ASTRO Annual Meeting 2025
MARCAP Consortium
ForLocalized prostate cancer, NCCN intermediate to high risk, definitive RT
TL;DRIPD meta-analysis, 10,853 pts: ADT added to RT improved MFS HR 0.83 and OS HR 0.86; dose escalation improved bRFS only.
Reported via UroToday →
The dose-invariance result is the load-bearing one: ADT's benefit was identical at ≥74 Gy and <74 Gy (both HR 0.83), so escalating dose does not buy out the ADT decision. Adjuvant prolongation carries the benefit (MFS HR 0.84), neoadjuvant prolongation does not (HR 0.95), which moves sequencing, not just duration.
In NCCN intermediate- and high-risk localized prostate cancer receiving definitive RT, this supports adding and prolonging ADT on the adjuvant side rather than substituting dose escalation; it does not address node-positive or post-prostatectomy salvage settings.
ADT's benefit was identical at ≥74 Gy and <74 Gy (HR 0.83 both), so escalation does not buy out the hormone decision, and HEAT showed escalation to 79.2 Gy improved biochemical RFS but not MFS or OS. Adjuvant prolongation carries the survival benefit; neoadjuvant prolongation (HR 0.95) does not.
The duration and sequencing read: extending adjuvant ADT from 4-6 to 18-36 months gave MFS HR 0.84 and OS HR 0.85, while extending neoadjuvant ADT from 3-4 to 6-9 months gave HR 0.95 for both. Relative benefit held across NCCN groups, so risk stratification changes NNT, not effect size.
9 details 5 trials watching
Individual patient data meta-analysis from the MARCAP Consortium, 12 eligible trials, 10,853 patients, median follow-up 11.4 years (IQR 9.0-15.0). Three intensification questions analyzed separately: ADT use, neoadjuvant ADT prolongation, adjuvant ADT prolongation.
Localized prostate cancer treated with definitive radiotherapy, stratified by NCCN prognostic risk group. The RT ± ADT comparison ran 2,557 control vs 2,579 experimental (NCCN high 32.6% vs 32.8%, intermediate 47.6% vs 48.7%); the adjuvant-prolongation comparison was high-risk enriched at 71.5% vs 71.1% NCCN high across 1,900 vs 1,874 pts.
Dose was analyzed as a binary ≥74 Gy vs <74 Gy split, with the companion HEAT analysis using 64 to <74 Gy vs ≥74 Gy and escalation up to 79.2 Gy. Brachytherapy boost is discussed as an escalation route alongside external-beam dose.
ADT addition improved MFS HR 0.83 (0.77-0.89) and OS HR 0.86 (0.80-0.92). Adjuvant prolongation improved MFS HR 0.84 (0.78-0.91) and OS HR 0.85 (0.78-0.94); neoadjuvant prolongation did neither (MFS HR 0.95, OS HR 0.95). 10-yr MFS 61% (59-63) with ADT vs 52% (50-54) without; 10-yr OS 65% (63-67) vs 57% (55-59).
| Intervention | Intermediate risk | High risk |
|---|---|---|
| ADT addition | 18.0 | 8.4 |
| Adjuvant ADT prolongation | 16.1 | 10.4 |
The 2022 HEAT network meta-analysis (13 trials, 11,862 pts) found dose escalation improved biochemical RFS but not MFS or OS, and named high-dose RT plus long-term ADT the best strategy. PROG 05/09 and GETUG-18 are invoked to explain the gap: a 21% 5-year biochemical benefit in low risk where metastasis is rare, versus 3% in high risk where it is not.
The pooled trials span 30+ years of practice, so the RT technique behind the <74 Gy stratum is not the technique a reader delivers today. The stated optimal durations (closer to 12 months high risk, 24+ months very high risk) come from DHARMA, accepted but unpublished, so that specific number is not yet auditable.
The framing claim is that dose escalation and ADT are not interchangeable levers: escalation buys biochemical control, ADT buys metastasis-free and overall survival, and the two do not substitute. The dogma that dose escalation obviates ADT is named as widely repeated and never demonstrated.
IPD meta-analysis of randomised trials, large N, long f/u. Reinforces ADT intensification over dose escalation; no new randomisation, and duration guidance rests on unpublished DHARMA.
- Optimal adjuvant ADT duration by prognostic risk group active A Study of Shorter Course Hormone Therapy and Radiation for High-risk Prostate Cancer Phase 2n=50 · primary completion 2026-10 · shorter-course ADT with brachy + hypofx EBRT, high-riskrecruiting Artificial Intelligence Driven Personalisation of Radiotherapy and Concomitant Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Prostate Cancer Patients (the HypoPro Trial) Phase 2n=30 · primary completion 2026-10 · MMAI classifier individualises ADT duration, high-risk
- Does dose escalation change ADT benefit with modern brachytherapy boost active Comparative Study of Radiotherapy Treatments to Treat High Risk Prostate Cancer Patients Phase 3n=307 · primary completion 2028-12 · phase 3 HDR brachy boost vs dose-escalated RT + ADTrecruiting Androgen Suppression Combined With Nodal Irradiation and Dose Escalated Prostate Treatment Phase 3n=710 · primary completion 2032-10 · phase 3 SBRT vs EBRT + brachy boost, all on ADTrecruiting PRO-BOOST-LC: Whole-Gland Boost Strategies Versus SBRT Monotherapy in PSMA-Staged Localized and Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer Phase 2/3n=1000 · primary completion 2033-12 · randomised brachy or SBRT boost vs SBRT alone, + ADT
- Whether intermediate-risk subsets warrant long-term ADT
📚 Sources · 📄 1 paper
Abstract
ESTRO OCSCC Post-op CTV Delineation Guidelines
ForResected oral cavity SCC proceeding to post-operative radiotherapy
TL;DRFirst ESTRO guideline for post-op CTV delineation in oral cavity SCC: GTV-P pre-op + 10 mm composited with surgical defect/flap + 5 mm.
The margin recipe is asymmetric and that is the operative detail: 10 mm around the re-created pre-op GTV-P but only 5 mm around the surgical defect or flap, composited rather than either alone. Fig 3.1/3.2 shows why, the re-created GTV-P extended superiorly beyond the defect into infratemporal fossa, a geographical miss if you contour the defect alone.
In resected OCSCC going to PORT, this supports re-creating the pre-op GTV-P from diagnostic MRI alongside the defect or flap rather than contouring the operative bed alone; it does not extend to R2 resections or other head and neck subsites.
The margin recipe is asymmetric: 10 mm around the re-created pre-op GTV-P but 5 mm around the surgical defect or flap, composited rather than either alone. Nodal margin is pENE-gated at 5 mm versus 10 mm on GTV-N pre-op. Fig 3.1/3.2 shows the pre-op GTV extending past the defect into infratemporal fossa, a geographical miss if you contour the bed alone.
11 details 5 trials watching
ESTRO-convened multi-disciplinary expert group developing delineation guidelines through discussion and review of current evidence and international practice. Drafts were reviewed by HNSCC experts from countries outside the authorship (Japan, Hong Kong, Australia, Brazil, Mexico, Canada, Denmark, France, Spain, Poland, Ireland, UK) and modified on their feedback. No efficacy endpoint, no patient cohort.
Patients with oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma requiring post-operative radiotherapy, regardless of margin status and other histological risk factors. R2 resection (macroscopic residual disease) is explicitly out of scope. Companion background manuscript from the same group covers indications for PORT.
Planning CT 2.0 mm slices (range 1-3 mm), skull base to below sterno-clavicular joint, IV contrast mandatory, rigid co-registration with pre-op contrast-enhanced CT and/or MRI matched to C1-C3 vertebral bodies or nearby bone, not to soft tissue. CTV-P is the composite of GTV-P pre-op + 10 mm and surgical defect/flap + 5 mm, edited for bone, fascia, air, teeth and any intra-oral prosthesis. Nodal margin is 5 mm on GTV-N pre-op without pENE, 10 mm with pENE.
None. The stated aim is consistency of delineation to enable multi-institutional audit, clinical trials and RTQA. Authors position prospective audits of practice and outcomes as the route to establishing these volumes as standard of care.
Extends the 2018 international CTV-P consensus for definitive HNSCC RT, whose 5+5 mm geometric expansion supplies the 10 mm used here around GTV-P pre-op. Cites the DAHANCA finding that geometric expansion is more conformal than anatomical margins, a post-hoc De-ESCALaTE analysis correlating the anatomical-to-geometric protocol change with lower late dysphagia, and non-randomised Dutch series where reducing the high-risk margin 10 mm to 6 mm cut salivary and constrictor dose. GORTEC's 2020 flap delineation guidance is named as an adjunct.
The 5 mm and 10 mm margins are imported from definitive-setting geometry and one surgical pathology series (>95 % of microscopic infiltration within 5 mm of GTV-P edge), not from post-operative recurrence mapping. The dose to dissected but uninvolved levels rests on a 1993 MD Anderson observation never tested prospectively, and is left to clinician discretion (EQD2 50-60 Gy). The whole method assumes accurate pre-op to planning CT co-registration, and the fallback where it fails is to treat the entire involved level, a larger volume.
The novel move is refusing to pick between the two available surrogates for a resected tumour: re-created pre-op GTV and operative bed are contoured independently and unioned, because each fails in a different direction. Fig 3.1 shows a GTV-P pre-op extending superiorly past the defect toward the infratemporal fossa, and Fig 8.1 a pectoralis major pedicled flap whose composite volume extends outside the oral cavity and is trimmed back. What is left unsettled is dose de-escalation to central flap tissue, where the guideline offers a flap avoidance structure for standardisation while stating there is a lack of data and consequently a lack of consensus.
| Volume | Indication | EQD2 dose |
|---|---|---|
| CTV-P post-op | PTV associated with post-op primary CTV | 60 Gy |
| CTV-P high-risk | Positive (<1 mm) margin, whole CTV-P or localised strip | over 60 Gy, e.g. 64-66 Gy |
| CTV-N1 | Involved nodal levels | 60 Gy |
| CTV-N2 | Undissected at-risk levels | 50 Gy |
| CTV-N2, dissected at-risk levels | Optimal dose unknown | 50 Gy to 60 Gy, clinician discretion |
| CTV-N high-risk | Pathological extranodal extension | over 60 Gy, e.g. 64-66 Gy |
ESTRO expert guideline, no efficacy endpoint. Fills a documented gap (no prior post-op HNSCC CTV consensus); authors themselves position prospective audit as the validation step.
- Optimal dose to dissected but uninvolved nodal levels recruiting Preservation of Swallowing in Respected Oral Cavity Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Examining Radiation Volume Effects (PRESERVE): A Randomized Trial Phase 2n=90 · primary completion 2026-09 · OCSCC RCT: omit RT to dissected pN0 hemi-neckn=50 · primary completion 2029-01 · compartment-based post-op volume reduction in HNSCCrecruiting De-Intensification of Postoperative Radiotherapy in Patients With Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck Phase 2/3n=508 · primary completion 2031-12 · omits elective neck RT after neck dissection
- Whether flap dose de-escalation is safe not yet Lipiodal Injection Technique for Free Flap Sparing Adjuvant RT Planning in HNC Phase Early 1n=10 · primary completion 2026-03 · lipiodol marks flap borders for sparing plansn=348 · primary completion 2031-03 · phase 3 RCT: flap-sparing vs standard post-op RT
- Whether 10 mm post-op primary margin can be reduced as in definitive setting
📚 Sources · 📄 1 paper
NRG-GU005 (quality of life)
ForLocalized intermediate-risk prostate cancer, median age 68, no ADT specified
Bowel 33% vs 46% at 1 yr
p=0.002; 2yr bowel/UIO primary PRO endpoint not reported in source
TL;DRFewer MCID declines with SBRT at 1yr bowel (33% vs 46%, p=0.002) and sexual (34% vs 44%, p=0.026).
Reported via UroToday →
The QoL separation is domain-specific, not global: bowel and sexual at 1yr, urinary incontinence at 2yr, with no longitudinal effect in sexual or hormonal. Rectal manipulation (SpaceOAR 55%) and the 38.78 Gy PTV max cap gate transfer, since the bowel and GU signals came from a spacer-heavy, urethra-constrained delivery.
In localized intermediate-risk prostate cancer choosing between 5-fraction SBRT and moderate hypofractionation, this supports SBRT on patient-reported bowel, sexual, and continence grounds; it does not speak to high-risk disease, nodal coverage, or oncologic non-inferiority, which the trial's primary endpoint carries.
Domain-specific, not global: bowel and sexual at 1yr, incontinence at 2yr, with no longitudinal sexual or hormonal effect. The 38.78 Gy PTV max cap and 55% SpaceOAR use gate transfer, since the favorable GU and bowel profile came from a urethra-constrained, spacer-heavy delivery, not from five fractions alone.
Also covered Aug 14
11 details
Randomized, non-blinded phase III, 1:1, N=698 (MH-IMRT 345, SBRT 353), stratified by Gleason score, PSA, and rectal manipulation. The trial's oncologic primary endpoint sits elsewhere; this analysis reports the patient-reported secondary endpoints.
Localized intermediate-risk prostate cancer, median age 68 (IMRT) and 69 (SBRT). Two patients were ineligible (one high-risk, one PSA out of window). Baseline EPIC domains were balanced across arms, all p≥0.093.
SBRT 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions delivered 2-3 per week, PTV expansion 5mm except 3mm posteriorly and anteriorly, PTV max capped at 38.78 Gy unless the urethra was visualized and contoured (acceptable variation 43.5 Gy). MH-IMRT 70 Gy/28 fx or 60 Gy/20 fx, PTV expansion 8mm except 5mm posteriorly. CTV was prostate ± 1cm proximal seminal vesicles. Rectal manipulation was common: SpaceOAR in 55% overall.
EPIC-26 at baseline, 12 and 24 months. MCID thresholds: >5 points urinary irritative/obstructive, >6 urinary incontinence, >10 sexual, >4 bowel and hormonal. Individual MCID rather than group mean scores was the analytic unit, with an exploratory longitudinal linear model adjusted for baseline score, arm, stratification factors, T-stage, age, and race.
The arm-level MCID and toxicity comparisons are tabulated above. Longitudinal modeling of urinary incontinence gave a least square mean difference of 2.91 (95% CI 0.85-4.97, p=0.0058) favoring SBRT, while sexual and hormonal domains showed no significant treatment effect.
| Domain / timepoint | SBRT | MH-IMRT | p |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bowel, 1 yr | 33% | 46% | 0.002 |
| Sexual, 1 yr | 34% | 44% | 0.026 |
| Urinary incontinence, 2 yr | 26% | 35% | 0.023 |
| Event | SBRT | MH-IMRT | p |
|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment-related G≥3 GU | 0.6% | 2.5% | 0.04 |
| Rectal hemorrhage, any grade | 10.5% | 17.3% | 0.01 |
| Fatigue, any grade | 39.2% | 50.8% | 0.0025 |
Investigator-reported toxicity favored SBRT across the board: grade ≥3 GU 0.6% vs 2.5% (p=0.04), any-grade rectal hemorrhage 10.5% vs 17.3% (p=0.01), any-grade fatigue 39.2% vs 50.8% (p=0.0025). The GU finding is the one that most often runs the other way in ultrahypofractionation series, so it is worth reading as the trial's own answer to the pre-trial toxicity concern.
PACE-B is the other large randomized SBRT vs moderate hypofractionation comparison, and both trials show lower urinary incontinence decline with SBRT despite differing MCID definitions. Prior patient-level meta-analysis had suggested less clinically meaningful bowel and urinary irritative/obstructive decline at two years with SBRT, and the 1-year bowel result here is directionally consistent.
Differential attrition ran against the IMRT arm: 22 IMRT patients (6.4%) died or withdrew before year 1 versus 4 SBRT patients (1.1%), and 22 IMRT patients never received the assigned RT after withdrawal versus 1 in the SBRT arm. Completion was 79.9% (IMRT) and 84.0% (SBRT) at year 1. The domain-by-timepoint pattern (bowel and sexual at 1yr, incontinence at 2yr) is the kind of scattered significance that multiplicity should temper.
The trial was designed when the open question was whether five fractions cost the patient something. The PRO answer is that it does not, and the investigator-reported toxicity answer is that it may cost less. What the QoL data cannot do is settle whether SBRT is oncologically non-inferior, which is the primary endpoint and is not reported in this source.
CONSORT flow
Prespecified PRO secondary analysis of a phase III trial, non-blinded with patient-reported endpoints; aligns with PACE-B rather than establishing a new position. Oncologic primary endpoint not reported here.
- Oncologic non-inferiority of SBRT vs MH-IMRT in this trial
- Whether bowel benefit holds without rectal spacer
- Durability of QoL separation beyond 2 years
📚 Sources · 📄 1 paper
Abstract
10-yr SBRT Survival/Toxicity (Meier et al.)
ForLocalised low- or intermediate-risk prostate, no ADT, prostate volume up to 100 cc
TL;DR10-yr RFS 90% overall (94% LR, 86% IR) with 40 Gy/5 fx; grade 3 late toxicity 1.4-1.5%, no grade 4-5.
Two-thirds of relapses fell between 5 and 10 yr, so the reassurance PACE-B gives at 5 yr is provisional. The unfavorable IR subgroup sits at 77% (60-93) vs 92% for favorable IR (p=0.002), which is where the ADT-with-SBRT question actually lives, not in the pooled 86% IR number.
In unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate considered for 40 Gy/5 fx monotherapy, the 77% 10-yr RFS (vs 92% favorable IR) is the number that informs an ADT discussion; the favorable IR and low-risk data do not carry that concern.
Two-thirds of relapses fell between 5 and 10 yr, so PACE-B's 5-yr reassurance is provisional. Within IR, unfavorable pts sat at 77% (60-93) vs 92% favorable (p=0.002) with 40 Gy/5 fx and no ADT, which is where the ADT-addition question lives, not in the pooled 86%.
11 details 4 trials watching
Investigator-initiated phase 2 nonrandomized trial across 21 centers (community, regional, academic), enrolling Jan 2008 to Apr 2010. 310 evaluable pts, median age 68, median follow-up 9 yr. Kaplan-Meier estimation with log-rank comparison of LR vs IR.
172 low-risk (T1b-T2a, Gleason 6, PSA under 10) and 138 intermediate-risk (T1b-T2b, Gleason 7 or Gleason 6 with PSA 10-20), all confirmed by central pathologic review. IR pts subclassified favorable vs unfavorable by MSK criteria. Prostate volume up to 100 cc allowed; prior TURP and baseline AUA score were not exclusions.
40 Gy in 5 fractions (8 Gy x 5, equivalent to ~100 Gy at 2 Gy/fx assuming a/b = 2) on a noncoplanar robotic platform. Fiducial tracking with translational and rotational intrafractional motion correction was mandatory. Androgen suppression was not allowed, so the outcomes are RT-attributable.
Relapse defined as biochemical failure (nadir + 2), clinical failure, or administration of any salvage, antiandrogen, or systemic therapy. Late toxicity was physician-reported, CTCAE v3, events beyond 3 mo. Day 0 was the last day of treatment.
10-yr OS 84% (76-91). Freedom from local failure 96% (93-99) overall. The separation that matters is within IR: favorable 92% vs unfavorable 77%, p = 0.002, whereas LR vs IR overall was not significant (p = 0.19).
| Group | 10-yr RFS (95% CI) | p |
|---|---|---|
| Whole group | 92% (87-96) | n/a |
| Low risk | 94% (89-99) | 0.19 (LR vs IR) |
| Intermediate risk | 86% (77-94) | 0.19 (LR vs IR) |
| MSK favorable IR | 92% (90-100) | 0.002 (fav vs unfav) |
| MSK unfavorable IR | 77% (60-93) | 0.002 (fav vs unfav) |
Four pts had five grade 3 events, all GU, and no grade 4-5 events occurred. Cumulative 10-yr grade 3 rates were 1.4% LR and 1.5% IR, far below the 10% rate the trial deemed acceptable. Grade 2+ GU 14% exceeds grade 2+ GI 2.1% by roughly sevenfold; no new late grade 3+ events after year 5.
IR relapse-free survival (86%) sits above the 74-78% 10-yr RFS of dose-escalated EBRT in RTOG 0126, and the authors note an updated HYPO-RT-PC now shows superior 10-yr RFS in the 6.1 Gy x 7 arm. Toxicity matched Fuller's CyberKnife trial but was lower than the PACE-B SBRT arm and PATRIOT, both of which treated substantial fractions on a conventional linac.
The toxicity advantage over PACE-B and PATRIOT is confounded by platform, and the sponsor makes that platform, so the comparison cannot separate tracking from delivery-era and case-mix differences. Toxicity is physician-reported CTCAE only, with no patient-reported instrument, which understates GU bother relative to the EPIC-based comparators. Comparator EBRT series (RTOG 0126) predate modern IGRT.
The durability question, not the toxicity question, is what 10 yr answers here: two-thirds of relapses occurred between 5 and 10 yr, in this trial and in Fuller's. That timing means a 5-yr non-inferiority readout is structurally optimistic for both arms, and it reframes what PACE-B's 5-yr result can and cannot settle.
Single-arm nonrandomized phase 2, no concurrent comparator; sponsor-funded with device-specific delivery. Extends existing 5-yr SBRT data rather than testing a new question.
- Whether ADT improves outcomes for unfavorable intermediate-risk pts receiving SBRT n=310 · primary completion 2025-12 · phase 3 prostate SRT +/- short-term ADT, bDFSn=222 · primary completion 2027-12 · SBRT without ADT in UIR, Decipher-gatedn=392 · primary completion 2030-04 · SBRT + 6-mo ADT vs SBRT alone, NCCN UIR cohort
- Whether intrafractional tracking, not platform, drives the toxicity difference recruiting Is Adaptive SBRT for Prostate vs Image-guided Radiotherapy a True Evolution (ASPIRE) Phase 3n=320 · primary completion 2030-02 · adaptive vs image-guided SBRT, urinary endpoint
- 10-yr PACE-B relapse rates vs conventional fractionation
📚 Sources · 📄 1 paper
American Radium Society AUC: Local Intraprostatic Recurrence
ForIsolated intraprostatic recurrence after definitive prostate RT
TL;DRSevere GU toxicity 20% after salvage RP vs 5.6% SBRT, 9.6% HDR: panel prefers biopsy-confirmed reirradiation.
The modality recommendation is a toxicity argument, not an efficacy one: MASTER found adjusted 5-yr recurrence-free survival of 50% to 60% across modalities with no survival difference vs RP, so reirradiation wins on severe GU toxicity (5.6% SBRT, 9.6% HDR vs 20% RP). Target volume then follows concordance, focal when mpMRI and systematic biopsy agree, whole-gland when they do not.
In a man with rising PSA after conventionally fractionated definitive prostate EBRT whose PSMA PET and mpMRI show isolated intraprostatic recurrence, this supports biopsy confirmation before reirradiation rather than ADT alone; it does not extend to recurrence after primary brachytherapy or to nodal or distant failure.
Every accepted schema fits in six or fewer fractions (34 Gy or 40 Gy in 5 fractions, 36 Gy in 6 fractions per GETUG-AFU 31, HDR 27 Gy in 2 fractions), and focal CTV is mpMRI plus choline PET GTV with a 5-7 mm margin bound by the capsule. None of it was validated after hypofractionated primary RT.
ADT alone is recommended against for confirmed local recurrence. Only a short 4-6 mo LHRH agonist is endorsed, as a radiosensitizer with salvage SBRT, and the panel reached no agreement on relugolix (HERO's cardiac benefit was an unplanned secondary, PRONOUNCE did not replicate). Classic ADT is preferred over novel hormonal agents.
Salvage RP holds equivalent adjusted 5-yr recurrence-free survival in MASTER (50% to 60% across modalities, no survival difference vs RP), so the case against it is toxicity: severe GU 20% vs 5.6% after SBRT. Biopsy and ablation should not be combined in one procedure, since histologic confirmation must precede salvage.
9 details 4 trials watching
PRISMA systematic review of PubMed and Embase (searched 28 June 2022) across four topics, excluding conference abstracts, non-English publications and series of fewer than five patients. A 12-member multidisciplinary panel of radiation oncologists, urologists and medical oncologists voted in two rounds by modified Delphi, with RAND methodology defining disagreement.
Scope is tier A disease, local-only intraprostatic radiorecurrence after definitive RT, with BCR defined as PSA 2.0 ng/ml above nadir. Evidence was restricted to men whose primary treatment was conventionally fractionated EBRT, and prior brachytherapy patients were excluded from the synthesis. Every variant presumes the patient wants curative-intent local salvage.
All accepted salvage schemas fit in six or fewer fractions. For focal salvage, GETUG-AFU 31 defines GTV by mpMRI plus choline PET with a 5-7 mm margin bound by the prostatic capsule; whole-gland salvage SBRT has prospective support from the Fuller series. Dose constraints and IGRT method are out of scope.
Long hormone courses are recommended against across all salvage scenarios. A short 4-6 mo LHRH agonist carries moderate consensus as a radiosensitizer with salvage SBRT in patients without cardiac history, weaker consensus with cardiac comorbidity, and classic ADT is preferred over novel hormonal agents.
The toxicity read that drives the reirradiation preference comes from pooled retrospective data that could not evaluate sexual toxicity and included no PSMA PET selection. Approaches that combine biopsy and ablation in one procedure are discouraged, since histologic confirmation must precede salvage.
No prior consensus guideline addressed intraprostatic radiorecurrence exclusively. The hormone-only comparators being displaced (Crook intermittent vs continuous ADT, TOAD immediate vs delayed, EMBARK enzalutamide MFS benefit) all enrolled before PET-based selection and none isolated a biopsy-confirmed, local-only cohort. RTOG 0526 reported after MASTER closed, adding prospective LDR support.
The search closed 28 June 2022 with an acknowledged lag to publication. MASTER carries between-study heterogeneity and follow-up asymmetry favoring older modalities, so its flat efficacy comparison is not a randomised one. The hormone recommendation rests on no qualifying study and is extrapolated from de novo intermediate-risk data.
Settled: image, biopsy with both systematic and targeted cores, then prefer reirradiation over hormones alone. Not settled: the modality for a second salvage, for castrate-resistant local recurrence, for short PSA doubling time, or after prior grade 3 toxicity, all of which drew panel disagreement.
| Variant | Panel position |
|---|---|
| Variant 1: isolated intraprostatic recurrence | Reirradiation usually appropriate; cryotherapy or HIFU may be appropriate; ADT alone not recommended |
| Variant 2: short PSA doubling time, short interval to failure | HIFU may be appropriate, but disagreement across all interventions; ADT alone not recommended |
| Variant 3: castrate-resistant local recurrence | Disagreement on intervention; androgen suppression uniformly not recommended |
| Variant 4: second local salvage | Disagreement on which modality to select |
| Variant 5: prior grade ≥3 toxicity | Disagreement; active surveillance may be appropriate; ADT can be considered |
| Modality | Severe GU | Severe GI |
|---|---|---|
| Salvage RP (reference) | 20% | 1.8% |
| SBRT | 5.6% | not reported in source |
| HDR brachytherapy | 9.6% | 0.0%, p < 0.01 vs RP |
| LDR brachytherapy | 9.1% | not reported in source |
| Scenario | Target volume |
|---|---|
| mpMRI and systematic biopsy agree on lesion location | Focal favored |
| History of grade ≥3 toxicity from initial RT course | Focal favored |
| Lesion occult on mpMRI, localised by PET plus systematic biopsy | Focal or whole-gland both appropriate |
| mpMRI and systematic biopsy disagree on lesion location | Whole-gland preferred |
| Recurrent lesion in a different location to the index lesion | Whole-gland preferred, focal appropriate in selected cases |
Appropriate use criteria from a 12-member Delphi panel; the output is a recommendation grid, not an efficacy result. No trial endpoint, so efficacy verdicts do not apply.
- Salvage outcomes after primary hypofractionated RT or prior brachytherapy n=60 · primary completion 2024-11 · RO-PIP: salvage ultra-hypofx EBRT vs HDR, pt-reported toxrecruiting Stereotactic Re-irradiation of Local Recurrences of Prostate Cancer After Radiotherapy Phase 2n=55 · primary completion 2029-12 · focal SBRT reRT, G2/G3 GU-GI tox 1° EPn=30 · primary completion 2032-01 · salvage HDR after prior EBRT or LDR brachytherapy
- Whether short ADT adds oncologic benefit to salvage reirradiation
- Optimal modality for castrate-resistant or second local salvage n=50 · primary completion 2025-03 · focal salvage HDR, biopsy/MRI-guided local recurrence
📚 Sources · 📄 1 paper
BART
ForPost-cystectomy MIBC, pT3-4 / pN+ / R+, chemo-treated, no adjuvant IO
87.1% vs 76.0%
HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20-0.96, p=0.04
TL;DR2yr LRFFS 87.1% vs 76.0% with adjuvant pelvic RT after cystectomy, HR 0.43 (0.20-0.96), p=0.04; OS unchanged.
Reported via UroToday →
The RT read is the per-protocol and subgroup magnitude: LRFFS HR 0.27 (0.10-0.71) among those actually irradiated, and HR 0.22 (0.06-0.75) in pN+. Target was cystectomy bed plus full pelvic nodes to 50.4Gy/28fx with stoma-sparing IMRT, a plan deliverable in standard practice, and late G3+ toxicity was 8.4% vs 10.5%. That moves the offer-RT decision for pN+ disease.
In pN+ or pT3-4 urothelial MIBC after cystectomy and cisplatin-based chemotherapy, this supports discussing adjuvant pelvic RT for locoregional control; it does not inform pts receiving adjuvant nivolumab, who were unrepresented here.
The deliverable read is technique plus magnitude: 50.4Gy/28fx to cystectomy bed and full pelvic nodes with stoma-sparing IMRT and daily IGRT, late G3+ 8.4% vs 10.5%, LRFFS HR 0.22 (0.06-0.75) in pN+. This moves the offer-adjuvant-RT decision for pN+ or margin-positive disease.
Chemotherapy was neoadjuvant in 71% and adjuvant in 20%, and no pt received immunotherapy, so this speaks to a failure mode the chemo backbone did not cover: 26% locoregional recurrence under observation. It does not change regimen choice, but it questions whether adjuvant nivolumab alone addresses pelvic failure.
With a median 20 nodes dissected and a 4.6% positive margin rate, locoregional recurrence still reached 26% without RT, so this is not attributable to inadequate surgery. For pT3-4, pN+, or R+ specimens, it argues for referral for adjuvant RT discussion rather than surveillance alone.
12 details 2 trials watching
Phase III multicenter RCT, 1:1 adjuvant radiotherapy versus observation, N=153 accrued 2016-2024 (RT 77, observation 76). Stratified by nodal stage (N0 vs N+) and chemotherapy timing. Median follow-up 47 months; per-protocol comparison by log rank, with Fine-Gray competing-risk subdistribution HRs for LRFFS (competing risks distant metastases, non-cancer death) and DFS.
High-risk non-metastatic urothelial MIBC post radical cystectomy: T3-4, N1-3, or R+. 62% pT3-T4, 41% pN+, variant histology component in 28%. Median age 57, median nodes dissected 20, positive margin rate 4.6%, neobladder in 2.6%.
Chemotherapy was neoadjuvant in 71% and adjuvant in 20%; 9.2% received none. No patient received immunotherapy in either arm.
50.4Gy in 28 fractions to the cystectomy bed and pelvic nodes. CTV covered common iliac, internal and external iliac, presacral and obturator nodes plus the cystectomy bed. Stoma and bowel sparing IMRT with daily onboard image guidance. 63 of 77 allocated received planned RT.
Primary: 2-year locoregional failure-free survival. Secondary: bladder cancer-specific survival, disease-free survival, overall survival.
Primary endpoint met. Overall 37% recurred, 18% locoregionally (8% RT vs 26% observation, p=0.006), and there were no isolated locoregional recurrences in the RT arm. Survival endpoints all favored RT numerically without reaching significance.
| Endpoint | Adjuvant RT | Observation | Effect size |
|---|---|---|---|
| LRFFS (primary) | 87.1% | 76.0% | HR 0.43 (0.20-0.96), p=0.04 |
| LRFFS per protocol | 93.2% | 75.0% | HR 0.27 (0.10-0.71), p=0.008 |
| DFS | 71.6% | 58.7% | HR 0.62 (0.36-1.05), p=0.07 |
| Bladder cancer-specific survival | 79.6% | 65.0% | HR 0.59 (0.33-1.10), p=0.09 |
| Overall survival | 70.4% | 57.4% | HR 0.78 (0.49-1.26), p=0.31 |
Grade 3 GI events were low and no higher with RT (1.6% vs 4.1%); the cost was grade 2 GI (17.5% vs 1.4%) with no toxicity-related discontinuation. Late grade 3+ toxicity was similar (8.4% vs 10.5%, p=0.60).
The comparator that defines current adjuvant practice is CheckMate 274 (adjuvant nivolumab), which no BART patient received, so this addresses a locoregional failure mode nivolumab was never shown to control. Prior adjuvant RT evidence in this space is the smaller Egyptian NCI randomised experience; BART is described as the largest RCT here.
Accrual over eight years fell short of target, so the survival endpoints are underpowered rather than negative: the OS CI (0.49-1.26) is compatible with both a substantial benefit and modest harm. 14 of 77 allocated to RT never received it and were analyzed with observation (n=90), which is the per-protocol comparison the headline HR 0.27 comes from.
This establishes that pelvic RT after cystectomy does what RT does elsewhere: it controls the field it treats, at an acceptable late-toxicity cost. What it does not establish is whether preventing a locoregional recurrence in a disease this systemically aggressive translates into survival, which the planned MERCY IPD meta-analysis is meant to answer.
CONSORT flow
Randomised, primary endpoint met, prespecified stratification. Adjuvant RT is not standard post-cystectomy; this is the first positive phase III. Underpowered for OS, no IO backbone.
- Does locoregional control translate into an overall survival benefit active Adjuvant Radiotherapy in Patients With Pathological High-risk Bladder Cancer (GETUG-AFU 30) Phase NAn=81 · primary completion 2027-12 · randomised adjuvant pelvic RT post-RC + PLND
- Adjuvant radiotherapy combined with adjuvant immunotherapy recruiting Adjuvant Concurrent Immunotherapy and Radiotherapy for the Treatment of Bladder Cancer Phase 1n=10 · primary completion 2027-04 · phase 1 concurrent adjuvant IO + RT safety
- Generalizability to older pts with limited lymphadenectomy