Search

Introduction: Quality assurance methods are incorporated into multicentre radiotherapy clinical trials for ensuring consistent application of trial protocol and quantifying treatment uncertainties. The study's purpose was to determine whether post-treatment disease progression is associated with measures of the quality of radiotherapy treatment.Methods: The TROG 03.04 RADAR trial tested the impact of androgen deprivation on prostate cancer patients receiving dose-escalated external beam radiation therapy. The trial incorporated a plan-review process and Level III dosimetric intercomparison at each centre, from which variables suggestive of treatment quality were collected. Kaplan-Meier statistics and Fine and Gray competing risk modelling were employed to test for associations between quality-related variables and the participant outcome local composite progression.Results: Increased 'dose-difference' at the prostatic apex and at the anterior rectal wall, between planned and measured dose, was associated with reduced progression. Participants whose treatment plans included clinical target volume (CTV) to planning target volume (PTV) margins exceeding protocol requirements also experienced reduced progression. Other quality-related variables, including total accrual from participating centres, measures of target coverage and other variations from protocol, were not significantly associated with progression.Conclusions: This analysis has revealed the association of several treatment quality factors with disease progression. Increased dose and dose margin coverage in the prostate region can reduce disease progression. Extensive and rigorous monitoring has helped to maximise treatment quality, reducing the incidence of quality-indicator outliers, and thus reduce the chance of observing significant associations with progression rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Registering CTs for patients receiving external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with a boost dose from high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR) can be challenging due to considerable image discrepancies (e.g. rectal fillings, HDR needles, HDR artefacts and HDR rectal packing materials). This study is the first to comparatively evaluate image processing and registration methods used to register the rectums in EBRT and HDR CTs of prostate cancer patients. The focus is on the rectum due to planned future analysis of rectal dose-volume response.Methods: For 64 patients, the EBRT CT was retrospectively registered to the HDR CT with rigid registration and non-rigid registration methods in VelocityAI. Image processing was undertaken on the HDR CT and the rigidly-registered EBRT CT to reduce the impact of discriminating features on alternative non-rigid registration methods applied in the software suite for Deformable Image Registration and Adaptive Radiotherapy Research (DIRART) using the Horn-Schunck optical flow and Demons algorithms. The propagated EBRT-rectum structures were compared with the HDR structure using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), Hausdorff distance (HD) and average surface distance (ASD). The image similarity was compared using mutual information (MI) and root mean squared error (MSE). The displacement vector field was assessed via the Jacobian determinant (JAC). The post-registration alignments of rectums for 21 patients were visually assessed.Results: The greatest improvement in the median DSC relative to the rigid registration result was 35 % for the Horn-Schunck algorithm with image processing. This algorithm also provided the best ASD results. The VelocityAI algorithms provided superior HD, MI, MSE and JAC results. The visual assessment indicated that the rigid plus deformable multi-pass method within VelocityAI resulted in the best rectum alignment.Conclusions: The DSC, ASD and HD improved significantly relative to the rigid registration result if image processing was applied prior to DIRART non-rigid registrations, whereas VelocityAI without image processing provided significant improvements. Reliance on a single rectum structure-correspondence metric would have been misleading as the metrics were inconsistent with one another and visual assessments. It was important to calculate metrics for a restricted region covering the organ of interest. Overall, VelocityAI generated the best registrations for the rectum according to the visual assessment, HD, MI, MSE and JAC results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The purpose of this research was to assess agreement between four rating systems of cosmetic outcome measured in a subset of patients with early breast cancer participating in the randomised TARGIT-A trial. TARGIT-A compared risk-adapted single-dose intra-operative radiotherapy (TARGIT-IORT) to whole breast external beam radiotherapy (EBRT).Methods: Patients, their Radiation Oncologist and Research Nurse completed a subjective cosmetic assessment questionnaire before radiotherapy and annually thereafter for five years. Objective data previously calculated by the validated BCCT.core software which utilizes digital photographs to score symmetry, colour and scar was also used. Agreement was assessed by the Kappa statistic and longitudinal changes were assessed by generalized estimating equations.Results: Overall, an Excellent-Good (EG) cosmetic result was scored more often than a Fair-Poor (FP) result for both treatment groups across all time points, with patients who received TARGIT-IORT scoring EG more often than those who received EBRT however this was statistically significant at Year 5 only. There was modest agreement between the four rating systems with the highest Kappa score being moderate agreement which was between nurse and doctor scores at Year 1 with Kappa = 0.46 (p < 0.001), 95% CI (0.24, 0.68).Conclusion: Despite similar overall findings between treatment groups and rating systems, the inter-rater agreement was only modest. This suggests that the four rating systems utilized may not necessarily be used interchangeably and it is arguable that for an outcome such as cosmetic appearance, the patient's point of view is the most important.Trial Registration: TARGIT-A ISRCTN34086741 , Registered 21 July 2004, retrospectively registered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Reducing margins during treatment planning to decrease dose to healthy organs surrounding the prostate can risk inadequate treatment of subclinical disease. This study aimed to investigate whether lack of dose to subclinical disease is associated with increased disease progression by using high-quality prostate radiation therapy clinical trial data to identify anatomically localized regions where dose variation is associated with prostate-specific antigen progression (PSAP).Methods and Materials: Planned dose distributions for 683 patients of the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group 03.04 Randomized Androgen Deprivation and Radiotherapy (RADAR) trial were deformably registered onto a single exemplar computed tomography data set. These were divided into high-risk and intermediate-risk subgroups for analysis. Three independent voxel-based statistical tests, using permutation testing, Cox regression modeling, and least absolute shrinkage selection operator feature selection, were applied to identify regions where dose variation was associated with PSAP. Results from the intermediate-risk RADAR subgroup were externally validated by registering dose distributions from the RT01 (n = 388) and Conventional or Hypofractionated High Dose Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer Trial (CHHiP) (n = 253) trials onto the same exemplar and repeating the tests on each of these data sets.Results: Voxel-based Cox regression revealed regions where reduced dose was correlated with increased prostate-specific androgen progression. Reduced dose in regions associated with coverage at the posterior prostate, in the immediate periphery of the posterior prostate, and in regions corresponding to the posterior oblique beams or posterior lateral beam boundary, was associated with increased PSAP for RADAR and RT01 patients, but not for CHHiP patients. Reduced dose to the seminal vesicle region was also associated with increased PSAP for RADAR intermediate-risk patients.Conclusions: Ensuring adequate dose coverage at the posterior prostate and immediately surrounding posterior region (including the seminal vesicles), where aggressive cancer spread may be occurring, may improve tumor control. It is recommended that particular care be taken when defining margins at the prostate posterior, acknowledging the trade-off between quality of life due to rectal dose and the preferences of clinicians and patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To analyze the impact of postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) for patients with T1-T2 tumors and 1 to 3 positive lymph nodes enrolled on the Breast International Group (BIG) 02-98 trial.Methods and Materials: The BIG 02-98 trial randomized patients to receive adjuvant anthracycline with or without taxane chemotherapy. Delivery of PMRT was nonrandomized and performed according to institutional preferences. The present analysis was performed on participants with T1-T2 breast cancer and 1 to 3 positive lymph nodes who had undergone mastectomy and axillary nodal dissection. The primary objective of the present study was to examine the effect of PMRT on risk of locoregional recurrence (LRR), breast cancer-specific survival, and overall survival.Results: We identified 684 patients who met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis, of whom 337 (49%) had received PMRT. At 10 years, LRR risk was 2.5% in the PMRT group and 6.5% in the no-PMRT group (hazard ratio 0.29, 95% confidence interval 0.12-0.73; P = .005). Lower LRR after PMRT was noted for patients randomized to receive adjuvant chemotherapy with no taxane (10-year LRR: 3.4% vs 9.1%; P = .02). No significant differences in breast cancer-specific survival (84.3% vs 83.9%) or overall survival (81.7% vs 78.3%) were observed according to receipt of PMRT.Conclusion: Our analysis of the BIG 02-98 trial shows excellent outcomes in women with T1-T2 tumors and 1 to 3 positive lymph nodes found in axillary dissection. Although PMRT improved LRR in this cohort, the number of events remained low at 10 years. In all groups, 10-year rates of LRR were relatively low compared with historical studies. As such, the use of PMRT in women with 1 to 3 positive nodes should be tailored to individual patient risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To report the first comprehensive investigation of patient-reported cosmesis and breast-related quality of life (QOL) outcomes comparing patients randomized to risk-adapted single-dose intraoperative radiation therapy (TARGIT-IORT) versus external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) on the TARGIT-A trial.Methods and Materials: Longitudinal cosmesis and QOL data were collected from a subset of TARGIT-A participants who received TARGIT-IORT as a separate procedure (postpathology). Patients completed a cosmetic assessment before radiation therapy and annually thereafter for at least 5 years. Patients also completed the combined European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) core questionnaire and Breast-Specific Module in addition to the Body Image after Breast Cancer Questionnaire at baseline and annually thereafter. The combined EORTC questionnaires were also collected 3, 6, and 9 months after wide local excision.Results: An Excellent-Good cosmetic result was scored more often than a Fair-Poor result for both treatment groups across all time points. The TARGIT-IORT patients reported better breast-related QOL than EBRT patients. Statistically and clinically significant differences were seen at month 6 and year 1, with EBRT patients having moderately worse breast symptoms (a statistically significant difference of more than 10 in a 100-point scale) than TARGIT-IORT patients at these time points.Conclusion: Patients treated with TARGIT-IORT on the TARGIT-A trial have similar self-reported cosmetic outcome but better breast-related QOL outcomes than patients treated with EBRT. This important evidence can facilitate the treatment decision-making process for patients who have early breast cancer suitable for breast-conserving surgery and inform their clinicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]