Clinical Behavior and Molecular Landscape of Stage I p53-Abnormal Low-Grade Endometrioid Endometrial Carcinomas.

PURPOSE: The clinical significance of the p53-abnormal (p53abn) molecular subtype in stage I low-grade endometrioid endometrial carcinoma (EEC) is debated. We aimed to review pathologic and molecular characteristics, and outcomes of stage I low-grade p53abn EEC in a large international cohort. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Previously diagnosed stage I p53abn EC (POLE-wild-type, mismatch repair-proficient) low-grade EEC from Canadian retrospective cohorts and PORTEC-1&2 trials were included. Pathology review was performed by six expert gynecologic pathologists blinded to p53 status. IHC profiling, next-generation sequencing, and shallow whole-genome sequencing was performed. Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analysis. RESULTS: We identified 55 stage I p53abn low-grade EEC among 3,387 cases (2.5%). On pathology review, 17 cases (31%) were not diagnosed as low-grade EEC by any pathologists, whereas 26 cases (47%) were diagnosed as low-grade EEC by at least three pathologists. The IHC and molecular profile of the latter cases were consistent with low-grade EEC morphology (ER/PR positivity, patchy p16 expression, PIK3CA and PTEN mutations) but they also showed features of p53abn EC (TP53 mutations, many copy-number alterations). These cases had a clinically relevant risk of disease recurrence (5-year recurrence-free survival 77%), with pelvic and/or distant recurrences observed in 12% of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: A subset of p53abn EC is morphologically low-grade EEC and exhibit genomic instability. Even for stage I disease, p53abn low-grade EEC are at substantial risk of disease recurrence. These findings highlight the clinical relevance of universal p53-testing, even in low-grade EEC, to identify women at increased risk of recurrence.

Molecular Classification Predicts Response to Radiotherapy in the Randomized PORTEC-1 and PORTEC-2 Trials for Early-Stage Endometrioid Endometrial Cancer.

PURPOSE: The molecular classification of endometrial cancer (EC) has proven to have prognostic value and is predictive of response to adjuvant chemotherapy. Here, we investigate its predictive value for response to external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and vaginal brachytherapy (VBT) in early-stage endometrioid EC (EEC). METHODS: Data of the randomized PORTEC-1 trial (n = 714) comparing pelvic EBRT with no adjuvant therapy in early-stage intermediate-risk EC and the PORTEC-2 trial (n = 427) comparing VBT with EBRT in early-stage high-intermediate-risk EC were used. Locoregional (including vaginal and pelvic) recurrence-free survival was compared between treatment groups across the four molecular classes using Kaplan-Meier's methodology and log-rank tests. RESULTS: A total of 880 molecularly classified ECs, 484 from PORTEC-1 and 396 from PORTEC-2, were included. The majority were FIGO-2009 stage I EEC (97.2%). The median follow-up was 11.3 years. No locoregional recurrences were observed in EC with a pathogenic mutation of DNA polymerase-ε (POLEmut EC). In mismatch repair-deficient (MMRd) EC, locoregional recurrence-free survival was similar after EBRT (94.2%), VBT (94.2%), and no adjuvant therapy (90.3%; P = .74). In EC with a p53 abnormality (p53abn EC), EBRT (96.9%) had a substantial benefit over VBT (64.3%) and no adjuvant therapy (72.2%; P = .048). In EC with no specific molecular profile (NSMP EC), both EBRT (98.3%) and VBT (96.2%) yielded better locoregional control than no adjuvant therapy (87.7%; P < .0001). CONCLUSION: The molecular classification of EC predicts response to radiotherapy in stage I EEC and may guide adjuvant treatment decisions. Omitting radiotherapy seems to be safe in POLEmut EC. The benefit of radiotherapy seems to be limited in MMRd EC. EBRT yields a significantly better locoregional recurrence-free survival than VBT or no adjuvant therapy in p53abn EC. VBT is the treatment of choice for NSMP EC as it is as effective as EBRT and significantly better than no adjuvant therapy for locoregional tumor control.

Short Androgen Suppression and Radiation Dose Escalation in Prostate Cancer: 12-Year Results of EORTC Trial 22991 in Patients With Localized Intermediate-Risk Disease.

PURPOSE: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) trial 22991 (NCT00021450) showed that 6 months of concomitant and adjuvant androgen suppression (AS) improves event- (EFS, Phoenix) and clinical disease-free survival (DFS) of intermediate- and high-risk localized prostatic carcinoma, treated by external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) at 70-78 Gy. We report the long-term results in intermediate-risk patients treated with 74 or 78 Gy EBRT, as per current guidelines. PATIENT AND METHODS: Of 819 patients randomly assigned between EBRT or EBRT plus AS started on day 1 of EBRT, 481 entered with intermediate risk (International Union Against Cancer TNM 1997 cT1b-c or T2a with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≥ 10 ng/mL or Gleason ≤ 7 and PSA ≤ 20 ng/mL, N0M0) and had EBRT planned at 74 (342 patients, 71.1%) or 78 Gy (139 patients, 28.9%). We report the trial primary end point EFS, DFS, distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and overall survival (OS) by intention-to-treat stratified by EBRT dose at two-sided α = 5%. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 12.2 years, 92 of 245 patients and 132 of 236 had EFS events in the EBRT plus AS and EBRT arm, respectively, mostly PSA relapse (48.7%) or death (45.1%). EBRT plus AS improved EFS and DFS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.53; CI, 0.41 to 0.70; P < .001 and HR = 0.67; CI, 0.49 to 0.90; P = .008). At 10 years, DMFS was 79.3% (CI, 73.4 to 84.0) with EBRT plus AS and 72.7% (CI, 66.2 to 78.2) with EBRT (HR = 0.74; CI, 0.53 to 1.02; P = .065). With 140 deaths (EBRT plus AS: 64; EBRT: 76), 10-year OS was 80.0% (CI, 74.1 to 84.7) with EBRT plus AS and 74.3% (CI, 67.8 to 79.7) with EBRT, but not statistically significantly different (HR = 0.74; CI, 0.53 to 1.04; P = .082). CONCLUSION: Six months of concomitant and adjuvant AS statistically significantly improves EFS and DFS in intermediate-risk prostatic carcinoma, treated by irradiation at 74 or 78 Gy. The effects on OS and DMFS did not reach statistical significance.

Patients' and clinicians' preferences in adjuvant treatment for high-risk endometrial cancer: Implications for shared decision making.

BACKGROUND: Decision making regarding adjuvant therapy for high-risk endometrial cancer is complex. The aim of this study was to determine patients' and clinicians' minimally desired survival benefit to choose chemoradiotherapy over radiotherapy alone. Moreover, influencing factors and importance of positive and negative treatment effects (i.e. attribute) were investigated. METHODS: Patients with high-risk endometrial cancer treated with adjuvant pelvic radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy and multidisciplinary gynaecologic oncology clinicians completed a trade-off questionnaire based on PORTEC-3 trial data. RESULTS: In total, 171 patients and 63 clinicians completed the questionnaire. Median minimally desired benefit to make chemoradiotherapy worthwhile was significantly higher for patients versus clinicians (10% vs 5%, p = 0.02). Both patients and clinicians rated survival benefit most important during decision making, followed by long-term symptoms. Older patients (OR 0.92 [95%CI 0.87-0.97]; p = 0.003) with comorbidity (OR 0.34 [95% CI 0.12-0.89]; p = 0.035) had lower preference for chemoradiotherapy, while patients with better numeracy skills (OR 1.2 [95%CI 1.05-1.36], p = 0.011) and chemoradiotherapy history (OR 25.0 [95%CI 8.8-91.7]; p < 0.001) had higher preference for chemoradiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: There is a considerable difference in minimally desired survival benefit of chemoradiotherapy in high-risk endometrial cancer among and between patients and clinicians. Overall, endometrial cancer patients needed higher benefits than clinicians before preferring chemoradiotherapy.

PORTEC-4a: international randomized trial of molecular profile-based adjuvant treatment for women with high-intermediate risk endometrial cancer.

BACKGROUND: Vaginal brachytherapy is currently recommended as adjuvant treatment in patients with high-intermediate risk endometrial cancer to maximize local control and has only mild side effects and no or limited impact on quality of life. However, there is still considerable overtreatment and also some undertreatment, which may be reduced by tailoring adjuvant treatment to the patients' risk of recurrence based on molecular tumor characteristics. PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: To compare the rates of vaginal recurrence in women with high-intermediate risk endometrial cancer, treated after surgery with molecular-integrated risk profile-based recommendations for either observation, vaginal brachytherapy or external pelvic beam radiotherapy or with standard adjuvant vaginal brachytherapy STUDY HYPOTHESIS: Adjuvant treatment based on a molecular-integrated risk profile provides similar local control and recurrence-free survival as current standard adjuvant brachytherapy in patients with high-intermediate risk endometrial cancer, while sparing many patients the morbidity of adjuvant treatment and reducing healthcare costs. TRIAL DESIGN: A multicenter, international phase III randomized trial (2:1) of molecular-integrated risk profile-based adjuvant treatment (experimental arm) or adjuvant vaginal brachytherapy (standard arm). MAJOR INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Women aged 18 years and over with a histological diagnosis of high-intermediate risk endometrioid endometrial cancer after total abdominal or laparoscopic hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. High-intermediate risk factors are defined as: (i) International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IA (with invasion) and grade 3; (ii) stage IB grade 1 or 2 with age ≥60 and/or lymph-vascular space invasion; (iii) stage IB, grade 3 without lymph-vascular space invasion; or (iv) stage II (microscopic and grade 1). ENDPOINTS: The primary endpoint is vaginal recurrence. Secondary endpoints are recurrence-free and overall survival; pelvic and distant recurrence; 5-year vaginal control (including treatment for relapse); adverse events and patient-reported symptoms and quality of life; and endometrial cancer-related healthcare costs. SAMPLE SIZE: 500 eligible and evaluable patients. ESTIMATED DATES FOR COMPLETING ACCRUAL AND PRESENTING RESULTS: Estimated date for completing accrual will be late 2021. Estimated date for presentation of (first) results is expected in 2023. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03469674) and ISRCTN (11659025).

Short Androgen Suppression and Radiation Dose Escalation for Intermediate- and High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer: Results of EORTC Trial 22991.

PURPOSE: Up to 30% of patients who undergo radiation for intermediate- or high-risk localized prostate cancer relapse biochemically within 5 years. We assessed if biochemical disease-free survival (DFS) is improved by adding 6 months of androgen suppression (AS; two injections of every-3-months depot of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist) to primary radiotherapy (RT) for intermediate- or high-risk localized prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 819 patients staged: (1) cT1b-c, with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≥ 10 ng/mL or Gleason ≥ 7, or (2) cT2a (International Union Against Cancer TNM 1997), with no involvement of pelvic lymph nodes and no clinical evidence of metastatic spread, with PSA ≤ 50 ng/mL, were centrally randomized 1:1 to either RT or RT plus AS started on day 1 of RT. Centers opted for one dose (70, 74, or 78 Gy). Biochemical DFS, the primary end point, was defined from entry until PSA relapse (Phoenix criteria) and clinical relapse by imaging or death of any cause. The trial had 80% power to detect hazard ratio (HR), 0.714 by intent-to-treat analysis stratified by dose of RT at the two-sided α = 5%. RESULTS: The median patient age was 70 years. Among patients, 74.8% were intermediate risk and 24.8% were high risk. In the RT arm, 407 of 409 patients received RT; in the RT plus AS arm, 403 patients received RT plus AS and three patients received RT only. At 7.2 years median follow-up, RT plus AS significantly improved biochemical DFS (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.66; P < .001, with 319 events), as well as clinical progression-free survival (205 events, HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.84; P = .001). In exploratory analysis, no statistically significant interaction between treatment effect and dose of RT could be evidenced (heterogeneity P = .79 and P = .66, for biochemical DFS and progression-free survival, respectively). Overall survival data are not mature yet. CONCLUSION: Six months of concomitant and adjuvant AS improves biochemical and clinical DFS of intermediate- and high-risk cT1b-c to cT2a (with no involvement of pelvic lymph nodes and no clinical evidence of metastatic spread) prostatic carcinoma, treated by radiation.

Long-Term Impact of Endometrial Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment on Health-Related Quality of Life and Cancer Survivorship: Results From the Randomized PORTEC-2 Trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the long-term health-related quality of life (HRQL) after external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) or vaginal brachytherapy (VBT) among PORTEC-2 trial patients, evaluate long-term bowel and bladder symptoms, and assess the impact of cancer on these endometrial cancer (EC) survivors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the PORTEC-2 trial, 427 patients with stage I high-intermediate-risk EC were randomly allocated to EBRT or VBT. The 7- and 10-year HRQL questionnaires consisted of EORTC QLQ-C30; subscales for bowel and bladder symptoms; the Impact of Cancer Questionnaire; and 14 questions on comorbidities, walking aids, and incontinence pads. Analysis was done using linear mixed models for subscales and (ordinal) logistic regression with random effects for single items. A two-sided P value <.01 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Longitudinal HRQL analysis showed persisting higher rates of bowel symptoms with EBRT, without significant differences in global health or any of the functioning scales. At 7 years, clinically relevant fecal leakage was reported by 10.6% in the EBRT group, versus 1.8% for VBT (P=.03), diarrhea by 8.4% versus 0.9% (P=.04), limitations due to bowel symptoms by 10.5% versus 1.8% (P=.001), and bowel urgency by 23.3% versus 6.6% (P<.001). Urinary urgency was reported by 39.3% of EBRT patients, 25.5% for VBT, P=.05. No difference in sexual activity was seen between treatment arms. Long-term impact of cancer scores was higher among the patients who had an EC recurrence or second cancer. CONCLUSIONS: More than 7 years after treatment, EBRT patients reported more bowel symptoms with impact on daily activities, and a trend for more urinary symptoms, without impact on overall quality of life or difference in cancer survivorship issues.

Long-term results of the Dutch randomized prostate cancer trial: impact of dose-escalation on local, biochemical, clinical failure, and survival.

PURPOSE: Nowadays, advanced irradiation techniques make it possible to escalate safely the dose in prostate cancer. We studied the effect of a higher dose on tumor control in a randomized trial with a median follow-up of 110 months. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with T1b-T4N0 prostate cancer (n=664) were randomized between 78 Gy and 68 Gy. Primary endpoint was biochemical and/or clinical failure (BCF) according to the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) guidelines (3 consecutive rises), and to Phoenix (nadir plus 2 µg/L). Secondary endpoints were clinical failure (CF), local failure (LF), prostate cancer death (PCD), and overall survival (OS). Explorative subgroup analyses were performed. RESULTS: BCF rate (HR=0.8; 20% less events) and LF rate (HR=0.5; 50% less events) were significantly lower in the 78 Gy arm (p<0.05). CF, PCD and OS were similar in both arms. A significant heterogeneity of treatment effect was found for PSA cutoffs between 7 and 10 µg/L. CONCLUSION: We observed significantly less BCF and LF in the high-dose arm. This suggests improvement of the therapeutic ratio. However, we observed similar rates of CF and PCD at the current update. More follow-up is needed to investigate which patients benefit in terms of prolonged OS.

Less gastrointestinal toxicity after adjuvant radiotherapy on a small pelvic field compared to a standard pelvic field in patients with endometrial carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: Radiotherapy is associated with short-term and long-term morbidity. This study compared toxicity rates among patients with endometrial carcinoma (EC) treated with adjuvant external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) on a small pelvic field (SmPF) in comparison with a standard pelvic field (StPF) or an extended field (EF). METHODS: Patients with EC preoperatively diagnosed with high-grade histological disease (grade 3 endometrioid, papillary serous, clear cell, and mixed tumor type) or cervical involvement were treated with total abdominal hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and lymphadenectomy in the University Medical Center Groningen between 1999 and 2008. Patients who received adjuvant EBRT were included in this study. External beam radiation therapy on SmPF (includes only the central pelvis and proximal vagina) was applied in case of negative lymph nodes after adequate lymphadenectomy (≥10 lymph nodes removed at the bilateral obturator and external iliac nodal stations). In case of positive pelvic lymph nodes or inadequate lymphadenectomy, EBRT on StPF was given. External beam radiation therapy on EF was applied in case of common iliac and/or para-aortic lymph node metastases. Retrospectively, using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0, acute toxicity was scored during radiotherapy, whereas late toxicity was scored, from 3 months onward after treatment. RESULTS: Toxicity could be evaluated in 75 patients treated with SmPF (n = 33), StPF (n = 28), and EF EBRT (n = 14). Most patients with late adverse events had also reported toxicity during radiotherapy (71%). The most common late adverse events were gastrointestinal tract related, more frequently present in the StPF group (60.7%) compared to SmPF (33.3%; P = 0.032). In particular, nausea and anorexia were more frequent in the StPF group (32.1%) compared to the SmPF group (3.0%; P = 0.004), as well as ileus (14.3% vs 0%, P = 0.039, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with adjuvant EBRT on SmPF results in less gastrointestinal late adverse events compared to treatment with EBRT on StPF in patients with surgically staged EC.

Target volume delineation variation in radiotherapy for early stage rectal cancer in the Netherlands.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to measure and improve the quality of target volume delineation by means of national consensus on target volume definition in early-stage rectal cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The CTV's for eight patients were delineated by 11 radiation oncologists in 10 institutes according to local guidelines (phase 1). After observer variation analysis a workshop was organized to establish delineation guidelines and a digital atlas, with which the same observers re-delineated the dataset (phase 2). Variation in volume, most caudal and cranial slice and local surface distance variation were analyzed. RESULTS: The average delineated CTV volume decreased from 620 to 460 cc (p<0.001) in phase 2. Variation in the caudal CTV border was reduced significantly from 1.8 to 1.2 cm SD (p=0.01), while it remained 0.7 cm SD for the cranial border. The local surface distance variation (cm SD) reduced from 1.02 to 0.74 for anterior, 0.63 to 0.54 for lateral, 0.33 to 0.25 for posterior and 1.22 to 0.46 for the sphincter region, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The large variation in target volume delineation could significantly be reduced by use of consensus guidelines and a digital delineation atlas. Despite the significant reduction there is still a need for further improvement.

Five-year quality of life of endometrial cancer patients treated in the randomised Post Operative Radiation Therapy in Endometrial Cancer (PORTEC-2) trial and comparison with norm data.

BACKGROUND: The PORTEC-2 trial showed efficacy and reduced side-effects of vaginal brachytherapy (VBT) compared with external beam pelvic radiotherapy (EBRT) for patients with high-intermediate risk endometrial cancer. The current analysis was done to evaluate long-term health related quality of life (HRQL), and compare HRQL of patients to an age-matched norm population. METHODS: Patients were randomly allocated to EBRT (n=214) or VBT (n=213). HRQL was assessed using EORTC QLQ-C30 and subscales from PR25 and OV28 (bladder, bowel, sexual symptoms); and compared to norm data. FINDINGS: Median follow-up was 65 months; 348 (81%) patients were evaluable for HRQL (EBRT n=166, VBT n=182). At baseline, patient functioning was at lowest level, increasing during and after radiotherapy to reach a plateau after 12 months, within range of scores of the norm population. VBT patients reported better social functioning (p=0.005) and lower symptom scores for diarrhoea, faecal leakage, need to stay close to a toilet and limitation in daily activities due to bowel symptoms (p⩽0.001), compared to EBRT. There were no differences in sexual functioning or symptoms between the treatment groups; however, sexual functioning was lower and sexual symptoms more frequent in both treatment groups compared to the norm population. INTERPRETATION: Patients who received EBRT reported clinically relevant higher levels of bowel symptoms and related limitations in daily activities with lower social functioning, 5 years after treatment. VBT provides a better HRQL, which remained similar to that of an age-matched norm population, except for sexual symptoms which were more frequent in both treatment groups.

Outcome of Endometrial Cancer Stage IIIA with Adnexa or Serosal Involvement Only.

Objective. The aim of this study is to look at possible differences in outcome between serosa and adnexal involvement stage IIIA endometrial carcinoma. Methods. 67 patients with stage IIIA endometrial carcinoma were included, 46 with adnexal involvement and 21 with serosa. A central histopathological review was performed. Results. The 7-year locoregional failure rate was (LRFR) 2.2% for adnexal involvement and 16.0% for involvement of the serosa (P = .0522). The 7-year distant metastasis-free survival was 72.7% for adnexal involvement and 58.7% for serosa (P = .3994). The 7-year disease-specific survival (DSS) was 71.8% for patients with adnexal involvement and 75.4% for patients with serosa. Conclusion. Endometrial carcinoma stage IIIA with involvement of the adnexa or serosa showed to have a comparable disease-specific survival. Locoregional control was worse for serosa involvement compared to adnexa.

The number of metastatic sites for stage IIIA endometrial carcinoma, endometrioid cell type, is a strong negative prognostic factor.

UNLABELLED: The aim of this study was to look at the impact of the number of sites with tumour involvement on outcome for patients with stage IIIA endometrioid-type endometrial carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 141 patients stage IIIA were included. A central histopathological review was performed. Patients staged solely on the presence of a positive peritoneal washing were excluded. Follow-up ranged from 2 to 217 months with a median of 43 months. Endpoints of the study were locoregional recurrence rates, distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), disease-free survival (DFS) and disease-specific survival (DSS). RESULTS: In multivariate analyses the number of involved sites showed to be the only independent significant variable for DMFS, DFS, and DSS with a Hazard Ratio of 2.1, 2.2, and 2.2, respectively. The DSS was significantly related to the number of involved sites, with a 5-year DSS of 70.4% for one site, 42.8% for two sites, and 43.9% for three sites, respectively (p=0.001). CONCLUSION: The number of involved sites outside the corpus uterine for stage IIIA seems to be a strong negative prognostic factor for stage IIIA endometrial carcinoma.

Quality of life after pelvic radiotherapy or vaginal brachytherapy for endometrial cancer: first results of the randomized PORTEC-2 trial.

PURPOSE Studies on quality of life (QOL) among women with endometrial cancer have shown that patients who undergo pelvic radiotherapy report lower role functioning and more diarrhea and fatigue. In the Post Operative Radiation Therapy in Endometrial Cancer (PORTEC) trial, patients with endometrial carcinoma were randomly assigned to receive external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or vaginal brachytherapy (VBT). QOL was evaluated by using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 and subscales from the prostate cancer module, PR-25, and the ovarian cancer module, OV-28. PATIENTS AND METHODS PORTEC-2 accrued 427 patients between 2002 and 2006, of whom 214 were randomly assigned to EBRT, and 213 were randomly assigned to VBT. Three-hundred forty-eight patients (81%) were evaluable for QOL. QOL outcomes were analyzed at a median follow-up of 2 years. Results At baseline after surgery, patient functioning was at the lowest level, and it increased during and after radiotherapy to reach a plateau after 12 months. Patients in the VBT group reported better social functioning (P < .002) and lower symptom scores for diarrhea, fecal leakage, the need to stay close to the toilet, and limitation in daily activities because of bowel symptoms (P < .001). At baseline, 15% of patients were sexually active; this increased significantly to 39% during the first year (P < .001). Sexual functioning and symptoms did not differ between the treatment groups. CONCLUSION Patients who received EBRT reported significantly higher levels of diarrhea and bowel symptoms. This resulted in a higher need to remain close to a toilet and, as a consequence, more limitation of daily activities because of bowel symptoms and decreased social functioning. Vaginal brachytherapy provides a better QOL, and should be the preferred treatment from a QOL perspective.

Update of Dutch multicenter dose-escalation trial of radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To update the analysis of the Dutch dose-escalation trial of radiotherapy for prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 669 patients with localized prostate cancer were randomly assigned to receive 68 or 78 Gy. The patients were stratified by age, institution, use of neoadjuvant or adjuvant hormonal therapy, and treatment group. The primary endpoint was freedom from failure (FFF), with failure defined as clinical or biochemical failure. Two definitions of biochemical failure were used: the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology definition (three consecutive increases in prostate-specific antigen level) and the Phoenix definition (nadir plus 2 microe secondary endpoints were freedom from clinical failure, overall survival, and genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 70 months, the FFF using the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology definition was significantly better in the 78-Gy arm than in the 68-Gy arm (7-year FFF rate, 54% vs. 47%, respectively; p = 0.04). The FFF using the Phoenix definition was also significantly better in the 78-Gy arm than in the 68-Gy arm (7-year FFF rate, 56% vs. 45%, respectively; p = 0.03). However, no differences in freedom from clinical failure or overall survival were observed. The incidence of late Grade 2 or greater genitourinary toxicity was similar in both arms (40% and 41% at 7 years; p = 0.6). However, the cumulative incidence of late Grade 2 or greater gastrointestinal toxicity was increased in the 78-Gy arm compared with the 68-Gy arm (35% vs. 25% at 7 years; p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: The results of our study have shown a statistically significant improvement in FFF in prostate cancer patients treated with 78 Gy but with a greater rate of late gastrointestinal toxicity.

Dose-response in radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: results of the Dutch multicenter randomized phase III trial comparing 68 Gy of radiotherapy with 78 Gy.

PURPOSE: To determine whether a dose of 78 Gy improves outcome compared with a conventional dose of 68 Gy for prostate cancer patients treated with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between June 1997 and February 2003, stage T1b-4 prostate cancer patients were enrolled onto a multicenter randomized trial comparing 68 Gy with 78 Gy. Patients were stratified by institution, age, (neo)adjuvant hormonal therapy (HT), and treatment group. Four treatment groups (with specific radiation volumes) were defined based on the probability of seminal vesicle involvement. The primary end point was freedom from failure (FFF). Failure was defined as clinical failure or biochemical failure, according to the American Society of Therapeutic Radiation Oncology definition. Other end points were freedom from clinical failure (FFCF), overall survival (OS), and toxicity. RESULTS: Median follow-up time was 51 months. Of the 669 enrolled patients, 664 were included in the analysis. HT was prescribed for 143 patients. FFF was significantly better in the 78-Gy arm compared with the 68-Gy arm (5-year FFF rate, 64% v 54%, respectively), with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.74 (P = .02). No significant differences in FFCF or OS were seen between the treatment arms. There was no difference in late genitourinary toxicity of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer grade 2 or more and a slightly higher nonsignificant incidence of late gastrointestinal toxicity of grade 2 or more. CONCLUSION: This multicenter randomized trial shows a significantly improved FFF in prostate cancer patients treated with a higher dose of radiotherapy.

Localized volume effects for late rectal and anal toxicity after radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To identify dosimetric parameters derived from anorectal, rectal, and anal wall dose distributions that correlate with different late gastrointestinal (GI) complications after three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In this analysis, 641 patients from a randomized trial (68 Gy vs. 78 Gy) were included. Toxicity was scored with adapted Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (RTOG/EORTC) criteria and five specific complications. The variables derived from dose-volume histogram of anorectal, rectal, and anal wall were as follows: % receiving > or =5-70 Gy (V5-V70), maximum dose (Dmax), and mean dose (D(mean)). The anus was defined as the most caudal 3 cm of the anorectum. Statistics were done with multivariate Cox regression models. Median follow-up was 44 months. RESULTS: Anal dosimetric variables were associated with RTOG/EORTC Grade > or =2 (V5-V40, D(mean)) and incontinence (V5-V70, D(mean)). Bleeding correlated most strongly with anorectal V55-V65, and stool frequency with anorectal V40 and D(mean). Use of steroids was weakly related to anal variables. No volume effect was seen for RTOG/EORTC Grade > or =3 and pain/cramps/tenesmus. CONCLUSION: Different volume effects were found for various late GI complications. Therefore, to evaluate the risk of late GI toxicity, not only intermediate and high doses to the anorectal wall volume should be taken into account, but also the dose to the anal wall.

Volume and hormonal effects for acute side effects of rectum and bladder during conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To identify dosimetric variables predictive of acute gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity and to determine whether hormonal therapy (HT) is independently associated with acute GI and GU toxicity in prostate cancer patients treated with conformal radiotherapy (RT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: This analysis was performed on 336 patients participating in a multicenter (four hospitals) randomized trial comparing 68 Gy and 78 Gy. The clinical target volume consisted of the prostate with or without the seminal vesicles, depending on the risk of seminal vesicle involvement. The margin from the clinical target volume to the planning target volume was 1 cm. For these patients, the treatment plan for a total dose of 68 Gy was used, because nearly all toxicity appeared before the onset of the 10-Gy boost. Acute toxicity (<120 days) was scored according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group criteria. The dosimetric parameters were obtained from the relative and absolute dose-volume/surface histograms derived from the rectal wall (rectal wall volume receiving > or =5-65 Gy) and the bladder surface (bladder surface receiving > or =5-65 Gy). Additionally, relative and absolute dose-length histograms of the rectum were created, and the lengths of rectum receiving more than a certain dose over the whole circumference (rectal length receiving > or =5-65 Gy) were computed. The clinical variables taken into account for GI toxicity were neoadjuvant HT, hospital, and dose-volume group; for GU toxicity, the variables pretreatment GU symptoms, neoadjuvant HT, and transurethral resection of the prostate were analyzed. The variable neoadjuvant HT was divided into three categories: no HT, short-term neoadjuvant HT (started < or =3 months before RT), and long-term neoadjuvant HT (started >3 months before RT). RESULTS: Acute GI toxicity Grade 2 or worse was seen in 46% of the patients. Patients with long-term neoadjuvant HT experienced less Grade 2 or worse toxicity (27%) compared with those receiving short-term neoadjuvant HT (50%) and no HT (50%). The volumes of the prostate and seminal vesicles were significantly smaller in both groups receiving neoadjuvant HT compared with those receiving no HT. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, including the two statistically significant clinical variables neoadjuvant HT and hospital, a volume effect was found for the relative, as well as absolute, rectal wall volumes exposed to intermediate and high doses. Of all the length parameters, the relative rectal length irradiated to doses of > or =5 Gy and > or =30 Gy and absolute lengths receiving > or =5-15 and 30 Gy were significant. Acute GU toxicity Grade 2 or worse was reported in 56% of cases. For patients with pretreatment GU symptoms, the rate was 93%. The use of short-term and long-term neoadjuvant HT resulted in more GU toxicity (73% and 71%) compared with no HT (50%). In multivariate analysis, containing the variables pretreatment symptoms and neoadjuvant HT, only the absolute dose-surface histogram parameters (absolute surface irradiated to > or =40, 45, and 65 Gy) were significantly associated with acute GU toxicity. CONCLUSION: A volume effect was found for acute GI toxicity for relative, as well as absolute, volumes. With regard to acute GU toxicity, an area effect was found, but only for absolute dose-surface histogram parameters. Neoadjuvant HT appeared to be an independent prognostic factor for acute toxicity, resulting in less acute GI toxicity, but more acute GU toxicity. The presence of pretreatment GU symptoms was the most important prognostic factor for GU symptoms during RT.

Acute and late complications after radiotherapy for prostate cancer: results of a multicenter randomized trial comparing 68 Gy to 78 Gy.

PURPOSE: To compare acute and late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) side effects in prostate cancer patients randomized to receive 68 Gy or 78 Gy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between June 1997 and February 2003, 669 prostate cancer patients were randomized between radiotherapy with a dose of 68 Gy and 78 Gy, in 2 Gy per fraction and using three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy. All T stages with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) <60 ng/mL were included, except any T1a and well-differentiated T1b-c tumors with PSA < or =4 ng/mL. Stratification was done for four dose-volume groups (according to the risk of seminal vesicles [SV] involvement), age, hormonal treatment (HT), and hospital. The clinical target volume (CTV) consisted of the prostate with or without the SV, depending on the estimated risk of SV invasion. The CTV-planning target volume (PTV) margin was 1 cm for the first 68 Gy and was reduced to 0.5 cm (0 cm toward the rectum) for the last 10 Gy in the 78 Gy arm. Four Dutch hospitals participated in this Phase III trial. Evaluation of acute and late toxicity was based on 658 and 643 patients, respectively. For acute toxicity (<120 days), the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) scoring system was used and the maximum score was reported. Late toxicity (>120 days) was scored according to the slightly adapted RTOG/European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) criteria. RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 31 months. For acute toxicity no significant differences were seen between the two randomization arms. GI toxicity Grade 2 and 3 was reported as the maximum acute toxicity in 44% and 5% of the patients, respectively. For acute GU toxicity, these figures were 41% and 13%. No significant differences between both randomization arms were seen for late GI and GU toxicity, except for rectal bleeding requiring laser treatment or transfusion (p = 0.007) and nocturia (p = 0.05). The 3-year cumulative risk of late RTOG/EORTC GI toxicity grade > or =2 was 23.2% for 68 Gy, and 26.5% for 78 Gy (p = 0.3). The 3-year risks of late RTOG/EORTC GU toxicity grade > or =2 were 28.5% and 30.2% for 68 Gy and 78 Gy, respectively (p = 0.3). Factors related to acute GI toxicity were HT (p < 0.001), a higher dose-volume group (p = 0.01), and pretreatment GI symptoms (p = 0.04). For acute GU toxicity, prognostic factors were: pretreatment GU symptoms (p < 0.001), HT (p = 0.003), and prior transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) (p = 0.02). A history of abdominal surgery (p < 0.001) and pretreatment GI symptoms (p = 0.001) were associated with a higher incidence of late GI grade > or =2 toxicity, whereas HT (p < 0.001), pretreatment GU symptoms (p < 0.001), and prior TURP (p = 0.006) were prognostic factors for late GU grade > or =2. CONCLUSIONS: Raising the dose to the prostate from 68 Gy to 78 Gy resulted in higher incidences of acute and late GI and GU toxicity, but these differences were not significant, except for late rectal bleeding requiring treatment and late nocturia. Other factors than the studied dose levels appeared to be important in predicting toxicity after radiotherapy, especially previous surgical interventions (abdominal surgery or TURP), hormonal therapy, and the presence of pretreatment symptoms.