O. Naismith

Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: preliminary safety results from the CHHiP randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Prostate cancer might have high radiation-fraction sensitivity, implying a therapeutic advantage of hypofractionated treatment. We present a pre-planned preliminary safety analysis of side-effects in stages 1 and 2 of a randomised trial comparing standard and hypofractionated radiotherapy. METHODS We did a multicentre, randomised study and recruited men with localised prostate cancer between Oct 18, 2002, and Aug 12, 2006, at 11 UK centres. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive conventional or hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and all were given with 3-6 months of neoadjuvant androgen suppression. Computer-generated random permuted blocks were used, with risk of seminal vesicle involvement and radiotherapy-treatment centre as stratification factors. The conventional schedule was 37 fractions of 2 Gy to a total of 74 Gy. The two hypofractionated schedules involved 3 Gy treatments given in either 20 fractions to a total of 60 Gy, or 19 fractions to a total of 57 Gy. The primary endpoint was proportion of patients with grade 2 or worse toxicity at 2 years on the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) scale. The primary analysis included all patients who had received at least one fraction of radiotherapy and completed a 2 year assessment. Treatment allocation was not masked and clinicians were not blinded. Stage 3 of this trial completed the planned recruitment in June, 2011. This study is registered, number ISRCTN97182923. FINDINGS 153 men recruited to stages 1 and 2 were randomly assigned to receive conventional treatment of 74 Gy, 153 to receive 60 Gy, and 151 to receive 57 Gy. With 50·5 months median follow-up (IQR 43·5-61·3), six (4·3%; 95% CI 1·6-9·2) of 138 men in the 74 Gy group had bowel toxicity of grade 2 or worse on the RTOG scale at 2 years, as did five (3·6%; 1·2-8·3) of 137 men in the 60 Gy group, and two (1·4%; 0·2-5·0) of 143 men in the 57 Gy group. For bladder toxicities, three (2·2%; 0·5-6·2) of 138 men, three (2·2%; 0·5-6·3) of 137, and none (0·0%; 97·5% CI 0·0-2·6) of 143 had scores of grade 2 or worse on the RTOG scale at 2 years. INTERPRETATION Hypofractionated high-dose radiotherapy seems equally well tolerated as conventionally fractionated treatment at 2 years. FUNDING Stage 1 was funded by the Academic Radiotherapy Unit, Cancer Research UK programme grant; stage 2 was funded by the Department of Health and Cancer Research UK.

Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial

Summary Background Prostate cancer might have high radiation-fraction sensitivity that would give a therapeutic advantage to hypofractionated treatment. We present a pre-planned analysis of the efficacy and side-effects of a randomised trial comparing conventional and hypofractionated radiotherapy after 5 years follow-up. Methods CHHiP is a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial that recruited men with localised prostate cancer (pT1b–T3aN0M0). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to conventional (74 Gy delivered in 37 fractions over 7·4 weeks) or one of two hypofractionated schedules (60 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks or 57 Gy in 19 fractions over 3·8 weeks) all delivered with intensity-modulated techniques. Most patients were given radiotherapy with 3–6 months of neoadjuvant and concurrent androgen suppression. Randomisation was by computer-generated random permuted blocks, stratified by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group and radiotherapy treatment centre, and treatment allocation was not masked. The primary endpoint was time to biochemical or clinical failure; the critical hazard ratio (HR) for non-inferiority was 1·208. Analysis was by intention to treat. Long-term follow-up continues. The CHHiP trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN97182923. Findings Between Oct 18, 2002, and June 17, 2011, 3216 men were enrolled from 71 centres and randomly assigned (74 Gy group, 1065 patients; 60 Gy group, 1074 patients; 57 Gy group, 1077 patients). Median follow-up was 62·4 months (IQR 53·9–77·0). The proportion of patients who were biochemical or clinical failure free at 5 years was 88·3% (95% CI 86·0–90·2) in the 74 Gy group, 90·6% (88·5–92·3) in the 60 Gy group, and 85·9% (83·4–88·0) in the 57 Gy group. 60 Gy was non-inferior to 74 Gy (HR 0·84 [90% CI 0·68–1·03], pNI=0·0018) but non-inferiority could not be claimed for 57 Gy compared with 74 Gy (HR 1·20 [0·99–1·46], pNI=0·48). Long-term side-effects were similar in the hypofractionated groups compared with the conventional group. There were no significant differences in either the proportion or cumulative incidence of side-effects 5 years after treatment using three clinician-reported as well as patient-reported outcome measures. The estimated cumulative 5 year incidence of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grade 2 or worse bowel and bladder adverse events was 13·7% (111 events) and 9·1% (66 events) in the 74 Gy group, 11·9% (105 events) and 11·7% (88 events) in the 60 Gy group, 11·3% (95 events) and 6·6% (57 events) in the 57 Gy group, respectively. No treatment-related deaths were reported. Interpretation Hypofractionated radiotherapy using 60 Gy in 20 fractions is non-inferior to conventional fractionation using 74 Gy in 37 fractions and is recommended as a new standard of care for external-beam radiotherapy of localised prostate cancer. Funding Cancer Research UK, Department of Health, and the National Institute for Health Research Cancer Research Network.

Consensus Guidelines and Contouring Atlas for Pelvic Node Delineation in Prostate and Pelvic Node Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to establish reproducible guidelines for delineating the clinical target volume (CTV) of the pelvic lymph nodes (LN) by combining the freehand Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) vascular expansion techniques. METHODS AND MATERIALS Seven patients with prostate cancer underwent standard planning computed tomography scanning. Four different CTVs (RMH, RTOG, modified RTOG, and Prostate and pelvIs Versus prOsTate Alone treatment for Locally advanced prostate cancer [PIVOTAL] trial) were created for each patient, and 6 different bowel expansion margins (BEM) were created to assess bowel avoidance by the CTV. The resulting CTVs were compared visually and by using Jaccard conformity indices. The volume of overlap between bowel and planning target volume (PTV) was measured to aid selection of an appropriate BEM to enable maximal LN yet minimal normal tissue coverage. RESULTS In total, 84 nodal contours were evaluated. LN coverage was similar in all groups, with all of the vascular-expansion techniques (RTOG, modified RTOG, and PIVOTAL), resulting in larger CTVs than that of the RMH technique (mean volumes: 287.3 cm(3), 326.7 cm(3), 310.3 cm(3), and 256.7 cm(3), respectively). Mean volumes of bowel within the modified RTOG PTV were 19.5 cm(3) (with 0 mm BEM), 17.4 cm(3) (1-mm BEM), 10.8 cm(3) (2-mm BEM), 6.9 cm(3) (3-mm BEM), 5.0 cm(3) (4-mm BEM), and 1.4 cm(3) (5-mm BEM) in comparison with an overlap of 9.2 cm(3) seen using the RMH technique. Evaluation of conformity between LN-CTVs from each technique revealed similar volumes and coverage. CONCLUSIONS Vascular expansion techniques result in larger LN-CTVs than the freehand RMH technique. Because the RMH technique is supported by phase 1 and 2 trial safety data, we proposed modifications to the RTOG technique, including the addition of a 3-mm BEM, which resulted in LN-CTV coverage similar to that of the RMH technique, with reduction in bowel and planning target volume overlap. On the basis of these findings, recommended guidelines including a detailed pelvic LN contouring atlas have been produced and implemented in the PIVOTAL trial.

Need for consensus when prescribing stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer.

Consistent reporting of radiation therapy doses allows different clinical studies to be compared and the results of clinical trials to be implemented into routine practice. However, a wide range of metrics continues to be reported in the literature for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT, also called stereotactic ablative radiation therapy). These treatments use a small number of highdose fractions, typically as a clinical option for earlystage lung cancer, but they are also under investigation for a range of sites, including prostate and oligometastatic disease. Reporting of prescription doses (PD) for other radiation therapy treatments has been standardized by international guidelines. Conformal treatments aim to deliver a homogeneous dose to the planning target volume and should prescribe the dose to a representative reference point (1). Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) distributions can be more heterogeneous, allowing multiple dose levels within the planning target volume, either to escalate the dose to the gross tumor or reduce doses to adjacent organs at risk. The recommendation for these treatments is to prescribe to the median dose of the appropriate subvolume (2). In practice, many centers optimize plans on the basis of doseevolume histogram (DVH) objectives and accept a median or mean dose close to the nominal PD. Coverage

Forward and inverse-planned intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in the CHHiP trial: A comparison of dosimetry and normal tissue toxicity.

37 Background: CHHiP (CRUK/06/016) is a multicentre randomised controlled trial investigating the use of hypofractionated radiotherapy dose schedules for treatment of localised prostate cancer. RT treatment employs a complex target volume treated with either a multi-segment “forward” plan or inverse-planned intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). This study compares dose-volume histogram (DVH) and toxicity data for rectum and bladder for the two planning techniques. Methods: Three hundred thirty seven patients (230 forward-planned [F]; 107 inverse-planned [I]) with prospectively collected 2 year toxicity and DVH data for rectum and bladder dose constraints were included. Patients were paired for comparison by matching on (1) rectum and prostate + seminal vesicle PTV volumes for the rectal dose comparison (53 matched pairs available); and (2) bladder and prostate-alone PTV volumes for bladder dose comparison (61 matched pairs). For the toxicity comparison patients were additionally matched on randomised d...