Brachytherapy quality assurance in the PORTEC-4a trial for molecular-integrated risk profile guided adjuvant treatment of endometrial cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The PORTEC-4a trial investigates molecular-integrated risk profile guided adjuvant treatment for endometrial cancer. The quality assurance programme included a dummy run for vaginal brachytherapy prior to site activation, and annual quality assurance to verify protocol adherence. Aims of this study were to evaluate vaginal brachytherapy quality and protocol adherence. METHODS: For the dummy run, institutes were invited to create a brachytherapy plan on a provided CT-scan with the applicator in situ. For annual quality assurance, institutes provided data of one randomly selected brachytherapy case. A brachytherapy panel reviewed and scored the brachytherapy plans according to a checklist. RESULTS: At the dummy run, 15 out of 21 (71.4%) institutes needed adjustments of delineation or planning. After adjustments, the mean dose at the vaginal apex (protocol: 100%; 7 Gy) decreased from 100.7% to 99.9% and range and standard deviation (SD) narrowed from 83.6-135.1 to 96.4-101.4 and 8.8 to 1.1, respectively. At annual quality assurance, 22 out of 27 (81.5%) cases had no or minor and 5 out of 27 (18.5%) major deviations. Most deviations were related to delineation, mean dose at the vaginal apex (98.0%, 74.7-114.2, SD 7.6) or reference volume length. CONCLUSIONS: Most feedback during the brachytherapy quality assurance procedure of the PORTEC-4a trial was related to delineation, dose at the vaginal apex and the reference volume length. Annual quality assurance is essential to promote protocol compliance, ensuring high quality vaginal brachytherapy in all participating institutes.

Ten-year results of the PORTEC-2 trial for high-intermediate risk endometrial carcinoma: improving patient selection for adjuvant therapy.

BACKGROUND: PORTEC-2 was a randomised trial for women with high-intermediate risk (HIR) endometrial cancer, comparing pelvic external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with vaginal brachytherapy (VBT). We evaluated long-term outcomes combined with the results of pathology review and molecular analysis. METHODS: 427 women with HIR endometrial cancer were randomised between 2002-2006 to VBT or EBRT. Primary endpoint was vaginal recurrence (VR). Pathology review was done in 97.4%, combined with molecular analysis. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 116 months; 10-year VR was 3.4% versus 2.4% for VBT vs. EBRT (p = 0.55). Ten-year pelvic recurrence (PR) was more frequent in the VBT group (6.3% vs. 0.9%, p = 0.004), mostly combined with distant metastases (DM). Ten-year isolated PR was 2.5% vs. 0.5%, p = 0.10, and DM 10.4 vs. 8.9% (p = 0.45). Overall survival for VBT vs. EBRT was 69.5% vs. 67.6% at 10 years (p = 0.72). L1CAM and p53-mutant expression and substantial lymph-vascular space invasion were risk factors for PR and DM. EBRT reduced PR in cases with these risk factors. CONCLUSION: Long-term results of the PORTEC-2 trial confirm VBT as standard adjuvant treatment for HIR endometrial cancer. Molecular risk assessment has the potential to guide adjuvant therapy. EBRT provided better pelvic control in patients with unfavourable risk factors.

Molecular-integrated risk profile to determine adjuvant radiotherapy in endometrial cancer: Evaluation of the pilot phase of the PORTEC-4a trial.

OBJECTIVE: The Post-Operative Radiation Therapy in Endometrial Carcinoma (PORTEC)-4a trial is a randomized trial for women with high-intermediate risk endometrial cancer (EC), comparing individualized adjuvant treatment based on a molecular-integrated risk profile to standard adjuvant treatment; vaginal brachytherapy. To evaluate patient acceptability and pathology logistics of determining the risk profile, a pilot phase was included in the study. METHODS: PORTEC-4a is ongoing and the first 50 patients enrolled were included in the pilot phase. Primary endpoints of the pilot phase were patient acceptance, evaluated by analyzing the screening logs of the participating centers, and logistical feasibility of determination of the risk profile within 2 weeks, evaluated by analyzing the pathology database. RESULTS: In the first year, 145 eligible women were informed about the trial at 13 centers, of whom 50 (35%) provided informed consent. Patient accrual ranged from 0 to 57% per center. Most common reasons for not participating were: not willing to participate in any trial (43.2%) and not willing to risk receiving no adjuvant treatment (32.6%). Analysis of the pathology database showed an average time between randomization and determination of the molecular-integrated risk profile of 10.2 days (1-23 days). In 5 of the 32 patients (15.6%), pathology review took >2 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: The PORTEC-4a trial design was proven feasible with a satisfactory patient acceptance rate and an optimized workflow of the determination of the molecular-integrated risk profile. PORTEC-4a is the first randomized trial to investigate use of a molecular-integrated risk profile to determine adjuvant treatment in EC.

Clinical consequences of upfront pathology review in the randomised PORTEC-3 trial for high-risk endometrial cancer.

Background: In the PORTEC-3 trial, women with high-risk endometrial cancer (HR-EC) were randomised to receive pelvic radiotherapy (RT) with or without concurrent and adjuvant chemotherapy (two cycles of cisplatin 50 mg/m2 in weeks 1 and 4 of RT, followed by four cycles of carboplatin AUC5 and paclitaxel 175 mg/m2). Pathology review was required before patient enrolment. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the role of central pathology review before randomisation. Patients and methods: A total of 1295 cases underwent pathology review to confirm HR-EC in the Netherlands (n = 395) and the UK (n = 900), and for 1226/1295 (95%) matching review and original reports were available. In total, 329 of these patients were enrolled in the PORTEC-3 trial: 145 in the Netherlands and 184 in the UK, comprising 48% of the total PORTEC-3 cohort of 686 participants. Areas of discrepancies were evaluated, and inter-observer agreement between original and review opinion was evaluated by calculating the kappa value (κ). Results: In the 1226 pathology reviews, 6356 selected items were evaluable for both original and review pathology. In 43% of cases at least one pathology item changed after review. For 102 patients (8%), this discrepancy led to ineligibility for the PORTEC-3 trial, most frequently due to differences in the assessment of histological type (34%), endocervical stromal involvement (27%) and histological grade (19%). Lowest inter-observer agreement was found for histological type (κ = 0.72), lymph-vascular space invasion (κ = 0.72) and histological grade (κ = 0.70). Conclusion: Central pathology review by expert gynaeco-pathologists changed histological type, grade or other items in 43% of women with HR-EC, leading to ineligibility for the PORTEC-3 trial in 8%. Upfront pathology review is essential to ensure enrolment of the target trial-population, and to avoid over- or undertreatment, especially when treatment modalities with substantial toxicity are involved. This study is registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN14387080, www.controlled-trials.com) and with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00411138).