Gillian Duchesne

The dose-rate effect in human tumour cells

The radiation response of 12 cell lines derived from a variety of human tumours has been investigated over the dose-rate range from 150 to 1.6 cGy/min. As the dose rate was lowered, the amount of sparing varied widely; in 2 cell lines it was zero, in the other cell lines the dose required for 10(-2) survival ranged up to twice the value at high dose rate. Low dose-rate irradiation discriminates better than high dose rate between tumour cell lines of differing radiosensitivity. The data are equally well fitted by two mathematical models of the dose-rate effect: the LPL model of Curtis and the Incomplete Repair model of Thames. Analysis by the LPL model leads to the conclusion that the theoretical radiosensitivity in the total absence of repair was rather similar among the 7 cell lines on which this analysis was possible. What differs among these cell lines is the extent of repair and/or the probability of direct infliction of a non-repairable lesion. Recovery from radiation damage was also examined by split-dose experiments in a total of 17 human tumour cell lines. Half-time values ranged from 0.36 to 2.3 h and there was a systematic tendency for split-dose halving times to be longer than those derived from analysis of the dose-rate effect. This could imply that cellular recovery is a two-component process, low dose-rate sparing being dominated by the faster component. The extent of low dose-rate sparing shows some tendency to correlate with the magnitude of split-dose recovery; in our view the former is the more reliable measure of cellular recovery. The clinical implication of these studies is that some human tumour types may be well treated by hyperfractionation or low dose-rate irradiation, while for others these may be poor therapeutic strategies.

Urethral stricture following high dose rate brachytherapy for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE To evaluate the incidence, timing, nature and outcome of urethral strictures following high dose rate brachytherapy (HDRB) for prostate carcinoma. METHODS AND MATERIALS Data from 474 patients with clinically localised prostate cancer treated with HDRB were analysed. Ninety percent received HDRB as a boost to external beam radiotherapy (HDRBB) and the remainder as monotherapy (HDRBM). Urethral strictures were graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0. RESULTS At a median follow-up of 41 months, 38 patients (8%) were diagnosed with a urethral stricture (6-year actuarial risk 12%). Stricture location was bulbo-membranous (BM) urethra in 92.1%. The overall actuarial rate of grade 2 or more BM urethral stricture was estimated at 10.8% (95% CI 7.0-14.9%), with a median time to diagnosis of 22 months (range 10-68 months). All strictures were initially managed with either dilatation (n=15) or optical urethrotomy (n=20). Second line therapy was required in 17 cases (49%), third line in three cases (9%) and 1 patient open urethroplasty (grade 3 toxicity). Predictive factors on multivariate analysis were prior trans-urethral resection of prostate (hazard ratio (HR) 2.81, 95% CI 1.15-6.85, p=0.023); hypertension (HR 2.83, 95% CI 1.37-5.85, p=0.005); and dose per fraction used in HDR (HR for 1 Gy increase per fraction 1.33, 95% CI 1.08-1.64, p=0.008). CONCLUSIONS BM urethral strictures are the most common late grade 2 or more urinary toxicity following HDR brachytherapy for prostate cancer. Most are manageable with minimally invasive procedures. Both clinical and dosimetric factors appear to influence the risk of stricture formation.

Measurement of lung tumor volumes using three-dimensional computer planning software

PURPOSE To examine the interclinician variation in the definition of gross tumor volume (GTV) in patients undergoing radiotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), develop methods to minimize this variation, and test these methods. METHODS AND MATERIALS The radiotherapy planning computed tomography (CT) scans of 6 consecutive patients with NSCLC in which the radiologist was able to define and outline the GTV were used. Six oncologists independently contoured the tumors with the radiologists markings as a guide using a three-dimensional treatment planning system. Separate contours were prepared using only mediastinal window settings and using both mediastinal and lung window settings. The volumes were calculated using the planning system software (series 1). Factors that resulted in interclinician variation were determined, and, after a 3-year interval, 5 of the 6 clinicians redefined the GTVs using a revised protocol aimed at minimizing variation (series 2). RESULTS For series 1, the interclinician variation in the measurement of volumes ranged from 5%, in the most tightly measured tumor, to 42%, in the most variable, but was, on average, 20%. Statistically significant differences were noted among the clinicians (p = 0.002), that is, some clinicians tended to record relatively small and some relatively large volumes. The reasons for the variation among the oncologists included a tendency to include regions with a low probability of containing tumor, as if the oncologist were contouring a target volume; inclusion of adjacent atelectasis (ignoring the radiologists outline); and variable treatment of spicules. When the exercise was repeated using the revised protocol (series 2), the degree of interclinician variation was reduced, with a range of 7-22% (average 13%). In series 2, the differences among the clinicians were not statistically significant (p = 0.25). CONCLUSION Despite major radiologic input, significant variation occurred in the delineation of the three-dimensional GTVs of NSCLC among oncologists. Standardization of the approach with guidelines resulted in a reduction in this variation.

High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy as a Monotherapy for Favorable-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Phase II Trial

PURPOSE There are multiple treatment options for favorable-risk prostate cancer. High-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy as a monotherapy is appealing, but its use is still investigational. A Phase II trial was undertaken to explore the value of such treatment in low-to-intermediate risk prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS This was a single-institution, prospective study. Eligible patients had low-risk prostate cancer features but also Gleason scores of 7 (51% of patients) and stage T2b to T2c cancer. Treatment with HDR brachytherapy with a single implant was administered over 2 days. One of four fractionation schedules was used in a dose escalation study design: 3 fractions of 10, 10.5, 11, or 11.5 Gy. Patients were assessed with the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 2.0 for urinary toxicity, the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer scoring schema for rectal toxicity, and the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) questionnaire to measure patient-reported health-related quality of life. Biochemical failure was defined as a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) nadir plus 2 ng/ml. RESULTS Between 2003 and 2008, 79 patients were enrolled. With a median follow-up of 39.5 months, biochemical relapse occurred in 7 patients. Three- and 5-year actuarial biochemical control rates were 88.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 78.0-96.2%) and 85.1% (95% CI, 72.5-94.5%), respectively. Acute grade 3 urinary toxicity was seen in only 1 patient. There was no instance of acute grade 3 rectal toxicity. Rates of late grade 3 rectal toxicity, dysuria, hematuria, urinary retention, and urinary incontinence were 0%, 10.3%, 1.3%, 9.0%, and 0%, respectively. No grade 4 or greater toxicity was recorded. Among the four (urinary, bowel, sexual, and hormonal) domains assessed with the EPIC questionnaire, only the sexual domain did not recover with time. CONCLUSIONS HDR brachytherapy as a monotherapy for favorable-risk prostate cancer, administered using a single implant over 2 days, is feasible and has acceptable acute and late toxicities. Further follow-up is still required to better evaluate the efficacy of such treatment.

Online Adaptive Radiotherapy for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: Results of a Pilot Study

PURPOSE To determine the advantages and disadvantages of daily online adaptive image-guided radiotherapy (RT) compared with conventional RT for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS Twenty-seven patients with T2-T4 transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder were treated with daily online adaptive image-guided RT using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). From day 1 daily soft tissue-based isocenter positioning was performed using CBCT images acquired before treatment. Using a composite of the initial planning CT and the first five daily CBCT scans, small, medium, and large adaptive plans were created. Each of these adaptive plans used a 0.5-cm clinical target volume (CTV) to planning target volume expansion. For Fractions 8-32, treatment involved daily soft tissue-based isocenter positioning and selection of suitable adaptive plan of the day. Treating radiation therapists completed a credentialing program, and one radiation oncologist performed all the contouring. Comparisons were made between adaptive and conventional treatment on the basis of CTV coverage and normal tissue sparing. RESULTS All 27 patients completed treatment per protocol. Bladder volume decreased with time or fraction number (p < 0.0001). For the adaptive component (Fractions 8-32) the small, medium, large, and conventional plans were used in 9.8%, 49.2%, 39.5%, and 1.5% of fractions, respectively. For the adaptive strategy, 2.7% of occasions resulted in a CTV V95 <99%, compared with 4.8% of occasions for the conventional approach (p = 0.42). Mean volume of normal tissue receiving a dose >45 Gy was 29% (95% confidence interval, 24-35%) less with adaptive RT compared with conventional RT. The mean volume of normal tissue receiving >5 Gy was 15% (95% confidence interval, 11-18%) less with adaptive RT compared with conventional RT. CONCLUSIONS Online adaptive radiotherapy is feasible in an academic radiotherapy center. The volume of normal tissue irradiated can be significantly smaller without reducing CTV coverage.

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

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).

A randomized trial of hypofractionated schedules of palliative radiotherapy in the management of bladder carcinoma: results of medical research council trial BA09.

PURPOSE To compare the efficacy and toxicity of two hypofractionated radiotherapy schedules for the improvement of local symptoms from muscle-invasive bladder cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS A multicenter randomized trial was conducted comparing the efficacy and toxicity of two radiotherapy schedules (35 Gy in 10 fractions and 21 Gy in 3 fractions) for symptomatic improvement in patients considered unsuitable for curative treatment through disease stage or comorbidity. The primary outcome measures were overall symptomatic improvement of bladder-related symptoms at 3 months and changes in bladder- and bowel-related symptoms from pretreatment to end-of-treatment and 3-month assessments. Overall symptomatic improvement was defined prospectively as the improvement in one bladder-related symptom of at least one grade at 3 months, with no deterioration in any other bladder-related symptom. RESULTS Five hundred patients were recruited, but data on symptomatic improvement at 3 months was only available on 272 patients. Of these, 68% achieved symptomatic improvement (71% for 35 Gy, 64% for 21 Gy), with no evidence of a difference in efficacy or toxicity between the two arms. There was no evidence of a difference in survival between the two schedules (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.99, 95% CI 0.82-1.21, p = 0. 933). CONCLUSION This is the largest prospective trial to date in the palliative treatment of bladder cancer, and provides baseline data against which other results may be compared. The use of 21 Gy in 3 fractions appears as effective as 35 Gy in 10 fractions, although modest differences in survival, symptomatic improvement rates, and toxicity can not be reliably excluded.

Short-term androgen suppression and radiotherapy versus intermediate-term androgen suppression and radiotherapy, with or without zoledronic acid, in men with locally advanced prostate cancer (TROG 03.04 RADAR): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 factorial trial.

BACKGROUND We investigated whether 18 months of androgen suppression plus radiotherapy, with or without 18 months of zoledronic acid, is more effective than 6 months of neoadjuvant androgen suppression plus radiotherapy with or without zoledronic acid. METHODS We did an open-label, randomised, 2 × 2 factorial trial in men with locally advanced prostate cancer (either T2a N0 M0 prostatic adenocarcinomas with prostate-specific antigen [PSA] ≥10 μg/L and a Gleason score of ≥7, or T2b-4 N0 M0 tumours regardless of PSA and Gleason score). We randomly allocated patients by computer-generated minimisation--stratified by centre, baseline PSA, tumour stage, Gleason score, and use of a brachytherapy boost--to one of four groups in a 1:1:1:1 ratio. Patients in the control group were treated with neoadjuvant androgen suppression with leuprorelin (22·5 mg every 3 months, intramuscularly) for 6 months (short-term) and radiotherapy alone (designated STAS); this procedure was either followed by another 12 months of androgen suppression with leuprorelin (intermediate-term; ITAS) or accompanied by 18 months of zoledronic acid (4 mg every 3 months for 18 months, intravenously; STAS plus zoledronic acid) or by both (ITAS plus zoledronic acid). The primary endpoint was prostate cancer-specific mortality. This analysis represents the first, preplanned assessment of oncological endpoints, 5 years after treatment. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00193856. FINDINGS Between Oct 20, 2003, and Aug 15, 2007, 1071 men were randomly assigned to STAS (n=268), STAS plus zoledronic acid (n=268), ITAS (n=268), and ITAS plus zoledronic acid (n=267). Median follow-up was 7·4 years (IQR 6·5-8·4). Cumulative incidences of prostate cancer-specific mortality were 4·1% (95% CI 2·2-7·0) in the STAS group, 7·8% (4·9-11·5) in the STAS plus zoledronic acid group, 7·4% (4·6-11·0) in the ITAS group, and 4·3% (2·3-7·3) in the ITAS plus zoledronic acid group. Cumulative incidence of all-cause mortality was 17·0% (13·0-22·1), 18·9% (14·6-24·2), 19·4% (15·0-24·7), and 13·9% (10·3-18·8), respectively. Neither prostate cancer-specific mortality nor all-cause mortality differed between control and experimental groups. Cumulative incidence of PSA progression was 34·2% (28·6-39·9) in the STAS group, 39·6% (33·6-45·5) in the STAS plus zoledronic acid group, 29·2% (23·8-34·8) in the ITAS group, and 26·0% (20·8-31·4) in the ITAS plus zoledronic acid group. Compared with STAS, no difference was noted in PSA progression with ITAS or STAS plus zoledronic acid; however, ITAS plus zoledronic acid reduced PSA progression (sub-hazard ratio [SHR] 0·71, 95% CI 0·53-0·95; p=0·021). Cumulative incidence of local progression was 4·1% (2·2-7·0) in the STAS group, 6·1% (3·7-9·5) in the STAS plus zoledronic acid group, 1·5% (0·5-3·7) in the ITAS group, and 3·4% (1·7-6·1) in the ITAS plus zoledronic acid group; no differences were noted between groups. Cumulative incidences of bone progression were 7·5% (4·8-11·1), 14·6% (10·6-19·2), 8·4% (5·5-12·2), and 7·6% (4·8-11·2), respectively. Compared with STAS, STAS plus zoledronic acid increased the risk of bone progression (SHR 1·90, 95% CI 1·14-3·17; p=0·012), but no differences were noted with the other two groups. Cumulative incidence of distant progression was 14·7% (10·7-19·2) in the STAS group, 17·3% (13·0-22·1) in the STAS plus zoledronic acid group, 14·2% (10·3-18·7) in the ITAS group, and 11·1% (7·6-15·2) in the ITAS plus zoledronic acid group; no differences were recorded between groups. Cumulative incidence of secondary therapeutic intervention was 25·6% (20·5-30·9), 28·9% (23·5-34·5), 20·7% (16·1-25·9), and 15·3% (11·3-20·0), respectively. Compared with STAS, ITAS plus zoledronic acid reduced the need for secondary therapeutic intervention (SHR 0·67, 95% CI 0·48-0·95; p=0·024); no differences were noted with the other two groups. An interaction between trial factors was recorded for Gleason score; therefore, we did pairwise comparisons between all groups. Post-hoc analyses suggested that the reductions in PSA progression and decreased need for secondary therapeutic intervention with ITAS plus zoledronic acid were restricted to tumours with a Gleason score of 8-10, and that ITAS was better than STAS in tumours with a Gleason score of 7 or lower. Long-term morbidity and quality-of-life scores were not affected adversely by 18 months of androgen suppression or zoledronic acid. INTERPRETATION Compared with STAS, ITAS plus zoledronic acid was more effective for treatment of prostate cancers with a Gleason score of 8-10, and ITAS alone was effective for tumours with a Gleason score of 7 or lower. Nevertheless, these findings are based on secondary endpoint data and post-hoc analyses and must be regarded cautiously. Long- term follow-up is necessary, as is external validation of the interaction between zoledronic acid and Gleason score. STAS plus zoledronic acid can be ruled out as a potential therapeutic option. FUNDING National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Australia, Abbott Pharmaceuticals Australia, New Zealand Health Research Council, New Zealand Cancer Society, University of Newcastle (Australia), Calvary Health Care (Calvary Mater Newcastle Radiation Oncology Fund), Hunter Medical Research Institute, Maitland Cancer Appeal, Cancer Standards Institute New Zealand.

Direct 2-Arm Comparison Shows Benefit of High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy Boost vs External Beam Radiation Therapy Alone for Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE To evaluate the outcomes of patients treated for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer with a single schedule of either external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDRB) boost or EBRT alone. METHODS AND MATERIALS From 2001-2006, 344 patients received EBRT with HDRB boost for definitive treatment of intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer. The prescribed EBRT dose was 46 Gy in 23 fractions, with a HDR boost of 19.5 Gy in 3 fractions. This cohort was compared to a contemporaneously treated cohort who received EBRT to 74 Gy in 37 fractions, using a matched pair analysis. Three-dimensional conformal EBRT was used. Matching was performed using a propensity score matching technique. High-risk patients constituted 41% of the matched cohorts. Five-year clinical and biochemical outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS Initial significant differences in prognostic indicators between the unmatched treatment cohorts were rendered negligible after matching, providing a total of 688 patients. Median biochemical follow-up was 60.5 months. The 5-year freedom from biochemical failure was 79.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 74.3%-85.0%) and 70.9% (95% CI, 65.4%-76.0%) for the HDRB and EBRT groups, respectively, equating to a hazard ratio of 0.59 (95% CI, 0.43-0.81, P=.0011). Interaction analyses showed no alteration in HDR efficacy when planned androgen deprivation therapy was administered (P=.95), but a strong trend toward reduced efficacy was shown compared to EBRT in high-risk cases (P=.06). Rates of grade 3 urethral stricture were 0.3% (95% CI, 0%-0.9%) and 11.8% (95% CI, 8.1%-16.5%) for EBRT and HDRB, respectively (P<.0001). No differences in clinical outcomes were observed. CONCLUSIONS This comparison of 2 individual contemporaneously treated HDRB and EBRT approaches showed improved freedom from biochemical progression with the HDR approach. The benefit was more pronounced in intermediate- risk patients but needs to be weighed against an increased risk of urethral toxicity.

Timing of androgen-deprivation therapy in patients with prostate cancer with a rising PSA (TROG 03.06 and VCOG PR 01-03 [TOAD]): a randomised, multicentre, non-blinded, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND Androgen-deprivation therapy is offered to men with prostate cancer who have a rising prostate-specific antigen after curative therapy (PSA relapse) or who are considered not suitable for curative treatment; however, the optimal timing for its introduction is uncertain. We aimed to assess whether immediate androgen-deprivation therapy improves overall survival compared with delayed therapy. METHODS In this randomised, multicentre, phase 3, non-blinded trial, we recruited men through 29 oncology centres in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. Men with prostate cancer were eligible if they had a PSA relapse after previous attempted curative therapy (radiotherapy or surgery, with or without postoperative radiotherapy) or if they were not considered suitable for curative treatment (because of age, comorbidity, or locally advanced disease). We used a database-embedded, dynamically balanced, randomisation algorithm, coordinated by the Cancer Council Victoria, to randomly assign participants (1:1) to immediate androgen-deprivation therapy (immediate therapy arm) or to delayed androgen-deprivation therapy (delayed therapy arm) with a recommended interval of at least 2 years unless clinically contraindicated. Randomisation for participants with PSA relapse was stratified by type of previous therapy, relapse-free interval, and PSA doubling time; randomisation for those with non-curative disease was stratified by metastatic status; and randomisation in both groups was stratified by planned treatment schedule (continuous or intermittent) and treatment centre. Clinicians could prescribe any form and schedule of androgen-deprivation therapy and group assignment was not masked. The primary outcome was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. The trial closed to accrual in 2012 after review by the independent data monitoring committee, but data collection continued for 18 months until Feb 26, 2014. It is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12606000301561) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00110162). FINDINGS Between Sept 3, 2004, and July 13, 2012, we recruited 293 men (261 with PSA relapse and 32 with non-curable disease). We randomly assigned 142 men to the immediate therapy arm and 151 to the delayed therapy arm. Median follow-up was 5 years (IQR 3·3-6·2) from the date of randomisation. 16 (11%) men died in the immediate therapy arm and 30 (20%) died in the delayed therapy arm. 5-year overall survival was 86·4% (95% CI 78·5-91·5) in the delayed therapy arm versus 91·2% (84·2-95·2) in the immediate therapy arm (log-rank p=0·047). After Cox regression, the unadjusted HR for overall survival for immediate versus delayed arm assignment was 0·55 (95% CI 0·30-1·00; p=0·050). 23 patients had grade 3 treatment-related adverse events. 105 (36%) men had adverse events requiring hospital admission; none of these events were attributable to treatment or differed between treatment-timing groups. The most common serious adverse events were cardiovascular, which occurred in nine (6%) patients in the delayed therapy arm and 13 (9%) in the immediate therapy arm. INTERPRETATION Immediate receipt of androgen-deprivation therapy significantly improved overall survival compared with delayed intervention in men with PSA-relapsed or non-curable prostate cancer. The results provide benchmark evidence of survival rates and morbidity to discuss with men when considering their treatment options. FUNDING Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and Cancer Councils, The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists, Mayne Pharma Australia.