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

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

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

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

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

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

Study protocol for the SARON trial: a multicentre, randomised controlled phase III trial comparing the addition of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy and radical radiotherapy with standard chemotherapy alone for oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Following growing evidence to support the safety, local control (LC) and potential improvement in overall survival (OS) in patients with oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that have been treated with local ablative therapy such as stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), we initiate the SARON trial to investigate the impact and feasibility of adding SABR/SRS and radical radiotherapy (RRT) following standard chemotherapy on OS. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: SARON is a large, randomised controlled, multicentre, phase III trial for patients with oligometastatic EGFR, ALK and ROS1 mutation negative NSCLC (1-3 sites of synchronous metastatic disease, one of which must be extracranial). 340 patients will be recruited over 3 years from approximately 30 UK sites and randomised to receive either standard platinum-doublet chemotherapy only (control arm) or standard chemotherapy followed by RRT/SABR to their primary tumour and then SABR/SRS to all other metastatic sites (investigational arm). The primary endpoint is OS; the study is powered to detect an improvement in median survival from 9.9 months in the control arm to 14.3 months in the investigational arm with 85% power and two-sided 5% significance level. The secondary endpoints are LC, progression-free survival, new distant metastasis-free survival, toxicity and quality of life. An early feasibility review will take place after 50 randomised patients. Patients requiring both conventional thoracic RT to the primary and SABR to a thoracic metastasis will be included in a thoracic SABR safety substudy to assess toxicity and planning issues in this subgroup of patients more thoroughly. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: All participants are given a SARON patient information sheet and required to give written informed consent. Results will be submitted for presentation at local and international conferences and expected to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02417662. SPONSOR REFERENCE: UCL/13/0594.

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

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

An analytical approach to acceptance criteria for quality assurance of Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy.

Detectability and impact of potential treatment machine errors on IMRT treatments were evaluated. The ability of the gamma index to detect deliberately introduced errors was assessed and their clinical impact was assessed using Tumour Control Probability (TCP) and Normal Tissue Complication Probability. TCP was only marginally affected by 2mm errors in MLC position. Dose delivery errors had greater impact but were not detected as effectively using the gamma index. Acceptance criteria should include mean dose as well as gamma to help identify errors in the delivered dose.