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.

Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: preliminary safety results from the CHHiP randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer might have high radiation-fraction sensitivity, implying a therapeutic advantage of hypofractionated treatment. We present a pre-planned preliminary safety analysis of side-effects in stages 1 and 2 of a randomised trial comparing standard and hypofractionated radiotherapy. METHODS: We did a multicentre, randomised study and recruited men with localised prostate cancer between Oct 18, 2002, and Aug 12, 2006, at 11 UK centres. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive conventional or hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and all were given with 3-6 months of neoadjuvant androgen suppression. Computer-generated random permuted blocks were used, with risk of seminal vesicle involvement and radiotherapy-treatment centre as stratification factors. The conventional schedule was 37 fractions of 2 Gy to a total of 74 Gy. The two hypofractionated schedules involved 3 Gy treatments given in either 20 fractions to a total of 60 Gy, or 19 fractions to a total of 57 Gy. The primary endpoint was proportion of patients with grade 2 or worse toxicity at 2 years on the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) scale. The primary analysis included all patients who had received at least one fraction of radiotherapy and completed a 2 year assessment. Treatment allocation was not masked and clinicians were not blinded. Stage 3 of this trial completed the planned recruitment in June, 2011. This study is registered, number ISRCTN97182923. FINDINGS: 153 men recruited to stages 1 and 2 were randomly assigned to receive conventional treatment of 74 Gy, 153 to receive 60 Gy, and 151 to receive 57 Gy. With 50·5 months median follow-up (IQR 43·5-61·3), six (4·3%; 95% CI 1·6-9·2) of 138 men in the 74 Gy group had bowel toxicity of grade 2 or worse on the RTOG scale at 2 years, as did five (3·6%; 1·2-8·3) of 137 men in the 60 Gy group, and two (1·4%; 0·2-5·0) of 143 men in the 57 Gy group. For bladder toxicities, three (2·2%; 0·5-6·2) of 138 men, three (2·2%; 0·5-6·3) of 137, and none (0·0%; 97·5% CI 0·0-2·6) of 143 had scores of grade 2 or worse on the RTOG scale at 2 years. INTERPRETATION: Hypofractionated high-dose radiotherapy seems equally well tolerated as conventionally fractionated treatment at 2 years. FUNDING: Stage 1 was funded by the Academic Radiotherapy Unit, Cancer Research UK programme grant; stage 2 was funded by the Department of Health and Cancer Research UK.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Toxicity and Patient-Reported Outcomes of a Phase 2 Randomized Trial of Prostate and Pelvic Lymph Node Versus Prostate only Radiotherapy in Advanced Localised Prostate Cancer (PIVOTAL).

PURPOSE: To establish the toxicity profile of high-dose pelvic lymph node intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and to assess whether it is safely deliverable at multiple centers. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In this phase 2 noncomparative multicenter trial, 124 patients with locally advanced, high-risk prostate cancer were randomized between prostate-only IMRT (PO) (74 Gy/37 fractions) and prostate and pelvic lymph node IMRT (P&P; 74 Gy/37 fractions to prostate, 60 Gy/37 fractions to pelvis). The primary endpoint was acute lower gastrointestinal (GI) Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) toxicity at week 18, aiming to exclude a grade 2 or greater (G2+) toxicity-free rate of 80% in the P&P group. Key secondary endpoints included patient-reported outcomes and late toxicity. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-four participants were randomized (62 PO, 62 P&P) from May 2011 to March 2013. Median follow-up was 37.6 months (interquartile range [IQR], 35.4-38.9 months). Participants had a median age of 69 years (IQR, 64-74 years) and median diagnostic prostate-specific androgen level of 21.6 ng/mL (IQR, 11.8-35.1 ng/mL). At week 18, G2+ lower GI toxicity-free rates were 59 of 61 (96.7%; 90% confidence interval [CI], 90.0-99.4) for the PO group and 59 of 62 (95.2%; 90% CI, 88.0-98.7) for the P&P group. Patients in both groups reported similarly low Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire symptoms and Vaizey incontinence scores. The largest difference occurred at week 6 with 4 of 61 (7%) and 16 of 61 (26%) PO and P&P patients, respectively, experiencing G2+ toxicity. At 2 years, the cumulative proportion of RTOG G2+ GI toxicity was 16.9% (95% CI, 8.9%-30.9%) for the PO group and 24.0% (95% CI, 8.4%-57.9%) for the P&P group; in addition, RTOG G2+ bladder toxicity was 5.1% (95% CI, 1.7%-14.9%) for the PO group and 5.6% (95% CI, 1.8%-16.7%) for the P&P group. CONCLUSIONS: PIVOTAL demonstrated that high-dose pelvic lymph node IMRT can be delivered at multiple centers with a modest side effect profile. Although safety data from the present study are encouraging, the impact of P&P IMRT on disease control remains to be established.

Evaluation of margining algorithms in commercial treatment planning systems.

INTRODUCTION: During commissioning of the Pinnacle (Philips) treatment planning system (TPS) the margining algorithm was investigated and was found to produce larger PTVs than Plato (Nucletron) for identical GTVs. Subsequent comparison of PTV volumes resulting from the QA outlining exercise for the CHHIP (Conventional or Hypofractionated High Dose IMRT for Prostate Ca.) trial confirmed that there were differences in TPS's margining algorithms. Margining and the clinical impact of the different PTVs in seven different planning and virtual simulation systems (Pinnacle, Plato, Prosoma (MedCom), Eclipse (7.3 and 7.5) (Varian), MasterPlan (Nucletron), Xio (CMS) and Advantage Windows (AW) (GE)) is investigated, and a simple test for 3D margining consistency is proposed. METHODS: Using each TPS, two different sets of prostate GTVs on 2.5mm and 5mm slices were margined according to the CHHIP protocol to produce PTV3 (prostate+5 mm/0 mm post), PTV2 (PTV3+5 mm) and PTV1 (prostate and seminal vesicles+10 mm). GTVs and PTVs were imported into Pinnacle for volume calculation. DVHs for 5mm slice plans, created using the smallest PTVs, were recalculated on the largest PTV dataset and vice versa. Since adding a margin of 50 mm to a structure should give the same result as adding five margins of 10 mm, this was tested for each TPS (consistency test) using an octahedron as the GTV and CT datasets with 2.5 mm and 5 mm slices. RESULTS: The CHHIP PTV3 and PTV1 volumes had a standard deviation, across the seven systems, of 5% and PTV2 (margined twice) 9%, on the 5 mm slices. For 2.5 mm slices the standard deviations were 4% and 6%. The ratio of the Pinnacle and the Eclipse 7.3 PTV2 volumes was 1.25. Rectal doses were significantly increased when encompassing Pinnacle PTVs (V(50)=42.8%), compared to Eclipse 7.3 PTVs (V(50)=36.4%). Conversely, fields that adequately treated an Eclipse 7.3 PTV2 were inadequate for a Pinnacle PTV2. AW and Plato PTV volumes were the most consistent (0.3%) and (-0.4%). However, the 1x50mm margin in Pinnacle produced a 15.9% larger volume than 5 x 10 mm margins, while for Eclipse 7.3 the single margined volume was 14.3% smaller. These inconsistencies were reduced to approximately 5% by adjusting the superior/inferior margins. CONCLUSIONS: Accurate margin algorithms are necessary to ensure that volume expansion does not add extra uncertainty to the radiotherapy planning process. We have found significant differences in the 3D margining algorithms of TPSs, devised a simple test to predict inconsistency and suggested corrective action to minimise the variation.

A national dosimetry audit for stereotactic ablative radiotherapy in lung.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A UK national dosimetry audit was carried out to assess the accuracy of Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy (SABR) lung treatment delivery. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This mail-based audit used an anthropomorphic thorax phantom containing nine alanine pellets positioned in the lung region for dosimetry, as well as EBT3 film in the axial plane for isodose comparison. Centres used their local planning protocol/technique, creating 27 SABR plans. A range of delivery techniques including conformal, volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and Cyberknife (CK) were used with six different calculation algorithms (collapsed cone, superposition, pencil-beam (PB), AAA, Acuros and Monte Carlo). RESULTS: The mean difference between measured and calculated dose (excluding PB results) was 0.4±1.4% for alanine and 1.4±3.4% for film. PB differences were -6.1% and -12.9% respectively. The median of the absolute maximum isodose-to-isodose distances was 3mm (-6mm to 7mm) and 5mm (-10mm to +19mm) for the 100% and 50% isodose lines respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Alanine and film is an effective combination for verifying dosimetric and geometric accuracy. There were some differences across dose algorithms, and geometric accuracy was better for VMAT and CK compared with conformal techniques. The alanine dosimetry results showed that planned and delivered doses were within ±3.0% for 25/27 SABR plans.

A multicentre study of the evidence for customized margins in photon breast boost radiotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if subsets of patients may benefit from smaller or larger margins when using laser setup and bony anatomy verification of breast tumour bed (TB) boost radiotherapy (RT). METHODS: Verification imaging data acquired using cone-beam CT, megavoltage CT or two-dimensional kilovoltage imaging on 218 patients were used (1574 images). TB setup errors for laser-only setup (dlaser) and for bony anatomy verification (dbone) were determined using clips implanted into the TB as a gold standard for the TB position. Cases were grouped by centre-, patient- and treatment-related factors, including breast volume, TB position, seroma visibility and surgical technique. Systematic (Σ) and random (σ) TB setup errors were compared between groups, and TB planning target volume margins (MTB) were calculated. RESULTS: For the study population, Σlaser was between 2.8 and 3.4 mm, and Σbone was between 2.2 and 2.6 mm, respectively. Females with larger breasts (p = 0.03), easily visible seroma (p ≤ 0.02) and open surgical technique (p ≤ 0.04) had larger Σlaser. Σbone was larger for females with larger breasts (p = 0.02) and lateral tumours (p = 0.04). Females with medial tumours (p < 0.01) had smaller Σbone. CONCLUSION: If clips are not used, margins should be 8 and 10 mm for bony anatomy verification and laser setup, respectively. Individualization of TB margins may be considered based on breast volume, TB and seroma visibility. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Setup accuracy using lasers and bony anatomy is influenced by patient and treatment factors. Some patients may benefit from clip-based image guidance more than others.

IDEAL-CRT: A Phase 1/2 Trial of Isotoxic Dose-Escalated Radiation Therapy and Concurrent Chemotherapy in Patients With Stage II/III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: To report toxicity and early survival data for IDEAL-CRT, a trial of dose-escalated concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for non-small cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received tumor doses of 63 to 73 Gy in 30 once-daily fractions over 6 weeks with 2 concurrent cycles of cisplatin and vinorelbine. They were assigned to 1 of 2 groups according to esophageal dose. In group 1, tumor doses were determined by an experimental constraint on maximum esophageal dose, which was escalated following a 6 + 6 design from 65 Gy through 68 Gy to 71 Gy, allowing an esophageal maximum tolerated dose to be determined from early and late toxicities. Tumor doses for group 2 patients were determined by other tissue constraints, often lung. Overall survival, progression-free survival, tumor response, and toxicity were evaluated for both groups combined. RESULTS: Eight centers recruited 84 patients: 13, 12, and 10, respectively, in the 65-Gy, 68-Gy, and 71-Gy cohorts of group 1; and 49 in group 2. The mean prescribed tumor dose was 67.7 Gy. Five grade 3 esophagitis and 3 grade 3 pneumonitis events were observed across both groups. After 1 fatal esophageal perforation in the 71-Gy cohort, 68 Gy was declared the esophageal maximum tolerated dose. With a median follow-up of 35 months, median overall survival was 36.9 months, and overall survival and progression-free survival were 87.8% and 72.0%, respectively, at 1 year and 68.0% and 48.5% at 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: IDEAL-CRT achieved significant treatment intensification with acceptable toxicity and promising survival. The isotoxic design allowed the esophageal maximum tolerated dose to be identified from relatively few patients.

Visual acuity after Ruthenium(106) brachytherapy of choroidal melanomas.

PURPOSE: To report on conservation of visual acuity after Ruthenium(106) (Ru-106) brachytherapy of choroidal melanoma. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This study was a noncomparative interventional case series of 458 patients with choroidal melanoma treated at a single center between January 1993 and December 2001. The intervention consisted of Ru-106 brachytherapy delivering minimum scleral and apex doses of 300 Gy and 80 Gy, respectively, using a 15-mm or 20-mm plaque. For discrete, posterior tumors, the plaque was positioned eccentrically with its posterior edge aligned with the posterior tumor margin. To ensure correct plaque positioning, any overlying extraocular muscles were dis-inserted, and the locations of both tumor and plaque edges were confirmed by transillumination and indentation. The main outcome measures were conservation of vision of 20/40 or better, 20/200 or better, and Counting Fingers or better, according to baseline variables. RESULTS: The actuarial rate of conservation of 20/40 or better was 55% at 9 years, loss of such vision correlating with posterior tumor extension (p < 0.001), temporal tumor location (p = 0.001), increased tumor height (p = 0.01), and older age (p < 0.01) (Cox multivariate analysis). Similar analyses showed conservation of 20/200 or better in 57% of eyes at 9 years, loss correlating with reduced initial visual acuity (p < 0.001), posterior tumor extension (p < 0.001), and temporal tumor location (p = 0.006). Counting Fingers or better vision was conserved in 83% of patients at 9 years, loss correlating with increased tumor height (p < 0.0001). Local tumor recurrence occurred in 9 patients (actuarial rate, 3% at 9 years). CONCLUSION: Ruthenium(106) brachytherapy of posterior choroidal melanoma achieves good conservation of vision if the tumor does not extend close to the optic nerve or fovea.

Local tumor control after 106Ru brachytherapy of choroidal melanoma.

PURPOSE: To report on local tumor control after (106)Ru brachytherapy for choroidal melanoma. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 458 patients with choroidal melanoma were treated at a single institution between January 1993 and December 2001. The tumors had a median longest basal dimension of 10.6 mm and a median height of 3.2 mm. The brachytherapy was administered using a 15- or 20-mm plaque. For posterior tumors, the plaque was positioned eccentrically with its posterior edge aligned with the posterior tumor margin to reduce the radiation dose to the optic disk and fovea. A minimal scleral dose sufficient to cause visible choroidal atrophy provided a permanent ophthalmoscopic record of the distribution of choroidal irradiation. If radiotherapy to the posterior tumor was uncertain, adjunctive transpupillary thermotherapy was administered 6 months postoperatively. RESULTS: The actuarial rates of tumor recurrence were 1%, 2%, and 3% at 2, 5, and 7 years, respectively. Local tumor recurrence correlated with the longest basal tumor dimension (Cox univariate analysis, p = 0.02, risk ratio 1.41, 95% confidence interval 1.06-1.88). Seven of the nine eyes with recurrent tumor were salvaged with additional conservative therapy. CONCLUSION: The low rate of local tumor recurrence suggests that ruthenium plaque radiotherapy is effective with good case selection and if special measures are taken to ensure that the plaque is positioned correctly.

Caesium(137) implant as sole radiation therapy for operable breast cancer: a phase II trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Clinical trials have indicated the need for irradiation of the tumour-bearing quadrant in patients with operable breast cancer treated by conservation therapy even under circumstances where there has been complete pathologic clearance. The aim of this phase II trial was to replace whole breast irradiation with brachytherapy to the tumour bed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A series of 50 patients with operable breast cancers measuring <==4 cm diameter were treated by combination therapy comprising tumour excision axillary clearance and synoperative insertion of a rigid implant to the tumour bed. The implant was after-loaded with medium dose rate Cs(137) sources giving a dose of 45 Gy in daily four fractions of about 6 h duration. No external beam radiotherapy was given. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 6.3 years, of the 49 evaluable patients, 80% were alive without relapse. Of the 9 patients (18%) who developed a breast relapse, the site of recurrence was in the index quadrant in 7 cases (78%). Of the series, 26 (81%) gave a subjective rating of cosmetic outcome which was excellent or good. Objectively the treated breast was deemed to be normal in 11 (42%) and abnormal in 15 (58%). CONCLUSIONS: This phase II study suggests that in a selected group of patients with early breast cancer, external whole breast radiotherapy can be replaced by interstitial irradiation to the tumour bed without compromising local disease control and giving an excellent or good cosmetic outcome in the majority of cases.

Planning with intensity-modulated radiotherapy and tomotherapy to modulate dose across breast to reflect recurrence risk (IMPORT High trial).

PURPOSE: To establish planning solutions for a concomitant three-level radiation dose distribution to the breast using linear accelerator- or tomotherapy-based intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), for the U.K. Intensity Modulated and Partial Organ (IMPORT) High trial. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Computed tomography data sets for 9 patients undergoing breast conservation surgery with implanted tumor bed gold markers were used to prepare three-level dose distributions encompassing the whole breast (36 Gy), partial breast (40 Gy), and tumor bed boost (48 or 53 Gy) treated concomitantly in 15 fractions within 3 weeks. Forward and inverse planned IMRT and tomotherapy were investigated as solutions. A standard electron field was compared with a photon field arrangement encompassing the tumor bed boost volume. The out-of-field doses were measured for all methods. RESULTS: Dose-volume constraints of volume >90% receiving 32.4 Gy and volume >95% receiving 50.4 Gy for the whole breast and tumor bed were achieved. The constraint of volume >90% receiving 36 Gy for the partial breast was fulfilled in the inverse IMRT and tomotherapy plans and in 7 of 9 cases of a forward planned IMRT distribution. An electron boost to the tumor bed was inadequate in 8 of 9 cases. The IMRT methods delivered a greater whole body dose than the standard breast tangents. A contralateral lung volume >2.5 Gy was increased in the inverse IMRT and tomotherapy plans, although it did not exceed the constraint. CONCLUSION: We have demonstrated a set of widely applicable solutions that fulfilled the stringent clinical trial requirements for the delivery of a concomitant three-level dose distribution to the breast.