onc brain

About ยท curated by Nick Boehling, MD ยท @nb2276

2026-07-19

digest generated 2026-08-11

RAVES QOL: severe urinary leakage 16% vs 2% at 5 yr with adjuvant fossa RT vs never irradiated, and timing of salvage RT costs nothing.
Prostate carried the day. RAVES quantifies what deferring fossa RT buys: 48% of the sRT arm never needed RT at all, and among men who did get RT, 5 yr severe urinary leakage was equivalent whether given adjuvant or salvage (16% vs 13%). The patient-reported bowel signal (37% vs 20% MCIC) never showed up on clinician CTCAE grading.

Prostate

Post-RP fossa RT: the QOL cost of adjuvant over salvage, from the trial that already showed no efficacy penalty for waiting.

Confirmatory

TROG 08.03 RAVES QOL Substudy

ForPost-RP prostate cancer with adverse pathology (margins, EPE, or SVI)

Patient-reported MCIC on EORTC QLQ-PR25 domains safety

Severe urinary leakage 16% vs 2%

aRT vs no RT at 5 yr, p = 0.01

TL;DRSevere urinary leakage 16% vs 2% at 5yr with aRT vs no RT; timing of salvage RT unrelated to QOL.

Why it mattersRadiation oncology

The QOL benefit of a salvage approach is avoidance, not delay: 52% of the sRT arm never needed RT, and among men who did get RT, severe urinary leakage at 5 yr was the same whether early or late (16% vs 13%, p = 0.7), with no coefficient linking RP-to-RT interval to any domain. Dose was 64 Gy/32 fx fossa-only, no ADT, no nodes.

Monday clinic

For a man with adverse pathology after RP and an undetectable PSA, this supports PSA surveillance with early salvage rather than adjuvant RT on functional grounds; it does not speak to men needing ADT, pelvic nodal RT, or Gleason 9 disease, who were sparse or excluded here.

The longer read
11 details

Protocol-planned secondary analysis of the TROG 08.03 RAVES phase 3 noninferiority RCT, 166 aRT vs 167 sRT. Median follow-up 6 yr (IQR 4 to 7.1) in both arms. Complete-case analysis, no imputation, chi-square per timepoint.

High-risk features after RP: positive margins, extraprostatic extension, or seminal vesicle invasion. 82% Gleason 7, 3% Gleason 8, 12% Gleason 9. Median age 63.8 vs 63.9 yr (p = 0.9).

64 Gy in 32 fractions to the prostate fossa in both arms, mostly 3D-CRT rather than IMRT. aRT within 6 mo of RP; sRT triggered at PSA 0.20 ng/ml and delivered within 4 mo. Concurrent ADT and pelvic nodal treatment were not permitted.

Primary: proportion with a minimal clinically important change, defined as a >0.5 SD decline from baseline on each QLQ-PR25 domain. MCIC thresholds were 7 points urinary, 2 points bowel, 14 sexual activity, 12 sexual functioning. Global QOL by QLQ-C30.

The RP-to-RT interval regression is the cleanest read: no coefficient approached significance at 3, 4, or 5 yr in any domain, with the largest estimate 0.20 (95% CI -0.29 to 0.70, p = 0.4).

Endpoint at 5 yrAdjuvant RTNo RTp
MCIC bowel symptoms37% (40/109)12% (6/50)not reported in source
Severe urinary leakage18/111 (16)1/50 (2)0.01
Severe urinary leakage at 4 yr15/124 (12)1/59 (1.7)0.02
Urinary urgency18/110 (16)3/50 (6)0.072

GETUG-AFU 17 and RADICALS reported the same directional late GU penalty for adjuvant RT, though cross-trial comparison is blocked by differing urinary grading. Prior clinician-rated series put CTCAE grade 2 incontinence at 10 to 20%, bracketing the 16% seen here.

post-RP men with adverse pathology treated with fossa-only conventionally fractionated RT without ADT
Does not represent men receiving pelvic nodal RT, concurrent ADT, hypofractionation, or predominantly Gleason 9 disease.

The aRT versus never-irradiated comparison is not randomized: those 87 men were selected by not recurring, so comorbidity and baseline continence are unbalanced by construction. The sRT-received group's worse sexual activity at 3 and 4 yr is confounded by higher-risk disease and likely more ADT off-protocol, and the 5-yr sexual functioning cells are as small as n = 10.

The patient-reported bowel signal is invisible on CTCAE (RAVES showed no clinician-rated GI difference), and the patient-reported urinary trend never reached consistent significance despite a 70% vs 54% clinician-rated G2+ GU gap. The two instruments are measuring different things, and neither alone describes what a man experiences.

CONSORT flow
Randomized 333
โ†“
Adjuvant RT
allocated 166
Salvage RT
allocated 167

Protocol-planned secondary analysis of a randomized trial; supports the established early-salvage standard. Exploratory, unadjusted for multiple testing, 3D-CRT era.

  • Long-term patient-reported QOL with hypofractionated postprostatectomy RT
  • QOL impact of adding short-course ADT and pelvic nodal RT post-RP
  • Whether IMRT eliminates the patient-reported bowel signal

Sourced from Smith, Justin et al.

๐Ÿ“š Sources ยท ๐Ÿ“„ 1 paper
๐Ÿ“„ PAPER Smith, Justin; Duchesne, Gill M.; Kneebone, Andrew et al. ยท European Urology Oncology (2026-07)
Quality of Life After Postprostatectomy Radiotherapy: A TROG 08.03 RAVES Randomized Controlled Trial Substudy