EORTC Radiotherapy Group: achievements and future projects. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer

HYPORT adjuvant acute toxicity and patient dosimetry quality assurance results - Interim analysis

BACKGROUND

HYPORT adjuvant trial is a randomised phase III open-label noninferiority trial comparing standard moderately hypofractionated 3 week adjuvant radiation therapy in breast cancer with a novel 1-week schedule. The trial was initiated in March 2019 and is open to recruitment with a total sample size of 2100. We report the results of dosimetric quality assurance, acute toxicity and pre planned first interim safety analysis in the first 271 patients.

METHODS

Stage I-III breast cancer planned for adjuvant radiation therapy to the breast/chest-wall (along with regional nodes as indicated) were randomised to receive 40 Gy/15 fractions/3 weeks or 26 Gy/5 fractions/1 week. For simultaneous integrated boost, the patients in the control arm received 8 Gy/15 fractions/3 weeks, while those in the experimental arm received 6 Gy/5 fractions/1 week (to the tumour bed). For sequential boost, the prescribed dose was 12 Gy/4 fractions/4 days in both arms. Compliance to pre specified dosimetric parameters and acute toxicities were evaluated.

RESULT

Data of the first 271 patients was analysed of whom 104 patients received tumour bed boost using SIB. All mandatory dosimetric criteria were met apart from one patient with a higher contralateral breast dose due to optimal internal mammary nodal coverage. Overall three patients (1.1%) experienced grade 3 radiation dermatitis (none received SIB), no other Grade 3 or higher toxicities reported.

CONCLUSION

This acute toxicity interim analysis demonstrates that hypofractionated adjuvant radiotherapy with SIB for patients with breast cancer is feasible, and associated with minimal severe acute toxicities.

Urethra-Sparing Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Quality Assurance of a Randomized Phase 2 Trial

PURPOSE

To present the radiation therapy quality assurance results from a prospective multicenter phase 2 randomized trial of short versus protracted urethra-sparing stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for localized prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Between 2012 and 2015, 165 patients with prostate cancer from 9 centers were randomized and treated with SBRT delivered either every other day (arm A, n = 82) or once a week (arm B, n = 83); 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions were prescribed to the prostate with (n = 92) or without (n = 73) inclusion of the seminal vesicles (SV), and the urethra planning-risk volume received 32.5 Gy. Patients were treated either with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT; n = 112) or with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT; n = 53). Deviations from protocol dose constraints, planning target volume (PTV) homogeneity index, PTV Dice similarity coefficient, and number of monitor units for each treatment plan were retrospectively analyzed. Dosimetric results of VMAT versus IMRT and treatment plans with versus without inclusion of SV were compared.

RESULTS

At least 1 major protocol deviation occurred in 51 patients (31%), whereas none was observed in 41. Protocol violations were more frequent in the IMRT group (P < .001). Furthermore, the use of VMAT yielded better dosimetric results than IMRT for urethra planning-risk volume D_98% (31.1 vs 30.8 Gy, P < .0001), PTV D_2% (37.9 vs 38.7 Gy, P < .0001), homogeneity index (0.09 vs 0.10, P < .0001), Dice similarity coefficient (0.83 vs 0.80, P < .0001), and bladder wall V_50% (24.5% vs 33.5%, P = .0001). To achieve its goals volumetric modulated arc therapy required fewer monitor units than IMRT (2275 vs 3378, P <.0001). The inclusion of SV in the PTV negatively affected the rectal wall V_90% (9.1% vs 10.4%, P = .0003) and V_80% (13.2% vs 15.7%, P = .0003).

CONCLUSIONS

Protocol deviations with potential impact on tumor control or toxicity occurred in 31% of patients in this prospective clinical trial. Protocol deviations were more frequent with IMRT. Prospective radiation therapy quality assurance protocols should be strongly recommended for SBRT trials to minimize potential protocol deviations.

Automated Extraction of Dose/Volume Statistics for Radiotherapy-Treatment-Plan Evaluation in Clinical-Trial Quality Assurance

Radiotherapy clinical-trial quality assurance is a crucial yet challenging process. This note presents a tool that automatically extracts dose/volume statistics for determining dosimetry compliance review with improved efficiency and accuracy. A major objective of this study is to develop an automated solution for clinical-trial radiotherapy dosimetry review.

Critical Impact of Radiotherapy Protocol Compliance and Quality in the Treatment of Advanced Head and Neck Cancer: Results From TROG 02.02

Purpose

To report the impact of radiotherapy quality on outcome in a large international phase III trial evaluating radiotherapy with concurrent cisplatin plus tirapazamine for advanced head and neck cancer.

Patients and Methods

The protocol required interventional review of radiotherapy plans by the Quality Assurance Review Center (QARC). All plans and radiotherapy documentation underwent post-treatment review by the Trial Management Committee (TMC) for protocol compliance. Secondary review of noncompliant plans for predicted impact on tumor control was performed. Factors associated with poor protocol compliance were studied, and outcome data were analyzed in relation to protocol compliance and radiotherapy quality.

Results

At TMC review, 25.4% of the patients had noncompliant plans but none in which QARC-recommended changes had been made. At secondary review, 47% of noncompliant plans (12% overall) had deficiencies with a predicted major adverse impact on tumor control. Major deficiencies were unrelated to tumor subsite or to T or N stage (if N+), but were highly correlated with number of patients enrolled at the treatment center (< five patients, 29.8%; ≥ 20 patients, 5.4%; P < .001). In patients who received at least 60 Gy, those with major deficiencies in their treatment plans (n = 87) had a markedly inferior outcome compared with those whose treatment was initially protocol compliant (n = 502): −2 years overall survival, 50% v 70%; hazard ratio (HR), 1.99; P < .001; and 2 years freedom from locoregional failure, 54% v 78%; HR, 2.37; P < .001, respectively.

Conclusion

These results demonstrate the critical importance of radiotherapy quality on outcome of chemoradiotherapy in head and neck cancer. Centers treating only a few patients are the major source of quality problems.

Patterns of care in radiotherapy of breast cancer in Austria 1985: data acquisition and comparison with data of US-PCS 1983

PURPOSE

In Austria, a Patterns of Care Study (PCS) has been conducted to evaluate the standards of practice for breast cancer patients. The year 1985 was selected in order to establish a base data set.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

At all nine radiation therapy facilities active in patient treatment in 1985, ten patients charts were randomly selected and reviewed. Evaluation of the radiotherapeutic standards was the principal purpose, however, surgical and histopathological parameters were also considered.

RESULTS

Results of the Austrian PCS (including 90 patients) were compared with the "1983 Patterns of Care Process Survey for Definitive Breast Irradiation" performed in 1983 in the U.S. (including 191 patients). Documentation of pathologic tumour size (83% vs. 73%), histologic tumour subtype (99% vs. 97%) and microscopic margin analysis (60% vs. 51%) showed comparable results. Technical equipment was obviously quite different in the two countries, cobalt therapy was used in 25% in the US-PCS compared to 71% in the Austrian PCS. A clear difference also was obtained concerning the use of wedges for tangential breast/thoracic wall fields (64% vs. 21%) and the frequency of portal films (93% vs. 26%).

CONCLUSIONS

Comparing both PCS studies, we found overall many similarities. Differences could be obtained in the quality level of radiation treatment, as for example use of wedges for tangential fields and the number of portal films. In a next step, a further Austrian PCS is planned to compare the Austrian base data from 1985 with quality standards from 1993 and 2001.