Local Protocol Variations for Image Guided Radiation Therapy in the Multicenter Dutch Hypofractionation (HYPRO) Trial: Impact of Rectal Balloon and MRI Delineation on Anorectal Dose and Gastrointestinal Toxicity Levels.

PURPOSE: The phase 3 HYpofractionated irradiation for PROstate cancer (HYPRO) trial randomized patients with intermediate- to high-risk localized prostate cancer to conventionally fractionated (78 Gy in 39 fractions) or hypofractionated (64.6 Gy in 19 fractions) radiation therapy. Differences in techniques and treatment protocols were present between participating centers. This study aimed to compare dose parameters and patient-reported gastrointestinal symptoms between these centers.

METHODS AND MATERIALS: From the trial population, we selected patients (N=572) from 4 treatment centers who received image guided (IG) intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Center A (n=242) applied planning target volume (PTV) margins of 5 to 6 mm and was considered the reference center. In center B (n=170, 7-mm margins), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was integrated in treatment planning. An endorectal balloon (ERB) was applied in center C (n=85, 7-mm margins). Center D (n=75) applied the largest PTV margins of 8 mm. The study protocol provided identical anorectal dose constraints, and local protocols were applied for further treatment optimization. Anorectal dose-surface histograms were compared by applying t tests. Rectal complaints during follow-up (6 months to 4 years) were compared in a generalized linear model, adjusting for age, follow-up, treatment arm, and hormone therapy.

RESULTS: Favorable anorectal dose distributions were found for center B (MRI delineation) and center C (ERB application) as compared with centers A and D. These were associated with significantly lower incidences of patient-reported complaints of rectal incontinence, use of incontinence pads, and rectal discomfort in these centers. Furthermore, lower incidences of increased stool frequency (≥4 per day) and mucous loss were observed for center C.

CONCLUSIONS: Despite comparable IG-IMRT techniques and predefined dose constraints, pronounced differences in dose distributions and toxicity rates were observed. MRI delineation and ERB application were associated with favorable rectal dose parameters and toxicity profiles, whereas a 2- to 3-mm difference in PTV margins did not translate into observed differences. We conclude that choices for treatment optimization of IG-IMRT are important and clinically relevant for patients since these affect symptoms experienced in daily life.