Patient Reported Outcomes After Radiation Therapy for Bone Metastases as a Function of Age: A Secondary Analysis of the NCIC CTG SC-Twenty-Three Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: To explore the age difference in response and patient-reported outcomes in patients with cancer having bone metastases undergoing palliative radiotherapy. METHODS: Patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality-of-Life (QOL) Bone Metastases module (QLQ-BM22), EORTC QOL Core-15-Palliative (QLQ-C15-PAL), and Dexamethasone Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) before a single 8-Gy radiation treatment, on days 10 and 42 after treatment. Patient demographics, performance status, analgesic consumption, BM22, C15, and DSQ were compared with multivariant analysis between patients under 75 years and 75 years and older. Multiple linear regression models were used to assess the differences between age-groups, adjusting for baseline demographics and primary disease sites. RESULTS: There were 298 patients (170 male) with 209 (70%) less than 75 years of age. Most common primary cancer sites include lung, prostate, and breast. At baseline, younger patients had better performance status, consumed more analgesic, and reported worse scores in nausea, insomnia, and functional interference, while older patients more commonly had prostate cancer. There were no significant differences in the incidence of radiation-induced pain flare; response to radiation; changes from baseline for BM22, C15-PAL; and DSQ, nor overall survival at day 42 between the 2 groups. Responders to radiation in the elderly group reported better improvement in physical and emotional domains when compared with nonresponders. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with cancer having bone metastases undergoing palliative radiotherapy, there was no significant difference in general with age in response to radiation and patient-reported outcomes. Palliative radiotherapy should be offered to elderly patients when needed.

Gender differences in pain and patient reported outcomes: a secondary analysis of the NCIC CTG SC. 23 randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Gender differences may contribute to variations in disease presentations and health outcomes. To explore the gender difference in pain and patient reported outcomes in cancer patients with bone metastases undergoing palliative radiotherapy on the National Cancer Institute of Canada (NCIC) SC.23 randomized trial. METHODS: Patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life (QOL) bone metastases module (QLQ-BM22) and EORTC QOL Core-15-Palliative (QLQ-C15-PAL) before treatment and at days 10 and 42 after a single 8 Gy radiation treatment. Patient demographics, performance status, analgesic consumption, BM22 and C15 were compared between males and females using the 2-sample t-test for continuous variables or the Chi-squared test for categorical variables. Multiple linear regression models were used to check the difference between gender groups adjusting for the baseline demographics and primary disease sites. RESULTS: There were 298 patients (170 male, 128 female) with median age of 69 years. The most common primary cancer sites were lung, prostate and breast. At baseline, there were no differences in BM22 and C15 scores, except a worse nausea and vomiting score (P=0.03) in females on the C15. In patients with moderate baseline worst pain scores (WPS), females reported worse scores in painful sites of BM22. At day 42, there was no significant difference in response to radiotherapy. Among the responders, females reported better improvement in emotional aspect. CONCLUSIONS: In cancer patients with bone metastases undergoing palliative radiotherapy, the majority of symptom presentations, patient reported outcomes, and response to radiation was not significantly different between genders. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01248585.

Effect of Radiotherapy on Painful Bone Metastases: A Secondary Analysis of the NCIC Clinical Trials Group Symptom Control Trial SC.23.

IMPORTANCE: Many studies that found improved quality of life (QOL) after radiotherapy of bone metastases have small sample sizes and do not use specific questionnaires. How soon after radiotherapy one can expect an improvement in QOL is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To investigate QOL at days 10 and 42 after radiotherapy with a bone metastases-specific QOL tool. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this secondary analysis of the NCIC Clinical Trials Group Symptom Control Trial SC.23, a double-blind randomized clinical trial that investigated dexamethasone for the prophylaxis of pain flare after radiotherapy, patients were accrued from 23 Canadian centers from May 30, 2011, to December 11, 2014, and were followed up for 42 days after treatment. Participants referred for radiotherapy for bone metastases were required to have a pain score at the site(s) of treatment of at least 2 (range, 0-10). INTERVENTIONS: Patients were treated with a single 8-Gy radiotherapy dose for 1 or 2 bone metastases. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Patients reported their worst pain score and analgesic intake at baseline and days 10 and 42 after treatment. Pain response was assessed with International Bone Metastases Consensus Endpoint Definitions. Self-reported QOL was completed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Bone Metastases Module (QLQ-BM22) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core 15 Palliative (QLQ-C15-PAL) at the same time points. RESULTS: A total of 298 patients were accrued (median age, 68.8 [range, 32-94] years at day 10 and 68.0 [range, 34-90] years at day 42). A total of 122 patients (40.9%) responded to radiotherapy at day 10 and 116 patients (38.9%) at day 42. At day 10, compared with nonresponders, patients with a pain response had a greater reduction in pain (mean reduction, 17.0 vs 1.8; P = .002) and pain characteristics (mean reduction, 12.8 vs 1.1; P = .002), as well as greater improvements in functional interference (mean increase, 11.6 vs 3.6; P = .01) and psychosocial aspects (mean increase, 1.2 points in responders vs mean decrease of 2.2 points in nonresponders, P = .04). Comparing changes in QOL from baseline to day 42, responders had significantly greater improvements in the physical (mean increase, 6.2 vs -9.0; P < .001), emotional (mean increase, 12.3 vs -5.5; P < .001), and global domains (mean increase, 10.3 vs -4.5; P < .001) of the QLQ-C15-PAL compared with nonresponders. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Forty percent of patients experienced pain reduction and better QOL at day 10 after radiotherapy with further improvements in QOL at day 42 in responders. A single 8-Gy radiotherapy dose for bone metastases should be offered to all patients, even those with poor survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01248585.

Veliparib in combination with whole-brain radiation therapy for patients with brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer: results of a randomized, global, placebo-controlled study.

Veliparib is a potent, orally bioavailable, poly (adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor that crosses the blood-brain barrier and has been shown to potentiate the effects of radiation in preclinical and early clinical studies. This phase 2, randomized, global study evaluated the efficacy and safety of veliparib in combination with whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) in patients with brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Three-hundred and seven patients with brain metastases from NSCLC were randomized 1:1:1 to WBRT (30 Gy in 10 fractions) plus 50 mg veliparib twice daily (BID; n = 103), 200 mg veliparib BID (n = 102), or placebo BID (n = 102). Treatment began within 28 days of diagnosis. Tumor response and safety were assessed; the primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Patients who received ≥1 dose of treatment were included in the safety analysis. All randomized patients were included in the efficacy endpoint analyses. Patient characteristics were well balanced between treatment arms. Median OS was 185 days for patients treated with WBRT plus placebo and 209 days for WBRT plus veliparib (50 or 200 mg). No statistically significant differences in OS, intracranial response rate, and time to clinical or radiographic progression between any of the treatment arms were noted. No differences were observed in adverse events (all grades) across treatment arms; nausea, fatigue, alopecia, and headache were the most commonly reported. No new safety signals were identified for veliparib. A significant unmet need for therapies that improve the outcomes of patients with brain metastases from NSCLC remains.

Classification of painful bone metastases as mild, moderate, or severe using both EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL and EORTC QLQ-BM22.

PURPOSE: Previous studies have determined optimal cut points (CPs) for the classification of pain severity as mild, moderate, or severe using only the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) or the BPI in conjunction with a quality of life (QOL) tool. The purpose of our study was to determine the optimal CPs based on correlation with only QOL outcomes. METHODS: We conducted an analysis of 298 patients treated with radiation therapy for painful bone metastases on a phase III randomized trial. Prior to treatment, patients provided their worst pain score on a scale of 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain), as well as completed the European Organization of Cancer Research and Treatment (EORTC) QOL Questionnaire Bone Metastases module (QLQ-BM22) and the EORTC QOL Questionnaire Core-15 Palliative (QLQ-C15-PAL). Optimal CPs were determined to be those that yielded the largest F ratio for the between category effect on each subscale of the QLQ-BM22 and QLQ-C15-PAL using the multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). RESULTS: The two largest F ratios for Wilk's λ, Pillai's Trace, and Hotelling's Trace were for CPs 5,6 and 5,7. Combining both, the optimal CPs to differentiate between mild, moderate, and severe pain were 5 and 7. Pain scores of 1-5, 6, and 7-10 were classified as mild, moderate, and severe, respectively. Patients with severe pain experienced greater functional interference and poorer QOL when compared to those with mild pain. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that, based on the impact of pain on QOL measures, pain scores should be classified as follows: 1-5 as mild pain, 6 as moderate pain, and 7-10 as severe pain. Optimal CPs vary depending on the type of outcome measurement used.

Minimal clinically important differences in the EORTC QLQ-BM22 and EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL modules in patients with bone metastases undergoing palliative radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: Validated tools for evaluating quality of life (QOL) in patients with bone metastases include the EORTC QLQ-BM22 and QLQ-C15-PAL modules. A statistically significant difference in metric scores may not be clinically significant. To aid in their interpretation, we performed analyses to determine the minimal clinically important differences (MCID) for these QOL instruments. METHODS: Both anchor-based and distribution-based methods were used to determine the MCID among patients with bone metastases enrolled in a randomized phase III trial. For the anchor-based approach, overall QOL as measured by the QLQ-C15-PAL module was used as the anchor and only the subscales with moderate or better correlation were used for subsequent MCID analysis. In the anchor-based approach, patients were classified as improved, stable or deteriorated by the change in the overall QOL score from baseline to follow-up after 42 days. The MCID and confidence interval was then calculated for all subscales. In the distribution-based approach, the MCID was expressed as a proportion of the standard deviation and standard error measurement from the subscale score distribution. RESULTS: A total of 204 patients completed the questionnaires at baseline and follow-up. Only the dyspnea and insomnia subscales did not have at least moderate correlation with the overall QOL anchor. Using the anchor-based approach, 10/11 subscales had an MCID score significantly different than 0 for improvement and 3/11 subscales had a significant MCID score for deterioration. The magnitude of MCID scores was higher for improvement in comparison with deterioration. For improvement, the anchor-based approach showed good agreement with the distribution-based approach when using 0.5 SD as the MCID. However, there was greater lack of agreement between these approaches for deterioration. CONCLUSION: We present the MCID scores for the EORTC QLQ-BM22 and QLQ-C15-PAL QOL instruments. The results of this study can guide clinicians in the interpretation of these instruments. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY: NCT01248585.

A prospective study validating the EORTC QLQ-BM22 bone metastases module in patients with painful bone metastases undergoing palliative radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: Quality of life (QOL) can be compromised in patients with bone metastases, and validated QOL instruments are required to accurately measure QOL outcomes in this population. This study investigated the validity, reliability and responsiveness of the EORTC QLQ-BM22 module with the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL instrument in bone metastases. METHODS: The studied patients underwent palliative radiotherapy to bone metastases in the randomized NCIC CTG SC 23 trial. Multi-trait scaling analysis was performed to determine convergent and divergent validity among scales. Pearson coefficients were calculated to determine the correlation between items of the two instruments. The clinical validity and responsiveness of the QLQ-BM22 was tested by known group comparisons of different performance status and response to radiotherapy. RESULTS: 204 patients completed both questionnaires at baseline and 42day follow-up. On multi-trait scaling analysis, there was mixed evidence of construct validity (explained by the questionnaire format and population characteristics). There was little correlation between most QLQ-BM22 and QLQ-C15-PAL items (except for conceptually related scales) validating their complementary nature. There were statistically significant differences in all QLQ-BM22 scale scores in groups with KPS<80 vs. KPS⩾80 and three out of four QLQ-BM22 scale scores in "responders" vs. "non-responders" to radiotherapy. In patients who responded to radiotherapy, there were statistically significant differences in all QLQ-BM22 scale scores between baseline and follow-up. CONCLUSION: This study further validates the use of the QLQ-BM22 as a robust and sensitive instrument to assess QOL in patients with bone metastases treated with palliative radiotherapy.

Dexamethasone in the prophylaxis of radiation-induced pain flare after palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases: a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Pain flare occurs after palliative radiotherapy, and dexamethasone has shown potential for prevention of such flare. We aimed to compare the efficacy of dexamethasone with that of placebo in terms of reduction of incidence of pain flare. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, patients from 23 Canadian centres were randomly allocated (1:1) with a web-based system and minimisation algorithm to receive either two 4 mg dexamethasone tablets or two placebo tablets taken orally at least 1 h before the start of radiation treatment (a single 8 Gy dose to bone metastases; day 0) and then every day for 4 days after radiotherapy (days 1-4). Patients were eligible if they had a non-haematological malignancy and bone metastasis (or metastases) corresponding to the clinically painful area or areas. Patients reported their worst pain scores and opioid analgesic intake before treatment and daily for 10 days after radiation treatment. They completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality of life QLQ-C15-PAL, the bone metastases module (EORTC QLQ-BM22), and the Dexamethasone Symptom Questionnaire at baseline, and at days 10 and 42 after radiation treatment. Pain flare was defined as at least a two-point increase on a scale of 0-10 in the worst pain score with no decrease in analgesic intake, or a 25% or greater increase in analgesic intake with no decrease in the worst pain score from days 0-10, followed by a return to baseline levels or below. Primary analysis of incidence of pain flare was by intention-to-treat (patients with missing primary data were classified as having pain flare). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01248585, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between May 30, 2011, and Dec 11, 2014, 298 patients were enrolled. 39 (26%) of 148 patients randomly allocated to the dexamethasone group and 53 (35%) of 150 patients in the placebo group had a pain flare (difference 8·9%, lower 95% confidence bound 0·0, one-sided p=0·05). Two grade 3 and one grade 4 biochemical hyperglycaemic events occurred in the dexamethasone group (without known clinical effects) compared with none in the placebo group. The most common adverse events were bone pain (61 [41%] of 147 vs 68 [48%] of 143), fatigue (58 [39%] of 147 vs 49 [34%] of 143), constipation (47 [32%] of 147 vs 37 [26%] of 143), and nausea (34 [23%] of 147 vs 34 [24%] of 143), most of which were mild grade 1 or 2. INTERPRETATION: Dexamethasone reduces radiation-induced pain flare in the treatment of painful bone metastases. FUNDING: The NCIC CTG's programmatic grant from the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute.

Phase II study of accelerated hypofractionated three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for stage T1-3 N0 M0 non-small cell lung cancer: NCIC CTG BR.25.

BACKGROUND: A multi-institutional phase II trial was performed to assess a hypofractionated accelerated radiotherapy regimen for early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in an era when stereotactic body radiotherapy was not widely available. METHODS: Eighty patients with biopsy-proven, peripherally located, T1-3 N0 M0 NSCLC were enrolled. Eligible patients received 60 Gy in 15 fractions using a three-dimensional conformal technique without inhomogeneity correction. The gross tumour volume (GTV) was the primary tumor only, and the planning target volume (PTV) margin was 1.0 to 1.5cm. The primary endpoint was the 2-year primary tumor control rate. Toxicities were measured using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0. RESULTS: The median follow-up of patients was 49 months (range = 21-63 months). The median age of patients was 75.9 years. The actuarial rate of primary tumor control was 87.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 76.2% to 93.5%) at 2 years. Overall survival was 68.7% (95% CI = 57.2% to 77.6%) at 2 years. The actuarial rates of developing regional and distant relapse at 2 years were 8.8% (95% CI = 4.1% to 18.7%) and 21.6% (95% CI = 13.5% to 33.5%), respectively. Tumor size greater than 3cm was associated with an increased risk of developing distant relapse (hazard ratio = 3.11; 95% CI = 1.30 to 7.42; two-sided log-rank test P = .007). The most common grade 3+ toxicities were fatigue (6.3%), cough (7.5%), dyspnea (13.8%), and pneumonitis (10.0%) CONCLUSIONS: Conformal radiotherapy to a dose of 60 Gy in 15 fractions resulted in favorable primary tumor control and overall survival rates in patients with T1-3 N0 M0 NSCLC. Severe toxicities were uncommon with this relatively simple treatment technique.

Safety and feasibility of motexafin gadolinium administration with whole brain radiation therapy and stereotactic radiosurgery boost in the treatment of ≤ 6 brain metastases: a multi-institutional phase II trial.

To determine the safety, tolerability, and report on secondary efficacy endpoints of motexafin gadolinium (MGd) in combination with whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for patients with ≤ 6 brain metastases. We conducted an international study of WBRT (37.5 Gy in 15 fractions) and SRS (15-21 Gy) with the addition of MGd (5 mg/kg preceding each fraction beginning week 2). The primary endpoint was to evaluate the rate of irreversible grade 3 or any grade ≥ 4 neurotoxicity and establish feasibility in preparation for a phase III trial. Sixty-five patients were enrolled from 14 institutions, of which 45 (69%) received SRS with MGd as intended and were available for evaluation. Grade ≥ 3 neurotoxicity attributable to radiation therapy within 3 months of SRS was seen in 2 patients (4.4%), including generalized weakness and radionecrosis requiring surgical management. Immediately following the course of MGd plus WBRT, new brain metastases were detected in 11 patients (24.4%) at the time of the SRS treatment planning MRI. The actuarial incidence of neurologic progression at 6 months and 1 year was 17 and 20%, respectively. The median investigator-determined neurologic progression free survival and overall survival times were 8 (95% CI: 5-14) and 9 months (95% CI: 6-not reached), respectively. We observed a low rate of neurotoxicity, demonstrating that the addition of MGd does not increase the incidence or severity of neurologic complications from WBRT with SRS boost.

Motexafin gadolinium combined with prompt whole brain radiotherapy prolongs time to neurologic progression in non-small-cell lung cancer patients with brain metastases: results of a phase III trial.

PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy of motexafin gadolinium (MGd) in combination with whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) for the treatment of brain metastases from non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In an international, randomized, Phase III study, patients with brain metastases from non-small-cell lung cancer were randomized to WBRT with or without MGd. The primary endpoint was the interval to neurologic progression, determined by a centralized Events Review Committee who was unaware of the treatment the patients had received. RESULTS: Of 554 patients, 275 were randomized to WBRT and 279 to WBRT+MGd. Treatment with MGd was well tolerated, and 92% of the intended doses were administered. The most common MGd-related Grade 3+ adverse events included liver function abnormalities (5.5%), asthenia (4.0%), and hypertension (4%). MGd improved the interval to neurologic progression compared with WBRT alone (15 vs. 10 months; p = 0.12, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.78) and the interval to neurocognitive progression (p = 0.057, HR = 0.78). The WBRT patients required more salvage brain surgery or radiosurgery than did the WBRT+MGd patients (54 vs. 25 salvage procedures, p < 0.001). A statistically significant interaction between the geographic region and MGd treatment effect (which was in the prespecified analysis plan) and between treatment delay and MGd treatment effect was found. In North American patients, where treatment was more prompt, a statistically significant prolongation of the interval to neurologic progression, from 8.8 months for WBRT to 24.2 months for WBRT+MGd (p = 0.004, HR = 0.53), and the interval to neurocognitive progression (p = 0.06, HR = 0.73) were observed. CONCLUSION: In the intent-to-treat analysis, MGd exhibited a favorable trend in neurologic outcomes. MGd significantly prolonged the interval to neurologic progression in non-small-cell lung cancer patients with brain metastases receiving prompt WBRT. The toxicity was acceptable.

5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist with or without short-course dexamethasone in the prophylaxis of radiation induced emesis: a placebo-controlled randomized trial of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group (SC19).

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic dexamethasone for the control of radiation induced emesis (RIE) when added to ondansetron during days 1 to 5 of fractionated radiotherapy. The study had two hypotheses: ondansetron and dexamethasone could provide superior control of RIE over ondansetron alone during the prophylactic period and; the combination could provide sustained control of RIE during subsequent fractions of radiotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between May 2001 to Jan 2004, 211 patients receiving radiotherapy (> or = 15 fractions) to the upper abdomen were randomly assigned to receive ondansetron 8 mg bid with either dexamethasone 4 mg daily or placebo during fractions 1 to 5. Rescue antiemetics were provided. RESULTS: During the prophylactic period there was a trend for improved complete control of nausea in the dexamethasone arm (50% v 38%; P = .06) while complete and partial control of emesis, average nausea score, and use of rescue medications were similar in the two groups. During the overall study period patients receiving dexamethasone had better complete control of emesis (23% v 12%; P = .02) and a lower average nausea score (0.28 v 0.39; P = .03); there was a trend towards less use of rescue medications with dexamethasone (70% v 80%; P = .09); other outcomes were similar on the two arms. Quality of life analysis showed a significant difference in appetite. CONCLUSION: The addition of dexamethasone to ondansetron as prophylaxis provides a modest improvement in protection against RIE during moderately emetogenic fractionated radiotherapy. It is a potentially useful addition to 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists in this setting.

Late radiation morbidity following randomization to preoperative versus postoperative radiotherapy in extremity soft tissue sarcoma.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This study compared late radiation morbidity in patients with extremity soft tissue sarcoma randomized to treatment by pre- (50 Gy) or postoperative (66 Gy) radiotherapy in combination with surgery. The morbidities evaluated included fibrosis, joint stiffness and edema at 2 years following treatment. The impact of morbidity on patient function as measured by the Musculoskeletal Tumor Rating Scale (MSTS) and the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS) was also evaluated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 129 patients were evaluated. Toxicity rates were compared by treatment arm using the Fisher's exact test. Function scores by toxicity were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate the joint effect of treatment arm, field size, and dose on subcutaneous tissue fibrosis, joint stiffness and edema. RESULTS: 27 of 56 patients (48.2%) in the postoperative arm compared to 23 of 73 (31.5%) in the preoperative arm had grade 2 or greater fibrosis (P = 0.07). Although not statistically significant, edema was more frequent in the postoperative arm, 13 of 56 (23.2%) versus 11 of 73 (15.5%) in the preoperative arm, as was joint stiffness, 13 of 56 (23.2%) versus 13 of 73 (17.8%). Patients with significant fibrosis, joint stiffness or edema had significantly lower function scores on both measures (all P-values < 0.01). Field size was predictive of greater rates of fibrosis (P = 0.002) and joint stiffness (P = 0.006) and marginally predictive of edema (P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with postoperative radiotherapy tended to have greater fibrosis. Fibrosis, joint stiffness and edema adversely affect patient function.

Preoperative versus postoperative radiotherapy in soft-tissue sarcoma of the limbs: a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: External-beam radiotherapy (delivered either preoperatively or postoperatively) is frequently used in local management of sarcomas in the soft tissue of limbs, but the two approaches differ substantially in their potential toxic effects. We aimed to determine whether the timing of external-beam radiotherapy affected the number of wound healing complications in soft-tissue sarcoma in the limbs of adults. METHODS: After stratification by tumour size (< or = 10 cm or >10 cm), we randomly allocated 94 patients to preoperative radiotherapy (50 Gy in 25 fractions) and 96 to postoperative radiotherapy (66 Gy in 33 fractions). The primary endpoint was rate of wound complications within 120 days of surgery. Analyses were per protocol for primary outcomes and by intention to treat for secondary outcomes. FINDINGS: Median follow-up was 3.3 years (range 0.27-5.6). Four patients, all in the preoperative group, did not undergo protocol surgery and were not evaluable for the primary outcome. Of those patients who were eligible and evaluable, wound complications were recorded in 31 (35%) of 88 in the preoperative group and 16 (17%) of 94 in the postoperative group (difference 18% [95% CI 5-30], p=0.01). Tumour size and anatomical site were also significant risk factors in multivariate analysis. Overall survival was slightly better in patients who had preoperative radiotherapy than in those who had postoperative treatment (p=0.0481). INTERPRETATION: Because preoperative radiotherapy is associated with a greater risk of wound complications than postoperative radiotherapy, the choice of regimen for patients with soft-tissue sarcoma should take into account the timing of surgery and radiotherapy, and the size and anatomical site of the tumour.