4 Weeks Versus 5 Weeks of Hypofractionated High-dose Radiation Therapy as Primary Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Interim Safety Analysis of a Randomized Phase 3 Trial.

PURPOSE: Hypofractionated radiation therapy (HFRT) for localized prostate cancer is safe and effective. The question that remains is which hypofractionation schedule to implement. We compared 2 different HFRT regimens in the present study. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From June 2013 to July 2016, 160 patients with prostate cancer were randomly assigned (1:1), within this single-center phase III trial, to 56 Gy (16 fractions of 3.5 Gy; arm A) or 67 Gy (25 fractions of 2.68 Gy; arm B). Randomization was performed using computer-generated permuted blocks, stratified by previous transurethral resection of the prostate and the presence of a dominant intraprostatic lesion. Treatment allocation was not masked, and the clinicians were not blinded. The primary endpoint was acute gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, assessed using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0, and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group toxicity scale. An interim analysis of acute toxicity was planned at 160 patients to prove the safety of both treatment regimens. If ≥22 of 72 patients had grade ≥2 GI toxicity, the study arm would be rejected. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01921803). RESULTS: In arm A, 20 patients (26%) and 1 patient (1%) developed acute grade 2 and grade 3 GI toxicity. In arm B, 16 patients (20%) reported acute grade 2 GI toxicity. In arm A, 42 (55%) and 5 (6%) patients developed acute grade 2 and grade 3 urinary toxicity. In arm B, 40 (49%) and 7 (9%) patients reported acute grade 2 and grade 3 urinary toxicity. Toxicity peaked during radiation therapy and resolved in the months after radiation therapy. CONCLUSIONS: With acute grade ≥2 GI toxicity reported in 21 of 77 patients in arm A and 16 of 82 patients in arm B, both treatment arms can be considered safe.

Impact of changing rectal dose volume parameters over time on late rectal and urinary toxicity after high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: A 10-years single centre experience.

BACKGROUND: External beam radiotherapy is an excellent treatment for patients with prostate cancer (PC). Assessing long-term radiotherapy-induced toxicity is important. We evaluated the impact of implementing different rectal dose volume constraints (DVC) on late rectal and urinary toxicity. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Six hundred and thirty-seven PC patients were treated with high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in the primary (median dose of 78 Gy to the prostate) or postoperative setting [median dose of 74 (adjuvant) and 76 Gy (salvage) to the prostatic bed]. Three groups were defined according to different DVC applied over time. The incidence of late rectal and urinary toxicity was evaluated. Three-year actuarial risk estimations of grade 2-3 rectal and urinary toxicity were calculated (Kaplan-Meier statistics). RESULTS: Median follow-up was five years. Overall, the incidence of late grade 3 and 2 rectal toxicity was 1% and 11%. The calculated three-year actuarial risk of developing late grade≥2 rectal toxicity decreased from 16% to 7% and 5% for patients in Group 1, Group 2 and Group 3, respectively (p<0.001). Respectively, 17 (4%) and 98 (24%) patients developed grade 3 and 2 late urinary toxicity in the primary setting. In the postoperative setting, 15 (6%) and 62 (26%) patients developed grade 3 and 2 urinary toxicity, respectively. The three-year actuarial risk of developing late≥grade 2 urinary toxicity in primary- and postoperative-treated patients was 22% and 23%, respectively. This was not significantly different between the three groups. CONCLUSION: The majority of patients developed no or only moderate rectal toxicity after high-dose IMRT for PC. Implementing different rectal DVC resulted in a significant decrease of late rectal toxicity without affecting urinary toxicity.

Rectal toxicity after intensity modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: which rectal dose volume constraints should we use?

BACKGROUND: To define rectal dose volume constraints (DVC) to prevent ⩾grade2 late rectal toxicity (LRT) after intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer (PC). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Six hundred thirty-seven PC patients were treated with primary (prostate median dose: 78Gy) or postoperative (prostatic bed median dose: 74Gy (adjuvant)-76Gy (salvage)) IMRTwhile restricting the rectal dose to 76Gy, 72Gy and 74Gy respectively. The impact of patient characteristics and rectal volume parameters on ⩾grade2 LRT was determined. DVC were defined to estimate the 5% and 10% risk of developing ⩾grade2 LRT. RESULTS: The 5-year probability of being free from ⩾grade2 LRT, non-rectal blood loss and persisting symptoms is 88.8% (95% CI: 85.8-91.1%), 93.4% (95% CI: 91.0-95.1%) and 94.3% (95% CI: 92.0-95.9%) respectively. There was no correlation with patient characteristics. All volume parameters, except rectal volume receiving ⩾70Gy (R70), were significantly correlated with ⩾grade2 LRT. To avoid 10% and 5% risk of ⩾grade2 LRT following DVC were derived: R40, R50, R60 and R65 <64-35%, 52-22%, 38-14% and 5% respectively. CONCLUSION: Applying existing rectal volume constraints resulted in a 5-year estimated risk of developing late ⩾grade2 LRT of 11.2%. New rectal DVC for primary and postoperative IMRT planning of PC patients are proposed. A prospective evaluation is needed.

Reliability and accuracy assessment of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group-endorsed guidelines for brachial plexus contouring.

PURPOSE: The goal of this work was to validate the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG)-endorsed guidelines for brachial plexus (BP) contouring by determining the intra- and interobserver agreement. Accuracy of the delineation process was determined using anatomically validated imaging datasets as a gold standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five observers delineated the right BP on three cadaver computed tomography (CT) datasets. To assess intraobserver variation, every observer repeated each delineation three times with a time interval of 2 weeks. The BP contours were divided into four regions for detailed analysis. Inter- and intraobserver variation was verified using the Computerized Environment for Radiation Research (CERR) software. Accuracy was measured using anatomically validated fused CT-magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) datasets by measuring the BP inclusion of the delineations. RESULTS: The overall kappa (κ) values were rather low (mean interobserver overall κ: 0.29, mean intraobserver overall κ: 0.45), indicating poor inter- and intraobserver reliability. In general, the κ coefficient decreased gradually from the medial to lateral BP regions. The total agreement volume (TAV) was much smaller than the union volume (UV) for all delineations, resulting in a low Jaccard index (JI; interobserver agreement 0-0.124; intraobserver agreement 0.004-0.636). The overall accuracy was poor, with an average total BP inclusion of 38%. Inclusions were insufficient for the most lateral regions (region 3: 21.5%; region 4: 12.6%). CONCLUSION: The inter- and intraobserver reliability of the RTOG-endorsed BP contouring guidelines was poor. BP inclusion worsened from the medial to lateral regions. Accuracy assessment of the contours showed an average BP inclusion of 38%. For the first time, this was assessed using the original anatomically validated BP volume. The RTOG-endorsed BP guidelines have insufficient accuracy and reliability, especially for the lateral head-and-neck regions.