Explore the vast range of titles available.

Localised prostate cancer is commonly treated with external beam radiotherapy and moderate hypofractionation is non-inferior to longer schedules. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) allows shorter treatment courses without impacting acute toxicity. We report 2-year toxicity findings from PACE-B, a randomised trial of conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy versus SBRT. PACE is an open-label, multicohort, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial conducted at 35 hospitals in the UK, Ireland, and Canada. In PACE-B, men aged 18 years and older with a WHO performance status 0–2 and low-risk or intermediate-risk histologically-confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma (Gleason 4 + 3 excluded) were randomly allocated (1:1) by computerised central randomisation with permuted blocks (size four and six), stratified by centre and risk group to control radiotherapy (CRT; 78 Gy in 39 fractions over 7·8 weeks or, following protocol amendment on March 24, 2016, 62 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks) or SBRT (36·25 Gy in five fractions over 1–2 weeks). Androgen deprivation was not permitted. Co-primary outcomes for this toxicity analysis were Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grade 2 or worse gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity at 24 months after radiotherapy. Analysis was by treatment received and included all patients with at least one fraction of study treatment assessed for late toxicity. Recruitment is complete. Follow-up for oncological outcomes continues. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01584258. We enrolled and randomly assigned 874 men between Aug 7, 2012, and Jan 4, 2018 (441 to CRT and 433 to SBRT). In this analysis, 430 patients were analysed in the CRT group and 414 in the SBRT group; a total of 844 (97%) of 874 randomly assigned patients. At 24 months, RTOG grade 2 or worse genitourinary toxicity was seen in eight (2%) of 381 participants assigned to CRT and 13 (3%) of 384 participants assigned to SBRT (absolute difference 1·3% [95% CI –1·3 to 4·0]; p=0·39); RTOG grade 2 or worse gastrointestinal toxicity was seen in 11 (3%) of 382 participants in the CRT group versus six (2%) of 384 participants in the SBRT group (absolute difference –1·3% [95% CI –3·9 to 1·1]; p=0·32). No serious adverse events (defined as RTOG grade 4 or worse) or treatment-related deaths were reported within the analysis timeframe. In the PACE-B trial, 2-year RTOG toxicity rates were similar for five fraction SBRT and conventional schedules of radiotherapy. Prostate SBRT was found to be safe and associated with low rates of side-effects. Biochemical outcomes are awaited. Accuray.

Patients with human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma have high survival when treated with radiotherapy plus cisplatin. Whether replacement of cisplatin with cetuximab—an antibody against the epidermal growth factor receptor—can preserve high survival and reduce treatment toxicity is unknown. We investigated whether cetuximab would maintain a high proportion of patient survival and reduce acute and late toxicity. RTOG 1016 was a randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial at 182 health-care centres in the USA and Canada. Eligibility criteria included histologically confirmed HPV-positive oropharyngeal carcinoma; American Joint Committee on Cancer 7th edition clinical categories T1–T2, N2a–N3 M0 or T3–T4, N0–N3 M0; Zubrod performance status 0 or 1; age at least 18 years; and adequate bone marrow, hepatic, and renal function. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to receive either radiotherapy plus cetuximab or radiotherapy plus cisplatin. Randomisation was balanced by using randomly permuted blocks, and patients were stratified by T category (T1–T2 vs T3–T4), N category (N0–N2a vs N2b–N3), Zubrod performance status (0 vs 1), and tobacco smoking history (≤10 pack-years vs >10 pack-years). Patients were assigned to receive either intravenous cetuximab at a loading dose of 400 mg/m2 5–7 days before radiotherapy initiation, followed by cetuximab 250 mg/m2 weekly for seven doses (total 2150 mg/m2), or cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on days 1 and 22 of radiotherapy (total 200 mg/m2). All patients received accelerated intensity-modulated radiotherapy delivered at 70 Gy in 35 fractions over 6 weeks at six fractions per week (with two fractions given on one day, at least 6 h apart). The primary endpoint was overall survival, defined as time from randomisation to death from any cause, with non-inferiority margin 1·45. Primary analysis was based on the modified intention-to-treat approach, whereby all patients meeting eligibility criteria are included. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01302834. Between June 9, 2011, and July 31, 2014, 987 patients were enrolled, of whom 849 were randomly assigned to receive radiotherapy plus cetuximab (n=425) or radiotherapy plus cisplatin (n=424). 399 patients assigned to receive cetuximab and 406 patients assigned to receive cisplatin were subsequently eligible. After median follow-up duration of 4·5 years, radiotherapy plus cetuximab did not meet the non-inferiority criteria for overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 1·45, one-sided 95% upper CI 1·94; p=0·5056 for non-inferiority; one-sided log-rank p=0·0163). Estimated 5-year overall survival was 77·9% (95% CI 73·4–82·5) in the cetuximab group versus 84·6% (80·6–88·6) in the cisplatin group. Progression-free survival was significantly lower in the cetuximab group compared with the cisplatin group (HR 1·72, 95% CI 1·29–2·29; p=0·0002; 5-year progression-free survival 67·3%, 95% CI 62·4–72·2 vs 78·4%, 73·8–83·0), and locoregional failure was significantly higher in the cetuximab group compared with the cisplatin group (HR 2·05, 95% CI 1·35–3·10; 5-year proportions 17·3%, 95% CI 13·7–21·4 vs 9·9%, 6·9–13·6). Proportions of acute moderate to severe toxicity (77·4%, 95% CI 73·0–81·5 vs 81·7%, 77·5–85·3; p=0·1586) and late moderate to severe toxicity (16·5%, 95% CI 12·9–20·7 vs 20·4%, 16·4–24·8; p=0·1904) were similar between the cetuximab and cisplatin groups. For patients with HPV-positive oropharyngeal carcinoma, radiotherapy plus cetuximab showed inferior overall survival and progression-free survival compared with radiotherapy plus cisplatin. Radiotherapy plus cisplatin is the standard of care for eligible patients with HPV-positive oropharyngeal carcinoma. National Cancer Institute USA, Eli Lilly, and The Oral Cancer Foundation.

The incidence of human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive oropharyngeal cancer, a disease affecting younger patients, is rapidly increasing. Cetuximab, an epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor, has been proposed for treatment de-escalation in this setting to reduce the toxicity of standard cisplatin treatment, but no randomised evidence exists for the efficacy of this strategy. We did an open-label randomised controlled phase 3 trial at 32 head and neck treatment centres in Ireland, the Netherlands, and the UK, in patients aged 18 years or older with HPV-positive low-risk oropharyngeal cancer (non-smokers or lifetime smokers with a smoking history of <10 pack-years). Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive, in addition to radiotherapy (70 Gy in 35 fractions), either intravenous cisplatin (100 mg/m2 on days 1, 22, and 43 of radiotherapy) or intravenous cetuximab (400 mg/m2 loading dose followed by seven weekly infusions of 250 mg/m2). The primary outcome was overall severe (grade 3–5) toxicity events at 24 months from the end of treatment. The primary outcome was assessed by intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN33522080. Between Nov 12, 2012, and Oct 1, 2016, 334 patients were recruited (166 in the cisplatin group and 168 in the cetuximab group). Overall (acute and late) severe (grade 3–5) toxicity did not differ significantly between treatment groups at 24 months (mean number of events per patient 4·8 [95% CI 4·2–5·4] with cisplatin vs 4·8 [4·2–5·4] with cetuximab; p=0·98). At 24 months, overall all-grade toxicity did not differ significantly either (mean number of events per patient 29·2 [95% CI 27·3–31·0] with cisplatin vs 30·1 [28·3–31·9] with cetuximab; p=0·49). However, there was a significant difference between cisplatin and cetuximab in 2-year overall survival (97·5% vs 89·4%, hazard ratio 5·0 [95% CI 1·7–14·7]; p=0·001) and 2-year recurrence (6·0% vs 16·1%, 3·4 [1·6–7·2]; p=0·0007). Compared with the standard cisplatin regimen, cetuximab showed no benefit in terms of reduced toxicity, but instead showed significant detriment in terms of tumour control. Cisplatin and radiotherapy should be used as the standard of care for HPV-positive low-risk patients who are able to tolerate cisplatin. Cancer Research UK.

Prostate cancer might have high radiation-fraction sensitivity that would give a therapeutic advantage to hypofractionated treatment. We present a pre-planned analysis of the efficacy and side-effects of a randomised trial comparing conventional and hypofractionated radiotherapy after 5 years follow-up. CHHiP is a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial that recruited men with localised prostate cancer (pT1b–T3aN0M0). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to conventional (74 Gy delivered in 37 fractions over 7·4 weeks) or one of two hypofractionated schedules (60 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks or 57 Gy in 19 fractions over 3·8 weeks) all delivered with intensity-modulated techniques. Most patients were given radiotherapy with 3–6 months of neoadjuvant and concurrent androgen suppression. Randomisation was by computer-generated random permuted blocks, stratified by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group and radiotherapy treatment centre, and treatment allocation was not masked. The primary endpoint was time to biochemical or clinical failure; the critical hazard ratio (HR) for non-inferiority was 1·208. Analysis was by intention to treat. Long-term follow-up continues. The CHHiP trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN97182923. Between Oct 18, 2002, and June 17, 2011, 3216 men were enrolled from 71 centres and randomly assigned (74 Gy group, 1065 patients; 60 Gy group, 1074 patients; 57 Gy group, 1077 patients). Median follow-up was 62·4 months (IQR 53·9–77·0). The proportion of patients who were biochemical or clinical failure free at 5 years was 88·3% (95% CI 86·0–90·2) in the 74 Gy group, 90·6% (88·5–92·3) in the 60 Gy group, and 85·9% (83·4–88·0) in the 57 Gy group. 60 Gy was non-inferior to 74 Gy (HR 0·84 [90% CI 0·68–1·03], pNI=0·0018) but non-inferiority could not be claimed for 57 Gy compared with 74 Gy (HR 1·20 [0·99–1·46], pNI=0·48). Long-term side-effects were similar in the hypofractionated groups compared with the conventional group. There were no significant differences in either the proportion or cumulative incidence of side-effects 5 years after treatment using three clinician-reported as well as patient-reported outcome measures. The estimated cumulative 5 year incidence of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grade 2 or worse bowel and bladder adverse events was 13·7% (111 events) and 9·1% (66 events) in the 74 Gy group, 11·9% (105 events) and 11·7% (88 events) in the 60 Gy group, 11·3% (95 events) and 6·6% (57 events) in the 57 Gy group, respectively. No treatment-related deaths were reported. Hypofractionated radiotherapy using 60 Gy in 20 fractions is non-inferior to conventional fractionation using 74 Gy in 37 fractions and is recommended as a new standard of care for external-beam radiotherapy of localised prostate cancer. Cancer Research UK, Department of Health, and the National Institute for Health Research Cancer Research Network.

Studies have reported a low α/β ratio for prostate cancer, suggesting that hypofractionation could enhance the biological tumour dose without increasing genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity. In the multicentre phase 3, HYpofractionated irradiation for PROstate cancer (HYPRO) trial, hypofractionated radiotherapy was compared with conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for treatment of prostate cancer. We have previously reported acute and late incidence of genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity; here we report protocol-defined 5-year relapse-free survival outcomes. We did an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial at seven Dutch radiotherapy centres. We enrolled patients with intermediate-risk to high-risk T1b–T4NX–N0MX–M0 localised prostate cancer, a prostate-specific antigen concentration of 60 μg/L or less, and a WHO performance status of 0–2. We used a web-based application to randomly assign (1:1) patients to either hypofractionated radiotherapy of 64·6 Gy (19 fractions of 3·4 Gy, three fractions per week) or conventionally fractionated radiotherapy of 78·0 Gy (39 fractions of 2·0 Gy, five fractions per week). Based on an estimated α/β ratio for prostate cancer of 1·5 Gy, the equivalent total dose in fractions of 2·0 Gy was 90·4 Gy for hypofractionation compared with 78·0 Gy for conventional fractionation. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival. All analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis in all eligible patients. The HYPRO trial completed recruitment in 2010 and follow-up is ongoing. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN85138529. Between March 19, 2007, and Dec 3, 2010, 820 patients were enrolled, of whom 804 were eligible and assessable for intention-to-treat analyses. Of these, 407 were assigned hypofractionated radiotherapy and 397 were allocated conventionally fractionated radiotherapy. 537 (67%) of 804 patients received concomitant androgen deprivation therapy for a median duration of 32 months (IQR 10–44). Median follow-up was 60 months (IQR 51–69). Treatment failure was reported in 169 (21%) of 804 patients, 80 (20%) in the hypofractionation group and 89 (22%) in the conventional fractionation group. 5-year relapse-free survival was 80·5% (95% CI 75·7–84·4) for patients assigned hypofractionation and 77·1% (71·9–81·5) for those allocated conventional fractionation (adjusted hazard radio 0·86, 95% CI 0·63–1·16; log-rank p=0·36). There were no treatment-related deaths. Hypofractionated radiotherapy was not superior to conventional radiotherapy with respect to 5-year relapse-free survival. Our hypofractionated radiotherapy regimen cannot be regarded as the new standard of care for patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk prostate cancer. Dutch Cancer Society.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) might detect more toxic effects of radiotherapy than do clinician-reported outcomes. We did a quality of life (QoL) substudy to assess PROs up to 24 months after conventionally fractionated or hypofractionated radiotherapy in the Conventional or Hypofractionated High Dose Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer (CHHiP) trial. The CHHiP trial is a randomised, non-inferiority phase 3 trial done in 71 centres, of which 57 UK hospitals took part in the QoL substudy. Men with localised prostate cancer who were undergoing radiotherapy were eligible for trial entry if they had histologically confirmed T1b–T3aN0M0 prostate cancer, an estimated risk of seminal vesicle involvement less than 30%, prostate-specific antigen concentration less than 30 ng/mL, and a WHO performance status of 0 or 1. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive a standard fractionation schedule of 74 Gy in 37 fractions or one of two hypofractionated schedules: 60 Gy in 20 fractions or 57 Gy in 19 fractions. Randomisation was done with computer-generated permuted block sizes of six and nine, stratified by centre and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group. Treatment allocation was not masked. UCLA Prostate Cancer Index (UCLA-PCI), including Short Form (SF)-36 and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P), or Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) and SF-12 quality-of-life questionnaires were completed at baseline, pre-radiotherapy, 10 weeks post-radiotherapy, and 6, 12, 18, and 24 months post-radiotherapy. The CHHiP trial completed accrual on June 16, 2011, and the QoL substudy was closed to further recruitment on Nov 1, 2009. Analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary endpoint of the QoL substudy was overall bowel bother and comparisons between fractionation groups were done at 24 months post-radiotherapy. The CHHiP trial is registered with ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN97182923. 2100 participants in the CHHiP trial consented to be included in the QoL substudy: 696 assigned to the 74 Gy schedule, 698 assigned to the 60 Gy schedule, and 706 assigned to the 57 Gy schedule. Of these individuals, 1659 (79%) provided data pre-radiotherapy and 1444 (69%) provided data at 24 months after radiotherapy. Median follow-up was 50·0 months (IQR 38·4–64·2) on April 9, 2014, which was the most recent follow-up measurement of all data collected before the QoL data were analysed in September, 2014. Comparison of 74 Gy in 37 fractions, 60 Gy in 20 fractions, and 57 Gy in 19 fractions groups at 2 years showed no overall bowel bother in 269 (66%), 266 (65%), and 282 (65%) men; very small bother in 92 (22%), 91 (22%), and 93 (21%) men; small bother in 26 (6%), 28 (7%), and 38 (9%) men; moderate bother in 19 (5%), 23 (6%), and 21 (5%) men, and severe bother in four (<1%), three (<1%) and three (<1%) men respectively (74 Gy vs 60 Gy, ptrend=0.64, 74 Gy vs 57 Gy, ptrend=0·59). We saw no differences between treatment groups in change of bowel bother score from baseline or pre-radiotherapy to 24 months. The incidence of patient-reported bowel symptoms was low and similar between patients in the 74 Gy control group and the hypofractionated groups up to 24 months after radiotherapy. If efficacy outcomes from CHHiP show non-inferiority for hypofractionated treatments, these findings will add to the growing evidence for moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy schedules becoming the standard treatment for localised prostate cancer. Cancer Research UK, Department of Health, and the National Institute for Health Research Cancer Research Network.

Moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (MHRT) is a standard treatment for prostate cancer. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is also effective, and has been shown to be non-inferior to MHRT in a lower-risk group of patients who did not require hormone therapy (PACE-B), but randomised data on toxicity for higher-risk patients are lacking. We aimed to compare the early toxicity of MHRT and SBRT. The randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority PACE-C trial, conducted at 53 hospitals across the UK, Republic of Ireland, and New Zealand, recruited men aged at least 18 years with intermediate-risk or high-risk histologically confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma (T1–T3a, Gleason 7–8, and prostate specific antigen 10–30 ng/mL) and with WHO performance status of 0–2. Participants were centrally randomly assigned (1:1; non-masked; permuted block size of four and six; stratified by centre and risk group) to MHRT (60 Gy; 20 daily fractions over 4 weeks) or SBRT (36·25 Gy; five daily or alternate day fractions; over 1–2 weeks) with an additional mandatory clinical target volume dose target of 40 Gy (no margin) to the prostate, and proximal 1 cm of seminal vesicles. 6 months of androgen deprivation therapy was planned and was started before commencement of radiotherapy. The primary outcome of PACE-C is freedom from biochemical or clinical failure, the data for which are not yet mature. The co-primary endpoints for this preplanned safety analysis were the percentages of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grade 2 or worse gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicities at any point during or within 12 weeks of completion of radiotherapy (the early or acute period). Analyses are by treatment received, with participants included if they had one or more fractions of MHRT or SBRT, regardless of their allocated treatment. Late toxicity and efficacy data are awaited as the trial remains in follow-up. The study was prospectively registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01584258. Between Nov 13, 2019, and June 24, 2022, 1208 participants were randomly assigned (601 to MHRT and 607 to SBRT). 608 patients received MHRT and 584 received SBRT, and thus were included in the study analysis. 1136 (95%) of 1192 patients were White, 20 (2%) were Black or Black British, 17 (1%) were Asian or Asian British, and seven (1%) were Chinese or other. During the early period (within 12 weeks of treatment), the co-primary endpoint of RTOG grade 2 or worse genitourinary toxicity was observed in 166 (27%) of 608 patients (95% CI 23·8 to 31·1) receiving MHRT and 162 (28%) of 582 patients (24·3 to 31·7) after SBRT (absolute difference 0·5%, 95% CI –4·7 to 5·7; p=0·89). For grade 2 or worse genitourinary Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), 170 (28%) of 604 patients had events after MHRT and 195 (34%) of 581 patients had events after SBRT (p=0·050). Grade 3 CTCAE genitourinary toxicity was observed in three (<1%) patients receiving MHRT and three (1%) patients receiving SBRT. For grade 2 or worse gastrointestinal CTCAE, 60 (10%) of 604 patients had an event after MHRT and 96 (17%) of 581 patients had an event after SBRT (p=0·0011). Grade 3 CTCAE gastrointestinal toxicity was observed in three (<1%) patients receiving MHRT and four (1%) patients receiving SBRT. During the early period, the co-primary endpoint of RTOG grade 2 or worse gastrointestinal toxicity was observed in 69 (11%) of 608 patients (95% CI 9·0 to 14·2) receiving MHRT and 74 (13%) of 584 patients (10·2 to 15·8) receiving SBRT (absolute difference 1·4%, 95% CI –2·5 to 5·2; p=0·53). There were no treatment-related deaths. Despite an accelerated treatment schedule and a larger treated volume than PACE-B, SBRT and MHRT had similar rates of early RTOG toxicity. The Royal Marsden Cancer Charity.

The IMPORT LOW trial evaluated partial-breast radiotherapy with intensity-modulated radiotherapy in women with early-stage breast cancer at below average risk of ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence (IBTR). 5-year results concluded non-inferiority of IBTR for reduced-dose and partial-breast radiotherapy, with similar or lower frequency of adverse effects compared with whole-breast radiotherapy. We report outcomes after 10 years. IMPORT LOW was a randomised, open-label, multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial. Women were eligible if they were aged 50 years or older and had had breast conservation surgery for unifocal invasive ductal adenocarcinoma, pT1–2 (tumour size of ≤3 cm), N0–1 (none to three positive axillary nodes), grades 1–3, with microscopic margins of non-cancerous tissue of 2 mm or more. Patients were ineligible if they had a previous malignancy of any kind (except non-melanomatous skin cancer), had undergone mastectomy, or had received neoadjuvant or concurrent adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) by randomly permuted blocks to radiotherapy regimens of 40 Gy in 15 fractions to the whole breast (whole-breast group), 36 Gy in 15 fractions to the whole breast plus 40 Gy in 15 fractions to the partial breast (reduced-dose group), or 40 Gy in 15 fractions to the partial breast (partial-breast group). Participants were stratified by treatment centre, without masking. The primary endpoint was IBTR. 10-year outcomes were analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Clinician-reported late adverse effects were evaluated in all participants with available data analysed according to allocated treatment. The study is registered in the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN12852634) and is now complete. 2018 patients were recruited between May 3, 2007, and Oct 5, 2010, from 30 radiotherapy centres in the UK and randomly assigned to the whole-breast group (n=675), reduced-dose group (n=674), or partial-breast group (n=669). Two participants subsequently withdrew consent. Median age was 63 years (IQR 58–68). 854 (42%) of 2016 patients had grade 1 tumours, 959 (48%) had grade 2 tumours, and 200 (10%) had grade 3 tumours (three tumours were ungradable); 59 (3%) had node-positive disease. Median follow-up was 120 months (IQR 119–122) for the whole-breast group, 121 months (IQR 120–122) for the reduced-dose group, and 120 months (IQR 119–122) for the partial-breast group. By 10 years, IBTR events were reported for 45 of 2016 participants: 17 of 674 in the whole-breast group, 11 of 673 in the reduced-dose group, and 17 of 669 in the partial-breast group, with cumulative incidence of 2·8% (95% CI 1·8–4·5), 1·9% (1·1–3·5), and 3·0% (1·9–4·8), respectively. The estimated absolute difference in 10-year IBTR incidence was –1·02% (95% CI –1·98 to 0·99) for the reduced-dose group and 0·16% (–1·28 to 2·89) for the partial-breast group compared with the whole-breast group. Similar low levels of moderate or marked adverse effects were recorded for participants in all three groups in 10-year clinical assessments. Breast shrinkage had the highest incidence (30 [9%] of 321 in the whole-breast group, 28 [9%] of 322 in the reduced-dose group, and 22 [7%] of 333 in the partial-breast group). Long-term follow-up provides further evidence that partial-breast and reduced-dose radiotherapy are as safe and effective as whole-breast radiotherapy in patients with low-risk early breast cancer. These results reaffirm the use of partial-breast radiotherapy delivered with intensity-modulated radiotherapy in this population as standard of care. Cancer Research UK.

Xerostomia is the most common late side-effect of radiotherapy to the head and neck. Compared with conventional radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) can reduce irradiation of the parotid glands. We assessed the hypothesis that parotid-sparing IMRT reduces the incidence of severe xerostomia. We undertook a randomised controlled trial between Jan 21, 2003, and Dec 7, 2007, that compared conventional radiotherapy (control) with parotid-sparing IMRT. We randomly assigned patients with histologically confirmed pharyngeal squamous-cell carcinoma (T1–4, N0–3, M0) at six UK radiotherapy centres between the two radiotherapy techniques (1:1 ratio). A dose of 60 or 65 Gy was prescribed in 30 daily fractions given Monday to Friday. Treatment was not masked. Randomisation was by computer-generated permuted blocks and was stratified by centre and tumour site. Our primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with grade 2 or worse xerostomia at 12 months, as assessed by the Late Effects of Normal Tissue (LENT SOMA) scale. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis, with all patients who had assessments included. Long-term follow-up of patients is ongoing. This study is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial register, number ISRCTN48243537. 47 patients were assigned to each treatment arm. Median follow-up was 44·0 months (IQR 30·0–59·7). Six patients from each group died before 12 months and seven patients from the conventional radiotherapy and two from the IMRT group were not assessed at 12 months. At 12 months xerostomia side-effects were reported in 73 of 82 alive patients; grade 2 or worse xerostomia at 12 months was significantly lower in the IMRT group than in the conventional radiotherapy group (25 [74%; 95% CI 56–87] of 34 patients given conventional radiotherapy vs 15 [38%; 23–55] of 39 given IMRT, p=0·0027). The only recorded acute adverse event of grade 2 or worse that differed significantly between the treatment groups was fatigue, which was more prevalent in the IMRT group (18 [41%; 99% CI 23–61] of 44 patients given conventional radiotherapy vs 35 [74%; 55–89] of 47 given IMRT, p=0·0015). At 24 months, grade 2 or worse xerostomia was significantly less common with IMRT than with conventional radiotherapy (20 [83%; 95% CI 63–95] of 24 patients given conventional radiotherapy vs nine [29%; 14–48] of 31 given IMRT; p<0·0001). At 12 and 24 months, significant benefits were seen in recovery of saliva secretion with IMRT compared with conventional radiotherapy, as were clinically significant improvements in dry-mouth-specific and global quality of life scores. At 24 months, no significant differences were seen between randomised groups in non-xerostomia late toxicities, locoregional control, or overall survival. Sparing the parotid glands with IMRT significantly reduces the incidence of xerostomia and leads to recovery of saliva secretion and improvements in associated quality of life, and thus strongly supports a role for IMRT in squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Cancer Research UK (CRUK/03/005).

Introduction The effect of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWI)-guided dose-painting intensity-modulated radiation therapy (DP-IMRT) on locally advanced recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the outcomes and toxicities of DWI-guided DP-IMRT in patients with locally recurrent NPC. Methods In this prospective trial, 150 patients with locally advanced recurrent NPC were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive reirradiation with DWI-guided DP-IMRT (DWI group, n  = 75) or conventional MRI-based IMRT (MRI group, n  = 75). In the DWI group, DWI-guided gross tumor volume received escalation to 65.4 Gy/30 fx in 2.18 Gy per fraction, while in the MRI group, the planning target volume was irradiated at 60 Gy/30fx in 2.0 Gy per fraction. The trial was registered at Chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2100052340) on October 24, 2021. Survival rates were compared, and multivariate analyses were conducted. Results The median follow-up duration was 16 months. Compared with the MRI group, patients in the DWI group had better 18-month progression-free survival (PFS) 75.1% vs. 53.6%; P  = 0.006), local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) (83.4% vs. 61.8%; P  = 0.010), and locoregional recurrence-free survival (73.1% vs. 64.9%; P  = 0.025). Grade 3–4 toxicities between the two groups showed no significant difference. Multivariate analysis revealed that DWI-guided DP-IMRT was an independent prognostic factor for PFS and LRFS. Conclusion Compared with conventional MRI-based IMRT, DWI-guided DP-IMRT improved PFS in patients with recurrent NPC without increasing acute and late toxic effects.