PROstate Multicentre External beam radioTHErapy Using a Stereotactic boost: the PROMETHEUS study protocol.

BACKGROUND: High Dose Rate Brachytherapy (HDRB) boost is a well-established treatment for prostate cancer (PC). We describe the PROstate Multicentre External beam radioTHErapy Using Stereotactic boost (PROMETHEUS) study. Non-surgical stereotactic techniques are used to deliver similar doses to HDRB boost regimens with a dose escalation sub-study. METHODS: Eligible patients have intermediate or high risk PC. PROMETHEUS explores the safety, efficacy and feasibility of multiple Australian centres cooperating in the delivery of Prostate Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) technology. A SBRT boost component Target Dose (TD) of 19Gy in two fractions is to be delivered, followed by a subsequent EBRT component of 46Gy in 23 fractions. Once accrual triggers have been met, SBRT doses can be escalated in 1 Gy increments to a maximum of 22Gy in two fractions. Patient safety will also be measured with the rate of both acute and late moderate to severe Gastro-Intestinal (GI) and Genito-Urinary (GU) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) toxicities as well as patient reported quality of life. Efficacy will be assessed via biochemical control after 3 years. DISCUSSION: PROMETHEUS aims to generate evidence for a non-surgical possible future alternative to HDRB boost regimens, and introduce advanced radiotherapy techniques across multiple Australian cancer centres. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was retrospectively registered on the ANZCTR (Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry) with trial ID: ACTRN12615000223538 .

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.