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

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

Health-related quality of life for immediate versus delayed androgen-deprivation therapy in patients with asymptomatic, non-curable prostate cancer (TROG 03.06 and VCOG PR 01-03 [TOAD]): a randomised, multicentre, non-blinded, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Androgen-deprivation therapy in patients with prostate cancer who have relapsed with rising prostate-specific antigen concentration only (PSA-only relapse), or with non-curable but asymptomatic disease at diagnosis, could adversely affect quality of life at a time when the disease itself does not. We aimed to compare the effect of immediate versus delayed androgen-deprivation therapy on health-related quality of life over 5 years in men enrolled in the TOAD (Timing of Androgen Deprivation) trial. METHODS: This randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 trial done in 29 public and private cancer centres across Australia, New Zealand, and Canada compared immediate with delayed androgen-deprivation therapy in men with PSA-only relapse after definitive treatment, or de-novo non-curable disease. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a database-embedded, dynamically balanced algorithm to immediate androgen-deprivation therapy (immediate therapy group) or to delayed androgen-deprivation therapy (delayed therapy group). Any type of androgen-deprivation therapy was permitted, as were intermittent or continuous schedules. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality-of-life questionnaires QLQ-C30 and PR25 were completed before randomisation, every 6 months for 2 years, and annually for a further 3 years. The primary outcome of the trial, reported previously, was overall survival, with global health-related quality of life at 2 years as a secondary endpoint. Here we report prespecified secondary objectives of the quality-of-life endpoint. Analysis was by intention to treat. Statistical significance was set at p=0·0036. The trial was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12606000301561, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00110162. FINDINGS: Between Sept 3, 2004, and July 13, 2012, 293 men were recruited and randomly assigned; 151 to the delayed therapy group and 142 to the immediate therapy group. There was no difference between the two groups in global health-related quality of life over 2 years from randomisation. There were no statistically significant differences in global quality of life, physical functioning, role functioning, or emotional functioning, fatigue, dyspnoea, insomnia, or feeling less masculine over the entire 5 years after randomisation. Sexual activity was lower in the immediate therapy group than in the delayed group at 6 and 12 months (at 6 months mean score 29·20 [95% CI 24·59-33·80] in the delayed group vs 10·40 [6·87-13·93] in the immediate group, difference 18·80 [95% CI 13·00-24·59], p<0·0001; at 12 months 28·63 [24·07-33·18] vs 13·76 [9·94-17·59], 14·86 [8·95-20·78], p<0·0001), with the differences exceeding the clinically significant threshold of 10 points until beyond 2 years. The immediate therapy group also had more hormone-treatment-related symptoms at 6 and 12 months (at 6 months mean score 8·48 [95% CI 6·89-10·07] in the delayed group vs 15·97 [13·92-18·02] in the immediate group, difference -7·49 [-10·06 to -4·93], p<0·0001; at 12 months 9·32 [7·59-11·05] vs 17·07 [14·75-19·39], -7·75 [-10·62 to -4·89], p<0·0001), but with differences below the threshold of clinical significance. For the individual symptoms, hot flushes were clinically significantly higher in the immediate group (adjusted proportion 0·31 for delayed therapy vs 0·55 for immediate therapy, adjusted odds ratio 2·87 [1·96-4·21], p<0·0001) over the 5-year period, as were nipple or breast symptoms (0·06 vs 0·14, 2·64 [1·61-4·34], p=0·00013). INTERPRETATION: Immediate use of androgen-deprivation therapy was associated with early detriments in specific hormone-treatment-related symptoms, but with no other demonstrable effect on overall functioning or health-related quality of life. This evidence can be used to help decision making about treatment initiation for men at this disease stage. FUNDING: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and Cancer Councils, The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists, Mayne Pharma Australia, Tolmar Australia.

Timing of androgen-deprivation therapy in patients with prostate cancer with a rising PSA (TROG 03.06 and VCOG PR 01-03 [TOAD]): a randomised, multicentre, non-blinded, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Androgen-deprivation therapy is offered to men with prostate cancer who have a rising prostate-specific antigen after curative therapy (PSA relapse) or who are considered not suitable for curative treatment; however, the optimal timing for its introduction is uncertain. We aimed to assess whether immediate androgen-deprivation therapy improves overall survival compared with delayed therapy. METHODS: In this randomised, multicentre, phase 3, non-blinded trial, we recruited men through 29 oncology centres in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. Men with prostate cancer were eligible if they had a PSA relapse after previous attempted curative therapy (radiotherapy or surgery, with or without postoperative radiotherapy) or if they were not considered suitable for curative treatment (because of age, comorbidity, or locally advanced disease). We used a database-embedded, dynamically balanced, randomisation algorithm, coordinated by the Cancer Council Victoria, to randomly assign participants (1:1) to immediate androgen-deprivation therapy (immediate therapy arm) or to delayed androgen-deprivation therapy (delayed therapy arm) with a recommended interval of at least 2 years unless clinically contraindicated. Randomisation for participants with PSA relapse was stratified by type of previous therapy, relapse-free interval, and PSA doubling time; randomisation for those with non-curative disease was stratified by metastatic status; and randomisation in both groups was stratified by planned treatment schedule (continuous or intermittent) and treatment centre. Clinicians could prescribe any form and schedule of androgen-deprivation therapy and group assignment was not masked. The primary outcome was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. The trial closed to accrual in 2012 after review by the independent data monitoring committee, but data collection continued for 18 months until Feb 26, 2014. It is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12606000301561) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00110162). FINDINGS: Between Sept 3, 2004, and July 13, 2012, we recruited 293 men (261 with PSA relapse and 32 with non-curable disease). We randomly assigned 142 men to the immediate therapy arm and 151 to the delayed therapy arm. Median follow-up was 5 years (IQR 3·3-6·2) from the date of randomisation. 16 (11%) men died in the immediate therapy arm and 30 (20%) died in the delayed therapy arm. 5-year overall survival was 86·4% (95% CI 78·5-91·5) in the delayed therapy arm versus 91·2% (84·2-95·2) in the immediate therapy arm (log-rank p=0·047). After Cox regression, the unadjusted HR for overall survival for immediate versus delayed arm assignment was 0·55 (95% CI 0·30-1·00; p=0·050). 23 patients had grade 3 treatment-related adverse events. 105 (36%) men had adverse events requiring hospital admission; none of these events were attributable to treatment or differed between treatment-timing groups. The most common serious adverse events were cardiovascular, which occurred in nine (6%) patients in the delayed therapy arm and 13 (9%) in the immediate therapy arm. INTERPRETATION: Immediate receipt of androgen-deprivation therapy significantly improved overall survival compared with delayed intervention in men with PSA-relapsed or non-curable prostate cancer. The results provide benchmark evidence of survival rates and morbidity to discuss with men when considering their treatment options. FUNDING: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and Cancer Councils, The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists, Mayne Pharma Australia.

Tolerability and outcomes of curative radiotherapy in patients aged 85 or more years.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the tolerability and survival outcome of curative radiotherapy in patients over the age of 85 years. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective analysis of all patients aged over 85 years who received radiotherapy as part of curative treatment for any cancer (excluding insignificant skin cancers) at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre between 1 January 2000 and 1 January 2010. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Poor treatment tolerability (defined as hospital admission during radiotherapy, treatment break, or early treatment cessation); predictors for poor treatment tolerability, overall survival and cancer-specific survival. RESULTS: 327 treatment courses met eligibility criteria. The median age of patients was 87 years. The most common treatment sites were pelvis (30%), head and neck (25%), and breast (18%). The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) score was 0 or 1 for 70% of patients. Overall, 79% of patients completed the prescribed treatment without poor treatment tolerability, and 95% of patients completed all treatment. Only unfavourable ECOG PS score (odds ratio [OR], 1.80; P = 0.005) and increasing age (OR, 1.18; P = 0.018) predicted poor treatment tolerability. ECOG PS score predicted overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.53; P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Age should not be the sole discriminator in decisions to prescribe aggressive loco-regional radiotherapy. ECOG PS score predicts for treatment tolerability, and also overall survival. The risk of cancer death was higher than non-cancer death for more than 5 years after treatment.

The 'Timing of Androgen-Deprivation therapy in incurable prostate cancer' protocol (TOAD)--where are we now? Synopsis of the Victorian Cooperative Oncology Group PR 01-03 and Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group 03.06 clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To outline the development of the 'Timing of Androgen Deprivation' (TOAD) protocol, a collaborative randomised clinical trial under the auspices of the Cancer Council Victoria, the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group, and the Urological Society of Australia and New Zealand (USANZ), which opened to recruitment in 2004. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The principal hypothesis for the trial was that the early introduction of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT; experimental arm) at the time when curative therapies are no longer considered an option, would improve overall survival for these patients, whilst maintaining an acceptable quality of life; compared with waiting for disease progression or the development of symptoms (control arm). An increase in overall survival at 5 years of 10% was judged to be clinically worthwhile. RESULTS: Recruitment was slow, with fewer than half of the protocol requirement of 750 patients eventually accrued, but nonetheless it is considered that the trial will still contribute a major source of evidence in this area. The study closed to follow-up at the end of 2013, with data analysis commencing mid-2014, and with the primary publication anticipated to be submitted by the end of 2014. CONCLUSION: The question of timing of ADT remains relevant in the current era of newer and more varied treatment methods. Even with the advent of novel chemotherapy and the biological agents that are undergoing investigation for progressively earlier disease stages, the dilemma of when to commence palliative treatment in an asymptomatic patient will remain, unless or until these agents are shown to increase overall survival. The TOAD trial will contribute to answering at least in part, some of these questions.

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

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

Cognitive Existential Couple Therapy for newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients and their partners: a descriptive pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to describe 'Cognitive Existential Couple Therapy' (CECT), a novel couples-based intervention for men with early stage prostate cancer (PCa) and their partners, and to report preliminary findings from a pilot study that investigated the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention and the measures to be used in a subsequent randomised controlled trial. METHODS: A manualised CECT programme was delivered to 12 couples facing a diagnosis of PCa within the previous 12 months by psychiatrists and clinical psychologists. Participants completed measures of psychological distress, marital function and coping pattern before and after CECT. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine couples shortly after the completion of CECT. RESULTS: The application of CECT was both feasible and acceptable as indicated by favourable participant compliance (10 of the 12 couples attended all six designated sessions), completion of measures before and after CECT and participation in semi-structured interviews by nine couples. Preliminary results included reduced levels of avoidance and hyperarousal after the programme, with this effect stronger in partners than in patients. Interviews demonstrated that couples valued the therapist's contribution to their overall care. CONCLUSIONS: Previous research suggests that a couple-focused psychological intervention is desirable in the context of early stage PCa. This pilot study has established that CECT is acceptable, feasible and valued by couples facing a recent PCa diagnosis and demonstrates a potential for reduced psychological distress following CECT. A randomised controlled trial is currently being undertaken to validate the efficacy of this novel approach.

Better Understanding the Timing Of Androgen Deprivation Trial Outcomes: Impacts of Prior Androgen Deprivation Therapy.

BACKGROUND: The Timing Of Androgen Deprivation (TOAD) trial found an overall survival benefit for immediate vs delayed androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-relapsed or noncurable prostate cancer. However, broad eligibility criteria allowed entry of a heterogeneous participant group, including those with prior ADT exposure, raising concerns about subsequent androgen sensitivity. For these reasons, we completed previously specified subgroup analyses to assess if prior ADT was associated with ADT timing efficacy after PSA relapse. METHODS: We examined TOAD trial patient-level data for participants with PSA relapse after local therapy. We performed Kaplan-Meier analyses for overall survival stratified by prior ADT and randomized treatment arm (immediate or delayed ADT). We compared group characteristics using Mann-Whitney U and Fisher exact tests. All hypothesis tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: We identified 261 patients with PSA relapse, 125 of whom received prior ADT. Patients with prior ADT had higher PSA at presentation (12.1 vs 9.0 ng/mL; P < .001), more cT3 disease (38.4% vs 25.0%; P = .007), and more likely received radiotherapy as local treatment (80.0% vs 47.8%; P < .001) but were otherwise similar to patients without prior ADT exposure. Within this prior ADT group, those who received immediate ADT (n = 56) had improved overall survival compared with those who received delayed ADT (n = 69; P = .02). This benefit was not observed in the group with no prior ADT (P = .98). CONCLUSIONS: The survival benefit demonstrated in the TOAD trial may be driven by patients who received ADT prior to trial entry. We provide possible explanations for this finding with implications for treatment of PSA-relapsed prostate cancer and future study planning.

Extracting tumour prognostic factors from a diverse electronic record dataset in genito-urinary oncology.

OBJECTIVES: To implement a system for unsupervised extraction of tumor stage and prognostic data in patients with genitourinary cancers using clinicopathological and radiology text. METHODS: A corpus of 1054 electronic notes (clinician notes, radiology reports and pathology reports) was annotated for tumor stage, prostate specific antigen (PSA) and Gleason grade. Annotations from five clinicians were reconciled to form a gold standard dataset. A training dataset of 386 documents was sequestered. The Medtex algorithm was adapted using the training dataset. RESULTS: Adapted Medtex equaled or exceeded human performance in most annotations, except for implicit M stage (F-measure of 0.69 vs 0.84) and PSA (0.92 vs 0.96). Overall Medtex performed with an F-measure of 0.86 compared to human annotations of 0.92. There was significant inter-observer variability when comparing human annotators to the gold standard. CONCLUSIONS: The Medtex algorithm performed similarly to human annotators for extracting stage and prognostic data from varied clinical texts.

Percentage of biopsy cores positive for malignancy and biochemical failure following prostate cancer radiotherapy in 3,264 men: statistical significance without predictive performance.

PURPOSE: To define and incorporate the impact of the percentage of positive biopsy cores (PPC) into a predictive model of prostate cancer radiotherapy biochemical outcome. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The data of 3264 men with clinically localized prostate cancer treated with external beam radiotherapy at four institutions were retrospectively analyzed. Standard prognostic and treatment factors plus the number of biopsy cores collected and the number positive for malignancy by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy were available. The primary endpoint was biochemical failure (bF, Phoenix definition). Multivariate proportional hazards analyses were performed and expressed as a nomogram and the model's predictive ability assessed using the concordance index (c-index). RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 21% low-, 51% intermediate-, and 28% high-risk cancer patients, and 30% had androgen deprivation with radiotherapy. The median PPC was 50% (interquartile range [IQR] 29-67%), and median follow-up was 51 months (IQR 29-71 months). Percentage of positive biopsy cores displayed an independent association with the risk of bF (p=0.01), as did age, prostate-specific antigen value, Gleason score, clinical stage, androgen deprivation duration, and radiotherapy dose (p<0.001 for all). Including PPC increased the c-index from 0.72 to 0.73 in the overall model. The influence of PPC varied significantly with radiotherapy dose and clinical stage (p=0.02 for both interactions), with doses<66 Gy and palpable tumors showing the strongest relationship between PPC and bF. Intermediate-risk patients were poorly discriminated regardless of PPC inclusion (c-index 0.65 for both models). CONCLUSIONS: Outcome models incorporating PPC show only minor additional ability to predict biochemical failure beyond those containing standard prognostic factors.

Use of individual fraction size data from 3756 patients to directly determine the alpha/beta ratio of prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To examine the effect of fraction size and total dose of radiation on recurrence of localized prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 3756 patients treated with radiation monotherapy at three institutions were analyzed, including 185 high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDRB) boost patients. The 5th to 95th centiles of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) fraction sizes and doses were 1.8 to 2.86 Gy, and 57.4 to 77.4 Gy, respectively, and HDRB fractional doses were between 5.5 and 12 Gy, totaling 147 unique fractionation schedules. Failure was defined by one biochemical (nadir + 2 ng/ml) and two advanced disease endpoints. The alpha/beta ratios were estimated via a proportional hazards model stratified by risk severity and institution. RESULTS: The alpha/beta ratio using biochemical recurrence was 3.7 Gy (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.1, infinity Gy) for EBRT-only cases and 2.6 Gy (95% CI, 0.9, 4.8 Gy) after the addition of HDRB data. This estimate was highly dependent on an HDRB homogeneity correction factor (120% HDRB dose increase; alpha/beta ratio 4.5 Gy, 95% CI 1.6, 8.7 Gy). A 5-Gy increase in total dose reduced the hazard of failure by 16% (95% CI 11, 21%, p < 0.0001), and had more impact as follow-up matured (p < 0.0003). The clinically advanced endpoints concurred with the biochemical failure results, albeit with less precision. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the concept that the alpha/beta ratio of prostate cancer is low, although considerable uncertainty remains in the estimated value. Outcome data from EBRT studies using substantially higher doses per fraction are needed to show increased precision in these estimates.

An international multicenter study evaluating the impact of an alternative biochemical failure definition on the judgment of prostate cancer risk.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of an alternative biochemical failure (bF) definition on the performance of existing plus de novo prognostic models. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The outcomes data of 1,458 Australian and 703 Canadian men treated with external-beam radiation monotherapy between 1993 and 1997 were analyzed using a lowest prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level to date plus 2 ng/mL (L + 2) bF definition. Two existing prognostic models were scrutinized using discrimination (Somers Dxy [SDxy]) and calibration indices. Alternative prognostic models were also created using recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) and multivariate nomogram methods for comparison. RESULTS: Discrimination of bF was improved using the L + 2 definition compared with the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) definition using both the three-level risk model (SDxy 0.30 and 0.22, respectively) or the nomogram (SDxy 0.35 and 0.27, respectively). Both existing prognostic models showed only modest calibration accuracy. Using RPA, five distinct risk groups were identified based primarily on Gleason score (GS) and all subsequent divisions based on PSA. All GS 7-10 tumors were intermediate or high risk. This model and the developed nomogram showed improved discrimination over the existing models as well as accurate calibration against the Canadian data, apart from the 30-50% failure region. CONCLUSIONS: The L + 2 definition of bF provides improved capacity for discrimination of failure risk. New prognostic models based on this endpoint have overall statistical performance superior to those based on the ASTRO consensus definition but continue to have unreliable discrimination in the intermediate-risk region.

Efficacy and tolerability of concurrent weekly low dose cisplatin during radiation treatment of localised muscle invasive bladder transitional cell carcinoma: a report of two sequential Phase II studies from the Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To determine the feasibility, toxicity, and clinical effectiveness of concurrent weekly cisplatin chemotherapy in conjunction with definitive radiation in the treatment of localised muscle invasive bladder cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In January 1997 the Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group embarked on a Phase II study (TROG 97.01) of weekly cisplatin (35 mg/m(2) x 7 doses) plus radiation to a dose of 63 Gy over 7 weeks. Following an interim toxicity analysis, the dose intensity of cisplatin was reduced to 6 cycles and the radiation schedule changed to 64 Gy over 6.5 weeks leading to the second study (TROG 99.06). A total of 113 patients were enrolled. RESULTS: Acute grade 3 urinary toxicity occurred in 23% of the patients. Acute grade 4 pelvic toxicity was not seen. Thirty-eight patients (33%) experienced grade 3 or 4 cisplatin related toxicities with 15 patients (12%) requiring significant dose modification. The reduced dose intensity in Study 99.06 improved tolerability. Incidence of significant late morbidity was low (6%). Seventy-nine patients (70%) achieved complete remission at the 6 month cystoscopic assessment. Local invasive recurrence was seen in 11 of the 79 patients (14%). In 18 patients (16%) isolated superficial TCC/CIS were detected (6 months and beyond). The local control rate was 45% with a functional bladder being retained in 69 of the 113 patients (61%). RFS and DSS at 5 years were 33% and 50%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our two sequential Phase II studies have shown that concurrent chemoradiation using weekly cisplatin in the management of localised invasive bladder TCC is feasible and reasonably well tolerated. This approach is currently being investigated further in a randomised study.

A prospective dose escalation trial of high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost for prostate cancer: Evidence of hypofractionation efficacy?

PURPOSE: The study aimed to evaluate mature outcomes of a Phase I/II high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDRB) boost protocol. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We analyzed data from 88 patients with T1a-T3a, N0, M0 prostate adenocarcinoma treated on a prospective Phase I/II HDRB boost protocol of 16 (n = 47) or 20 Gy (n = 41) in four fractions, without planned androgen deprivation therapy. HDRB was added to 46 Gy of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). Outcomes were compared to a contemporaneous retrospective cohort of 104 patients receiving 66 Gy EBRT monotherapy. The primary endpoint was freedom from biochemical failure, defined as a 2 ng/mL rise above the lowest prostate-specific antigen (PSA) (FFbFn2), whereas the American Society of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology consensus definition (ACD) was used for comparative purposes. RESULTS: For the HDRB cohort, the overall actuarial 5-year FFbFn2 was 67.4% (95% CI: 58.2-75.5%). For the HDRB doses of 16 and 20 Gy, the 5-year FFbFn2 rates were 58.8% (95% CI: 41.9-72.5%) and 77.3% (95% CI: 64.4-88.3%), respectively (log-rank test p = 0.07). Compared to men treated with 66 Gy EBRT, using multivariate analysis, there was no significant benefit to using HDRB with the FFbFn2 outcome (p = 0.52), yet the ACD suggested a significant advantage (hazard ratio 0.50, 95% CI: 0.29-0.86, p = 0.011). There was a trend to better FFbFn2 outcomes with increasing biologically effective doses (p = 0.09), which was significant using the ACD (p = 0.0003). CONCLUSIONS: The data support HDRB boost as a potential means of dose escalation in prostate cancer. Significant findings using the ACD need to be validated with contemporary biochemical failure definitions. Prospective trials to optimize fractionation and evaluate outcomes in comparison to contemporary EBRT techniques are warranted.

Testing the Assessment of New Radiation Oncology Technology and Treatments framework using the evaluation of post-prostatectomy radiotherapy techniques.

INTRODUCTION: We tested the ability of the Assessment of New Radiation Oncology Technology and Treatments framework to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) compared with 3-dimensional radiation therapy (3DCRT) for post-prostatectomy radiation therapy (PPRT) to support its timely health economic evaluation. METHODS: Treatment plans produced using FROGG guidelines provided dosimetry parameters for both techniques at 64 Gy and 70 Gy and were also used to model early and late outcome probabilities. Clinical parameters were derived from early toxicity and quality of life patient data, systematic literature review and expert opinion. Dosimetry parameters were correlated with the measures of clinical efficacy and safety. RESULTS: Data from two patient cohorts (29 and 27 respectively) were collected within the project timeframe, providing evidence for acute toxicity and quality of life, and dosimetric comparisons. Relative rates of tumour control probability (TCP) and normal tissue control probability (NTCP) modelling were readily derived from the planning exercise and demonstrated advantages in uncomplicated TCP for IMRT over 3DCRT, predominantly due to normal tissue sparing. The safety of IMRT delivery was demonstrated with TCP uncompromised by IMRT protocol violations, which achieved rectal sparing only by reducing minimum target dose and coverage. CONCLUSION: Sources of desk-top and patient-based evidence were successfully used to demonstrate potential improved clinical efficacy and safety of applying dose escalation using IMRT instead of 3DCRT in PPRT.

Impact of selection of post-implant technique on dosimetry parameters for permanent prostate implants.

PURPOSE: To investigate the variability of prostate implant quality indices between three different methods of calculating the post-implant dose distribution. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In a study of 9 permanent prostate implant patients, post-implant dosimetry was carried out using three methods of identifying seed positions within the prostate volume: (1) prostate volumes defined by transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) immediately following implant were registered with shift-film defined seed positions, (2) seeds were identified directly from the post-implant TRUS images, and (3) CT was used to define seed positions and prostate volumes from images acquired at 41-65 days post-implant. For each method, the volume of prostate receiving 90%, 100%, and 150% of the prescribed dose (V90, V100, V150) and the dose delivered to 90% of the prostate volume (D90) were calculated. RESULTS: Post-implant TRUS volumes were within 15% of the preimplant TRUS volumes in 8 of the 9 patients investigated. The post-implant CT volume was within 15% of the preimplant (TRUS) volume in only 3 of the 9 cases. The value of the dosimetry parameters was dependent on the method used and varied by 5-25% for V90, 5-30% for V100, 42-134% for V150, and 9-60% for D90. No simple relationship was found between change in volume and the resultant change in dosimetry parameter. Differences in dosimetry parameters due to source localization uncertainties was found to be small (< or = 10% for V100) when comparing methods (1) and (2). CONCLUSIONS: There are many uncertainties in the calculation of parameters that are commonly used to describe the quality of a permanent prostate implant. Differences in the parameters calculated were most likely a result of a combination of factors including uncertainties in delineating the prostate with different imaging modalities, differences in source identification techniques, and intraobserver variability.

Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group: Development of the Assessment of New Radiation Oncology Technology and Treatments (ANROTAT) Framework.

INTRODUCTION: The study aim was to develop a generic framework to derive the parameters to populate health-economic models for the rapid evaluation of new techniques and technologies in radiation oncology. METHODS: A draft framework was developed through horizon scanning for relevant technologies, literature review to identify framework models, and a workshop program with radiation oncology professionals, biostatisticians, health economists and consumers to establish the Framework's structure. It was tested using four clinical protocols, comparing intensity modulated with 3D conformal therapy (post-prostatectomy, anal canal and nasopharynx) and image-guided radiation therapy techniques with off-line review of portal imaging (in the intact prostate). RESULTS: The draft generic research framework consisted of five sequential stages, each with a number of components, and was assessed as to its suitability for deriving the evidence needed to populate the decision-analytic models required for the health-economic evaluations. A final Framework was established from this experience for use by future researchers to provide evidence of clinical efficacy and cost-utility for other novel techniques. The four clinical treatment sites tested during the project were considered suitable to use in future evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: Development of a generic research framework to predict early and long-term clinical outcomes, combined with health-economic data, produced a generally applicable method for the rapid evaluation of new techniques and technologies in radiation oncology. Its application to further health technology assessments in the radiation oncology sector will allow further refinement and support its generalisability.