Explore the vast range of titles available.

The Meta-Analysis of Radiotherapy in squamous cell Carcinomas of Head and neck (MARCH) showed that altered fractionation radiotherapy is associated with improved overall and progression-free survival compared with conventional radiotherapy, with hyperfractionated radiotherapy showing the greatest benefit. This update aims to confirm and explain the superiority of hyperfractionated radiotherapy over other altered fractionation radiotherapy regimens and to assess the benefit of altered fractionation within the context of concomitant chemotherapy with the inclusion of new trials. For this updated meta-analysis, we searched bibliography databases, trials registries, and meeting proceedings for published or unpublished randomised trials done between Jan 1, 2009, and July 15, 2015, comparing primary or postoperative conventional fractionation radiotherapy versus altered fractionation radiotherapy (comparison 1) or conventional fractionation radiotherapy plus concomitant chemotherapy versus altered fractionation radiotherapy alone (comparison 2). Eligible trials had to start randomisation on or after Jan 1, 1970, and completed accrual before Dec 31, 2010; had to have been randomised in a way that precluded prior knowledge of treatment assignment; and had to include patients with non-metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx, or larynx undergoing first-line curative treatment. Trials including a non-conventional radiotherapy control group, investigating hypofractionated radiotherapy, or including mostly nasopharyngeal carcinomas were excluded. Trials were grouped in three types of altered fractionation: hyperfractionated, moderately accelerated, and very accelerated. Individual patient data were collected and combined with a fixed-effects model based on the intention-to-treat principle. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Comparison 1 (conventional fractionation radiotherapy vs altered fractionation radiotherapy) included 33 trials and 11 423 patients. Altered fractionation radiotherapy was associated with a significant benefit on overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·94, 95% CI 0·90–0·98; p=0·0033), with an absolute difference at 5 years of 3·1% (95% CI 1·3–4·9) and at 10 years of 1·2% (−0·8 to 3·2). We found a significant interaction (p=0·051) between type of fractionation and treatment effect, the overall survival benefit being restricted to the hyperfractionated group (HR 0·83, 0·74–0·92), with absolute differences at 5 years of 8·1% (3·4 to 12·8) and at 10 years of 3·9% (−0·6 to 8·4). Comparison 2 (conventional fractionation radiotherapy plus concomitant chemotherapy versus altered fractionation radiotherapy alone) included five trials and 986 patients. Overall survival was significantly worse with altered fractionation radiotherapy compared with concomitant chemoradiotherapy (HR 1·22, 1·05–1·42; p=0·0098), with absolute differences at 5 years of −5·8% (−11·9 to 0·3) and at 10 years of −5·1% (−13·0 to 2·8). This update confirms, with more patients and a longer follow-up than the first version of MARCH, that hyperfractionated radiotherapy is, along with concomitant chemoradiotherapy, a standard of care for the treatment of locally advanced head and neck squamous cell cancers. The comparison between hyperfractionated radiotherapy and concomitant chemoradiotherapy remains to be specifically tested. Institut National du Cancer; and Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer.

Several studies have reported a low α to β ratio for prostate cancer, suggesting that hypofractionation could enhance the biological tumour dose without increasing genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity. We tested this theory in the phase 3 HYPRO trial for patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer. We have previously reported acute incidence of genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity; here we report data for late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity. In this randomised non-inferiority phase 3 trial, done in seven radiotherapy centres in the Netherlands, we enrolled intermediate-risk or high-risk patients aged between 44 and 85 years with histologically confirmed stage T1b–T4 NX–0MX–0 prostate cancer, a prostate-specific antigen concentration of 60 ng/mL or lower, and WHO performance status of 0–2. A web-based application was used to randomly assign (1:1) patients to receive either standard fractionation with 39 fractions of 2 Gy in 8 weeks (five fractions per week) or hypofractionation with 19 fractions of 3·4 Gy in 6·5 weeks (three fractions per week). Randomisation was done with the minimisation procedure, stratified by treatment centre and risk group. The primary endpoint was to detect a 10% enhancement in 5-year relapse-free survival with hypofractionation. A key additional endpoint was non-inferiority of hypofractionation in cumulative incidence of grade 2 or worse acute and late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity. We planned to reject inferiority of hypofractionation for late genitourinary toxicity if the estimated hazard ratio (HR) was less than 1·11 and for gastrointestinal toxicity was less than 1·13. We scored toxicity with the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (RTOG/EORTC) criteria from both physicians' records (clinical record form) and patients' self-assessment questionnaires. Analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Patient recruitment for the HYPRO trial was completed in 2010. The trial was registered with www.controlled-trials.com, number ISRCTN85138529. Between March 19, 2007, and Dec 3, 2010, 820 patients (410 in both groups) were randomly assigned. Analyses for late toxicity included 387 assessable patients in the standard fractionation group and 395 in the hypofractionation group. The median follow-up was 60 months (IQR 51·2–67·3). The database for all analyses (both groups and both genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities) was locked on March 26, 2015. The incidence of grade 2 or worse genitourinary toxicity at 3 years was 39·0% (95% CI 34·2–44·1) in the standard fractionation group and 41·3% (36·6–46·4) in the hypofractionation group. The estimated HR for the cumulative incidence of grade 2 or worse late genitourinary toxicity was 1·16 (90% CI 0·98–1·38), suggesting that non-inferiority could not be shown. The incidence of grade 2 or worse gastrointestinal toxicity at 3 years was 17·7% (14·1–21·9) in standard fractionation and 21·9% (18·1–26·4) hypofractionation. With an estimated HR of 1·19 (90% CI 0·93–1·52) for the cumulative incidence of grade 2 or worse late gastrointestinal toxicity, we could not confirm non-inferiority of hypofractionation for cumulative late gastrointestinal toxicity. Cumulative grade 3 or worse late genitourinary toxicity was significantly higher in the hypofractionation group than in the standard fractionation group (19·0% [95% CI 15·2–23·2] vs 12·9% [9·7–16·7], respectively; p=0·021), but there was no significant difference between cumulative grade 3 or worse late gastrointestinal toxicity (2·6% [95% CI 1·2–4·7]) in the standard fractionation group and 3·3% [1·7–5·6] in the hypofractionation group; p=0·55). Our data could not confirm that hypofractionation was non-inferior for cumulative late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity compared with standard fractionation. Before final conclusions can be made about the utility of hypofractionation, efficacy outcomes need to be reported. The Dutch Cancer Society.

Radiotherapy reduces the risk of local recurrence in rectal cancer. However, the optimal radiotherapy fractionation and interval between radiotherapy and surgery is still under debate. We aimed to study recurrence in patients randomised between three different radiotherapy regimens with respect to fractionation and time to surgery. In this multicentre, randomised, non-blinded, phase 3, non-inferiority trial (Stockholm III), all patients with a biopsy-proven adenocarcinoma of the rectum, without signs of non-resectability or distant metastases, without severe cardiovascular comorbidity, and planned for an abdominal resection from 18 Swedish hospitals were eligible. Participants were randomly assigned with permuted blocks, stratified by participating centre, to receive either 5 × 5 Gy radiation dose with surgery within 1 week (short-course radiotherapy) or after 4–8 weeks (short-course radiotherapy with delay) or 25 × 2 Gy radiation dose with surgery after 4–8 weeks (long-course radiotherapy with delay). After a protocol amendment, randomisation could include all three treatments or just the two short-course radiotherapy treatments, per hospital preference. The primary endpoint was time to local recurrence calculated from the date of randomisation to the date of local recurrence. Comparisons between treatment groups were deemed non-inferior if the upper limit of a double-sided 90% CI for the hazard ratio (HR) did not exceed 1·7. Patients were analysed according to intention to treat for all endpoints. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00904813. Between Oct 5, 1998, and Jan 31, 2013, 840 patients were recruited and randomised; 385 patients in the three-arm randomisation, of whom 129 patients were randomly assigned to short-course radiotherapy, 128 to short-course radiotherapy with delay, and 128 to long-course radiotherapy with delay, and 455 patients in the two-arm randomisation, of whom 228 were randomly assigned to short-course radiotherapy and 227 to short-course radiotherapy with delay. In patients with any local recurrence, median time from date of randomisation to local recurrence in the pooled short-course radiotherapy comparison was 33·4 months (range 18·2–62·2) in the short-course radiotherapy group and 19·3 months (8·5–39·5) in the short-course radiotherapy with delay group. Median time to local recurrence in the long-course radiotherapy with delay group was 33·3 months (range 17·8–114·3). Cumulative incidence of local recurrence in the whole trial was eight of 357 patients who received short-course radiotherapy, ten of 355 who received short-course radiotherapy with delay, and seven of 128 who received long-course radiotherapy (HR vs short-course radiotherapy: short-course radiotherapy with delay 1·44 [95% CI 0·41–5·11]; long-course radiotherapy with delay 2·24 [0·71–7·10]; p=0·48; both deemed non-inferior). Acute radiation-induced toxicity was recorded in one patient (<1%) of 357 after short-course radiotherapy, 23 (7%) of 355 after short-course radiotherapy with delay, and six (5%) of 128 patients after long-course radiotherapy with delay. Frequency of postoperative complications was similar between all arms when the three-arm randomisation was analysed (65 [50%] of 129 patients in the short-course radiotherapy group; 48 [38%] of 128 patients in the short-course radiotherapy with delay group; 50 [39%] of 128 patients in the long-course radiotherapy with delay group; odds ratio [OR] vs short-course radiotherapy: short-course radiotherapy with delay 0·59 [95% CI 0·36–0·97], long-course radiotherapy with delay 0·63 [0·38–1·04], p=0·075). However, in a pooled analysis of the two short-course radiotherapy regimens, the risk of postoperative complications was significantly lower after short-course radiotherapy with delay than after short-course radiotherapy (144 [53%] of 355 vs 188 [41%] of 357; OR 0·61 [95% CI 0·45–0·83] p=0·001). Delaying surgery after short-course radiotherapy gives similar oncological results compared with short-course radiotherapy with immediate surgery. Long-course radiotherapy with delay is similar to both short-course radiotherapy regimens, but prolongs the treatment time substantially. Although radiation-induced toxicity was seen after short-course radiotherapy with delay, postoperative complications were significantly reduced compared with short-course radiotherapy. Based on these findings, we suggest that short-course radiotherapy with delay to surgery is a useful alternative to conventional short-course radiotherapy with immediate surgery. Swedish Research Council, Swedish Cancer Society, Stockholm Cancer Society, and the Regional Agreement on Medical Training and Clinical Research in Stockholm.

Chemoradiation became the standard of care for anal cancer after the ACT I trial. However, only two-thirds of patients achieved local control, with 5-year survival of 50%; therefore, better treatments are needed. We investigated whether replacing mitomycin with cisplatin in chemoradiation improves response, and whether maintenance chemotherapy after chemoradiation improves survival. In this 2×2 factorial trial, we enrolled patients with histologically confirmed squamous-cell carcinoma of the anus without metastatic disease from 59 centres in the UK. Patients were randomly assigned to one of four groups, to receive either mitomycin (12 mg/m2 on day 1) or cisplatin (60 mg/m2 on days 1 and 29), with fluorouracil (1000 mg/m2 per day on days 1–4 and 29–32) and radiotherapy (50·4 Gy in 28 daily fractions); with or without two courses of maintenance chemotherapy (fluorouracil and cisplatin at weeks 11 and 14). The random allocation was generated by computer and patients assigned by telephone. Randomisation was done by minimisation and stratified by tumour site, T and N stage, sex, age, and renal function. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to assignment. Primary endpoints were complete response at 26 weeks and acute toxic effects (for chemoradiation), and progression-free survival (for maintenance). The primary analyses were done by intention to treat. This study is registered at controlled-trials.com, number 26715889. We enrolled 940 patients: 472 were assigned to mitomycin, of whom 246 were assigned to no maintenance, 226 to maintenance; 468 were assigned to cisplatin, of whom 246 were assigned to no maintenance, 222 to maintenance. Median follow-up was 5·1 years (IQR 3·9–6·9). 391 of 432 (90·5%) patients in the mitomycin group versus 386 of 431 (89·6%) in the cisplatin group had a complete response at 26 weeks (difference −0·9%, 95% CI −4·9 to 3·1; p=0·64). Overall, toxic effects were similar in each group (334/472 [71%] for mitomycin vs 337/468 [72%] for cisplatin). The most common grade 3–4 toxic effects were skin (228/472 [48%] vs 222/468 [47%]), pain (122/472 [26%] vs 135/468 [29%]), haematological (124/472 [26%] vs 73/468 [16%]), and gastrointestinal (75/472 [16%] vs 85/468 [18%]). 3-year progression-free survival was 74% (95% CI 69–77; maintenance) versus 73% (95% CI 68–77; no maintenance; hazard ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·75–1·21; p=0·70). The results of our trial—the largest in anal cancer to date—show that fluorouracil and mitomycin with 50·4 Gy radiotherapy in 28 daily fractions should remain standard practice in the UK. Cancer Research UK.

Preoperative chemoradiotherapy with infusional fluorouracil, total mesorectal excision surgery, and postoperative chemotherapy with fluorouracil was established by the German CAO/ARO/AIO-94 trial as a standard combined modality treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer. Here we compare the previously established regimen with an investigational regimen in which oxaliplatin was added to both preoperative chemoradiotherapy and postoperative chemotherapy. In this multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 study we randomly assigned patients with rectal adenocarcinoma, clinically staged as cT3–4 or any node-positive disease, to two groups: a control group receiving standard fluorouracil-based combined modality treatment, consisting of preoperative radiotherapy of 50·4 Gy in 28 fractions plus infusional fluorouracil (1000 mg/m2 on days 1–5 and 29–33), followed by surgery and four cycles of bolus fluorouracil (500 mg/m2 on days 1–5 and 29); or to an investigational group receiving preoperative radiotherapy of 50·4 Gy in 28 fractions plus infusional fluorouracil (250 mg/m2 on days 1–14 and 22–35) and oxaliplatin (50 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 22, and 29), followed by surgery and eight cycles of oxaliplatin (100 mg/m2 on days 1 and 15), leucovorin (400 mg/m2 on days 1 and 15), and infusional fluorouracil (2400 mg/m2 on days 1–2 and 15–16). Randomisation was done with computer-generated block-randomisation codes stratified by centre, clinical T category (cT1–3 vs cT4), and clinical N category (cN0 vs cN1–2) without masking. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival, defined as the time between randomisation and non-radical surgery of the primary tumour (R2 resection), locoregional recurrence after R0/1 resection, metastatic disease or progression, or death from any cause, whichever occurred first. Survival and cumulative incidence of recurrence analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle; toxicity analyses included all patients treated. Enrolment of patients in this trial is completed and follow-up is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00349076. Of the 1265 patients initially enrolled, 1236 were assessable (613 in the investigational group and 623 in the control group). With a median follow-up of 50 months (IQR 38–61), disease-free survival at 3 years was 75·9% (95% CI 72·4–79·5) in the investigational group and 71·2% (95% CI 67·6–74·9) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·79, 95% CI 0·64–0·98; p=0·03). Preoperative grade 3–4 toxic effects occurred in 144 (24%) of 607 patients who actually received fluorouracil and oxaliplatin during chemoradiotherapy and in 128 (20%) of 625 patients who actually received fluorouracil chemoradiotherapy. Of 445 patients who actually received adjuvant fluorouracil and leucovorin and oxaliplatin, 158 (36%) had grade 3–4 toxic effects, as did 170 (36%) of 470 patients who actually received adjuvant fluorouracil. Late grade 3–4 adverse events in patients who received protocol-specified preoperative and postoperative treatment occurred in 112 (25%) of 445 patients in the investigational group, and in 100 (21%) of 470 patients in the control group. Adding oxaliplatin to fluorouracil-based neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy (at the doses and intensities used in this trial) significantly improved disease-free survival of patients with clinically staged cT3–4 or cN1–2 rectal cancer compared with our former fluorouracil-based combined modality regimen (based on CAO/ARO/AIO-94). The regimen established by CAO/ARO/AIO-04 can be deemed a new treatment option for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. German Cancer Aid (Deutsche Krebshilfe).

Most patients with glioblastoma are older than 60 years, but treatment guidelines are based on trials in patients aged only up to 70 years. We did a randomised trial to assess the optimum palliative treatment in patients aged 60 years and older with glioblastoma. Patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma were recruited from Austria, Denmark, France, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and Turkey. They were assigned by a computer-generated randomisation schedule, stratified by centre, to receive temozolomide (200 mg/m2 on days 1–5 of every 28 days for up to six cycles), hypofractionated radiotherapy (34·0 Gy administered in 3·4 Gy fractions over 2 weeks), or standard radiotherapy (60·0 Gy administered in 2·0 Gy fractions over 6 weeks). Patients and study staff were aware of treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN81470623. 342 patients were enrolled, of whom 291 were randomised across three treatment groups (temozolomide n=93, hypofractionated radiotherapy n=98, standard radiotherapy n=100) and 51 of whom were randomised across only two groups (temozolomide n=26, hypofractionated radiotherapy n=25). In the three-group randomisation, in comparison with standard radiotherapy, median overall survival was significantly longer with temozolomide (8·3 months [95% CI 7·1–9·5; n=93] vs 6·0 months [95% CI 5·1–6·8; n=100], hazard ratio [HR] 0·70; 95% CI 0·52–0·93, p=0·01), but not with hypofractionated radiotherapy (7·5 months [6·5–8·6; n=98], HR 0·85 [0·64–1·12], p=0·24). For all patients who received temozolomide or hypofractionated radiotherapy (n=242) overall survival was similar (8·4 months [7·3–9·4; n=119] vs 7·4 months [6·4–8·4; n=123]; HR 0·82, 95% CI 0·63–1·06; p=0·12). For age older than 70 years, survival was better with temozolomide and with hypofractionated radiotherapy than with standard radiotherapy (HR for temozolomide vs standard radiotherapy 0·35 [0·21–0·56], p<0·0001; HR for hypofractionated vs standard radiotherapy 0·59 [95% CI 0·37–0·93], p=0·02). Patients treated with temozolomide who had tumour MGMT promoter methylation had significantly longer survival than those without MGMT promoter methylation (9·7 months [95% CI 8·0–11·4] vs 6·8 months [5·9–7·7]; HR 0·56 [95% CI 0·34–0·93], p=0·02), but no difference was noted between those with methylated and unmethylated MGMT promoter treated with radiotherapy (HR 0·97 [95% CI 0·69–1·38]; p=0·81). As expected, the most common grade 3–4 adverse events in the temozolomide group were neutropenia (n=12) and thrombocytopenia (n=18). Grade 3–5 infections in all randomisation groups were reported in 18 patients. Two patients had fatal infections (one in the temozolomide group and one in the standard radiotherapy group) and one in the temozolomide group with grade 2 thrombocytopenia died from complications after surgery for a gastrointestinal bleed. Standard radiotherapy was associated with poor outcomes, especially in patients older than 70 years. Both temozolomide and hypofractionated radiotherapy should be considered as standard treatment options in elderly patients with glioblastoma. MGMT promoter methylation status might be a useful predictive marker for benefit from temozolomide. Merck, Lion's Cancer Research Foundation, University of Umeå, and the Swedish Cancer Society.

Intraoperative radiotherapy with electrons allows the substitution of conventional postoperative whole breast irradiation with one session of radiotherapy with the same equivalent dose during surgery. However, its ability to control for recurrence of local disease required confirmation in a randomised controlled trial. This study was done at the European Institute of Oncology (Milan, Italy). Women aged 48–75 years with early breast cancer, a maximum tumour diameter of up to 2·5 cm, and suitable for breast-conserving surgery were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio (using a random permuted block design, stratified for clinical tumour size [<1·0 cm vs 1·0–1·4 cm vs ≥1·5 cm]) to receive either whole-breast external radiotherapy or intraoperative radiotherapy with electrons. Study coordinators, clinicians, and patients were aware of the assignment. Patients in the intraoperative radiotherapy group received one dose of 21 Gy to the tumour bed during surgery. Those in the external radiotherapy group received 50 Gy in 25 fractions of 2 Gy, followed by a boost of 10 Gy in five fractions. This was an equivalence trial; the prespecified equivalence margin was local recurrence of 7·5% in the intraoperative radiotherapy group. The primary endpoint was occurrence of ipsilateral breast tumour recurrences (IBTR); overall survival was a secondary outcome. The main analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01849133. 1305 patients were randomised (654 to external radiotherapy and 651 to intraoperative radiotherapy) between Nov 20, 2000, and Dec 27, 2007. After a medium follow-up of 5·8 years (IQR 4·1–7·7), 35 patients in the intraoperative radiotherapy group and four patients in the external radiotherapy group had had an IBTR (p<0·0001). The 5-year event rate for IBRT was 4·4% (95% CI 2·7–6·1) in the intraoperative radiotherapy group and 0·4% (0·0–1·0) in the external radiotherapy group (hazard ratio 9·3 [95% CI 3·3–26·3]). During the same period, 34 women allocated to intraoperative radiotherapy and 31 to external radiotherapy died (p=0·59). 5-year overall survival was 96·8% (95% CI 95·3–98·3) in the intraoperative radiotherapy group and 96·9% (95·5–98·3) in the external radiotherapy group. In patients with data available (n=464 for intraoperative radiotherapy; n=412 for external radiotherapy) we noted significantly fewer skin side-effects in women in the intraoperative radiotherapy group than in those in the external radiotherapy group (p=0·0002). Although the rate of IBTR in the intraoperative radiotherapy group was within the prespecified equivalence margin, the rate was significantly greater than with external radiotherapy, and overall survival did not differ between groups. Improved selection of patients could reduce the rate of IBTR with intraoperative radiotherapy with electrons. Italian Association for Cancer Research, Jacqueline Seroussi Memorial Foundation for Cancer Research, and Umberto Veronesi Foundation.

Therapy options at the time of recurrence of glioblastoma multiforme are often limited. We investigated whether treatment with a new intratumoral thermotherapy procedure using magnetic nanoparticles improves survival outcome. In a single-arm study in two centers, 66 patients (59 with recurrent glioblastoma) received neuronavigationally controlled intratumoral instillation of an aqueous dispersion of iron-oxide (magnetite) nanoparticles and subsequent heating of the particles in an alternating magnetic field. Treatment was combined with fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy. A median dose of 30 Gy using a fractionation of 5 × 2 Gy/week was applied. The primary study endpoint was overall survival following diagnosis of first tumor recurrence (OS-2), while the secondary endpoint was overall survival after primary tumor diagnosis (OS-1). Survival times were calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Analyses were by intention to treat. The median overall survival from diagnosis of the first tumor recurrence among the 59 patients with recurrent glioblastoma was 13.4 months (95% CI: 10.6–16.2 months). Median OS-1 was 23.2 months while the median time interval between primary diagnosis and first tumor recurrence was 8.0 months. Only tumor volume at study entry was significantly correlated with ensuing survival ( P  < 0.01). No other variables predicting longer survival could be determined. The side effects of the new therapeutic approach were moderate, and no serious complications were observed. Thermotherapy using magnetic nanoparticles in conjunction with a reduced radiation dose is safe and effective and leads to longer OS-2 compared to conventional therapies in the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma.

We did a randomised phase 3 trial assessing the benefit of addition of long-term androgen suppression with a luteinising-hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist to external irradiation in patients with prostate cancer with high metastatic risk. In this report, we present the 10-year results. For this open-label randomised trial, eligible patients were younger than 80 years and had newly diagnosed histologically proven T1–2 prostatic adenocarcinoma with WHO histological grade 3 or T3–4 prostatic adenocarcinoma of any histological grade, and a WHO performance status of 0–2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive radiotherapy alone or radiotherapy plus immediate androgen suppression. Treatment allocation was open label and used a minimisation algorithm with institution, clinical stage of the disease, results of pelvic-lymph-node dissection, and irradiation fields extension as minimisation factors. Patients were irradiated externally, once a day, 5 days a week, for 7 weeks to a total dose of 50 Gy to the whole pelvis, with an additional 20 Gy to the prostate and seminal vesicles. The LHRH agonist, goserelin acetate (3·6 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks), was started on the first day of irradiation and continued for 3 years; cyproterone acetate (50 mg orally three times a day) was given for 1 month starting a week before the first goserelin injection. The primary endpoint was clinical disease-free survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00849082. Between May 22, 1987, and Oct 31, 1995, 415 patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups and were included in the analysis (208 radiotherapy alone, 207 combined treatment). Median follow-up was 9·1 years (IQR 5·1–12·6). 10-year clinical disease-free survival was 22·7% (95% CI 16·3–29·7) in the radiotherapy-alone group and 47·7% (39·0–56·0) in the combined treatment group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·42, 95% CI 0·33–0·55, p<0·0001). 10-year overall survival was 39·8% (95% CI 31·9–47·5) in patients receiving radiotherapy alone and 58·1% (49·2–66·0) in those allocated combined treatment (HR 0·60, 95% CI 0·45–0·80, p=0·0004), and 10-year prostate-cancer mortality was 30·4% (95% CI 23·2–37·5) and 10·3% (5·1–15·4), respectively (HR 0·38, 95% CI 0·24–0·60, p<0·0001). No significant difference in cardiovascular mortality was noted between treatment groups both in patients who had cardiovascular problems at study entry (eight of 53 patients in the combined treatment group had a cardiovascular-related cause of death vs 11 of 63 in the radiotherapy group; p=0·60) and in those who did not (14 of 154 vs six of 145; p=0·25). Two fractures were reported in patients allocated combined treatment. In patients with prostate cancer with high metastatic risk, immediate androgen suppression with an LHRH agonist given during and for 3 years after external irradiation improves 10-year disease-free and overall survival without increasing late cardiovascular toxicity. AstraZeneca; Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer (France), through the EORTC Charitable Trust.

High-dose methotrexate is the standard of care for patients with newly diagnosed primary CNS lymphoma. The role of whole brain radiotherapy is controversial because delayed neurotoxicity limits its acceptance as a standard of care. We aimed to investigate whether first-line chemotherapy based on high-dose methotrexate was non-inferior to the same chemotherapy regimen followed by whole brain radiotherapy for overall survival. Immunocompetent patients with newly diagnosed primary CNS lymphoma were enrolled from 75 centres and treated between May, 2000, and May, 2009. Patients were allocated by computer-generated block randomisation to receive first-line chemotherapy based on high-dose methotrexate with or without subsequent whole brain radiotherapy, with stratification by age (<60 vs ≥60 years) and institution (Berlin vs Tübingen vs all other sites). The biostatistics centre assigned patients to treatment groups and informed local centres by fax; physicians and patients were not masked to treatment group after assignment. Patients enrolled between May, 2000, and August, 2006, received high-dose methotrexate (4 g/m 2) on day 1 of six 14-day cycles; thereafter, patients received high-dose methotrexate plus ifosfamide (1·5 g/m 2) on days 3–5 of six 14-day cycles. In those assigned to receive first-line chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy, whole brain radiotherapy was given to a total dose of 45 Gy, in 30 fractions of 1·5 Gy given daily on weekdays. Patients allocated to first-line chemotherapy without whole brain radiotherapy who had not achieved complete response were given high-dose cytarabine. The primary endpoint was overall survival, and analysis was per protocol. Our hypothesis was that the omission of whole brain radiotherapy does not compromise overall survival, with a non-inferiority margin of 0·9. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00153530. 551 patients (median age 63 years, IQR 55–69) were enrolled and randomised, of whom 318 were treated per protocol. In the per-protocol population, median overall survival was 32·4 months (95% CI 25·8–39·0) in patients receiving whole brain radiotherapy (n=154), and 37·1 months (27·5–46·7) in those not receiving whole brain radiotherapy (n=164), hazard ratio 1·06 (95% CI 0·80–1·40; p=0·71). Thus our primary hypothesis was not proven. Median progression-free survival was 18·3 months (95% CI 11·6–25·0) in patients receiving whole brain radiotherapy, and 11·9 months (7·3–16·5; p=0·14) in those not receiving whole brain radiotherapy. Treatment-related neurotoxicity in patients with sustained complete response was more common in patients receiving whole brain radiotherapy (22/45, 49% by clinical assessment; 35/49, 71% by neuroradiology) than in those who did not (9/34, 26%; 16/35, 46%). No significant difference in overall survival was recorded when whole brain radiotherapy was omitted from first-line chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed primary CNS lymphoma, but our primary hypothesis was not proven. The progression-free survival benefit afforded by whole brain radiotherapy has to be weighed against the increased risk of neurotoxicity in long-term survivors. German Cancer Aid.