Complications after proton radiotherapy in children, focusing on severe late complications. A complete Swedish cohort 2008-2019.

BACKGROUND: Proton radiotherapy (RT) is an attractive tool to deliver local therapy with minimal dose to uninvolved tissue, however, not suitable for all patients. The aim was to explore complications, especially severe late complications (grades 3-4), following proton RT delivered to a complete Swedish cohort of paediatric patients aged <18 years treated 2008-2019. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data was downloaded from a national registry. Complications with a possible causation with RT are reported. Proton treatments until July 2015 was performed with a fixed horizontal 172 MeV beam (The Svedberg Laboratory (TSL), Uppsala) in a sitting position and thereafter with gantry-based pencil-beam scanning technique (Skandion Clinic, Uppsala) in a supine position. RESULTS: 219 courses of proton RT (77 at TSL and 142 at Skandion) were delivered to 212 patients (mean age 9.2 years) with various tumour types (CNS tumours 58%, sarcomas 26%, germ cell tumours 7%). Twenty-five patients had severe acute complications (skin, mucous membrane, pharynx/oesophagus, larynx, upper gastrointestinal canal, lower gastrointestinal canal, eyes, ears). Fifteen patients had severe late complications; with increased proportion over time: 4% at 1-year follow-up (FU), 5% at 3-year, 11% at 5-year. Organs affected were skin (1 patient), subcutaneous tissue (4), salivary glands (1), upper GI (1), bone (7), joints (2), CNS (2), PNS (1), eyes (1) and ears (5). Twenty-one of the 28 patients with 10-year FU had at least one late complication grades 1-4 and fourteen of them had more than one (2-5 each). CONCLUSION: The most important result of our study is the relatively low proportion of severe late complications, comparable with other proton studies on various tumours. Furthermore, the numbers of late complications are lower than our own data set on a mixed population of photon and proton treated paediatric patients, assuring the safety of using proton therapy also in the clinical practice.

Investigating survival, quality of life and cognition in PROton versus photon therapy for IDH-mutated diffuse grade 2 and 3 GLIOmas (PRO-GLIO): a randomised controlled trial in Norway and Sweden.

INTRODUCTION: The use of proton therapy increases globally despite a lack of randomised controlled trials demonstrating its efficacy and safety. Proton therapy enables sparing of non-neoplastic tissue from radiation. This is principally beneficial and holds promise of reduced long-term side effects. However, the sparing of seemingly non-cancerous tissue is not necessarily positive for isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH)-mutated diffuse gliomas grade 2-3, which have a diffuse growth pattern. With their relatively good prognosis, yet incurable nature, therapy needs to be delicately balanced to achieve a maximal survival benefit combined with an optimised quality of life. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PRO-GLIO (PROton versus photon therapy in IDH-mutated diffuse grade 2 and 3 GLIOmas) is an open-label, multicentre, randomised phase III non-inferiority study. 224 patients aged 18-65 years with IDH-mutated diffuse gliomas grade 2-3 from Norway and Sweden will be randomised 1:1 to radiotherapy delivered with protons (experimental arm) or photons (standard arm). First intervention-free survival at 2 years is the primary endpoint. Key secondary endpoints are fatigue and cognitive impairment, both at 2 years. Additional secondary outcomes include several survival measures, health-related quality of life parameters and health economy endpoints. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: To implement proton therapy as part of standard of care for patients with IDH-mutated diffuse gliomas grade 2-3, it should be deemed safe. With its randomised controlled design testing proton versus photon therapy, PRO-GLIO will provide important information for this patient population concerning safety, cognition, fatigue and other quality of life parameters. As proton therapy is considerably more costly than its photon counterpart, cost-effectiveness will also be evaluated. PRO-GLIO is approved by ethical committees in Norway (Regional Committee for Medical & Health Research Ethics) and Sweden (The Swedish Ethical Review Authority) and patient inclusion has commenced. Trial results will be published in international peer-reviewed journals, relevant conferences, national and international meetings and expert forums. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT05190172).

Ultra-hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer (HYPO-RT-PC): patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes of a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The HYPO-RT-PC trial compared conventionally fractionated radiotherapy with ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy in patients with localised prostate cancer. Ultra-hypofractionation was non-inferior to conventional fractionation regarding 5-year failure-free survival and toxicity. We aimed to assess whether patient-reported quality of life (QOL) differs between conventional fractionation and ultra-hypofractionation up to 6 years after treatment in the HYPO-RT-PC trial. METHODS: HYPO-RT-PC is a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial done in 12 centres (seven university hospitals and five county hospitals) in Sweden and Denmark. Inclusion criteria were histologically verified intermediate-to-high-risk prostate cancer (defined as T1c-T3a with one or two of the following risk factors: stage T3a; Gleason score ≥7; and prostate-specific antigen 10-20 ng/mL with no evidence of lymph node involvement or distant metastases), age up to 75 years, and WHO performance status 0-2. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to conventional fractionation (78·0 Gy in 39 fractions, 5 days per week for 8 weeks) or ultra-hypofractionation (42·7 Gy in seven fractions, 3 days per week for 2·5 weeks) via a minimisation algorithm with stratification by trial centre, T-stage, Gleason score, and prostate-specific antigen. QOL was measured using the validated Prostate Cancer Symptom Scale (PCSS) and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) at baseline, the end of radiotherapy, months 3, 6, 12, and 24 after radiotherapy, every other year thereafter up to 10 years, and at 15 years. The primary endpoint (failure-free survival) has been reported elsewhere. Here we report QOL, a secondary endpoint analysed in the per-protocol population, up to 6 years after radiotherapy. The HYPO-RT-PC trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN45905321. FINDINGS: Between July 1, 2005, and Nov 4, 2015, 1200 patients were enrolled and 1180 were randomly assigned (conventional fractionation n=591, ultra-hypofractionation n=589); 1165 patients (conventional fractionation n=582, ultra-hypofractionation n=583) were included in this QOL analysis. 158 (71%) of 223 patients in the conventional fractionation group and 146 (66%) of 220 in the ultra-hypofractionation group completed questionnaires at 6 years. The median follow-up was 48 months (IQR 25-72). In seven of ten bowel symptoms or problems the proportion of patients with clinically relevant deteriorations at the end of radiotherapy was significantly higher in the ultra-hypofractionation group than in the conventional fractionation group (stool frequency [p<0·0001], rush to toilet [p=0·0013], flatulence [p=0·0013], bowel cramp [p<0·0001], mucus [p=0·0014], blood in stool [p<0·0001], and limitation in daily activity [p=0·0014]). There were no statistically significant differences in the proportions of patients with clinically relevant acute urinary symptoms or problems (total 14 items) and sexual functioning between the two treatment groups at end of radiotherapy. Thereafter, there were no clinically relevant differences in urinary, bowel, or sexual functioning between the groups. At the 6-year follow-up there was no difference in the incidence of clinically relevant deterioration between the groups for overall urinary bother (43 [33%] of 132 for conventional fractionation vs 33 [28%] of 120 for ultra-hypofractionation; mean difference 5·1% [95% CI -4·4 to 14·6]; p=0·38), overall bowel bother (43 [33%] of 129 vs 34 [28%] of 123; 5·7% [-3·8 to 15·2]; p=0·33), overall sexual bother (75 [60%] of 126 vs 59 [50%] of 117; 9·1% [-1·4 to 19·6]; p=0·15), or global health/QOL (56 [42%] of 134 vs 46 [37%] of 125; 5·0% [-5·0 to 15·0]; p=0·41). INTERPRETATION: Although acute toxicity was higher for ultra-hypofractionation than conventional fractionation, this long-term patient-reported QOL analysis shows that ultra-hypofractionation was as well tolerated as conventional fractionation up to 6 years after completion of treatment. These findings support the use of ultra-hypofractionation radiotherapy for intermediate-to-high-risk prostate cancer. FUNDING: The Nordic Cancer Union, the Swedish Cancer Society, and the Swedish Research Council.

Ultra-hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the HYPO-RT-PC randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer has gained increased attention due to its proposed high radiation-fraction sensitivity. Recent reports from studies comparing moderately hypofractionated and conventionally fractionated radiotherapy support the clinical use of moderate hypofractionation. To date, there are no published randomised studies on ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy. Here, we report the outcomes of the Scandinavian HYPO-RT-PC phase 3 trial with the aim to show non-inferiority of ultra-hypofractionation compared with conventional fractionation. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 non-inferiority trial done in 12 centres in Sweden and Denmark, we recruited men up to 75 years of age with intermediate-to-high-risk prostate cancer and a WHO performance status between 0 and 2. Patients were randomly assigned to ultra-hypofractionation (42·7 Gy in seven fractions, 3 days per week for 2·5 weeks) or conventional fractionated radiotherapy (78·0 Gy in 39 fractions, 5 days per week for 8 weeks). No androgen deprivation therapy was allowed. The primary endpoint was time to biochemical or clinical failure, analysed in the per-protocol population. The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 4% at 5 years, corresponding to a critical hazard ratio (HR) limit of 1·338. Physician-recorded toxicity was measured according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) morbidity scale and patient-reported outcome measurements with the Prostate Cancer Symptom Scale (PCSS) questionnaire. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN45905321. FINDINGS: Between July 1, 2005, and Nov 4, 2015, 1200 patients were randomly assigned to conventional fractionation (n=602) or ultra-hypofractionation (n=598), of whom 1180 (591 conventional fractionation and 589 ultra-hypofractionation) constituted the per-protocol population. 1054 (89%) participants were intermediate risk and 126 (11%) were high risk. Median follow-up time was 5·0 years (IQR 3·1-7·0). The estimated failure-free survival at 5 years was 84% (95% CI 80-87) in both treatment groups, with an adjusted HR of 1·002 (95% CI 0·758-1·325; log-rank p=0·99). There was weak evidence of an increased frequency of acute physician-reported RTOG grade 2 or worse urinary toxicity in the ultra-hypofractionation group at end of radiotherapy (158 [28%] of 569 patients vs 132 [23%] of 578 patients; p=0·057). There were no significant differences in grade 2 or worse urinary or bowel late toxicity between the two treatment groups at any point after radiotherapy, except for an increase in urinary toxicity in the ultra-hypofractionation group compared to the conventional fractionation group at 1-year follow-up (32 [6%] of 528 patients vs 13 [2%] of 529 patients; (p=0·0037). We observed no differences between groups in frequencies at 5 years of RTOG grade 2 or worse urinary toxicity (11 [5%] of 243 patients for the ultra-hypofractionation group vs 12 [5%] of 249 for the conventional fractionation group; p=1·00) and bowel toxicity (three [1%] of 244 patients vs nine [4%] of 249 patients; p=0·14). Patient-reported outcomes revealed significantly higher levels of acute urinary and bowel symptoms in the ultra-hypofractionation group compared with the conventional fractionation group but no significant increases in late symptoms were found, except for increased urinary symptoms at 1-year follow-up, consistent with the physician-evaluated toxicity. INTERPRETATION: Ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy is non-inferior to conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for intermediate-to-high risk prostate cancer regarding failure-free survival. Early side-effects are more pronounced with ultra-hypofractionation compared with conventional fractionation whereas late toxicity is similar in both treatment groups. The results support the use of ultra-hypofractionation for radiotherapy of prostate cancer. FUNDING: The Nordic Cancer Union, the Swedish Cancer Society, and the Swedish Research Council.

Intraoperativ strålbehandling vid primär operation för bröstcancer - TARGIT-A-studien ej konklusiv.

The TARGIT-A (TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy) multicentre study of early breast cancer compared intraoperative radiotherapy with external radiotherapy. While the intraoperative radiotherapy was standardised, the external postoperative comparison treatment followed established routines in the participating treatment centres resulting in substantial variations in dosages and treatment durations. The uncertainties in the interpretation of the study results created by the design of the TARGIT-A study constitute substantial obstacles to the possible introduction of intraoperative radiotherapy for early breast cancer.

A dose based approach for evaluation of inter-observer variations in target delineation.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Substantial inter-observer variations in target delineation have been presented previously. Target delineation for paediatric cases is difficult due to the small number of children, the variation in paediatric targets, the number of study protocols, and the individual patient's specific needs and demands. Uncertainties in target delineation might lead to under-dosage or over-dosage. The aim of this work is to apply the concept of a consensus volume and good quality treatment plans to visualise and quantify inter-observer target delineation variations in dosimetric terms in addition to conventional geometrically based volume concordance indices. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two paediatric cases were used to demonstrate the potential of adding dose metrics when evaluating target delineation diversity; Hodgkin's disease (case 1) and rhabdomyosarcoma of the parotid gland (case 2). The variability in target delineation (PTV delineations) between six centres was quantified using the generalised conformity index, CIgen, generated for volume overlap. The STAPLE algorithm, as implemented in CERR, was used for both cases to derive a consensus volumes. STAPLE is a probabilistic estimate of the true volume generated from all observers. Dose distributions created by each centre for the original target volumes were then applied to this consensus volume. RESULTS: A considerable variation in target segmentation was seen in both cases. For case 1 the variation was 374-960 cm3 (average 669 cm3) and for case 2; 65-126 cm3 (average 109 cm3). CIgen were 0.53 and 0.70, respectively. The DVHs in absolute volume displayed for the delineated target volume as well as for the consensus volume adds information on both "compliant" target volumes as well as outliers which are hidden with just the use of concordance indices. CONCLUSIONS: The DVHs in absolute volume add valuable and easily understood information to various indices for evaluating uniformity in target delineation.

A national approach for automated collection of standardized and population-based radiation therapy data in Sweden.

PURPOSE: To develop an infrastructure for structured and automated collection of interoperable radiation therapy (RT) data into a national clinical quality registry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present study was initiated in 2012 with the participation of seven of the 15 hospital departments delivering RT in Sweden. A national RT nomenclature and a database for structured unified storage of RT data at each site (Medical Information Quality Archive, MIQA) have been developed. Aggregated data from the MIQA databases are sent to a national RT registry located on the same IT platform (INCA) as the national clinical cancer registries. RESULTS: The suggested naming convention has to date been integrated into the clinical workflow at 12 of 15 sites, and MIQA is installed at six of these. Involvement of the remaining 3/15 RT departments is ongoing, and they are expected to be part of the infrastructure by 2016. RT data collection from ARIA®, Mosaiq®, Eclipse™, and Oncentra® is supported. Manual curation of RT-structure information is needed for approximately 10% of target volumes, but rarely for normal tissue structures, demonstrating a good compliance to the RT nomenclature. Aggregated dose/volume descriptors are calculated based on the information in MIQA and sent to INCA using a dedicated service (MIQA2INCA). Correct linkage of data for each patient to the clinical cancer registries on the INCA platform is assured by the unique Swedish personal identity number. CONCLUSIONS: An infrastructure for structured and automated prospective collection of syntactically interoperable RT data into a national clinical quality registry for RT data is under implementation. Future developments include adapting MIQA to other treatment modalities (e.g. proton therapy and brachytherapy) and finding strategies to harmonize structure delineations. How the RT registry should comply with domain-specific ontologies such as the Radiation Oncology Ontology (ROO) is under discussion.

Assessment of volume segmentation in radiotherapy of adolescents; a treatment planning study by the Swedish Workgroup for Paediatric Radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The variability in target delineation for similar cases between centres treating paediatric and adolescent patients, and the apparent differences in interpretation of radiotherapy guidelines in the treatment protocols encouraged us to perform a dummy-run study as a part of our quality assurance work. The aim was to identify and quantify differences in the segmentation of target volumes and organs at risk (OARs) and to analyse the treatment plans and dose distributions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four patient cases were selected: Wilm's tumour, Hodgkin's disease, rhabdomyosarcoma of the prostate and chordoma of the skull base. The five participating centres received the same patient-related material. They introduced the cases in their treatment planning system, delineated target volumes and OARs and created treatment plans. Dose-volume histograms were retrieved for relevant structures and volumes and dose metrics were derived and compared, e.g. target volumes and their concordance, dose homogeneity index (HI), treated and irradiated volumes, remaining volume at risk and relevant Vx and Dx values. RESULTS: We found significant differences in target segmentation in the majority of the cases. The planning target volumes (PTVs) varied two- to four-fold and conformity indices were in the range of 0.3-0.6. This resulted in large variations in dose distributions to OARs as well as in treated and irradiated volumes even though the treatment plans showed good conformity to the PTVs. Potential reasons for the differences in target delineation were analysed. CONCLUSION: Considerations of the growing child and difficulties in interpretation of the radiotherapy information in the treatment protocols were identified as reasons for the variation. As a result, clarified translated detailed radiotherapy guidelines for paediatric/adolescent patients have been recognised as a way to reduce this variation.