Purpose To define a male and female pelvic normal tissue contouring atlas for Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) trials. Methods and Materials One male pelvis computed tomography (CT) data set and one female pelvis CT data set were shared via the Image-Guided Therapy QA Center. A total of 16 radiation oncologists participated. The following organs at risk were contoured in both CT sets: anus, anorectum, rectum (gastrointestinal and genitourinary definitions), bowel NOS (not otherwise specified), small bowel, large bowel, and proximal femurs. The following were contoured in the male set only: bladder, prostate, seminal vesicles, and penile bulb. The following were contoured in the female set only: uterus, cervix, and ovaries. A computer program used the binomial distribution to generate 95% group consensus contours. These contours and definitions were then reviewed by the group and modified. Results The panel achieved consensus definitions for pelvic normal tissue contouring in RTOG trials with these standardized names: Rectum, AnoRectum, SmallBowel, Colon, BowelBag, Bladder, UteroCervix, Adnexa_R, Adnexa_L, Prostate, SeminalVesc, PenileBulb, Femur_R, and Femur_L. Two additional normal structures whose purpose is to serve as targets in anal and rectal cancer were defined: AnoRectumSig and Mesorectum. Detailed target volume contouring guidelines and images are discussed. Conclusions Consensus guidelines for pelvic normal tissue contouring were reached and are available as a CT image atlas on the RTOG Web site. This will allow uniformity in defining normal tissues for clinical trials delivering pelvic radiation and will facilitate future normal tissue complication research.

P Z 0.0016). Within the 100 genes, enriched biological functions relate to clusters of genes governing protein degradation, RNA processing, apoptosis, the cell cycle, ATP synthesis, and a large cluster of genes relating to protein localization. Conclusion: We have identified three novel intrinsic subtypes of prostate cancer in the largest study of its kind, and validated our findings across sequencing platforms, storage methods, and within both retrospective and prospective cohorts. In defining unique biological clusters of disease, the PC100 represents a step towards personalization of prostate cancer care. Future work will focus on validating the predictive capacity of these subtypes to therapy such as radiation therapy.

No abstract

PURPOSE To determine whether addition of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) to brachytherapy (BT) (COMBO) compared with BT alone would improve 5-year freedom from progression (FFP) in intermediate-risk prostate cancer. METHODS Men with prostate cancer stage cT1c-T2bN0M0, Gleason Score (GS) 2-6 and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) 10-20 or GS 7, and PSA < 10 were eligible. The COMBO arm was EBRT (45 Gy in 25 fractions) to prostate and seminal vesicles followed by BT prostate boost (110 Gy if 125-Iodine, 100 Gy if 103-Pd). BT arm was delivered to prostate only (145 Gy if 125-Iodine, 125 Gy if 103-Pd). The primary end point was FFP: PSA failure (American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology [ASTRO] or Phoenix definitions), local failure, distant failure, or death. RESULTS Five hundred eighty-eight men were randomly assigned; 579 were eligible: 287 and 292 in COMBO and BT arms, respectively. The median age was 67 years; 89.1% had PSA < 10 ng/mL, 89.1% had GS 7, and 66.7% had T1 disease. There were no differences in FFP. The 5-year FFP-ASTRO (95% CI) was 85.6% (81.4 to 89.7) with COMBO compared with 82.7% (78.3 to 87.1) with BT (odds ratio [OR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.26; Greenwood T P = .18). The 5-year FFP-Phoenix was 88.0% (84.2 to 91.9) with COMBO compared with 85.5% (81.3 to 89.6) with BT (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.30; Greenwood T P = .19). There were no differences in the rates of genitourinary (GU) or GI acute toxicities. The 5-year cumulative incidence for late GU/GI grade 2+ toxicity is 42.8% (37.0 to 48.6) for COMBO compared with 25.8% (20.9 to 31.0) for BT ( P < .0001). The 5-year cumulative incidence for late GU/GI grade 3+ toxicity is 8.2% (5.4 to 11.8) compared with 3.8% (2.0 to 6.5; P = .006). CONCLUSION Compared with BT, COMBO did not improve FFP for prostate cancer but caused greater toxicity. BT alone can be considered as a standard treatment for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract