A versatile phantom for quality assurance in the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) RT01 trial (ISRCTN47772397) in conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer

In-vivo EPID dosimetry for IMRT and VMAT based on through-air predicted portal dose algorithm

We have adapted the methodology of Berry et al. (2012) for Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) treatments at a fixed source to imager distance (SID) based on the manufacturer's through-air portal dose image prediction algorithm. In order to fix the SID a correction factor was introduced to account for the change in air gap between patient and imager. Commissioning data, collected with multiple field sizes, solid water thicknesses and air gaps, were acquired at 150 cm SID on the Varian aS1200 EPID. The method was verified using six IMRT and seven VMAT plans on up to three different phantoms. The method's sensitivity and accuracy were investigated by introducing errors. A global 3%/3 mm gamma was used to assess the differences between the predicted and measured portal dose images. The effect of a varying air gap on EPID signal was found to be significant - varying by up to 30% with field size, phantom thickness, and air gap. All IMRT plans passed the 3%/3 mm gamma criteria by more than 95% on the three phantoms. 23 of 24 arcs from the VMAT plans passed the 3%/3 mm gamma criteria by more than 95%. This method was found to be sensitive to a range of potential errors. The presented approach provides fast and accurate in-vivo EPID dosimetry for IMRT and VMAT treatments and can potentially replace many pre-treatment verifications.

Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: is it 'what you do' or 'the way that you do it'? A UK Perspective on Technique and Quality Assurance

AIMS

The treatment of prostate cancer has evolved markedly over the last 40 years, including radiotherapy, notably with escalated dose and targeting. However, the optimal treatment for localised disease has not been established in comparative randomised trials. The aim of this article is to describe the history of prostate radiotherapy trials, including their quality assurance processes, and to compare these with the ProtecT trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The UK ProtecT randomised trial compares external beam conformal radiotherapy, surgery and active monitoring for clinically localised prostate cancer and will report on the primary outcome (disease-specific mortality) in 2016 following recruitment between 1999 and 2009. The embedded quality assurance programme consists of on-site machine dosimetry at the nine trial centres, a retrospective review of outlining and adherence to dose constraints based on the trial protocol in 54 participants (randomly selected, around 10% of the total randomised to radiotherapy, n = 545). These quality assurance processes and results were compared with prostate radiotherapy trials of a comparable era.

RESULTS

There has been an increasingly sophisticated quality assurance programme in UK prostate radiotherapy trials over the last 15 years, reflecting dose escalation and treatment complexity. In ProtecT, machine dosimetry results were comparable between trial centres and with the UK RT01 trial. The outlining review showed that most deviations were clinically acceptable, although three (1.4%) may have been of clinical significance and were related to outlining of the prostate. Seminal vesicle outlining varied, possibly due to several prostate trials running concurrently with different protocols. Adherence to dose constraints in ProtecT was considered acceptable, with 80% of randomised participants having two or less deviations and planning target volume coverage was excellent.

CONCLUSION

The ProtecT trial quality assurance results were satisfactory and comparable with trials of its era. Future trials should aim to standardise treatment protocols and quality assurance programmes where possible to reduce complexities for centres involved in multiple trials.

Inter-departmental dosimetry audits - development of methods and lessons learned

External dosimetry audits give confidence in the safe and accurate delivery of radiotherapy. In the United Kingdom, such audits have been performed for almost 30 years. From the start, they included clinically relevant conditions, as well as reference machine output. Recently, national audits have tested new or complex techniques, but these methods are then used in regional audits by a peer-to-peer approach. This local approach builds up the radiotherapy community, facilitates communication, and brings synergy to medical physics.

Radiotherapy dosimetry audit: three decades of improving standards and accuracy in UK clinical practice and trials

Dosimetry audit plays an important role in the development and safety of radiotherapy. National and large scale audits are able to set, maintain and improve standards, as well as having the potential to identify issues which may cause harm to patients. They can support implementation of complex techniques and can facilitate awareness and understanding of any issues which may exist by benchmarking centres with similar equipment. This review examines the development of dosimetry audit in the UK over the past 30 years, including the involvement of the UK in international audits. A summary of audit results is given, with an overview of methodologies employed and lessons learnt. Recent and forthcoming more complex audits are considered, with a focus on future needs including the arrival of proton therapy in the UK and other advanced techniques such as four-dimensional radiotherapy delivery and verification, stereotactic radiotherapy and MR linear accelerators. The work of the main quality assurance and auditing bodies is discussed, including how they are working together to streamline audit and to ensure that all radiotherapy centres are involved. Undertaking regular external audit motivates centres to modernize and develop techniques and provides assurance, not only that radiotherapy is planned and delivered accurately but also that the patient dose delivered is as prescribed.

Quality assurance for clinical trials

Cooperative groups, of which the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group is one example, conduct national clinical trials that often involve the use of radiation therapy. In preparation for such a trial, the cooperative group prepares a protocol to define the goals of the trial, the rationale for its design, and the details of the treatment procedure to be followed. The Radiological Physics Center (RPC) is one of several quality assurance (QA) offices that is charged with assuring that participating institutions deliver doses that are clinically consistent and comparable. The RPC does this by conducting a variety of independent audits and credentialing processes. The RPC has compiled data showing that credentialing can help institutions comply with the requirements of a cooperative group clinical protocol. Phantom irradiations have been demonstrated to exercise an institution's procedures for planning and delivering advanced external beam techniques (1-3). Similarly, RPC data indicate that a rapid review of patient treatment records or planning procedures can improve compliance with clinical trials (4). The experiences of the RPC are presented as examples of the contributions that a national clinical trials QA center can make to cooperative group trials. These experiences illustrate the critical need for comprehensive QA to assure that clinical trials are successful and cost-effective. The RPC is supported by grants CA 10953 and CA 81647 from the National Cancer Institute, NIH, DHHS.

Escalated-dose versus standard-dose conformal radiotherapy in prostate cancer: first results from the MRC RT01 randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

In men with localised prostate cancer, conformal radiotherapy (CFRT) could deliver higher doses of radiation than does standard-dose conventional radical external-beam radiotherapy, and could improve long-term efficacy, potentially at the cost of increased toxicity. We aimed to present the first analyses of effectiveness from the MRC RT01 randomised controlled trial.

METHODS

The MRC RT01 trial included 843 men with localised prostate cancer who were randomly assigned to standard-dose CFRT or escalated-dose CFRT, both administered with neoadjuvant androgen suppression. Primary endpoints were biochemical-progression-free survival (bPFS), freedom from local progression, metastases-free survival, overall survival, and late toxicity scores. The toxicity scores were measured with questionnaires for physicians and patients that included the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG), the Late Effects on Normal Tissue: Subjective/Objective/Management (LENT/SOM) scales, and the University of California, Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index (UCLA PCI) scales. Analysis was done by intention to treat. This trial is registered at the Current Controlled Trials website http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN47772397.

FINDINGS

Between January, 1998, and December, 2002, 843 men were randomly assigned to escalated-dose CFRT (n=422) or standard-dose CFRT (n=421). In the escalated group, the hazard ratio (HR) for bPFS was 0.67 (95% CI 0.53-0.85, p=0.0007). We noted 71% bPFS (108 cumulative events) and 60% bPFS (149 cumulative events) by 5 years in the escalated and standard groups, respectively. HR for clinical progression-free survival was 0.69 (0.47-1.02; p=0.064); local control was 0.65 (0.36-1.18; p=0.16); freedom from salvage androgen suppression was 0.78 (0.57-1.07; p=0.12); and metastases-free survival was 0.74 (0.47-1.18; p=0.21). HR for late bowel toxicity in the escalated group was 1.47 (1.12-1.92) according to the RTOG (grade >/=2) scale; 1.44 (1.16-1.80) according to the LENT/SOM (grade >/=2) scales; and 1.28 (1.03-1.60) according to the UCLA PCI (score >/=30) scale. 33% of the escalated and 24% of the standard group reported late bowel toxicity within 5 years of starting treatment. HR for late bladder toxicity according to the RTOG (grade >/=2) scale was 1.36 (0.90-2.06), but this finding was not supported by the LENT/SOM (grade >/=2) scales (HR 1.07 [0.90-1.29]), nor the UCLA PCI (score >/=30) scale (HR 1.05 [0.81-1.36]).

INTERPRETATION

Escalated-dose CFRT with neoadjuvant androgen suppression seems clinically worthwhile in terms of bPFS, progression-free survival, and decreased use of salvage androgen suppression. This additional efficacy is offset by an increased incidence of longer term adverse events.

The early toxicity of escalated versus standard dose conformal radiotherapy with neo-adjuvant androgen suppression for patients with localised prostate cancer: Results from the MRC RT01 trial (ISRCTN47772397)

BACKGROUND

Five-year disease-free survival rates for localised prostate cancer following standard doses of conventional radical external beam radiotherapy are around 80%. Conformal radiotherapy (CFRT) raises the possibility that radiotherapy doses can be increased and long-term efficacy outcomes improved, with safety an important consideration.

METHODS

MRC RT01 is a randomised controlled trial of 862 men with localised prostate cancer comparing Standard CFRT (64Gy/32f) versus Escalated CFRT (74Gy/37f), both administered with neo-adjuvant androgen suppression. Early toxicity was measured using physician-reported instruments (RTOG, LENT/SOM, Royal Marsden Scales) and patient-reported questionnaires (MOS SF-36, UCLA Prostate Cancer Index, FACT-P).

RESULTS

Overall early radiotherapy toxicity was similar, apart from increased bladder, bowel and sexual toxicity, in the Escalated Group during a short immediate post-radiotherapy period. Toxicity in both groups had abated by week 12. Using RTOG Acute Toxicity scores, cumulative Grade 2 bladder and bowel toxicity was 38% and 30% for Standard Group and 39% and 33% in Escalated Group, respectively. Urinary frequency (Royal Marsden Scale) improved in both groups from pre-androgen suppression to 6 months post-radiotherapy (p<0.001), but bowel and sexual functioning deteriorated. This pattern was supported by patient-completed assessments. Six months after starting radiotherapy the incidence of RTOG Grade > or = 2 side-effects was low (<1%); but there were six reports of rectal ulceration (6 Escalated Group), six haematuria (5 Escalated Group) and eight urethral stricture (6 Escalated Group).

CONCLUSIONS

The two CFRT schedules with neo-adjuvant androgen suppression have broadly similar early toxicity profiles except for the immediate post-RT period. At 6 months and compared to before hormone therapy, bladder symptoms improved, whereas bowel and sexual symptoms worsened. These assessments of early treatment safety will be complemented by further follow-up to document late side-effects and efficacy.