Search

Contains fulltext : 229838.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) OBJECTIVE: The PORTEC-4a trial investigates molecular-integrated risk profile guided adjuvant treatment for endometrial cancer. The quality assurance programme included a dummy run for vaginal brachytherapy prior to site activation, and annual quality assurance to verify protocol adherence. Aims of this study were to evaluate vaginal brachytherapy quality and protocol adherence. METHODS: For the dummy run, institutes were invited to create a brachytherapy plan on a provided CT-scan with the applicator in situ. For annual quality assurance, institutes provided data of one randomly selected brachytherapy case. A brachytherapy panel reviewed and scored the brachytherapy plans according to a checklist. RESULTS: At the dummy run, 15 out of 21 (71.4%) institutes needed adjustments of delineation or planning. After adjustments, the mean dose at the vaginal apex (protocol: 100%; 7 Gy) decreased from 100.7% to 99.9% and range and standard deviation (SD) narrowed from 83.6-135.1 to 96.4-101.4 and 8.8 to 1.1, respectively. At annual quality assurance, 22 out of 27 (81.5%) cases had no or minor and 5 out of 27 (18.5%) major deviations. Most deviations were related to delineation, mean dose at the vaginal apex (98.0%, 74.7-114.2, SD 7.6) or reference volume length. CONCLUSIONS: Most feedback during the brachytherapy quality assurance procedure of the PORTEC-4a trial was related to delineation, dose at the vaginal apex and the reference volume length. Annual quality assurance is essential to promote protocol compliance, ensuring high quality vaginal brachytherapy in all participating institutes.

Background Although women with endometrial cancer generally have a favourable prognosis, those with high-risk disease features are at increased risk of recurrence. The PORTEC-3 trial was initiated to investigate the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy during and after radiotherapy (chemoradiotherapy) versus pelvic radiotherapy alone for women with high-risk endometrial cancer. Methods PORTEC-3 was an open-label, international, randomised, phase 3 trial involving 103 centres in six clinical trials collaborating in the Gynaecological Cancer Intergroup. Eligible women had high-risk endometrial cancer with FIGO 2009 stage I, endometrioid-type grade 3 with deep myometrial invasion or lymph-vascular space invasion (or both), endometrioid-type stage II or III, or stage I to III with serous or clear cell histology. Women were randomly assigned (1: 1) to receive radiotherapy alone (48.6 Gy in 1.8 Gy fractions given on 5 days per week) or radiotherapy and chemotherapy (consisting of two cycles of cisplatin 50 mg/m(2) given during radiotherapy, followed by four cycles of carboplatin AUC5 and paclitaxel 175 mg/m (2)) using a biased-coin minimisation procedure with stratification for participating centre, lymphadenectomy, stage of cancer, and histological type. The co-primary endpoints were overall survival and failure-free survival. We used the Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, and Cox regression analysis for final analysis by intention to treat and adjusted for stratification factors. The study was closed on Dec 20, 2013, after achieving complete accrual; follow-up is ongoing. PORTEC-3 is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN14387080, and ClinicalTrials. gov, number NCT00411138. Findings 686 women were enrolled between Nov 23, 2006, and Dec 20, 2013. 660 eligible patients were included in the final analysis, of whom 330 were assigned to chemoradiotherapy and 330 were assigned to radiotherapy. Median follow-up was 60.2 months (IQR 48.1-73.1). 5-year overall survival was 81.8% (95% CI 77.5-86.2) with chemoradiotherapy versus 76.7% (72.1-81.6) with radiotherapy (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.76, 95% CI 0.54-1.06; p= 0.11); 5-year failure-free survival was 75 . 5% (95% CI 70.3-79.9) versus 68.6% (63.1-73.4; HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.53-0.95; p= 0.022). Grade 3 or worse adverse events during treatment occurred in 198 (60%) of 330 who received chemoradiotherapy versus 41 (12%) of 330 patients who received radiotherapy (p< 0.0001). Neuropathy (grade 2 or worse) persisted significantly more often after chemoradiotherapy than after radiotherapy (20 [8%] women vs one [1%] at 3 years; p< 0.0001). Most deaths were due to endometrial cancer; in four patients (two in each group), the cause of death was uncertain. One death in the radiotherapy group was due to either disease progression or late treatment complications; three deaths (two in the chemoradiotherapy group and one in the radiotherapy group) were due to either intercurrent disease or late treatment-related toxicity. Interpretation Adjuvant chemotherapy given during and after radiotherapy for high-risk endometrial cancer did not improve 5-year overall survival, although it did increase failure-free survival. Women with high-risk endometrial cancer should be individually counselled about this combined treatment. Continued follow-up is needed to evaluate long-term survival.

BACKGROUND: PORTEC-2 was a randomised trial for women with high-intermediate risk (HIR) endometrial cancer, comparing pelvic external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with vaginal brachytherapy (VBT). We evaluated long-term outcomes combined with the results of pathology review and molecular analysis.METHODS: 427 women with HIR endometrial cancer were randomised between 2002-2006 to VBT or EBRT. Primary endpoint was vaginal recurrence (VR). Pathology review was done in 97.4%, combined with molecular analysis.RESULTS: Median follow-up was 116 months; 10-year VR was 3.4% versus 2.4% for VBT vs. EBRT (p = 0.55). Ten-year pelvic recurrence (PR) was more frequent in the VBT group (6.3% vs. 0.9%, p = 0.004), mostly combined with distant metastases (DM). Tenyear isolated PR was 2.5% vs. 0.5%, p = 0.10, and DM 10.4 vs. 8.9% (p = 0.45). Overall survival for VBT vs. EBRT was 69.5% vs. 67.6% at 10 years (p = 0.72). L1CAM and p53-mutant expression and substantial lymph-vascular space invasion were risk factors for PR and DM. EBRT reduced PR in cases with these risk factors.CONCLUSION: Long-term results of the PORTEC-2 trial confirm VBT as standard adjuvant treatment for HIR endometrial cancer. Molecular risk assessment has the potential to guide adjuvant therapy. EBRT provided better pelvic control in patients with unfavourable risk factors.

Purpose/Objective(s): To investigate the patterns of nodal failure in patients enrolled in the international multicentre EMBRACE study.Materials/Methods: Nodal disease at diagnosis (N-, N+) and nodal failure were analysed per region (NF) (pelvic (parametrial, common iliac, internal/external iliac), inguinal and para-aortic (PAO)) in 1338 patients. Treatment consisted of chemo-radiation and MRI guided brachytherapy. PAO radiotherapy and/or nodal boost was left to the treating centre. At time of diagnosis 52% of patients had pathologic nodes. Frequency analyses were performed in relation to patient, primary tumour and nodal disease characteristics, and treatment related factors.Results: Median follow up was 34 months and 83% of NF occurred within 24 months. At diagnosis 99% of the N+ patients had pathologic nodes in the pelvis and 14% in the PAO. NFpelvic and NFPAO were reported in 55% and 68% of patients with NF, respectively. Overall NF was reported in 152 patients (11%); 7 and 16% for N- and N+ patients. Of the patients with NF, 41% were located outside the elective target (39% PAO), 40% inside and 35% inside the nodal boost target. Twelve percent of N+ patients that received a nodal boost had a NF inside the nodal boost target.Conclusion: Within the EMBRACE study cohort the overall number of patients developing nodal failure is low, significantly lower for N- compared to N+ patients. Pathological nodes at diagnosis are mainly located in the pelvis, whereas nodal failures are more often reported in the PAO region. About 40% of all nodal failures were reported outside the treatment targets. (C) 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Purpose: Accurate target definition is vitally important for definitive treatment of cervix cancer with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), yet a definition of clinical target volume (CTV) remains variable within the literature. The aim of this study was to develop a consensus CTV definition in preparation for a Phase 2 clinical trial being planned by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. Methods and Materials: A guidelines consensus working group meeting was convened in June 2008 for the purposes of developing target definition guidelines fir IMRT for the intact cervix. A draft document of recommendations for CTV definition was created and used to aid in contouring a clinical case. The clinical case was then analyzed for consistency and clarity of target delineation using an expectation maximization algorithm for simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE), with kappa statistics as a measure of agreement between participants. Results: Nineteen experts in gynecological radiation oncology generated contours on axial magnetic resonance images of the pelvis. Substantial STAPLE agreement sensitivity and specificity values were seen for gross tumor volume (GTV) delineation (0.84 and 0.96, respectively) with a kappa statistic of 0.68 (p < 0.0001). Agreement for delineation of cervix, uterus, vagina, and parametria was moderate. Conclusions: This report provides guidelines for CTV definition in the definitive cervix cancer setting for the purposes of IMRT, building on previously published guidelines for IMRT in the postoperative setting. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc.