Short-term androgen suppression and radiotherapy versus intermediate-term androgen suppression and radiotherapy, with or without zoledronic acid, in men with locally advanced prostate cancer (TROG 03.04 RADAR): 10-year results from a randomised, phase 3, factorial trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of androgen suppression for men with locally advanced prostate cancer receiving radiotherapy with curative intent is yet to be defined. Zoledronic acid is effective in preventing androgen suppression-induced bone loss, but its role in preventing castration-sensitive bone metastases in locally advanced prostate cancer is unclear. The RADAR trial assessed whether the addition of 12 months of adjuvant androgen suppression, 18 months of zoledronic acid, or both, can improve outcomes in men with locally advanced prostate cancer who receive 6 months of androgen suppression and prostatic radiotherapy. This report presents 10-year outcomes from this trial. METHODS: For this randomised, phase 3, 2 × 2 factorial trial, eligible men were 18 years or older with locally advanced prostate cancer (either T2b-4, N0 M0 tumours or T2a, N0 M0 tumours provided Gleason score was ≥7 and baseline prostate-specific antigen [PSA] concentration was ≥10 µg/L). We randomly allocated participants in a 2 × 2 factorial design by computer-generated randomisation (using the minimisation technique, and stratified by centre, baseline PSA concentration, clinical tumour stage, Gleason score, and use of a brachytherapy boost) in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to four treatment groups. Patients in the control group received 6 months of neoadjuvant androgen suppression with leuprorelin (22·5 mg every 3 months, intramuscularly) and radiotherapy alone (short-term androgen suppression [STAS]); this treatment was either followed by another 12 months of adjuvant androgen suppression with leuprorelin (22·5 mg every 3 months, intramuscularly; intermediate-term androgen suppression [ITAS]), or accompanied by 18 months of zoledronic acid (4 mg every 3 months, intravenously) starting at randomisation (STAS plus zoledronic acid), or both (ITAS plus zoledronic acid). All patients received radiotherapy to the prostate and seminal vesicles, starting from the end of the fifth month of androgen suppression; dosing options were 66, 70, and 74 Gy in 2-Gy fractions per day, or 46 Gy in 2-Gy fractions followed by a high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost dose of 19·5 Gy in 6·5-Gy fractions. Treatment allocation was open label. The primary endpoint was prostate cancer-specific mortality and was analysed according to intention-to-treat using competing-risks methods. The trial is closed to follow-up and this is the final report of the main endpoints. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00193856. FINDINGS: Between Oct 20, 2003, and Aug 15, 2007, 1071 men were enrolled and randomly assigned to STAS (n=268), ITAS (n=268), STAS plus zoledronic acid (n=268), and ITAS plus zoledronic acid (n=267). Median follow-up was 10·4 years (IQR 7·9-11·7). At this 10-year follow-up, no interactions were observed between androgen suppression and zoledronic acid so the treatment groups were collapsed to compare treatments according to duration of androgen suppression: 6 months of androgen suppression plus radiotherapy (6AS+RT) versus 18 months of androgen suppression plus radiotherapy (18AS+RT) and to compare treatments according to whether or not patients received zoledronic acid. The total number of deaths was 375 (200 men receiving 6AS+RT and 175 men receiving 18AS+RT), of which 143 (38%) were attributable to prostate cancer (81 men receiving 6AS+RT and 62 men receiving 18AS+RT). When analysed by duration of androgen suppression, the adjusted cumulative incidence of prostate cancer-specific mortality was 13·3% (95% CI 10·3-16·0) for 6AS+RT versus 9·7% (7·3-12·0) for 18AS+RT, representing an absolute difference of 3·7% (95% CI 0·3-7·1; sub-hazard ratio [sHR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·50-0·98], adjusted p=0·035). The addition of zoledronic acid did not affect prostate cancer-specific mortality; the adjusted cumulative incidence of prostate cancer-specific mortality was 11·2% (95% CI 8·7-13·7) with zoledronic acid vs 11·7% (9·2-14·1) without, representing an absolute difference of -0·5% (95% CI -3·8 to 2·9; sHR 0·95 [95% CI 0·69-1·32], adjusted p=0·78). Although safety analysis was not prespecified for this 10-year analysis, one new serious adverse event (osteonecrosis of the mandible, in a patient who received 18 months of androgen suppression plus zoledronic acid) occurred since our previous report, bringing the total number of cases of this serious adverse event to three (<1% out of 530 patients who received zoledronic acid evaluated for safety) and the total number of drug-related serious adverse events to 12 (1% out of all 1065 patients evaluable for safety). No treatment-related deaths occurred during the study. INTERPRETATION: 18 months of androgen suppression plus radiotherapy is a more effective treatment option for locally advanced prostate cancer than 6 months of androgen suppression plus radiotherapy, but the addition of zoledronic acid to this treatment regimen is not beneficial. Evidence from the RADAR and French Canadian Prostate Cancer Study IV trials suggests that 18 months of androgen suppression with moderate radiation dose escalation is an effective but more tolerable option than longer durations of androgen suppression for men with locally advanced prostate cancer including intermediate and high risk elements. FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Australia, AbbVie Pharmaceuticals Australia, New Zealand Health Research Council, New Zealand Cancer Society, Cancer Standards Institute New Zealand, University of Newcastle (Australia), Hunter Medical Research Institute, Calvary Mater Newcastle Radiation Oncology Fund, and Maitland Cancer Appeal.

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.

Nurse-led group consultation intervention reduces depressive symptoms in men with localised prostate cancer: a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer has many known and distressing side effects. The efficacy of group interventions for reducing psychological morbidity is lacking. This study investigated the relative benefits of a group nurse-led intervention on psychological morbidity, unmet needs, treatment-related concerns and prostate cancer-specific quality of life in men receiving curative intent radiotherapy for prostate cancer. METHODS: This phase III, two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial included 331 men (consent rate: 72 %; attrition: 5 %) randomised to the intervention (n = 166) or usual care (n = 165). The intervention comprised four group and one individual consultation all delivered by specialist uro-oncology nurses. Primary outcomes were anxious and depressive symptoms as assessed by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Unmet needs were assessed with the Supportive Care Needs Survey-SF34 Revised, treatment-related concerns with the Cancer Treatment Scale and quality of life with the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index -26. Assessments occurred before, at the end of and 6 months post-radiotherapy. Primary outcome analysis was by intention-to-treat and performed by fitting a linear mixed model to each outcome separately using all observed data. RESULTS: Mixed models analysis indicated that group consultations had a significant beneficial effect on one of two primary endpoints, depressive symptoms (p = 0.009), and one of twelve secondary endpoints, procedural concerns related to cancer treatment (p = 0.049). Group consultations did not have a significant beneficial effect on generalised anxiety, unmet needs and prostate cancer-specific quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with individual consultations offered as part of usual care, the intervention provides a means of delivering patient education and is associated with modest reductions in depressive symptoms and procedural concerns. Future work should seek to confirm the clinical feasibility and cost-effectiveness of group interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ANZCTRN012606000184572 . 1 March 2006.

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.

Short-term androgen suppression and radiotherapy versus intermediate-term androgen suppression and radiotherapy, with or without zoledronic acid, in men with locally advanced prostate cancer (TROG 03.04 RADAR): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 factorial trial.

BACKGROUND: We investigated whether 18 months of androgen suppression plus radiotherapy, with or without 18 months of zoledronic acid, is more effective than 6 months of neoadjuvant androgen suppression plus radiotherapy with or without zoledronic acid. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised, 2 × 2 factorial trial in men with locally advanced prostate cancer (either T2a N0 M0 prostatic adenocarcinomas with prostate-specific antigen [PSA] ≥10 µg/L and a Gleason score of ≥7, or T2b-4 N0 M0 tumours regardless of PSA and Gleason score). We randomly allocated patients by computer-generated minimisation--stratified by centre, baseline PSA, tumour stage, Gleason score, and use of a brachytherapy boost--to one of four groups in a 1:1:1:1 ratio. Patients in the control group were treated with neoadjuvant androgen suppression with leuprorelin (22·5 mg every 3 months, intramuscularly) for 6 months (short-term) and radiotherapy alone (designated STAS); this procedure was either followed by another 12 months of androgen suppression with leuprorelin (intermediate-term; ITAS) or accompanied by 18 months of zoledronic acid (4 mg every 3 months for 18 months, intravenously; STAS plus zoledronic acid) or by both (ITAS plus zoledronic acid). The primary endpoint was prostate cancer-specific mortality. This analysis represents the first, preplanned assessment of oncological endpoints, 5 years after treatment. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00193856. FINDINGS: Between Oct 20, 2003, and Aug 15, 2007, 1071 men were randomly assigned to STAS (n=268), STAS plus zoledronic acid (n=268), ITAS (n=268), and ITAS plus zoledronic acid (n=267). Median follow-up was 7·4 years (IQR 6·5-8·4). Cumulative incidences of prostate cancer-specific mortality were 4·1% (95% CI 2·2-7·0) in the STAS group, 7·8% (4·9-11·5) in the STAS plus zoledronic acid group, 7·4% (4·6-11·0) in the ITAS group, and 4·3% (2·3-7·3) in the ITAS plus zoledronic acid group. Cumulative incidence of all-cause mortality was 17·0% (13·0-22·1), 18·9% (14·6-24·2), 19·4% (15·0-24·7), and 13·9% (10·3-18·8), respectively. Neither prostate cancer-specific mortality nor all-cause mortality differed between control and experimental groups. Cumulative incidence of PSA progression was 34·2% (28·6-39·9) in the STAS group, 39·6% (33·6-45·5) in the STAS plus zoledronic acid group, 29·2% (23·8-34·8) in the ITAS group, and 26·0% (20·8-31·4) in the ITAS plus zoledronic acid group. Compared with STAS, no difference was noted in PSA progression with ITAS or STAS plus zoledronic acid; however, ITAS plus zoledronic acid reduced PSA progression (sub-hazard ratio [SHR] 0·71, 95% CI 0·53-0·95; p=0·021). Cumulative incidence of local progression was 4·1% (2·2-7·0) in the STAS group, 6·1% (3·7-9·5) in the STAS plus zoledronic acid group, 1·5% (0·5-3·7) in the ITAS group, and 3·4% (1·7-6·1) in the ITAS plus zoledronic acid group; no differences were noted between groups. Cumulative incidences of bone progression were 7·5% (4·8-11·1), 14·6% (10·6-19·2), 8·4% (5·5-12·2), and 7·6% (4·8-11·2), respectively. Compared with STAS, STAS plus zoledronic acid increased the risk of bone progression (SHR 1·90, 95% CI 1·14-3·17; p=0·012), but no differences were noted with the other two groups. Cumulative incidence of distant progression was 14·7% (10·7-19·2) in the STAS group, 17·3% (13·0-22·1) in the STAS plus zoledronic acid group, 14·2% (10·3-18·7) in the ITAS group, and 11·1% (7·6-15·2) in the ITAS plus zoledronic acid group; no differences were recorded between groups. Cumulative incidence of secondary therapeutic intervention was 25·6% (20·5-30·9), 28·9% (23·5-34·5), 20·7% (16·1-25·9), and 15·3% (11·3-20·0), respectively. Compared with STAS, ITAS plus zoledronic acid reduced the need for secondary therapeutic intervention (SHR 0·67, 95% CI 0·48-0·95; p=0·024); no differences were noted with the other two groups. An interaction between trial factors was recorded for Gleason score; therefore, we did pairwise comparisons between all groups. Post-hoc analyses suggested that the reductions in PSA progression and decreased need for secondary therapeutic intervention with ITAS plus zoledronic acid were restricted to tumours with a Gleason score of 8-10, and that ITAS was better than STAS in tumours with a Gleason score of 7 or lower. Long-term morbidity and quality-of-life scores were not affected adversely by 18 months of androgen suppression or zoledronic acid. INTERPRETATION: Compared with STAS, ITAS plus zoledronic acid was more effective for treatment of prostate cancers with a Gleason score of 8-10, and ITAS alone was effective for tumours with a Gleason score of 7 or lower. Nevertheless, these findings are based on secondary endpoint data and post-hoc analyses and must be regarded cautiously. Long- term follow-up is necessary, as is external validation of the interaction between zoledronic acid and Gleason score. STAS plus zoledronic acid can be ruled out as a potential therapeutic option. FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Australia, Abbott Pharmaceuticals Australia, New Zealand Health Research Council, New Zealand Cancer Society, University of Newcastle (Australia), Calvary Health Care (Calvary Mater Newcastle Radiation Oncology Fund), Hunter Medical Research Institute, Maitland Cancer Appeal, Cancer Standards Institute New Zealand.

Impact of androgen suppression and zoledronic acid on bone mineral density and fractures in the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (TROG) 03.04 Randomised Androgen Deprivation and Radiotherapy (RADAR) randomized controlled trial for locally advanced prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To study the influence of adjuvant androgen suppression and bisphosphonates on incident vertebral and non-spinal fracture rates and bone mineral density (BMD) in men with locally advanced prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2003 and 2007, 1071 men with locally advanced prostate cancer were randomly allocated, using a 2 × 2 trial design, to 6 months i.m. leuprorelin (androgen suppression [AS]) before radiotherapy alone ± 12 months additional leuprorelin ± 18 months zoledronic acid (ZdA), commencing at randomization. The main endpoint was incident thoraco-lumbar vertebral fractures, which were assessed radiographically at randomization and at 3 years, then reassessed by centralized review. Subsidiary endpoints included incident non-spinal fractures, which were documented throughout follow-up, and BMD, which was measured in 222 subjects at baseline, 2 years and 4 years. RESULTS: Incident vertebral fractures at 3 years were observed in 132 subjects. Their occurrence was not increased by 18 months' AS, nor reduced by ZdA. Incident non-spinal fractures occurred in 72 subjects and were significantly related to AS duration but not to ZdA. Osteopenia and osteoporosis prevalence rates at baseline were 23.4 and 1.4%, respectively, at the hip. Treatment for 6 and 18 months with AS caused significant reductions in hip BMD at 2 and 4 years (P < 0.01) and ZdA prevented these losses at both time points. CONCLUSION: In an AS-naïve population, 18 months of ZdA treatment prevented the sustained BMD losses caused by 18 months of AS treatment; however, the study power was insufficient to show that AS duration or ZdA influenced vertebral fracture rates.

Ten-year results of quality assurance in radiotherapy chart round.

BACKGROUND: The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR) initiated a unique instrument to audit the quality of patient notes and radiotherapy prescriptions. We present our experience collected over ten years from the use of the RANZCR audit instrument. METHODS: In this study, the results of data collected prospectively from January 1999 to June 2009 through the audit instrument were assessed. Radiotherapy chart rounds were held weekly in the uro-oncology tumour stream and real time feedback was provided. Electronic medical records were retrospectively assessed in September 2009 to see if any omissions were subsequently corrected. RESULTS: In total 2597 patients were audited. One hundred and thirty seven (5%) patients had one hundred and ninety nine omissions in documentation or radiotherapy prescription. In 79% of chart rounds no omissions were found at all, in 12% of chart rounds one omission was found and in 9% of chart rounds two or more omissions were found. Out of 199 omissions, 95% were of record keeping and 2% were omissions in the treatment prescription. Of omissions, 152 (76%) were unfiled investigation results of which 77 (51%) were subsequently corrected. CONCLUSIONS: Real-time audit with feedback is an effective tool in assessing the standards of radiotherapy documentation in our department, and also probably contributed to the high level of attentiveness. A large proportion of omissions were investigation results, which highlights the need for an improved system of retrieval of investigation results in the radiation oncology department.

Quality of life in men with locally advanced prostate cancer treated with leuprorelin and radiotherapy with or without zoledronic acid (TROG 03.04 RADAR): secondary endpoints from a randomised phase 3 factorial trial.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant androgen suppression and bisphosphonates with escalating doses of radiotherapy might improve efficacy outcomes in men with locally advanced prostate cancer. In this study, we investigated whether these treatments had a detrimental effect on patient-reported-outcome (PRO) scores. METHODS: We undertook a phase 3 trial with a 2×2 factorial design in 23 centres in Australia and New Zealand in men with non-metastatic adenocarcinoma of the prostate (stage T2b-4 or T2a, Gleason score ≥7, and baseline prostate-specific antigen concentration [PSA] ≥10 µg/L), and without previous lymph node or systemic metastases or comorbidities that could reduce life expectancy to less than 5 years. The men were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to 6 months of neoadjuvant (short-term) androgen suppression (STAS) with leuprorelin (22·5 mg every 3 months, intramuscularly) or an additional 12 months (intermediate-term androgen suppression [ITAS]) of leuprorelin with or without 18 months of zoledronic acid (4 mg every 3 months, intravenously). Study drug administration commenced at randomisation after which radiotherapy started within the fifth month in all groups. Treatment allocation was open-label, and computer-generated randomisation, stratified by centre, baseline concentrations of PSA, clinical stage of the tumour, Gleason score, and use of a brachytherapy boost, was done by use of the minimisation technique. PRO scores were calculated from European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality-of-life and prostate-specific quality-of-life module questionnaires and compared with multiple regression models at baseline, and end of radiotherapy, and 18 months and 36 months according to group and radiation dose. The trial is ongoing and the primary endpoint, prostate-cancer-specific mortality, will be reported in 2014. This study is the final report of PRO scores (a secondary endpoint). Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00193856. FINDINGS: 1071 men were randomly assigned to STAS (n=268), STAS plus zoledronic acid (n=268), ITAS (n=268), and ITAS plus zoledronic acid (n=267). At the end of radiotherapy, significant detrimental changes in PRO scores (p<0·01) occurred in all groups. There were no significant differences in global health status between groups at any timepoint. At 18 months, PROs that were significantly worse in the ITAS groups when compared with STAS were hormone-treatment-related symptoms (HTRS; STAS, 10·20 [95% CI 8·66-11·75]; ITAS, 17·36 [13·63-21·08], p<0·01; and ITAS plus zoledronic acid, 19·14 [15·43-22·85], p<0·01), sexual activity (STAS, 26·38 [23·50-29·27]; ITAS, 14·40 [7·44-21·36], p<0·01; and ITAS plus zoledronic acid, 16·34 [9·39-23·28], p<0·01), social function (STAS, 90·31 [87·89-92·73]; ITAS, 87·35 [81·52-93·18], p=0·09; and ITAS plus zoledronic acid, 83·66 [77·85-89·48], p<0·01), fatigue (STAS, 17·05 [14·58-19·51]; ITAS 24·52 [18·58-30·46], p<0·01; and ITAS plus zoledronic acid, 24·26 [18·33-30·18], p<0·01), and financial problems (STAS, 3·39 [1·29-5·48]; ITAS, 8·97 [3·92-14·02], p<0·01; and ITAS plus zoledronic acid, 8·92 [3·89-13·96], p<0·01). With the exception of HTRS, in which marginal differences remained, persisting significant differences disappeared by 36 months. Other factors associated with significant detrimental changes in PRO scores were a brachytherapy boost, incomplete testosterone and haemoglobin recoveries, age, and smoking. INTERPRETATION: Compared with 6 months of androgen suppression, 18 months of androgen suppression causes additional detrimental changes at the 18 month follow-up in some PRO scores but not in global quality-of-life scores. However, with the exception of HTRS, these differences resolved by 36 months. The use of zoledronic acid every 3 months over 18 months does not result in additional detrimental changes, but the use of a brachytherapy boost to achieve radiation dose escalation in the prostate can adversely affect emotional function and financial problems. FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Australia, Abbott Pharmaceuticals Australia, New Zealand Health Research Council, New Zealand Cancer Society, University of Newcastle (Australia), Hunter Medical Research Institute, Calvary Mater Radiation Oncology Fund, and Maitland Cancer Appeal.

The dosimetric error due to uncorrected tumor rotation during real-time adaptive prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy.

BACKGROUND: During prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), prostate tumor translational motion may deteriorate the planned dose distribution. Most of the major advances in motion management to date have focused on correcting this one aspect of the tumor motion, translation. However, large prostate rotation up to 30° has been measured. As the technological innovation evolves toward delivering increasingly precise radiotherapy, it is important to quantify the clinical benefit of translational and rotational motion correction over translational motion correction alone. PURPOSE: The purpose of this work was to quantify the dosimetric impact of intrafractional dynamic rotation of the prostate measured with a six degrees-of-freedom tumor motion monitoring technology. METHODS: The delivered dose was reconstructed including (a) translational and rotational motion and (b) only translational motion of the tumor for 32 prostate cancer patients recruited on a 5-fraction prostate SBRT clinical trial. Patients on the trial received 7.25 Gy in a treatment fraction. A 5 mm clinical target volume (CTV) to planning target volume (PTV) margin was applied in all directions except the posterior direction where a 3 mm expansion was used. Prostate intrafractional translational motion was managed using a gating strategy, and any translation above the gating threshold was corrected by applying an equivalent couch shift. The residual translational motion is denoted as T r e s $T_{res}$ . Prostate intrafractional rotational motion R u n c o r r $R_{uncorr}$ was recorded but not corrected. The dose differences from the planned dose due to T r e s $T_{res}$ + R u n c o r r $R_{uncorr}$ , ΔD( T r e s $T_{res}$ + R u n c o r r $R_{uncorr}$ ) and due to T r e s $T_{res}$ alone, ΔD( T r e s $T_{res}$ ), were then determined for CTV D98, PTV D95, bladder V6Gy, and rectum V6Gy. The residual dose error due to uncorrected rotation, R u n c o r r $R_{uncorr}$ was then quantified: Δ D R e s i d u a l $\Delta D_{Residual}$ = ΔD( T r e s $T_{res}$ + R u n c o r r $R_{uncorr}$ ) - ΔD( T res ${T}_{\textit{res}}$ ). RESULTS: Fractional data analysis shows that the dose differences from the plan (both ΔD( T r e s $T_{res}$ + R u n c o r r $R_{uncorr}$ ) and ΔD( T r e s $T_{res}$ )) for CTV D98 was less than 5% in all treatment fractions. ΔD( T r e s $T_{res}$ + R u n c o r r $R_{uncorr}$ ) was larger than 5% in one fraction for PTV D95, in one fraction for bladder V6Gy, and in five fractions for rectum V6Gy. Uncorrected rotation, R u n c o r r $R_{uncorr}$ induced residual dose error, Δ D R e s i d u a l $\Delta D_{Residual}$ , resulted in less dose to CTV and PTV in 43% and 59% treatment fractions, respectively, and more dose to bladder and rectum in 51% and 53% treatment fractions, respectively. The cumulative dose over five fractions, ∑D( T r e s $T_{res}$ + R u n c o r r $R_{uncorr}$ ) and ∑D( T r e s $T_{res}$ ), was always within 5% of the planned dose for all four structures for every patient. CONCLUSIONS: The dosimetric impact of tumor rotation on a large prostate cancer patient cohort was quantified in this study. These results suggest that the standard 3-5 mm CTV-PTV margin was sufficient to account for the intrafraction prostate rotation observed for this cohort of patients, provided an appropriate gating threshold was applied to correct for translational motion. Residual dose errors due to uncorrected prostate rotation were small in magnitude, which may be corrected using different treatment adaptation strategies to further improve the dosimetric accuracy.

Short-term neoadjuvant androgen deprivation and radiotherapy for locally advanced prostate cancer: 10-year data from the TROG 96.01 randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The TROG 96.01 trial assessed whether 3-month and 6-month short-term neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (NADT) decreases clinical progression and mortality after radiotherapy for locally advanced prostate cancer. Here we report the 10-year results. METHODS: Between June, 1996, and February, 2000, 818 men with T2b, T2c, T3, and T4 N0 M0 prostate cancers were randomly assigned to receive radiotherapy alone, 3 months of NADT plus radiotherapy, or 6 months of NADT plus radiotherapy. The radiotherapy dose for all groups was 66 Gy, delivered to the prostate and seminal vesicles (excluding pelvic nodes) in 33 fractions of 2 Gy per day (excluding weekends) over 6·5-7·0 weeks. NADT consisted of 3·6 mg goserelin given subcutaneously every month and 250 mg flutamide given orally three times a day. NADT began 2 months before radiotherapy for the 3-month NADT group and 5 months before radiotherapy for the 6-month NADT group. Primary endpoints were prostate-cancer-specific mortality and all-cause mortality. Treatment allocation was open label and randomisation was done with a minimisation technique according to age, clinical stage, tumour grade, and initial prostate-specific antigen concentration (PSA). Analysis was by intention-to-treat. The trial has been closed to follow-up and all main endpoint analyses are completed. The trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12607000237482. FINDINGS: 802 men were eligible for analysis (270 in the radiotherapy alone group, 265 in the 3-month NADT group, and 267 in the 6-month NADT group) after a median follow-up of 10·6 years (IQR 6·9-11·6). Compared with radiotherapy alone, 3 months of NADT decreased the cumulative incidence of PSA progression (adjusted hazard ratio 0·72, 95% CI 0·57-0·90; p=0·003) and local progression (0·49, 0·33-0·73; p=0·0005), and improved event-free survival (0·63, 0·52-0·77; p<0·0001). 6 months of NADT further reduced PSA progression (0·57, 0·46-0·72; p<0·0001) and local progression (0·45, 0·30-0·66; p=0·0001), and led to a greater improvement in event-free survival (0·51, 0·42-0·61, p<0·0001), compared with radiotherapy alone. 3-month NADT had no effect on distant progression (0·89, 0·60-1·31; p=0·550), prostate cancer-specific mortality (0·86, 0·60-1·23; p=0·398), or all-cause mortality (0·84, 0·65-1·08; p=0·180), compared with radiotherapy alone. By contrast, 6-month NADT decreased distant progression (0·49, 0·31-0·76; p=0·001), prostate cancer-specific mortality (0·49, 0·32-0·74; p=0·0008), and all-cause mortality (0·63, 0·48-0·83; p=0·0008), compared with radiotherapy alone. Treatment-related morbidity was not increased with NADT within the first 5 years after randomisation. INTERPRETATION: 6 months of neoadjuvant androgen deprivation combined radiotherapy is an effective treatment option for locally advanced prostate cancer, particularly in men without nodal metastases or pre-existing metabolic comorbidities that could be exacerbated by prolonged androgen deprivation. FUNDING: Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council, Hunter Medical Research Institute, AstraZeneca, and Schering-Plough.

Two decades of FDG-PET/CT in seminoma: exploring its role in diagnosis, surveillance and follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Survivors of testicular cancer may experience long-term morbidity following treatment. There is an unmet need to investigate techniques that can differentiate individuals who need additional therapy from those who do not. 2-18fluoro-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) with computerised tomography (CT) may be helpful in select settings and may be used outside of current evidence-based recommendations in real-world practice. METHODS: A institutional FDG-PET/CT database of scans performed between 2000 and 2020 for adults with testicular seminoma was interrogated. Endpoints of interest included the positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive value of FDG-PET/CT for identifying active seminoma (defined by progressive radiology, response to treatment or biopsy); or no active seminoma within 24-months for patients with stage 1 and advanced seminoma. An exploratory analysis examining predictive role of SUVmax was also performed. RESULTS: 249 patients met eligibility criteria for the analysis, including 184 patients with stage 1 and 77 patients with advanced testicular seminoma. Of 193 FDG-PET/CT performed in stage 1 seminoma with available follow-up data, 79 were performed during active surveillance. 18 (23%) of these were positive, all of which had confirmed recurrent seminoma (PPV 100%). Of 45 negative FDG-PET/CT during active surveillance, 4 recurrences developed corresponding to a NPV 91%. When clinical suspicion precipitated FDG-PET/CT (n = 36): PPV 100%, NPV 86%. Of 145 FDG-PET/CT in advanced seminoma with available follow-up data, 25 (17%) were performed at baseline (within 2 months of diagnosis), 70 (48%) post-treatment for evaluation of treatment response and 50 (34%) during follow-up following prior curative treatment. 10 (14%) post-treatment FDG-PET/CT were positive corresponding to a PPV 60%. Of 46 negative FDG-PET/CT, 5 recurrences occurred (NPV 89%). During follow-up after prior curative treatment, 24 (50%) FDG-PET/CT were positive corresponding to a PPV 83%; of 20 negative FDG-PET/CT, 1 recurrence occurred, NPV 95%. When clinical suspicion indicated FDG-PET/CT (n = 36): PPV 100%, NPV 94%. CONCLUSION: FDG-PET/CT offers high PPV for identifying seminoma and accurately predicts non-recurrence across a clinically relevant 24-months. Notably, FDG-PET/CT may prevent unnecessary treatment in 45% of patients undergoing investigation for clinical suspicion of recurrence during follow-up of advanced seminoma. The use of FDG-PET/CT in selected patients now, may help prevent unnecessary treatment of people with testicular seminoma.

A retrospective review of the long-term outcomes of online adaptive radiation therapy and conventional radiation therapy for muscle invasive bladder cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To report long-term outcomes of online image-guided (IG) adaptive radiation therapy (aRT) versus conventional IG radiation therapy (cRT) for bladder preservation in muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of patients with histologically proven MIBC who were prescribed radical intent radiation therapy (RT) following trans-urethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT) was conducted. There were three groups based on their RT treatment modality: conventional RT (cRT), margin 5 mm adaptive RT (aRT5mm) and margin 7 mm adaptive RT (aRT7mm). RESULTS: 171 patients were included in this study, with median age of 79.4 years (41-90). Approximately half of all patients received concurrent chemotherapy. N = 57 underwent cRT, n = 39 underwent aRT5mm, and n = 75 underwent aRT7mm. Response evaluable patients in all three groups (n = 133) had high rates of complete response (CR, 83%) on first post-RT cystoscopy with no significant differences between the groups. At a median follow-up of 54 months, the 5-year freedom from muscle-invasive failure survival (FFMIFS) in the cRT, aRT5mm, and aRT7mm groups were 75%, 59%, and 98%, respectively. The estimated cancer specific survival (CSS) at 5 years were 60%, 30%, and 59%, respectively. The estimated overall survival (OS) at 5 years were 43%, 26%, and 38%, respectively. The incidence of late grade 3 or 4 toxicity was n = 5 in aRT5mm, n = 2 in cRT group, and n = 1 in aRT7mm. CONCLUSION: IG aRT with 7 mm expansion for MIBC provides higher rates of FFMIFS, similar 5-year CSS and OS, as well as toxicity outcomes when compared to cRT. aRT with 5 mm expansion with this RT protocol is not recommended for treatment.

Is multileaf collimator tracking or gating a better intrafraction motion adaptation strategy? An analysis of the TROG 15.01 stereotactic prostate ablative radiotherapy with KIM (SPARK) trial.

PURPOSE: Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy (SABR) has recently emerged as a favourable treatment option for prostate cancer patients. With higher doses delivered over fewer fractions, motion adaptation is a requirement for accurate delivery of SABR. This study compared the efficacy of multileaf collimator (MLC) tracking vs. gating as a real-time motion adaptation strategy for prostate SABR patients enrolled in a clinical trial. METHODS: Forty-four prostate cancer patients treated over five fractions in the TROG 15.01 SPARK trial were analysed in this study. Forty-nine fractions were treated using MLC tracking and 166 fractions were treated using beam gating and couch shifts. A time-resolved motion-encoded dose reconstruction method was used to evaluate the dose delivered using each motion adaptation strategy and compared to an estimation of what would have been delivered with no motion adaptation strategy implemented. RESULTS: MLC tracking and gating both delivered doses closer to the plan compared to when no motion adaptation strategy was used. Differences between MLC tracking and gating were small with differences in the mean discrepancy from the plan of -0.3% (CTV D98%), 1.4% (CTV D2%), 0.4% (PTV D95%), 0.2% (rectum V30Gy) and 0.0% (bladder V30Gy). On average, 0.5 couch shifts were required per gated fractions with a mean interruption duration of 1.8 ± 2.6 min per fraction treated using gating. CONCLUSION: Both MLC tracking and gating were effective strategies at improving the accuracy of the dose delivered to the target and organs at risk. While dosimetric performance was comparable, gating resulted in interruptions to treatment. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02397317.

Radiation Dose Escalation or Longer Androgen Suppression to Prevent Distant Progression in Men With Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer: 10-Year Data From the TROG 03.04 RADAR Trial.

PURPOSE: To clarify the relative effects of duration of androgen suppression (AS) and radiation dose escalation (RDE) on distant progression (DP) in men with locally advanced prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Participants with locally advanced prostate cancer in the TROG 03.04 RADAR trial were randomized to 6 or 18 months AS ± 18 months zoledronic acid (Z). The trial incorporated a RDE program by stratification at randomization and dosing options were 66, 70, or 74 Gy external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), or 46 Gy EBRT plus high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost (HDRB). The primary endpoint for this study was distant progression (DP). Secondary endpoints included local progression, bone progression, prostate cancer-specific mortality and all-cause mortality. Effect estimates for AS duration and RDE were derived using Fine and Gray competing risk models adjusting for use of Z, age, tumor stage, Gleason grade group, prostate-specific antigen, and treatment center. Cumulative incidence at 10 years was estimated for each RDE group. RESULTS: A total of 1051 out of 1071 randomized subjects were eligible for inclusion in this analysis. Compared with 6 months AS, 18 months AS significantly reduced DP independently of radiation dose (subhazard ratio 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-0.87; P = .002). No statistically significant interaction between effect of AS duration and RT dose was observed (Wald test P = .76). In subgroup analyses, DP was significantly reduced by the longer duration of AS in the 70 Gy and HDRB groups but not in the 66 Gy and 74 Gy. Compared with 70 Gy, HDRB significantly reduced DP (subhazard ratio 0.68 [95% CI, 0.57-0.80]; P < .0001) independently of AS duration. At 10 years, adjusted cumulative incidences were 26.1% (95% CI, 18.9%-33.2%), 26.7% (22.9%-30.6%), 24.9% (20.0%-29.8%) and 19.7% (15.5%-23.8%) for DPs in the respective radiation dose groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with 6 months AS, 18 months AS reduced DP independently of radiation dose. Men treated with HDRB gained a significant benefit from a longer duration of AS. Evidence of improved oncologic outcomes for HDRB compared with dose-escalated EBRT needs to be confirmed in a randomized trial.

Real-Time Image Guided Ablative Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy: Results From the TROG 15.01 SPARK Trial.

PURPOSE: Kilovoltage intrafraction monitoring (KIM) is a novel software platform implemented on standard radiation therapy systems and enabling real-time image guided radiation therapy (IGRT). In a multi-institutional prospective trial, we investigated whether real-time IGRT improved the accuracy of the dose patients with prostate cancer received during radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Forty-eight patients with prostate cancer were treated with KIM-guided SABR with 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions. During KIM-guided treatment, the prostate motion was corrected for by either beam gating with couch shifts or multileaf collimator tracking. A dose reconstruction method was used to evaluate the dose delivered to the target and organs at risk with and without real-time IGRT. Primary outcome was the effect of real-time IGRT on dose distributions. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes and toxicity. RESULTS: Motion correction occurred in ≥1 treatment for 88% of patients (42 of 48) and 51% of treatments (121 of 235). With real-time IGRT, no treatments had prostate clinical target volume (CTV) D98% dose 5% less than planned. Without real-time IGRT, 13 treatments (5.5%) had prostate CTV D98% doses 5% less than planned. The prostate CTV D98% dose with real-time IGRT was closer to the plan by an average of 1.0% (range, -2.8% to 20.3%). Patient outcomes showed no change in the 12-month patient-reported outcomes compared with baseline and no grade ≥3 genitourinary or gastrointestinal toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: Real-time IGRT is clinically effective for prostate cancer SABR.

Is there more than one proctitis syndrome? A revisitation using data from the TROG 96.01 trial.

PURPOSE: We sought to categorize longitudinal radiation-induced rectal toxicity data obtained from men participating in a randomised controlled trial for locally advanced prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from self-assessed questionnaires of rectal symptoms and clinician recorded remedial interventions were collected during the TROG 96.01 trial. In this trial, volunteers were randomised to radiation with or without neoadjuvant androgen deprivation. Characterization of longitudinal variations in symptom intensity was achieved using prevalence data. An integrated visualization and clustering approach based on memetic algorithms was used to define the compositions of symptom clusters occurring before, during and after radiation. The utility of the CTC grading system as a means of identifying specific injury profiles was evaluated using concordance analyses. RESULTS: Seven well-defined clusters of rectal symptoms were present prior to treatment, 25 were seen immediately following radiation and 7 at years 1, 2 and 3 following radiation. CTC grading did not concord with the degree of rectal 'distress' and 'problems' at all time points. Concordance was not improved by adding urgency to the CTC scale. CONCLUSIONS: The CTC scale has serious shortcomings. A powerful new technique for non-hierarchical clustering may contribute to the categorization of rectal toxicity data for genomic profiling studies and detailed patho-physiological studies.

Time to biochemical failure and prostate-specific antigen doubling time as surrogates for prostate cancer-specific mortality: evidence from the TROG 96.01 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Surrogate endpoints for prostate cancer-specific mortality after curative primary treatment are not well established. We sought to assess time to biochemical failure (TTBF) and prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) after failure of curative treatment as candidates for this endpoint. METHODS: PSA and survival data from the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (TROG) 96.01 trial were used to assess surrogate candidates. Between June 28, 1996, and Feb 16, 2000, 802 eligible men with locally advanced prostate cancer were randomly allocated to prostatic irradiation alone, or to 3 or 6 months of maximum short-term androgen deprivation (STAD) before and during radiation. Successful surrogates were required to satisfy the Prentice criteria and to predict the trial finding. The TROG 96.01 trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12607000237482. FINDINGS: 6 months of STAD was shown to significantly decrease prostate cancer-specific mortality compared with radiation alone, but 3 months of STAD did not result in a decrease. Relative to radiation alone, the hazard ratio of prostate cancer-specific mortality from randomisation was 0.95 (95% CI 0.63-1.41; p=0.79) in the 3-month STAD treatment arm and 0.56 (0.36-0.88; p=0.01) in the 6-month arm. PSADT predicted the trial finding and satisfied all four Prentice criteria at the cutpoints of less than 12 months and less than 15 months, with proportion of treatment effect ratios between 0.36 and 0.56. Time to biochemical failure was better than PSADT at predicting the trial finding and satisfying all four Prentice criteria at cutpoints of less than 1.5, less than 2, and less than 2.5 years, with proportion of treatment effect ratios between 0.45 and 0.64. INTERPRETATION: This study provides proof of principle that TTBF and PSADT can be useful as surrogate endpoints for prostate cancer-specific mortality and offer potential to substantially reduce follow up in clinical trials. These endpoints now require assessment in multi-trial meta-analyses before use in clinical trials.

TROG 18.01 phase III randomised clinical trial of the Novel Integration of New prostate radiation schedules with adJuvant Androgen deprivation: NINJA study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is a non-invasive alternative to surgery for the treatment of non-metastatic prostate cancer (PC). The objectives of the Novel Integration of New prostate radiation schedules with adJuvant Androgen deprivation (NINJA) clinical trial are to compare two emerging SBRT regimens for efficacy with technical substudies focussing on MRI only planning and the use of knowledge-based planning (KBP) to assess radiotherapy plan quality. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Eligible patients must have biopsy-proven unfavourable intermediate or favourable high-risk PC, have an Eastern Collaborative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0-1 and provide written informed consent. All patients will receive 6 months in total of androgen deprivation therapy. Patients will be randomised to one of two SBRT regimens. The first will be 40 Gy in five fractions given on alternating days (SBRT monotherapy). The second will be 20 Gy in two fractions given 1 week apart followed 2 weeks later by 36 Gy in 12 fractions given five times per week (virtual high-dose rate boost (HDRB)). The primary efficacy outcome will be biochemical clinical control at 5 years. Secondary endpoints for the initial portion of NINJA look at the transition of centres towards MRI only planning and the impact of KBP on real-time (RT) plan assessment. The first 150 men will demonstrate accrual feasibility as well as addressing the KBP and MRI planning aims, prior to proceeding with total accrual to 472 patients as a phase III randomised controlled trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: NINJA is a multicentre cooperative clinical trial comparing two SBRT regimens for men with PC. It builds on promising results from several single-armed studies, and explores radiation dose escalation in the Virtual HDRB arm. The initial component includes novel technical elements, and will form an important platform set for a definitive phase III study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ANZCTN 12615000223538.

The accuracy and precision of the KIM motion monitoring system used in the multi-institutional TROG 15.01 Stereotactic Prostate Ablative Radiotherapy with KIM (SPARK) trial.

PURPOSE: Kilovoltage intrafraction monitoring (KIM) allows for real-time image guidance for tracking tumor motion in six-degrees-of-freedom (6DoF) on a standard linear accelerator. This study assessed the geometric accuracy and precision of KIM used to guide patient treatments in the TROG 15.01 multi-institutional Stereotactic Prostate Ablative Radiotherapy with KIM trial and investigated factors affecting accuracy and precision. METHODS: Fractions from 44 patients with prostate cancer treated using KIM-guided SBRT were analyzed across four institutions, on two different linear accelerator models and two different beam models (6 MV and 10 MV FFF). The geometric accuracy and precision of KIM was assessed from over 33 000 images (translation) and over 9000 images (rotation) by comparing the real-time measured motion to retrospective kV/MV triangulation. Factors potentially affecting accuracy, including contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of kV images and incorrect marker segmentation, were also investigated. RESULTS: The geometric accuracy and precision did not depend on treatment institution, beam model or motion magnitude, but was correlated with gantry angle. The centroid geometric accuracy and precision of the KIM system for SABR prostate treatments was 0.0 ± 0.5, 0.0 ± 0.4 and 0.1 ± 0.3 mm for translation, and -0.1 ± 0.6°, -0.1 ± 1.4° and -0.1 ± 1.0° for rotation in the AP, LR and SI directions respectively. Centroid geometric error exceeded 2 mm for 0.05% of this dataset. No significant relationship was found between large geometric error and CNR or marker segmentation correlation. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the ability of KIM to locate the prostate with accuracy below other uncertainties in radiotherapy treatments, and the feasibility for KIM to be implemented across multiple institutions.