William U. Shipley

Common toxicity criteria: version 2.0. an improved reference for grading the acute effects of cancer treatment: impact on radiotherapy

In 1997, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) led an effort to revise and expand the Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC) with the goal of integrating systemic agent, radiation, and surgical criteria into a comprehensive and standardized system. Representatives from the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) participated in this process in an effort to improve acute radiation related criteria and to achieve better clarity and consistency among modalities. CTC v. 2.0 replaces the previous NCI CTC and the RTOG Acute Radiation Morbidity Scoring Criteria and includes more than 260 individual adverse events with more than 100 of these applicable to acute radiation effects. One of the advantages of the revised criteria for radiation oncology is the opportunity to grade acute radiation effects not adequately captured under the previous RTOG system. A pilot study conducted by the RTOG indicated the new criteria are indeed more comprehensive and were preferred by research associates. CTC v. 2.0 represents an improvement in the evaluation and grading of acute toxicity for all modalities.

Phase III Trial of Long-Term Adjuvant Androgen Deprivation After Neoadjuvant Hormonal Cytoreduction and Radiotherapy in Locally Advanced Carcinoma of the Prostate: The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Protocol 92–02

PURPOSE Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) Protocol 92-02 was a randomized trial testing long-term (LT) adjuvant androgen deprivation (AD) after initial AD with external-beam radiotherapy (RT) in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer (PC; T2c-4) and with prostate-specific antigen level less than 150 ng/mL. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients received a total of 4 months of goserelin and flutamide, 2 months before and 2 months during RT. A radiation dose of 65 to 70 Gy was given to the prostate and a dose of 44 to 50 Gy to the pelvic lymph nodes. Patients were randomly assigned to receive no additional therapy (short-term [ST]AD-RT) or 24 months of goserelin (LTAD-RT); 1,554 patients were entered onto the study. RESULTS The LTAD-RT arm showed significant improvement in all efficacy end points except overall survival (OS; 80.0% v 78.5% at 5 years, P =.73), compared with the STAD-RT arm. In a subset of patients not part of the original study design, with tumors assigned Gleason scores of 8 to 10 by the contributing institutions, the LTAD-RT arm had significantly better OS (81.0% v 70.7%, P =.044). There was a small but significant increase in the frequency of late radiation grades 3, 4, and 5 gastrointestinal toxicity ascribed to the LTAD-RT arm (2.6% v 1.2% at 5 years, P =.037), the cause of which is not clear. CONCLUSION The RTOG 92-02 trial supports the addition of LT adjuvant AD to STAD with RT for T2c-4 PC. In the exploratory subset analysis of patients with Gleason scores 8 to 10, LT adjuvant AD resulted in a survival advantage.

Phase III trial of androgen suppression using goserelin in unfavorable-prognosis carcinoma of the prostate treated with definitive radiotherapy: report of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Protocol 85-31.

PURPOSE Although androgen suppression results in a tumor response/remission in the majority of patients with carcinoma of the prostate, its potential value as an adjuvant has not been substantiated. MATERIALS AND METHODS In 1987, the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) initiated a randomized phase III trial of adjuvant goserelin in definitively irradiated patients with carcinoma of the prostate. A total of 977 patients had been accessioned to the study. Of these, 945 remained analyzable: 477 on the adjuvant arm and 468 on the observation arm. RESULTS Actuarial projections show that at 5 years, 84% of patients on the adjuvant goserelin arm and 71% on the observation arm remain without evidence of local recurrence (P < .0001). The corresponding figures for freedom from distant metastases and disease-free survival are 83% versus 70% (P < .001) and 60% and 44% (P < .0001). If prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level greater than 1.5 ng is included as a failure (after > or = 1 year), the 5-year disease-free survival rate on the adjuvant goserelin arm is 53% versus 20% on the observation arm (P < .0001). The 5-year survival rate (for the entire population) is 75% on the adjuvant arm versus 71% on the observation arm (P = .52). However, in patients with centrally reviewed tumors with a Gleason score of 8 to 10, the difference in actuarial 5-year survival (66% on the adjuvant goserelin arm v 55% on the observation arm) reaches statistical significance (P = .03). CONCLUSION Application of androgen suppression as an adjuvant to definitive radiotherapy has been associated with a highly significant improvement in local control and freedom from disease progression. At this point, with a median follow-up time of 4.5 years, a significant improvement in survival has been observed only in patients with centrally reviewed tumors with a Gleason score of 8 to 10.

Ten-Year Follow-Up of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Protocol 92-02: A Phase III Trial of the Duration of Elective Androgen Deprivation in Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE To determine whether adding 2 years of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) improved outcome for patients electively treated with ADT before and during radiation therapy (RT). PATIENTS AND METHODS Prostate cancer patients with T2c-T4 prostate cancer with no extra pelvic lymph node involvement and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) less than 150 ng/mL were included. All patients received 4 months of goserelin and flutamide before and during RT. They were randomized to no further ADT (short-term ADT [STAD] + RT) or 24 months of goserelin (long-term ADT [LTAD] + RT). A total of 1,554 patients were entered. RT was 45 Gy to the pelvic nodes and 65 to 70 Gy to the prostate. Median follow-up of all survival patients is 11.31 and 11.27 years for the two arms. RESULTS At 10 years, the LTAD + RT group showed significant improvement over the STAD + RT group for all end points except overall survival: disease-free survival (13.2% v 22.5%; P < .0001), disease-specific survival (83.9% v 88.7%; P = .0042), local progression (22.2% v 12.3%; P < .0001), distant metastasis (22.8% v 14.8%; P < .0001), biochemical failure (68.1% v 51.9%; P <or= .0001), and overall survival (51.6% v 53.9%, P = .36). One subgroup analyzed consisted of all cancers with a Gleason score of 8 to 10 cancers. An overall survival difference was observed (31.9% v 45.1%; P = .0061), as well as in all other end points herein. CONCLUSION LTAD as delivered in this study for the treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer is superior to STAD for all end points except survival. A survival advantage for LTAD + RT in the treatment of locally advanced tumors with a Gleason score of 8 to 10 suggests that this should be the standard of treatment for these high-risk patients.

Randomized Trial Comparing Conventional-Dose With High-Dose Conformal Radiation Therapy in Early-Stage Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate: Long-Term Results From Proton Radiation Oncology Group/American College of Radiology 95-09

PURPOSE To test the hypothesis that increasing radiation dose delivered to men with early-stage prostate cancer improves clinical outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS Men with T1b-T2b prostate cancer and prostate-specific antigen </= 15 ng/mL were randomly assigned to a total dose of either 70.2 Gray equivalents (GyE; conventional) or 79.2 GyE (high). No patient received androgen suppression therapy with radiation. Local failure (LF), biochemical failure (BF), and overall survival (OS) were outcomes. Results A total of 393 men were randomly assigned, and median follow-up was 8.9 years. Men receiving high-dose radiation therapy were significantly less likely to have LF, with a hazard ratio of 0.57. The 10-year American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology BF rates were 32.4% for conventional-dose and 16.7% for high-dose radiation therapy (P < .0001). This difference held when only those with low-risk disease (n = 227; 58% of total) were examined: 28.2% for conventional and 7.1% for high dose (P < .0001). There was a strong trend in the same direction for the intermediate-risk patients (n = 144; 37% of total; 42.1% v 30.4%, P = .06). Eleven percent of patients subsequently required androgen deprivation for recurrence after conventional dose compared with 6% after high dose (P = .047). There remains no difference in OS rates between the treatment arms (78.4% v 83.4%; P = .41). Two percent of patients in both arms experienced late grade >/= 3 genitourinary toxicity, and 1% of patients in the high-dose arm experienced late grade >/= 3 GI toxicity. CONCLUSION This randomized controlled trial shows superior long-term cancer control for men with localized prostate cancer receiving high-dose versus conventional-dose radiation. This was achieved without an increase in grade >/= 3 late urinary or rectal morbidity.

Androgen deprivation with radiation therapy compared with radiation therapy alone for locally advanced prostatic carcinoma: a randomized comparative trial of the radiation therapy oncology group

OBJECTIVES Androgen deprivation therapy before and during radiation therapy could, by reducing tumor volume, increase local tumor control, disease-free survival, and overall survival in patients with locally advanced adenocarcinomas of the prostate. METHODS In a randomized controlled clinical trial, patients with large T2, T3, and T4 prostate tumors, but no evidence of osseous metastasis, were randomized to receive goserelin 3.6 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks and flutamide 250 mg orally three times daily 2 months before and during the radiation therapy course (Arm I) compared with radiation therapy alone (Arm II). Pelvic irradiation was administered with 1.8 to 2.0 Gy per day to a total dose of 45 +/- 1 Gy followed by a boost to the prostate target volume to a total dose of 65 to 70 Gy. RESULTS Of 471 randomized patients, 456 were evaluable, 226 on Arm I and 230 on Arm II. With a median potential follow-up of 4.5 years, the cumulative incidence of local progression at 5 years was 46% in Arm I and 71% in Arm II (P < 0.001). The 5-year incidence of distant metastasis on Arms I and II was 34% and 41%, respectively (P = 0.09). Progression-free survival rates including normal prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels for 396 patients with at least one PSA recorded were 36% in Arm I and 15% in Arm II at 5 years (P < 0.001). At this time, no significant difference in overall survival could be detected (P = 0.7). CONCLUSIONS Short-term androgen deprivation with radiation therapy results in a marked increase in local control and disease-free survival compared with pelvic irradiation alone in patients with locally advanced carcinoma of the prostate. Long-term surveillance is required to assess effects on overall survival.

Long-term treatment sequelae following external beam irradiation for adenocarcinoma of the prostate: analysis of RTOG studies 7506 and 7706☆

Significant late intestinal and urinary morbidity from external beam irradiation for adenocarcinoma of the prostate has been a constant concern of both the urologist and the radiation oncologist. We analyzed two large Radiation Therapy Oncology Group trials (7506 and 7706) using primary irradiation in the treatment of local or locoregional adenocarcinoma of the prostate to assess morbidity via the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group scoring scheme (grade 1-5). One thousand twenty patients were treated in total with a minimum follow-up of 7 years in the surviving patients. There was a 3.3% incidence of intestinal complications defined as grade 3 toxicity or more with .6% of patients experiencing bowel obstruction or perforation. Urinary complications defined as grade 3 toxicity or more were found in 7.7% of patients with only 0.5% experiencing morbidity that would require a major surgical intervention such as laparotomy, cystectomy, or prolonged hospitalization. Intestinal and urinary complications were evaluated in reference to several parameters that might have an impact on their incidence (i.e., previous laparotomy, stage of disease, hypertension, positive lymph nodes, previous transurethral resection, total dose, and energy of accelerator used). Only total dose (greater than 70 Gray) was found to have a significant impact on the incidence of the urinary complications. None of these factors had a significant impact on the incidence of intestinal complications. These data from two large multi-institutional trials represent a fair estimate of the actual incidence of major intestinal and urinary complications from external beam irradiation in the management of local and locoregional adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Since the incidence of these major complications remains very low, we believe that external beam irradiation remains an excellent alternative to radical prostatectomy in the management of these patients.

Radiotherapy and Short-Term Androgen Deprivation for Localized Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND It is not known whether short-term androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) before and during radiotherapy improves cancer control and overall survival among patients with early, localized prostate adenocarcinoma. METHODS From 1994 through 2001, we randomly assigned 1979 eligible patients with stage T1b, T1c, T2a, or T2b prostate adenocarcinoma and a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of 20 ng per milliliter or less to radiotherapy alone (992 patients) or radiotherapy with 4 months of total androgen suppression starting 2 months before radiotherapy (radiotherapy plus short-term ADT, 987 patients). The primary end point was overall survival. Secondary end points included disease-specific mortality, distant metastases, biochemical failure (an increasing level of PSA), and the rate of positive findings on repeat prostate biopsy at 2 years. RESULTS The median follow-up period was 9.1 years. The 10-year rate of overall survival was 62% among patients receiving radiotherapy plus short-term ADT (the combined-therapy group), as compared with 57% among patients receiving radiotherapy alone (hazard ratio for death with radiotherapy alone, 1.17; P=0.03). The addition of short-term ADT was associated with a decrease in the 10-year disease-specific mortality from 8% to 4% (hazard ratio for radiotherapy alone, 1.87; P=0.001). Biochemical failure, distant metastases, and the rate of positive findings on repeat prostate biopsy at 2 years were significantly improved with radiotherapy plus short-term ADT. Acute and late radiation-induced toxic effects were similar in the two groups. The incidence of grade 3 or higher hormone-related toxic effects was less than 5%. Reanalysis according to risk showed reductions in overall and disease-specific mortality primarily among intermediate-risk patients, with no significant reductions among low-risk patients. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stage T1b, T1c, T2a, or T2b prostate adenocarcinoma and a PSA level of 20 ng per milliliter or less, the use of short-term ADT for 4 months before and during radiotherapy was associated with significantly decreased disease-specific mortality and increased overall survival. According to post hoc risk analysis, the benefit was mainly seen in intermediate-risk, but not low-risk, men. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; RTOG 94-08 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00002597.).

Advanced prostate cancer: The results of a randomized comparative trial of high dose irradiation boosting with conformal protons compared with conventional dose irradiation using photons alone☆

PURPOSE Following a thorough Phase I/II study, we evaluated by a Phase III trial high versus conventional dose external beam irradiation as mono-therapy for patients with Stage T3-T4 prostate cancer. Patient outcome following standard dose radiotherapy or following a 12.5% increase in total dose to 75.6 Cobalt Gray Equivalent (CGE) using a conformal perineal proton boost was compared for local tumor control, disease-free survival, and overall survival. METHODS AND MATERIALS Stage T3-T4, Nx, N0-2, M0 patients received 50.4 Gy by four-field photons and were randomized to receive either an additional 25.2 CGE by conformal protons (arm 1--the high dose arm, 103 patients, total dose 75.6 CGE) or an additional 16.8 Gy by photons (arm 2--the conventional dose arm, 99 patients, total dose 67.2 Gy). Actuarial overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS), total recurrence-free survival (TRFS), (clinically free, prostate specific antigen (PSA) less than 4ng/ml and a negative prostate rebiopsy, done in 38 patients without evidence of disease) and local control (digital rectal exam and rebiopsy negative) were evaluated. RESULTS The protocol completion rate was 90% for arm 1 and 97% for arm 2. With a median follow-up of 61 months (range 3 to 139 months) 135 patients are alive and 67 have died, 20 from causes other than prostate cancer. We found no significant differences in OS, DSS, TRFS or local control between the two arms. Among those completing randomized treatment (93 in arm 1 and 96 in arm 2), the local control at 5 and 8 years for arm 1 is 92% and 77%, respectively and is 80% and 60%, respectively for arm 2 (p = .089) and there are no significant differences in OS, DSS, and TRFS. The local control for the 57 patients with poorly differentiated (Gleason 4 or 5 of 5) tumors at 5 and 8 years for arm 1 is 94% and 84% and is 64% and 19% on arm 2 (p = 0.0014). In patients whose digital rectal exam had normalized following treatment and underwent prostate rebiopsy there was a lower positive rebiopsy rate for arm 1 versus arm 2 patients (28 vs. 45%) and also for those with well and moderately differentiated tumors versus poorly differentiated tumors (32 and 50%). These differences were not statistically significant. Grade 1 and 2 rectal bleeding is higher (32 vs. 12%, p = 0.002) as may be urethral stricture (19 vs. 8%, p = 0.07) in the arm 1 versus arm 2. CONCLUSIONS An increase in prostate tumor dose by external beam of 12.5% to 75.6 CGE by a conformal proton boost compared to a conventional dose of 67.2 Gy by a photon boost significantly improved local control only in patients with poorly differentiated tumors. It has increased late radiation sequelae, and as yet, has not increased overall survival, disease-specific survival, or total recurrence-free survival in any subgroup. These results have led us to test by a subsequent Phase III trial the potential beneficial effect on local control and disease-specific survival of a 12.5% increase in total dose relative to conventional dose in patients with T1, T2a, and T2b tumors.

Phase III trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with invasive bladder cancer treated with selective bladder preservation by combined radiation therapy and chemotherapy: initial results of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 89-03.

PURPOSETo assess the efficacy of neoadjuvant methotrexate, cisplatin, and vinblastine (MCV) chemotherapy in patients with muscle-invading bladder cancer treated with selective bladder preservation.PATIENTS AND METHODSOne hundred twenty-three eligible patients with tumor, node, metastasis system clinical stage T2 to T4aNXMO bladder cancer were randomized to receive (arm 1, n=61 ) two cycles of MCV before 39.6-Gy pelvic irradiation with concurrent cisplatin 100 mg/m2 for two courses 3 weeks apart. Patients assigned to arm 2 (n=62) did not receive MCV before concurrent cisplatin and radiation therapy. Tumor response was scored as a clinical complete response (CR) when the cystoscopic tumor-site biopsy and urine cytology results were negative. The CR patients were treated with an additional 25.2 Gy to a total of 64.8 Gy and one additional dose of cisplatin. Those with less than a CR underwent cystectomy. The median follow-up of all patients who survived is 60 months.RESULTSSeventy-four percent of the patients...