163].

BACKGROUND: Intensification of therapy may improve outcomes for patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To provide long-term follow-up data from phase III RTOG 0521, which compared a combination of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) + external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) + docetaxel with ADT + EBRT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: High-risk localized prostate cancer patients (>50% of patients had Gleason 9-10 disease) were prospectively randomized to 2 yr of ADT + EBRT or ADT + EBRT + six cycles of docetaxel. A total of 612 patients were accrued, and 563 were eligible and included in the modified intent-to-treat analysis. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Analyses with Cox proportional hazards were performed as prespecified in the protocol; however, there was evidence of nonproportional hazards. Thus, a post hoc analysis was performed using the restricted mean survival time (RMST). The secondary endpoints included biochemical failure, distant metastasis (DM) as detected by conventional imaging, and disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: After 10.4 yr of median follow-up among survivors, the hazard ratio (HR) for OS was 0.89 (90% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-1.14; one-sided log-rank p = 0.22). Survival at 10 yr was 64% for ADT + EBRT and 69% for ADT + EBRT + docetaxel. The RMST at 12 yr was 0.45 yr and not statistically significant (one-sided p = 0.053). No differences were detected in the incidence of DFS (HR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.73-1.14), DM (HR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.73-1.14), or prostate-specific antigen recurrence risk (HR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.74-1.29). Two patients had grade 5 toxicity in the chemotherapy arm and zero patients in the control arm. CONCLUSIONS: After a median follow-up of 10.4 yr among surviving patients, no significant differences are observed in clinical outcomes between the experimental and control arms. These data suggest that docetaxel should not be used for high-risk localized prostate cancer. Additional research may be warranted using novel predictive biomarkers. PATIENT SUMMARY: No significant differences in survival were noted after long-term follow-up for high-risk localized prostate cancer patients in a large prospective trial where patients were treated with androgen deprivation therapy + radiation to the prostate ± docetaxel.

Androgen Deprivation and Radiotherapy with or Without Docetaxel for Localized High-risk Prostate Cancer: Long-term Follow-up from the Randomized NRG Oncology RTOG 0521 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Intensification of therapy may improve outcomes for patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To provide long-term follow-up data from phase III RTOG 0521, which compared a combination of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) + external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) + docetaxel with ADT + EBRT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: High-risk localized prostate cancer patients (>50% of patients had Gleason 9-10 disease) were prospectively randomized to 2 yr of ADT + EBRT or ADT + EBRT + six cycles of docetaxel. A total of 612 patients were accrued, and 563 were eligible and included in the modified intent-to-treat analysis. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Analyses with Cox proportional hazards were performed as prespecified in the protocol; however, there was evidence of nonproportional hazards. Thus, a post hoc analysis was performed using the restricted mean survival time (RMST). The secondary endpoints included biochemical failure, distant metastasis (DM) as detected by conventional imaging, and disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: After 10.4 yr of median follow-up among survivors, the hazard ratio (HR) for OS was 0.89 (90% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-1.14; one-sided log-rank p = 0.22). Survival at 10 yr was 64% for ADT + EBRT and 69% for ADT + EBRT + docetaxel. The RMST at 12 yr was 0.45 yr and not statistically significant (one-sided p = 0.053). No differences were detected in the incidence of DFS (HR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.73-1.14), DM (HR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.73-1.14), or prostate-specific antigen recurrence risk (HR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.74-1.29). Two patients had grade 5 toxicity in the chemotherapy arm and zero patients in the control arm. CONCLUSIONS: After a median follow-up of 10.4 yr among surviving patients, no significant differences are observed in clinical outcomes between the experimental and control arms. These data suggest that docetaxel should not be used for high-risk localized prostate cancer. Additional research may be warranted using novel predictive biomarkers. PATIENT SUMMARY: No significant differences in survival were noted after long-term follow-up for high-risk localized prostate cancer patients in a large prospective trial where patients were treated with androgen deprivation therapy + radiation to the prostate ± docetaxel.

The Influence of the Pretreatment Immune State on Response to Radiation Therapy in High-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Validation Study From NRG/RTOG 0521.

PURPOSE: The immunoinflammatory state has been shown to be associated with poor outcomes after radiation therapy (RT). We conducted an a priori designed validation study using serum specimens from Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0521. It was hypothesized the pretreatment inflammatory state would correlate with clinical outcomes. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients on RTOG 0521 had serum banked for biomarker validation. This study was designed to validate previous findings showing an association between elevations in C-reactive protein (CRP) and shorter biochemical disease free survival (bDFS). CRP levels were measured in pretreatment samples. An exploratory panel of related cytokines was also measured including: monocyte chemotactic protein-1, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, interferon-γ, interleukin (IL)-1b, IL-2, IL-4, IL-5, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-12, IL-13, IL-17A, IL-23, and tumor necrosis factor. The primary endpoint examined was bDFS. Additional exploratory endpoints included overall survival, distant metastases, and toxicity events attributed to RT. RESULTS: Two hundred and two patients in RTOG/NRG 0521 had serum samples available. Median age was 66 years (48-83), and 90% of patients were White. There was not an association between CRP and bDFS (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.07 per 1 log increase in CRP; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.38; P = .60). In the exploratory, unplanned analysis, pretreatment IL-10 was significantly associated with worse bDFS (adjusted HR, 1.61 per log increase; P = .0027) and distant metastases (HR, 1.55 per log increase; P = .028). The association of IL-10 with bDFS was maintained on a multiplicity adjustment. The exploratory analyses of pretreatment levels of interferon-γ, IL-1b, IL-2, IL-13, IL-23 were negatively associated with grade 2 or higher pollakiuria (adjusted odds ratio, 0.64, 0.65, 0.71, 0.72, and 0.74, respectively, all P < .05), and IL-6 was negatively associated with grade 2 or higher erectile dysfunction (odds ratio, 0.62; P = .027). CONCLUSIONS: Pretreatment CRP was not associated with a poorer bDFS after RT. In a hypothesis- generating analysis, higher baseline levels of IL-10 were associated with lower rates of bDFS. These findings require additional prospective evaluation.

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

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

Long-Term Results of NRG Oncology/RTOG 0321: A Phase II Trial of Combined High Dose Rate Brachytherapy and External Beam Radiation Therapy for Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate.

PURPOSE: To report the long-term outcome of patients with prostate cancer treated with external beam radiation therapy and high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy from a prospective multi-institutional trial conducted by NRG Oncology/RTOG. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with clinically localized (T1c-T3b) prostate cancer without prior history of transurethral resection of prostate or hip prosthesis were eligible for this study. All patients were treated with a combination of 45 Gy in 25 fractions from external beam radiation therapy and one HDR implant delivering 19 Gy in 2 fractions. Adverse events (AE) were collected using Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3. Cumulative incidence was used to estimate time to severe late gastrointestinal (GI)/genitourinary (GU) toxicity, biochemical failure, disease-specific mortality, local failure, and distant failure. Overall survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-nine patients were enrolled from July 2004 to May 2006. AE data was available for 115 patients. Patients were National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) intermediate to very high risk. The median age was 68, T1c-T2c 91%, T3a-T3b 9%, PSA ≤10 70%, PSA >10 to ≤20 30%, GS 6 10%, GS 7 72%, and GS 8 to 10 18%. Forty-three percent of patients received hormonal therapy. At a median follow-up time of 10 years, there were 6 (5%) patients with grade 3 GI and GU treatment-related AEs, and no late grade 4 to 5 GI and GU AEs. At 5 and 10 years, the rate of late grade 3 gastrointestinal and genitourinary AEs was 4% and 5%, respectively. Five- and 10-year overall survival rates were 95% and 76%. Biochemical failure rates per Phoenix definition at 5 and 10 years were 14% and 23%. The 10-year rate of disease-specific mortality was 6%. At 5 and 10 years, the rates of distant failure were 4% and 8%, respectively. The rates of local failure at 5 and 10 years were 2% at both time points. CONCLUSIONS: Combined modality treatment using HDR prostate brachytherapy leads to excellent long-term clinical outcomes in this prospective multi-institutional trial.

Health related quality of life and cognitive status in patients with glioblastoma multiforme receiving escalating doses of conformal three dimensional radiation on RTOG 98-03.

The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) embarked on a phase I/II study of patients suffering from glioblastoma multiforme (protocol 98-03) to assess the impact of dose escalation with 3-D conformal techniques. The primary endpoints were feasibility and survival. This report describes the outcome of secondary endpoints (quality of life and neurocognitive function). Patients with supratentorial GBM were treated with a combination of carmustine (BCNU) and conformal irradiation (dose levels: 66, 72, 78, 84 Gy, respectively). Quality of Life was assessed with the Spitzer Quality of Life Index. Neurocognitive function was determined by the Mini Mental Status Examination. The latter tests were administered at the start of irradiation, at the end of irradiation and then at 4 month intervals. Relatively high compliance was achieved with both of the tools (SQLI; MMSE). Overall rates of survival between baseline SQLI scores <7 and 7-10 were statistically significantly different [HR = 1.72, 95% CI (1.22, 2.4), P = 0.0015]. The significant impact of high SQLI score on survival was preserved in multivariate analysis. The component of this index which made the greatest contribution was the patient's independence. There was continual deterioration of neurocognitive function within the populations studied. No correlation was seen between dose escalation and the secondary endpoints studied. Radiation dose escalation and assessment of its impact on life quality and neurocognition can be carried out in a large international trial. Baseline SQLI is a statistically significant determinant of survival. Those who maintain independence have superior survival to those who are reliant on others.

Effect of Chemotherapy With Docetaxel With Androgen Suppression and Radiotherapy for Localized High-Risk Prostate Cancer: The Randomized Phase III NRG Oncology RTOG 0521 Trial.

PURPOSE: Radiotherapy (RT) plus long-term androgen suppression (AS) are a standard treatment option for patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer. We hypothesized that docetaxel chemotherapy (CT) could improve overall survival (OS) and clinical outcomes among patients with high-risk prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The multicenter randomized NRG Oncology RTOG 0521 study enrolled patients with high-risk nonmetastatic disease between 2005 and 2009. Patients were randomly assigned to receive standard long-term AS plus RT with or without adjuvant CT. RESULTS: A total of 612 patients were enrolled; 563 were evaluable. Median prostate-specific antigen was 15.1 ng/mL; 53% had a Gleason score 9 to 10 cancer; 27% had cT3 to cT4 disease. Median follow-up was 5.7 years. Treatment was well tolerated in both arms. Four-year OS rate was 89% (95% CI, 84% to 92%) for AS + RT and 93% (95% CI, 90% to 96%) for AS + RT + CT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 90% CI, 0.49 to 0.97; one-sided P = .034). There were 59 deaths in the AS + RT arm and 43 in the AS + RT + CT arm, with fewer deaths resulting from prostate cancer in the AS + RT + CT arm versus AS + RT (23 v 16 deaths, respectively). Six-year rate of distant metastasis was 14% for AS + RT and 9.1% for AS + RT + CT, (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.99; two-sided P = .044). Six-year disease-free survival rate was 55% for AS + RT and 65% for AS + RT + CT (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.99; two-sided P = .043). CONCLUSION: For patients with high-risk nonmetastatic prostate cancer, CT with docetaxel improved OS from 89% to 93% at 4 years, with improved disease-free survival and reduction in the rate of distant metastasis. The trial suggests that docetaxel CT may be an option to be discussed with selected men with high-risk prostate cancer.

Quality assurance issues in conducting multi-institutional advanced technology clinical trials.

The National Cancer Institute-sponsored Advanced Technology Quality Assurance (QA) Consortium, which consisted of the Image-Guided Therapy QA Center, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group, Radiological Physics Center, Quality Assurance Review Center, and Resource Center for Emerging Technologies, has pioneered the development of an infrastructure and QA method for advanced technology clinical trials that requires volumetric digital data submission of a protocol patient's treatment plan and verification data. In particular, the Image-Guided Therapy QA Center has nearly 15 years experience in facilitating QA review for Radiation Therapy Oncology Group advanced technology clinical trials. This QA process includes (1) a data integrity review for completeness of protocol required elements, the format of data, and possible data corruption, and recalculation of dose-volume histograms; (2) a review of compliance with target volume and organ-at-risk contours by study chairs; and (3) a review of dose prescription and dose heterogeneity compliance by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Headquarters Dosimetry Group or the Radiological Physics Center dosimetrists (for brachytherapy protocols). This report reviews the lessons learned and the QA challenges presented by the use of advanced treatment modalities in clinical trials requiring volumetric digital data submission.

Quality assurance needs for modern image-based radiotherapy: recommendations from 2007 interorganizational symposium on "quality assurance of radiation therapy: challenges of advanced technology".

This report summarizes the consensus findings and recommendations emerging from 2007 Symposium, "Quality Assurance of Radiation Therapy: Challenges of Advanced Technology." The Symposium was held in Dallas February 20-22, 2007. The 3-day program, which was sponsored jointly by the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO), American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM), and National Cancer Institute (NCI), included >40 invited speakers from the radiation oncology and industrial engineering/human factor communities and attracted nearly 350 attendees, mostly medical physicists. A summary of the major findings follows. The current process of developing consensus recommendations for prescriptive quality assurance (QA) tests remains valid for many of the devices and software systems used in modern radiotherapy (RT), although for some technologies, QA guidance is incomplete or out of date. The current approach to QA does not seem feasible for image-based planning, image-guided therapies, or computer-controlled therapy. In these areas, additional scientific investigation and innovative approaches are needed to manage risk and mitigate errors, including a better balance between mitigating the risk of catastrophic error and maintaining treatment quality, complimenting the current device-centered QA perspective by a more process-centered approach, and broadening community participation in QA guidance formulation and implementation. Industrial engineers and human factor experts can make significant contributions toward advancing a broader, more process-oriented, risk-based formulation of RT QA. Healthcare administrators need to appropriately increase personnel and ancillary equipment resources, as well as capital resources, when new advanced technology RT modalities are implemented. The pace of formalizing clinical physics training must rapidly increase to provide an adequately trained physics workforce for advanced technology RT. The specific recommendations of the Symposium included the following. First, the AAPM, in cooperation with other advisory bodies, should undertake a systematic program to update conventional QA guidance using available risk-assessment methods. Second, the AAPM advanced technology RT Task Groups should better balance clinical process vs. device operation aspects--encouraging greater levels of multidisciplinary participation such as industrial engineering consultants and use-risk assessment and process-flow techniques. Third, ASTRO should form a multidisciplinary subcommittee, consisting of physician, physicist, vendor, and industrial engineering representatives, to better address modern RT quality management and QA needs. Finally, government and private entities committed to improved healthcare quality and safety should support research directed toward addressing QA problems in image-guided therapies.

Increasing tumor volume is predictive of poor overall and progression-free survival: secondary analysis of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 93-11 phase I-II radiation dose-escalation study in patients with inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 93-11 trial received radiation doses of 70.9, 77.4, 83.8, or 90.3 Gy. The locoregional control and survival rates were similar among the various dose levels. We investigated the effect of the gross tumor volume (GTV) on the outcome. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The GTV was defined as the sum of the volumes of the primary tumor and involved lymph nodes. The tumor response, median survival time (MST), and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed separately for smaller (< or =45 cm(3)) vs. larger (>45 cm(3)) tumors. RESULTS: The distribution of the GTV was as follows: < or =45 cm(3) in 79 (49%) and >45 cm(3) in 82 (51%) of 161 patients. The median GTV was 47.3 cm(3). N0 status and female gender were associated with better tumor responses. Patients with smaller (< or =45 cm(3)) tumors achieved a longer MST and better PFS than did patients with larger (>45 cm(3)) tumors (29.7 vs. 13.3 months, p < 0.0001; and 15.8 vs. 8.3 months, p < 0.0001, respectively). Increasing the radiation dose had no effect on the MST or PFS. On multivariate analysis, only a smaller GTV was a significant prognostic factor for improved MST and PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 2.12, p = 0.0002; and HR, 2.0, p = 0.0002, respectively). The GTV as a continuous variable was also significantly associated with the MST and PFS (HR, 1.59, p < 0.0001; and HR, 1.39, p < 0.0001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Radiation dose escalation up to 90.3 Gy did not result in improved MST or PFS. The tumor responses were greater in node-negative patients and women. An increasing GTV was strongly associated with decreased MST and PFS. Future radiotherapy trials patients might need to use stratification by tumor volume.

Comparison of peripheral dose from image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) using kV cone beam CT to intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT).

PURPOSE: The growing use of IMRT with volumetric kilovoltage cone-beam computed tomography (kV-CBCT) for IGRT has increased concerns over the additional (typically unaccounted) radiation dose associated with the procedures. Published data quantify the in-field dose of IGRT and the peripheral dose from IMRT. This study adds to the data on dose outside the target area by measuring peripheral CBCT dose and comparing it with out-of-field IMRT dose. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Measurements of the CBCT peripheral dose were made in an anthropomorphic phantom with TLDs and were compared to peripheral dose measurements for prostate IMRT, determined with MOSFET detectors. RESULTS: Doses above 1cGy (per scan) were found outside the CBCT imaged volume, with 0.2cGy at 25 cm from the central axis. IMRT peripheral dose was 1cGy at 20 cm and 0.4cGy at 25 cm (per fraction). CONCLUSIONS: An appreciable dose can be found beyond the edge of the IGRT field; of similar order of magnitude as peripheral dose from IMRT (mGy), and approximately half the dose delivered to the same point from the IMRT treatment (0.2cGy c.f. 0.4cGy 25 cm from the isocenter). This shows that peripheral dose, as well as the in-field dose from CBCT, needs to be taken into account when considering long term care of radiation oncology patients.

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

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

Commissioning experience with cone-beam computed tomography for image-guided radiation therapy.

This paper reports on the commissioning of an Elekta cone-beam computed tomography (CT) system at one of the first U.S. sites to install a "regular," off-the-shelf Elekta Synergy (Elekta, Stockholm, Sweden) accelerator system. We present the quality assurance (QA) procedure as a guide for other users. The commissioning had six elements: (1) system safety, (2) geometric accuracy (agreement of megavoltage and kilovoltage beam isocenters), (3) image quality, (4) registration and correction accuracy, (5) dose to patient and dosimetric stability, and (6) QA procedures. The system passed the safety tests, and agreement of the isocenters was found to be within 1 mm. Using a precisely moved skull phantom, the reconstruction and alignment algorithm was found to be accurate within 1 mm and 1 degree in each dimension. Of 12 measurement points spanning a 9x9x15-cm volume in a Rando phantom (The Phantom Laboratory, Salem, NY), the average agreement in the x, y, and z coordinates was 0.10 mm, -0.12 mm, and 0.22 mm [standard deviations (SDs): 0.21 mm, 0.55 mm, 0.21 mm; largest deviations: 0.6 mm, 1.0 mm, 0.5 mm] respectively. The larger deviation for the y component can be partly attributed to the CT slice thickness of 1 mm in that direction. Dose to the patient depends on the machine settings and patient geometry. To monitor dose consistency, air kerma (output) and half-value layer (beam quality) are measured for a typical clinical setting. Air kerma was 6.3 cGy (120 kVp, 40 mA, 40 ms per frame, 360-degree scan, S20 field of view); half value layer was 7.1 mm aluminum (120 kV, 40 mA). We suggest performing items 1, 2, and 3 monthly, and 4 and 5 annually. In addition, we devised a daily QA procedure to verify agreement of the megavoltage and kilovoltage isocenters using a simple phantom containing three small steel balls. The frequency of all checks will be reevaluated based on data collected during about 1 year.

From new frontiers to new standards of practice: advances in radiotherapy planning and delivery.

Radiation therapy treatment planning and delivery capabilities have changed dramatically since the introduction of three-dimensional treatment planning in the 1980s and continue to change in response to the implementation of new technologies. CT simulation and three-dimensional radiation treatment planning systems have become the standard of practice in clinics around the world. Medical accelerator manufacturers have employed advanced computer technology to produce treatment planning/delivery systems capable of precise shaping of dose distributions via computer-controlled multileaf collimators, in which the beam fluence is varied optimally to achieve the plan prescription. This mode of therapy is referred to as intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and is capable of generating extremely conformal dose distributions including concave isodose volumes that provide conformal target volume coverage and avoidance of specific sensitive normal structures. IMRT is rapidly being implemented in clinics throughout the USA. This increasing use of IMRT has focused attention on the need to better account for both intrafraction and interfraction spatial uncertainties, which has helped spur the development of treatment machines with integrated planar and volumetric advanced imaging capabilities. In addition, advances in both anatomical and functional imaging provide improved ability to define the tumor volumes. Advances in all these technologies are occurring at a record pace and again pushing the cutting-edge frontiers of radiation oncology from IMRT to what is now referred to as image-guided IMRT, or simply image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT). A brief overview is presented of these latest advancements in conformal treatment planning and treatment delivery.

Introducing new technologies into the clinic.

Introducing new technologies into radiation oncology clinical practices poses very specific logistical dilemmas. How do we determine that a new technology's dose distribution is better than the 'standard' and what are the methods that can be applied to easily compare the 'new' with the 'old'? We consider how the benchmark dose-volume histogram (DVH) can serve as a conceptual model to approach these issues. Comparing dosimetric differences using benchmark DVHs helps a 'global' comparison of the area under the curve that is intuitive, relatively efficient and easily implemented. These concepts, applied in prostate cancer in this communication, have wider applications in other disease sites and in the introduction of technologies beyond intensity-modulated radiation therapy.

Helical tomotherapy shielding calculation for an existing LINAC treatment room: sample calculation and cautions.

This paper reports a step-by-step shielding calculation recipe for a helical tomotherapy unit (TomoTherapy Inc., Madison, WI, USA), recently installed in an existing Varian 600C treatment room. Both primary and secondary radiations (leakage and scatter) are explicitly considered. A typical patient load is assumed. Use factor is calculated based on an analytical formula derived from the tomotherapy rotational beam delivery geometry. Leakage and scatter are included in the calculation based on corresponding measurement data as documented by TomoTherapy Inc. Our calculation result shows that, except for a small area by the therapists' console, most of the existing Varian 600C shielding is sufficient for the new tomotherapy unit. This work cautions other institutions facing the similar situation, where an HT unit is considered for an existing LINAC treatment room, more secondary shielding might be considered at some locations, due to the significantly increased secondary shielding requirement by HT.

Toxicity after three-dimensional radiotherapy for prostate cancer on RTOG 9406 dose Level V.

PURPOSE: This is the first report of toxicity outcomes at dose Level V (78 Gy) on Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9406 for Stages T1-T2 adenocarcinoma of the prostate. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 225 patients were entered in this cooperative group, Phase I-II dose-escalation trial of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for localized carcinoma of the prostate treated to a dose of 78 Gy (Level V). Of these patients, 219 were analyzed for acute and 218 for late toxicity. A minimum of 2 Gy/fraction was prescribed to the planning target volume (PTV). Patients were stratified according to the risk of seminal vesicle invasion as determined by Gleason score and presenting prostate-specific antigen level. Group 1 patients had clinical Stages T1-T2 tumors with a seminal vesicle invasion risk of <15%. Group 2 patients had clinical Stages T1-T2 tumors with a seminal vesicle invasion risk of >/=15%. Patients in Group 1 were prescribed 78 Gy to a prostate PTV. Patients in Group 2 were prescribed 54 Gy to the prostate and seminal vesicles (PTV1) followed by a boost to the prostate only (PTV2) to 78 Gy. PTV margins of between 5 and 10 mm were required. The average time at risk for late Grade 3+ toxicity after therapy completion was 23.2 and 23.1 months for Groups 1 and 2, respectively. The frequency of Grade 3 or worse late effects was compared with a similar group of patients treated in Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) studies 7506 and 7706, with length of follow-up adjustments made for the interval from therapy completion. A second comparison was made with 170 patients treated to dose Level III (79.2 Gy in 1.8 Gy/fraction) to see whether the fraction size affected toxicity. Unlike other dose levels, patients treated at dose Level III had treatment prescribed as a minimum to the gross tumor volume. This effectively lowered the volume of the rectum treated to the study dose. RESULTS: Acute toxicity at dose Level V (78 Gy) was remarkably low, with Grade 3 acute effects reported in only 4% of Group 1 and 2% of Group 2 patients. No Grade 4 or 5 acute toxicity was reported. There was no statistically significant difference in rates of acute toxicities in patients who were treated to 79.2 Gy at 1.8 Gy/fraction or 78 Gy at 2.0 Gy/fraction. Late toxicity continues to be low compared with RTOG historical controls. The observed rate of Grade 3 or worse late effects for Group 1 (6 cases) was significantly lower (p = 0.0042) than the 18.2 cases that would have been expected from the historical control. The observed rate for Group 2 (8 cases) was lower than the 15.5 cases expected, but this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.06). A trend was noted that Group 2 patients treated on dose Level V had more late Grade 3 or worse toxicity than patients treated to a similar dose on Level III (7% vs. 1%, p = 0.06). A significantly (p < 0.0001) greater incidence of late Grade 2 or greater toxicity occurred in patients treated at dose Level V (30% and 33% for Groups 1 and 2, respectively) than at dose Level III (13% and 9% for Groups 1 and 2, respectively). The longer follow-up at dose Level III suggests these differences may increase with additional follow-up. CONCLUSION: Tolerance to three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy with 78 Gy in 2-Gy fractions remains better than expected compared with historical controls. The magnitude of any effect from fraction size and treatment volume requires additional follow-up.

Toxicity and outcome results of RTOG 9311: a phase I-II dose-escalation study using three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy in patients with inoperable non-small-cell lung carcinoma.

PURPOSE: To evaluate prospectively the acute and late morbidities from a multiinstitutional three-dimensional radiotherapy dose-escalation study for inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 179 patients were enrolled in a Phase I-II three-dimensional radiotherapy dose-escalation trial. Of the 179 patients, 177 were eligible. The use of concurrent chemotherapy was not allowed. Twenty-five patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients were stratified at escalating radiation dose levels depending on the percentage of the total lung volume that received >20 Gy with the treatment plan (V(20)). Patients with a V(20) <25% (Group 1) received 70.9 Gy in 33 fractions, 77.4 Gy in 36 fractions, 83.8 Gy in 39 fractions, and 90.3 Gy in 42 fractions, successively. Patients with a V(20) of 25-36% (Group 2) received doses of 70.9 Gy and 77.4 Gy, successively. The treatment arm for patients with a V(20) > or =37% (Group 3) closed early secondary to poor accrual (2 patients) and the perception of excessive risk for the development of pneumonitis. Toxicities occurring or persisting beyond 90 days after the start of radiotherapy were scored as late toxicities. The estimated toxicity rates were calculated on the basis of the cumulative incidence method. RESULTS: The following acute Grade 3 or worse toxicities were observed for Group 1: 70.9 Gy (1 case of weight loss), 77.4 Gy (nausea and hematologic toxicity in 1 case each), 83.8 Gy (1 case of hematologic toxicity), and 90.3 Gy (3 cases of lung toxicity). The following acute Grade 3 or worse toxicities were observed for Group 2: none at 70.9 Gy and 2 cases of lung toxicity at 77.4 Gy. No patients developed acute Grade 3 or worse esophageal toxicity. The estimated rate of Grade 3 or worse late lung toxicity at 18 months was 7%, 16%, 0%, and 13% for Group 1 patients receiving 70.9, 77.4, 83.8, or 90.3 Gy, respectively. Group 2 patients had an estimated late lung toxicity rate of 15% at 18 months for both 70.9 and 77.4 Gy. The prognostic factors for late pneumonitis in multivariate analysis were the mean lung dose and V(20). The estimated rate of late Grade 3 or worse esophageal toxicity at 18 months was 8%, 0%, 4%, and 6%, for Group 1 patients receiving 70.9, 77.4, 83.8, 90.3 Gy, respectively, and 0% and 5%, respectively, for Group 2 patients receiving 70.9 and 77.4 Gy. The dyspnea index scoring at baseline and after therapy for functional impairment, magnitude of task, and magnitude of effort revealed no change in 63%, functional pulmonary loss in 23%, and pulmonary improvement in 14% of patients. The observed locoregional control and overall survival rates were each similar among the study arms within each dose level of Groups 1 and 2. Locoregional control was achieved in 50-78% of patients. Thirty-one patients developed regional nodal failure. The location of nodal failure in relationship to the RT volume was documented in 28 of these 31 patients. Twelve patients had isolated elective nodal failures. Fourteen patients had regional failure in irradiated nodal volumes. Two patients had both elective nodal and irradiated nodal failure. CONCLUSIONS: The radiation dose was safely escalated using three-dimensional conformal techniques to 83.8 Gy for patients with V(20) values of <25% (Group 1) and to 77.4 Gy for patients with V(20) values between 25% and 36% (Group 2), using fraction sizes of 2.15 Gy. The 90.3-Gy dose level was too toxic, resulting in dose-related deaths in 2 patients. Elective nodal failure occurred in <10% of patients.

Errors in radiation oncology: a study in pathways and dosimetric impact.

As complexity for treating patients increases, so does the risk of error. Some publications have suggested that record and verify (R&V) systems may contribute in propagating errors. Direct data transfer has the potential to eliminate most, but not all, errors. And although the dosimetric consequences may be obvious in some cases, a detailed study does not exist. In this effort, we examined potential errors in terms of scenarios, pathways of occurrence, and dosimetry. Our goal was to prioritize error prevention according to likelihood of event and dosimetric impact. For conventional photon treatments, we investigated errors of incorrect source-to-surface distance (SSD), energy, omitted wedge (physical, dynamic, or universal) or compensating filter, incorrect wedge or compensating filter orientation, improper rotational rate for arc therapy, and geometrical misses due to incorrect gantry, collimator or table angle, reversed field settings, and setup errors. For electron beam therapy, errors investigated included incorrect energy, incorrect SSD, along with geometric misses. For special procedures we examined errors for total body irradiation (TBI, incorrect field size, dose rate, treatment distance) and LINAC radiosurgery (incorrect collimation setting, incorrect rotational parameters). Likelihood of error was determined and subsequently rated according to our history of detecting such errors. Dosimetric evaluation was conducted by using dosimetric data, treatment plans, or measurements. We found geometric misses to have the highest error probability. They most often occurred due to improper setup via coordinate shift errors or incorrect field shaping. The dosimetric impact is unique for each case and depends on the proportion of fields in error and volume mistreated. These errors were short-lived due to rapid detection via port films. The most significant dosimetric error was related to a reversed wedge direction. This may occur due to incorrect collimator angle or wedge orientation. For parallel-opposed 60 degrees wedge fields, this error could be as high as 80% to a point off-axis. Other examples of dosimetric impact included the following: SSD, approximately 2%/cm for photons or electrons; photon energy (6 MV vs. 18 MV), on average 16% depending on depth, electron energy, approximately 0.5 cm of depth coverage per MeV (mega-electron volt). Of these examples, incorrect distances were most likely but rapidly detected by in vivo dosimetry. Errors were categorized by occurrence rate, methods and timing of detection, longevity, and dosimetric impact. Solutions were devised according to these criteria. To date, no one has studied the dosimetric impact of global errors in radiation oncology. Although there is heightened awareness that with increased use of ancillary devices and automation, there must be a parallel increase in quality check systems and processes, errors do and will continue to occur. This study has helped us identify and prioritize potential errors in our clinic according to frequency and dosimetric impact. For example, to reduce the use of an incorrect wedge direction, our clinic employs off-axis in vivo dosimetry. To avoid a treatment distance setup error, we use both vertical table settings and optical distance indicator (ODI) values to properly set up fields. As R&V systems become more automated, more accurate and efficient data transfer will occur. This will require further analysis. Finally, we have begun examining potential intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) errors according to the same criteria.

Current ICRU definitions of volumes: limitations and future directions.

Volume definitions used in radiation treatment planning of 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) play and important role in advancing these treatment modalities. IMRT is now recognized to be more sensitive to geometric uncertainties than 3DCRT and conventional radiation therapy because of its characteristic sharper dose gradients around target volumes and organs at risk. This article reviews the current state of the art in specifying volumes for 3DCRT and IMRT and discusses some of the limitations and potential pitfalls with the current International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) Reports 50 and 62 recommendations, particularly in regard to issues of organ motion when irradiated by a time-dependent irradiation modality such as dynamic multileaf collimation IMRT or other methods that have a time component in beam delivery.