Purpose Men with localized prostate cancer often are treated with external radiotherapy (RT) over 8 to 9 weeks. Hypofractionated RT is given over a shorter time with larger doses per treatment than standard RT. We hypothesized that hypofractionation versus conventional fractionation is similar in efficacy without increased toxicity. Patients and Methods We conducted a multicenter randomized noninferiority trial in intermediate-risk prostate cancer (T1 to 2a, Gleason score ≤ 6, and prostate-specific antigen [PSA] 10.1 to 20 ng/mL; T2b to 2c, Gleason ≤ 6, and PSA ≤ 20 ng/mL; or T1 to 2, Gleason = 7, and PSA ≤ 20 ng/mL). Patients were allocated to conventional RT of 78 Gy in 39 fractions over 8 weeks or to hypofractionated RT of 60 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks. Androgen deprivation was not permitted with therapy. The primary outcome was biochemical-clinical failure (BCF) defined by any of the following: PSA failure (nadir + 2), hormonal intervention, clinical local or distant failure, or death as a result of prostate cancer. The noninferiority margin was 7.5% (hazard ratio, < 1.32). Results Median follow-up was 6.0 years. One hundred nine of 608 patients in the hypofractionated arm versus 117 of 598 in the standard arm experienced BCF. Most of the events were PSA failures. The 5-year BCF disease-free survival was 85% in both arms (hazard ratio [short v standard], 0.96; 90% CI, 0.77 to 1.2). Ten deaths as a result of prostate cancer occurred in the short arm and 12 in the standard arm. No significant differences were detected between arms for grade ≥ 3 late genitourinary and GI toxicity. Conclusion The hypofractionated RT regimen used in this trial was not inferior to conventional RT and was not associated with increased late toxicity. Hypofractionated RT is more convenient for patients and should be considered for intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Convolution methods have been used to model the effect of geometric uncertainties on dose delivery in radiation therapy. Convolution assumes shift invariance of the dose distribution. Internal inhomogeneities and surface curvature lead to violations of this assumption. The magnitude of the error resulting from violation of shift invariance is not well documented. This issue is addressed by comparing dose distributions calculated using the Convolution method with dose distributions obtained by Direct Simulation. A comparison of conventional Static dose distributions was also made with Direct Simulation. This analysis was performed for phantom geometries and several clinical tumor sites. A modification to the Convolution method to correct for some of the inherent errors is proposed and tested using example phantoms and patients. We refer to this modified method as the Corrected Convolution. The average maximum dose error in the calculated volume (averaged over different beam arrangements in the various phantom examples) was 21% with the Static dose calculation, 9% with Convolution, and reduced to 5% with the Corrected Convolution. The average maximum dose error in the calculated volume (averaged over four clinical examples) was 9% for the Static method, 13% for Convolution, and 3% for Corrected Convolution. While Convolution can provide a superior estimate of the dose delivered when geometric uncertainties are present, the violation of shift invariance can result in substantial errors near the surface of the patient. The proposed Corrected Convolution modification reduces errors near the surface to 3% or less.

489 Background: To determine if SBRT followed by sorafenib (SBRT/S) improves overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS) and quality of life (QOL) vs. sorafenib alone (S), in patients (pts) with HCC. Methods: Eligible pts had new or recurrent HCC, unsuitable for surgery, ablation or TACE, with Zubrod performance status (PS) 0-2, Child-Pugh (CP) A, BCLC stage B or C, ≤ 5 HCCs, sum of hepatic HCCs ≤ 20 cm, and distant metastases ≤ 3 cm. Pts were randomized 1:1 to S 400 mg BID vs. SBRT (27.5-50 Gy in 5 fractions) followed by S 200 mg BID, increased to 400 mg BID after 28 days. Primary endpoint was OS; reported secondary endpoints - PFS, adverse events (AEs - CTCAEv4), and QOL (improvement in FACT-Hep score by ≥ 5 points from baseline to 6 months). Planned sample size was 292 pts (238 OS events, HR=0.72, 80% power, 1-sided α=0.05). Accrual closed early, due to a change in HCC standard of care. Statistics were amended to report as of 7/1/2022, projecting 155 OS events, with 65% power and the same α. OS and PFS were estimated by Kaplan-Meier and arms compared using log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards models were used to analyze treatment effect. Secondary endpoints were tested with 2-sided α=0.05. Results: Of 193 pts accrued from April 2013 to March 2021 from 23 sites, 177 eligible pts were randomized to S (n=92) vs. SBRT/S (n=85). Median age was 66 yrs (27-84); 41% had Hep. C; 19% had Hep. B or B/C. 82% were BCLC stage C. 74% had macrovascular invasion (MVI), 63% with VP3 or VP4 MVI. 4% had metastases. Median sum of max diameter of HCCs was 8.2 cm for S and 6.7 cm for SBRT/S; 40% had a single HCC. Median follow-up for all and alive pts was 13.2 and 33.7 mo. 22% of S pts received SBRT after discontinuing S. With 153 OS events, median OS was improved from 12.3 mo. (90% CI 10.6, 14.3) with S to 15.8 mo. (90% CI 11.4-19.2) with SBRT/S (HR=0.77, 1-sided p=0.0554). After adjusting for PS, M stage, CP A5 vs. 6, and degree of MVI, OS was statistically significantly improved for SBRT/S (HR=0.72, 95% CI 0.52-0.99, 2-sided Cox p=0.042). Median PFS was improved from 5.5 mo. (95% CI 3.4-6.3) with S to 9.2 months (95% CI 7.5-11.9) with SBRT/S (HR=0.55, 95% CI 0.40-0.75, 2-sided p=0.0001). 8 grade (G) 3+ bleeds were seen: 5 in S arm (1 G3 variceal, 2 G3 upper GI, 1 G3 hepatic, and 1 G4 abdominal) and 3 post SBRT/S (2 G3 upper GI, 1 G3 lower GI). Treatment-related G3+ AEs were not significantly different (S - 42%; SBRT/S - 47%; p=0.52), with 3 G5 AEs (S - 1 hepatic failure, 1 death NOS; SBRT/S - 1 lung infection). 83 (47%) pts consented to QoL. Of 20 S and 17 SBRT/S pts with QoL assessments at baseline and 6 months, 10% on S improved in FACT-Hep score vs 35% on SBRT/S. Conclusions: Compared to S alone, SBRT improved OS & PFS in patients with HCC, with no observed increase in AEs, and a strong suggestion for QOL benefit at 6 months. Supported by U10CA180868 (NRG Onc. Op., U10CA180822 (NRG Onc. SDMC), UG1CA189867 (NCORP), and U24CA180803 (IROC) from the NCI. Clinical trial information: NCT01730937 .

Convolution methods can be used to model the effect of geometric uncertainties on the planned dose distribution in radiation therapy. This requires several assumptions, including that the patient is treated with an infinite number of fractions, each delivering an infinitesimally small dose. The error resulting from this assumption has not been thoroughly quantified. This is investigated by comparing dose distributions calculated using the Convolution method with the result of Stochastic simulations of the treatment. Additionally, the dose calculated using the conventional Static method, a Corrected Convolution method, and a Direct Simulation are compared to the Stochastic result. This analysis is performed for single beam, parallel opposed pair, and four-field box techniques in a cubic water phantom. Treatment plans for a simple and a complex idealized anatomy were similarly analyzed. The average maximum error using the Static method for a 30 fraction simulation for the three techniques in phantoms was 23%, 11% for Convolution, 10% for Corrected Convolution, and 10% for Direct Simulation. In the two anatomical examples, the mean error in tumor control probability for Static and Convolution methods was 7% and 2%, respectively, of the result with no uncertainty, and 35% and 9%, respectively, for normal tissue complication probabilities. Convolution provides superior estimates of the delivered dose when compared to the Static method. In the range of fractions used clinically, considerable dosimetric variations will exist solely because of the random nature of the geometric uncertainties. However, the effect of finite fractionation appears to have a greater impact on the dose distribution than plan evaluation parameters.

No abstract