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.
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.
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.
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.
The Nordic Cancer Union, the Swedish Cancer Society, and the Swedish Research Council.
To investigate incidence and location of locoregional recurrence (LRR) in patients who have received postoperative locoregional radiation therapy (LRRT) for primary breast cancer. LRR-position in ...relation to applied radiotherapy and the primary tumor biological subtype were analyzed with the aim of evaluating current target guidelines and radiation therapy techniques in relation to tumor biology.
Medical records were reviewed for all patients who received postoperative LRRT for primary breast cancer in southwestern Sweden from 2004 to 2008 (N = 923). Patients with LRR as a first event were identified (n = 57; distant failure and death were considered competing risks). Computed tomographic images identifying LRR were used to compare LRR locations with postoperative LRRT fields. LRR risk and distribution were then related to the primary breast cancer biologic subtype and to current target guidelines.
Cumulative LRR incidence after 10 years was 7.1% (95% confidence interval CI, 5.5-9.1). Fifty-seven of the 923 patients in the cohort developed LRR (30 local recurrences and 30 regional recurrences, of which 3 cases were simultaneous local and regional recurrence). Most cases of LRR developed fully (56%) or partially (26%) within postoperatively irradiated areas. The most common location for out-of-field regional recurrence was cranial to radiation therapy fields in the supraclavicular fossa. Patients with an estrogen receptor negative (ER-) (hazard ratio HR, 4.6; P < .001; 95% CI, 2.5-8.4) or HER2+ (HR, 2.4; P = .007; 95% CI, 1.3-4.7) primary breast cancer presented higher risks of LRR compared with those with ER+ tumors. ER-/HER2+ tumors more frequently recurred in-field (68%) rather than marginally or out-of-field (32%). In addition, 75% of in-field recurrences derived from an ER- or HER+ tumor, compared with 45% of marginal or out-of-field recurrences. A complete pathologic response in the axilla after neoadjuvant treatment was associated with a lower degree of LRR risk (P = .022).
Incidence and location of LRR seem to be related to the primary breast cancer biologic subtype. Individualized LRRT according to tumor biology may be applied to improve outcomes.
The prescribed radiation dose to patients with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) is standardized, even if the prognosis for individual patients may differ. Easy-at-hand pre-treatment risk ...stratification methods are valuable to individualize therapy. In the current study we assessed the prognostic impact of primary tumor volume for p16-positive and p16-negative tumors and in relationship to other prognostic factors for outcome in patients with OPSCC treated with primary radiation therapy (RT).
Five hundred twenty-three OPSCC patients with p16-status treated with primary RT (68.0 Gy to 73.1 Gy in 7 weeks, or 68.0 Gy in 4.5 weeks), with or without concurrent chemotherapy, within three prospective trials were included in the study. Local failure (LF), progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in relationship to the size of the primary gross tumor volume (GTV-T) and other prognostic factors were investigated. Efficiency of intensified RT (RT with total dose 73.1 Gy or given within 4.5 weeks) was analyzed in relationship to tumor volume.
The volume of GTV-T and p16-status were found to be the strongest prognostic markers for LF, PFS and OS. For p16-positive tumors, an increase in tumor volume had a significantly higher negative prognostic impact compared with p16-negative tumors. Within a T-classification, patients with a smaller tumor, compared with a larger tumor, had a better prognosis. The importance of tumor volume remained after adjusting for nodal status, age, performance status, smoking status, sex, and hemoglobin-level. The adjusted hazard ratio for OS per cm
increase in tumor volume was 2.3% (95% CI 0-4.9) for p16-positive and 1.3% (95% 0.3-2.2) for p16-negative. Exploratory analyses suggested that intensified RT could mitigate the negative impact of a large tumor volume.
Outcome for patients with OPSCC treated with RT is largely determined by tumor volume, even when adjusting for other established prognostic factors. Tumor volume is significantly more influential for patients with p16-positive tumors. Patients with large tumor volumes might benefit by intensified RT to improve survival.
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.
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.
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).
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.
The Nordic Cancer Union, the Swedish Cancer Society, and the Swedish Research Council.
Trismus is a treatment-related late side effect in patients treated for cancer in the head and neck region (HNC). The condition can have a considerable negative impact on nutrition, dental hygiene, ...ability to speak and quality of life. We have previously studied trismus within the frame of a randomized phase 3 study of HNC patients treated with mainly three-dimensional (3D) conformal radiotherapy (CRT) and found a strong association to mean radiation dose to the mastication muscles, especially the ipsilateral masseter muscle (iMAS). In the present study we have investigated trismus prevalence and risk factors in a more recent cohort of patients, treated with todays' more updated radiation techniques.
Maximal interincisal distance (MID) was measured on 139 consecutive patients. Trismus was defined as MID ≤35 mm. Patient-, disease- and treatment-specific data were retrospectively recorded. Differences between groups were analyzed and mean absorbed dose to mastication structures was evaluated. Dosimetric comparisons were made between this study and our previous results.
The prevalence of trismus was 24% at a median of 16 months after completion of radiotherapy. In bivariate analysis treatment technique (3DCRT vs. intensity modulated radiotherapy or helical tomotherapy), tumor site (oropharynx vs. other sites) and mean radiation doses to the ipsilateral lateral pterygoid muscle, the paired masseter muscles and the iMAS were significantly associated with MID ≤35 mm. In multivariable analysis only mean radiation dose to the iMAS was significantly associated to MID ≤35 mm.
Mean radiation dose to the ipsilateral masseter muscle is an important risk factor for trismus development. Dose reduction to this structure during radiotherapy should have a potential to diminish the prevalence of trismus in this patient group.
•Evaluation of delivered dose in prostate salvage radiotherapy based on CBCT.•Deformable CT/CBCT registration evaluated with Dice coefficient showed robust performance.•Differences, although modest, ...were observed between planned and estimated delivered dose.•Trend towards a better association between dose and side effects for delivered dose.
To investigate estimated delivered dose distributions using weekly cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans for pelvic organs at risk (OARs) in salvage radiotherapy (SRT) after radical prostatectomy. Furthermore, to compare them with the originally planned dose distributions and analyse associations with gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) side effects.
This study is part of a phase II trial involving SRT for recurrent prostate cancer. Treatment was personalised based on PSA response during SRT, classifying patients as PSA responders or non-responders. Estimated radiation dose distributions were obtained using deformable image registration from weekly CBCT scans. GI and GU toxicities were assessed using the RTOG toxicity scale, while patient-reported symptoms were monitored through self-assessment questionnaires.
The study included 100 patients, with similar treatment-related side effects observed in both responders and non-responders. Differences in dose-volume metrics between the planned and estimated delivered doses for the examined OARs were mostly modest, although generally statistically significant. We identified statistically significant associations between QUANTEC-recommended dose-volume constraints and acute bowel toxicity, as well as late urinary patient-reported symptoms, for both the estimated delivered and planned dose distributions.
We found small but statistically significant differences between estimated delivered and planned doses to OARs. These differences showed trends toward improved associations for estimated delivered dose distributions with side effects. Enhanced registration methods and imaging techniques could potentially further enhance the assessment of truly delivered doses and yield more reliable dose-volume constraints for future therapies.
Purpose
The aim of this study was to determine whether PET scans after radiotherapy (RT), visually interpreted as equivocal regarding metabolic neck node response can be used to accurately categorize ...patients as responders or nonresponders using a Likert scale and/or maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax). Other aims were to determine the performance of different methods for assessing post-RT PET scans (visual inspection, a Likert scale and SUVmax) and to establish whether any method is superior in predicting regional control (RC) and overall survival (OS).
Methods
In 105 patients with neck node-positive head and neck cancer, the neck node response was evaluated by FDG PET/CT 6 weeks after RT. The scans were clinically assessed by visual inspection and, for the purposes of this analysis, re-evaluated using the Deauville criteria, a five-point Likert scale previously used in lymphoma studies. In addition, SUVmax was determined.
Results
All assessment methods were able to significantly predict RC but not OS. The methods were also able to significantly predict remission of tumour after completion of RT. Of the 105 PET scans, 19 were judged as equivocal on visual inspection. The Likert scale was preferable to SUVmax for grouping patients as responders or nonresponders.
Conclusion
All methods (visual inspection, SUVmax and the Likert scale) identified responders and nonresponders and predicted RC. A Likert scale is a promising tool to reduce to a minimum the problem of PET scans judged as equivocal. Consensus regarding qualitative assessment would facilitate PET reporting in clinical practice.
Ultrahypofractionated (UHF) radiation therapy (RT) has become a treatment alternative for patients with localized prostate cancer. In more advanced cases, seminal vesicles (SVs) are routinely ...included in the target volume. The Scandinavian HYPO-RT-PC trial, which compared 42.7 Gy in 7 fractions (fr) to conventional fractionation (CF), did not include SVs in the clinical target volume. The primary objective of the present work was to implement a ultrahypofractionated-simultaneous integrated boost (UHF-SIB) for prostate cancer RT, incorporating SVs into the target volume based on this fractionation schedule. A secondary objective was to analyze the unintentional dose coverage of SVs from state-of-the-art volumetric modulated arc therapy treatments to the prostate gland only.
Two different equieffective UHF-SIB treatment schedules to SVs were derived based on the CF clinical schedule (50.0 Gy/25 fr to elective SVs and 70.0 Gy/35 fr to verified SV-invasion (SVI)) using the linear quadric model with α/β = 2 Gy and 3 Gy. The dose to the prostate was 42.7 Gy/7 fr in both schedules, with 31.2 Gy/37.8 Gy (α/β = 2 Gy) and 32.7 Gy/40.1 Gy (α/β = 3 Gy) to elective SV/verified SVI. Volumetric modulated arc therapy plans to the proximal 10 mm and 20 mm were optimized, and dose-volume metrics for target volumes and organs at risk were evaluated.
Dose metrics were overall lower for UHF-SIB compared with CF. QUANTEC-based volume criteria were 2% to 7% lower for the rectum and 2% to 4% lower for the bladder in the UHF-SIB. The D98% to elective SV was 7 to 12 Gy3 lower with UHF-SIB, and the corresponding data for verified SVI were approximately 2 to 3 Gy3. The SV(10 mm) V90%/(29.5 Gy) for prostate-only treatments (42.7 Gy) were as follows: median (IQR), 99% (87-100) and 78% (58-99) for the clinical target volume and planning target volume, respectively.
UHF RT based on the HYPO-RT-PC fractionation schedule, with a SIB technique, to the prostate and the base of the SV can be planned with lower doses (EQD2) to organs at risk, compared with CF. The unintentional dose to the proximal parts of SVs in prostate-only treatment can be substantial.
Background
A large tumor volume negatively impacts the outcome of radiation therapy (RT). Altered fractionation (AF) can improve local control (LC) compared with conventional fractionation (CF). The ...aim of the present study was to investigate if response to AF differs with tumor volume in oropharyngeal cancer.
Methods
Three hundred and twenty four patients with oropharyngeal cancer treated in a randomized, phase III trial comparing CF (2 Gy/d, 5 d/wk, 7 weeks, total dose 68 Gy) to AF (1.1 Gy + 2 Gy/d, 5 d/wk, 4.5 weeks, total dose 68 Gy) were analyzed.
Results
Tumor volume had less impact on LC for patients treated with AF. There was an interaction between tumor volume and fractionation schedule (P = .039). This differential response was in favor of CF for small tumors and of AF for large tumors.
Conclusion
AF diminishes the importance of tumor volume for local tumor control in oropharyngeal cancer.
PDF
