Refining critical structure contouring in STereotactic Arrhythmia Radioablation (STAR): Benchmark results and consensus guidelines from the STOPSTORM.eu consortium.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In patients with recurrent ventricular tachycardia (VT), STereotactic Arrhythmia Radioablation (STAR) shows promising results. The STOPSTORM.eu consortium was established to investigate and harmonise STAR treatment in Europe. The primary goals of this benchmark study were to standardise contouring of organs at risk (OAR) for STAR, including detailed substructures of the heart, and accredit each participating centre. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Centres within the STOPSTORM.eu consortium were asked to delineate 31 OAR in three STAR cases. Delineation was reviewed by the consortium expert panel and after a dedicated workshop feedback and accreditation was provided to all participants. Further quantitative analysis was performed by calculating DICE similarity coefficients (DSC), median distance to agreement (MDA), and 95th percentile distance to agreement (HD95). RESULTS: Twenty centres participated in this study. Based on DSC, MDA and HD95, the delineations of well-known OAR in radiotherapy were similar, such as lungs (median DSC = 0.96, median MDA = 0.1 mm and median HD95 = 1.1 mm) and aorta (median DSC = 0.90, median MDA = 0.1 mm and median HD95 = 1.5 mm). Some centres did not include the gastro-oesophageal junction, leading to differences in stomach and oesophagus delineations. For cardiac substructures, such as chambers (median DSC = 0.83, median MDA = 0.2 mm and median HD95 = 0.5 mm), valves (median DSC = 0.16, median MDA = 4.6 mm and median HD95 = 16.0 mm), coronary arteries (median DSC = 0.4, median MDA = 0.7 mm and median HD95 = 8.3 mm) and the sinoatrial and atrioventricular nodes (median DSC = 0.29, median MDA = 4.4 mm and median HD95 = 11.4 mm), deviations between centres occurred more frequently. After the dedicated workshop all centres were accredited and contouring consensus guidelines for STAR were established. CONCLUSION: This STOPSTORM multi-centre critical structure contouring benchmark study showed high agreement for standard radiotherapy OAR. However, for cardiac substructures larger disagreement in contouring occurred, which may have significant impact on STAR treatment planning and dosimetry evaluation. To standardize OAR contouring, consensus guidelines for critical structure contouring in STAR were established.

An economic evaluation of radiotherapy for patients with symptomatic Ledderhose disease.

BACKGROUND: Evidence for effectiveness of radiotherapy for Ledderhose disease was demonstrated in the LedRad-study. However, the health economic impact of Ledderhose disease is unclear. Therefore, an economic evaluation alongside the LedRad-study was planned. METHODS: The economic evaluation was performed as a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis from the societal perspective. Primary outcome parameters were pain burden and Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY), until 12 months after the end of treatment. Secondary analyses were performed with outcomes until 18 months. Incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) and cost-utility ratios (ICUR) were calculated to express costs per unit improvement in pain burden and costs per QALY gained, for radiotherapy compared to sham-radiotherapy. Bootstrap replication was used to assess uncertainty surrounding the ratios and to construct cost-effectiveness acceptability curves for QALY gain. RESULTS: Previous analysis showed a statistically significant improvement in pain- and QoL scores in favour of radiotherapy at 12 and 18 months. At these timepoints and excluding treatment costs, cumulative total costs were considerably lower in the radiotherapy group. The ICER until 12 months after treatment was 4987 euro per unit of pain burden reduction. The ICUR was 14249 euro per QALY gained. Most of the bootstrap replications were in the upper right quadrant, indicating that health gain can be achieved at higher costs. At increasing levels of willingness to pay for a gain in QALY, the probability of cost-utility gradually increased to approximately 85%. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with symptomatic Ledderhose disease, radiotherapy, at a moderate threshold for willingness to pay, is cost-effective in terms of QoL gain.

Clinical evaluation of a deep learning segmentation model including manual adjustments afterwards for locally advanced breast cancer.

Introduction: Deep learning (DL) models are increasingly developed for auto-segmentation in radiotherapy. Qualitative analysis is of great importance for clinical implementation, next to quantitative. This study evaluates a DL segmentation model for left- and right-sided locally advanced breast cancer both quantitatively and qualitatively. Methods: For each side a DL model was trained, including primary breast CTV (CTVp), lymph node levels 1-4, heart, lungs, humeral head, thyroid and esophagus. For evaluation, both automatic segmentation, including correction of contours when needed, and manual delineation was performed and both processes were timed. Quantitative scoring with dice-similarity coefficient (DSC), 95% Hausdorff Distance (95%HD) and surface DSC (sDSC) was used to compare both the automatic (not-corrected) and corrected contours with the manual contours. Qualitative scoring was performed by five radiotherapy technologists and five radiation oncologists using a 3-point Likert scale. Results: Time reduction was achieved using auto-segmentation in 95% of the cases, including correction. The time reduction (mean ± std) was 42.4% ± 26.5% and 58.5% ± 19.1% for OARs and CTVs, respectively, corresponding to an absolute mean reduction (hh:mm:ss) of 00:08:51 and 00:25:38. Good quantitative results were achieved before correction, e.g. mean DSC for the right-sided CTVp was 0.92 ± 0.06, whereas correction statistically significantly improved this contour by only 0.02 ± 0.05, respectively. In 92% of the cases, auto-contours were scored as clinically acceptable, with or without corrections. Conclusions: A DL segmentation model was trained and was shown to be a time-efficient way to generate clinically acceptable contours for locally advanced breast cancer.

Radiotherapy for Ledderhose disease: Results of the LedRad-study, a prospective multicentre randomised double-blind phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Radiotherapy is considered a treatment option for Ledderhose disease. However, its benefits have never been confirmed in a randomised controlled trial. Therefore, the LedRad-study was conducted. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The LedRad-study is a prospective multicentre randomised double-blind phase three trial. Patients were randomised to sham-radiotherapy (placebo) or radiotherapy. The primary endpoint was pain reduction at 12 months after treatment, measured with the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Secondary endpoints were pain reduction at 6 and 18 months after treatment, quality of life (QoL), walking abilities and toxicity. RESULTS: A total of 84 patients were enrolled. At 12 and 18 months, patients in the radiotherapy group had a lower mean pain score compared to patients in the sham-radiotherapy group (2.5 versus 3.6 (p = 0.03) and 2.1 versus 3.4 (p = 0.008), respectively). Pain relief at 12 months was 74% in the radiotherapy group and 56% in the sham-radiotherapy group (p = 0.002). Multilevel testing for QoL scores showed higher QoL scores in the radiotherapy group compared to the sham-radiotherapy group (p < 0.001). Moreover, patients in the radiotherapy group had a higher mean walking speed and step rate with barefoot speed walking (p = 0.02). Erythema, skin dryness, burning sensations and increased pain were the most frequently reported side effects. These side effects were generally graded as mild (95%) and the majority (87%) were resolved at 18 months follow-up. CONCLUSION: Radiotherapy for symptomatic Ledderhose disease is an effective treatment resulting in a significant pain reduction, improvement of QoL scores and bare feet walking abilities, in comparison to sham-radiotherapy.

Clinical evaluation of two AI models for automated breast cancer plan generation.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) shows great potential to streamline the treatment planning process. However, its clinical adoption is slow due to the limited number of clinical evaluation studies and because often, the translation of the predicted dose distribution to a deliverable plan is lacking. This study evaluates two different, deliverable AI plans in terms of their clinical acceptability based on quantitative parameters and qualitative evaluation by four radiation oncologists. METHODS: For 20 left-sided node-negative breast cancer patients, treated with a prescribed dose of 40.05 Gy, using tangential beam intensity modulated radiotherapy, two model-based treatment plans were evaluated against the corresponding manual plan. The two models used were an in-house developed U-net model and a vendor-developed contextual atlas regression forest model (cARF). Radiation oncologists evaluated the clinical acceptability of each blinded plan and ranked plans according to preference. Furthermore, a comparison with the manual plan was made based on dose volume histogram parameters, clinical evaluation criteria and preparation time. RESULTS: The U-net model resulted in a higher average and maximum dose to the PTV (median difference 0.37 Gy and 0.47 Gy respectively) and a slightly higher mean heart dose (MHD) (0.01 Gy). The cARF model led to higher average and maximum doses to the PTV (0.30 and 0.39 Gy respectively) and a slightly higher MHD (0.02 Gy) and mean lung dose (MLD, 0.04 Gy). The maximum MHD/MLD difference was ≤ 0.5 Gy for both AI plans. Regardless of these dose differences, 90-95% of the AI plans were considered clinically acceptable versus 90% of the manual plans. Preferences varied between the radiation oncologists. Plan preparation time was comparable between the U-net model and the manual plan (287 s vs 253 s) while the cARF model took longer (471 s). When only considering user interaction, plan generation time was 121 s for the cARF model and 137 s for the U-net model. CONCLUSIONS: Two AI models were used to generate deliverable plans for breast cancer patients, in a time-efficient manner, requiring minimal user interaction. Although the AI plans resulted in slightly higher doses overall, radiation oncologists considered 90-95% of the AI plans clinically acceptable.

Quality of life among patients with 4 to 10 brain metastases after treatment with whole-brain radiotherapy vs. stereotactic radiotherapy: a phase III, randomized, Dutch multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) is an attractive treatment option for patients with brain metastases (BM), sparing healthy brain tissue and likely controlling local tumors. Most previous studies have focused on radiological response or survival. Our randomized trial (NCT02353000) investigated whether quality of life (QoL) is better preserved using SRT than whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) for patients with multiple BM. Recently, we published our trial's primary endpoints. The current report discusses the study's secondary endpoints. METHODS: Patients with 4 to 10 BM were randomly assigned to a standard-arm WBRT (20 Gy in 5 fractions) or SRT group (1 fraction of 15-24 Gy or 3 fractions of 8 Gy). QoL endpoints-such as EQ5D domains post-treatment, the Barthel index, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaires, and the neurocognitive Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-were evaluated. RESULTS: Due to poor accrual resulting from patients' and referrers' preference for SRT, this study closed prematurely. The other endpoints' results were published recently. Twenty patients were available for analysis (n=10 vs. n=10 for the two groups, respectively). Significant differences were observed 3 months post-treatment for the mobility (P=0.041), self-care (P=0.028), and alopecia (P=0.014) EQ5D domains, favoring SRT. This self-care score also persisted compared to the baseline (P=0.025). Multiple EORTC categories reflected significant differences, favoring SRT-particularly physical functioning and social functioning. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with multiple BM, SRT alone led to persistently higher QoL than treatment with WBRT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02353000.

A Dutch phase III randomized multicenter trial: whole brain radiotherapy versus stereotactic radiotherapy for 4-10 brain metastases.

BACKGROUND: The clinical value of whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) for brain metastases (BM) is a matter of debate due to the significant side effects involved. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is an attractive alternative treatment option that may avoid these side effects and improve local tumor control. We initiated a randomized trial (NCT02353000) to investigate whether quality of life is better preserved after SRS compared with WBRT in patients with multiple brain metastases. METHODS: Patients with 4-10 BM were randomized between the standard arm WBRT (total dose 20 Gy in 5 fractions) or SRS (single fraction or 3 fractions). The primary endpoint was the difference in quality of life (QOL) at 3 months post-treatment. RESULTS: The study was prematurely closed due to poor accrual. A total of 29 patients (13%) were randomized, of which 15 patients have been treated with SRS and 14 patients with WBRT. The median number of lesions were 6 (range: 4-9) and the median total treatment volume was 13.0 cc3 (range: 1.8-25.9 cc3). QOL at 3 months decreased in the SRS group by 0.1 (SD = 0.2), compared to 0.2 (SD = 0.2) in the WBRT group (P = .23). The actuarial 1-year survival rates were 57% (SRS) and 31% (WBRT) (P = .52). The actuarial 1-year brain salvage-free survival rates were 50% (SRS) and 78% (WBRT) (P = .22). CONCLUSION: In patients with 4-10 BM, SRS alone resulted in 1-year survival for 57% of patients while maintaining quality of life. Due to the premature closure of the trial, no statistically significant differences could be determined.

Repeat breast-conserving treatment of ipsilateral breast cancer recurrence: a nationwide survey amongst breast surgeons and radiation oncologists in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: In line with the paradigm to minimize surgical morbidity in patients with primary breast cancer, there is increasing evidence for the safety of a repeat breast-conserving treatment (BCT) of an ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence (IBTR) in selected patients. The conditions for the feasibility of a repeat BCT vary widely in literature. In clinical practice, many physicians have ongoing concerns about the oncological safety and possible toxicity of repeat BCT. AIM: To investigate the attitude of Dutch breast surgeons and radiation oncologists towards repeat BCT and to report on their experiences with, objections against and perceived requirements to consider a repeat BCT in case of IBTR. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An online survey consisting of a maximum of 26 open and multiple-choice questions about repeat BCT for IBTR was distributed amongst Dutch breast surgeons and radiation oncologists. RESULTS: Forty-nine surgeons representing 49% of Dutch hospitals and 20 radiation oncologists representing 70% of Dutch radiation oncology centres responded. A repeat BCT was considered feasible in selected cases by 28.7% of breast surgeons and 55% of radiation oncologists. The most important factors to consider a repeat BCT for both groups were the patient's preference to preserve the breast and surgical feasibility of a second lumpectomy. Arguments against a repeat BCT were based on the perceived unacceptable toxicity and cosmesis of a second course of radiotherapy. The technique of preference for re-irradiation would be partial breast irradiation (PBI) according to all radiation oncologists. Differentiating between new primary tumours (NPT) and true recurrences (TR) was reported to be done by 57.1% of breast surgeons and 60% of radiation oncologists. The most important reason to differentiate between NPT and TR was to establish prognosis and to consider whether a repeat BCT would be feasible. CONCLUSION: An increasing number of Dutch breast cancer specialists is considering a repeat BCT feasible in selected cases, at the patient's preference and with partial breast re-irradiation.

High-precision Bladder Cancer Irradiation in the Elderly: Clinical Results for a Plan-of-the-day Integrated Boost Technique with Image Guidance Using Lipiodol Markers.

BACKGROUND: For most elderly patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), surgery is not an option because of patient frailty. Conventional radiotherapy, with its high-dose irradiation of surrounding healthy tissues, remains the only curative treatment for this patient population. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether targeted radiotherapy with Lipiodol demarcation and plan-of-the-day integrated boost technique (LPOD) is a viable curative treatment for elderly patients with MIBC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Between September 2008 and September 2016 all MIBC patients in our hospital were screened for eligibility. We included patients with localised, unifocal T2-T4N0M0 grade 2-3 MIBC. Patients with a tumour volume >50% of the bladder wall surface, previous pelvic radiotherapy, and unilateral or bilateral hip prostheses were excluded. INTERVENTION: Targeted radiotherapy using LPOD. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Overall survival, urothelial cell cancer-specific survival (UCCSS), disease recurrence, and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) toxicity were measured. Statistical analyses included independent-sample t tests, χ2 tests, and Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 44 patients (median age 80 yr) were included. Over median follow-up of 38 mo, one patient ceased treatment and 23 patients died. LPOD resulted in a 11.4% chance of local recurrence, high 3-yr UCCSS of 77%, RTOG grade >3 toxicity of 2.3-12.9%, and 3-yr overall survival of 49%. CONCLUSIONS: LPOD is a feasible first-line treatment option for older patients with limited-volume T2-T4N0M0 grade 2-3 MIBC. PATIENT SUMMARY: We looked at outcomes after targeted radiotherapy in elderly patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. We found that this treatment results in a low chance of disease recurrence with few toxicity complaints. We conclude that this treatment is a viable first-line treatment option for elderly patients.

Individualized early death and long-term survival prediction after stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastases of non-small cell lung cancer: Two externally validated nomograms.

INTRODUCTION: Commonly used clinical models for survival prediction after stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for brain metastases (BMs) are limited by the lack of individual risk scores and disproportionate prognostic groups. In this study, two nomograms were developed to overcome these limitations. METHODS: 495 patients with BMs of NSCLC treated with SRS for a limited number of BMs in four Dutch radiation oncology centers were identified and divided in a training cohort (n=214, patients treated in one hospital) and an external validation cohort n=281, patients treated in three other hospitals). Using the training cohort, nomograms were developed for prediction of early death (<3months) and long-term survival (>12months) with prognostic factors for survival. Accuracy of prediction was defined as the area under the curve (AUC) by receiver operating characteristics analysis for prediction of early death and long term survival. The accuracy of the nomograms was also tested in the external validation cohort. RESULTS: Prognostic factors for survival were: WHO performance status, presence of extracranial metastases, age, GTV largest BM, and gender. Number of brain metastases and primary tumor control were not prognostic factors for survival. In the external validation cohort, the nomogram predicted early death statistically significantly better (p<0.05) than the unfavorable groups of the RPA, DS-GPA, GGS, SIR, and Rades 2015 (AUC=0.70 versus range AUCs=0.51-0.60 respectively). With an AUC of 0.67, the other nomogram predicted 1year survival statistically significantly better (p<0.05) than the favorable groups of four models (range AUCs=0.57-0.61), except for the SIR (AUC=0.64, p=0.34). The models are available on www.predictcancer.org. CONCLUSION: The nomograms predicted early death and long-term survival more accurately than commonly used prognostic scores after SRS for a limited number of BMs of NSCLC. Moreover these nomograms enable individualized probability assessment and are easy into use in routine clinical practice.

Hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for patients with localised prostate cancer (HYPRO): final efficacy results from a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Studies have reported a low α/ß ratio for prostate cancer, suggesting that hypofractionation could enhance the biological tumour dose without increasing genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity. In the multicentre phase 3, HYpofractionated irradiation for PROstate cancer (HYPRO) trial, hypofractionated radiotherapy was compared with conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for treatment of prostate cancer. We have previously reported acute and late incidence of genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity; here we report protocol-defined 5-year relapse-free survival outcomes. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial at seven Dutch radiotherapy centres. We enrolled patients with intermediate-risk to high-risk T1b-T4NX-N0MX-M0 localised prostate cancer, a prostate-specific antigen concentration of 60 µg/L or less, and a WHO performance status of 0-2. We used a web-based application to randomly assign (1:1) patients to either hypofractionated radiotherapy of 64·6 Gy (19 fractions of 3·4 Gy, three fractions per week) or conventionally fractionated radiotherapy of 78·0 Gy (39 fractions of 2·0 Gy, five fractions per week). Based on an estimated α/ß ratio for prostate cancer of 1·5 Gy, the equivalent total dose in fractions of 2·0 Gy was 90·4 Gy for hypofractionation compared with 78·0 Gy for conventional fractionation. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival. All analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis in all eligible patients. The HYPRO trial completed recruitment in 2010 and follow-up is ongoing. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN85138529. FINDINGS: Between March 19, 2007, and Dec 3, 2010, 820 patients were enrolled, of whom 804 were eligible and assessable for intention-to-treat analyses. Of these, 407 were assigned hypofractionated radiotherapy and 397 were allocated conventionally fractionated radiotherapy. 537 (67%) of 804 patients received concomitant androgen deprivation therapy for a median duration of 32 months (IQR 10-44). Median follow-up was 60 months (IQR 51-69). Treatment failure was reported in 169 (21%) of 804 patients, 80 (20%) in the hypofractionation group and 89 (22%) in the conventional fractionation group. 5-year relapse-free survival was 80·5% (95% CI 75·7-84·4) for patients assigned hypofractionation and 77·1% (71·9-81·5) for those allocated conventional fractionation (adjusted hazard radio 0·86, 95% CI 0·63-1·16; log-rank p=0·36). There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Hypofractionated radiotherapy was not superior to conventional radiotherapy with respect to 5-year relapse-free survival. Our hypofractionated radiotherapy regimen cannot be regarded as the new standard of care for patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk prostate cancer. FUNDING: Dutch Cancer Society.

Hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for patients with prostate cancer (HYPRO): late toxicity results from a randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have reported a low α to ß ratio for prostate cancer, suggesting that hypofractionation could enhance the biological tumour dose without increasing genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity. We tested this theory in the phase 3 HYPRO trial for patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer. We have previously reported acute incidence of genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity; here we report data for late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity. METHODS: In this randomised non-inferiority phase 3 trial, done in seven radiotherapy centres in the Netherlands, we enrolled intermediate-risk or high-risk patients aged between 44 and 85 years with histologically confirmed stage T1b-T4 NX-0MX-0 prostate cancer, a prostate-specific antigen concentration of 60 ng/mL or lower, and WHO performance status of 0-2. A web-based application was used to randomly assign (1:1) patients to receive either standard fractionation with 39 fractions of 2 Gy in 8 weeks (five fractions per week) or hypofractionation with 19 fractions of 3·4 Gy in 6·5 weeks (three fractions per week). Randomisation was done with the minimisation procedure, stratified by treatment centre and risk group. The primary endpoint was to detect a 10% enhancement in 5-year relapse-free survival with hypofractionation. A key additional endpoint was non-inferiority of hypofractionation in cumulative incidence of grade 2 or worse acute and late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity. We planned to reject inferiority of hypofractionation for late genitourinary toxicity if the estimated hazard ratio (HR) was less than 1·11 and for gastrointestinal toxicity was less than 1·13. We scored toxicity with the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (RTOG/EORTC) criteria from both physicians' records (clinical record form) and patients' self-assessment questionnaires. Analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Patient recruitment for the HYPRO trial was completed in 2010. The trial was registered with www.controlled-trials.com, number ISRCTN85138529. FINDINGS: Between March 19, 2007, and Dec 3, 2010, 820 patients (410 in both groups) were randomly assigned. Analyses for late toxicity included 387 assessable patients in the standard fractionation group and 395 in the hypofractionation group. The median follow-up was 60 months (IQR 51·2-67·3). The database for all analyses (both groups and both genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities) was locked on March 26, 2015. The incidence of grade 2 or worse genitourinary toxicity at 3 years was 39·0% (95% CI 34·2-44·1) in the standard fractionation group and 41·3% (36·6-46·4) in the hypofractionation group. The estimated HR for the cumulative incidence of grade 2 or worse late genitourinary toxicity was 1·16 (90% CI 0·98-1·38), suggesting that non-inferiority could not be shown. The incidence of grade 2 or worse gastrointestinal toxicity at 3 years was 17·7% (14·1-21·9) in standard fractionation and 21·9% (18·1-26·4) hypofractionation. With an estimated HR of 1·19 (90% CI 0·93-1·52) for the cumulative incidence of grade 2 or worse late gastrointestinal toxicity, we could not confirm non-inferiority of hypofractionation for cumulative late gastrointestinal toxicity. Cumulative grade 3 or worse late genitourinary toxicity was significantly higher in the hypofractionation group than in the standard fractionation group (19·0% [95% CI 15·2-23·2] vs 12·9% [9·7-16·7], respectively; p=0·021), but there was no significant difference between cumulative grade 3 or worse late gastrointestinal toxicity (2·6% [95% CI 1·2-4·7]) in the standard fractionation group and 3·3% [1·7-5·6] in the hypofractionation group; p=0·55). INTERPRETATION: Our data could not confirm that hypofractionation was non-inferior for cumulative late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity compared with standard fractionation. Before final conclusions can be made about the utility of hypofractionation, efficacy outcomes need to be reported. FUNDING: The Dutch Cancer Society.

Hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for patients with prostate cancer (HYPRO): acute toxicity results from a randomised non-inferiority phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In 2007, we began the randomised phase 3 multicentre HYPRO trial to investigate the effect of hypofractionated radiotherapy compared with conventionally fractionated radiotherapy on relapse-free survival in patients with prostate cancer. Here, we examine whether patients experience differences in acute gastrointestinal and genitourinary adverse effects. METHODS: In this randomised non-inferiority phase 3 trial, done in seven radiotherapy centres in the Netherlands, we enrolled intermediate-risk or high-risk patients aged between 44 and 85 years with histologically confirmed stage T1b-T4 NX-0MX-0 prostate cancer, a PSA concentration of 60 ng/mL or lower, and WHO performance status of 0-2. A web-based application was used to randomly assign (1:1) patients to receive either standard fractionation with 39 fractions of 2 Gy in 8 weeks (five fractions per week) or hypofractionation with 19 fractions of 3·4 Gy in 6·5 weeks (three fractions per week). Randomisation was done with minimisation procedure, stratified by treatment centre and risk group. The primary endpoint is 5-year relapse-free survival. Here we report data for the acute toxicity outcomes: the cumulative incidence of grade 2 or worse acute and late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity. Non-inferiority of hypofractionation was tested separately for genitourinary and gastrointestinal acute toxic effects, with a null hypothesis that cumulative incidences of each type of adverse event were not more than 8% higher in the hypofractionation group than in the standard fractionation group. We scored acute genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxic effects according to RTOG-EORTC criteria from both case report forms and patients' self-assessment questionnaires, at baseline, twice during radiotherapy, and 3 months after completion of radiotherapy. Analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Patient recruitment has been completed. This study is registered with www.controlled-trials.com, number ISRCTN85138529. FINDINGS: Between March 19, 2007, and Dec 3, 2010, 820 patients were randomly assigned to treatment with standard fractionation (n=410) or hypofractionation (n=410). 3 months after radiotherapy, 73 (22%) patients in the standard fractionation group and 75 (23%) patients in the hypofractionation group reported grade 2 or worse genitourinary toxicity; grade 2 or worse gastrointestinal toxicity was noted in 43 (13%) patients in the standard fractionation group and in 42 (13%) in the hypofractionation group. Grade 4 acute genitourinary toxicity was reported for two patients, one (<1%) in each group. No grade 4 acute gastrointestinal toxicities were observed. We noted no significant difference in cumulative incidence by 120 days after radiotherapy of grade 2 or worse acute genitourinary toxicity (57·8% [95% CI 52·9-62·7] in the standard fractionation group vs 60·5% (55·8-65·3) in the hypofractionation group; difference 2·7%, 90% CI -2·99 to 8·48; odds ratio [OR] 1·12, 95% CI 0·84-1·49; p=0·43). The cumulative incidence of grade 2 or worse acute gastrointestinal toxicity by 120 days after radiotherapy was higher in patients given hypofractionation (31·2% [95% CI 26·6-35·8] in the standard fractionation group vs 42·0% [37·2-46·9] in the hypofractionation group; difference 10·8%, 90% CI 5·25-16·43; OR 1·6; p=0·0015; non-inferiority not confirmed). INTERPRETATION: Hypofractionated radiotherapy was not non-inferior to standard fractionated radiotherapy in terms of acute genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity for men with intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer. In fact, the cumulative incidence of grade 2 or worse acute gastrointestinal toxicity was significantly higher in patients given hypofractionation than in those given standard fractionated radiotherapy. Patients remain in follow-up for efficacy endpoints. FUNDING: The Dutch Cancer Society.

High precision bladder cancer irradiation by integrating a library planning procedure of 6 prospectively generated SIB IMRT plans with image guidance using lipiodol markers.

PURPOSE: To increase local control and decrease side effects for urinary bladder cancer patients by integrating a library planning procedure with image guidance using lipiodol markers. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty patients with T2-T4N0M0 grade 2-3 invasive bladder carcinoma were treated according to an online adaptive protocol. Initially, the gross tumour volume (GTV) was demarcated during cystoscopy by injecting several drops of lipiodol in the submucosa around the tumour. Subsequently two CT scans were acquired with a full bladder and a voided bladder. On both scans, the boost volume (GTV) and the low-risk bladder volume were delineated. Using an interpolation tool, six concomitant boost IMRT plans with increasing bladder volumes were generated. For each fraction the procedure at the treatment unit was as follows: Firstly, a ConeBeam-CT was acquired and based on the amount of bladder filling the best fitting bladder contours and corresponding GTV and IMRT plans were selected. Secondly, the lipiodol markers were registered using the corresponding GTV contours and it was verified that the corresponding 95%-isodose surface covered the entire bladder. Finally, an online setup correction was applied based on this registration and the corresponding treatment plan was irradiated. RESULTS: The lipiodol markers were very useful in outlining the GTV at the planning CT and for daily setup correction. While the patients strived for a full bladder filling at time of the treatment, this was seldom accomplished. Due to our protocol an appropriate plan with adequate coverage of the PTV and without excessive dose to healthy tissue was delivered every day. The treatment was very well tolerated by all patients. At the end of the treatment no grade 3 urinary or gastro-intestinal toxicity was observed. After a median follow-up of 28 months two local relapses occurred. CONCLUSION: Using the library planning approach combined with online image guidance using lipiodol markers, we were able to deliver a highly conformal dose distribution to all bladder cancer patients achieving promising clinical results.

What CTV-to-PTV margins should be applied for prostate irradiation? Four-dimensional quantitative assessment using model-based deformable image registration techniques.

PURPOSE: To quantify adequate anisotropic clinical target volume (CTV)-to-planning target volume (PTV) margins for three different setup strategies used during prostate irradiation: (1) no setup corrections, (2) on-line corrections determined from bony anatomy, and (3) on-line corrections determined from gold markers. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Three radiation oncologists independently delineated the CTV on computed tomography images of 30 prostate cancer patients. Eight repeat scans were acquired to allow simulation of the delivered dose distributions in changing geometry. Different registration approaches were taken to mimic the different setup strategies. A surface model-based deformable image registration system was used to warp the delivered dose distributions back to the dose in the planning computed tomography scan. On the basis of the geometric extent of the underdosed areas, a set of anisotropic margins was derived to ensure a minimal dose to the CTV of 95% for 90% of the patients. RESULTS: Without setup correction, margins of approximately 11 mm for the corpus of the prostate and 15 mm for the seminal vesicles were required. These margins could be reduced to 8 and 13 mm when aligning the patient to the bony anatomy and to 3 and 8 mm aligning the patient to implanted gold markers. A larger margin at the apex was required to account for the significant observer variability and steep dose gradients at this location (11 mm using skin marker registration, 9 mm using bony anatomy registration, and 6 mm using gold marker registration). CONCLUSIONS: Novel voxel tracking techniques have enabled us to calculate accumulated dose distributions and design accurate three-dimensional CTV-to-PTV margins for prostate irradiation.

Cardiotoxic effects of tangential breast irradiation in early breast cancer patients: the role of irradiated heart volume.

PURPOSE: To assess the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) after postlumpectomy irradiation restricted to tangential fields. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We assessed the incidence of CVD in 1601 patients with T1-2N0 breast cancer (BC) treated with breast tangentials in five different hospitals between 1980 and 1993. Patients treated with radiation fields other than breast tangentials and those treated with adjuvant chemotherapy were excluded. For patients with left-sided BC, maximum heart distance (MHD) was measured on the simulator films as a proxy for irradiated heart volume. Risk of CVD by laterality and MHD categories was evaluated by Cox proportional hazards regression analysis. RESULTS: Follow-up was complete for 94% of the patients, and median follow-up was 16 years. The incidence of CVD overall was 14.1%, of ischemic heart disease 7.3%, and for other types of heart disease 9.2%, with a median time to event of 10 to 11 years. The incidence of CVD was 11.6% in patients with right-sided BC, compared with 16.0% in left-sided cases. The hazard ratio associated with left-sided vs. right-sided BC was 1.38 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.81) for CVD overall, 1.35 (95% CI, 0.93-1.98) for ischemic heart disease , and 1.53 (95% CI, 1.09-2.15) for other heart disease, adjusted for age, diabetes, and history of CVD. The risk of CVD did not significantly increase with increasing MHD. CONCLUSIONS: Patients irradiated for left-sided BC with tangential fields have a higher incidence of CVD compared with those with right-sided cancer. However, the risk does not seem to increase with larger irradiated heart volumes.