UNASSIGNED: Radiotherapy to the prostate bed is a potentially curative salvage option after radical prostatectomy. Although prostate bed contouring guidelines are available in the literature, important variabilities exist. The objective of this work is to provide a contemporary consensus guideline for prostate bed delineation for postoperative radiotherapy.
UNASSIGNED: An ESTRO-ACROP contouring consensus panel consisting of 11 radiation oncologists and one radiologist, all with known subspecialty expertise in prostate cancer, was established. Participants were asked to delineate the prostate bed clinical target volumes (CTVs) in 3 separate clinically relevant scenarios: adjuvant radiation, salvage radiation with PSA progression, and salvage radiation with persistently elevated PSA. These cases focused on the presence of positive surgical margin, extracapsular extension, and seminal vesicles involvement. None of the cases had radiographic evidence of local recurrence on imaging. A single computed tomography (CT) dataset was shared via FALCON platform and contours were performed using EduCaseTM software. Contours were analyzed qualitatively using heatmaps which provided a visual assessment of controversial regions and quantitatively analyzed using Sorensen-Dice similarity coefficients. Participants also answered case-specific questionnaires addressing detailed recommendations on target delineation. Discussions via electronic mails and videoconferences for final editing and consensus were performed.
UNASSIGNED: The mean CTV for the adjuvant case was 76 cc (SD = 26.6), salvage radiation with PSA progression was 51.80 cc (SD = 22.7), and salvage radiation with persistently elevated PSA 57.63 cc (SD = 25.2). Compared to the median, the mean Sorensen-Dice similarity coefficient for the adjuvant case was 0.60 (SD 0.10), salvage radiation with PSA progression was 0.58 (SD = 0.12), and salvage radiation with persistently elevated PSA 0.60 (SD = 0.11). A heatmap for each clinical scenario was generated. The group agreed to proceed with a uniform recommendation for all cases, independent of the radiotherapy timing. Several controversial areas of the prostate bed CTV were identified based on both heatmaps and questionnaires. This formed the basis for discussions via videoconferences where the panel achieved consensus on the prostate bed CTV to be used as a novel guideline for postoperative prostate cancer radiotherapy.
UNASSIGNED: Variability was observed in a group formed by experienced genitourinary radiation oncologists and a radiologist. A single contemporary ESTRO-ACROP consensus guideline was developed to address areas of dissonance and improve consistency in prostate bed delineation, independent of the indication.There is important variability in existing contouring guidelines for postoperative prostate bed (PB) radiotherapy (RT) after radical prostatectomy. This work aimed at providing a contemporary consensus guideline for PB delineation. An ESTRO ACROP consensus panel including radiation oncologists and a radiologist, all with known subspecialty expertise in prostate cancer, delineated the PB CTV in 3 scenarios: adjuvant RT, salvage RT with PSA progression, and salvage RT with persistently elevated PSA. None of the cases had evidence of local recurrence. Contours were analysed qualitatively using heatmaps for visual assessment of controversial regions and quantitatively using Sorensen-Dice coefficient. Case-specific questionnaires were also discussed via e-mails and videoconferences for consensus. Several controversial areas of the PB CTV were identified based on both heatmaps and questionnaires. This formed the basis for discussions via videoconferences. Finally, a contemporary ESTRO-ACROP consensus guideline was developed to address areas of dissonance and improve consistency in PB delineation, independent of the indication.

UNASSIGNED: Along with breast-conserving surgery (BCS), adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) of patients with early breast cancer plays a crucial role in the oncologic treatment concept. Conventionally, irradiation is carried out with the aid of tangentially arranged fields. However, more modern and more complex radiation techniques such as IMRT (intensity-modulated radio therapy) are used more frequently, as they improve dose conformity and homogeneity and, in some cases, achieve better protection of adjacent risk factors. The use of this technique has implications for the incidental- and thus unintended- irradiation of adjacent loco regional lymph drainage in axillary lymph node levels I-III and internal mammary lymph nodes (IMLNs). A comparison of a homogeneous \"real-life\" patient collective, treated with helical tomotherapy (TT), patients treated with 3D conformal RT conventional tangentially arranged fields (3DCRT) and deep inspiration breath hold (3DCRT-DIBH), was conducted.
METHODS: This study included 90 treatment plans after BCS, irradiated in our clinic from January 2012 to August 2016 with TT (n = 30) and 3D-CRT (n = 30), 3DCRT DIBH (n = 30). PTVs were contoured at different time points by different radiation oncologists (> 7). TT was performed with a total dose of 50.4 Gy and a single dose of 1.8 Gy with a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) to the tumor cavity (TT group). Patients irradiated with 3DCRT/3DCRT DIBH received 50 Gy à 2 Gy and a sequential boost. Contouring of lymph drainage routes was performed retrospectively according to RTOG guidelines.
RESULTS: Average doses (DMean) in axillary lymph node Level I/Level II/Level III were 31.6 Gy/8.43 Gy/2.38 Gy for TT, 24.0 Gy/11.2 Gy/3.97 Gy for 3DCRT and 24.7 Gy/13.3 Gy/5.59 Gy for 3DCRT-DIBH patients. Internal mammary lymph nodes (IMLNs) Dmean were 27.8 Gy (TT), 13.5 Gy (3DCRT), and 18.7 Gy (3DCRT-DIBH). Comparing TT to 3DCRT-DIBH dose varied significantly in all axillary lymph node levels and the IMLNs. Comparing TT to 3DCRT significant dose difference in Level I and IMLNs was observed.
CONCLUSIONS: Dose applied to locoregional lymph drainage pathways varies comparing tomotherapy plans to conventional tangentially arranged fields. Studies are warranted whether dose variations influence loco-regional spread and must have implications for target volume definition guidelines.

Management of men with penile squamous cell carcinoma (PSCC) who have high-risk features following radical inguinal lymphadenectomy (ILND) remains controversial. European Association of Urology guidelines state that adjuvant inguinal radiotherapy (AIRT) is \"not generally recommended\". Despite this, many centres continue to offer AIRT to a subset of men.
To undertake a systematic review of the evidence on AIRT in node-positive men with PSCC.
A systematic review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, with no language or date restriction. Inclusion criteria were men with PSCC, pathologically staged inguinal node positive after ILND. The intervention included ILND with AIRT compared with ILND alone. Primary outcomes were relapse-free survival and toxicity. Risk of bias assessment was undertaken.
A total of 913 abstracts were identified and screened independently by two reviewers. Seven studies were eligible for inclusion: six full-text manuscripts and one conference abstract. All were retrospective series and at a high risk of bias. The selected studies included 1605 men. Indications for AIRT varied but were typically involvement of two or more inguinal nodes or extranodal extension. Regional recurrence rate following AIRT was reported at 10-91.7%. Only one study reported on toxicity. Two studies compared recurrence and survival between men who received and who did not receive AIRT, with no significant difference (p>0.05).
The evidence indicates that men treated with AIRT do not gain benefit with respect to relapse or survival. Uncertainty remains due to the retrospective nature and high risks of bias across the evidence. Given the lack of evidence supporting AIRT, it cannot be recommended for routine practice.
Men with penile cancer who have involvement of the inguinal lymph nodes are at a high risk of cancer recurrence and death. We reviewed the literature to see if radiation treatment after removal of the nodes provided benefit. We did not find any good-quality evidence supporting this treatment, and hence it cannot be recommended.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated single institution toxicity outcomes after post-prostatectomy radiotherapy (PPRT) via image-guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IG-IMRT) with implanted fiducial markers following national eviQ guidelines, for which late toxicity outcomes have not been published.
METHODS: Prospectively collected toxicity data were retrospectively reviewed for 293 men who underwent 64-66 Gy IG-IMRT to the prostate bed between 2007 and 2015.
RESULTS: Median follow-up after PPRT was 39 months. Baseline grade ≥2 genitourinary (GU), gastrointestinal (GI) and sexual toxicities were 20.5%, 2.7% and 43.7%, respectively, reflecting ongoing toxicity after radical prostatectomy. Incidence of new (compared to baseline) acute grade ≥2 GU and GI toxicity was 5.8% and 10.6%, respectively. New late grade ≥2 GU, GI and sexual toxicity occurred in 19.1%, 4.7% and 20.2%, respectively. However, many patients also experienced improvements in toxicities. For this reason, prevalence of grade ≥2 GU, GI and sexual toxicities 4 years after PPRT was similar to or lower than baseline (21.7%, 2.6% and 17.4%, respectively). There were no grade ≥4 toxicities.
CONCLUSIONS: Post-prostatectomy IG-IMRT using Australian contouring guidelines appears to have tolerable acute and late toxicity. The 4-year prevalence of grade ≥2 GU and GI toxicity was virtually unchanged compared to baseline, and sexual toxicity improved over baseline. This should reassure radiation oncologists following these guidelines. Late toxicity rates of surgery and PPRT are higher than following definitive IG-IMRT, and this should be taken into account if patients are considering surgery and likely to require PPRT.

OBJECTIVE: We compare urethrogram delineation of the caudal aspect of the anastomosis to the recommended guidelines of post prostatectomy radiotherapy.
BACKGROUND: Level one evidence has established the indications for, and importance of, adjuvant radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy. Several guidelines have recently addressed delineation of the prostate bed target volume including identification of the vesico-urethral anastomosis, taken as the first CT slice caudal to visible urine in the bladder neck. The inferior border of clinical target volume is then variably defined 5-12 mm below this anastomosis or 15 mm cranial to the penile bulb.
METHODS: Thirty-three patients who received adjuvant radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy were reviewed. All underwent planning CT with urethrogram. The authors (MM, JC) independently identified the CT slice caudal to the last slice showing urine in the bladder neck (called the CT Reference Slice), and measured the distance between this and the tip of the urethrogram cone. Five patients also had a diagnostic MRI at the time of CT planning to better visualize the anatomy.
RESULTS: Sixty-six readings were obtained. The mean distance between the Bladder CT Reference Slice and the most cranial urethrogram contrast slice was 16.1 mm (MM 16.4 mm, JC 15.8 mm), range: 6.8-34.2 mm. The mean distance between the urethrogram tip and the ischial tuberosities was 19.9 mm (range 12.5-29.8 mm). The mean distance between the CT Reference Slice and the ischial tuberosities was 36.9 mm (range 28.3-52.4 mm).
CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines for prostate bed radiation post prostatectomy have been developed after publication of the trials proving benefit of such treatment, and are thus untested. The anastomosis is a frequent site of local relapse but is variably defined by the existing guidelines, none of which take into account anatomic patient variation and all of which are at variance with urethrogram data. We recommend the use of planning urethrogram to better delineate the vesico-urethral junction and minimize the potential for geographic misses.

Debate continues surrounding the indications for adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy as the published randomized trials have only addressed adjuvant treatment. Salvage radiotherapy has been advocated to limit significant toxicity to patients that would not have benefited from immediate adjuvant radiotherapy. The American Urological Association and American Society for Radiation Oncology guideline released in 2013 has since recommended offering adjuvant therapy to all patients with any adverse features and salvage to those with prostate-specific antigen or local recurrence. The suggested criteria is limited in its application as it potentially subjects patients with few adverse features to adjuvant therapy despite not qualifying as high risk according to established postoperative predictive tools such as the Kattan nomogram. This article reviews the indications for postoperative radiotherapy, limitations of the guideline and alternative prognostication tools for clinicians faced with biochemical or locally recurrent post-prostatectomy prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this guideline is to provide a clinical framework for the use of radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy as adjuvant or salvage therapy.
METHODS: A systematic literature review using the PubMed®, Embase, and Cochrane databases was conducted to identify peer-reviewed publications relevant to the use of radiotherapy after prostatectomy. The review yielded 294 articles; these publications were used to create the evidence-based guideline statements. Additional guidance is provided as Clinical Principles when insufficient evidence existed.
RESULTS: Guideline statements are provided for patient counseling, the use of radiotherapy in the adjuvant and salvage contexts, defining biochemical recurrence, and conducting a re-staging evaluation.
CONCLUSIONS: Physicians should offer adjuvant radiotherapy to patients with adverse pathologic findings at prostatectomy (i.e., seminal vesicle invasion, positive surgical margins, extraprostatic extension) and should offer salvage radiotherapy to patients with prostatic specific antigen or local recurrence after prostatectomy in whom there is no evidence of distant metastatic disease. The offer of radiotherapy should be made in the context of a thoughtful discussion of possible short- and long-term side effects of radiotherapy as well as the potential benefits of preventing recurrence. The decision to administer radiotherapy should be made by the patient and the multi-disciplinary treatment team with full consideration of the patient\'s history, values, preferences, quality of life, and functional status. Please visit the ASTRO and AUA websites (http://www.redjournal.org/webfiles/images/journals/rob/RAP%20Guideline.pdf and http://www.auanet.org/education/guidelines/radiation-after-prostatectomy.cfm) to view this guideline in its entirety, including the full literature review.