Mack Roach

Phase III Trial Comparing Whole-Pelvic Versus Prostate-Only Radiotherapy and Neoadjuvant Versus Adjuvant Combined Androgen Suppression: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9413

PURPOSE This trial tested the hypothesis that combined androgen suppression (CAS) and whole-pelvic (WP) radiotherapy (RT) followed by a boost to the prostate improves progression-free survival (PFS) by 10% compared with CAS and prostate-only (PO) RT. This trial also tested the hypothesis that neoadjuvant and concurrent hormonal therapy (NCHT) improves PFS compared with adjuvant hormonal therapy (AHT) by 10%. MATERIALS AND METHODS Eligibility included localized prostate cancer with an elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) < or = 100 ng/mL and an estimated risk of lymph node (LN) involvement of 15%. Between April 1, 1995, and June 1, 1999, 1,323 patients were accrued. Patients were randomly assigned to WP + NCHT, PO + NCHT, WP + AHT, or PO + AHT. Failure for PFS was defined as the first occurrence of local, regional, or distant disease; PSA failure; or death for any cause. RESULTS With a median follow-up of 59.5 months, WP RT was associated with a 4-year PFS of 54% compared with 47% in patients treated with PO RT (P =.022). Patients treated with NCHT experienced a 4-year PFS of 52% versus 49% for AHT (P =.56). When comparing all four arms, there was a progression-free difference among WP RT + NCHT, PO RT + NCHT, WP RT + AHT, and PO RT + AHT (60% v 44% v 49% v 50%, respectively; P =.008). No survival advantage has yet been seen. CONCLUSION WP RT + NCHT improves PFS compared with PO RT and NCHT or PO RT and AHT, and compared with WP RT + AHT in patients with a risk of LN involvement of 15%.

Short-Term Neoadjuvant Androgen Deprivation Therapy and External-Beam Radiotherapy for Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer: Long-Term Results of RTOG 8610

PURPOSE Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 8610 was the first phase III randomized trial to evaluate neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in combination with external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in men with locally advanced prostate cancer. This report summarizes long-term follow-up results. MATERIALS AND METHODS Between 1987 and 1991, 456 assessable patients (median age, 70 years) were enrolled. Eligible patients had bulky (5 x 5 cm) tumors (T2-4) with or without pelvic lymph node involvement according to the 1988 American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM staging system. Patients received combined ADT that consisted of goserelin 3.6 mg every 4 weeks and flutamide 250 mg tid for 2 months before and concurrent with EBRT, or they received EBRT alone. Study end points included overall survival (OS), disease-specific mortality (DSM), distant metastasis (DM), disease-free survival (DFS), and biochemical failure (BF). RESULTS Ten-year OS estimates (43% v 34%) and median survival times (8.7 v 7.3 years) favored ADT and EBRT, respectively; however, these differences did not reach statistical significance (P = .12). There was a statistically significant improvement in 10-year DSM (23% v 36%; P = .01), DM (35% v 47%; P = .006), DFS (11% v 3%; P < .0001), and BF (65% v 80%; P < .0001) with the addition of ADT, but no differences were observed in the risk of fatal cardiac events. CONCLUSION The addition of 4 months of ADT to EBRT appears to have a dramatic impact on clinically meaningful end points in men with locally advanced disease with no statistically significant impact on the risk of fatal cardiac events.

Comparative analysis of prostate-specific antigen free survival outcomes for patients with low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer treatment by radical therapy. Results from the Prostate Cancer Results Study Group

Whats known on the subject? and What does the study add?

Preliminary report of toxicity following 3D radiation therapy for prostate cancer on 3DOG/RTOG 9406

PURPOSE A prospective Phase I dose escalation study was conducted to determine the maximally-tolerated radiation dose in men treated with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D CRT) for localized prostate cancer. This is a preliminary report of toxicity encountered on the 3DOG/RTOG 9406 study. METHODS AND MATERIALS Each participating institution was required to implement data exchange with the RTOG 3D quality assurance (QA) center at Washington University in St. Louis. 3D CRT capabilities were strictly defined within the study protocol. Patients were registered according to three stratification groups: Group 1 patients had clinically organ-confined disease (T1,2) with a calculated risk of seminal vesicle invasion of < 15%. Group 2 patients had clinical T1,2 disease with risk of SV invasion > or = 15%. Group 3 (G3) patients had clinical local extension of tumor beyond the prostate capsule (T3). All patients were treated with 3D techniques with minimum doses prescribed to the planning target volume (PTV). The PTV margins were 5-10 mm around the prostate for patients in Group 1 and 5-10 mm around the prostate and SV for Group 2. After 55.8 Gy, the PTV was reduced in Group 2 patients to 5-10 mm around the prostate only. Minimum prescription dose began at 68.4 Gy (level I) and was escalated to 73.8 Gy (level II) and subsequently to 79.2 Gy (level III). This report describes the acute and late toxicity encountered in Group 1 and 2 patients treated to the first two study dose levels. Data from RTOG 7506 and 7706 allowed calculation of the expected probability of observing a > or = grade 3 late effect more than 120 days after the start of treatment. RTOG toxicity scores were used. RESULTS Between August 23, 1994 and July 2, 1997, 304 Group 1 and 2 cases were registered; 288 cases were analyzable for toxicity. Acute toxicity was low, with 53-54% of Group 1 patients having either no or grade 1 toxicity at dose levels I and II, respectively. Sixty-two percent of Group 2 patients had either none or grade 1 toxicity at either dose level. Few patients (0-3%) experienced a grade 3 acute bowel or bladder toxicity, and there were no grade 4 or 5 toxicities. Late toxicity was very low in all patient groups. The majority (81-85%) had either no or mild grade 1 late toxicity at dose level I and II, respectively. A single late grade 3 bladder toxicity in a Group 2 patient treated to dose level II was recorded. There were no grade 4 or 5 late effects in any patient. Compared to historical RTOG controls (studies 7506, 7706) at dose level I, no grade 3 or greater late effects were observed in Group 1 and Group 2 patients when 9.1 and 4.8 events were expected (p = 0.003 and p = 0.028), respectively. At dose level II, there were no grade 3 or greater toxicities in Group 1 patients and a single grade 3 toxicity in a Group 2 patient when 12.1 and 13.0 were expected (p = 0.0005 and p = 0.0003), respectively. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that the relative risk of developing acute bladder toxicity was 2.13 if the percentage of the bladder receiving > or = 65 Gy was more than 30% (p = 0.013) and 2.01 if patients received neoadjuvant hormonal therapy (p = 0.018). The relative risk of developing late bladder complications also increased as the percentage of the bladder receiving > or = 65 Gy increased (p = 0.026). Unexpectedly, there was a lower risk of late bladder complications as the mean dose to the bladder and prescription dose level increased. This probably reflects improvement in conformal techniques as the study matured. There was a 2.1 relative risk of developing a late bowel complication if the total rectal volume on the planning CT scan exceeded 100 cc (p = 0.019). CONCLUSION Tolerance to high-dose 3D CRT has been better than expected in this dose escalation trial for Stage T1,2 prostate cancer compared to low-dose RTOG historical experience. With strict quality assurance standards and review, 3D CRT can be safely studied in a co

Prostate volumes defined by magnetic resonance imaging and computerized tomographic scans for three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy

PURPOSE To compare the prostate volumes defined on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and noncontrast computerized tomographic (CT) scans used for three-dimensional (3D) treatment planning. METHODS AND MATERIALS Ten patients were simulated for treatment using immobilization and a retrograde urethrogram. 3D images were used to compare prostate volumes defined by MRI (4-6 mm thick slices) and CT images (5 mm thick slices). Prostate volumes were calculated in cm(3) using the Scanditronix 3D planning system. MRI/CT images were merged using bony anatomy to define the regions of discrepancy in prostate volumes. RESULTS The mean prostate volume was 32% larger (range-5-63%) when defined by noncontrast CT compared to MRI. The areas of nonagreement tended to occur in four distinct regions of discrepancy: (a) the posterior portion of the prostate, (b) the posterior-inferior-apical portion of the prostate, (c) the apex due to disagreement between a urethrogram based definition and the location defined by MRI, (d) regions corresponding to the neurovascular bundle. CONCLUSION There is a tendency to overestimate the prostate volume by noncontrast CT compared to MRI. Awareness of this tendency should allow us to be to more accurately define the prostate during 3-D treatment planning.

Radiation pneumonitis following combined modality therapy for lung cancer: analysis of prognostic factors.

PURPOSE To identify factors associated with radiation pneumonitis (RP) resulting from combined modality therapy (CMT) for lung cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS Series published before 1994 that used CMT for the treatment of lung cancer and explicitly reported the incidence of RP are the basis for this analysis. Factors evaluated included the radiation dose per fraction (Fx), total radiation dose, fractionation scheme (split v continuous), type of chemotherapy and intended dose-intensity, overall treatment time, histology (small-cell lung cancer [SCLC] v non-small-cell lung cancer [NSCLC]), and treatment schedule (concurrent v induction, sequential, or alternating CMT). RESULTS Twenty-four series, including 27 treatment groups and 1,911 assessable patients, met our criteria for inclusion in this analysis. The median total dose of radiation used in the trials analyzed was 50 Gy (range, 25 to 63 Gy). The median daily Fx used was 2.0 Gy (range, 1.5 to 4.0 Gy). Nineteen series included 22 treatment groups and 1,745 patients treated with single daily fractions. Among these patients, 136 received a daily Fx greater than 2.67 Gy. Five series used twice-daily radiotherapy and included 166 patients (Fx, 1.5 to 1.7 Gy). The incidence of RP was 7.8%. In a multivariate analysis, only daily Fx, number of daily fractions, and total dose were associated with the risk of RP (P < .0001, P < .018, and P < .003, respectively). CONCLUSION In this analysis, the use of Fx greater than 2.67 Gy was the most significant factor associated with an increased risk of RP. High total dose also appears to be associated with an increased risk, but twice-daily irradiation seems to reduce the risk expected if the same total daily dose is given as a single fraction. High-Fx radiotherapy should be avoided in patients who receive CMT with curative intent.

Adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy after prostatectomy: AUA/ASTRO guideline

PURPOSE The purpose of this guideline is to provide a clinical framework for the use of radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy as adjuvant or salvage therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS A systematic literature review using the PubMed®, Embase, and Cochrane databases was conducted to identify peer-reviewed publications relevant to the use of radiotherapy after prostatectomy. The review yielded 294 articles; these publications were used to create the evidence-based guideline statements. Additional guidance is provided as Clinical Principles when insufficient evidence existed. RESULTS Guideline statements are provided for patient counseling, the use of radiotherapy in the adjuvant and salvage contexts, defining biochemical recurrence, and conducting a re-staging evaluation. CONCLUSIONS Physicians should offer adjuvant radiotherapy to patients with adverse pathologic findings at prostatectomy (i.e., seminal vesicle invasion, positive surgical margins, extraprostatic extension) and should offer salvage radiotherapy to patients with prostatic specific antigen or local recurrence after prostatectomy in whom there is no evidence of distant metastatic disease. The offer of radiotherapy should be made in the context of a thoughtful discussion of possible short- and long-term side effects of radiotherapy as well as the potential benefits of preventing recurrence. The decision to administer radiotherapy should be made by the patient and the multi-disciplinary treatment team with full consideration of the patients history, values, preferences, quality of life, and functional status. Please visit the ASTRO and AUA websites (http://www.redjournal.org/webfiles/images/journals/rob/RAP%20Guideline.pdf and http://www.auanet.org/education/guidelines/radiation-after-prostatectomy.cfm) to view this guideline in its entirety, including the full literature review.

Static field intensity modulation to treat a dominant intra-prostatic lesion to 90 Gy compared to seven field 3-dimensional radiotherapy

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE Recent studies supported by histopathological correlation suggest that the combined use of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) allows differentiation of normal and carcinomatous prostate. The goal of this study was to use static field intensity modulated three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (SF-IMRT) to treat the entire prostate to a total dose of >70 Gy, while concurrently treating a dominant intraprostatic lesion (DIL) defined by MRI+MRS to 90 Gy while not exceeding normal tissue tolerances. MATERIALS AND METHODS For the example chosen, the DIL consisted of a large portion of the peripheral zone of the left lobe of the prostate. University of Michigan (UM-PLAN) three-dimensional treatment planning software was used to design a partially shielded 7 field conformal isodose plan that would treat the entire prostate to >70 Gy at 1.8 Gy per day (80% isodose line), while concurrently treating the DIL to 2.25 Gy per day for a total dose of 90 Gy. Dose volume histograms (DVH) were used to compare the rectal doses to rectum and other adjacent normal tissues using these two techniques. RESULTS SF-IMRT as described, allowed a total dose of 90 Gy to encompass the DIL, while the rectal dose was slightly lower than that using the standard 7 field technique to the prostate alone. For example, the dose to 30 cm3 of the rectum was 40 Gy using SF-IMRT and 48 Gy for the standard 7 field technique. Because of differences in the dose per fraction the biologic advantages of the SF-IMRT technique are likely to be even greater. CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrates the feasibility of using SF-IMRT to treat a DIL involving a single lobe of the prostate, as defined by MRI/MRS, to 90 Gy, while simultaneously treating the prostate to >70 Gy without increasing the dose to surrounding normal tissues. A similar approach could be used to treat multifocal disease. This method of treatment is an alternative to dynamic intensity modulation. It is less expensive, and can be adapted to any radiation therapy department without the use of an inverse treatment planning programs.

Advances in radiation therapy: conventional to 3D, to IMRT, to 4D, and beyond.

Modern advances in computers have fueled parallel advances in imaging technologies. The improvements in imaging have in turn allowed a higher level of complexity to be incorporated into radiotherapy treatment planning systems. As a result of these changes, the delivery of radiotherapy evolved from therapy designed based primarily on plain (two dimensional) x‐ray images and hand calculations to three‐dimensional x‐ray based images incorporating increasingly complex computer algorithms. More recently, biologic variables based on differences between tumor metabolism, tumor antigens, and normal tissues have been incorporated into the treatment process. In addition, greater awareness of the challenges to the accuracy of the treatment planning process, such as problems with set‐error and organ movement, have begun to be systematically addressed, ushering in an era of so‐called Four‐Dimensional Radiotherapy. This review article discusses how these advances have changed the way the most common neoplasms are treated now and will be treated in the near future.

Eligibility and Outcomes Reporting Guidelines for Clinical Trials for Patients in the State of a Rising Prostate-Specific Antigen: Recommendations From the Prostate-Specific Antigen Working Group

PURPOSE To define methodology to show clinical benefit for patients in the state of a rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA). RESULTS HYPOTHESIS A clinical states framework was used to address the hypothesis that definitive phase III trials could not be conducted in this patient population. PATIENT POPULATION The Group focused on men with systemic (nonlocalized) recurrence and a defined risk of developing clinically detectable metastases. Models to define systemic versus local recurrence, and risk of metastatic progression were discussed. INTERVENTION Therapies that have shown favorable effects in more advanced clinical states; meaningful biologic surrogates of activity linked with efficacy in other tumor types; and/or effects on a target or pathway known to contribute to prostate cancer progression in this state can be considered for evaluation. OUTCOMES An intervention-specific posttherapy PSA-based outcome definition that would justify further testing should be described at the outset. Reporting: Trial reports should include a table showing the number of patients who achieve a specific PSA-based outcome, the number who remain enrolled onto the trial, and the number who came off study at different time points. The term PSA response should be abandoned. TRIAL DESIGN The phases of drug development for this state are optimizing dose and schedule, demonstration of a treatment effect, and clinical benefit. To move a drug forward should require a high bar that includes no rise in PSA in a defined proportion of patients for a specified period of time at a minimum. Agents that do not produce this effect can only be tested in combination. The preferred end point of clinical benefit is prostate cancer-specific survival; the time to development of metastatic disease is an alternative. CONCLUSION Methodology to show that an intervention alters the natural history of prostate cancer is described. At each stage of development, only agents with sufficient activity should be moved forward.