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.

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.

Is proton beam therapy always better than photon irradiation? Lessons from two cases.

Proton beam therapy (PBT) is increasingly used to treat cancers, especially in the paediatric and adolescent and young adult (AYA) population. As PBT becomes more accessible, determining when PBT should be used instead of photon irradiation can be difficult. There is a need to balance patient, tumour and treatment factors when making this decision. Comparing the dosimetry between these two modalities plays an important role in this process. PBT can reduce low to intermediate doses to organs at risk (OAR), but photon irradiation has its dosimetric advantages. We present two cases with brain tumours, one paediatric and one AYA, in which treatment plan comparison between photons and protons showed dosimetric advantages of photon irradiation. The first case was an 18-month-old child diagnosed with posterior fossa ependymoma requiring adjuvant radiotherapy. Photon irradiation using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) had lower doses to the hippocampi but higher doses to the pituitary gland. The second case was a 21-year-old with an optic pathway glioma. There was better sparing of the critical optic structures and pituitary gland using fractionated stereotactic radiation therapy over PBT. The dosimetric advantages of photon irradiation over PBT have been demonstrated in these cases. This highlights the role of proton-to-photon comparative treatment planning to better understand which patients might benefit from photon irradiation versus PBT.

Developing a comparative photon-proton planning service in Victoria: the experience at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre.

Proton-beam therapy (PBT) is a cutting-edge radiation therapy modality that is currently not available in Australia. Comparative photon-proton (CPP) planning is required for the medical treatment overseas programme (MTOP) and will be required for access to PBT in Australia in the future. Comparative planning brings professional development benefits to all members of the radiation therapy team. This service was also created to support future proposals for a PBT facility in Victoria. We report our experience developing an in-house CPP service at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre. A set of resources to support CPP planning was established. Training of relevant staff was undertaken after which an in-house training programme was developed. A standard protocol for PBT planning parameters was established. All CPP plans were reviewed. Future goals for the CPP planning programme were described. In total, 62 cases were comparatively planned over 54 months. Of these, 60% were paediatric cases, 14% were adolescents and young adults (15-25 years) and 26% were adults. The vast majority (over 75%) of patients comparatively planned required irradiation to the central nervous system including brain and cranio-spinal irradiation. A variety of proton plans were reviewed by international PBT experts to confirm their deliverability. Our team at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre has gained significant experience in CPP planning and will continue to develop this further. Local expertise will help support decentralisation of patient selection for proton treatments in the near future and the PBT business case in Victoria.

Evaluating the relationship between contouring variability and modelled treatment outcome for prostate bed radiotherapy.

Objectives.Contouring similarity metrics are often used in studies of inter-observer variation and automatic segmentation but do not provide an assessment of clinical impact. This study focused on post-prostatectomy radiotherapy and aimed to (1) identify if there is a relationship between variations in commonly used contouring similarity metrics and resulting dosimetry and (2) identify the variation in clinical target volume (CTV) contouring that significantly impacts dosimetry.Approach.The study retrospectively analysed CT scans of 10 patients from the TROG 08.03 RAVES trial. The CTV, rectum, and bladder were contoured independently by three experienced observers. Using these contours reference simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE) volumes were established. Additional CTVs were generated using an atlas algorithm based on a single benchmark case with 42 manual contours. Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment plans were generated for the observer, atlas, and reference volumes. The dosimetry was evaluated using radiobiological metrics. Correlations between contouring similarity and dosimetry metrics were calculated using Spearman coefficient (Γ). To access impact of variations in planning target volume (PTV) margin, the STAPLE PTV was uniformly contracted and expanded, with plans created for each PTV volume. STAPLE dose-volume histograms (DVHs) were exported for plans generated based on the contracted/expanded volumes, and dose-volume metrics assessed.Mainresults. The study found no strong correlations between the considered similarity metrics and modelled outcomes. Moderate correlations (0.5 <Γ< 0.7) were observed for Dice similarity coefficient, Jaccard, and mean distance to agreement metrics and rectum toxicities. The observations of this study indicate a tendency for variations in CTV contraction/expansion below 5 mm to result in minor dosimetric impacts.Significance. Contouring similarity metrics must be used with caution when interpreting them as indicators of treatment plan variation. For post-prostatectomy VMAT patients, this work showed variations in contours with an expansion/contraction of less than 5 mm did not lead to notable dosimetric differences, this should be explored in a larger dataset to assess generalisability.

Uncertainty estimation using a 3D probabilistic U-Net for segmentation with small radiotherapy clinical trial datasets.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Bio-medical image segmentation models typically attempt to predict one segmentation that resembles a ground-truth structure as closely as possible. However, as medical images are not perfect representations of anatomy, obtaining this ground truth is not possible. A surrogate commonly used is to have multiple expert observers define the same structure for a dataset. When multiple observers define the same structure on the same image there can be significant differences depending on the structure, image quality/modality and the region being defined. It is often desirable to estimate this type of aleatoric uncertainty in a segmentation model to help understand the region in which the true structure is likely to be positioned. Furthermore, obtaining these datasets is resource intensive so training such models using limited data may be required. With a small dataset size, differing patient anatomy is likely not well represented causing epistemic uncertainty which should also be estimated so it can be determined for which cases the model is effective or not. METHODS: We use a 3D probabilistic U-Net to train a model from which several segmentations can be sampled to estimate the range of uncertainty seen between multiple observers. To ensure that regions where observers disagree most are emphasised in model training, we expand the Generalised Evidence Lower Bound (ELBO) with a Constrained Optimisation (GECO) loss function with an additional contour loss term to give attention to this region. Ensemble and Monte-Carlo dropout (MCDO) uncertainty quantification methods are used during inference to estimate model confidence on an unseen case. We apply our methodology to two radiotherapy clinical trial datasets, a gastric cancer trial (TOPGEAR, TROG 08.08) and a post-prostatectomy prostate cancer trial (RAVES, TROG 08.03). Each dataset contains only 10 cases each for model development to segment the clinical target volume (CTV) which was defined by multiple observers on each case. An additional 50 cases are available as a hold-out dataset for each trial which had only one observer define the CTV structure on each case. Up to 50 samples were generated using the probabilistic model for each case in the hold-out dataset. To assess performance, each manually defined structure was matched to the closest matching sampled segmentation based on commonly used metrics. RESULTS: The TOPGEAR CTV model achieved a Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) and Surface DSC (sDSC) of 0.7 and 0.43 respectively with the RAVES model achieving 0.75 and 0.71 respectively. Segmentation quality across cases in the hold-out datasets was variable however both the ensemble and MCDO uncertainty estimation approaches were able to accurately estimate model confidence with a p-value < 0.001 for both TOPGEAR and RAVES when comparing the DSC using the Pearson correlation coefficient. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that training auto-segmentation models which can estimate aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty using limited datasets is possible. Having the model estimate prediction confidence is important to understand for which unseen cases a model is likely to be useful.

Favourable outcomes with an initial active surveillance strategy for asymptomatic radiation-induced meningiomas in long-term survivors of paediatric and young adult malignancies.

PURPOSE: Radiation-induced meningiomas (RIM) are the most common secondary neoplasm post cranial radiotherapy, yet optimal surveillance and treatment strategies remain contentious. Herein, we report the clinical outcomes and radiological growth rate of RIM, diagnosed in a cohort of survivors undergoing MRI screening, with the objective of informing clinical guidelines and practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Long-term survivors of paediatric or young-adult malignancies, diagnosed with RIM between 1990 and 2015, were identified. Absolute (AGR) and relative (RGR) volumetric growth rates were calculated. Rapid growth was defined as AGR > 2 cm3/year or AGR > 1 cm3/year and RGR ≥ 30% RESULTS: Fifty-two patients (87 RIM) were included. Median age at first RIM diagnosis was 33.9 (range,13.8-54.1) years. Seventy-seven (88%) RIM were asymptomatic at detection. Median follow-up time from first RIM detection was 11 (range, 0.6-28) years. Median absolute and relative volumetric growth rates were 0.05 (IQR 0.01-0.11) cm3 and 26 (IQR 7-79) % per year, respectively. Two (3.3%) RIM demonstrated rapid growth. Active surveillance was adopted for 67 (77%) RIM in 40 patients. Neurological sequelae due to RIM progression were reported in 5% of patients on active surveillance. Surgery was performed for 33 RIM (30 patients): 18 (54.5%) at diagnosis and 15 (45.5%) after active surveillance. Histopathology was WHO Grade 1 (85.2%), 2 (11.1%), 3 (3.7%). Following resection, 10-year local recurrence rate was 12%. During follow-up, 19 (37%) survivors developed multiple RIM. CONCLUSIONS: Asymptomatic RIM are typically low-grade tumours which exhibit slow growth. Active surveillance appears to be a safe initial strategy for asymptomatic RIM, associated with a low rate of neurological morbidity.

Central Endocrine Complications Among Childhood Cancer Survivors Treated With Radiation Therapy: A PENTEC Comprehensive Review.

PURPOSE: Children who receive cranial radiation therapy (RT) as a component of treatment for malignancy are often at risk of long-term central endocrine toxicity secondary to radiation to the hypothalamic-pituitary axis (HPA). A comprehensive analysis was performed of central endocrine late effects in survivors of childhood cancer treated with RT as part of the Pediatric Normal Tissue Effects in the Clinic (PENTEC) consortium. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A systematic review of the risk of RT-related central endocrine effects was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). A total of 4629 publications were identified, of which 16 met criteria for inclusion in dose modeling analysis, with a total of 570 patients in 19 cohorts. Eighteen cohorts reported outcomes for growth hormone deficiency (GHD), 7 reported outcomes for central hypothyroidism (HT), and 6 reported outcomes for adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) deficiency. RESULTS: Normal tissue complication probability modeling for GHD (18 cohorts, 545 patients) yielded D50 = 24.9 Gy (95% CI, 20.9-28.0) and γ50 = 0.5 (95% CI, 0.27-0.78). The normal tissue complication probability model fit for whole brain irradiation in children with a median age of >5 years indicated a 20% risk of GHD for patients who receive a mean dose of 21 Gy in 2-Gy fractions to the HPA. For HT, among 7 cohorts (250 patients), D50 = 39 Gy (95% CI, 34.1-53.2) and γ50 = 0.81 (95% CI, 0.46-1.35), with a 20% risk of HT in children who receive a mean dose of 22 Gy in 2-Gy fractions to the HPA. For ACTH deficiency (6 cohorts, 230 patients), D50 = 61 Gy (95% CI, 44.7-119.4) and γ50 = 0.76 (95% CI, 0.5-1.19); there is a 20% risk of ACTH deficiency in children who receive a mean dose of 34 Gy in 2-Gy fractions to the HPA. CONCLUSIONS: RT dose to the HPA increases the risk of central endocrine toxicity, including GHD, HT, and ACTH deficiency. In some clinical situations, these toxicities may be difficult to avoid, and counseling of patients and families with respect to anticipated outcomes is important.

The Feasibility of Quality Assurance in the TOPGEAR International Phase 3 Clinical Trial of Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation Therapy for Gastric Cancer (an Intergroup Trial of the AGITG/TROG/NHMRC CTC/EORTC/CCTG).

PURPOSE: The TOPGEAR phase 3 trial hypothesized that adding preoperative chemoradiation therapy (CRT) to perioperative chemotherapy will improve survival in patients with gastric cancer. Owing to the complexity of gastric irradiation, a comprehensive radiation therapy quality assurance (RTQA) program was implemented. Our objective is to describe the RTQA methods and outcomes. METHODS AND MATERIALS: RTQA was undertaken in real time before treatment for the first 5 patients randomized to CRT from each center. Once acceptable quality was achieved, RTQA was completed for one-third of subsequent cases. RTQA consisted of evaluating (1) clinical target volume and organ-at-risk contouring and (2) radiation therapy planning parameters. Protocol violations between high- (20+ patients enrolled) and low-volume centers were compared using the Fisher exact test. RESULTS: TOPGEAR enrolled 574 patients, of whom 286 were randomized to receive preoperative CRT and 203 (71%) were included for RTQA. Of these, 67 (33%) and 136 (67%) patients were from high- and low-volume centers, respectively. The initial RTQA pass rate was 72%. In total, 28% of cases required resubmission. In total, 200 of 203 cases (99%) passed RTQA before treatment. Cases from low-volume centers required resubmission more often (44/136 [33%] vs 13/67 [18%]; P = .078). There was no change in the proportion of cases requiring resubmission over time. Most cases requiring resubmission had multiple protocol violations. At least 1 aspect of the clinical target volume had to be adjusted in all cases. Inadequate coverage of the duodenum was most common (53% major violation, 25% minor violation). For the remaining cases, the resubmission process was triggered secondary to poor contour/plan quality. CONCLUSIONS: In a large multicenter trial, RTQA is feasible and effective in achieving high-quality treatment plans. Ongoing education should be performed to ensure consistent quality during the entire study period.

Evaluating the utility of knowledge-based planning for clinical trials using the TROG 08.03 post prostatectomy radiation therapy planning data.

Background and purpose: Poor quality radiotherapy can detrimentally affect outcomes in clinical trials. Our purpose was to explore the potential of knowledge-based planning (KBP) for quality assurance (QA) in clinical trials. Materials and methods: Using 30 in-house post-prostatectomy radiation treatment (PPRT) plans, an iterative KBP model was created according to the multicentre clinical trial protocol, delivering 64 Gy in 32 fractions. KBP was used to replan 137 plans. The KB (knowledge based) plans were evaluated for their ability to fulfil the trial constraints and were compared against their corresponding original treatment plans (OTP). A second analysis between only the 72 inversely planned OTPs (IP-OTPs) and their corresponding KB plans was performed. Results: All dose constraints were met in 100% of KB plans versus 69% of OTPs. KB plans demonstrated significantly less variation in PTV coverage (Mean dose range: KB plans 64.1 Gy-65.1 Gy vs OTP 63.1 Gy-67.3 Gy, p < 0.01). KBP resulted in significantly lower doses to OARs. Rectal V60Gy and V40Gy were 17.7% vs 27.7% (p < 0.01) and 40.5% vs 53.9% (p < 0.01) for KB plans and OTP respectively. Left femoral head (FH) V45Gy and V35Gy were 0.4% vs 7.4% (p < 0.01) and 7.9% vs 34.9% (p < 0.01) respectively. In the second analysis plan improvements were maintained. Conclusions: KBP created high quality PPRT plans using the data from a multicentre clinical trial in a single optimisation. It is a powerful tool for utilisation in clinical trials for patient specific QA, to reduce dose to surrounding OARs and variations in plan quality which could impact on clinical trial outcomes.

Quality improvement in paediatric radiation oncology through peer review.

INTRODUCTION: Around 300 children in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) undergo a course of radiation treatment (RT) each year. A fortnightly videoconference for radiation oncologists managing children started in 2013. We conducted an audit of the videoconference to assess its influence on the care of children who receive RT in ANZ. METHODS: De-identified data from minutes (August 2013-December 2019) were analysed retrospectively using three categories: meeting participation, case presentations and management decisions. RESULTS: There were 119 meetings and 334 children discussed over the six-year audit period with regular attendance from four of 11 centres treating children in ANZ. Most cases (80%) were discussed prior to RT. A change in the overall management plan was recommended for around one in eight patients (35/334, 13%). RT plan reviews were performed in 79 cases (23%). Adjustments were made to the target volume contours or treatment plan in 8% (6/79). CONCLUSION: Increasing the frequency of the meeting to weekly and compliant with the RANZCR Peer Review Audit Tool has the capacity to review all paediatric RT patients in ANZ prior to RT and initiate changes for as many as one in eight children treated by RT each year. The meeting should be considered a core component necessary to maintain expertise in paediatric RT in all centres providing RT for children in ANZ while also acting as a proton referral panel as more children are referred abroad for proton therapy before the Australian Bragg Centre for Proton Therapy opens in Adelaide in 2024.

Contour variation is a primary source of error when delivering post prostatectomy radiotherapy: Results of the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group 08.03 Radiotherapy Adjuvant Versus Early Salvage (RAVES) benchmarking exercise.

INTRODUCTION: Variation in target volume delineation from clinical trial protocols has been shown to contribute to poorer patient outcomes. A clinical trial quality assurance framework can support compliance with trial protocol. Results of the TROG 08.03 RAVES benchmarking exercise considering variation from protocol, inter-observer variability and impact on dosimetry are reported in this paper. METHODS: Clinicians were required to contour and plan a benchmarking case according to trial protocol. Geometric pjmirometers including volume, Hausdorff Distance, Mean Distance to Agreement and DICE similarity coefficient were analysed for targets and organs at risk. Submitted volumes were compared to a STAPLE and consensus 'reference' volume for each structure. Dosimetric analysis was performed using dose volume histogram data. RESULTS: Benchmarking exercise submissions were received from 96 clinicians. In total 205 protocol variations were identified. The most common variation was inadequate contouring of the CTV in 84/205 (41%). The CTV volume ranged from 65.3 to 193.1 cm3 with a median of 113.2 cm3 . The most common dosimetric protocol variation related to rectal dosimetry. The mean submitted rectal volume receiving 40 Gy and 60 Gy, respectively, was 56.14% ± 5.55% and 30.25% ± 6.15%. When corrected to the protocol defined length the mean rectal volume receiving 40 Gy was 60.8% ± 7.92%, while the volume receiving 60 Gy was 33.86% ± 8.21%. CONCLUSION: Variations from protocol were found in the RAVES benchmarking exercise, most notably in CTV and rectum delineation. Inter-observer variability was evident. Incorrect delineation of the rectum impacted on dosimetric compliance with protocol.

Post-prostatectomy radiation therapy: consensus guidelines of the Australian and New Zealand Radiation Oncology Genito-Urinary Group.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Three randomised trials have demonstrated the benefit of adjuvant post-prostatectomy radiotherapy (PPRT) for high risk patients. Data also documents the effectiveness of salvage radiotherapy following a biochemical relapse post-prostatectomy. The Radiation Oncology Genito-Urinary Group recognised the need to develop consensus guidelines on to whom, when and how to deliver PPRT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Draft guidelines were developed and refined at a consensus conference in June 2006 attended by 63 delegates where urological, radiotherapy and diagnostic imaging experts spoke on aspects of PPRT. Unresolved issues were further developed by working parties and redistributed until consensus was reached. RESULTS: Central to the recommendations is that patients with positive surgical margins, seminal vesicle invasion and/or extracapsular extension have a high risk of residual local disease and should be informed of the options of either immediate adjuvant radiotherapy or active surveillance with early salvage in the event of biochemical recurrence. Salvage radiotherapy should be instituted at the earliest confirmation of biochemical recurrence. Detailed contouring guidelines have been developed, defining the regions at risk of residual microscopic disease which should be included in the clinical target volume. The recommended doses are 60-64Gy for adjuvant, and 60-66Gy for salvage radiotherapy. The role of hormone therapy in conjunction with PPRT is yet to be defined. CONCLUSIONS: These consensus guidelines have been developed to give clinical and technical guidance to radiation oncologists and urologists in the management of high risk post-prostatectomy patients.

Radiotherapy for recurrent prostate cancer: 2018 Recommendations of the Australian and New Zealand Radiation Oncology Genito-Urinary group.

The management of patients with biochemical, local, nodal, or oligometastatic relapsed prostate cancer has become more challenging and controversial. Novel imaging modalities designed to detect recurrence are increasingly used, particularly PSMA-PET scans in Australia, New Zealand and some European countries. Imaging techniques such as MRI and PET scans using other prostate cancer-specific tracers are also being utilised across the world. The optimal timing for commencing salvage treatment, and the role of local and/or systemic therapies remains controversial. Through surveys of the membership, the Australian and New Zealand Faculty of Radiation Oncology Genito-Urinary Group (FROGG) identified wide variation in the management of recurrent prostate cancer. Following a workshop conducted in April 2017, the FROGG management committee reviewed the literature and developed a set of recommendations based on available evidence and expert opinion, for the appropriate investigation and management of recurrent prostate cancer. These recommendations cover the role and timing of post-prostatectomy radiotherapy, the management of regional nodal metastases and oligometastases, as well as the management of local prostate recurrence after definitive radiotherapy.

Comparison of localization performance with implanted fiducial markers and cone-beam computed tomography for on-line image-guided radiotherapy of the prostate.

PURPOSE: The aim of this work was to assess the accuracy of kilovoltage (kV) cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-based setup corrections as compared with orthogonal megavoltage (MV) portal image-based corrections for patients undergoing external-beam radiotherapy of the prostate. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Daily cone-beam CT volumetric images were acquired after setup for patients with three intraprostatic fiducial markers. The estimated couch shifts were compared retrospectively to patient adjustments based on two orthogonal MV portal images (the current clinical standard of care in our institution). The CBCT soft-tissue based shifts were also estimated by digitally removing the gold markers in each projection to suppress the artifacts in the reconstructed volumes. A total of 256 volumetric images for 15 patients were analyzed. RESULTS: The Pearson coefficient of correlation for the patient position shifts using fiducial markers in MV vs. kV was (R2 = 0.95, 0.84, 0.81) in the left-right (LR), anterior-posterior (AP), and superior-inferior (SI) directions, respectively. The correlation using soft-tissue matching was as follows: R2 = 0.90, 0.49, 0.51 in the LR, AP and SI directions. A Bland-Altman analysis showed no significant trends in the data. The percentage of shifts within a +/-3-mm tolerance (the clinical action level) was 99.7%, 95.5%, 91.3% for fiducial marker matching and 99.5%, 70.3%, 78.4% for soft-tissue matching. CONCLUSIONS: Cone-beam CT is an accurate and precise tool for image guidance. It provides an equivalent means of patient setup correction for prostate patients with implanted gold fiducial markers. Use of the additional information provided by the visualization of soft-tissue structures is an active area of research.

Anatomic boundaries of the clinical target volume (prostate bed) after radical prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: We sought to derive and validate an interdisciplinary consensus definition for the anatomic boundaries of the postoperative clinical target volume (CTV, prostate bed). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty one patients who had planned for radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy were enrolled and underwent computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) simulation prior to radiotherapy. Through an iterative process of consultation and discussion, an interdisciplinary consensus definition was derived based on a review of published data, patterns of local failure, surgical practice, and radiologic anatomy. In validation, we analyzed the distribution of surgical clips in reference to the consensus CTV and measured spatial uncertainties in delineating the CTV and vesicourethral anastomosis. Clinical radiotherapy plans were retrospectively evaluated against the consensus CTV (prostate bed). RESULTS: Anatomic boundaries of the consensus CTV (prostate bed) are described. Surgical clips (n = 339) were well distributed throughout the CTV. The vesicourethral anastomosis was accurately localized using central sagittal computed tomography reconstruction, with a mean +/- standard deviation uncertainty of 1.8 +/- 2.5 mm. Delineation uncertainties were small for both MRI and computed tomography (mean reproducibility, 0-3.8 mm; standard deviation, 1.0-2.3); they were most pronounced in the anteroposterior and superoinferior dimensions and at the superior/posterior-most aspect of the CTV. Retrospectively, the mean +/- standard deviation CTV (prostate bed) percentage of volume receiving 100% of prescribed dose was only 77% +/- 26%. CONCLUSIONS: We propose anatomic boundaries for the CTV (prostate bed) and present evidence supporting its validity. In the absence of gross recurrence, the role of MRI in delineating the CTV remains to be confirmed. The CTV is larger than historically practiced at our institution and should be encompassed by a microscopic tumoricidal dose.

Preoperative radiation with concurrent chemotherapy for resectable rectal cancer: effect of dose escalation on pathologic complete response, local recurrence-free survival, disease-free survival, and overall survival.

PURPOSE: Three Phase II studies of preoperative radiotherapy and concurrent 5FU chemotherapy were undertaken. The primary endpoints were acute toxicity and pathologic complete response rate (pCR). Secondary endpoints were local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 134 patients with adenocarcinoma of the rectum (clinical T3/T4 or N1/N2) were treated. The initial cohort received 40 Gy in 20 fractions, the second 46 Gy in 23 fractions, and the third 50 Gy in 25 fractions. 5FU (225 mg/m2/day) was given continuously throughout radiotherapy. A total of 121 patients underwent surgical resection. RESULTS: Treatment was well tolerated. Grade 3/4 acute toxicity was observed in 13%, 4%, and 14% of patients in the 40 Gy, 46 Gy, and 50 Gy cohorts, respectively (p = 0.20). pCR was documented in 15%, 23%, and 33% of patients, respectively (p = 0.07). The 2-year actuarial LRFS was 72%, 90%, and 89% (p = 0.02); DFS was 62%, 84%, and 78% (p = 0.02); and OS was 72%, 94%, and 92%, respectively (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: All treatment schedules were well tolerated. There was a trend toward increased pCR with higher doses. A statistically significant increase in LRFS, DFS, and OS was seen with radiation doses of 46 Gy and greater, but there was no difference between 46 Gy and 50 Gy.

Optimizing Radiation Therapy Quality Assurance in Clinical Trials: A TROG 08.03 RAVES Substudy.

PURPOSE: To explore site- and clinician-level factors associated with protocol violations requiring real-time-review (RTR) resubmission in a multicenter clinical trial to help tailor future quality assurance (QA) protocols. METHODS AND MATERIALS: RAVES (Radiation Therapy-Adjuvant vs Early Salvage) (Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group 08.03) is a randomized trial comparing adjuvant with early salvage radiation therapy in men with positive surgical margins or pT3 disease after prostatectomy. Quality assurance in RAVES required each clinician and site to submit a credentialing dummy run (DR) and for each patient's radiation therapy plan to undergo external RTR before treatment. Prospectively defined major violations from trial protocol required remedy and resubmission. Site and clinician factors associated with RTR resubmission were examined using hierarchical modeling. RESULTS: Data were collected from 171 consecutive patients, treated by 46 clinicians at 32 hospitals. There were 47 RTR resubmissions (27%) due to 65 major violations. The relative rate of resubmission decreased by 29% per year as the study progressed (odds ratio OR. 0.71, P=.02). The majority of resubmissions were due to contouring violations (39 of 65) and dosimetric violations (22 of 65). For each additional patient accrued, significant decreases in RTR resubmission were seen at both clinician level (OR 0.75, P=.02) and site level (OR 0.72, P=.01). The rate of resubmission due to dosimetric violations was only 1.6% after the first 5 patients. Use of IMRT was associated with lower rates of resubmission compared with 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (OR 0.38, P=.05). CONCLUSION: Several low- and high-risk factors that may assist with tailoring future clinical trial QA were identified. Because the real-time resubmission rate was largely independent of the credentialing exercise, some form of RTR QA is recommended. The greatest benefit from QA was derived early in trial activation and clinician experience.

Australasian Gastrointestinal Trials Group (AGITG) contouring atlas and planning guidelines for intensity-modulated radiotherapy in anal cancer.

PURPOSE: To develop a high-resolution target volume atlas with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) planning guidelines for the conformal treatment of anal cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A draft contouring atlas and planning guidelines for anal cancer IMRT were prepared at the Australasian Gastrointestinal Trials Group (AGITG) annual meeting in September 2010. An expert panel of radiation oncologists contoured an anal cancer case to generate discussion on recommendations regarding target definition for gross disease, elective nodal volumes, and organs at risk (OARs). Clinical target volume (CTV) and planning target volume (PTV) margins, dose fractionation, and other IMRT-specific issues were also addressed. A steering committee produced the final consensus guidelines. RESULTS: Detailed contouring and planning guidelines and a high-resolution atlas are provided. Gross tumor and elective target volumes are described and pictorially depicted. All elective regions should be routinely contoured for all disease stages, with the possible exception of the inguinal and high pelvic nodes for select, early-stage T1N0. A 20-mm CTV margin for the primary, 10- to 20-mm CTV margin for involved nodes and a 7-mm CTV margin for the elective pelvic nodal groups are recommended, while respecting anatomical boundaries. A 5- to 10-mm PTV margin is suggested. When using a simultaneous integrated boost technique, a dose of 54 Gy in 30 fractions to gross disease and 45 Gy to elective nodes with chemotherapy is appropriate. Guidelines are provided for OAR delineation. CONCLUSION: These consensus planning guidelines and high-resolution atlas complement the existing Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) elective nodal ano-rectal atlas and provide additional anatomic, clinical, and technical instructions to guide radiation oncologists in the planning and delivery of IMRT for anal cancer.