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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Validation of a radiobiological model for low-dose-rate prostate boost focal therapy treatment planning.

PURPOSE: Low-dose-rate brachytherapy using iodine-125 seeds is a highly efficacious treatment for low-risk prostate cancer. We propose a bioeffect model may be used to target an ablative dose to the tumor with a lower, therapeutic dose to low-risk regions to maintain high rates of tumor control with reduced toxicity. We report on the validation of the model and derivation of the optimal cutpoint value of tumor control probability (TCP) that predicts for freedom from biochemical failure. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The TCP was calculated from postimplant dosimetry data for 423 prostate cancer patients from three Australian institutions. To apply the model, the prostate was mathematically divided into 12 subsections with tumor characteristics, including a nonuniform distribution of tumor cell density, derived from the literature. RESULTS: When TCP values were above and below 0.62, the 5-year freedom from biochemical failure were 93.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 90.4, 96.4%) and 88.8% (95% confidence interval, 81.3, 94.5%), respectively (p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Using postimplant dosimetry data, the TCP model was able to predict for freedom from biochemical failure. The cutpoint value that would be used clinically depends on the selection of the model parameters, but the potential for the model to be used in the optimization of treatment planning is demonstrated.

Australasian brachytherapy audit: results of the 'end-to-end' dosimetry pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: We present the results of a pilot study to test the feasibility of a brachytherapy dosimetry audit. METHODS: The feasibility study was conducted at seven sites from four Australian states in both public and private centres. A purpose-built cylindrical water phantom was imaged using the local imaging protocol and a treatment plan was generated to deliver 1 Gy to the central (1 of 3) thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) from six dwell positions. RESULTS: All centres completed the audit, consisting of three consecutive irradiations, within a 2-h time period, with the exception of one centre that uses a pulsed dose rate brachytherapy unit. All TLD results were within 4.5% of the predicted value, with the exception of one subset where the dwell position step size was incorrectly applied. CONCLUSIONS: While the limited data collected in the study demonstrated considerable heterogeneity in clinical practice, the study proved a brachytherapy dosimetry audit to be feasible. Future studies should include verification of source strength using a Standard Dosimetry Laboratory calibrated chamber, a phantom that more closely mimics the clinical situation, a more comprehensive review of safety and quality assurance (QA) procedures including source dwell time and position accuracy, and a review of patient treatment QA procedures such as applicator position verification.

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

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

High-dose-rate brachytherapy as a monotherapy for favorable-risk prostate cancer: a Phase II trial.

PURPOSE: There are multiple treatment options for favorable-risk prostate cancer. High-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy as a monotherapy is appealing, but its use is still investigational. A Phase II trial was undertaken to explore the value of such treatment in low-to-intermediate risk prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This was a single-institution, prospective study. Eligible patients had low-risk prostate cancer features but also Gleason scores of 7 (51% of patients) and stage T2b to T2c cancer. Treatment with HDR brachytherapy with a single implant was administered over 2 days. One of four fractionation schedules was used in a dose escalation study design: 3 fractions of 10, 10.5, 11, or 11.5 Gy. Patients were assessed with the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 2.0 for urinary toxicity, the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer scoring schema for rectal toxicity, and the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) questionnaire to measure patient-reported health-related quality of life. Biochemical failure was defined as a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) nadir plus 2 ng/ml. RESULTS: Between 2003 and 2008, 79 patients were enrolled. With a median follow-up of 39.5 months, biochemical relapse occurred in 7 patients. Three- and 5-year actuarial biochemical control rates were 88.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 78.0-96.2%) and 85.1% (95% CI, 72.5-94.5%), respectively. Acute grade 3 urinary toxicity was seen in only 1 patient. There was no instance of acute grade 3 rectal toxicity. Rates of late grade 3 rectal toxicity, dysuria, hematuria, urinary retention, and urinary incontinence were 0%, 10.3%, 1.3%, 9.0%, and 0%, respectively. No grade 4 or greater toxicity was recorded. Among the four (urinary, bowel, sexual, and hormonal) domains assessed with the EPIC questionnaire, only the sexual domain did not recover with time. CONCLUSIONS: HDR brachytherapy as a monotherapy for favorable-risk prostate cancer, administered using a single implant over 2 days, is feasible and has acceptable acute and late toxicities. Further follow-up is still required to better evaluate the efficacy of such treatment.

Benchmarking dosimetric quality assessment of prostate intensity-modulated radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: To benchmark the dosimetric quality assessment of prostate intensity-modulated radiotherapy and determine whether the quality is influenced by disease or treatment factors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the data from 155 consecutive men treated radically for prostate cancer using intensity-modulated radiotherapy to 78 Gy between January 2007 and March 2009 across six radiotherapy treatment centers. The plan quality was determined by the measures of coverage, homogeneity, and conformity. Tumor coverage was measured using the planning target volume (PTV) receiving 95% and 100% of the prescribed dose (V(95%) and V(100%), respectively) and the clinical target volume (CTV) receiving 95% and 100% of the prescribed dose. Homogeneity was measured using the sigma index of the PTV and CTV. Conformity was measured using the lesion coverage factor, healthy tissue conformity index, and the conformity number. Multivariate regression models were created to determine the relationship between these and T stage, risk status, androgen deprivation therapy use, treatment center, planning system, and treatment date. RESULTS: The largest discriminatory measurements of coverage, homogeneity, and conformity were the PTV V(95%), PTV sigma index, and conformity number. The mean PTV V(95%) was 92.5% (95% confidence interval, 91.3-93.7%). The mean PTV sigma index was 2.10 Gy (95% confidence interval, 1.90-2.20). The mean conformity number was 0.78 (95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.79). The treatment center independently influenced the coverage, homogeneity, and conformity (all p < .0001). The planning system independently influenced homogeneity (p = .038) and conformity (p = .021). The treatment date independently influenced the PTV V(95%) only, with it being better at the start (p = .013). Risk status, T stage, and the use of androgen deprivation therapy did not influence any aspect of plan quality. CONCLUSION: Our study has benchmarked measures of coverage, homogeneity, and conformity for the treatment of prostate cancer using IMRT. The differences seen between centers and planning systems and the coverage deterioration over time highlight the need for every center to determine their own benchmarks and apply clinical vigilance with respect to maintaining these through quality assurance.