Phase 3 Trial of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy in Localized Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Whether stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is noninferior to conventionally or moderately hypofractionated regimens with respect to biochemical or clinical failure in patients with localized prostate cancer is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, international, open-label, randomized, controlled trial. Men with stage T1 or T2 prostate cancer, a Gleason score of 3+4 or less, and a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of no more than 20 ng per milliliter were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to receive SBRT (36.25 Gy in 5 fractions over a period of 1 or 2 weeks) or control radiotherapy (78 Gy in 39 fractions over a period of 7.5 weeks or 62 Gy in 20 fractions over a period of 4 weeks). Androgen-deprivation therapy was not permitted. The primary end point was freedom from biochemical or clinical failure, with a critical hazard ratio for noninferiority of 1.45. The analysis was performed in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: A total of 874 patients underwent randomization at 38 centers (433 patients in the SBRT group and 441 in the control radiotherapy group) between August 2012 and January 2018. The median age of the patients was 69.8 years, and the median PSA level was 8.0 ng per milliliter; the National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk category was low for 8.4% of the patients and intermediate for 91.6%. At a median follow-up of 74.0 months, the 5-year incidence of freedom from biochemical or clinical failure was 95.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93.3 to 97.4) in the SBRT group and 94.6% (95% CI, 91.9 to 96.4) in the control radiotherapy group (unadjusted hazard ratio for biochemical or clinical failure, 0.73; 90% CI, 0.48 to 1.12; P = 0.004 for noninferiority), which indicated the noninferiority of SBRT. At 5 years, the cumulative incidence of late Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grade 2 or higher genitourinary toxic effects was 26.9% (95% CI, 22.8 to 31.5) with SBRT and 18.3% (95% CI, 14.8 to 22.5) with control radiotherapy (P<0.001), and the cumulative incidence of late RTOG grade 2 or higher gastrointestinal toxic effects was 10.7% (95% CI, 8.1 to 14.2) and 10.2% (95% CI, 7.7 to 13.5), respectively (P = 0.94). CONCLUSIONS: Five-fraction SBRT was noninferior to control radiotherapy with respect to biochemical or clinical failure and may be an efficacious treatment option for patients with low-to-intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer as defined in this trial. (Funded by Accuray and others; PACE-B ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01584258.).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Partial-breast radiotherapy after breast conservation surgery for patients with early breast cancer (UK IMPORT LOW trial): 5-year results from a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Local cancer relapse risk after breast conservation surgery followed by radiotherapy has fallen sharply in many countries, and is influenced by patient age and clinicopathological factors. We hypothesise that partial-breast radiotherapy restricted to the vicinity of the original tumour in women at lower than average risk of local relapse will improve the balance of beneficial versus adverse effects compared with whole-breast radiotherapy. METHODS: IMPORT LOW is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial done in 30 radiotherapy centres in the UK. Women aged 50 years or older who had undergone breast-conserving surgery for unifocal invasive ductal adenocarcinoma of grade 1-3, with a tumour size of 3 cm or less (pT1-2), none to three positive axillary nodes (pN0-1), and minimum microscopic margins of non-cancerous tissue of 2 mm or more, were recruited. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive 40 Gy whole-breast radiotherapy (control), 36 Gy whole-breast radiotherapy and 40 Gy to the partial breast (reduced-dose group), or 40 Gy to the partial breast only (partial-breast group) in 15 daily treatment fractions. Computer-generated random permuted blocks (mixed sizes of six and nine) were used to assign patients to groups, stratifying patients by radiotherapy treatment centre. Patients and clinicians were not masked to treatment allocation. Field-in-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy was delivered using standard tangential beams that were simply reduced in length for the partial-breast group. The primary endpoint was ipsilateral local relapse (80% power to exclude a 2·5% increase [non-inferiority margin] at 5 years for each experimental group; non-inferiority was shown if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the local relapse hazard ratio [HR] was less than 2·03), analysed by intention to treat. Safety analyses were done in all patients for whom data was available (ie, a modified intention-to-treat population). This study is registered in the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN12852634. FINDINGS: Between May 3, 2007, and Oct 5, 2010, 2018 women were recruited. Two women withdrew consent for use of their data in the analysis. 674 patients were analysed in the whole-breast radiotherapy (control) group, 673 in the reduced-dose group, and 669 in the partial-breast group. Median follow-up was 72·2 months (IQR 61·7-83·2), and 5-year estimates of local relapse cumulative incidence were 1·1% (95% CI 0·5-2·3) of patients in the control group, 0·2% (0·02-1·2) in the reduced-dose group, and 0·5% (0·2-1·4) in the partial-breast group. Estimated 5-year absolute differences in local relapse compared with the control group were -0·73% (-0·99 to 0·22) for the reduced-dose and -0·38% (-0·84 to 0·90) for the partial-breast groups. Non-inferiority can be claimed for both reduced-dose and partial-breast radiotherapy, and was confirmed by the test against the critical HR being more than 2·03 (p=0·003 for the reduced-dose group and p=0·016 for the partial-breast group, compared with the whole-breast radiotherapy group). Photographic, patient, and clinical assessments recorded similar adverse effects after reduced-dose or partial-breast radiotherapy, including two patient domains achieving statistically significantly lower adverse effects (change in breast appearance [p=0·007 for partial-breast] and breast harder or firmer [p=0·002 for reduced-dose and p<0·0001 for partial-breast]) compared with whole-breast radiotherapy. INTERPRETATION: We showed non-inferiority of partial-breast and reduced-dose radiotherapy compared with the standard whole-breast radiotherapy in terms of local relapse in a cohort of patients with early breast cancer, and equivalent or fewer late normal-tissue adverse effects were seen. This simple radiotherapy technique is implementable in radiotherapy centres worldwide. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer might have high radiation-fraction sensitivity that would give a therapeutic advantage to hypofractionated treatment. We present a pre-planned analysis of the efficacy and side-effects of a randomised trial comparing conventional and hypofractionated radiotherapy after 5 years follow-up. METHODS: CHHiP is a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial that recruited men with localised prostate cancer (pT1b-T3aN0M0). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to conventional (74 Gy delivered in 37 fractions over 7·4 weeks) or one of two hypofractionated schedules (60 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks or 57 Gy in 19 fractions over 3·8 weeks) all delivered with intensity-modulated techniques. Most patients were given radiotherapy with 3-6 months of neoadjuvant and concurrent androgen suppression. Randomisation was by computer-generated random permuted blocks, stratified by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group and radiotherapy treatment centre, and treatment allocation was not masked. The primary endpoint was time to biochemical or clinical failure; the critical hazard ratio (HR) for non-inferiority was 1·208. Analysis was by intention to treat. Long-term follow-up continues. The CHHiP trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN97182923. FINDINGS: Between Oct 18, 2002, and June 17, 2011, 3216 men were enrolled from 71 centres and randomly assigned (74 Gy group, 1065 patients; 60 Gy group, 1074 patients; 57 Gy group, 1077 patients). Median follow-up was 62·4 months (IQR 53·9-77·0). The proportion of patients who were biochemical or clinical failure free at 5 years was 88·3% (95% CI 86·0-90·2) in the 74 Gy group, 90·6% (88·5-92·3) in the 60 Gy group, and 85·9% (83·4-88·0) in the 57 Gy group. 60 Gy was non-inferior to 74 Gy (HR 0·84 [90% CI 0·68-1·03], pNI=0·0018) but non-inferiority could not be claimed for 57 Gy compared with 74 Gy (HR 1·20 [0·99-1·46], pNI=0·48). Long-term side-effects were similar in the hypofractionated groups compared with the conventional group. There were no significant differences in either the proportion or cumulative incidence of side-effects 5 years after treatment using three clinician-reported as well as patient-reported outcome measures. The estimated cumulative 5 year incidence of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grade 2 or worse bowel and bladder adverse events was 13·7% (111 events) and 9·1% (66 events) in the 74 Gy group, 11·9% (105 events) and 11·7% (88 events) in the 60 Gy group, 11·3% (95 events) and 6·6% (57 events) in the 57 Gy group, respectively. No treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: Hypofractionated radiotherapy using 60 Gy in 20 fractions is non-inferior to conventional fractionation using 74 Gy in 37 fractions and is recommended as a new standard of care for external-beam radiotherapy of localised prostate cancer. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Department of Health, and the National Institute for Health Research Cancer Research Network.

Hypofractionated radiotherapy versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for patients with intermediate-risk localised prostate cancer: 2-year patient-reported outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) might detect more toxic effects of radiotherapy than do clinician-reported outcomes. We did a quality of life (QoL) substudy to assess PROs up to 24 months after conventionally fractionated or hypofractionated radiotherapy in the Conventional or Hypofractionated High Dose Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer (CHHiP) trial. METHODS: The CHHiP trial is a randomised, non-inferiority phase 3 trial done in 71 centres, of which 57 UK hospitals took part in the QoL substudy. Men with localised prostate cancer who were undergoing radiotherapy were eligible for trial entry if they had histologically confirmed T1b-T3aN0M0 prostate cancer, an estimated risk of seminal vesicle involvement less than 30%, prostate-specific antigen concentration less than 30 ng/mL, and a WHO performance status of 0 or 1. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive a standard fractionation schedule of 74 Gy in 37 fractions or one of two hypofractionated schedules: 60 Gy in 20 fractions or 57 Gy in 19 fractions. Randomisation was done with computer-generated permuted block sizes of six and nine, stratified by centre and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group. Treatment allocation was not masked. UCLA Prostate Cancer Index (UCLA-PCI), including Short Form (SF)-36 and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P), or Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) and SF-12 quality-of-life questionnaires were completed at baseline, pre-radiotherapy, 10 weeks post-radiotherapy, and 6, 12, 18, and 24 months post-radiotherapy. The CHHiP trial completed accrual on June 16, 2011, and the QoL substudy was closed to further recruitment on Nov 1, 2009. Analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary endpoint of the QoL substudy was overall bowel bother and comparisons between fractionation groups were done at 24 months post-radiotherapy. The CHHiP trial is registered with ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN97182923. FINDINGS: 2100 participants in the CHHiP trial consented to be included in the QoL substudy: 696 assigned to the 74 Gy schedule, 698 assigned to the 60 Gy schedule, and 706 assigned to the 57 Gy schedule. Of these individuals, 1659 (79%) provided data pre-radiotherapy and 1444 (69%) provided data at 24 months after radiotherapy. Median follow-up was 50·0 months (IQR 38·4-64·2) on April 9, 2014, which was the most recent follow-up measurement of all data collected before the QoL data were analysed in September, 2014. Comparison of 74 Gy in 37 fractions, 60 Gy in 20 fractions, and 57 Gy in 19 fractions groups at 2 years showed no overall bowel bother in 269 (66%), 266 (65%), and 282 (65%) men; very small bother in 92 (22%), 91 (22%), and 93 (21%) men; small bother in 26 (6%), 28 (7%), and 38 (9%) men; moderate bother in 19 (5%), 23 (6%), and 21 (5%) men, and severe bother in four (<1%), three (<1%) and three (<1%) men respectively (74 Gy vs 60 Gy, ptrend=0.64, 74 Gy vs 57 Gy, ptrend=0·59). We saw no differences between treatment groups in change of bowel bother score from baseline or pre-radiotherapy to 24 months. INTERPRETATION: The incidence of patient-reported bowel symptoms was low and similar between patients in the 74 Gy control group and the hypofractionated groups up to 24 months after radiotherapy. If efficacy outcomes from CHHiP show non-inferiority for hypofractionated treatments, these findings will add to the growing evidence for moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy schedules becoming the standard treatment for localised prostate cancer. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Department of Health, and the National Institute for Health Research Cancer Research Network.

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

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

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

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

Dose-escalated Adaptive Radiotherapy for Bladder Cancer: Results of the Phase 2 RAIDER Randomised Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Delivering radiotherapy to the bladder is challenging as it is a mobile, deformable structure. Dose-escalated adaptive image-guided radiotherapy could improve outcomes. RAIDER aimed to demonstrate the safety of such a schedule. METHODS: RAIDER is an international phase 2 noncomparative randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN26779187). Patients with unifocal T2-T4a urothelial bladder cancer were randomised (1:1:2) to standard whole bladder radiotherapy (WBRT), standard-dose adaptive radiotherapy (SART), or dose-escalated adaptive radiotherapy (DART). Two fractionation (f) schedules recruited independently. WBRT and SART dose was 55 Gy/20f or 64 Gy/32f, and DART dose was 60 Gy/20f or 70 Gy/32f. For SART and DART, a radiotherapy plan (small, medium, or large) was chosen daily. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with radiotherapy-related late Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade ≥3 toxicity; the trial was designed to rule out >20% toxicity with DART. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 345 patients were randomised between October 2015 and April 2020: 41/46 WBRT, 41/46 SART, and 81/90 DART patients in the 20f/32f cohorts, respectively. The median age was 72/73 yr; 78%/85% had T2 tumours, 46%/52% had neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and 70%/71% had radiosensitising therapy. The median follow-up was 42.1/38.2 mo. Sixty-six of 77 (86%) 20f and 74 of 82 (90%) 32f participants planned for DART met the mandatory medium plan dose constraints. Radiotherapy-related grade ≥3 toxicity was reported in one of 58 patients (90% confidence interval [CI] 0.1, 7.9) with 20f DART and zero of 56 patients with 32f DART. Two-year overall survival was 77% (95% CI 69, 82) for WBRT + SART and 80% (95% CI 73, 85) for DART (hazard ratio = 0.84, 95% CI 0.59, 1.21, p = 0.4). Thirteen of 345 (3.8%) participants had salvage cystectomy. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Grade ≥3 late toxicity was low. DART was safe and feasible to deliver, meeting preset toxicity thresholds. Disease-related outcomes are promising for dose-escalated treatments, with a low salvage cystectomy rate and overall survival similar to that seen in cystectomy cohorts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Early versus delayed treatment of relapsed ovarian cancer (MRC OV05/EORTC 55955): a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Serum CA125 concentration often rises several months before clinical or symptomatic relapse in women with ovarian cancer. In the MRC OV05/EORTC 55955 collaborative trial, we aimed to establish the benefits of early treatment on the basis of increased CA125 concentrations compared with delayed treatment on the basis of clinical recurrence. METHODS: Women with ovarian cancer in complete remission after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and a normal CA125 concentration were registered for this randomised controlled trial. Clinical examination and CA125 measurement were done every 3 months. Patients and investigators were masked to CA125 results, which were monitored by coordinating centres. If CA125 concentration exceeded twice the upper limit of normal, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by minimisation to early or delayed chemotherapy. Patients and clinical sites were informed of allocation to early treatment, and treatment was started as soon as possible within 28 days of the increased CA125 measurement. Patients assigned to delayed treatment continued masked CA125 measurements, with treatment commencing at clinical or symptomatic relapse. All patients were treated according to standard local practice. The primary outcome was overall survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, ISRCTN87786644. FINDINGS: 1442 patients were registered for the trial, of whom 529 were randomly assigned to treatment groups and were included in our analysis (265 early, 264 delayed). With a median follow-up of 56·9 months (IQR 37·4-81·8) from randomisation and 370 deaths (186 early, 184 delayed), there was no evidence of a difference in overall survival between early and delayed treatment (HR 0·98, 95% CI 0·80-1·20, p=0·85). Median survival from randomisation was 25·7 months (95% CI 23·0-27·9) for patients on early treatment and 27·1 months (22·8-30·9) for those on delayed treatment. INTERPRETATION: Our findings showed no evidence of a survival benefit with early treatment of relapse on the basis of a raised CA125 concentration alone, and therefore the value of routine measurement of CA125 in the follow-up of patients with ovarian cancer who attain a complete response after first-line treatment is not proven. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer.

Interferon alfa-2a versus combination therapy with interferon alfa-2a, interleukin-2, and fluorouracil in patients with untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (MRC RE04/EORTC GU 30012): an open-label randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: In metastatic renal cell carcinoma combinations of interferon alfa-2a, interleukin-2, and fluorouracil produce higher response rates and longer progression-free survival than do single agents. We aimed to compare overall survival in patients receiving combination treatment or interferon alfa-2a. METHODS: RE04/30012 was an open-label randomised trial undertaken in 50 centres across eight countries. 1006 treatment-naive patients diagnosed with advanced metastatic renal cell carcinoma were randomly allocated (1 to 1) by minimisation to receive interferon alfa-2a alone or combination therapy with interferon alfa-2a, interleukin-2, and fluorouracil. Treatment was not masked. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Treatment groups were compared with a non-stratified log-rank test. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN 46518965. FINDINGS: 502 patients were randomly assigned to receive interferon alfa-2a and 504 to receive combined treatment. Median follow-up was 37.2 months (24.8-52.3). Median overall survival was 18.8 months (17.0-23.2) for patients receiving interferon alfa-2a versus 18.6 months (16.5-20.6) for those receiving combination therapy. Overall survival did not differ between the two groups (hazard ratio 1.05 [95% CI 0.90-1.21], p=0.55; absolute difference 0.3% (-5.1 to 5.6) at 1 year and 2.7% (-8.2 to 2.9) at 3 years). Serious adverse events were reported in 113 (23%) patients receiving interferon alfa-2a and 131 (26%) of those receiving combined treatment. INTERPRETATION: Although combination therapy does not improve overall or progression-free survival compared with interferon alfa-2a alone, immunotherapy might still have a role because it can produce remissions that are of clinically relevant length in some patients. Identification of patients who will benefit from immunotherapy is crucial. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council.

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

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