A Phase III Trial of Short Term Androgen Deprivation With Pelvic Lymph Node or Prostate Bed Only Radiotherapy (SPPORT) in Prostate Cancer Patients With a Rising PSA After Radical Prostatectomy
Phase: PHASE3
Conditions: Prostate Cancer
Sponsor: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
1
NRG ONCOLOGY 
 
RTOG 0534 
 
A PHASE III TRIAL OF SHORT TERM ANDROGEN DEPRIVATION WITH PELVIC 
LYMPH NODE OR PROSTATE BED ONLY RADIOTHERAPY (SPPORT) IN 
PROSTATE CANCER PATIENTS WITH A RISING PSA AFTER RADICAL 
PROSTATECTOMY 
 
This trial is part of the National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) program, which is sponsored by the 
National Cancer Institute (NCI). The trial will be led by NRG Oncology with the participation of the network 
of NCTN organizations: the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, ECOG-ACRIN Medical Research 
Group, and SWOG. 
 Study Chairs  (15-Jan-2019) 
Principal Investigator/Radiation Oncology 
Alan Pollack, MD, PhD 
Department of Radiation Oncology 
University of Miami Miller School of Medicine 
1475 NW 12th Avenue, Suite 1500 (D-31) 
Miami, FL 33136 
305-243-4916/FAX 305-243-6493 
APollack@med.miami.edu 
 
Radiation Oncology Co-Chair 
Alex Balogh, MD 
Tom Baker Cancer Centre 
1331 29 St NW 
Calgary Alberta 
Canada  T2N4N2 
403-521-3091/FAX 403-283-1651 
Alex.Balogh@albertahealthservices.ca 
 
Medical Physics Co-Chair 
Daniel Low, PhD 
Professor and Vice Chair of Medical Physics 
UCLA Radiation Oncology 
200 Medical Plaza, Suite B265 
Los Angeles, CA  90095 
(310) 562-2394 /FAX 310-794-1984 
dlow@mednet.ucla.edu 
 
Quality of Life/Outcomes Co-Chair 
Deborah Watkins-Bruner, RN, PhD, FAAN 
Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing 
Emory University 
1520 Clifton Road, Room 232 
Atlanta, GA 30322 
Phone: 404-712-9695/Fax: 404-727-8514 
E-mail: deborah.w.bruner@emory.edu 
 
 
Neuropsychology Co-Chair 
Jeffrey S. Wefel, PhD, ABPP 
Section of Neuropsychology 
Department of Neuro-Oncology 
University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center 
Unit 431 -- P.O. Box 301402 
Houston, TX 77230-1402 
713-563-0514/FAX: 713-794-4999 
jwefel@mdanderson.org 
 
Senior Statistician 
Theodore Karrison, PhD 
NRG Oncology 
1818 Market Street, Suite 1720 
Philadelphia, PA 19103 
773-702-9326/FAX: 773-702-1979 
E-mail: karrisont@nrgoncology.org 
 
Alliance (CALGB) Co-Chair 
Joycelyn L. Speight, MD, PhD 
UCSF Comprehensive Cancer Center 
1600 Divisadero Street H1031, Box 1708 
San Francisco, CA 94143 
415-353-7175/FAX 415-353-9883 
jspeight@radonc.ucsf.edu 
 
Study details continued on next page 
 
 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
2
NRG ONCOLOGY 
 
RTOG 0534 
 
A PHASE III TRIAL OF SHORT TERM ANDROGEN DEPRIVATION WITH PELVIC 
LYMPH NODE OR PROSTATE BED ONLY RADIOTHERAPY (SPPORT) IN 
PROSTATE CANCER PATIENTS WITH A RISING PSA AFTER RADICAL 
PROSTATECTOMY 
 
Urology Co-Chair 
Leonard G. Gomella, MD 
Thomas Jefferson University 
1025 Walnut Street, Suite 1102 
Philadelphia, PA 19107 
215-955-1702/FAX 215-923-1884 
Leonard.Gomella@jefferson.edu 
 
ECOG-ACRIN Co-Chair 
Richard Whittington, MD 
Department of Radiation Oncology 
University of Pennsylvania 
3400 Spruce Street; 2 Donner 
Philadelphia, PA 19104 
215-662-6515/FAX 215-349-5445 
richard.whittington@med.va.gov 
 
Genitourinary Committee Chair 
Howard Sandler, MD 
Department of Radiation Oncology 
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center 
8700 Beverly Boulevard 
Los Angeles, CA 90048 
310-423-4234/FAX 310-423-6161 
Howard.Sandler@cshs.org 
 
 
 
 
Document History 
 
Version/Update Date 
Broadcast Date 
Amendment 9 
March 1, 2019 
N/A 
Amendment 8 
January 15, 2019 
N/A 
Amendment 7 
June 22, 2017 
N/A 
Amendment 6 
November 16, 2015 
December 21, 2015 
Closure 
-- 
March 30, 2015 
Amendment 5 
December 31, 2014 
March 2, 2015 
Update 
April 29, 2014 
April 29, 2014 
Update 
December 10, 2013 
December 10, 2013 
Update 
January 17, 2012 
January 17, 2012 
Amendment 4 
November 23, 2011 
January 17, 2012 
Amendment 3 
December 23, 2010 
January 11, 2011 
Amendment 2 
March 24, 2010 
April 20, 2010 
Update 
October 22, 2009 
October 22, 2009 
Update 
March 31, 2009 
March 31, 2009 
Amendment 1 
January 8, 2009 
March 31, 2009 
Update 
February 13, 2008 
February 13, 2008 
Activation 
February 13, 2008 
February 13, 2008 
 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
3
 
Protocol Agent 
Agent 
Supply 
NSC # 
IND # 
Flutamide 
Commercial 
N/A 
N/A 
Bicalutamide 
Commercial 
N/A 
N/A 
 
 
 
Participating Sites 
 U.S. 
 Canada 
 Approved International Member Sites 
 
 
 
NRG Oncology 
1-800-227-5463, ext. 4189 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This protocol was designed and developed by NRG Oncology.  It is intended to 
be used only in conjunction with institution-specific IRB approval for study 
entry.  No other use or reproduction is authorized by NRG Oncology nor does 
NRG Oncology assume any responsibility for unauthorized use of this protocol. 
 
 
 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
4
NRG ONCOLOGY 
 
RTOG 0534 
 
A PHASE III TRIAL OF SHORT TERM ANDROGEN DEPRIVATION WITH PELVIC 
LYMPH NODE OR PROSTATE BED ONLY RADIOTHERAPY (SPPORT) IN 
PROSTATE CANCER PATIENTS WITH A RISING PSA AFTER RADICAL 
PROSTATECTOMY 
 
CONTACT INFORMATION  (15-Jan-2019) 
For regulatory requirements: 
For patient enrollments: 
For study data submission: 
Regulatory documentation must 
be submitted to the CTSU via 
the Regulatory Submission 
Portal: 
 
Regulatory Submission Portal 
(Sign in at www.ctsu.org,            
and select the Regulatory 
Submission sub-tab under the 
Regulatory tab.)  
 
Institutions with patients 
waiting that are unable to use 
the Portal should alert the 
CTSU Regulatory Office 
immediately at 1-866-651-2878 
to receive further instruction 
and support. 
 
Contact the CTSU Regulatory 
Help Desk at 1-866-651-2878 
for regulatory assistance. 
Please refer to the patient 
enrollment section of the protocol 
for instructions on using the 
Oncology Patient Enrollment 
Network (OPEN) which can be 
accessed at 
https://www.ctsu.org/OPEN_SYS
TEM/ or https://OPEN.ctsu.org. 
 
Contact the CTSU Help Desk 
with any OPEN-related questions 
at ctsucontact@westat.com. 
 
 
NRG Oncology 
1818 Market Street, Suite 1720 
Philadelphia, PA 19103 
 
Do not submit study data or 
forms to CTSU Data Operations. 
Do not copy the CTSU on data 
submissions. 
 
The most current version of the study protocol and all supporting documents must be downloaded 
from the protocol-specific Web page of the CTSU Member Web site located at https://www.ctsu.org.  
Access to the CTSU members’ website is managed through the Cancer Therapy and Evaluation 
ProgramIdentity and Access Management (CTEP-IAM) registration system and requires user log on 
with CTEP-IAM username and password. Permission to view and download this protocol and its 
supporting documents is restricted and is based on person and site roster assignment housed in the 
CTSU RSS. 
For patient eligibility or treatment-related questions Contact the Study PI of the Lead Protocol 
Organization. 
For non-clinical questions (i.e. unrelated to patient eligibility, treatment, or clinical data 
submission) contact the CTSU Help Desk by phone or e-mail:  
CTSU General Information Line – 1-888-823-5923, or ctsucontact@westat.com.  All calls and 
correspondence will be triaged to the appropriate CTSU representative.  
The CTSU Website is located at https://www.ctsu.org. 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS (15-Jan-2019) 
 
SCHEMA (1/8/09) (3/24/10) .......................................................................................................................... 7 
RTOG 0534 
   ELIGIBILITY CHECKLIST  (11/23/11) ................................................................................ 8 
1.0 
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 12 
1.1 
Rationale for a Salvage Postoperative Radiotherapy (RT) Trial (1/8/09) .................................... 12 
1.2 
Rationale for Using NC-STAD and PLNRT Treatment Postoperatively ..................................... 13 
1.3 
Rationale for Using the PSA Nadir+2 Definition of Biochemical Failure as the Primary Endpoint
 
13 
1.4 
Rationale for Biomarker Studies  (11/16/15) ............................................................................... 15 
1.5 
Health-Related Quality of Life and Neurocognitive Assessment ................................................ 15 
1.6 
Cost Effectiveness ...................................................................................................................... 16 
2.0 
OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................................................. 18 
2.1 
Primary Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 18 
2.2 
Secondary Objectives (11/23/11) ................................................................................................ 18 
3.0 
PATIENT SELECTION .................................................................................................................... 19 
3.1 
Conditions for Patient Eligibility  (12/31/14) ................................................................................ 19 
3.2 
Conditions for Patient Ineligibility  (11/23/11) .............................................................................. 20 
4.0 
PRETREATMENT EVALUATIONS/MANAGEMENT ...................................................................... 20 
4.1 
Required Pretreatment Evaluations/Management (1/8/09)......................................................... 20 
4.2 
Highly Recommended Pretreatment Evaluations/Management  (11/23/11) ............................... 21 
5.0 
REGISTRATION PROCEDURES ................................................................................................... 21 
Access requirements for OPEN and TRIAD ............................................................................................ 21 
5.1 
Pre-Registration Requirements for IMRT (12/31/14) .................................................................. 22 
5.2 
Pre-Registration Requirements for 3D-CRT  (12/31/14) ............................................................. 23 
5.3 
Digital RT Data Submission to RTOG Using TRIAD .................................................................. 23 
5.4 
Regulatory Pre-Registration Requirements ................................................................................ 23 
5.5 
REGISTRATION (12/31/14)........................................................................................................ 26 
6.0 
RADIATION THERAPY  (12/10/13) ................................................................................................ 26 
6.1 
Dose Specifications (11/23/11) ................................................................................................... 27 
6.2 
Technical Factors [Equipment, energies] ................................................................................... 27 
6.3 
Localization, Simulation, and Immobilization  (11/23/11) ............................................................ 27 
6.4 
Treatment Planning/Target Volumes  (12/31/14) ........................................................................ 27 
6.5 
Critical Structures  (12/10/13) ..................................................................................................... 32 
6.6 
Documentation Requirements (12/31/14) ................................................................................... 32 
6.7 
Compliance Criteria (3D-CRT and IMRT) (11/23/11) ................................................................. 32 
6.8 
R.T. Quality Assurance Reviews  (12/31/14) .............................................................................. 33 
6.9 
Radiation Adverse Events ........................................................................................................... 33 
6.10 
Radiation Adverse Event Reporting (1/8/09)............................................................................... 33 
7.0 
DRUG THERAPY ............................................................................................................................ 33 
7.1 
Treatment (12/31/14) .................................................................................................................. 33 
7.2 
Study Agents: LHRH Agonists  (11/23/11) .................................................................................. 34 
7.3 
Eulexin (flutamide) ...................................................................................................................... 34 
7.4 
Casodex (bicalutamide) .............................................................................................................. 35 
7.5 
Criteria for Discontinuation of Protocol Treatment (1/8/09) ........................................................ 36 
7.6 
Modality Review .......................................................................................................................... 36 
7.7 
Adverse Events (4/29/14) ........................................................................................................... 36 
7.8 
CTEP-AERS Expedited Reporting Requirements (12/31/14) ..................................................... 37 
8.0 
SURGERY ....................................................................................................................................... 39 
9.0 
OTHER THERAPY .......................................................................................................................... 39 
9.1 
Permitted Supportive Therapy .................................................................................................... 39 
9.2 
Treatment of Patients with Subsequent Disease Progression .................................................... 40 
10.0 
TISSUE/SPECIMEN SUBMISSION ................................................................................................ 40 
10.1 
General Information .................................................................................................................... 40 
10.2 
Specimen Collection for Tissue Banking for Biomarker Studies: Strongly recommended ......... 40 
 
Confidentiality/Storage (1/8/09) ................................................................................................... 42 
11.0 
PATIENT ASSESSMENTS ............................................................................................................. 42 
11.1 
Study Parameters: See Appendix I for a summary of assessments and time frames. .............. 42 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
6
11.2 
Evaluation During Treatment  (11/23/11) .................................................................................... 42 
11.3 
Evaluation Following Radiotherapy  (11/16/15)........................................................................... 43 
11.4 
Criteria for Freedom from Progression (FFP) ............................................................................. 43 
11.5 
Criteria for Local Failure .............................................................................................................. 44 
11.6 
Criteria for Nonlocal Failure ........................................................................................................ 44 
11.7 
Other Response Parameters ...................................................................................................... 44 
11.8 
Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) (12/10/13) ................................................................... 45 
11.9 
Neurocognitive Test Battery (12/10/13) ...................................................................................... 46 
11.10 Beta-amyloid (Abeta) and Measures of Cognition and Mood and Depression (3/31/09) ............ 47 
11.11 Cost Utility Analysis: EuroQol (EQ-5D) ....................................................................................... 47 
12.0 
DATA COLLECTION ....................................................................................................................... 47 
12.1 
Summary of Data Submission (12/10/13) ................................................................................... 48 
12.2 
Summary of Dosimetry Digital Data Submission for 3D-CRT or IMRT (Submit to TRIAD; see 
Section 5 for account access and installation instructions) [12/31/14] .................................................... 49 
13.0 
STATISTICAL CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................ 49 
13.1 
Study Endpoints  (11/23/11) ........................................................................................................ 49 
13.2 
Sample Size ................................................................................................................................ 50 
13.3 
Patient Accrual  (11/23/11) ......................................................................................................... 51 
13.4 
Power Calculations for Selected Secondary Endpoints .............................................................. 51 
13.5 
Analysis Plan ............................................................................................................................... 54 
13.6 
Interim Report to Monitor the Study Progress ............................................................................. 62 
13.7 
Reporting the Initial Treatment Analysis (1/8/09) ........................................................................ 63 
13.8 
Gender and Minorities ................................................................................................................. 63 
REFERENCES (1/8/09) .............................................................................................................................. 64 
APPENDIX I (11/16/15) ............................................................................................................................... 72 
APPENDIX II (10/22/09) .............................................................................................................................. 75 
APPENDIX III .............................................................................................................................................. 76 
APPENDIX IV (11/16/15) ............................................................................................................................ 78 
APPENDIX V (12/10/13) ............................................................................................................................. 83 
 
 
 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
7
NRG ONCOLOGY 
 
RTOG 0534 
 
A Phase III Trial of Short Term Androgen Deprivation with Pelvic Lymph Node or Prostate Bed 
Only Radiotherapy (SPPORT) in Prostate Cancer Patients with a Rising PSA After Radical 
Prostatectomy 
 
SCHEMA (1/8/09) (3/24/10) 
 
 
 
SV Involvement 
 
 
 
1. No 
 
 
S 
2. Yes 
R 
Arm 1: PBRT Alone 
T 
 
A 
PBRT 64.8-70.2 Gy 
R 
Prostatectomy Gleason Score 
N 
 
A 
1. Gleason ≤ 7 
D 
 
T 
2. Gleason 8-9 
O 
Arm 2: PBRT + NC-STAD 
I 
 
M 
PBRT 64.8-70.2 Gy + NC-STAD for 4-6 months, 
F 
Pre-Radiotherapy PSA 
I 
beginning 2 months before RT 
Y 
1. PSA ≥ 0.1 and ≤ 1.0 ng/mL 
Z 
 
 
2. PSA > 1.0 and < 2.0ng/mL 
E 
 
 
 
 
Arm 3: PLNRT + PBRT + NC-STAD  
 
Pathology Stage 
 
PLNRT to 45 Gy and PBRT to 64.8-70.2 Gy, 
 
1. pT2 and margin negative 
 
NC-STAD for 4-6 months, 
 
2. All others 
 
beginning 2 months before RT 
SV = seminal vesicle; RT = radiotherapy; PBRT = prostate bed RT; PLNRT = pelvic lymph node RT; 
NC-STAD = neoadjuvant and concurrent short term androgen deprivation 
 
NOTE: It is mandatory the treating physician determine the radiation therapy technique (3D-
CRT vs. IMRT) to be used prior to the site registering the patient. See pre-registration 
requirements in Section 5.1. See details of radiation therapy and hormone therapy in Sections 
6.0 and 7.0. 
 
 
Patient Population:  (See Section 3.0 for Eligibility) (3/31/09) (3/24/10) 
Lymph node negative adenocarcinoma of the prostate treated with radical prostatectomy  
Post-radical prostatectomy PSA of ≥ 0.1 - < 2.0 ng/mL; pathologic T3N0/Nx disease or pathologic 
T2N0/Nx disease, with or without a positive prostatectomy surgical margin; Gleason ≤ 9 
 
 
 
Required Sample Size: 1764 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
8
NRG Oncology Institution #  
 
 
RTOG 0534 
 
 
 
ELIGIBILITY CHECKLIST  (11/23/11) 
Case #   
 
 
     (page 1 of 4) 
 
 
 
(Y) 
1. Is there adenocarcinoma of the prostate treated primarily with radical 
prostatectomy, pathologically proven to be lymph node negative by pelvic 
lymphadenectomy (pN0) or lymph node status pathologically unknown 
(undissected pelvic lymph nodes [pNx]? 
 
 
(Y) 
2.  Is the post-radical prostatectomy entry PSA ≥ 0.1 and < 2.0 ng/mL at least 6 
weeks (45 days) after prostatectomy and within 30 days of registration? 
 
 
(Y) 
3.  Does the patient meet one of the following pathologic classifications:  
 
 
 
T3N0/Nx disease; or  
 
 
 
T2N0/Nx disease……….Margin Negative______       Margin Positive______? 
 
 
(Y) 
4. Is the prostatectomy Gleason score 9 or less? 
 
 
(Y) 
5. Is the Zubrod Performance Status 0-1? 
 
 
(Y) 
6. Is the age ≥ 18? 
 
 
(Y) 
7. Was there a digital rectal exam within 8 weeks (60 days) prior to registration? 
 
 
(Y) 
8. Was a history/physical examination done within 8 weeks (60 days) prior to 
registration? 
 
 
(N) 
9. Are there distant metastases, based upon the following minimum diagnostic work 
up? 
• 
A CT scan of the pelvis (with contrast if renal function is acceptable; a 
noncontrast CT is permitted if the patient is not a candidate for contrast) or 
MRI of the pelvis within 120 days prior to registration;  
• 
Bone scan within 120 days prior to registration and plain films and/or MRI if 
the bone scan is suspicious 
 
 
(Y) 
10. Is there adequate bone marrow function, within 90 days prior to registration, 
defined as follows? 
• 
Platelets ≥ 100,000 cells/mm3 based upon CBC;  
• 
Hemoglobin ≥ 10.0 g/dl based upon CBC 
 
 
(Y) 
11. Is the AST or ALT < 2 x the upper limit of normal within 90 days prior to 
registration? 
 
 
(Y) 
12. Was serum total testosterone obtained within 90 days prior to registration and 
≥40% of the lower limit of normal of the assay used?  Assay Lower Limit _____, 
Value_____?  
 
 
(Y) 
13. Did the patient sign a study-specific informed consent prior to study entry? 
 
(Continued on the next page) 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
9
NRG Oncology Institution #  
            
RTOG 0534 
 
ELIGIBILITY CHECKLIST  (12/10/13)  
Case #   
 
 
     (page 2 of 4)  
 
 
(N/Y) 
14. Was there a palpable prostatic fossa abnormality/mass suggestive of recurrence? 
 
 
 
 
(Y) 
If yes, was the abnormality/mass shown by biopsy under 
ultrasound guidance not to contain cancer? 
 
 
 
(N) 
15. Does the patient have N1 disease? 
 
 
 
 (N/Y) 
16. Does the patient have pelvic lymph node enlargement ≥ 1.5 cm in greatest 
dimension by CT scan or MRI of the pelvis? 
 
 
 
(Y) 
If yes, was the enlarged lymph node sampled and found to be negative? 
 
 
(N) 
17. Did the patient receive androgen deprivation therapy that was started prior to 
prostatectomy for > 6 months (180 days) duration (Note: The use of finasteride or 
dutasteride (±tamsulosin) for longer periods is acceptable prior to 
prostatectomy)? 
 
 
(N) 
18. Did the patient receive androgen deprivation therapy that was started after 
prostatectomy and prior to registration (Note: The use of finasteride or dutasteride 
(±tamsulosin) is not acceptable after prostatectomy - must be stopped within 3 
months after prostatectomy. Androgen deprivation therapy must be stopped 
within 3 months after prostatectomy)? 
 
 
 (N) 
19. Did the patient have neoadjuvant chemotherapy before or after prostatectomy? 
 
 
 (N) 
20. Did the patient have prior chemotherapy for any other disease site if given within 
5 years prior to registration? 
 
 
 (N) 
21. Did the patient have prior cryosurgery or brachytherapy of the prostate? 
 
 
(N) 
22. Did the patient have prior pelvic radiotherapy? 
 
 
(N) 
23. Did the patient have a prior invasive malignancy (except non-melanomatous skin 
cancer) or superficial bladder cancer within the past 5 years? 
 
 
(N) 
24. Does the patient have any of the following severe, active comorbidities? 
• 
History of inflammatory bowel disease;  
• 
History of hepatitis B or C; 
• 
Unstable angina and/or congestive heart failure requiring hospitalization 
within the last 6 months; 
• 
Transmural myocardial infarction within the last 6 months; 
• 
Acute bacterial or fungal infection requiring intravenous antibiotics at the 
time of registration; 
• 
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation or other respiratory 
illness requiring hospitalization or precluding study therapy at the time of 
registration;  
• 
Hepatic insufficiency resulting in clinical jaundice and/or coagulation 
defects; 
• 
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) based upon current CDC 
definition? 
 
(Continued on next page) 
NRG Oncology Institution #  
      
 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
10
RTOG 0534 
ELIGIBILITY CHECKLIST  (12/10/13) 
Case #   
 
      
 
(page 3 of 4)  
 
 
(N) 
25. Did the patient have any prior allergic reaction to the study drug(s) involved in this 
protocol? 
 
The following questions will be asked at Study Registration:  
 
3D-CRT or IMRT CREDENTIALING IS REQUIRED BEFORE REGISTRATION 
 
 
            (N/Y) 
Specify use of IMRT  
 
 
 
1. Institutional person registering this case 
 
 
(Y) 
2. Has the Eligibility Checklist been completed? 
 
 
(Y) 
3. In the opinion of the investigator, is the patient eligible? 
 
 
 
4. Date Informed Consent signed 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5. Participant Initials 
 
 
 
6. Verifying Physician 
 
 
 
7. Patient’s ID Number 
 
 
 
8. Date of Birth 
 
 
 
9. Race 
 
 
  
10. Ethnicity 
 
 
 
11. Gender 
 
 
 
12. Country of Residence 
 
 
 
13. Patient’s Zip Code 
 
 
 
14. Method of Payment 
 
 
 
15. Any care at VA or military hospital? 
 
 
 
 
16. Calendar Base Date 
 
 
 
 
17. Randomization Date 
 
 
(Y/N) 
18. Have you obtained the patient's consent for his specimens to be used for  
 
  
 
 
research to  learn about, prevent or treat cancer? 
 
 
(Y/N) 
19. Have you obtained the patient's consent for his specimens to be used for 
research to learn about, prevent or treat cancer? 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
(Continued on next page) 
NRG Oncology Institution #  
      
 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
11
RTOG 0534 
ELIGIBILITY CHECKLIST  (12/10/13) 
Case #   
 
      
 
(page 4 of 4)  
 
 
(Y/N) 
20. Did the patient consent to having someone contact them in the future for new  
 
  
 
 
research not included in this consent? 
 
 
              
21.  Specify SV involvement 
 
 
              
22.  Specify Prostatectomy Gleason score 
 
 
              
23.  Specify Pre-radiotherapy PSA 
 
 
              
24.  Specify Pathology Stage 
 
 
              
25.  Specify LHRH agonist planned duration 
 
 
 
 
The Eligibility Checklist must be completed in its entirety prior to web registration. The completed, signed, 
and dated checklist used at study entry must be retained in the patient’s study file and will be evaluated 
during an institutional NCI/NRG Oncology audit. 
 
Completed by 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Date 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
12
 
1.0 INTRODUCTION 
1.1 
Rationale for a Salvage Postoperative Radiotherapy (RT) Trial (1/8/09) 
As the use of prostatectomy has increased substantially over the last 10 years, so has the 
application of post-prostatectomy radiotherapy (RT). RT is the mainstay of salvage treatment for 
men with a persistently detectable PSA (PD-PSA) or a delayed rise in PSA (DR-PSA) without 
evidence of metastasis.1-13 Because there are no published salvage RT randomized trials, the 
rationale for this treatment is derived mostly from small retrospective series. The largest 
retrospective analysis was a multi-institutional effort reported by Stephenson et al.13 They 
examined predictors of response to salvage RT and found that high Gleason score, high pre-
radiotherapy PSA, negative prostatectomy surgical margins, short PSA doubling time (PSADT), 
and seminal vesicle involvement were independently associated with adverse outcome. Similar 
factors have been reported in many of the other retrospective series as well.14 Despite gains in 
understanding how to select patients for salvage treatment, level I evidence on the outcome of 
patients receiving well-delineated treatment (e.g., RT technique and use of androgen deprivation) 
is lacking. 
Level I evidence supporting the application of RT to patients treated postoperatively has been 
reported for adjuvant RT, and the results are encouraging. The findings of a European 
Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer trial (EORTC 22911)15 showed that adjuvant 
RT resulted in a significant delay in biochemical and clinical failure. The results from a Southwest 
Oncology Group trial, SWOG 8794,16 were similar, as were those from a preliminary report of a 
German Cancer Society trial, ARO 96-02,17 reported at the 2005 American Society of Clinical 
Oncology meeting. Adjuvant RT is effective at reducing progression.  
Although, there are no published phase III clinical trials examining the efficacy of salvage 
radiotherapy for a rising PSA after radical prostatectomy, one study has completed accrual.  
RTOG 96-01 compares salvage RT alone to salvage RT plus 2 years of androgen deprivation 
(AD), accomplished using 150 mg/day of Casodex. The trial described here differs from RTOG 
96-01 in several ways. First, the eligibility criteria are stricter; more favorable patients have been 
selected for RTOG 0534. Second, short-term AD is being tested, while in RTOG 96-01 long-term 
AD was examined. Third, pelvic lymph node radiotherapy was not allowed in RTOG 96-01 and 
has never been studied in a randomized trial in post-prostatectomy patients. There is no 
consensus on how to apply these treatment methods in the postoperative setting, yet AD and 
pelvic lymph node irradiation (PLNRT) are being used.18-26 The proposed three-arm trial is 
designed to address the following key questions: 1) Is neoadjuvant and concurrent short-term AD 
(NC-STAD) plus prostate bed radiotherapy (PBRT) superior to PBRT alone? and 2) Is NC-STAD 
plus pelvic lymph node RT (PLNRT) superior to NC-STAD+PBRT? In the context of this study 
description, reference to PLNRT is made with the understanding that the prostate bed will receive 
the same total dose in all three treatment arms. 
RTOG 0534 is not intended to address the efficacy of RT alone over observation. The complete 
response rate (a drop in PSA to undetectable levels) after salvage RT is 70%-80% and durable 
responses are observed in 30%-40% of patients. For these reasons, it is likely not feasible or 
appropriate to randomize men between observation and salvage RT. The more important issue is 
whether the proportion of durable responses is increased by altering the therapeutic approach, 
such as the use of NC-STAD with or without extended RT fields. 
The pre-salvage radiotherapy PSA doubling time has been reported in several series to be an 
important determinant of outcome after radical prostatectomy. Until recently, the consensus was 
that men with short PSADTs of ≤6 mo would respond unfavorably to salvage PBRT because of an 
increased risk of distant metastasis. Thus, the initial stratification criteria for RTOG protocol 0534 
excluded patients with a PSADT of ≤6 mo from eligibility. However, Trock et al,27 in a recent series 
from Johns Hopkins reported just the opposite. Those men with a post-prostatectomy PSADT of 
≤6 mo experienced the greatest cause-specific survival benefit from salvage radiotherapy, when 
compared to men who did not receive salvage PBRT. There are no other comparable data 
available. As a consequence, the eligibility and stratification criteria based on PSADT have been 
removed from RTOG 0534. We plan to collect all PSA data so that any information pertinent to 
calculating PSADT will be recorded for secondary analyses later. 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
13
The eligibility criterion of a PSA ≥0.2 ng/mL has been relaxed to a PSA ≥0.1 ng/mL because many 
patients have a documented rise in PSA using hypersensitive assays and are pathologically high 
risk by virtue of having pT3 disease and/or a positive margin. These patients should be treated as 
early as possible.  
1.2 
Rationale for Using NC-STAD and PLNRT Treatment Postoperatively 
No postoperative randomized trials investigating AD plus RT have been published, but three prior 
phase III studies of men treated primarily for prostate cancer, one by the RTOG (86-10),28 one by 
investigators at Harvard,29 and one by the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group,30 concluded 
that neoadjuvant and concurrent short-term NC-STAD plus RT reduces cause-specific mortality 
compared with RT alone. The results of RTOG protocol 94-1331 extend these observations.  
RTOG 94-13 compared PLNRT to prostate-only RT and NC-STAD to adjuvant STAD plus RT in 
men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer using a 2x2 design. PLNRT significantly delayed 
progression, while the timing of STAD did not. When the four treatment groups were examined 
individually, the men who received PLNRT plus NC-STAD had significantly fewer failures 
(including biochemical) than those in the other three groups. The findings from RTOG 94-13 
suggest that there was an interaction between PLNRT and NC-STAD, resulting in a reduction in 
progression by more effectively eradicating microscopic pelvic lymph nodal disease. RTOG 0534 
builds on the observations of 94-13 and the other randomized trials of men treated primarily with 
NC-STAD plus RT in a population of patients who were initially treated with prostatectomy. 
 
RTOG 0534 is a three-arm trial that does not include a PLNRT alone arm. The rationale for a 
three-, as opposed to a four-, arm trial is based on two primary considerations. First, a control arm 
of PLNRT alone was not included because in RTOG 94-13, it was the NC-STAD plus PLNRT arm 
that was superior to all other arms. No difference was seen for PLNRT plus adjuvant STAD, 
prostate-only RT plus adjuvant STAD, or NC-STAD plus prostate-only RT, and all were inferior to 
NC-STAD plus PLNRT. The hypothesis here is that the combination of NC-STAD plus PLNRT is 
necessary to significantly improve outcome when PLNRT is used. Second, a four-arm study that 
includes a PLNRT alone arm is prohibitive in terms of patient numbers. As described below, the 
three-arm trial design requires 1764 patients, a target that the RTOG is capable of completing 
within 9.2 years. 
1.3 
Rationale for Using the PSA Nadir+2 Definition of Biochemical Failure as the Primary 
Endpoint 
The primary endpoint is freedom from progression (FFP), including a biochemical parameter that 
is highly related to clinical progression (CP; includes local, regional, or distant progression). After 
radical prostatectomy, a detectable PSA of ≥ 0.2 ng/mL has been associated with a median time 
to distant metastasis from prostate cancer of 7-8 years.32-33 There has been debate about the 
absolute biochemical cut-point that best correlates with eventual disease relapse (mainly in the 
range from 0.1-0.5 ng/mL). In a detailed analysis by Amling, et al34 a biochemical failure cut-point 
of 0.4 or greater was found to be more significantly related to eventual CP than lower cut-point 
values and was nearly the same as higher cut-point values. 
 
Since the goal here is to use an endpoint that is strongly related to clinical progression and, 
ultimately, death due to prostate cancer, we compared a number of PSA-based definitions in a 
large cohort of men treated with RT post-prostatectomy.35-36This IRB-approved analysis included 
more than 1200 men with lymph node negative disease who were treated with either adjuvant 
(23%) or salvage (77%) RT. Median follow-up after RT was 61 months, and there were 147 
patients who manifested clinical failure: 13% and 22% at 5 and 10 years, respectively. 
 
Table 1 (below) displays the relationships of different biochemical estimates of CP (BECPs) to CP 
for men treated with salvage RT. There are four categories of biochemical parameters displayed: 
a) PSA of x ng/mL; b) PSA of x ng/mL plus 2 consecutive rises with the second rise above the 
cut-point being tested; c) Three consecutive PSA rises with backdating to between the nadir and 
first rise per the ASTRO consensus definition,37 and d) PSA ≥ 2 ng/mL above the nadir PSA per 
the “RTOG Phoenix” definition.38-42 The RTOG Phoenix definition was the favored biochemical 
failure (BF) definition for men treated primarily for prostate cancer with RT at a consensus 
conference organized by the RTOG and ASTRO in January 2005.43 The Phoenix definition has 
also been previously referred to as the “Houston” definition40 or simply as nadir +2 ng/mL.38-42 The 
reports examining the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and accuracy have 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
14
consistently pointed to the RTOG Phoenix definition as being nearly ideal. Not only does the 
RTOG Phoenix definition have high specificity, sensitivity, PPV, and accuracy, the definition also 
addresses the pitfalls of the ASTRO definition. The ASTRO definition involves backdating, which 
alters the shape of Kaplan-Meier curves (causes an artificial flattening at the tail end), results in 
inaccurate estimates of BF when follow-up is short,40,42,44 and overestimates BF after release from 
androgen deprivation.42,44,45  Moreover, during the first two years of follow up after radiotherapy, 
the RTOG Phoenix definition identifies patients with BF in greater numbers than the ASTRO 
definition, indicating that the classification of BF by the RTOG Phoenix definition is not delayed in 
patients treated primarily for prostate cancer.42 
 
Table 1 confirms that the RTOG Phoenix definition is useful for men treated with salvage RT post-
prostatectomy. The highest sensitivity, specificity, and PPVs were obtained for the definitions that 
incorporated a 2-ng/mL cut-point. Three definitions were similar: ≥ 2 ng/mL, ≥ 2 ng/mL + two 
rises, and nadir + 2 ng/mL or higher. Since the RTOG Phoenix definition has emerged as the BF 
definition of choice after definitive RT for prostate cancer, and the findings in Table 1 show that it 
is likewise a very appropriate BECP definition in the postoperative setting, the RTOG Phoenix 
definition will be the primary endpoint in the proposed trial. Biochemical criteria have previously 
been included as the primary endpoint in an RTOG randomized trial examining NC-STAD (RTOG 
94-13),31 which supports the rationale for the Phoenix definition as the primary endpoint in the 
proposed trial. The initiation of further “salvage” therapy in any form (e.g., androgen deprivation 
therapy, vaccine therapy, or chemotherapy) after completion of protocol treatment and prior to 
nadir + 2 ng/mL failure will not be counted as a failure and is strongly discouraged. The success 
of the trial depends upon allowing the nadir + 2 ng/mL failure criteria to be met before any other 
therapeutic intervention. The use of this BECP endpoint facilitates a trial sample size of 1764 
patients (see below), a sample size that is feasible for the RTOG to accrue in this patient 
population. 
 
 
Table 1: Endpoint Considerations from A Pooled Multi-Institutional Analysis  
Salvage Only Patients, No AD (n=533) 
 
BECF Definition 
%5 / 8 yr. 
Failure 
Specificity 
Sensitivity 
PPV 
1. ≥ 0.2 
59% / 72% 
56% 
95% 
23% 
2. ≥ 0.4 
47% / 64% 
66% 
94% 
27% 
3. ≥ 1.0 
35% / 52% 
77% 
92% 
35% 
4. ≥ 2.0 
29% / 41% 
84% 
90% 
43% 
5. ≥ 0.2+2 rises 
42% / 59% 
72% 
93% 
31% 
6. ≥ 0.4+2 rises 
39% / 57% 
74% 
93% 
32% 
7. ≥ 1.0+2 rises 
32% / 46% 
80% 
90% 
39% 
8. ≥ 2.0+2 rises 
29% / 39% 
85% 
90% 
45% 
9. ASTRO 
33% / 36% 
82% 
90% 
40% 
10. Phoenix 
(nadir+2) 
31% / 40% 
83% 
91% 
43% 
 
 BECF = biochemical estimate of clinical failure; PPV = positive predictive value 
 
 
Other PSA-related measures will be examined as secondary endpoints. A more conventional 
early estimate of biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy is a PSA of ≥ 0.4 ng/mL and rising 
(two consecutive rises with one being at or above 0.4 ng/mL) at a given time point. A two-year 
time point was chosen to reduce the effect of potential delays from short-term AD. In the analysis 
shown in Table 1, this endpoint had slightly lower specificity as a BECP. Our plan is to compare 
the primary and secondary PSA-related endpoints to the other secondary endpoints of time to 
development of hormone refractory disease based on biochemical criteria (three consecutive rises 
in PSA modeled after the ASTRO criteria, but without backdating), distant metastasis, cause-
specific mortality, and overall mortality. Local failure is not included as a separate endpoint 
because palpable evidence of local recurrence is rare after radiotherapy, and patients are typically 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
15
started on salvage AD without prostate bed biopsy. However, local failure will be recorded and is 
part of the primary endpoint of biochemical and clinical failure. 
1.4 
Rationale for Biomarker Studies  (11/16/15) 
The RTOG has been collecting pretreatment diagnostic tissue from all prostate cancer protocols 
for over 10 years. A number of histologic, cell kinetic/proliferation, and molecular markers of 
apoptosis and angiogenesis are under investigation, with several showing promise for the 
stratification of patients in future trials. A focus of prior biomarker studies from the principal 
investigators and genitourinary committee has been DNA-ploidy, Ki-67, p53, MDM2, bcl-2, bax, 
p16 and Cox-2.46-51 These markers have shown promise in complementing the standard clinical 
parameters of PSA, Gleason score, and stage in prior RTOG (or other) analyses of men with 
high-risk features treated primarily with RT, with or without AD. With the exception of DNA-ploidy, 
the protein expression of these markers was measured using immunohistochemical methods. 
While these markers have been selected based on prior analyses, it is likely that some other 
markers and/or methods will be investigated when the proposed trial matures. The quantification 
of gene expression based on the RNA level in formalin fixed archival tissue is now possible after 
laser capture microdissection and the initial studies on proteomics in archival tissue are 
encouraging. Approximately 7 years will be required for this protocol to mature; by that time, a 
clearer definition of the markers to be studied will be evident. The plan is to collect and store 
tissue from the prostatectomy specimens. The findings are expected to contribute to better risk 
group classification, enhance our understanding of radiation response and distant spread, and 
lead to therapeutic strategies based on correcting or counterbalancing the abnormalities detected.   
 
The collection of blood and urine before and after treatment for proteomic and genomic studies is 
also proposed. Preliminary findings of other studies indicate that serum protein patterns defined 
through patterns of ion signatures generated from high-dimensional mass spectrometry data may 
be of value in determining the presence of prostate cancer.52-53 Likewise, the presence of prostate 
cancer has been accurately determined through the identification of hypermethylation of the 
glutathione S transferase p1 (GSTP1) gene locus in urine.54 Both of these methods have potential 
for predicting outcome in pretreatment samples and the presence of recurrence in specimens 
obtained during follow-up. Blood (serum, plasma, and whole blood) and urine will be collected 
prior to treatment and during the 6th week of RT. Some blood (serum and plasma) and urine will 
continue to be collected after completion of RT per Section 10 and Appendix IV.  
1.5 
Health-Related Quality of Life and Neurocognitive Assessment 
Some of the side effects associated with RT and AD are deleterious and affect quality of life, and 
others may contribute to increased risks for serious health concerns associated with aging. 
Urinary, bowel, and erectile dysfunction are well-known side effects of pelvic RT.  Sexual side 
effects are the most well recognized adverse effects from AD and include loss of libido, erectile 
dysfunction, and hot flashes. Loss of libido is distressing to many men, and they may not pursue 
treatments for erectile dysfunction that they may have otherwise pursued after radical 
prostatectomy or RT. The incidence of hot flashes, which may not abate over the course of AD, is 
close to 80%. Physiologic effects, including gynecomastia, changes in body composition (weight 
gain, reduced muscle mass, increase in body fat), and changes in lipids, are less commonly 
recognized as side effects of AD. These effects may lead to an exacerbation of potentially more 
serious conditions, such as hypertension, diabetes, and coronary artery disease.55 Loss of bone 
mineral density, anemia, and hair changes also may occur. Additionally, both the diagnosis of 
prostate cancer and the hormonal therapy can cause psychological distress. These side effects 
need more systematic study in clinical trials. Such studies would provide well-defined side effect 
profiles for better informing physicians of the far-reaching consequences of AD therapy and 
improve the awareness that they should incorporate into routine practice strategies for preventing 
and managing toxicities.56   
 
AD has been shown to have a negative impact on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in 
patients with asymptomatic lymph node positive prostatic carcinoma.  One study showed 
significantly worse sexual, emotional, and physical function, with more hot flushes and worse 
overall HRQOL (using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General [FACT-G] scale) in 
those patients, compared with patients receiving no therapy.57 To address HRQOL, RTOG 0534 
will compare the treatment arms for differences in prostate cancer HRQOL outcomes (as 
measured by change over time in the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite [EPIC]) in a 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
16
subset of patients in each treatment arm.  The EPIC is a prostate cancer HRQOL instrument that 
measures a broad spectrum of urinary, bowel, sexual, and hormonal symptoms related to 
radiotherapy and hormonal therapy.57 
 
Studies also suggest selective associations with decline in testosterone and estradiol, including 
cognitive performance. The cognitive domains of verbal fluency, visual recognition, and visual 
memory were associated with decline in estradiol. Visual-motor slowing and slowed reaction times 
in some attentional domains including working memory, impaired delayed recall, and recognition 
speed of letters were associated with decline in testosterone during AD.58-59Cognition will be 
measured by a brief battery of reliable and valid tests previously tested for feasibility within the 
RTOG,60 including the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised (HVLT-R)61-62 for memory, the 
Controlled Oral Word Association Test (COWAT) for verbal fluency,63 the Trail Making Test Part A 
for cognitive processing speed, and the Trail Making Test Part B for executive function.  
 
The incidence of suicide among older men with prostate cancer is higher than previously 
recognized. Depression, recent diagnosis, pain, and being foreign-born are important clinical 
correlates.64 The results of several recent studies suggest that estrogen and testosterone play an 
important role in the modulation of mood and cognitive function in women and men, and 
preliminary evidence indicates that these hormones may also modulate the levels of beta-amyloid 
(Abeta),65 a 4 Kilo Dalton peptide that is likely to be involved in the pathogenesis of cognitive 
disorders such as Alzheimer's disease. A recent study assessed the physiological and clinical 
effects of reversible chemical castration on 40 men with prostate cancer who were treated with 
androgen blockade therapy (flutamide and leuprolide) for 36 weeks and subsequently followed for 
another 18 weeks after treatment was discontinued.66 The results indicated that chemical 
castration is associated with a significant rise in the plasma levels of Abeta and, clinically, with 
increased depression and anxiety scores. The discontinuation of treatment is associated with 
better cognitive performance, most noticeably of verbal memory. The performance of subjects on 
a word list memory test was negatively correlated with plasma levels of Abeta, but the clinical 
significance of this finding remains to be determined. Depression and mood will be measured in 
this study by the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL-25). Serum levels of beta-amyloid will be 
assessed at the same time points as the HSCL-25 and the neurocognitive test battery; 
associations among Abeta levels and cognitive tests will be evaluated. 
1.5.1 
Urinary symptom and function assessment 
Urinary function assessment has become a mainstay of routine clinical practice using the 
American Urological Association Symptom Index Score (AUA SI) or International Prostate 
Symptom Score (IPSS) questionnaire.80 This questionnaire is routinely administered before and 
after radiotherapy, and treatment decisions, such as the administration of an alpha-blocker, are 
often based on the results. We propose to collect urinary symptom data on the entire patient 
cohort (not just those in the HRQOL subset) to explore the relationship between the questionnaire 
parameters and urinary morbidity using the CTCAE v. 3.0 (see section 7.7) grading system.  
1.6 
Cost Effectiveness 
Almost every incremental improvement in survival or progression-free survival comes at a cost.  
The cost is both financial and experienced in terms of quality of life.  Measurement of primary 
outcomes such as freedom from progression and the most important aspects of human 
functioning and quality of life will permit a summary equation allowing for differences in quality of 
life, clinical outcomes, and cost to be incorporated into one equation.  This equation is the Quality 
Adjusted Life Year (QALY) and a study-specific modification, the Quality Adjusted Freedom From 
Progression Year (QAFFPY).  The QALY has been modified in a similar manner for different 
treatments where survival is not the primary outcome.  Much of the work in modifying the QALY 
began in ophthalmology, where sight-years, not life-years, are the outcome of interest.  Examples 
of modifications to the QALY have included incremental cost per vision-year gained to assess the 
cost effectiveness of photodynamic therapy with verteporfin for age-related macular 
degeneration,66 costs per sight-year saved with screening for diabetic retinopathy,67 cost-utility 
analysis 
for 
treatments 
of 
retinal 
detachment 
associated 
with 
severe 
proliferative 
vitreoretinopathy,68 and the cost-utility of cataract surgery.69  However, the QALY has been used 
in other studies where survival is not the primary outcome of interest, such as the cost-
effectiveness of memantine in the treatment of patients with moderately severe to severe 
cognitive impairment from Alzheimer's70 and cochlear implantation for patients unable to gain 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
17
effective speech recognition with hearing aids.71 We will model costs using Medicare 
reimbursement and measure utilities with the brief five-item EuroQol (EQ-5D). 
 
The EQ-5D is a method for obtaining valuations (utilities) of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) 
to be used as an adjustment to survival and in the cost-utility analysis. Developed in 1987, the 
EQ-5D is used by investigators and the pharmaceutical industry throughout the United States, 
Europe, and Asia. It is one of only several measures recommended for use in cost-effectiveness 
analyses by the Washington Panel on Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.72 The EQ-5D 
instrument is intended to complement other forms of QOL measures, and it has been purposefully 
developed to generate a generic cardinal index of health, thus giving it considerable potential for 
use in economic evaluation.  The argument by some that a generic measure does not capture 
some of the disease- or treatment-specific concerns of a given study misses the point. This cost-
effectiveness analysis is being done for purposes of exploring the means to inform macro (health 
policy, payer) decision making, not micro (individual) decision making.  The findings from the 
disease-specific QOL instruments and treatment-related side effect QOL instruments described 
above will help inform individual decision making. The role of the EQ-5D is to measure HRQOL at 
a macro level, in the same metric as it has been measured across numerous diseases, including 
cancer.  
 
This instrument gives us the ability to compare across and within diseases the “big picture” of 
what the experts who developed the EQ-5D considered the primary health states of interest to 
humans:  mobility, self care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression.  Further, 
there is no standardized measure to assess and compare disease-specific utilities across or 
within diseases.  Unlike the EQ-5D, the actual content of standard gamble (SG) and time trade-off 
(TTO) methods vary widely among studies and are subject to wide variations in amount and type 
of information presented, message framing, and visual aids, making replication of utilities with the 
SG or TTO extremely difficult. Therefore, using the EQ-5D, an exploratory aim is to evaluate the 
cost-utility of the treatment arm demonstrating the most significant benefit (in terms of the primary 
outcome), in comparison to other widely accepted cancer and non-cancer therapies (see Table 2 
below). We will also assess cost-utility among the arms to assess which therapy dominates.  We 
will assess the value added of the summary score known as a Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY), 
and for this study the Quality Adjusted FFP Year, that combines benefits of duration of freedom 
from progression (FFP) and decrements of quality of life with financial cost of increasingly 
aggressive and costly therapy.  
 
  
 
Table 2: Common Medical Interventions Ranked by Incremental Cost-Effectiveness 
 $U.S./Life Year Gained73 
Intervention 
Incremental Cost-
effectiveness ($U.S.) 
Liver 
transplantation 
compared 
with 
medical 
management 
237,000 
Mammography, age < 50 yrs. 
 
 
     
 
232,000 
Dialysis compared with medical management      
 
50,000 
Drug therapy for moderate hypertension 
32,600 
Mammography screening for breast cancer in 
patients aged 50-75 years 
20,000-50,000 
ABMT compared with salvage CT for Hodgkin’s 
recurrent after MOPP-ABV 
21,100 
Induction CT and standard RT on RTOG trials for 
Non-Small Cell Carcinoma of the Lung     
7,500-18,50073 
 
 
The EQ-5D has been used across numerous disease sites, including cancer.  For example, the 
EQ-5D mean score for 95 patients with NSCLC (93% male, mean age 62 years) was 0.58 (SD 
0.32) as measured by the questionnaire and 0.58 (SD 0.20) as measured by the visual analogue 
scale (VAS) version.75  The EQ-5D has been used to assess QALYs and the economic value of 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
18
prostate cancer screening,76 and treatment of pain related to prostate cancer metastasis.77 
Further, the EQ-5D was used in a recent study to estimate the economic value of the welfare loss 
due to prostate cancer pain by estimating the extent to which pain affects health-related quality of 
life among patients with prostate cancer. Health status and economic outcomes were modeled 
among a well-defined population of 200,000 Swedish prostate cancer patients. Health utility 
ratings (using the EQ-5D) were obtained from a subset of 1,156 of the prostate cancer patients. A 
descriptive model showed that optimal treatment that would reduce pain to zero during the whole 
episode of disease would add on average 0.85 quality-adjusted life years (QALY) to every man 
with prostate cancer; the economic value of this welfare loss due to prostate cancer pain was 
approximately $121,240,000 per year.78 
1.6.1 
Quality-Adjusted Survival and Freedom from Progression 
Quality-adjusted survival and freedom from progression can be defined in the same manner, by 
the weighted sum of different time episodes added up to a total quality-adjusted life-year or 
freedom from progression–year [U= sum of quality (qi) of health states K times the duration (si) 
spent in each health state.79  
1.6.2 
Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Utility 
Cost-utility will be analyzed for planned publication at two time points:  1) at 1 year post-therapy, 
looking at initial treatment costs and quality of life and 2) at five years post-therapy. The cost-utility 
analysis will be done after the primary endpoint results are published. 
1.6.3 
Measurement of Costs 
 
Direct medical costs fall into three categories:  1) initial therapy costs; 2) costs of managing the 
most common side effects as determined by this study; and 3) costs of managing recurrence.  
Costs for external beam radiotherapy will be determined using CPT coding and Medicare 
reimbursement rates.  Costs of common management strategies of the most common side 
effects documented in this study (e.g., Imodium® for diarrhea) will be estimated from regional 
costs per unit. Costs for managing recurrence will assume the following salvage therapies:  
hormone therapy and chemotherapy.  Costs will include professional fees, cost/inpatient day, 
drugs, and supplies.  Direct non-medical costs such as the cost of work lost or of transportation 
will not be measured.  Incremental differences in costs and outcomes will be compared for the 
different alternatives and for the dominant alternative to other established therapies documented 
in the literature. 
 
2.0 OBJECTIVES 
2.1 
Primary Objectives 
2.1.1 
To determine whether the addition of NC-STAD to PBRT improves freedom from progression 
(FFP) [maintenance of a PSA less than the nadir+2 ng/mL, absence of clinical failure and 
absence of death from any cause] for 5 years, over that of PBRT alone in men treated with 
salvage RT after radical prostatectomy; 
2.1.2 
To determine whether NC-STAD+PLNRT+PBRT improves FFP over that of NC-STAD+PBRT and 
PBRT alone in men treated with salvage RT after radical prostatectomy. 
2.2 
Secondary Objectives (11/23/11) 
2.2.1 
To compare the rates of a PSA ≥ 0.4 ng/mL and rising at 5 years after randomization (secondary 
biochemical failure endpoint), the development of hormone refractory disease (3 rises in PSA 
during treatment with salvage androgen deprivation therapy), distant metastasis, cause-specific 
mortality and overall mortality; 
2.2.2 
To compare acute and late morbidity based on CTCAE, v. 3.0; 
2.2.3 
To measure the expression of cell kinetic, apoptotic pathway, and angiogenesis-related genes in 
archival diagnostic tissue to better define the risk of FFP, distant failure, cause-specific mortality, 
and overall mortality after salvage radiotherapy for prostate cancer, independently of conventional 
clinical parameters now used; 
2.2.4 
To quantify blood product–based proteomic and genomic (single nucleotide polymorphisms) 
patterns, and urine-based genomic patterns before and at different times after treatment to better 
define the risk of FFP, distant failure, cause-specific mortality, and overall mortality after salvage 
radiotherapy for prostate cancer, independently of conventional clinical parameters now used; 
2.2.5 
To assess the degree, duration, and significant differences of disease-specific health related 
quality of life (HRQOL) decrements among treatment arms; it is hypothesized that QOL as 
measured by the EPIC will significantly worsen by the increasing aggressiveness of treatment and 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
19
that cognition as measured by the neurocognitive test battery (the HVLT-R, Trail Making Test, 
parts A & B, and the COWAT) will be significantly worse in the arms with NC-STAD. 
2.2.6 
To assess whether mood is improved and depression is decreased with the more aggressive 
therapy if it improves FFP; it is hypothesized that QOL as measured by the HSCL-25 will 
significantly improve with the increasing aggressiveness of treatment due to improved FFP. 
2.2.7 
An exploratory aim is to assess whether an incremental gain in FFP and survival with more 
aggressive therapy outweighs decrements in the primary generic domains of health related quality 
of life (i.e., mobility, self care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression). This aim 
is reported as the Quality Adjusted FFP Year (QAFFPY) and as the Quality Adjusted Life Year 
(QALY).  The QAFFPY and QALY will be compared among treatment arms and to the literature 
as described in Section 1.6.   
2.2.8 
An exploratory aim is to evaluate the cost-utility of the treatment arm demonstrating the most 
significant benefit (in terms of the primary outcome) in comparison with other widely accepted 
cancer and non-cancer therapies. Cost-utility will be assessed by the EQ-5D among treatment 
arms to determine which therapy dominates.   
2.2.9 
An exploratory aim is to assess associations between serum levels of beta-amyloid (Abeta) and 
measures of cognition (as measured by the HVLT-R, Trail Making Tests, parts A & B, or the 
COWAT) and mood and depression (as measured by the HSCL-25). 
2.2.10 To collect paraffin-embedded tissue blocks, serum, plasma, urine, and whole blood for future 
translational research analyses 
2.2.11  An exploratory aim is to assess the relationship(s) between the American Urological Association 
Symptom Index (AUA SI) and urinary morbidity using the CTCAE v. 3.0 grading system. 
 
3.0 PATIENT SELECTION 
NOTE: PER NCI GUIDELINES, EXCEPTIONS TO ELIGIBILITY ARE NOT PERMITTED.  
3.1 
Conditions for Patient Eligibility  (12/31/14) 
For questions concerning eligibility, please contact the study data manager. 
3.1.1 
Adenocarcinoma of the prostate treated primarily with radical prostatectomy, pathologically proven 
to be lymph node negative by pelvic lymphadenectomy (N0) or lymph node status pathologically 
unknown (undissected pelvic lymph nodes [Nx]), i.e. lymph node dissection is not required;  
• 
Any type of radical prostatectomy will be permitted, including retropubic, perineal, 
laparoscopic or robotically assisted. If performed, the number of lymph nodes removed 
per side of the pelvis and the extent of the pelvic lymph node dissection (obturator vs. 
extended lymph node dissection) should be noted. There is no time limit for the date of radical 
prostatectomy. 
3.1.2 
A post-radical prostatectomy entry PSA of ≥ 0.1 and < 2.0 ng/mL at least 6 weeks (45 days) after 
prostatectomy and within 30 days of registration; 
3.1.3 
One of the following pathologic classifications:  
• 
T3N0/Nx disease with or without a positive prostatectomy surgical margin; or 
• 
T2N0/Nx disease with or without a positive prostatectomy surgical margin;  
3.1.4 
Prostatectomy Gleason score of 9 or less; 
3.1.5 
Zubrod Performance Status of 0-1; 
3.1.6 
Age ≥ 18; 
3.1.7 
No distant metastases, based upon the following minimum diagnostic workup: 
• 
History/physical examination (including digital rectal exam) within 8 weeks (60 days) prior to 
registration; 
• 
A CT scan of the pelvis (with contrast if renal function is acceptable; a noncontrast CT is 
permitted if the patient is not a candidate for contrast) or MRI of the pelvis within 120 days 
prior to registration; 
• 
Bone scan within 120 days prior to registration; if the bone scan is suspicious, a plain x-ray 
and/or MRI must be obtained to rule out metastasis. 
3.1.8 
Adequate bone marrow function, within 90 days prior to registration, defined as follows: 
• 
Platelets ≥ 100,000 cells/mm3 based upon CBC;  
• 
Hemoglobin ≥ 10.0 g/dl based upon CBC (Note: The use of transfusion or other intervention 
to achieve Hgb ≥ 10.0 g/dl is recommended). 
3.1.9 
AST or ALT < 2 x the upper limit of normal within 90 days prior to registration; 
 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
20
3.1.10 Serum total testosterone must be ≥ 40% of the lower limit of normal (LLN) of the assay used 
(testosterone ÷ LLN must be ≥ 0.40) within 90 days prior to registration (Note: Patients who have 
had a unilateral orchiectomy are eligible as long as this requirement is met);  
3.1.11 Patients must sign a study-specific informed consent prior to study entry. 
 
3.2 
Conditions for Patient Ineligibility  (11/23/11) 
3.2.1 
A palpable prostatic fossa abnormality/mass suggestive of recurrence, unless shown by biopsy 
under ultrasound guidance not to contain cancer; 
3.2.2 
N1 patients are ineligible, as are those with pelvic lymph node enlargement ≥ 1.5 cm in greatest 
dimension by CT scan or MRI of the pelvis, unless the enlarged lymph node is sampled and is 
negative; 
3.2.3 
Androgen deprivation therapy started prior to prostatectomy for > 6 months (180 days) duration. 
Note: The use of finasteride or dutasteride (±tamsulosin) for longer periods prior to prostatectomy 
is acceptable; 
3.2.4 
Androgen deprivation therapy started after prostatectomy and prior to registration (Note: The use 
of finasteride or dutasteride (±tamsulosin) after prostatectomy is not acceptable - must be stopped 
within 3 months after prostatectomy. Androgen deprivation therapy must be stopped within 3 
months after prostatectomy); 
3.2.5 
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy before or after prostatectomy; 
3.2.6 
Prior chemotherapy for any other disease site if given within 5 years prior to registration; 
3.2.7 
Prior cryosurgery or brachytherapy of the prostate; prostatectomy should be the primary treatment 
and not a salvage procedure; 
3.2.8 
Prior pelvic radiotherapy; 
3.2.9 
Prior invasive malignancy (except non-melanomatous skin cancer) or superficial bladder cancer 
unless disease free for a minimum of 5 years [for example, carcinoma in situ of the oral cavity is 
permissible]; 
3.2.10 Severe, active co-morbidity, defined as follows: 
• 
History of inflammatory bowel disease; 
• 
History of hepatitis B or C; Blood tests are not required to determine if the patient has had 
hepatitis B or C, unless the patient reports a history of hepatitis. 
 
• 
Unstable angina and/or congestive heart failure requiring hospitalization within the last 6 
months; 
• 
Transmural myocardial infarction within the last 6 months; 
• 
Acute bacterial or fungal infection requiring intravenous antibiotics at the time of registration; 
• 
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease exacerbation or other respiratory illness requiring 
hospitalization or precluding study therapy at the time of registration;  
• 
(01/8/09)Hepatic insufficiency resulting in clinical jaundice and/or coagulation defects; AST or 
ALT are required (see Section 3.1.9); note, however, that laboratory tests for coagulation 
parameters are not required for entry into this protocol. 
• 
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) based upon current CDC definition; Note, 
however, that HIV testing is not required for entry into this protocol. The need to exclude 
patients with AIDS from this protocol is necessary because the treatments involved in this 
protocol may result in increased toxicity and immunosuppression.   
3.2.11 
Prior allergic reaction to the study drug(s) involved in this protocol.  
 
4.0 PRETREATMENT EVALUATIONS/MANAGEMENT 
Note: This section lists baseline evaluations needed before the initiation of protocol treatment that 
do not affect eligibility.    
4.1 
Required Pretreatment Evaluations/Management (22Jun2017) 
4.1.1 
A measure of urinary function is the American Urological Association Symptom Index Score (AUA 
SI) or International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS),80 which is now routinely the basis for 
treatment decisions. This scoring system has been established as a measure of radiation 
morbidity in patients treated for prostate cancer.81-84 The American Urological Association 
Symptom Index (AUA SI) will be administered to all protocol patients. The AUA SI questionnaire 
should be completed within 30 days prior to the start of treatment. 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
21
4.2 
Highly Recommended Pretreatment Evaluations/Management  (11/23/11) 
Within 30 days prior to the start of any protocol treatment: 
4.2.1 
Baseline alkaline phosphatase; 
4.2.2  
Some form of apical prostate bed localization, in addition to a non-contrast CT simulation, is 
recommended, but not required. The methods include CT scan with urethrogram at the time of 
simulation or MRI (see Section 6.3.1) simulation to localize the inferior aspect of the prostate bed.  
 
5.0 REGISTRATION PROCEDURES  (15-Jan-2019) 
Access requirements for OPEN and TRIAD 
Site staff will need to be registered with CTEP and have a valid and active CTEP Identity and Access 
Management (IAM) account. This is the same account (user id and password) used for the CTSU 
members' web site. To obtain an active CTEP-IAM account, go to https://eapps-ctep.nci.nih.gov/iam. 
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations and National Cancer Institute (NCI) policy require all 
individuals contributing to NCI-sponsored trials to register and to renew their registration annually.  To 
register, all individuals must obtain a Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) Identity and Access 
Management (IAM) account (https://ctepcore.nci.nih.gov/iam).  In addition, persons with a registration type 
of Investigator (IVR), Non-Physician Investigator (NPIVR), or Associate Plus (AP) (i.e., clinical site staff 
requiring write access to OPEN, RAVE, or TRIAD or acting as a primary site contact) must complete their 
annual registration using CTEP’s web-based Registration and Credential Repository (RCR) 
(https://ctepcore.nci.nih.gov/rcr).  Documentation requirements per registration type are outlined in the 
table below. 
 
Documentation Required 
IVR 
NPIVR 
AP 
A 
FDA Form 1572 
 
 
Financial Disclosure Form 
 
 
 
NCI Biosketch (education, training, employment, 
license, and certification) 
 
 
 
HSP/GCP training 
 
 
 
Agent Shipment Form (if applicable) 
 
CV (optional) 
 
 
 
 
An active CTEP-IAM user account and appropriate RCR registration is required to access all CTEP and 
CTSU (Cancer Trials Support Unit) websites and applications.  In addition, IVRs and NPIVRs must list all 
clinical practice sites and IRBs covering their practice sites on the FDA Form 1572 in RCR to allow the 
following: 
• 
Added to a site roster 
• 
Assigned the treating, credit, consenting, or drug shipment (IVR only) tasks in OPEN 
• 
Act as the site-protocol PI on the IRB approval 
 
Additional information can be found on the CTEP website.  For questions, please contact the 
RCR Help Desk by email at < RCRHelpDesk@nih.gov >. 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
22
 
This study is supported by the NCI Cancer Trials Support Unit (CTSU). 
 
       IRB Approval 
Each investigator or group of investigators at a clinical site must obtain IRB approval for this 
protocol and submit IRB approval and supporting documentation to the CTSU Regulatory 
Office before they can be approved to enroll patients.  Assignment of site registration status in 
the CTSU Regulatory Support System (RSS) uses extensive data to make a determination of 
whether a site has fulfilled all regulatory criteria including but not limited to the following: 
• 
An active Federal Wide Assurance (FWA) number 
• 
An active roster affiliation with the Lead Network or a participating organization 
• 
A valid IRB approval 
• 
Compliance with all protocol specific requirements. 
 
In addition, the site-protocol Principal Investigator (PI) must meet the following criteria: 
• 
Active registration status 
• 
The IRB number of the site IRB of record listed on their Form FDA 1572 
• 
An active status on a participating roster at the registering site. 
 
Sites participating on the NCI CIRB initiative that are approved by the CIRB for this study are 
not required to submit IRB approval documentation to the CTSU Regulatory Office. For sites 
using the CIRB, IRB approval information is received from the CIRB and applied to the RSS in 
an automated process. Signatory Institutions must submit a Study Specific Worksheet for 
Local Context (SSW) to the CIRB via IRB Manager to indicate their intent to open the study 
locally.  The CIRB’s approval of the SSW is then communicated to the CTSU Regulatory 
Office.  In order for the SSW approval to be processed, the Signatory Institution must inform 
the CTSU which CIRB-approved institutions aligned with the Signatory Institution are 
participating in the study. 
 
 
NOTE: It is mandatory that the treating physician determine the radiation therapy technique (3D-CRT vs. 
IMRT) to be used prior to the site registering the patient. 
 
 
5.1 
Pre-Registration Requirements for IMRT (12/31/14) 
In order to utilize IMRT on this study, the institution must have met specific technology 
requirements and have provided baseline physics information. Instructions for completing these 
requirements or determining if they already have been met are available on the Imaging and 
Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) Houston web site. Visit http://irochouston.mdanderson.org and 
select “Credentialing” and “Credentialing Status Inquiry”.  
 
An IMRT phantom study with the IROC Houston must be successfully completed (if the institution 
has not previously met this credentialing requirement. Instructions for requesting and irradiating 
the phantom are available on the IROC Houston web site at http://irochouston.mdanderson.org; 
select “Credentialing” and “RTOG”. Upon review and successful completion of the phantom 
irradiation, the IROC Houston will notify both the registering institution and NRG Oncology that the 
institution has completed this requirement. Subsequently, NRG Oncology will notify the institution 
that the site can enroll patients on the study. 
 
Institutions that previously have been credentialed for one IMRT delivery technique (e.g., standard 
gantry mounted linear accelerator using fixed gantry angles) must repeat the credentialing 
process when they change to a different technology (e.g. tomotherapyor volume delivery methods 
like RapidArc or VMAT). 
 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
23
The institution or investigator must complete or update an IMRT Facility Questionnaire (one per 
institution, available on the IROC Houston web site at http://irochouston.mdanderson.org) and 
send it to IROC Houston for review prior to enrolling any patients. IROC Houston will notify the 
institution and NRG Oncology when all requirements have been met. NRG Oncology will notify the 
institution that they are eligible to enter patients onto this study. 
 
5.2 
Pre-Registration Requirements for 3D-CRT  (12/31/14) 
Note: Institutions credentialed for IMRT for this protocol are automatically credentialed for the use 
of 3D-CRT. 
 
Only institutions that have met the technology requirements and that have provided the baseline 
physics information may enter patients onto this study. 
 
The new Facility Questionnaire (one per institution, available on the IROC Houston web site at 
http://irochouston.mdanderson.org) is to be sent to IROC Houston for review prior to enrolling any 
patients. IROC Houston will notify the institution and NRG Oncology when all requirements have 
been met. NRG Oncology will notify the institution that they are eligible to enter patients onto this 
study. Institutions that have previously enrolled patients on 3D-CRT trials of this same disease site 
may enroll patients on this study without further credentialing with the exception of submitting an 
updated Facility Questionnaire.. 
 
5.3 
Digital RT Data Submission to RTOG Using TRIAD  
This trial will not utilize the services of the ITC for dosimetry digital treatment data 
submission. TRIAD, the American College of Radiology’s (ACR) image exchange 
application that is used by NRG Oncology, will be used. TRIAD provides sites 
participating in NRG clinical trials a secure method to transmit DICOM RT and other 
objects. TRIAD anonymizes and validates the images as they are transferred. 
 
TRIAD Access Requirements: 
• 
Site physics staff who will submit images through TRIAD will need to be registered with The 
Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) and have a valid and active CTEP Identity and 
Access Management (IAM) account. Please refer to Section 5.0 of the protocol for instructions on 
how to request a CTEP-IAM account. 
• 
To submit images, the site physics user must have been assigned the 'TRIAD site user' role on 
the relevant Group or CTSU roster. NRG Oncology users should contact your site Lead RA to be 
added to your site roster.  Users from other cooperative groups should follow their procedures for 
assignment of roster roles. 
• 
RAs are able to submit standard of care imaging through the same method. 
 
TRIAD Installations: 
When a user applies for a CTEP-IAM account with proper user role, he/she will 
need to have the TRIAD application installed on his/her workstation to be able to 
submit images. TRIAD installation documentation can be found on the NRG 
Oncology/RTOG website Core Lab tab.    
 
This process can be done in parallel to obtaining your CTEP-IAM account username and 
password. 
 
If you have any questions regarding this information, please send an e-mail to the TRIAD Support 
mailbox at TRIAD-Support@acr.org. 
 
5.4 
Regulatory Pre-Registration Requirements  (19-Feb-2019) 
5.4.1 
This study is supported by the NCI Cancer Trials Support Unit (CTSU). Prior to the recruitment of 
a patient for this study, investigators must be registered members of a lead protocol organization.   
 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
24
Each investigator must have an NCI investigator number and must maintain an “active” 
investigator registration status through the annual submission of a complete investigator 
registration packet (FDA Form 1572 with original signature, current CV, Supplemental Investigator 
Data Form with signature, and Financial Disclosure Form with original signature) to the 
Pharmaceutical Management Branch (PMB), CTEP, DCTD, NCI.  These forms are available on 
the CTSU registered member web site: 
http://ctep.cancer.gov/investigatorResources/investigator_registration.htm . For questions, please 
contact the CTEP Investigator Registration Help Desk by e-mail at pmbregpend@ctep.nci.nih.gov  
 
The Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) Identity and Access Management (IAM) 
application is a web-based application intended for use by both Investigators (i.e., all physicians 
involved in the conduct of NCI-sponsored clinical trials) and Associates (i.e., all staff involved in 
the conduct of NCI-sponsored clinical trials).  
 
Associates will use the CTEP-IAM application to register (both initial registration and annual re-
registration) with CTEP and to obtain a user account. Investigators will use the CTEP-IAM 
application to obtain a user account only. (See CTEP Investigator Registration Procedures above 
for information on registering with CTEP as an Investigator, which must be completed before a 
CTEP-IAM account can be requested.)  
 
An active CTEP-IAM user account will be needed to access all CTEP and CTSU (Cancer Trials 
Support Unit) websites and applications, including the CTSU members‘ web site. Additional 
information 
can 
be 
found 
on 
the 
CTEP 
web 
site 
at 
http://ctep.cancer.gov/branches/pmb/associate_registration.htm. For questions, please contact 
the CTEP Associate Registration Help Desk by email at ctepreghelp@ctep.nci.nih.gov. 
 
 
Downloading Site Registration Documents  
Site registration forms may be downloaded from the RTOG 0534 protocol page located on the 
CTSU members’ web site. Go to https://www.ctsu.org.  Permission to view and download this 
protocol and its supporting documents is restricted and is based on person and site roster 
assignment housed in the CTSU RSS. 
• 
Go to https://www.ctsu.org and log in to the members’ area using your CTEP-IAM 
username and password 
• 
Click on the Protocols tab in the upper left of your screen 
• 
Either enter the protocol # in the search field at the top of the protocol tree, or 
• 
Click on the By Lead Organization folder to expand 
Click on the Protocols tab in the upper left of your screen  
• 
Click on the link to expand, then select trial protocol, RTOG-0534  
• 
Click on LPO Documents, select the Site Registration documents link, and download 
and complete the forms provided. 
• 
Click on the Site Registration Documents link  
 
Requirements for RTOG 0534 site registration: 
• 
IRB approval (For sites not participating via the NCI CIRB; local IRB documentation, an 
IRB-signed CTSU IRB Certification Form, Protocol of Human Subjects Assurance 
Identification/IRB Certification/Declaration of Exemption Form, or combination is 
accepted) 
• 
IRB/REB approved consent (English and native language versions*) 
*Note: Institutions must provide certification/verification of IRB/REB consent translation to 
NRG Oncology (See “Non-English Speaking Canadian and Non-North American 
Institutions” below) 
• 
IRB/REB assurance number renewal information as appropriate 
NOTE: Per NCI policy all institutions that participate on protocols with a radiation therapy 
component must participate in the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) monitoring 
program.  For non-lead group institutions an RT Facilities Inventory Form must be on file with 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
25
CTSU.  If this form has been previously submitted to CTSU it does not need to be resubmitted 
unless updates have occurred at the RT facility. 
• 
IRB/REB approval letter (for sites not participating via the NCI CIRB); 
• 
IRB/REB approved consent (English and native language versions*) 
*Note: Institutions must provide certification/verification of IRB/REB consent translation to NRG 
Oncology (See “Non-English Speaking Canadian and Non-North American Institutions” below) 
• 
IRB/REB assurance number renewal information as appropriate 
 
Non-English Speaking Canadian and Non-North American Institutions 
Translation of documents is critical. The institution is responsible for all translation costs. All 
regulatory documents, including the IRB/REB approved consent, must be provided in English and 
in the native language. Certification of the translation is optimal but due to the prohibitive costs 
involved NRG Oncology will accept, at a minimum, a verified translation. A verified translation 
consists of the actual REB approved consent document in English and in the native language, 
along with a cover letter on organizational/letterhead stationery that includes the professional title, 
credentials, and signature of the translator as well as signed documentation of the review and 
verification of the translation by a neutral third party. The professional title and credentials of the 
neutral third party translator must be specified as well. 
 
Submitting Regulatory Documents:  
 
Submit required forms and documents to the CTSU Regulatory Office via the Regulatory 
Submission Portal, where they will be entered and tracked in the CTSU RSS.  
 
Regulatory Submission Portal: www.ctsu.org  (members’ area)  Regulatory Tab 
Regulatory Submission  
When applicable, original documents should be mailed to: 
CTSU Regulatory Office 
      1818 Market Street, Suite 3000 
      Philadelphia, PA 19103 
 
Institutions with patients waiting that are unable to use the Portal should alert the CTSU 
Regulatory Office immediately at 1-866-651-2878 in order to receive further instruction and 
support. 
 
Checking Your Site’s Registration Status: 
 
You can verify your site registration status on the members’ section of the CTSU website.   
 
▪ Go to https://www.ctsu.org and log in to the members’ area using your CTEP-IAM 
username and password 
▪ Click on the Regulatory tab  
▪ Click on the Site Registration tab 
▪ Enter your 5-character CTEP Institution Code and click on Go 
 
Note: The status given only reflects compliance with IRB documentation and institutional 
compliance with protocol-specific requirements outlined by the Lead Network. It does not reflect 
compliance with protocol requirements for individuals participating on the protocol or the enrolling 
investigator’s status with the NCI or their affiliated networks. 
 
 
5.4.2 
Pre-Registration Requirements FOR CANADIAN INSTITUTIONS 
Prior to clinical trial commencement, Canadian institutions must complete and  
send the following documents to the CTSU Regulatory Office via the Regulatory Submission 
Portal (sign in at www.ctsu.org and select the Regulatory Submission sub-tab under the 
Regulatory tab). 
 
• 
Health Canada’s Therapeutic Products Directorates’ Clinical Trial Site Information Form,  

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
26
• 
Qualified Investigator Undertaking Form, and  
• 
Research Ethics Board Attestation Form.  
5.4.3 
Pre-Registration Requirements FOR INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 
For institutions that do not have an approved LOI for this protocol: 
International sites must submit an LOI to NRG Oncology to receive approval to participate in this 
trial. For more details see link below: 
http://www.rtog.org/Researchers/InternationalMembers/LetterofIntent.aspx .   
For institutions that have an approved LOI for this protocol: 
All requirements indicated in your LOI Approval Notification must be fulfilled prior to enrolling 
patients to this study. 
 
5.5 
REGISTRATION  (15-Jan-2019) 
5.5.1  
OPEN Registration Instructions 
Patient registration can occur only after evaluation for eligibility is complete, eligibility criteria have 
been met, and the study site is listed as ‘approved’ in the CTSU RSS.  Patients must have signed 
and dated all applicable consents and authorization forms.   
 
Patient enrollment will be facilitated using the Oncology Patient Enrollment Network (OPEN).  
OPEN is a web-based registration system available on a 24/7 basis.  To access OPEN, the site 
user must have an active CTEP-IAM account (check at < https://ctepcore.nci.nih.gov/iam >) and a 
'Registrar' role on either the LPO or participating organization roster.  Registrars must hold a 
minimum of an AP registration type. . All site staff will use OPEN to enroll patients to this study. It 
is integrated with the CTSU Enterprise System for regulatory and roster data. OPEN can be 
accessed at https://open.ctsu.org or from the OPEN tab on the CTSU members’ web site 
https://www.ctsu.org. 
 
Prior to accessing OPEN site staff should verify the following: 
• 
All eligibility criteria have been met within the protocol stated timeframes. Site staff should 
use the registration forms provided on the group or CTSU web site as a tool to verify 
eligibility. 
• 
All patients have signed an appropriate consent form and HIPPA authorization form (if 
applicable).  
 
The OPEN system will provide the site with a printable confirmation of registration and treatment 
information.  Please print this confirmation for your records.  
 
Further instructional information is provided on the CTSU members' web site OPEN tab or within 
the OPEN URL. For any additional questions contact the CTSU Help Desk at 1-888-823-5923 or 
ctsucontact@westat.com.  
 
In the event that the OPEN system is not accessible, participating sites can contact web support 
for assistance with web registration: websupport@acr.org or call the Registration Desk at (215) 
574-3191, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ET. The registrar will ask the site to fax 
in the eligibility checklist and will need the registering individual’s e-mail address and/or return fax 
number. This information is required to assure that mechanisms usually triggered by the OPEN 
web registration system (e.g. drug shipment and confirmation of registration) will occur.   
 
6.0 RADIATION THERAPY  (12/10/13) 
This trial will not utilize the services of the ITC for dosimetry digital treatment data 
submission. PRIOR TO ENROLLING PATIENTS, please see Section 5.3 for information on 
installing TRIAD for submission of digital RT data. 
 
Note: Intensity Modulated RT (IMRT) is allowed for this study. See Section 5.0 for pre-
registration requirements for IMRT and 3D-CRT treatment techniques. 
 
Radiotherapy will start within 42 days (+/-14 days) after registration in Arm 1 and 60 days (+/-14 
days) after starting LHRH agonist treatment in Arms 2 and 3.  

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
27
 
Arm 1, PBRT Alone: PBRT 64.8-70.2 Gy (1.8 Gy per fraction) 
 
Arm 2, PBRT + NC-STAD: PBRT 64.8-70.2 Gy (1.8 Gy per fraction) + NC-STAD for 120-180 days, 
beginning 60 days (+/- 14 days) before RT 
 
Arm 3, PLNRT + PBRT + NC-STAD: PLNRT to 45 Gy (1.8 Gy per fraction) and PBRT to 64.8-70.2 
Gy (1.8 Gy per fraction). NC-STAD for 120-180 days, beginning 60 days (+/- 14 days) before RT 
 
6.1 
Dose Specifications (11/23/11) 
Radiotherapy will start within 42 days (+/-14 days) of registration in Arm 1 and 60 days (+/-14 
days) after starting LHRH agonist treatment in Arms 2 and 3. Radiotherapy dose will be specified 
to the Planning Target Volume (PTV), as described in section 6.4. For the treatment methods 
outlined for prostate bed RT (3D-CRT, and IMRT), ≥ 95% of the PTV should receive the 
prescribed dose. The total dose to the prostate bed for all treatment arms is 64.8-70.2 Gy at 1.8 
Gy per fraction. IMRT is strongly encouraged over 3D-CRT. 
6.2 
Technical Factors [Equipment, energies] 
Megavoltage equipment is required with effective photon energies ≥ 6 MV.  
6.3 
Localization, Simulation, and Immobilization  (11/23/11) 
6.3.1 
3D-Conformal Radiotherapy (3D-CRT) or IMRT  
 
A urethrogram or MRI is recommended, but not required, to establish the most inferior portion of 
the prostate bed. Use of contrast, other than for the urethrogram, is discouraged. The placement 
of contrast in the rectum may cause the rectum to appear more anterior than it will be during 
treatment. Simulation should be with the rectum as empty as possible (an enema 1-2 hours prior 
to simulation) and with a moderately full bladder (the patient should not be uncomfortable at 
simulation and probably will have more difficulty maintaining a full bladder during treatment). An 
overly distended rectum can introduce a systematic positioning error that may increase the 
probability of missing the CTV. This is the reasoning behind an enema before the planning CT 
scan; although other methods, such as the use of a hollow (robnel) catheter to evacuate flatus to 
reduce the size of the rectum may accomplish the same result. Immobilization of the hips and feet 
using a cradle should be considered. 
 
 
A treatment planning CT scan will be required to define the clinical and planning target volumes, 
and the critical normal structures. The treatment planning CT will be acquired with the patient set 
up in the same position as for daily treatments. Each patient will be positioned in the supine 
position. Prone positioning for treatment is not permitted. Rectal balloons for planning and 
treatment are not permitted. The CT scan of the pelvis should start at or above the iliac crest 
down to below the perineum (below the ischial tuberosities). All tissues to be irradiated must be 
included in the CT scan. CT scan thickness should be ≤ 0.3 cm through the region that contains 
the target volumes. The regions above and below the target volume region may be scanned with 
slice thickness ≤ 1.0 cm.  
6.4 
Treatment Planning/Target Volumes  (22Jun2017) 
Note: All required structures must be labeled exactly as listed in the table in Section 6.4.3 below 
for digital RT data submission. Resubmission of data may be required if labeling of structures 
does not conform to the standard DICOM name listed. 
6.4.1 
Prostate Bed Planning for 3D-CRT 
 
The definition of volumes will be in accordance with ICRU Report #50: Prescribing, Recording, 
and Reporting Photon Beam Therapy. Please see Section 6.8.2 for common contouring mistakes. 
 
CTVp (1/8/09) (3/24/10) 
 
Contrast may be used for simulation but can distort the anatomy slightly and so is not 
recommended. The bladder should be reasonably full for simulation, keeping in mind that patients 
may not be able to maintain as full a bladder during radiotherapy. Having a somewhat full bladder 
at simulation ensures that the CTVp will be of maximal dimensions. The seminal vesicles or 
remnants thereof, if identified on CT or MRI as being present, will receive the full dose. The 
immediate periprostatic bed surgical clips should receive the full dose. The CTVp will extend from 
the top of the penile bulb inferiorly, or 1.5 cm below the urethrogram peak if done, to just above 
the pubic symphysis superiorly (at least for the anterior-most portion of the bladder). Laterally, the 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
28
CTVp will extend from the medial edge of one obturator internus muscle to the other. Anteriorly, 
the CTVp will include the entire bladder neck until above the pubic symphysis, where a gradual 
reduction off of the anterior bladder is made. Superiorly, above the pubic symphysis, at least the 
posterior 2 cm of bladder should be included in the CTVp, as well as the area between the 
bladder and rectum, to the anterior rectal wall. The CTVp should extend superiorly to cover any 
clips in the seminal vesicle bed and the seminal vesicle remnants if present and should extend at 
least 2 cm above the pubic symphysis. Posteriorly, the CTVp is defined by the anterior-most 
aspects of the anus-rectum. The CTVp may be increased (not decreased) beyond these limits 
based on pre-prostatectomy imaging information. 
 
 
A consensus definition of the prostate bed85 and an anatomically-based description86 should be 
considered in defining the CTVp. There has been considerable variability in how the prostate bed 
has been defined in the past. Although consensus definitions are not based on clinical outcome, 
they are extremely valuable in making the transition from conventional to conformal volumes. The 
consensus definition is not much different than the CTVp originally described above, but subtle 
differences are evident and should be considered. Either CTVp definition will be accepted in this 
clinical trial.    
 
1) 
Superiorly: The prostatic fossa CTV (CTVp) should extend superiorly from the level of the caudal 
vas deferens remnant. In some cases, the vas deferens remnant may be difficult to visualize. In 
the absence of gross disease or seminal vesicle remnants, the superior limit of the CTVp should 
extend at least 2 cm and need not extend more than 3-4 cm above the level of the pubic 
symphysis. The consensus definition calls for “inclusion of the seminal vesicle remnants, if 
present, in the CTVp if there is pathologic evidence of their involvement. However, inclusion of 
any seminal vesicle remnants seen is recommended.   
2) 
Inferiorly: The CTVp should extend inferiorly to > 8-12 mm inferior to vesicourethral anastomosis 
(VUA).  With axial CT imaging, the VUA can often be seen in the retropubic region as one slice 
below the most inferior urine-containing image (the bladder must be modestly full).  Magnetic 
resonance (MR) imaging defines this landmark more clearly with the hyperintense urine signal on 
T2 images. Inferiorly, the border of the CTVp should be at least 8-12 mm below the VUA.  A 
sagittal reconstruction facilitates identification of the position of the VUA and the inferior border of 
the CTVp below it.  If visualization of the VUA is problematic due to image quality or surgical clip 
artifacts, the inferior limit of the CTVp can extend to a level just above the penile bulb (same 
border as described above). It should be noted that there was considerable discussion about this 
definition versus extending the inferior border of the CTVp to just above the penile bulb; both 
definitions were deemed acceptable. 
3) 
Anteriorly: Below the superior border of the pubic symphysis, the anterior border is at the posterior 
aspect of the pubis. The CTVp extends posteriorly to the rectum where it may be concave at the 
level of the VUA. At this level the lateral border extends to the levator ani. Above the pubic 
symphysis the anterior border should encompass the posterior 1-2 cm of the bladder wall at 
the minimum and posteriorly it is bounded by the mesorectal fascia. At this level the lateral 
border is the sacrorectogenitopubic fascia. This is not well-defined in textbooks. If in question, the 
lateral border should extend to the obturator internus muscle.  
4) 
Posteriorly: The CTVp extends posteriorly to the anterior rectal wall, but may be somewhat 
concave around the anterior-lateral aspect of the rectum to adequately encompass the prostate 
bed. 
 
PTVp  (11/23/11) 
 
The PTVp margins should be a minimum of 0.8 cm and a maximum of 1.5 cm in all dimensions. A 
reduction of the PTVp margin from 0.8 cm to ≥ 0.6 cm to minimize rectal exposure will be 
considered a variation acceptable. A posterior margin of < 0.6 cm will be considered an 
unacceptable deviation. A margin for penumbra for 3D-CRT, usually 0.5–0.7 cm beyond the PTVp 
should be added such that ≥ 95% of the PTVp receives the prescribed dose (64.8-70.2 Gy); an 
acceptable variation will be noted if < 95% to 90% of the PTVp receives the prescribed dose, and 
an unacceptable deviation will be noted if < 90% of the PTVp receives the prescribed dose. Care 
should be taken to conform the prescribed dose as closely to the PTVp as possible, so as to avoid 
including the entire width of the rectum in the posterior blocked margin at the bladder neck-rectum 
interface. The maximum dose in the PTVp above the prescribed dose will be 7%; a variation 
acceptable will be > 7% to ≤ 12% and an unacceptable deviation will be > 12%.  The planned 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
29
dose between 64.8 to 70.2 will be declared after the patient is planned and all dosimetric 
parameters finalized. 
 
Normal Tissue Definitions  (11/23/11) 
 
Normal tissues will be outlined as solid structures, including the rectum, bladder and femoral 
heads. The penile bulb will be outlined as a reference structure. No constraints will be placed on 
the penile bulb, but doses will be recorded. The rectum will be outlined from the anterior flexion of 
the rectosigmoid superiorly to the ischial tuberosities inferiorly.  The entire bladder should be 
outlined down to the anastamosis. The DVH calculations will include doses to the entire bladder 
and the bladder minus the CTVp (BladdermCTV; Section 6.4.2).The femoral heads should be 
outlined down to the region between the greater and lesser trochanters. The planning parameters 
outlined below for IMRT should be used as a guide; formal 3D-CRT normal tissue prostate bed 
constraints have not been the standard in the past and are not specified here. It should be 
possible to come close to achieving the constraints outlined for IMRT, at least within the variation 
range. 
6.4.2 
Prostate Bed Planning for IMRT 
 
CTVp/PTVp/Normal Tissues 
 
The CTVp and PTVp will be the same as for 3D-CRT. There is no need to add margin for 
penumbra. A series of dose-volume histograms will be generated and analyzed to determine the 
adequacy of the plan. 
 
Planning Parameters  (11/23/11) 
 
The plan will be deemed acceptable under the following conditions.  
 
PTVp: The dose marker levels for bladder and rectum have been modeled after prior studies in 
men treated definitively with IMRT for prostate cancer.87-88 At least 95% of the PTVp should 
receive the prescribed dose (64.8-70.2 Gy); a variation acceptable will be noted if < 95% to 90% 
of the PTVp receives the prescribed dose, and a deviation unacceptable will be noted if < 90% of 
the PTVp receives the prescribed dose. The maximum dose within the PTVp, above the 
prescribed dose, will be 15%; an acceptable variation will be > 15% to ≤ 20% and an 
unacceptable deviation will be > 20%.   
 
Rectum: Less than or equal to 35% and 55% of the rectum should receive ≥ 65 Gy and ≥ 40 Gy, 
respectively. An acceptable variation will be noted if up to an additional 10% of the rectal volume 
at either cutpoint receives above the target doses specified. The inclusion of rectal volumes 
beyond these constraints will be considered a secondary acceptable variation and the extent of 
the variation should be recorded. In most patients, these constraints may be easily met and every 
attempt should be made to achieve the best dose distribution possible. The constraints will be 
harder to achieve in patients enrolled on Arm 3 (those receiving pelvic irradiation). 
 
Bladder: Less than or equal to 50% and 70% of the bladder minus CTVp (BladdermCTV) 
should receive ≥ 65 Gy and ≥ 40 Gy, respectively. The criteria for the bladder are relaxed because 
the dosimetric relationship of volume exposed to the specified marker doses is much less clear 
and the bladder neck is included in the CTVp. Note that the DVH for the entire bladder should be 
recorded, but the bladder - CTVp is the volume that should be used for the calculations described 
here. An acceptable primary variation will be noted if up to an additional 7.5% of the bladder 
volume receives above the target doses specified. The inclusion of bladder volumes beyond these 
constraints will be considered an acceptable secondary protocol variation; it will not be considered 
a protocol violation. In some patients, the bladder will be relatively empty and the majority will be in 
the PTV.   
 
Femoral Heads: Less than or equal to 10% of each femoral head should receive ≥ 50 Gy. A 
variation will be noted if up to an additional 5.0% of either femoral head receives > 50 Gy.   
 
Penile Bulb: The penile bulb will be outlined as a reference structure. No constraints will be placed 
on the penile bulb, but doses will be recorded.  
 
Small Bowel: See PLNRT section below. 
Use of Cone Beam CT and Plan Adjustment: There may be cases in which the target and 
surrounding normal tissues are found not to be reproducible relative to the simulation CT and 
consequent plan. Replanning will invalidate the dosimetry and is considered a deviation. If all 
attempts to reproduce bladder and rectal filling by coaching the patient do not work and replanning 
is thought to be necessary, the patient should be replanned in the same supine position with the 
same target volumes as specified per the randomization. The patient will remain on the trial, 
despite the deviation. 
6.4.3 
Pelvic Lymph Node Radiotherapy (PLNRT) (11/23/11) 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
30
 
For Arm 3, the prostate bed and pelvic lymph nodes (CTVn/PTVn) will receive 45 Gy at 1.8 Gy per 
fraction. A total dose of 64.8–70.2 Gy at 1.8 Gy/fraction should be given to the prostate bed 
(CTVp/PTVp). Planning and treatment of the pelvic lymph nodes must be using the same method 
(3DCRT or IMRT) as for the prostate bed. 
 
PLNRT Planning for 3D-CRT (11/23/11)) 
 
The CTVn will include the obturator, external iliac, proximal internal iliac and common iliac 
nodes, estimated using the vascular structures, up to the level of L5-S1. The recommended 
volumes are on the NRG Oncology/RTOG website under the “Core Lab/Contouring Atlases”  
menu  
(http://www.rtog.org/CoreLab/ContouringAtlases/ProstatePelvicLymphNodes.aspx). 
The 
CTVn is described as being 7 mm around the iliac vessels, carving out bowel, bladder and bone, 
which translates into just contouring the iliac/obturator areas with essentially no extra margin 
because of the proximity to these structures (this is well-illustrated in the contouring Atlas). Thus, 
the PTVn margins described above are the margins that venture into the potential bowel space, 
bladder and bone. The remainder of the CTVn, including the prostate bed and seminal 
vesicle bed are as described above (Section 6.4.1). The CTVp will include the prostate bed 
(64.8 – 70.2 Gy), as described for PBRT above. The PTVn and PTVp margins should be a 
minimum of 0.8 cm and a maximum of 1.5 cm in all dimensions. A reduction of the PTV margin 
from 0.8 cm to ≥ 0.6 cm to minimize rectal exposure will be considered an acceptable variation. A 
posterior margin of < 0.6 cm will be considered an unacceptable deviation. A margin for 
penumbra (usually 0.5–0.7 cm beyond the PTVs for 3D-CRT) should be added such that ≥ 95% of 
the PTVs receive the prescribed dose; an acceptable variation will be noted if < 95% to 90% of 
either PTV receives the prescribed dose, and an unacceptable deviation will be noted if < 90% of 
the PTV receives the prescribed dose. The maximum dose in the PTVp (the PTVn is expected to 
have greater heterogeneity and no specific constraints are given) above the prescribed dose will 
be 7%; an acceptable variation will be > 7% to ≤ 12% and an unacceptable deviation >12%.  The 
planned dose between 64.8 to 70.2 will be declared after the patient is planned and all dosimetric 
parameters finalized.  A minimum of four treatment fields should be used. 
 
 
The normal tissue outlines will be the same as described in Section 6.4.1, with the added 
contouring of the potential space for small/large bowel in the pelvis. The potential bowel space will 
include the space on either side of the bladder to the medial edge of the lymph node outline 
laterally, beginning approximately at the top of the prostate bed field to one CT axial imaging level 
above the most superior level displaying a CTVn contour. Care should be taken to avoid the 
presacral lymph node region in the bowel volume. No constraints will be placed on the bowel for 
3D-CRT planning. 
 
PLNRT Planning for IMRT  (11/23/11) 
 
The volumes, prescriptions and margins for the CTVns and PTVns will be the same as for 3D-
CRT and IMRT. The recommended volumes are on the NRG Oncology/RTOG website under the 
“Core Lab/Contouring Atlases” menu  
(http://www.rtog.org/CoreLab/ContouringAtlases/ProstatePelvicLymphNodes.aspx). 
No 
specific field arrangement is required, although typically 5-9 fields are used. Rotational IMRT 
treatments are permitted, as long as the constraints are met (See Section 5.2). The posterior 
PTVn margin at the bladder neck-rectum interface should not include the entire width of the 
rectum. A composite plan should be generated showing that at least 95% of the PTVn and PTVp 
receive the prescribed dose; a variation acceptable will be noted if < 95% to 90% of the PTV(s) 
receives the prescribed dose, and a deviation unacceptable will be noted if < 90% of the PTV(s) 
receives the prescribed dose. The maximum dose within the PTVp (the PTVn is expected to have 
greater heterogeneity and no specific constraints are given), above the prescribed dose, will be 
15%; an acceptable variation will be > 15% to ≤ 20% and an unacceptable deviation > 20%. The 
other dosimetric parameters for IMRT are the same as for PBRT, except for the addition of a 
small bowel constraint. 
 
Small/Large Bowel: The volume to be contoured is described in Section 6.4.3. For the patients 
receiving PLNRT, ≤ 150 cc of potential bowel space should receive ≥ 45 Gy. A variation will be 
noted if > 150 cc to 200 cc of potential small bowel space receives ≥ 45 Gy. A secondary variation 
will be noted if >200 cc receives >45 Gy (see Section 6.5.6). Since there are not protocol 
violations for bowel, treatment volumes should not be dramatically altered to adjust for bowel. In 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
31
prior protocols, considerable bowel was in the field and patients tolerated treatment well. Thus, 
these constraints act as a guide. 
Overlap of the Bowel with the Prostate Bed PTV: This situation has been one of concern in cases 
where the high dose PTVp overlaps with loops of bowel. Since these patients have had prior 
surgery, bowel is not as mobile as for the patient with an intact prostate. However, it should be 
kept in mind that such compromises were not done in prior studies and that this should be an 
infrequent occurrence. 
 
Overlap of the Bowel with the Lymph Node PTV: No adjustments in the PTVn are permitted. Since 
the potential bowel contour abuts the lymph node CTV, there should be an overlap with the lymph 
node PTV(PTVn). The overlap is expected. 
 
Use of cone beam CT and plan adjustment: There may be cases in which the target and 
surrounding normal tissues are found to not be reproducible relative to the simulation CT and 
consequent plan. It should be emphasized that replanning should be avoided if at all possible 
because this will be considered a deviation. If the patient must be replanned in the opinion of the 
treating physician, then a deviation will be recorded, but continue to treat the patient per protocol 
in terms of dose and CTV/PTV volumes.  
 
The following table summarizes the naming of targets and critical structures for submission of 
data to NRG Oncology.  
 
Note: All required structures must be labeled as listed in the table below for digital RT data 
submission. Resubmission of data may be required if labeling of structures does not conform to 
the standard DICOM name listed. 
 
 
RTOG 0534 Structure Names 
Arms 1 and 2 Only 
CTVp 
PTVp 
Bladder 
BladdermCTV 
Rectum 
Femur_R 
Femur_L 
PenileBulb 
SeminalVesicle 
External 
Arm 3 Only 
CTVn 
CTVp 
PTVn 
PTVp 
Bladder 
BladdermCTV 
Rectum 
Femur_R 
Femur_L 
PenileBulb 
SmallBowel 
SeminalVesicle 
External 
 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
32
6.5 
Critical Structures  (12/10/13) 
6.5.1 
The critical normal structures are the bladder, rectum, small/large bowel above the rectum, and 
femoral heads. The normal tissues will be contoured and considered as solid organs.  
6.5.2 
The bladder should be contoured from its base to the dome, excluding the CTVp (the CTVp 
includes the bladder neck).  
6.5.3 
The rectum should be contoured from the anus (at the level of the ischial tuberosities) to the 
rectosigmoid flexure (this is roughly at about 10 cm) or for a maximum length of 15 cm if the 
sigmoid flexure if felt to be higher.  
6.5.4 
Each femoral head should be outlined down to the interface between the greater and lesser 
trochanters. Each femoral head should be considered separately. 
6.5.5 
For the patients who will undergo PLNRT treatment in Arm 3 using 3D-CRT or IMRT, the external 
iliac, obturator, internal iliac and common iliac vessels/lymph node regions should be outlined 
inferiorly from where the external iliacs become the inguinal vessels and superiorly from the level 
of the common iliacs at L5-S1. The presacral lymph nodes from L5-S1 to S3 should be included. 
6.5.6 
For the patients who will undergo PLNRT treatment in Arm 3 using 3D-CRT or IMRT, the potential 
bowel space (not individual loops of bowel) where the small and large bowel may fall should be 
outlined. The borders are the abdominal wall anteriorly, pelvic sidewalls laterally (excluding the 
pelvic lymph node regions), superiorly to one cut above the last axial CT image on which the 
lymph nodes are outlined and inferiorly from the level of the top of CTVp (outlining around the 
sides of the bladder near the top of the bladder to encompass the bowel that may fall into these 
regions). Posteriorly, the small bowel potential space should extend to in front of the sacrum, 
abutting the anterior presacral nodal contours.  
6.5.7 
The tissue within the skin and outside all other critical normal structures and PTV’s is designated 
as unspecified tissue. See the NRG Oncology/RTOG web site at http://www.rtog,org to view 
examples of target and normal tissue contours. 
6.6 
Documentation Requirements (12/31/14)  
6.6.1  
The institution will archive treatment prescription and verification images for later review by the 
study chair if requested. For conformal RT, at least one portal image or pretreatment alignment 
portal image per field along with the digital reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) from the treatment 
planning software or, alternatively, a simulation verification radiograph shall be acquired and kept 
for evaluation if requested except where geometrically impractical. For IMRT, at least one portal 
image from each orthogonal image along with the digital reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) from 
the treatment planning software shall be acquired and kept for evaluation. Note: Images are 
required to be taken but not submitted. 
6.6.2  
NRG Oncology will display isodose distributions through the planning target volume to verify 
correct digital submission and conversion.  
6.6.3  
NRG Oncology will compare the submitted DVHs for the PTV, designated critical structures, and 
unspecified tissues with DVHs calculated by NRG Oncology. 
6.7 
Compliance Criteria (3D-CRT and IMRT) (11/23/11) 
6.7.1 
Dose Heterogeneity 
 
3D-CRT 
 
The maximum dose in the PTV above the prescribed dose will be 7%; an acceptable variation will 
be > 7% to ≤ 12% and an unacceptable deviation > 12 (see Section 6.4.1). 
 
IMRT 
 
The dose heterogeneity in IMRT treatment plans is greater than that for 3D-CRT. The maximum 
dose within the PTV, above the prescribed dose, will be 15%; an acceptable variation will be > 
15% to ≤ 20% and an unacceptable deviation > 20%. Although, the maximum dose allowable in 
the PTV(s) will be 15% above the prescribed dose, it is possible in the vast majority of cases to 
achieve less than 15%.     
6.7.2 
Normal Tissue Deviations 
 
3D-CRT 
 
No specific constraints for 3D-CRT are included, but the dose-volume criteria described for IMRT 
below should be used as a guide. The dose volume histograms for the bladder, rectum, femoral 
heads, penile bulb, and small/large bowel (for Arm 3–PLNRT plans) should be included and the 
marker dose volumes when relevant (BladdermCTV, rectum each femoral head and small bowel) 
for IMRT should be recorded. 
 
IMRT (11/23/11) 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
33
 
Less than or equal to 35% and 55% of the rectum should receive ≥ 65 Gy and ≥ 40 Gy, 
respectively. Less than or equal to 50% and 70% of the bladder minus CTVp (BladdermCTV) 
should receive ≥ 65 Gy and ≥ 40 Gy, respectively. The criteria for the bladder are relaxed because 
the dosimetric relationship of volume exposed to the specified marker doses is much less clear 
and the bladder neck is included in the CTVp. Less than or equal to 10% of each femoral head 
should receive ≥ 50 Gy. A variation acceptable will be noted if up to an additional 5.0% of either 
the femoral head receives > 50 Gy.  For the patients receiving PLNRT, ≤ 150 cc of potential 
small/large bowel space should receive ≥ 45 Gy. A primary variation will be noted if > 150 cc to 
200 cc of potential small/large bowel space receives ≥ 45 Gy. A secondary variation will be noted 
if > 200 cc of potential small/large bowel space receives ≥ 45 Gy. 
6.8 
R.T. Quality Assurance Reviews  (12/31/14) 
6.8.1 
The NRG Oncology Radiation Oncologist Study PI and Co-Chair will oversee quality assurance 
RT reviews as complete RT data is received. These case reviews will be ongoing and facilitated 
by NRG RTQA. The reviews will be performed remotely. 
6.8.2 
Common Contouring Mistakes to Avoid 
 
CTVp (prostate bed): Do not follow European or Australian/New Zealand guidelines. The NRG 
Oncology/RTOG guidelines should be followed very closely. Do not exclude the posterior bladder 
from the CTVp above the pubic symphysis (this is the Australian/New Zealand consensus, but not 
ours). The entire bladder neck is in the contour below the pubic symphysis; do not compromise 
this volume by excluding any bladder. The anterior border is the posterior aspect of the pubic 
symphysis. 
 
Pelvic Lymph Nodes: Do not leave out the presacral lymph nodes. 
 
Femoral Heads: Do not just contour the heads. The contours should extend down to the interface 
between the lesser and greater trochanters.  
 
Penile Bulb: Needs to be contoured. 
 
Bowel: Contour the space, not individual loops of bowel. 
6.9 
Radiation Adverse Events 
6.9.1 
All patients will be seen weekly by their radiation oncologist during radiation therapy. Any 
observations regarding radiation reactions will be recorded and should include attention toward 
the following potential side effects: 
• 
Small bowel or rectal irritation manifesting as abdominal cramping, diarrhea, rectal 
urgency, proctitis, or hematochezia;  
• 
Bladder complications including urinary frequency/urgency, dysuria, hematuria, urinary 
tract infection, and incontinence;  
• 
Radiation dermatitis. 
6.9.2 
Clinical discretion may be exercised to treat side effects from radiation therapy as described in 
Section 9.1. Examples of typical medications used in the management of rectal side effects, such 
as diarrhea, include diphenoxylate or loperamide. Bladder or rectal spasms are usually treated 
with anticholinergic agents or tolterodine. Bladder irritation may be managed with 
phenazopyridine. Erectile dysfunction is often treated with medical management or mechanical 
devices. 
6.10 
Radiation Adverse Event Reporting (22Jun2017) 
 
See Section 7.7 for Adverse Events and 7.8 for Adverse Event Reporting Guidelines. 
 
7.0 DRUG THERAPY 
 (11/23/11)  Short term androgen deprivation (STAD) will be administered to patients randomized to 
Arms 2 and 3. STAD will begin, from the start of LHRH agonist injection, within 6 weeks (+/- 2 
weeks) after registration. 
 
7.1 
Treatment (12/31/14) 
7.1.1 
Dose definition  
 
Short term androgen deprivation (STAD) will be administered to patients randomized to Arms 2 
and 3, will begin from the start of LHRH agonist injection within 6 weeks after registration, and will 
consist of total androgen deprivation, using a combination of antiandrogen and LHRH agonist 
therapy for a total of 4-6 months. The antiandrogen will be either flutamide at 250 mg p.o. TID or 
bicalutamide at 50 mg p.o. QD. Antiandrogen therapy should begin at approximately the same 
time as LHRH agonist injection but may be started up to two weeks earlier (1-14 days prior to 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
34
LHRH agonist injection). The antiandrogen will be stopped on the last day of radiation 
treatment ± 14 days, which should be approximately 4 months of antiandrogen therapy. LHRH 
agonist injection will consist of analogs approved by the FDA (or by Health Canada for Canadian 
institutions), e.g., leuprolide, goserelin, buserelin, or triptorelin and may be given in any possible 
combination, such that the total LHRH treatment time is 4-6 months. For example, LHRH agonist 
injection(s) may be given as a single 4-month injection, a 4-month injection and one to two 1-
month injection(s), two 3-month injections, one to three 1-month and a 3-month injection (4-6 
months total), four to six 1-month injections, or a 6-month injection.  
7.1.2 
Duration of treatment  
 
As outlined above, STAD, when administered, will be for a duration of 4-6 months. Antiandrogen 
therapy will be given for approximately 4 months (started within 1-14 days prior to the LHRH 
agonist and ending the last day of radiotherapy ± 14 days); LHRH agonists will be given for 4-6 
months. 
7.1.3 
Calcium and Vitamin D supplementation 
 
Patients who are randomized to receive androgen deprivation therapy are encouraged to take 
calcium at 500-1200 mg/day and vitamin D at 400-800 IU/day during androgen deprivation 
therapy; however, these supplements are not required. 
7.2 
Study Agents: LHRH Agonists  (11/23/11) 
7.2.1 
Description 
 
LHRH agonists are long-acting analogs of the native LHRH peptide and are effective at reducing 
serum testosterone. Analogs approved by the FDA (or by Health Canada for Canadian 
institutions) can be used in this study. 
7.2.2 
Administration 
 
LHRH analogs are administered with a variety of techniques, including subcutaneous insertion of 
a solid plug in the abdominal wall (Zoladex), intramuscular injection (Lupron, Trelstar) or 
subcutaneous injection (Eligard).The manufacturer’s instructions should be followed. 
7.2.3 
Adverse Events 
 
Consult the package insert for comprehensive adverse event information. Class-related toxicity is 
generally a manifestation of the mechanism of action and due to low testosterone levels. In the 
majority of patients testosterone levels increased above baseline during the first week, declining 
thereafter to baseline levels or below by the end of the second week of treatment. The most 
common side effect of LHRH analogs is vasomotor hot flashes; edema, gynecomastia, bone pain, 
thrombosis, and gastrointestinal disturbances have occurred. Potential exacerbations of signs and 
symptoms during the first few weeks of treatment is a concern in patients with vertebral 
metastases and/or urinary obstruction or hematuria which, if aggravated, may lead to neurological 
problems such as temporary weakness and/or paresthesia of the lower limbs or worsening of 
urinary symptoms. Other side effects include impotence and loss of libido, weight gain, 
depression, dizziness, loss of bone density, anemia, increased thirst and urination, unusual taste 
in the mouth, skin redness or hives, pain at injection site, muscle mass and strength loss, hair 
changes, penile length and testicular volume loss, increased cholesterol, hypertension, diabetes 
exacerbation, emotional lability, nausea, vomiting, and rarely allergic generalized rash and 
difficulty breathing. 
7.2.4 
Storage 
 
LHRH analogs should be stored as directed by the commercial supplier. 
7.2.5 
Supply 
 
Commercially available; Note: Buserelin is not commercially available in the United States. It is 
commercially available for use in Canada and other countries outside of the United States. 
7.3 
Eulexin (flutamide) 
7.3.1 
Description 
 
Flutamide is a substituted anilide. It is a fine, light, yellow powder, insoluble in water but soluble in 
common organic solvents such as aromatic or halogenated hydrocarbons. Its concentration in 
plasma can be determined by gas chromatography. Flutamide is a nonsteroidal antiandrogen that 
is metabolized into a hydroxylated derivative, which effectively competes with the 
hydrotestosterone for androgen receptor sites. 
7.3.2 
Administration 
 
The drug is administered orally at a dose of 250 mg (two 125-mg capsules) three times a day for 
a total daily dose of 750 mg. Flutamide will begin between two weeks to one day prior to starting 
LHRH agonist injection and will continue throughout radiotherapy. Administration will be 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
35
suspended only if there is an apparent or suspected reaction to the drug. See Section 7.3.4. 
Flutamide will be terminated on the last day of radiotherapy. During radiotherapy 
interruptions, flutamide will be continued. 
7.3.3 
Adverse Events 
 
Consult the package insert for comprehensive adverse event information. The reported side 
effects of treatment include diarrhea and anemia. A high percentage of patients treated with 
flutamide alone developed gynecomastia within 2 to 8 months. There have been post-marketing 
reports of hospitalization, and, rarely, death due to liver failure in patients taking flutamide. 
Evidence of hepatic injury included elevated serum transaminase levels, jaundice, hepatic 
encephalopathy, and death related to acute hepatic failure. The hepatic injury was reversible after 
prompt discontinuation of therapy in some patients. Approximately half of the reported cases 
occurred within the initial 3 months of treatment with flutamide. Other side effects include 
impotence and loss of libido, fatigue, and rarely photosensitivity. 
7.3.4 
Dose Modifications 
 
If gastrointestinal disturbances (cramps, diarrhea) occur prior to initiation of radiotherapy, 
flutamide will be withheld until the side effects subside; the drug will then be reintroduced at a 
dose of 250 mg/day and increased (at 3-day intervals) to 500 mg/day and then to 750 mg/day as 
tolerated. If gastrointestinal disturbances occur after administration of radiotherapy, it might be 
difficult to identify their cause. However, if severity of diarrhea exceeds the level commonly 
observed during pelvic irradiation, the toxicity will be ascribed to flutamide and the drug will be 
permanently discontinued. AST or ALT will be measured pretreatment, then about every other 
month during oral antiandrogen therapy. If AST or ALT increases ≥ 2 x upper institutional limit of 
normal, flutamide must be discontinued. 
7.3.5 
Storage  
 
Flutamide should be stored at temperatures ranging from 20-30 °C and protected from excessive 
moisture. 
7.3.6 
Supply  
 
Commercially available 
7.4 
Casodex (bicalutamide)  
7.4.1 
Description 
 
Bicalutamide is a nonsteroidal antiandrogen, which has no androgenic or progestational 
properties. The chemical name is propanamide, N-[4-cyano-3(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]- 3- [(4-
fluorophenyl)sulphonyl]- 2- hydroxy- 2- methyl, (+,-). Bicalutamide is a racemic mixture with the 
antiandrogen activity residing exclusively in the (-) or R-enantiomer. Bicalutamide has a long half-
life compatible with once-daily dosing. Bicalutamide is well tolerated and has good response rates 
in phase II trials. 
7.4.2 
Administration 
 
Bicalutamide is administered orally at a dose of one 50 mg tablet per day. Bicalutamide will be 
started from two weeks to one day prior to LHRH administration and continued throughout 
radiotherapy. Administration will be suspended only if there is an apparent or suspected reaction 
to the drug. Bicalutamide will be terminated on the last day of radiotherapy. During 
radiotherapy interruptions, bicalutamide will be continued. 
7.4.3 
Adverse Events 
 
Consult the package insert for comprehensive toxicity information. In animal experiments, birth 
defects (abnormal genitalia, hypospadias) were found in male offspring from female animals 
dosed with bicalutamide during pregnancy. Although offspring from male animals dosed with 
bicalutamide did not show any birth defects, patients enrolled in this trial are advised not to cause 
pregnancy nor donate sperm while receiving protocol therapy or during the first 3 months after 
cessation of therapy. The use of barrier contraceptives is advised. The most frequent adverse 
events reported among subjects receiving bicalutamide therapy are breast tenderness, breast 
swelling, and hot flashes. When bicalutamide 50 mg was given in combination with an LHRH 
analog, the LHRH analog adverse event profile predominated with a high incidence of hot flashes 
(53%) and relatively low incidences of gynecomastia (4.7%) and breast pain (3.2%). Other side 
effects include impotence and loss of libido, fatigue, and rarely photosensitivity and diarrhea. 
7.4.4 
Dose Modifications 
 
Bicalutamide should be discontinued in instances of chemical liver toxicity. AST or ALT will be 
measured pretreatment and then every other month during antiandrogen therapy. If the AST or 
ALT rises ≥ 2 x the institutional upper limit of normal, bicalutamide must discontinued. 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
36
7.4.5 
Storage 
 
Bicalutamide should be stored in a dry place at room temperature between 68-77°F. 
7.4.6 
Supply 
 
Commercially available 
7.5 
Criteria for Discontinuation of Protocol Treatment (1/8/09) 
 
Protocol treatment may be discontinued for any of the following reasons: 
• 
Progression of disease; 
• 
Unacceptable adverse events at the discretion of the treating physician(s); 
• 
A delay in protocol treatment > 8 weeks. 
 
If protocol treatment is discontinued, follow up and data collection will continue as specified in the 
protocol. 
7.6 
Modality Review 
The Principal Investigator/Radiation Oncologist, Alan Pollack, MD, PhD and the Urology Co-Chair, 
Leonard G. Gomella, MD will perform a Hormone Delivery Quality Review by sampling of patients 
who receive or are to receive hormone therapy in this trial.  The goal of the review is to evaluate 
protocol compliance.  The review process is contingent on timely submission of hormone therapy 
treatment data as specified in Section 12.1. The scoring mechanism is: Per Protocol/Acceptable 
Variation, Not Per Protocol, and Not Evaluable.  A report is sent to each institution once per 
year to notify the institution about compliance for each case reviewed in that year. 
7.7 
Adverse Events  (15-Jan-2019) 
The descriptions and grading scales found in the revised NCI Common Terminology Criteria for 
Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 4.0 will be utilized until March 31, 2018, for all AE reporting, 
CTEP-AERS, and case report forms. CTCAE version 5.0 will be utilized for CTEP-AERS reporting 
beginning April 1, 2018; all study case report forms will continue to use CTCAE version 4.0. All 
appropriate treatment areas should have access to a copy of CTCAE versions 4.0 and 5.0, which 
can be downloaded from the CTEP web site  
(https://ctep.cancer.gov/protocolDevelopment/electronic_applications/ctc.htm) 
 
 
All adverse events (AEs) as defined in the table below (7.8) will be reported via the CTEP-AERS 
(CTEP Adverse Event Reporting System) application accessed via the CTEP web site 
(https://eapps-ctep.nci.nih.gov/ctepaers/pages/task?rand=1390853489613).  
 
Serious adverse events (SAEs) as defined in the table below (7.8) will be reported via CTEP-
AERS.  
 
 
In order to ensure consistent data capture, serious adverse events reported on CTEP-
AERS reports also must be reported on an NRG Oncology case report form (CRF). In 
addition, sites must submit CRFs in a timely manner after CTEP-AERS submissions. 
7.7.1 
Adverse Events (AEs) 
Definition of an AE: Any untoward medical occurrence associated with the use of a drug in 
humans, whether or not considered drug related.  Therefore, an AE can be any unfavorable and 
unintended sign (including an abnormal laboratory finding), symptom, or disease temporally 
associated with the use of a medicinal (investigational) product, whether or not considered related 
to the medicinal (investigational) product (attribution of unrelated, unlikely, possible, probable, or 
definite). (International Conference on Harmonisation [ICH], E2A, E6). [CTEP, NCI Guidelines: 
Adverse Event Reporting Requirements. February 29, 2012; 
http://ctep.cancer.gov/protocolDevelopment/electronic_applications/adverse_events.htm]  
 
In the rare event when Internet connectivity is disrupted, a 24-hour notification must be made to 1-
800-227-5463, ext. 4189, for instances when Internet fails. Once internet connectivity is restored, 
an AE report must be entered electronically into CTEP-AERS. 
 
7.7.2 
Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) — Serious adverse events (SAEs) that meet expedited 
reporting criteria defined in the table in Section 7.8 will be reported via CTEP-AERS.  SAEs that 
require 24 hour CTEP-AERS notification are defined in the expedited reporting table in Section 
7.8.  Contact the CTEP-AERS Help Desk if assistance is required. 
 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
37
Definition of an SAE: Any adverse drug event (experience) occurring at any dose that results in 
any of the following outcomes: 
• 
Death; 
• 
A life-threatening adverse drug experience; 
• 
Inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization; 
• 
A persistent or significant disability/incapacity; 
• 
A congenital anomaly/birth defect;  
• 
Important medical events that may not result in death, be life threatening, or require 
hospitalization may be considered an SAE, when, based upon medical judgment, they 
may jeopardize the patient and may require medical or surgical intervention to prevent 
one of the outcomes listed in the definition.  
 
Due to the risk of intrauterine exposure of a fetus to potentially teratogenic agents, any pregnancy, 
including a male patient’s impregnation of his partner, must be reported via CTEP-AERS in an 
expedited manner.   
 
7.7.3 
Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) or Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS) 
AML or MDS that is diagnosed as a secondary malignancy during or subsequent to treatment in 
patients on NCI/CTEP-sponsored clinical trials must be reported via the CTEP-AERS system 
within 30 days of AML/MDS diagnosis. 
 
Secondary Malignancy 
A secondary malignancy is a cancer caused by treatment for a previous malignancy (e.g., 
treatment with investigational agent/intervention, radiation or chemotherapy). A secondary 
malignancy is not considered a metastasis of the initial neoplasm.  
 
CTEP requires all secondary malignancies that occur following treatment with an agent under an 
NCI IND/IDE be reported via CTEP-AERS. Three options are available to describe the event: 
 
• 
Leukemia secondary to oncology chemotherapy (e.g., acute myelocytic leukemia [AML])  
• 
Myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) 
• 
Treatment-related secondary malignancy 
 
Any malignancy possibly related to cancer treatment (including AML/MDS) should also be 
reported via the routine reporting mechanisms outlined in each protocol.  
 
Second Malignancy  
A second malignancy is one unrelated to the treatment of a prior malignancy (and is NOT a 
metastasis from the initial malignancy).  Second malignancies require ONLY routine reporting via 
CDUS unless otherwise specified.  
 
7.8 
CTEP-AERS Expedited Reporting Requirements (12/31/14) 
All serious adverse events that meet expedited reporting criteria defined in the reporting table 
below will be reported via CTEP-AERS, the CTEP Adverse Event Reporting System, accessed via 
the CTEP web site,  
https://eapps-ctep.nci.nih.gov/ctepaers/pages/task?rand=1398715802346. 
 
Submitting a report via CTEP-AERS serves as notification to NRG Oncology and satisfies NRG 
Oncology requirements for expedited adverse event reporting. 
 
CTEP-AERS provides a radiation therapy-only pathway for events experienced that involve 
radiation therapy only. These events must be reported via the CTEP-AERS radiation therapy-only 
pathway. 
 
In the rare event when Internet connectivity is disrupted, a 24-hour notification must be made to 1-
800-227-5463, ext. 4189, for instances when Internet fails. Once internet connectivity is restored, 
an AE report must be entered electronically into CTEP-AERS. 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
38
• 
CTEP-AERS-24 Hour Notification requires that a 24-hour notification is electronically 
submitted within 24 hours of learning of the adverse event. Each CTEP-AERS 24-hour 
notification must be followed by a CTEP-AERS 5 Calendar Day Report. Serious adverse 
events that require 24 hour CTEP-AERS notification are defined in the expedited 
reporting table below. 
• 
Supporting source document is not mandatory.  However, if the CTEP-AERS report 
indicates in the Additional Information section that source documentation will be provided, 
then it is expected.  If supporting source documentation accompanies an CTEP-AERS 
report, include the protocol number, patient ID number, and CTEP-AERS ticket number 
on each page, and fax supporting documentation to the dedicated SAE FAX, 215-717-
0990. 
• 
A serious adverse event that meets expedited reporting criteria outlined in the following 
table but is assessed by the CTEP-AERS System as “expedited reporting NOT required” 
must still be reported to fulfill NRG Oncology safety reporting obligations. Sites must 
bypass the “NOT Required” assessment; the CTEP-AERS System allows submission of 
all reports regardless of the results of the assessment.  
 
CTEP defines expedited AE reporting requirements for phase 2 and 3 trials as described in the 
table below. Important: All AEs reported via CTEP-AERS also must be reported on the AE 
section of the appropriate case report form (see Section 12.1). 
 
 
Phase 2 and 3 Trials Utilizing Agents under a non-CTEP IND: CTEP-AERS Expedited 
Reporting Requirements for Adverse Events that Occur within 30 Days1 of the Last Dose of 
the Commercially Available Agents in this Study (Arms 2 & 3) 
 
FDA REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR SERIOUS ADVERSE EVENTS (21 CFR Part 312) 
NOTE:  Investigators MUST immediately report to the sponsor (NCI) ANY Serious Adverse Events, 
whether or not they are considered related to the investigational agent(s)/intervention (21 CFR 
312.64) 
 An adverse event is considered serious if it results in ANY of the following outcomes:   
1) Death 
2) A life-threatening adverse event  
3) An adverse event that results in inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing 
hospitalization for ≥ 24 hours  
4) A persistent or significant incapacity or substantial disruption of the ability to conduct normal life 
functions  
5) A congenital anomaly/birth defect.  
6) Important Medical Events (IME) that may not result in death, be life threatening, or require 
hospitalization may be considered serious when, based upon medical judgment, they may 
jeopardize the patient or subject and may require medical or surgical intervention to prevent 
one of the outcomes listed in this definition. (FDA, 21 CFR 312.32; ICH E2A and ICH E6). 
 
ALL SERIOUS adverse events that meet the above criteria MUST be immediately reported to the NCI 
via CTEP-AERS within the timeframes detailed in the table below. 
Hospitalization 
Grade 1 
Timeframes 
Grade 2 
Timeframes 
Grade 3 
Timeframes 
Grade 4 & 5 
Timeframes 
Resulting in 
Hospitalization  
≥ 24 hrs 
10 Calendar Days 
24-Hour 5 Calendar 
Days 
Not resulting in 
Hospitalization  
≥ 24 hrs 
Not required 
10 Calendar Days 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
39
NOTE:  Protocol specific exceptions to expedited reporting of serious adverse events are found in 
the Specific Protocol Exceptions to Expedited Reporting (SPEER) portion of the CAEPR 
Expedited AE reporting timelines are defined as: 
o “24-Hour; 5 Calendar Days” - The AE must initially be reported via CTEP-AERS within 24 
hours of learning of the AE, followed by a complete expedited report within 5 calendar days 
of the initial 24-hour report. 
o “10 Calendar Days” - A complete expedited report on the AE must be submitted within 10 
calendar days of learning of the AE. 
1Serious adverse events that occur more than 30 days after the last administration of investigational 
agent/intervention and have an attribution of possible, probable, or definite require reporting as 
follows:  
Expedited 24-hour notification followed by complete report within 5 calendar days for: 
• 
All Grade 4, and Grade 5 AEs 
Expedited 10 calendar day reports for: 
• 
Grade 2 adverse events resulting in hospitalization or prolongation of hospitalization  
• 
Grade 3 adverse events 
2 For studies using PET or SPECT IND agents, the AE reporting period is limited to 10 radioactive 
half lives, rounded UP to the nearest whole day, after the agent/intervention was last 
administered.  Footnote “1” above applies after this reporting period. 
Effective Date: May 5, 2011 
 
Additional Instructions or Exceptions to CTEP-AERS Expedited Reporting Requirements 
for Phase 2 and 3 Trials Utilizing an Agent under a non-CTEP-IND: 
Not applicable to this study. 
 
8.0 SURGERY 
All patients must have undergone radical prostatectomy prior to being considered for enrollment in this 
study. Any type of radical prostatectomy will be permitted, including retropubic, perineal, laparoscopic 
or robotically assisted. If performed, the number of lymph nodes removed per side of the pelvis and 
the extent of the pelvic lymph node dissection (obturator vs. extended lymph node dissection) should 
be noted. 
 
9.0 OTHER THERAPY 
9.1 
Permitted Supportive Therapy 
All supportive therapy for optimal medical care will be given during the study period at the 
discretion of the attending physician(s) within the parameters of the protocol and documented on 
each site’s source documents as concomitant medication.  
9.1.1 
Antidiarrheals 
 
Antidiarrheals, such as loperamide hydrochloride or diphenoxylate-atropine, may be used as 
needed. The amounts of the drug(s) and dates used should be documented as much as possible. 
9.1.2 
Antispasmatics 
 
Antispasmatics, such as oxybutynin or tolterodine tartrate, may be used as needed. The amounts 
of the drug(s) and dates used should be documented as much as possible. 
9.1.3 
Alpha Blockers 
 
Alpha blockers, such as doxazosin mesylate, terazosin hydrochloride or tamsulosin hydrochloride 
may be used as needed. The amounts of the drug(s) and dates used should be documented as 
much as possible. 
9.1.4 
Analgesics 
 
Analgesics is a broad category, including non-narcotic and narcotic agents. The use of non-
narcotic 
agents, 
such 
as 
acetaminophen, 
non-steroidal 
anti-inflammatory 
agents 
or 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
40
phenazopyridine hydrochloride for radiotherapy treatment-related pain should be documented as 
much as possible. Narcotic use as a consequence of treatment should also be recorded. 
9.1.5 
Erectile Dysfunction 
 
Erectile dysfunction may be treated with medical management (e.g., phosphodiesterase 
inhibitors), vacuum pumps or other devices as appropriate. The amounts of the drug(s) used and 
the dates that medical management or the use of mechanical devices was started should be 
documented. 
9.2 
Treatment of Patients with Subsequent Disease Progression 
Treatment of patients who have failed salvage radiotherapy therapy by criteria described in 
Section 11 may receive additional medical or surgical therapies. The selection of these therapies 
will be left to the discretion of the treating physician. 
 
10.0 
TISSUE/SPECIMEN SUBMISSION (12/31/14) 
10.1 
General Information (22Jun2017)  
The NRG Oncology Biospecimen Bank at the University of California San Francisco acquires and 
maintains high quality specimens from NRG Oncology trials. Tissue from each block is preserved 
through careful block storage and processing. NRG Oncology encourages participants in protocol 
studies to consent to the banking of their tissue. The NRG Oncology Biospecimen Bank provides 
tissue specimens to investigators for translational research studies. Translational research studies 
integrate the newest research findings into current protocols to investigate important biologic 
questions. T  
 
In this study, tissue will be submitted to the NRG Oncology Biospecimen Bank for the purpose of 
tissue banking for biomarker studies (highly recommended but not required).  
 
(3/31/09) Biomarker studies are being done on all NRG Oncology prostatic cancer protocols using 
the original diagnostic material. The emphasis has been on proliferation markers (e.g., DNA-
ploidy, Ki-67), apoptotic pathway markers (e.g., p53, MDM2, bcl-2, bax, p16), and angiogenesis 
markers (e.g., COX-2, VEGF) [See Section 1.4]. These markers have shown promise in 
predicting prostate cancer patient outcome after definitive radiotherapy. A final decision on which 
markers will be studied awaits the results of completed NRG Oncology prostate cancer trials that 
have reached maturity (e.g., 86-10, 92-02, 94-13). The trial described here will not be ready for 
biomarker analysis for several years, with the exception of the Abeta analysis in serum, which will 
be conducted in conjunction with cognitive outcomes, for those who participate in the 
neurocognitive battery testing. The goal is to measure approximately 5-10 biomarkers using the 
archived pathologic material. 
 
10.2 
Specimen Collection for Tissue Banking for Biomarker Studies: Strongly recommended  
(22Jun2017) 
For patients who have consented to participate in the tissue/blood/urine component of the 
study (See sample consent). 
10.2.1 Sites may submit the following specimens: 
 
(22Jun2017) An H&E stained slide (can be a duplicate cut slide, does not have to be a diagnostic 
slide) and corresponding paraffin-embedded tissue block of the tumor (preferred) or at least 10 
unstained 5 micron sections on positively charged slides. If tumor heterogeneity is observed, the 
submission of multiple blocks, including tissue from the area having the highest Gleason score, is 
desirable. Note: Tissue block or slides must be clearly labeled with the pathology identification 
number that corresponds to the Pathology Report. 
 
 
The following must be provided in order for the case to be evaluable for the Biospecimen Bank: 
• 
A Pathology Report documenting that the submitted block contains tumor. The report 
must include the NRG Oncology protocol number and patient’s case number. The 
patient’s name and/or other identifying information should be removed from the report. 
The surgical pathology numbers and information must NOT be removed from the report. 
• 
A Specimen Transmittal Form clearly stating that tissue is being submitted for the NRG 
Oncology Biospecimen Bank; if for translational research, this should be stated on the 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
41
form. The form must include the NRG Oncology protocol number and patient’s case 
number.  
 
Serum, plasma, whole blood, and urine  
 
See Appendix IV for the blood and urine collection kits and instructions. Note: Kits include a label 
for shipping.  
 
 
The following must be provided in order for the case to be evaluable for the Biospecimen Bank: A 
Specimen Transmittal Form (STF) documenting the date of collection of the serum, plasma, 
whole blood, and/or urine; the NRG Oncology protocol number, the patient’s case number, and 
method of storage, for example, stored at -80° C, must be included. 
 
Specimen Collection Summary 
 
Specimen Collection for Tissue Banking 
Specimens taken from 
patient: 
Collected when: 
Submitted as: 
 
Shipped: 
Representative H&E stained 
slides of the primary tumor 
Pretreatment 
H&E stained slide 
Slide shipped ambient 
A paraffin-embedded tissue 
block or  3mm punches from 
block or 10-15 unstained slides 
on plus slides of the primary 
tumor taken before initiation of 
treatment  
Pretreatment 
Block or unstained slides 
or one to two 3mm punch 
biopsies from FFPE block 
Block or unstained slides 
shipped ambient 
 
SERUM: 5-10 mL of whole blood 
in 1 red-top tube and centrifuge 
Pretreatment 
Week 6 of RT 
3, 6, 12 months (±1 
month) after end of 
RT; then yearly for 6 
years (±2 months) 
Frozen serum samples 
containing 0.5 mL per 
aliquot in 1 mL cryovials 
(five )  
Serum sent frozen on 
dry ice via overnight 
carrier 
PLASMA: 5-10 mL of 
anticoagulated whole blood in 
EDTA tube #1 (purple/ lavender 
top) and centrifuge 
Pretreatment 
Week 6 of RT 
3, 6, 12 months (±1 
month) after end of 
RT; then yearly for 6 
years  (±2 months) 
Frozen plasma samples 
containing 
0.5 mL per aliquot in 
1 mL cryovials (five )  
Plasma sent frozen on 
dry ice via overnight 
carrier 
DNA: 5-10 mL of anticoagulated 
whole blood in EDTA tube #2 
(purple/ lavender top) and mix 
Pretreatment 
Week 6 of RT 
 
 
Frozen whole blood 
samples containing 
1 ml per aliquot in 1ml 
cryovials (three to five) 
Whole blood sent frozen 
on dry ice via overnight 
carrier 
10-20 mL clean-catch urine  
 
Pretreatment 
Week 6 of RT and 
Post-treatment at 
Year 5 after end of 
RT (±2 months)* 
One-two 5-10 mL urine 
aliquots in 1-2 sterile 15 
ml polypropylene 
centrifuge tube.   
Store frozen at  
-20 or 80 C  
Urine sent frozen on dry 
ice via overnight carrier 
in batches. Do not ship 
in Urine Cups. 
 
* Effective with amendment 6, urine will be collected only at year 5 after completion of RT. If sites 
collected urine at other timepoints (3, 6, and 12 months after RT, and yearly between 12 months 
and 5 years) prior to this change they should still submit them to the tis sue bank. 
 
10.2.2 Storage Conditions (10/22/09) 
 
Store at-80 C (-70C to -90C) until ready to ship. If a -80C Freezer is not available:  
• 
Samples can be stored short term in a -20 C freezer (non-frost free preferred) for up to 
one week (please ship out Monday-Wednesday only). 
OR: 
• 
Samples can be stored in plenty of dry ice for up to one week, replenishing daily (ship out 
Monday-Wednesday only). 
OR: 
• 
Samples can be stored in liquid nitrogen vapor phase (ship out Monday-Wednesday only). 
 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
42
Please indicate on Specimen Transmittal Form the storage conditions used and time stored. 
 
10.2.3 Submit materials for Tissue Banking as follows:  
U.S. Postal Service Mailing Address: For Non-frozen Specimens Only 
NRG Oncology Biospecimen Bank- San Francisco 
University of California San Francisco 
Campus Box 1800 
2340 Sutter Street, Room S341 
San Francisco, CA 94143-1800 
 
Courier Address (FedEx, UPS, etc.): For Frozen Specimens 
NRG Oncology Biospecimen Bank- San Francisco 
University of California San Francisco 
2340 Sutter Street, Room S341 
San Francisco, CA 94115 
 
Questions: 415-476-7864/FAX 415-476-5271; RTOG@ucsf.edu 
 
 
  
 
10.3 
Confidentiality/Storage  (15-Jan-2019) 
10.3.1 Upon receipt, the specimen is labeled with the NRG Oncology protocol number and the patient’s 
case number only. The NRG Oncology Biospecimen Bank database only includes the following 
information: the number of specimens received, the date the specimens were received, 
documentation of material sent to a qualified investigator, type of material sent, and the date the 
specimens were sent to the investigator. No clinical information is kept in the database. 
10.3.2 Specimens for tissue banking will be stored for an indefinite period of time. If at any time the 
patient withdraws consent to store and use specimens, the material will be returned to the 
institution that submitted it. 
 
11.0 
PATIENT ASSESSMENTS 
11.1 
Study Parameters: See Appendix I for a summary of assessments and time frames. 
11.2 
Evaluation During Treatment  (11/23/11) 
Radiotherapy for Arm 1 begins within 6 weeks (+/- 2 weeks) after registration. Radiotherapy 
for Arms 2 and 3 begins 2 months after the start of STAD (+/- 2 weeks). 
11.2.1 Prior to radiotherapy  
• 
The AUA SI questionnaire should be administered to all patients prior to protocol treatment. 
For patients on Arms 2 and 3, the AUA SI questionnaire should be administered within 2 
weeks of starting RT. 
• 
For all patients, including those on androgen deprivation (Arms 2 and 3), the following lab 
evaluations should be done within 30 days prior to starting treatment: CBC, AST or ALT, PSA, 
and testosterone. For patients on Arms 2 and 3, these same labs should be drawn within 2 
weeks of starting RT.  
• 
(3/31/09) The QOL measures (EPIC, HSCL-25, EQ-5D, and Utilization of Sexual Medications 
and/or Devices), the neurocognitive test battery (HVLT-R, Trail Making Test Parts A & B, and 
COWAT), and serum for biomarkers, including Beta Amyloid, will be obtained at pretreatment 
(baseline), if the patient has consented to participate in these components of the study. Note: 
Participation in the neurocognitive test battery is optional for the institution as well as the 
patient. Institutions participating in the neurocognitive test battery must follow the certification 
process (See Section 11.9.5 and Appendix V). 
11.2.2 During radiotherapy 
 
Patients will be seen and evaluated at least weekly during radiation therapy with documentation of 
performance status and tolerance, including acute reactions. 
• 
During week 6 of RT, a CBC, AST or ALT, and testosterone should be obtained.  
• 
During week 6 of RT, the AUA SI questionnaire should be administered. 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
43
• 
(3/31/09) The QOL measures (EPIC, HSCL-25, EQ-5D, and Utilization of Sexual Medications 
and/or Devices), the neurocognitive test battery (HVLT-R, Trail Making Test Parts A & B, and 
COWAT), and serum for Beta Amyloid also should be obtained during week 6 of RT, if the 
patient has consented to participate in these components of the study. Note: Participation in 
the neurocognitive test battery is optional for the institution as well as the patient. Institutions 
participating in the neurocognitive test battery must follow the certification process (See 
Section 11.9.5 and Appendix V). 
• 
If the patient has consented to participate in the tissue/blood component of the study, blood 
(serum, plasma, and whole blood) and urine will be collected during week 6 of RT. 
11.3 
Evaluation Following Radiotherapy  (11/16/15) 
11.3.1 At each follow-up visit (3, 6, and 12 months in year 1; q 6 months x 6 years, yearly thereafter 
unless otherwise indicated; all visits are +/-1month for two years and then +/-2 months thereafter), 
the patient will have an interval history, physical examination (including digital rectal examination), 
assessment of specific GU and GI toxicity, and the AUA SI questionnaire will be administered.  
11.3.2 The following lab evaluations will be done:  
• 
PSA will be drawn at 1.5 months (+/-2 weeks), 3 months (+/-1 month), 6 months (+/-1 month), 
9 months (+/-1 month) and 12 months (+/-1 month) after radiotherapy, at 3 month intervals 
(+/-1 month) for the next year. The type of PSA assay (e.g., Abbott) should be recorded on 
the data forms. 
• 
If the PSA is ≤ 0.1 ng/mL, PSA will be drawn as described in Section 11.3.2 and at 6-month 
intervals thereafter (+/-2 months).  
• 
If the PSA is ≥ 0.2 ng/mL, then PSAs should be obtained at 3-month intervals (+/-1 month) 
until the PSA is ≤ 0.1 ng/mL or greater than the nadir+2 ng/mL. If the PSA reverts to 
undetectable, then the frequency of PSAs will revert to that described in Section 11.3.2. 
Salvage therapy should not be initiated prior to the time at which the nadir+2 ng/mL 
endpoint is reached.  
• 
If the PSA is ≥ 0.2 ng/mL, then follow-up visits should continue at 6-month intervals until the 
PSA is greater than the nadir+2 ng/mL. Salvage therapy should not be initiated prior to the 
time at which the nadir+2 ng/mL endpoint is reached. 
• 
Serum testosterone will be obtained with each PSA measurement. 
• 
AST or ALT will be obtained at 1.5 (+/-2 weeks), 3 (+/-1 month), and 6 months (+/-1 month) 
after radiotherapy.  
• 
A CBC will be performed at 3 and 6 months (+/-1 month) after completion of RT. 
11.3.3 The patient should be followed at 3-month intervals (+/-1 month) if ≥ grade 2 GI or GU 
complications are present, unless these symptoms have been present for more than 6 months 
and are not changing.  
11.3.4 A bone scan and CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis will be performed as clinically indicated, 
such as if the patient develops a PSA recurrence with a doubling time < 10 months or if the 
patient develops symptoms suggesting the presence of metastatic disease. 
11.3.5 If the patient has consented to participate in the tissue/blood/urine component of the study, 
specimens are collected after completion of RT per Section 10 and Appendix IV.11.3.6
 
(3/31/09) If the patient has consented to participate in the QOL and neurocognitive 
component of the study, the QOL measures (EPIC, HSCL-25, EQ-5D, and Utilization of Sexual 
Medications and/or Devices) should be obtained at 1 and 5 years post-RT (+/-2 months). The 
neurocognitive test battery (HVLT-R, Trail Making Test Parts A & B, and the COWAT) should be 
obtained at 1 and 5 years post-RT (+/-2 months). Note: Participation in the neurocognitive test 
battery is optional for the institution as well as the patient. Institutions participating in the 
neurocognitive test battery must follow the certification process (See Section 11.9.5 and Appendix 
V). 
11.4 
Criteria for Freedom from Progression (FFP) 
 
The primary endpoint is FFP, which includes biochemical (PSA) failure, clinical failure, and death 
from any cause. 
11.4.1  Biochemical (PSA) Failure 
The biochemical failure endpoint is defined according to the proposed new Radiation Therapy 
Oncology Group/American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (RTOG-ASTRO) 
criteria (see Section 1.3), also known as the Phoenix definition. The Phoenix definition is an 
increase of the PSA level at least 2 ng/mL above the minimum level reached after therapy.43 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
44
Since the patients in this trial are status-post radical prostatectomy, about 70-80% will achieve an 
undetectable PSA. In these cases, a PSA of 2 ng/mL is evidence of biochemical failure.  All PSA 
levels done during a follow-up interval will be recorded on the data forms. The initiation of further 
“salvage” therapy in any form (e.g., androgen deprivation therapy, vaccine therapy, or 
chemotherapy) after completion of protocol treatment and prior to nadir + 2 ng/mL failure will not 
be counted as a failure and is strongly discouraged. The success of the trial depends upon 
allowing the nadir + 2 ng/mL failure criteria to be met before any other therapeutic 
intervention. 
11.4.2 Clinical Failure 
 
Clinical failure is defined as any evidence of local, regional or distant failure. 
11.4.3 Time to FFP 
 
Time to FFP will be measured from the date of randomization to the date of documented 
biochemical failure by the Phoenix definition, clinical failure, or death from any cause. 
11.5 
Criteria for Local Failure 
11.5.1 Local Failure 
 
Local failure is defined as the development of a new palpable abnormality in the prostate bed after 
enrollment in the protocol. The presence of a palpable abnormality in the prostate bed prior to 
randomization is not permitted unless it is biopsy proven to be negative for cancer.  Needle biopsy 
is recommended for any new palpable abnormality. Patients who have a normal exam and no 
evidence of biochemical failure by the primary endpoint will be considered controlled locally. 
Patients with a new prostatic fossa abnormality and biochemical failure will be considered to have 
local failure. Patients with a new prostatic fossa abnormality and no evidence of biochemical 
failure should undergo prostatic fossa biopsy.  If salvage therapy is instituted prior to biopsy of a 
new prostatic fossa abnormality, then these patients will be considered to have had local failure.   
The presence of palpable disease must be recorded on the data collection forms for follow-up 
evaluations of the patient. 
11.5.2 Biopsy of any new palpable abnormality in the prostatic fossa is recommended to document by 
histologic criteria the presence of prostatic adenocarcinoma. 
11.6 
Criteria for Nonlocal Failure 
11.6.1 Regional Metastasis 
 
Regional metastasis will be documented if there is radiographic evidence (CT or MRI) of 
lymphadenopathy (lymph node size ≥ 1.5 cm) in a patient without the diagnosis of a 
hematologic/lymphomatous disorder associated with adenopathy. Histologic confirmation is not 
required, although it is recommended in the setting of freedom from biochemical failure. 
11.6.2 Distant Metastasis 
 
Distant metastasis will be documented if by imaging (e.g., bone scan, CT, MRI) there is evidence 
of hematogenous spread.   
 
Time to Distant Failure 
  
The time to distant failure will be measured from the date of randomization to the date of 
documented distant disease. 
11.7 
Other Response Parameters 
11.7.1 Secondary Biochemical Failure Endpoint 
 
A more common biochemical endpoint used in the post-prostatectomy setting is a PSA ≥ 0.4 
ng/mL and rising (see Section 1.3). This endpoint requires that the PSA is detectable and rising 
for at least two values with the second value at 0.4 ng/mL or greater. 
 
Time to Secondary Biochemical Failure 
 
The time to a PSA of 0.4 ng/mL and rising will be calculated from the time of randomization to this 
event, with a minimum follow-up from randomization of 2 years. 
 
Hormone Refractory Disease 
 
The development of hormone disease will be defined as three rises in PSA after the institution of 
salvage hormone therapy. 
 
Time to Hormone Refractory Disease 
 
The time to hormone refractory disease will be calculated from the date of randomization to the 
date of the third rise in PSA. 
11.7.3 Cause-Specific Mortality 
 
Time to cause-specific mortality will be measured from the date of randomization to the date of 
death due to prostate cancer. Causes of death may require review by the study chair or their 
designee. Death due to prostate cancer will be defined as: 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
45
• 
Primary cause of death certified as due to prostate cancer or 
• 
Death in association with any of the following conditions: 
• 
Further clinical or biochemical tumor progression occurring after initiation of 
"salvage" anti-tumor (e.g., androgen deprivation) therapy; 
• 
Three consecutive rises in the serum PSA level at > 3-month intervals that occur 
during or after "salvage" androgen suppression therapy;  
• 
Disease progression in the absence of any anti-tumor therapy; 
• 
Death from a complication of therapy. 
11.7.4 Overall Mortality 
 
Time to overall mortality will be measured from the date of randomization to the date of death 
from any cause. A post-mortem examination will be performed whenever possible and a copy of 
the final post-mortem report will be sent to NRG Oncology. 
11.8 
Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) (12/10/13) 
Note: The Quality of Life component of this study closed to patient accrual on March 22, 2012. If 
the patient provided consent to participate in the quality of life component of this study prior to 
closure to new patient accrual, the site is required to administer the QOL assessments in follow 
up as specified in Appendix I of the protocol. 
11.8.1 Prostate Cancer-Specific Health-Related Quality of Life: EPIC 
 
The Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) is a prostate cancer health-related 
quality of life (HRQOL) patient self-administered instrument that measures a broad spectrum of 
urinary, bowel, sexual, and hormonal symptoms related to radiotherapy and hormonal therapy.57 
Instrument development was based on advice from an expert panel and prostate cancer patients, 
which led to expanding the 20-item University of California-Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index 
(UCLA-PCI) to the 50-item EPIC. Summary and subscale scores were derived by content and 
factor analyses. Test-retest reliability and internal consistency were high for EPIC urinary, bowel, 
sexual, and hormonal domain summary scores (each r ≥ 0.80 and Cronbach's alpha ≥ 0.82) and 
for most domain-specific subscales. Correlations between function and bother subscales within 
domains were high r > 0.60). Correlations between different primary domains were consistently 
lower, indicating that these domains assess distinct HRQOL components. EPIC domains had 
weak to modest correlations with the Medical Outcomes Study 12-item Short-Form Health Survey 
(SF-12), indicating rationale for their concurrent use. Moderate agreement was observed between 
EPIC domains relevant to the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Prostate module (FACT-
P) and the American Urological Association Symptom Index (AUA-SI), providing criterion validity 
without excessive overlap.89 Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices will be collected to provide 
a context for interpreting the sexual domain score of the EPIC questionnaire.  
 
 
EPIC is a robust prostate cancer HRQOL instrument that measures a broad spectrum of 
symptoms; however, to decrease patient burden we will only use the domains most pertinent to 
this study: urinary, bowel, sexual, and hormonal.  The domains were validated separately, and 
since each domain will be used intact, there is no threat to validity. Dutch and Japanese 
translations of the EPIC are available, and a Spanish translation is planned but not yet available. 
Sites 
can 
contact 
the 
Quality 
of 
Life/Outcomes 
Co-Chair, 
Dr. 
Bruner, 
deborah.w.bruner@emory.edu, to obtain translations. 
11.8.2 Mood and Depression: HSCL-25 
 
The 25-item version of the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL-25)90 will be used as a baseline 
and follow-up measure of depressive symptoms.90-92 The patient self-administered measure is 
closely related to the Brief Symptom Inventory93 and is widely used as a screening instrument in 
the cancer patient population. Using a cutoff of 44 and above for caseness, Hough and 
colleagues90 found that the HSCL-25 was comparable or superior to the Center for 
Epidemiological Studies–Depression Scale in detecting psychiatric disorder. Note: If the research 
nurse (or other person administering the QOL assessments) determines that a patient scores 44 
or greater on the HSCL-25, they should bring to the attention of the treating radiation oncologist 
that the patient is possibly depressed.  The treating physicians should evaluate the patient and 
consider treatment or a referral to a psychiatrist. 
 
 
The HSCL-25 has demonstrated reliability (Cronbach’s alpha >.90) and validity across a variety of 
general and medical populations.94 Patients can complete the HSCL-25 in approximately 3-5 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
46
minutes. The HSCL-25 has been translated into Bosnian, Cambodian, Japanese, Laotian, and 
Vietnamese. 
These 
translations 
can 
be 
ordered 
for 
a 
cost 
at 
http://www.hprt-
cambridge.org/Layer3.asp?page_id=10. 
11.9 
Neurocognitive Test Battery (12/10/13) 
Note: The neurocognitive test battery component of this study closed to patient accrual on March 
22, 2012. If the patient provided consent to participate in the neurocognitive test battery 
component (a part of Quality of Life component) of this study prior to closure to new patient 
accrual, the site is required to administer the neurocognitive assessments in follow up as specified 
in Appendix I of the protocol. 
 
 
The tests in the neurocognitive test cognitive battery were selected because they are widely-used 
standardized psychometric instruments that have been shown to be sensitive to the neurotoxic 
effects of cancer treatment in other clinical trials.95 The tests have published normative data that 
takes into account age, and where appropriate, education and gender. All of the tests have been 
translated into multiple languages. Sites can contact the Neuropsychology Co-Chair, Dr. Wefel, 
jwefel@mdanderson.org, to obtain translations.  
 
 
The tests are given by trained site administrators (see Section 11.9.5), and the total time for the 
cognitive assessment is approximately 20 minutes, as follows: 
 
Cognitive Domain 
Test 
Administration 
Time (minutes) 
Memory 
Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised 
(HVLT-R) 
5  
Verbal fluency 
Controlled Oral Word Association Test 
(COWAT) 
5 
Cognitive 
Processing Speed 
Trail Making Test, Part A 
2 
Executive Function 
Trail Making Test, Part B 
5 
 
11.9.1 Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised (HVLT-R)96 
 
The patient is asked to recall a list of 12 words in three semantic categories over three trials.  
After a delay of at least 15 minutes, the patient is asked to recall the words. The patient is then 
asked to identify the list words from distractors (both semantically related and unrelated). There 
are six alternate forms of this test to minimize practice effects.  The test measures learning 
efficiency (total words recalled, Trials 1–3), delayed memory retrieval (delayed recall), and 
consolidation (storage) of the information (delayed recognition). This measure has been widely 
used in clinical trials. 
 
11.9.2 Controlled Oral Word Association Test (COWAT)97 
 
This is a test of phonemic verbal fluency. The patient is asked to produce as many words as 
possible in 60 seconds beginning with a specified letter. There are two alternate forms of this test. 
11.9.3 Trail Making Test, Part A98 
 
This is a measure of visual-motor cognitive processing speed, requiring the patient to connect 
dots in numerical order from 1 to 25 as fast as possible. 
11.9.4 Trail Making Test, Part B98 
 
This is similar to Trail Making Test Part A, with the additional requirement of shifting mental set 
(an executive function). The patient connects dots alternating numbers and letters as fast as 
possible. 
11.9.5 Quality Assurance for Neurocognitive Test Administration (1/17/12) 
 
All persons administering the cognitive test battery must be certified.  Previous certification for 
RTOG 0212, RTOG 0214, RTOG 0424, or PCYC-0211A is not sufficient as the administration of 
the HVLT-R has been changed. However, previous certification for RTOG 0525, 0614, or 0825 
within the past 6 months will be accepted. Instructions for accessing the training video and post-
test are available from NRG Oncology (see “Neurocognitive Training Procedure Letter” on the 
NRG Oncology/RTOG website, www.rtog.org). Dr. Wefel, Neuropsychology Co-Chair and Chief 
ad interim of Neuropsychology at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, will oversee the training and will 
be available to answer questions. Certification procedures and test instructions are provided in 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
47
Appendix V. The instructions must be reviewed and retained for reference. Data forms are 
available from NRG Oncology. With training, administrators of the neurocognitive test battery 
should be able to complete testing in approximately 20 minutes. Note: Participation in the 
neurocognitive test battery is optional for the institution as well as the patient. Institutions 
participating in the neurocognitive test battery must follow the certification process (See Appendix 
V). 
11.10 
Beta-amyloid (Abeta) and Measures of Cognition and Mood and Depression (3/31/09) 
 
As a correlative study, serum levels of beta-amyloid (Abeta) will be assessed at the same time 
points as the HSCL-25, the HVLT-R, the COWAT, and the cognitive test battery; associations 
among Abeta levels and cognitive tests will be evaluated.  Beta-amyloid levels will be correlated 
with testosterone levels to further elucidate the mechanism of any cognitive decline.  
Note: Participation in the neurocognitive test battery is optional for the institution as well as the 
patient. However, even if participation in the neurocognitive test battery is declined, blood drawing 
for biosample collection and banking will continue as specified in Section 10.0 of the protocol for 
patients that agree to participate in banking. 
11.11 
Cost Utility Analysis: EuroQol (EQ-5D) 
The EQ-5D is a two-part patient self-administrated questionnaire that takes approximately 5 
minutes to complete.99 The first part consists of 5 items covering 5 dimensions including: mobility, 
self care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression.  Each dimension can be 
graded on 3 levels including:  1-no problems, 2-moderate problems, and 3-extreme problems. 
Health states are defined by the combination of the leveled responses to the 5 dimensions, 
generating 243 (35) health states to which unconsciousness and death are added.100 The second 
part is a visual analogue scale (VAS) valuing current health state, measured on a 20-cm 10-point 
interval scale.  Worst imaginable health state is scored as 0 at the bottom of the scale, and best 
imaginable health state is scored as 100 at the top. The Quality of Life/Outcomes Co-Chair, Dr. 
Bruner, will review and specify the VAS score for each case.  
 
Both the 5-item index score and the VAS score are transformed into a utility score between 0 
“Worst health state” and 1 “Best health state.” The index score or the VAS score or the cost-utility 
equation, can be used in the quality adjusted survival analysis depending on the health state(s) of 
interest.101 For this study we will plan to report both the multidimensional and the VAS utilities for 
comparative purposes between standardized HRQOL and current health state but will only use 
the multidimensional utilities for the cost-utility analysis. The EQ-5D has now been translated into 
most major languages, with the EuroQol Group closely monitoring the translation process; 
translations can be accessed at http://www.euroquol.com. 
  
 
12.0 
DATA COLLECTION  (15-Jan-2019) 
 
Data collection for this study will be done exclusively through the Medidata Rave clinical data 
management system.  Access to the trial in Rave is granted through the iMedidata application to 
all persons with the appropriate roles assigned in Regulatory Support System (RSS).  To access 
Rave via iMedidata, the site user must have an active CTEP-IAM account (check at < 
https://ctepcore.nci.nih.gov/iam  >) and the appropriate Rave role (Rave CRA, Read-Only, CRA 
(Lab Admin, SLA or Site Investigator) on either the LPO or participating organization roster at the 
enrolling site. 
 
Upon initial site registration approval for the study in RSS, all persons with Rave roles assigned on 
the appropriate roster will be sent a study invitation e-mail from iMedidata.  To accept the 
invitation, site users must log into the Select Login (https://login.imedidata.com/selectlogin) using 
their CTEP-IAM user name and password, and click on the “accept” link in the upper right-corner 
of the iMedidata page.  Please note, site users will not be able to access the study in Rave until all 
required Medidata and study specific trainings are completed.  Trainings will be in the form of 
electronic learnings (eLearnings), and can be accessed by clicking on the link in the upper right 
pane of the iMedidata screen. 
 
 
Users that have not previously activated their iMedidata/Rave account at the time of initial site 
registration approval for the study in RSS will also receive a separate invitation from iMedidata to 
activate their account.  Account activation instructions are located on the CTSU website, Rave tab 
under the Rave resource materials (Medidata Account Activation and Study Invitation 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
48
Acceptance).  Additional information on iMedidata/Rave is available on the CTSU members’ 
website under the Rave tab at www.ctsu.org/RAVE/ or by contacting the CTSU Help Desk at 1-
888-823-5923 or by e-mail at ctsucontact@westat.com.Data is to be entered into the legacy 
RTOG Data Center Logon.  
*If a data form is not available for web entry, it must be submitted to  
 
NRG Oncology* 
Attention-Data Management 
 1818 Market Street, Suite 1720 
 Philadelphia, PA  19103 
 
Patients will be identified by initials only (first middle last); if there is no middle initial, a hyphen will 
be used (first-last). Last names with apostrophes will be identified by the first letter of the last 
name. 
 
12.1 
Summary of Data Submission (12/10/13) 
 
 
 
Item 
Due 
Demographic Form (A5) 
Within 2 weeks of study entry 
Initial Evaluation Form (I1) 
Pathology Report (P1)  
Slides/Blocks (P2)  
 
American Urological Association Symptom 
Index (AUA SI) (PQ) 
 
HRQOL:  
EPIC (FA);  
HSCL-25 (HP);  
EQ-5D (QF) 
Utilization of Sexual Meds/Devices (SA) 
 
Neurocognitive Evaluation Summary Form (CS): 
HVLT-R;  
Trail Making Test, Parts A & B;  
COWAT 
 
Interim Follow-up Form (F0) 
Arms 2 and 3 only: Prior to RT start, 3 months 
after 
RT 
(includes 
report 
of 
androgen 
suppression treatment) 
 
 
Follow-up Form (F1) 
Arm 1: 3, 6, and 12 months after RT; then 
every 6 months x 6 years; then annually 
  
Arms 2 and 3: 6 and 12 months after RT, then 
every 6 months x 6 years; then annually  
 
 
Radiotherapy Form (T1) 
Within 1 week from end of RT 
 
 
(AUA SI) (PQ) 
Arm 1: During week 6 of RT; 3, 6, and 12 
months after RT; then every 6 months x 6 
years; then annually 
Arms 2 and 3: 2 weeks prior to RT start; 
during week 6 of RT; 3, 6, and 12 months 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
49
after RT; then every 6 months x 6 years; then 
annually 
 
 
Neurocognitive Evaluation Summary Form 
(CS): 
During week 6 of RT, 1 year and 5 years post-
RT 
HVLT-R;  
Trail Making Test, Parts A & B;  
COWAT 
 
 
HRQOL:  
EPIC (FA);  
HSCL-25 (HP);  
EQ-5D (QF) 
During week 6 of RT, 1 year and 5 years post-
RT 
Utilization of Sexual Meds/Devices (SA) 
 
 
 
Autopsy Report (D3) 
As applicable 
 
12.2 
Summary of Dosimetry Digital Data Submission for 3D-CRT or IMRT (Submit to TRIAD; see 
Section 5 for account access and installation instructions) [12/31/14] 
 
Item 
Preliminary Dosimetry Information (DD) 
Digital Data Submission – Treatment 
 
Digital data submission includes the following, all in DICOM format: 
 
• 
CT data, all critical normal structures, CTV and PTV contours 
• 
Digital beam geometry for initial and boost beam sets 
• 
Doses for initial, boost and composite concurrently treated beams 
• 
Digital DVH data for all required critical normal structures, CTV, and PTVs 
for total dose plan 
• 
All required structures MUST be labeled per the table in Section 6.4 
Upon submission of the digital data via TRIAD, complete an online Digital 
Data Submission Information Form (DDSI) (Form located on RTOG/NRG 
Oncology web site at 
http://www.rtog.org/ClinicalTrials/ProtocolTable/StudyDetails.aspx?study= 0534)   
Due 
Within 1 week of 
start of RT 
Final Dosimetry Information 
 
Radiotherapy Form (T1) 
Daily Treatment Chart (T5) [copy of RT treatment chart to HQ] 
 
Note: All simulation and portal images will be kept by the institution and submitted 
to NRG Oncology ONLY if specifically requested. 
 
 
Within 1 week of 
RT end 
 
 
 
13.0 
STATISTICAL CONSIDERATIONS 
13.1 
Study Endpoints  (11/23/11) 
13.1.1 Primary Endpoint 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
50
 
Freedom from progression (FFP): FFP (Section 11.4), will be the first occurrence of biochemical 
failure by the Phoenix definition (PSA ≥ 2 ng/ml over the nadir PSA),43 clinical  failure (local, 
regional or distant), or death from any cause. 
13.1.2 Secondary Endpoints 
• 
Secondary biochemical failure: See Section 11.7.1;  
• 
Hormone-refractory disease: See Section 11.7.2; 
• 
Local Failure: See Section 11.5.1; 
• 
Distant metastasis: See Section 11.6.2; 
• 
Cause-specific mortality: See Section 11.7.3;  
• 
Overall mortality: See Section 11.7.4; 
• 
Incidence of “acute” adverse events (based on CTCAE, v. 3.0.): The acute adverse events will 
be the first occurrence of worst severity of the adverse event ≤ 90 days of the completion of 
RT. 
• 
Time to “late” grade 2+ and 3+ adverse events (based on CTCAE, v. 3.0.): The time of a first 
late grade 2+ or 3+ adverse event, defined as > 90 days from the completion of RT.  
• 
Comparison of disease-specific health related quality of life (HRQOL) change by EPIC, HVLT-
R, Trail Making Test, parts A & B, and COWAT; 
• 
Assessment of mood and depression change using QOL measured by the HSCL-25; 
• 
Assessment and comparison of Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) and Quality Adjusted FFP 
Year (QAFFPY); 
• 
Evaluation and comparison of the cost-utility using EQ-5D; 
• 
Association between serum levels of beta-amyloid (Abeta) and measures of HSCL-25, the 
HVLT-R, Trail Making Test, parts A & B, or the COWAT. 
• 
Prognostic value of genomic and proteomic markers for the primary and secondary clinical 
endpoints. 
• 
To collect paraffin-embedded tissue blocks, serum, plasma, urine, and whole blood for future 
translational research analyses. 
• 
To assess the relationship(s) between the American Urological Association Symptom Index 
(AUA SI) and urinary morbidity (Adverse Event terms: Urinary frequency/urgency) using the 
CTCAE v. 3.0 grading system. 
13.2 
Sample Size 
13.2.1 Stratification and Randomization (1/8/09) (3/24/10) 
 
Patients will be stratified before randomization according to seminal vesicle involvement (No vs. 
Yes); prostatectomy Gleason score (≤ 7 vs. 8-9); pre-radiotherapy PSA (≥ 0.1 and ≤ 1.0 ng/ml vs. 
>1.0 and <2.0 ng/ml), and pathology stage (pT2 and margin negative vs. all others).  The 
treatment allocation scheme described by Zelen102 will be used because it balances patient 
factors other than institution. Patients will be randomized to PBRT alone (Arm 1), PBRT+NC-
STAD (Arm 2), or PLNRT+PBRT+NC-STAD (Arm 3).  The patients are randomized to one of 
three arms until a treatment effect is detected or the total information time is reached.  If a 
decision is made regarding treatment effect during the accrual, patients will be randomized as 
specified in Section 13.5.7. 
13.2.2 Sample Size Derivation 
 
The sample size calculation is based on the primary endpoint FFP rate by 5 years and the 
assumption that patients are randomized to all three arms until the end of accrual.  Based on the 
prior results from a multi-institutional pooled analysis35-36 we project that the rate of 5-year FFP of 
Arm 1, p1  is 70% and hypothesize a 10% improvement in patients treated in Arm 2,  i.e., p2=80%, 
and a 20% improvement in patients treated in Arm 3, i.e., p3=90%. The sample size calculation is 
based on the backward elimination decision rule in Chen and Simon103 because this approach has 
the least favorable configuration property. We assume that the three treatment arms are ranked 
with Arm 1 as the least favorable arm, Arm 2 as the second one,  and Arm 3 as the most 
favorable arm (p1 > p2  > p3).  We define the probability of selecting Arm i under hypothesis i (i=1, 
2, 3) as P (D=i | Hi) = 1- αi. The three hypotheses are as follows: 
  
H1: p1 = p2 = p3         where, P (D=1 | H1) = 1- α1 
H2: p1 + δσ = p2  = p3         where, P (D=2 | H2) = 1- α2 
H3: p1 + δσ = p2 + δσ = p3         where, P (D=3 | H3) = 1- α3 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
51
 
Assume that the rates for all three arms are independently approximately normally distributed and 
have the same variance σ2/n= 0.25/n.  We wish to detect a difference of 10% (δ*σ = δ*0.5 = 0.1). 
Assume that α1 =0.025, α2 =α3=0.15, and ζ=3.25 (from Table 4 in Chen and Simon103), the sample 
size for each treatment arm, n=2*ζ2/ δ2 = 2*3.252/ 0.22 = 529 patients are needed to have a 
statistical power of 90.1%.  
 
 
Three interim analyses and a final analysis are planned for early stopping for efficacy and futility. 
For efficacy, testing will be done at the significance level of 0.001, which is similar to the Haybittle-
Peto test104,105 and the futility testing is based on the Freidlin and Korn106 method.  Guarding 
against an ineligibility or lack-of-data rate of up to 10%, the final targeted accrual for this study will 
be 1764 (588 per arm) patients.   
13.3 
Patient Accrual  (11/23/11) 
The proposed trial, RTOG 0534, builds on the experience obtained in RTOG 96-01.  RTOG 96-01 
involved a similar group of patients treated postoperatively with salvage radiotherapy and accrued 
840 patients over 5 years at an average rate of 14 cases per month. As described above, we 
anticipate at the minimum a similar accrual rate; however, what is notable about the accrual in 
RTOG 96-01 is that at the end of the trial over 30 patients were being entered per month. There 
was an extended ramp-up period in RTOG 96-01; it took 2.5 years for accrual in RTOG 96-01 to 
reach 20 patients per month, and the trial reached targeted accrual and closed in less than five 
years.  We anticipate that accrual to RTOG 0534 will be faster during the ramp-up period because 
the group has experience in accruing postoperative patients to randomized trials. Moreover, in 
RTOG 0534, androgen deprivation therapy is only used for 4 months, whereas in RTOG 96-01, it 
was used for 2 years. Many men are reluctant to take prolonged androgen deprivation, and for 
this reason accrual to the new study might be more robust. We are conservatively estimating an 
average of 16 cases per month in the new trial.  We expect to complete accrual in 9.2 years.  
Based on patient accrual in previous RTOG randomized prostate studies, there will be relatively 
few entries during the initial 6 months while institutions are obtaining IRB approval.  The total 
duration of the study is expected to be 15 (14.7) years from the time the first patient is entered to 
the final analysis with 5 years of follow-up for each patient, and a uniform accrual rate of 16 
patients per month. 
 
The NRG Oncology Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) will begin evaluating patient accrual semi-
annually following the anticipated quiet period. In accordance with CTEP policies for slowly 
accruing trials, if the average monthly accrual rate for the trial in the fifth and sixth quarters after 
study activation (i.e., in months 13-18) is less than 20% of the rate projected in the paragraph 
above (i.e., less than 4 patients per month), the study will close to further accrual. If the average 
monthly accrual rate is greater than 20% but less than 50% of projected (i.e., less than 8 patients 
per month), the trial will be placed on probation for six months. If the average monthly accrual rate 
at the end of the probationary period is less than 50% of projected, the study will close to future 
accrual.  The participation of non-NRG Oncology institutions through CTSU is expected to follow a 
similar pattern as seen in NRG Oncology. 
13.4 
Power Calculations for Selected Secondary Endpoints 
13.4.1 Secondary Biochemical Failure 
 
The prior results from a multi-institutional pooled analysis35-36 show that Arm 1 has a 59% rate of 
5-year freedom from biochemical failure, and we project Arm 2 will have a 5-year freedom from 
biochemical failure rate of 69%, and Arm 3 will have a 7-year freedom from biochemical failure 
rate of 79%.  With 529 analyzable patients per arm, we would have at least 87% statistical power 
of detecting at least a 10% absolute improvement in the biochemical failure rate in Arm 2 by 5 
years compared to Arm 1 using a Z-test for the difference between the two rates with the standard 
errors estimated by Greenwood’s method at the 0.0125 significance level.  Also, with 529 
analyzable patients per arm, we would have at least 93% statistical power of detecting at least a 
10% absolute reduction in the biochemical failure rate in Arm 3 at 5 years compared to Arm 2 
using a Z-test for the difference between the two rates with the standard errors estimated by 
Greenwood’s method at the 0.0125 significance level. 
13.4.2 Overall Mortality (1/8/09) 
 
The prior results from a multi-institutional pooled analysis36 show that Arm 1 has an 85% rate of 
10 year overall survival, which translates to a yearly hazard rate of 0.0163.  Based on this result, 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
52
we project Arm 2 will have a 10-year overall survival rate of 90%, which translates to a yearly 
hazard rate of 0.0105, and Arm 3 will have a 10-year overall survival rate of 95%, which translates 
to a yearly hazard rate of 0.0051.  With 529 analyzable patients per arm, we would have at least 
47% statistical power of detecting at least a 6% (or a hazard rate of 0.648) relative reduction in the 
yearly overall survival rate using a one-sided log-rank test at the 0.0125 significance level for 
patients in Arm 2. Also, with 496 analyzable patients per arm,  we would have at least 46% 
statistical power of detecting at least a 6% (or a hazard rate of 0.487) relative reduction in the 
yearly overall survival rate using a one-sided log-rank test at the 0.0125 significance level for 
patients in Arm 3 compared to Arm 2. 
13.4.3 Genomic and Proteomic Biomarkers (1/8/09) 
 
Genomic or proteomic biomarkers will be categorized into either overexpressed or 
underexpressed. At a minimum, the analyses will include DNA-ploidy, Ki-67, p53, MDM2, bcl-2, 
bax, p16 and Cox-2. These biomarkers have shown promise in complementing the standard 
clinical parameters of PSA, Gleason score, and stage in prior analyses of men treated primarily 
for prostate cancer with RT.  While these markers have been selected based on prior analyses, it 
is likely that some other markers and/or methods will be investigated when the proposed trial 
matures.  Group 1 denotes a group with a better survival rate and Group 0 denotes the adverse 
group with the overexpressed or underexpressed marker.  Tests will be performed to determine 
whether there is a difference in the survival functions for the primary endpoint, secondary 
biochemical failure, hormone refractory disease, distant metastasis, cause-specific survival, and 
overall survival.  The number of events needed to obtain 1-β statistical power under these 
assumptions is calculated based on Schoenfeld.107 In treatment efficacy trials, the targeted hazard 
ratios are usually not that large and the Schoenfeld formula works well.  
 
Nd = (z + z)2/[(log())2P0P1] 
Where Pi   = the proportion of patients allocated to group I.  i=0,1 
Λ = λ0/ λ1 (>1) 
nd   = The number of events (failure) 
Zu=the uth percentile of the standard normal distribution 
 
 
Tables 2 through 9 show the number of events for each biomarker required to demonstrate the 
hazard ratio Λ at a significance level α = 0.025 with statistical power of 80% and 90%.  P0 or P1 
values for each biomarker are based on the previous studies. 
 
Table 2:  Number of events for Ki-67: P0  or P1=46%  
 
 
 
Table 3: Number of events for p53: P0  or  P1=22% 
 
 
STATISTICAL POWER  
HAZARD RATIO ( Λ) 
1.5 
1.75 
2 
 
90% 
258 
136 
89 
 
80% 
193 
101 
66 
 
 
STATISTICAL POWER  
HAZARD RATIO ( Λ) 
1.5 
1.75 
2 
 
90% 
373 
196 
128 
 
80% 
279 
147 
96 
 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
53
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4: Number of events for MDM2: P0  or P1=50% 
 
Table 5:  Number of events for Bcl-2: P0  or P1=20% 
 
Table 6: Number of events for Bax: P0  or P1=47% 
 
 
 
 
STATISTICAL POWER 
 (ZΒ) 
HAZARD RATIO ( Λ) 
1.5 
1.75 
2 
 
90% 
256 
135 
88 
 
80% 
191 
101 
66 
 
 
STATISTICAL POWER 
 (ZΒ) 
HAZARD RATIO ( Λ) 
1.5 
1.75 
2 
 
90% 
400 
210 
137 
 
80% 
299 
157 
103 
 
 
STATISTICAL POWER 
 (ZΒ) 
HAZARD RATIO ( Λ) 
1.5 
1.75 
2 
 
90% 
257 
135 
88 
 
80% 
192 
101 
66 
 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
54
 Table 7:  Number of events for Cox-2: P0  or P1=50% 
             
 
 
 
 
Table 8:  Number of events for DNA-ploidy: P0  or P1=40% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 9:  Number of events for p16: P0 or P1= 27% 
 
13.5 
Analysis Plan (22Jun2017) 
All eligible patients who are randomized to the study will be included in the comparison of 
treatment arms (intent-to-treat analysis). 
13.5.1 Analysis of the Primary Endpoint (1/8/09) 
 
FFP failure will be the first occurrence of local failure, regional failure, distant metastasis, 
biochemical failure defined by the Phoenix definition (PSA ≥ 2 ng/ml + nadir PSA), or death from 
any cause. Patients who are event free with less than 5 years of follow-up or who receive any 
secondary salvage therapy (e.g., salvage androgen deprivation, vaccine therapy, biologic/small 
molecule therapy, or chemotherapy) will be censored. The primary endpoint FFP rate by 5 years 
is defined as the proportion of patients with a FFP failure by 5 years from the randomization 
among all eligible patients at baseline and will be estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. The Z-
test statistic for the difference between the two rates with the standard errors estimated by 
 
STATISTICAL POWER  
(ZΒ) 
HAZARD RATIO ( Λ) 
1.5 
1.75 
2 
 
90% 
256 
135 
88 
 
80% 
191 
101 
66 
 
 
STATISTICAL POWER 
 (ZΒ) 
HAZARD RATIO ( Λ) 
1.5 
1.75 
2 
 
90% 
267 
140 
92 
 
80% 
199 
105 
69 
 
 
STATISTICAL POWER 
(ZΒ) 
HAZARD RATIO ( Λ) 
 
 
 
 
1.5 
1.75 
2 
 
90% 
325 
171 
111 
 
80% 
243 
128 
83 
 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
55
Greenwood’s method will be used with an overall significance level of 0.025. The following test 
statistics will be used for testing between Arm i and Arm j.   
  









j
i
n
i
j
j
j
j
j
n
i
i
i
i
i
i
j
i
ij
f
r
r
f
p
f
r
r
f
p
p
p
T
1
2
1
2
)
(
ˆ
)
(
ˆ


 
where, 
i,j 
=1,2,3            
eq (1) 
 
 
where, 
ipis FFP rate of Arm i estimated by Kaplan-Meier method, ri is the number of patients 
who are at risk and fi is the number of patients who have FFP events.  Using the backward 
elimination decision procedure, we will first compare Arm 3 with Arm 2 at a critical value (Z-score) 
of 1.6249. The following hypotheses are of interest to be tested, where, p1, p2, and p3 are the rate 
of 5-year FFP of Arm 1, Arm 2 and Arm 3, respectively. 
 H01: p3 ≤ p2    vs.    HA1: p3 > p2  
If Arm 3 is not better than Arm 2 (p3 ≤ p2), then we compare Arm 2 with Arm 1. If Arm 3 is better 
than Arm 2 (p3 > p2), then we compare Arm 3 with Arm 1.   
 
If H01 is rejected (T23 > 1.6249), then we conclude that Arm 3 is better than Arm 2 and the 
following hypotheses are tested. 
H02: p3 ≤ p1    vs.    HA2: p3 > p1 
If the H02 is rejected (T13 > 2.0768), then we conclude that the 5-year FFP of Arm 3 will be better 
than Arm 1.  If the H02 is not rejected (T13 ≤ 2.0768), then we conclude that the 5-year FFP of Arm 
3 will not be better than Arm 1.  
 
If H01 is not rejected (T23 ≤ 1.6249), then we conclude that Arm 3 is not better than Arm 2 and the 
following hypotheses are tested. 
H02: p2≤ p1    vs.    HA2: p2 > p1 
If the H02 is rejected (T12 > 2.0768), then we conclude that the 5-year FFP of Arm 2 will be better 
than Arm 1.  If the H02 is not rejected (T12 ≤ 2.0768), then we conclude that the 5-year FFP of 
Arm 2 will not be better than Arm 2.   
 
In addition, univariate and multivariate logistic regression108 will be used to compare the treatment 
differences in each hypothesis.  Odds ratios from univariate and multivariate logistic regression 
and the respective 97.5% confidence intervals will be computed. Treatment arm, SV involvement, 
prostatectomy Gleason score, pre-radiotherapy PSA, pathology stage, age, and race (as 
appropriate) will be adjusted for in the Multivariate analysis. 
13.5.2 Biochemical Failure-Related Endpoints (1/8/09) 
 
The secondary biochemical failure (BF) endpoint is defined as having a detectable PSA (PSA 
 
≥ 0.1 ng/ml) and rising for at least two values with the second value at 0.4 ng/ml or greater, or the 
initiation of salvage therapy.  Hormone refractory disease is defined as three rises in PSA after the 
institution of second salvage hormone therapy.  The rate pi (i=1, 2, 3) is defined as the proportion 
of patients with an event among all eligible patients at baseline in Arm i. The Z-test statistics for 
the difference between the two rates with the standard errors estimated by Greenwood’s method, 
eq. (1), will be used with an overall significance level of 0.025. In the test statistics, 
ipis the rate 
of Arm i estimated by Kaplan-Meier method, ri is the number of patients who are at risk and fi is 
the number of patients who have events by 5 years.  Using the backward elimination decision 
procedure, we first compare Arm 3 with Arm 2. The following hypotheses are of interest to be 
tested, where, p1, p2, and p3 are the rate of 5-year of Arm 1, Arm 2 and Arm 3, respectively. 
 H01: p3 ≤ p2    vs.    HA1: p3 > p2  
If Arm 3 is not better than Arm 2 (p3 ≤ p2), then we compare Arm 2 with Arm 1. If Arm 3 is better 
than Arm 2 (p3 > p2), then compare Arm 3 with Arm 1.   
If H01 is rejected (T23 > 1.6249), then we conclude that Arm 3 is better than Arm 2 and the 
following hypotheses are tested. 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
56
H02: p3 ≤ p1    vs.    HA2: p3 > p1 
If the H02 is rejected (T13 > 2.0768), then we conclude that the 5-year rate of Arm 3 will be better 
than Arm 1.  If the H02 is not rejected (T13 ≤ 2.0768), then we conclude that the 5-year rate of Arm 
3 will not be better than Arm 1.  
If H01 is not rejected (T23 ≤ 1.6249), then we conclude that Arm 3 is not better than Arm 2 and the 
following hypotheses are tested. 
H02: p2≤ p1    vs.    HA2: p2 > p1 
If the H02 is rejected (T12 > 2.0768), then we conclude that the 5-year rate of Arm 2 will be better 
than Arm 1.  If the H02 is not rejected (T12 ≤ 2.0768), then we conclude that the 5-year rate of 
Arm 2 will not be better than Arm 2.  
 
In addition, the univariate and multivariate logistic regression will be used to compare the 
treatment differences in each hypothesis.  Odds ratios from the univariate and multivariate logistic 
regression and the respective 97.5% confidence interval will be computed. The treatment arm, SV 
involvement, prostatectomy Gleason score, pre-radiotherapy PSA, pathology staging, age, and 
race (as appropriate) will be adjusted for in the multivariate analysis.   
13.5.3 Time to Failure of Secondary Survival Endpoints (1/8/09) 
 
The time to failure for secondary endpoints (second biochemical failure, hormone refractory 
disease, distant metastasis, cause-specific mortality, and overall mortality) will be measured from 
the date of randomization to the date of the event of interest.  The events for secondary endpoints 
and time-to-events are defined in Sections 11.4-11.7.  Using the backward elimination decision 
procedure, we will first compare Arm 3 with Arm 2 at the significance level of 0.0125.  If Arm 3 is 
not better than Arm 2, then Arm 2 will be compared with Arm 1 at the significance level of 0.0125. 
If we conclude that Arm 2 will be better than Arm 1, then we can conclude that the 5-year FFP of 
Arm 2 will be the best.  If Arm 3 is better than Arm 2, then Arm 3 will be compared with Arm 1 at 
the significance level of 0.0125.  If we conclude that Arm 3 will be better than Arm 1, then we can 
conclude that Arm 3 will be the best.  The time-to-event distribution of overall mortality will be 
estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method109 and the log-rank test110-111 will be used to test 
whether the overall mortality rate in one arm is higher than the other arm for each hypothesis at 
the significance level of 0.0125.  However, the treatment effect on other types of failure may 
impact the observable measures of distant metastasis and cause-specific mortality and other 
competing risks may dilute the sensitivity of hormone refractory disease, distant metastasis and 
cause-specific mortality.106 We will use the cause-specific hazard rate112-113 (the instantaneous 
rate of cause-specific mortality in the presence of competing failure types as a function of time) 
approach to consider the competing events. Freidlin and Korn106 showed that the cause-specific 
hazard rate approach is better than other approaches, for example, the cumulative incidence 
method,114in most cases.  The log-rank test on the times to the specific type of failure, which 
considers the presence of competing events, will be used to test whether the survival rates of 
these secondary endpoints in one arm are higher than that of the other arm for each hypothesis at 
a significance level of 0.0125.  In this approach, patients who experience other failure first are 
censored.112 
 
In addition, the Cox regression model115 will be used to compare the treatment differences. Both 
unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios and the respective 97.5% confidence interval will be 
computed.  At least the treatment arm, the stratification variables (SV involvement, prostatectomy 
Gleason score, pre-radiotherapy PSA, pathology stage), age, and race (as appropriate) will be 
adjusted for in this analysis.   
13.5.4 Comparison of the Incidence of Acute Toxicity and Time to Late Grade 3+ Toxicity (1/8/09) 
 
Adverse events are scored according to CTCAE, v. 3.0.  An acute adverse event will be defined 
as the worst severity of the adverse event occurring less than or equal to 90 days of treatment.  
Both acute grade 2+ and 3+ toxicity will be examined separately. Univariate logistic regression107 
will be used to model the distribution of acute adverse events.  Multivariate logistic regression107 
will be used to model the distribution of acute adverse events, adjusting for covariates. Treatment 
arm, SV involvement, prostatectomy Gleason score, pre-radiotherapy PSA, pathology stage, and 
age (as appropriate) will be adjusted for in the multivariate analysis.  Both unadjusted and 
adjusted odds ratios (H1: Arm 1 vs. Arm 2 and H2: Arm 2 vs. Arm 3, respectively) and the 
respective 97.5% confidence interval will be computed and tested using a one-sided chi-square 
test with the significance level of 0.025 for each hypothesis.   

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
57
 
 
 
Late grade 2+ or 3+  adverse events will be defined as an a grade 2+ or 3+ adverse events 
occurring more than 90 days of the  completion of treatment.  The time to late grade 2+ or 3+ 
adverse events will be measured from the  time protocol treatment started to the time of the worst 
late grade 2+ or  3+ adverse event, respectively.  If no such late adverse event is observed until 
the time of the analysis, the patient will be censored at the time of the analysis. The distribution of 
time to late grade 2+ or 3+ adverse events will be estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method109 
and tested using a one-sided log-rank test110-111 with the significance level of 0.025 for each 
hypothesis.  A multivariate Cox regression model115 will be used to compare the treatment 
differences of time to late adverse event.  Both unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios (H1: Arm 1 
vs. Arm 2 and H2: Arm 2 vs. Arm 3, respectively) and the respective 97.5% confidence interval will 
be computed. Treatment arm, SV involvement, prostatectomy Gleason score, pre-radiotherapy 
PSA, pathology stage, age, and race (as appropriate) will be adjusted for in this analysis. 
 
 
A Chi-square test will be used at a significance level of 0.05 to test the correlation between the 
common toxicity categories in the American Urological Association Symptom Index (AUA SI) and 
urinary morbidity (Adverse Event terms: Urinary frequency/urgency) using the CTCAE v. 3.0.   
13.5.5 Modeling the Relationship of Genomic and Proteomic Biomarkers to the Study Endpoints (1/8/09) 
 
At the time of data maturity of this study, we will propose specific details of the markers to be 
investigated.  We will address the assays that will be used and a list of specific correlative aims 
with appropriate statistical considerations. The following is a general guideline for the statistical 
consideration for this analysis. This analysis will be done in each arm separately to test the 
prognostic vales of biomarkers.   
 
 
A genomic or proteomic biomarker will be categorized into two subgroups based upon previously 
defined (or hypothesized) cut-off points and these two groups will be referred to as favorable and 
unfavorable risk groups.  The patients with genomic and proteomic biomarkers will be compared 
with the patients without a value for that biomarker to determine if there are any differences with 
respect to distribution of baseline variables (SV involvement, prostatectomy Gleason score, pre-
radiotherapy PSA, and pathology stage).  We want to know if there is a difference in survival rate 
between these two groups. The null (H0) and alternative (HA) hypotheses for survival distribution 
(S) are  
 
 
 
H0: S0 (t) ≥ S1(t)  vs.  HA: S0 (t) < S1(t) , where t is time   
 
 
Tests will be performed to see if one group is statistically significantly better than the other in the 
primary endpoint and secondary endpoints that are related to time to failure (hormone refractory 
disease, distant metastasis, cause-specific survival, and overall survival).  However, the selection 
of the cut-off point for each biomarker is not established.  If the hypothesized cut-off points do not 
yield statistical significance, other cut-off points may be evaluated. Therefore, various cut-off 
points are evaluated for their statistical significance. To correct the problem from the multiple 
testing, the Bonferroni correction will be used.  The overall survival functions will be estimated by 
the Kaplan-Meier method and will be tested for the overall survival difference between the 
favorable and unfavorable groups using the log-rank test.  We will use the cause-specific hazard 
rate approach106 to estimate other survival/failure distributions and test the survival/failure 
difference between the two groups using the cause-specific log-rank test.  The multivariate 
analysis will be performed using the Cox proportional hazards model115 for both groups. Potential 
covariates evaluated for the multivariate models are SV involvement, prostatectomy Gleason 
score, pre-radiotherapy PSA, pathology stage, and assigned treatment.  A stepwise procedure will 
be used to develop the base model for each outcome endpoint prior to evaluating the prognostic 
impact of the biomarkers.  This approach will be employed to account for as much variation as 
possible for each outcome before it is tested.  It is entirely possible that factors shown to be 
prognostic in other published series may not be found prognostic here. 
 
If high-dimensional data, such as two-color Microarray data, are generated from blood/urine-
based proteomic and genomic data, the following guideline could be applied for the data pre-
processing. A careful examination of array images of each gene’s spots on the array images will 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
58
be carried out to find the spots affected by experiment artifacts. This is a general guideline for the 
statistical consideration for the two-color Microarray data analysis. 
 
We will not include genes whose intensity is less than 100116-117 n both green and red intensities. 
Local background hybridization signals will be subtracted from the intensities. Let Rj be the 
background-adjusted fluorescence intensity for the cancer or benign sample and Gj be the 
background-adjusted fluorescence intensity for the reference sample for gene j on a particular 
array. The gene expression ratio is computed as Rj /Gj and undergoes normalization and 
transformation to the log-2 scale. Normalization will be applied to remove systematic differences 
due to extraneous factors such as array effects, global dye effects, print tip effects, etc. Simple 
normalization methods such as global median centering116 will be considered as well as more 
complex methods such as print tip-specific corrections and intensity-based normalization methods 
such as lowess smoothing118 if diagnostic plots (e.g., M vs A plots119) suggest they are needed. 
These log-transformed, normalized gene expression ratios are used as the basic data in 
subsequent analyses.   If one of the two intensities in a spot is less than 100, that intensity will be 
set to 100.  Genes with greater than 20% of spots missing intensities will be removed from the 
analysis. For remaining genes, individual missing log ratio values will be imputed using the k-
nearest neighbors approach, with k = 10.120 
 
The high-dimensional data from patients who yield both pre- and post-treatment tissue specimens 
will be used to see the gene expression difference. Let m be the number of genes that will be 
tested. Let diij be the gene expression difference between pre- and post- treatment for patient i 
and gene j on a treatment arm. Denote the mean difference between pre- and post- treatment 
gene expression for gene j as Dj.  A test will be conducted to test the following null (H0) and 
alternative (HA) hypotheses for each gene:  
H0: Dj  = 0 vs. HA: Dj  ≠ 0  
 
We will control the false discovery proportion when a test for a gene is called significant. A paired 
t-test will be used to calculate the unadjusted univariate p-value for each gene. We will identify all 
genes with adjusted p-values121 ≤ 0.05 as being differentially expressed between pre- and post-
treatment to be 95% confident that the false discovery proportion is no more than 10%.  
13.5.6 Analysis for Endpoints Related to Quality of Life (QOL) [2/13/08] [1/8/09] 
 
Patient accrual for the QOL measurements will be limited to 200 cases in each arm. 
We will use seven instruments to assess quality of life (QOL): the Expanded Prostate Cancer 
Index 
(EPIC), 
EPIC 
Sexual 
Medications/Devices 
Supplement 
(Utilization 
of 
Sexual 
Meds/Devices), the 25-item version of the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL-25), the EuroQol 
(EQ-5D), Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised (HVLT-R), Trail Making Test, parts A & B, and 
the Controlled Oral Word Association Test (COWAT).  Protocol eligible patients will be included in 
the QOL analysis only if they agree to participate in the QOL portion of this study. All the QOL 
instruments (EPIC, Utilization of Sexual Meds/Devices, HSCL-25, EQ-5D, HVLT-R, Trail Making 
Test, parts A & B, and COWAT) will be collected on all cases participating in the trial.  To 
minimize missing QOL data, we have included detailed instructions for collection of QOL and what 
to do if the patient misses a scheduled assessment, and RTOG provides individualized patient 
calendars available to Investigators and Research Associates 24/7 on the NRG Oncology/RTOG 
web site.   
 
 
We will describe the distributions of QOL data collection patterns over all collection points in each 
treatment arm. Longitudinal data analysis, specifically the general linear mixed-effect model122 will 
be performed to describe the change trend of the EPIC, Utilization of Sexual Meds/Devices, 
HVLT-R, Trail Making Test parts A & B, COWAT, HSCL-25, and EQ-5D scores over time across 
the three treatments.  The primary objective in HRQOL analysis is to determine the QOL 
differences. The response will be the change of measurement from baseline for each 
measurement.  The model will include the baseline and stratification variables (SV involvement, 
prostatectomy Gleason score, pre-radiotherapy PSA, pathology stage). 
 
 
The EPIC and HSCL-25 will be collected at pretreatment (baseline), the end of RT, and at 1 year 
and 5 years after therapy starts.  Patient self-assessment of symptoms will be performed using 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
59
four primary EPIC domains: urinary, bowel, sexual, and hormonal symptoms.  The data about the 
use of erectile aids from Utilization of Sexual Meds/Devices will be reported along with question 
17-b in the EPIC. The HSCL-25 has 25 items and is scored by a four point Likert scale (1-not at 
all, 2-a little, 3-quite a bit, and 4-extremely).  A higher score means a worse mood or depression.   
The HVLT-R, Trail Making Test, parts A & B, and COWAT will be collected at pretreatment 
(baseline), the end of RT, and at 1 year after the therapy starts. There are three immediate recall 
responses, one delayed recall response, and one delayed recognition response in the HVLT-R.  
The response is the number of words the patient can recall out of 12 words for recall responses 
and the difference of the listed words correctly and incorrectly recalled for recognition response.  
The response from Trail Making Test, parts A & B is the time takes to finish each test less than 3 
and 5 minutes, respectively. There are three responses for the COWAT, and each response is the 
number of words starting with a provided letter of the alphabet that the patient can produce in one 
minute.  The EQ-5D will be collected at pretreatment (baseline), at 1 year and 5 years after 
therapy starts. The EQ-5D is a two-part self-assessment questionnaire. The first part consists of 5 
items covering 5 dimensions (mobility, self care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and 
anxiety/depression).  Each dimension is measured by a three point Likert scale (1-no problems, 2-
moderate problems, and 3-extreme problems). There are 243 (=35) health states. The second 
part is a visual analog scale (VAS) valuing the current health state measured by 100 point scale 
with 10 point interval (0-worst imaginable health state, 100-best imaginable health state). The 
QOL Co-Chair, Dr. Bruner, will review and specify the VAS score for each case. We will transform 
the 5-item index score and VAS score into a utility score between 0 (Worst health state) and 1 
(Best health state) for comparative purposes.  
 
 
We hypothesize that the measurements from EPIC, HVLT-R, Trail Making Test, parts A & B, and 
COWAT will be worse in the arms with NC-STAD than in the PBRT arm.  We also hypothesize 
that measurements from HSCL-25 will be lower in the arms with NC-STAD than in the PBRT arm.  
For all QOL analyses, we will conduct two comparisons between the two treatment arms (Arm 1 
vs. Arm 2 and Arm 1 vs. Arm 3) with a two-sided test.  The significance level α for the pair-wise 
comparison will be adjusted by the Bonferroni method123 to α =0.05/2 to maintain the overall 
significance level of α =0.05.  To address the non-ignorable missing data caused by censoring 
survival time, the data analysis also will include patients who have not died. 
 
 
 
The required sample size per treatment arm when we use 1 domain is 64 with 80% statistical 
power and 86 with 90% statistical power, respectively, based on an effect size of 0.5 according to 
the EPIC web site.124 The required sample size per treatment arm when we use 4 domains is 91 
with 80% statistical power and 116 with 90% statistical power, respectively, based on an effect 
size of 0.5.  Therefore, there will be sufficient statistical power to detect a difference of 0.5 in four 
domain scores of HRQOL measurements in the EPIC instrument among the treatment arms. 
Because the participation rate in QOL assessments will be less than 100%, the expected sample 
size for the QOL analysis must be adjusted according to the participation rate. Table 11 shows 
adjusted sample sizes for a range of participation rates. Considering the possible low response 
rate, 200 cases per arm are required. Accrual for the QOL studies will be limited to 200 cases per 
randomization arm. 
 
Table 11: Adjusted sample size* per treatment with four domains in EPIC 
RESPONSE RATE 
80% POWER 
90% POWER 
100% 
91 
116 
90% 
102 
129 
80% 
114 
145 
70% 
130 
166 
60% 
152 
194 
 
 
*The sample size is calculated by dividing the sample size at 100% by participation rate 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
60
 
To examine trade-offs between the survival time and QOL, we will combine them for each patient 
into two single measurements: Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) and Quality Adjusted FFP Year 
(QAFFPY).  If (and only if) the primary endpoint hypothesis is substantiated, we will conduct a 
cost-utility analysis. The cost-utility analysis will not be done until after the primary endpoint results 
are published.  QALY and QAFFPY are defined by the weighted sum of different time episodes 
added up to a total quality-adjusted survival time and a total quality-adjusted FFP time, 
respectively.  These health state-based methods of quality-adjusted survival analysis are known 
as Q-TwiST,79 the quality-adjusted time without symptoms and toxicity method. 
 
Q-TwiST = ∑i=1k qi si 
 
 
where qi is the quality (the utility coefficient) of health state i, si is the duration spent in each health 
state, and k is the number of health states. We will use Glasziou’s multiple health-state (Q-TwiST) 
models125 to use the repeated measures of EQ-5D.  Because Glasziou’s method incorporates 
longitudinal QOL data into an analysis of quality-adjusted survival, the health-stated model must 
be constructed on the following assumptions:  
 
 
A1) QOL is independent from treatment.  
 
 
A2) A health state is independent from previous states. 
 
A3) Proportionality of quality-adjusted duration and duration of the actual state of 
a health state.   
 
Assumption A1 can be checked by plotting QOL over time according to treatment, and the t-test 
can be used to compare the mean QOL scores of each treatment arm. Assumption A2 can be 
checked by comparing the QOL for patient groups in a given health state where the groups are 
defined by duration of previous health state experience using a regression model. Suitable checks 
for assumption A3 at minimum would be a simple plot. If data does not support these 
assumptions, we will use a method which uses the longitudinal QOL data directly.    
 
The Medicare reimbursement in dollars/QALY and the Medicare reimbursement in 
dollars/QAFFPY will be calculated as a function of the monetary cost per relative value of each 
health state and its duration.  Cost-utility will be analyzed at two time points: at 1 year and 5 years 
post-therapy. We will use the five-item utility score in EQ-5D for the cost-utility analysis. We will 
use the z-test to test the hypothesis that the cost-utility in the two treatment arms (Arm 1 vs. Arm 2 
and Arm 1 vs. Arm 3) is the same with significance level of 0.05/2=0.025 and a two-sided test.  
We will compare the cost-utility using the Medicare reimbursement in dollars/QALY and the 
Medicare reimbursement in dollars/QAFFPY between the two treatment arms after adjusting for 
the baseline and stratification variables.  
 
 
We will evaluate the cost-utility of the treatment arm in terms of the primary outcome and will also 
compare the cost-utility among the three treatment arms. The cost-utility analysis will only include 
patients whose care are reimbursed under the federal Medicare payment system but will exclude 
those in Medicare HMOs as well as those under alternative federal coverage (including Medicaid, 
DOD, and the VA) as well as those covered by private payers or other payment systems. Cost-
utility will be analyzed for planned publication at two time-points: looking at initial treatment costs 
and quality of life at 1 year post-therapy and at 5 years post-therapy.  The cost-utility analysis will 
not be done until after the primary endpoint results are published. We will use the 5-item utility 
score in EQ-5D for the cost-utility analysis and the Medicare costs defined as in Section 1.6.3. 
The Medicare cost in dollars/QALY will be calculated as a function of the monetary cost per 
relative value of each health state and its duration. We will use Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to 
compare the cost-utility among the three treatment arms at a significance level of 0.05.  If there is 
a statistically significant difference, a Z-test will be used to compare it between each combination 
of two treatment arms (Arm 1 vs. Arm 2 and Arm 1 vs. Arm 3, and Arm 2 and Arm 3) after 
adjusting for the baseline and stratification factors with a significance level of 0.05/3=0.017 and a 
two-sided test.  
 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
61
A multivariate regression model will be used to model the association between serum levels of 
beta-amyloid (Abeta) and measures of the HVLT-R, Trail Making Test, parts A & B, COWAT, and 
HSCL-25, respectively. The model will include at least the baseline and stratification factors (SV 
involvement, prostatectomy Gleason score, pre-radiotherapy PSA, pathology stage) as covariates.   
 
To inspect the missing data mechanism, we will use at least a graphical method. A missing 
completely at random (MCAR) mechanism exists when missing values are randomly distributed 
across all observations. A missing at random (MAR) mechanism exists when values are not 
randomly distributed across all observations, rather than one or more sub-samples.  If the cause 
of missing data is MCAR, listwise deletion (complete case analysis) will be done. If the MAR 
assumption is supported by the data, then an imputation method such as multiple imputation will 
be applied to impute missing data.   If the MAR assumption is not supported by the data, then 
adjusting for covariates (such as the baseline QOL score) might reduce the conditional 
association between outcomes and missing values. If missing data patterns look similar when 
stratified by such covariate(s), then an analysis that adjusts for such covariate(s) will be 
conducted and an imputation method such as multiple imputation will be applied.  If approximate 
conditional independence cannot be obtained with any set of covariates, then MNAR (missing not 
at random) must be addressed by an explicit model for the missing data mechanism126 and then 
an imputation method such as multiple imputation will be applied. All results from the imputed 
analysis using the multiple imputation will be compared to the complete case analysis results to 
assess any potential biases. We will conduct a sensitivity analysis using various assumptions on 
the missing data to determine what impact missing data and imputation methods have on the 
study conclusions. Imputation methods when prescribed by validated instrument developers will 
be employed first.  Additional methods or methods used when none are described for a given 
instrument may include:  worst-case scenario (in which missing data are assumed to be 
unfavorable for those on the experimental treatment and favorable of those in the control group);  
use of the mean response for individual patients who withdrew from the trial from either all or 
similar (matched) patients remaining in the trial; last observation carried forward (LOCF) [using 
the last observation as the final observation]; or linear mixed-effects models, to obtain separate 
estimates for the QOL outcome within strata based on missing data patterns.126-127  RTOG 
recognizes that all options are subject to bias and analysis of more than one method for 
consistency across methods is prudent.  
13.5.7 Group Sequential Testing for Early Termination and Reporting of Efficacy and Futility (1/8/09) 
 
A group sequential test with three planned interim analyses and a final analysis will be performed. 
The interim analysis will be carried out when the cumulative accrual (patients whose follow-up is 
at least 5 years from the randomization date) are met.  For each interim analysis, one efficacy and 
two futility tests will be carried out.  At each planned interim analysis, the p-value from the Z-test 
statistics, eq.1, for the difference between the two FFP rates assessing treatment efficacy or 
futility with respect to the primary endpoint will be compared to the nominal significance level. The 
significance level of 0.001, which is similar to the Haybittle-Peto test104-105, was chosen for efficacy 
testing.  For the futility testing boundary, we will use a less aggressive boundary, Rule C in Freidlin 
and Korn.106   
 
 
We will first compare Arm 3 with Arm 2 and choose the arm that has the higher FFP rate (if they 
are the same, Arm 2 will be chosen). Let p1, p2, and p3 equal the rate of 5-year FFP of Arm 1, 
Arm 2 and Arm 3, respectively. If Arm 2 is better than Arm 3 (p2 ≥ p3), then we compare Arm 2 
with Arm 1. The following hypothesis is tested. 
     H02: p2≤ p1 vs. HA2: p2 > p1  
If H02 is rejected (p-value ≤ 0.001), then we conclude that the 5-year FFP of Arm 2 is better than 
Arm 1. We report that Arm 2 is better than arm 1 and stop accrual to arm 1 if applicable. If H02 is 
not rejected (p-value > 0.001), then we continue following the trial and proceed to the next interim 
analysis without any results reporting. 
 
With respect to interim evaluation of Arm 2 vs. Arm 3, if H02 is rejected, then the following 
hypothesis is tested. 
    H03:  p2≤ p3 vs. HA3: p2 > p3 
If H03 is rejected (p-value < 0.001), then Arm 2 is declared best and the complete trial results 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
62
(superior arm identified) are reported.  If H03 is not rejected (p-value > 0.001), then we continue 
following the trial to the next interim analysis to evaluate Arm 2 vs. Arm 3. 
 
If Arm 3 is better than Arm 2 (p2 < p3), then we compare Arm 3 with Arm 1. The following 
hypothesis is tested.  
  H04: p3 ≤ p1 vs. HA4: p3 > p1  
If H04 is rejected (p-value ≤ 0.001), then we conclude that the 5-year FFP of Arm 3 is better than 
Arm 1. We report that Arm 3 is better than arm 1 and stop accrual to arm 1 if applicable. If H04 is 
not rejected (p-value > 0.001), then we continue following the trial and proceed to the next interim 
analysis without any results reporting.   
 
With respect to interim evaluation of Arm 2 vs. Arm 3, if H04 is rejected, then the following 
hypothesis is tested. 
  H05:  p3≤ p2 vs. HA5: p3 > p2 
If H05 is rejected (p-value < 0.001), then Arm 3 is declared best and the complete trial results 
(superior arm identified) are reported.  If H05 is not rejected (p-value > 0.001), then we continue 
following the trial to the next interim analysis to evaluate Arm 2 vs. Arm 3. 
 
Note that if H02 [H04] is rejected but H03 [H05] is not rejected, the trial will continue in order to 
further evaluate the relative efficacy of arms 2 and 3.  A recommendation from the DMC will be 
sought regarding whether to continue follow-up in Arm 1 and the process for informing arm 1 
patients of the findings. 
 
 
For futility testing, we compare Arm 3 vs. Arm 1 and Arm 2 vs. Arm 1 if applicable. The following 
hypotheses are tested. 
H01: p1 ≥ p2 vs. HA1: p1 < p2 and H03: p1 ≥ p3 vs. HA3: p1 < p3 
The alternative hypotheses, HA1 (p1 = p2 + 0.1) and HA3 (p1 = p3 + 0.1) will be tested at 0.001 
level (the futility nominal significance level). If the computed p-value is less than 0.001 then we will 
consider stopping the trial in favor of H01 or H03 and report the results. If we stop the trial for futility, 
then we will conclude that the 5-year FFP of Arm 1 will be better than Arm 2 or Arm 3 and 
continue the trial for the other two remaining arms.  Otherwise, we will continue the trial.   
 
Table 12: The Schedule for the Planned Interim Analysis 
Information 
Time 
Estimated 
Analysis Time* 
Cumulative 
Accrual in the 
Three Arms** 
0.25 
7 years 
397 
0.50 
9 years 
794 
0.75 
11 years 
1191 
1.0 
13 years 
1587 
* Time to the interim analysis from the first patient entry without considering ineligibility 
or lack-of-data rate 
 **The number of eligible patients whose follow-up is at least 5 years from the 
randomization date 
 
 
Based on the results of each interim analysis, the following action will be taken and the 
responsible statistician will recommend to the DMC that the randomization be discontinued, if 
applicable, and the study be considered for early publication. Before making such a 
recommendation, the accrual rate, treatment compliance, safety of the treatments, and the 
importance of the study are taken into consideration along with the p-value. The DMC will then 
make a recommendation about the trial to the appropriate NRG Oncology Leadership as needed. 
13.6 
Interim Report to Monitor the Study Progress 
 
Interim reports with descriptive statistics will be prepared twice per year until the initial paper 
reporting the treatment results has been submitted. In general, the interim reports will contain 
information about the patient accrual rate with a projected completion date for the accrual phase, 
compliance rate of treatment delivery with the distributions of important prognostic baseline 
variables, and the frequencies and severity of the adverse event by treatment arm. The interim 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
63
reports will not contain the results of the treatment comparisons with respect to the primary 
endpoint and secondary endpoints. This study will be monitored by the Clinical Data Update 
System (CDUS) version 3.0. Cumulative CDUS data will be submitted quarterly by electronic 
means. Reports are due January 31, April 30, July 31, and October 31. 
13.7 
Reporting the Initial Treatment Analysis (1/8/09) 
 
The analysis reporting the treatment results will be carried out after the criteria for early 
stopping/reporting are met. Three interim comparisons and one final analysis will be performed for 
efficacy and futility of the experimental treatment will be carried out as described in Section 
13.5.7. The Z-test statistics for the difference between the two rates with the standard errors 
estimated by Greenwood’s method, eq. (1), will be used with an overall significance level of 0.025. 
It will include tabulation of all cases entered and those excluded from the analyses; the distribution 
of the important prognostic baseline variables; safety treatments; treatment compliance; and 
observed results with respect to the primary and secondary endpoints will be shown. All eligible 
patients randomized will be included in the comparison and will be grouped by assigned treatment 
in the analysis (intent-to-treat analysis). In addition, exploratory analyses of treatment 
comparisons of the primary and secondary survival endpoints will be tested using the Cox 
proportional hazard model114 that includes treatment arms, the stratification factors (SV 
involvement, prostatectomy Gleason score, pre-radiation PSA level, and pathology stage), age, 
and race (as appropriate).  
13.8 
Gender and Minorities 
 
In conformance with the National Institute of Health (NIH) Revitalization Act of 1993 with regard to 
inclusion of women and minorities in clinical research, Participation rates of men will be examined 
in the interim analyses. Based on the accrual statistics from RTOG 94-08, we project that 81% of 
the men in the study are White, 15% are Black or African American, 3% are Hispanic, 0.5% are 
Asian, 0.3% are Pacific Islander and 0.2% are American Indian or Alaskan Native.  The following 
table lists the projected accrual by race/ethnicity. 
 
Projected Distribution of Gender and Minorities 
 
 
Gender 
Ethnic Category 
Females 
Males 
Total 
Hispanic or Latino 
N/A 
53 
53 
Not Hispanic or Latino 
N/A 
1711 
1711 
Ethnic Category: Total of all subjects 
N/A 
1764 
1764 
 
Gender 
Racial Category 
Females 
Males 
Total 
American Indian or Alaskan Native 
N/A 
6 
6 
Asian 
N/A 
9 
9 
Black or African American 
N/A 
251 
251 
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 
N/A 
4 
4 
White 
N/A 
1494 
1494 
Racial Category: Total of all subjects 
N/A 
1764 
1764 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
64
REFERENCES (1/8/09) 
 
1. Catton C, Gospodarowicz M, Warde P, et al. Adjuvant and salvage radiation therapy after radical 
prostatectomy for adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Radiother Oncol. 59:51-60, 2001. 
 
2. Choo R, Hruby G, Hong J, et al. Positive resection margin and/or pathologic T3 adenocarcinoma 
of prostate with undetectable postoperative prostate-specific antigen after radical prostatectomy: 
To irradiate or not? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 52:674-680, 2002. 
 
3. Chawla AK, Thakral HK, Zietman AL, et al. Salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for 
prostate adenocarcinoma: Analysis of efficacy and prognostic factors. Urology. 59:726-731, 2002. 
 
4. Taylor N, Kelly JF, Kuban DA, et al. Adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy 
for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 56:755-763, 2003. 
 
5. Zelefsky MJ, Aschkenasy E, Kelsen S, et al. Tolerance and early outcome results of 
postprostatectomy three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 
39:327-333, 1997. 
 
6. McCarthy JF, Catalona WJ, Hudson MA. Effect of radiation therapy on detectable serum prostate 
specific antigen levels following radical prostatectomy: Early versus delayed treatment. J Urol. 
151:1575-1578, 1994. 
 
7. Garg MK, Tekyi-Mensah S, Bolton S, et al. Impact of postprostatectomy prostate-specific antigen 
nadir on outcomes following salvage radiotherapy. Urology. 51:998-1002, 1998. 
 
8. Song DY, Thompson TL, Ramakrishnan V, et al. Salvage radiotherapy for rising or persistent PSA 
after radical prostatectomy. Urology. 60:281-287, 2002. 
 
9. Liauw SL, Webster WS, Pistenmaa DA, et al. Salvage radiotherapy for biochemical failure of 
radical prostatectomy: A single-institution experience. Urology. 61:1204-1210, 2003. 
 
10. Macdonald OK, Schild SE, Vora SA, et al. Radiotherapy for men with isolated increase in serum 
prostate specific antigen after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 170:1833-1837, 2003. 
 
11. Wu JJ, King SC, Montana GS, et al. The efficacy of postprostatectomy radiotherapy in patients 
with an isolated elevation of serum prostate-specific antigen. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 32:317-
323, 1995. 
 
12. Peyromaure M, Allouch M, Eschwege F, et al. Salvage radiotherapy for biochemical recurrence 
after radical prostatectomy: a study of 62 patients. Urology. 62:503-507, 2003. 
 
13. Stephenson AJ, Shariat SF, Zelefsky MJ, et al. Salvage radiotherapy for recurrent prostate cancer 
after radical prostatectomy. JAMA.  291:1325-1332, 2004. 
 
14. Hayes SB, Pollack A. Parameters for treatment decisions for salvage radiation therapy. J Clin 
Oncol. 23:8204-8211, 2005. 
 
15. Bolla M, van Poppel H, Collette L, et al. Postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy: A 
randomized controlled trial (EORTC trial 22911). Lancet. 366:572-578, 2005. 
 
16. Thompson IM, Jr., Tangen CM, Paradelo J, et al. Adjuvant radiotherapy for pathologically 
advanced prostate cancer: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 296: 2329-2335, 2006. 
 
17. Wiegel T, Bottke D, Willich N, et al. Phase III results of adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) versus ,wait 
and see (WS) in patients with pT3 prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy (RP)(ARO 96-
02 / AUO AP 09/95). J Clin Oncol. 23(Abstract 4513):381-381, 2005. 
 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
65
18. Eulau SM, Tate DJ, Stamey TA, et al. Effect of combined transient androgen deprivation and 
irradiation following radical prostatectomy for prostatic cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 
41:735-740, 1998. 
 
19. Tiguert R, Rigaud J, Lacombe L, et al. Neoadjuvant hormone therapy before salvage radiotherapy 
for an increasing post-radical prostatectomy serum prostate specific antigen level. J Urol. 
170:447-450, 2003. 
 
20. Katz MS, Zelefsky MJ, Venkatraman ES, et al. Predictors of biochemical outcome with salvage 
conformal radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 21:483-489, 
2003. 
 
21. Neulander EZ. Re: Neoadjuvant hormone therapy before salvage radiotherapy for an increasing 
post-radical prostatectomy serum prostate specific antigen level. J Urol. 171:809-810, 2004. 
 
22. King CR, Presti JC, Jr., Gill H, et al. Radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy: Does transient 
androgen suppression improve outcomes? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 59:341-347, 2004. 
 
23. Morris MM, Dallow KC, Zietman AL, et al. Adjuvant and salvage irradiation following radical 
prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 38:731-736, 1997. 
 
24. Kim BS, Lashkari A, Vongtama R, et al. Effect of pelvic lymph node irradiation in salvage therapy 
for patients with prostate cancer with a biochemical relapse following radical prostatectomy. Clin 
Prostate Cancer. 3:93-97, 2004. 
 
25. Cozzarini C, Bolognesi A, Ceresoli GL, et al. Role of postoperative radiotherapy after pelvic 
lymphadenectomy and radical retropubic prostatectomy: A single institute experience of 415 
patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 59:674-683, 2004. 
 
26. Proano JM, Sodee DB, Resnick MI, et al. The impact of a negative (111)indium-capromab 
pendetide scan before salvage radiotherapy. J Urol. 175:1668-1672, 2006. 
 
27. Trock BJ, Han M, Freedland SJ, et al. Prostate cancer-specific survival following salvage 
radiotherapy vs observation in men with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. 
JAMA 2008;299:2760-2769. 
 
28. Pilepich MV, Winter K, John MJ, et al. Phase III radiation therapy oncology group (RTOG) trial 86-
10 of androgen deprivation adjuvant to definitive radiotherapy in locally advanced carcinoma of 
the prostate. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 50:1243-1252, 2001. 
 
29. D'Amico AV, Manola J, Loffredo M, et al. 6-month androgen suppression plus radiation therapy 
vs. radiation therapy alone for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer: A randomized 
controlled trial. JAMA. 292:821-827, 2004. 
 
30. Denham JW, Steigler A, Lamb DS, et al. Short-term androgen deprivation and radiotherapy for 
locally advanced prostate cancer: results from the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group 
96.01 randomized controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 6:841-850, 2005. 
 
31. Roach M, 3rd, DeSilvio M, Lawton C, et al. Phase III trial comparing whole-pelvic versus prostate-
only radiotherapy and neoadjuvant versus adjuvant combined androgen suppression: Radiation 
Therapy Oncology Group 9413. J Clin Oncol. 21:1904-1911, 2003. 
 
32. Pound C, Partin A, Eisenberger M, et al. Natural History of Progression After PSA Elevation 
Following Radical Prostatectomy. JAMA. 281:1591-1597, 1999. 
 
33. Freedland SJ, Humphreys EB, Mangold LA, et al. Risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality 
following biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. JAMA. 294:433-439, 2005. 
 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
66
34. Amling CL, Bergstralh EJ, Blute ML, et al. Defining prostate specific antigen progression after 
radical prostatectomy: What is the most appropriate cut point? J Urol. 165:1146-1151, 2001. 
 
35. Pollack A, Hanlon AL, Pisansky TM, et al. A multi-institutional analysis of adjuvant and salvage 
radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 60 (Suppl):S186-S187, 
2004. 
 
36. Pollack A, Hanlon AL, Pisansky T, et al. Which definition of biochemchemical failure after post-
operative radiotherapy predicts best for clinical failure? A multi-institutional analysis. J Urol. (In 
press), 2005. 
 
37. Cox J, Grignon D, Kaplan R, et al. Consensus Statement:  Guidelines for PSA Following 
Radiation Therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 37:1035-1041, 1997. 
 
38. Vicini FA, Kestin LL, Martinez AA. The correlation of serial prostate specific antigen 
measurements with clinical outcome after external beam radiation therapy of patients for prostate 
carcinoma. Cancer. 88:2305-2318, 2000. 
 
39. Kestin LL, Vicini FA, Martinez AA. Practical application of biochemical failure definitions: What to 
do and when to do it. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 53:304-315, 2002. 
 
40. Pickles T, Kim-Sing C, Morris WJ, et al. Evaluation of the Houston biochemical relapse definition 
in men treated with prolonged neoadjuvant and adjuvant androgen ablation and assessment of 
follow-up lead-time bias. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 57:11-18, 2003. 
 
41. Thames H, Kuban D, Levy L, et al. Comparison of alternative biochemical failure definitions based 
on clinical outcome in 4839 prostate cancer patients treated by external beam radiotherapy 
between 1986 and 1995. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 57:929-943, 2003. 
 
42. Buyyounouski MK, Hanlon AL, Eisenberg DF, et al. Defining biochemical failure after radiotherapy 
with and without androgen deprivation for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 63:1455-
1462, 2005. 
 
43. Roach M, 3rd, Hanks G, Thames H, Jr., et al. Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy 
with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: 
Recommendations of the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix Consensus Conference. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol 
Phys. 65:965-974, 2006. 
 
44. Vicini F, Kestin L, Martinez A. The Importance of Adequate Follow-up in Defining Treatment 
Success after External Beam Irradiation for Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 
45:553-561, 1999. 
 
45. Buyyounouski MK, Hanlon AL, Horwitz EM, et al. Biochemical failure and the temporal kinetics of 
prostate-specific antigen after radiation therapy with androgen deprivation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol 
Phys. 61:1291-1298, 2005. 
 
46. Grignon DJ, Caplan R, Sarkar FH, et al. p53 status and prognosis of locally advanced prostatic 
adenocarcinoma: A study based on RTOG 8610. J Natl Cancer Inst. 89:158-165, 1997. 
 
47. Pollack A, Mu Z, Hachem P, et al. Modulation of prostate cancer cell death in response to 
androgen deprivation and radiation by MDM2. International Conference on Translational 
Research. Lugano, Switzerland; 2003. 
 
48. Pollack A, DeSilvio M, Khor LY, et al. Ki-67 staining is a strong predictor of distant metastasis and 
mortality for men with prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy plus androgen deprivation: 
Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Trial 92-02. J Clin Oncol. 22:2133-2140, 2004. 
 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
67
49. Li R, Heydon K, Hammond ME, et al. Ki-67 staining index predicts distant metastasis and survival 
in locally advanced prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy: An analysis of patients in radiation 
therapy oncology group protocol 86-10. Clin Cancer Res. 10:4118-4124, 2004. 
 
50. Khor LY, Desilvio M, Al-Saleem T, et al. MDM2 as a predictor of prostate carcinoma outcome: an 
analysis of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Protocol 8610. Cancer. 104:962-967, 2005. 
 
51. Khor L-Y, DeSilvio M, McDonnell TJ, et al. Bcl-2 and bax expression and prostate cancer outcome 
in men treated with radiotherapy in Radiation Therapy Oncology Group protocol 86-10. Cancer. 
(In press), 2006. 
 
52. Petricoin EF, 3rd, Ornstein DK, Paweletz CP, et al. Serum proteomic patterns for detection of 
prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 94:1576-1578, 2002. 
 
53. Ornstein DK, Rayford W, Fusaro VA, et al. Serum proteomic profiling can discriminate prostate 
cancer from benign prostates in men with total prostate specific antigen levels between 2.5 and 
15.0 ng/ml. J Urol. 172:1302-1305, 2004. 
 
54. Cairns P, Esteller M, Herman JG, et al. Molecular detection of prostate cancer in urine by GSTP1 
hypermethylation. Clin Cancer Res. 7:2727-2730, 2001. 
 
55. Keating NL, O’Malley AJ, Smith MR. Diabetes and cardiovascular disease during androgen 
deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 24: 4448-4456, 2006. 
 
56. Higano CS. Side effects of androgen deprivation therapy: Monitoring and minimizing toxicity. 
Urology. 61:32-38, 2003. 
 
57. van Andel G, Kurth KH. The impact of androgen deprivation therapy on health related quality of 
life in asymptomatic men with lymph node positive prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 44:209-214, 2003. 
 
58. Salminen EK, Portin RI, Koskinen A, et al. Associations between serum testosterone fall and 
cognitive function in prostate cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res. 10:7575-7582, 2004. 
 
59. Salminen EK, Portin RI, Koskinen AI, et al. Estradiol and cognition during androgen deprivation in 
men with prostate carcinoma. Cancer. 103:1381-1387, 2005. 
 
60. Regine WF, Schmitt FA, Scott CB, et al. Feasibility of neurocognitive outcome evaluations in 
patients with brain metastases in a multi-institutional cooperative group setting: Results of 
Radiation Therapy Oncology Group trial BR-0018. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 58:1346-1352, 
2004. 
 
61. Shapiro AM, Benedict RH, Schretlen D, et al. Construct and concurrent validity of the Hopkins 
Verbal Learning Test-revised. Clin Neuropsychol. 13:348-358, 1999.  
 
62. Rasmusson DX, Bylsma FW, Brandt J. Stability of performance on the Hopkins Verbal Learning 
Test. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 10:21-26, 1995. 
 
63. Sumerall SW, Timmons PL, James AL, et al. Expanded norms for the Controlled Oral Word 
Association Test. J Clin Psychol. 53:517-521, 1997. 
 
64. Llorente MD, Burke M, Gregory GR, et al. Prostate cancer: A significant risk factor for late-life 
suicide. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 13:195-201, 2005. 
 
65. Almeida OP, Waterreus A, Spry N, et al. One year follow-up study of the association between 
chemical castration, sex hormones, beta-amyloid, memory and depression in men. 
Psychoneuroendocrinology. 29:1071-1081, 2004. 
 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
68
66. Smith DH, Fenn P, Drummond M. Cost effectiveness of photodynamic therapy with verteporfin for 
age related macular degeneration: The UK case. Br J Ophthalmol. 88:1107-1112, 2004. 
 
67. Maberley D, Walker H, Koushik A, et al. Screening for diabetic retinopathy in James Bay, Ontario: 
A cost-effectiveness analysis. CMaj. 168:160-164, 2003. 
 
68. Brown GC, Brown MM, Sharma S, et al. A cost-utility analysis of interventions for severe 
proliferative vitreoretinopathy. Am J Ophthalmol. 133:365-372, 2002. 
 
69. Kobelt G, Lundstrom M, Stenevi U. Cost-effectiveness of cataract surgery. Method to assess cost-
effectiveness using registry data. J Cataract Refract Surg. 28:1742-1749, 2002. 
 
70. Jonsson L. Cost-effectiveness of memantine for moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease in 
Sweden. Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. 3:77-86, 2005. 
 
71. Palmer CS, Niparko JK, Wyatt JR, et al. A prospective study of the cost-utility of the multichannel 
cochlear implant. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 125:1221-1228, 1999. 
 
72. Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: A measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 
33:337-343, 2001.  
 
73. Hillner BE, Smith TJ. Cost-effectiveness analysis of three regimens using vinorelbine (Navelbine) 
for non-small cell lung cancer. Semin Oncol. 23:25-30, 1996. 
 
74. Konski A, Scott CB, Movsas B, et al. Cost-Utility Analysis of Various Treatments for Non-Small 
cell Carcinoma of the Lung. The Second European Conference on the Economics of Cancer, 
Brussels (Abstract). 2000. 
 
75. Trippoli S, Vaiani M, Lucioni C, et al. Quality of life and utility in patients with non-small cell lung 
cancer. Quality-of-life Study Group of the Master 2 Project in Pharmacoeconomics. 
Pharmacoeconomics. 19:855-863, 2001. 
 
76. Essink-Bot ML, de Koning HJ, Nijs HG, et al. Short-term effects of population-based screening for 
prostate cancer on health-related quality of life. J Natl Cancer Inst. 90:925-931, 1998. 
 
77. Sandblom G, Carlsson P, Sennfalt K, et al. A population-based study of pain and quality of life 
during the year before death in men with prostate cancer. Br J Cancer. 90:1163-1168, 2004. 
 
78. Sennfalt K, Carlsson P, Sandblom G, et al. The estimated economic value of the welfare loss due 
to prostate cancer pain in a defined population. Acta Oncol. 43:290-296, 2004. 
 
79. Glasziou PP, Simes RJ, Gelber RD. Quality adjusted survival analysis. Stat Med. 9:1259-1276, 
1990. 
 
80. Barry MJ, Fowler FJ, Jr., O'Leary MP, et al. Correlation of the American Urological Association 
symptom index with self-administered versions of the Madsen-Iversen, Boyarsky and Maine 
Medical Assessment Program symptom indexes. Measurement Committee of the American 
Urological Association. J Urol. 148:1558-1564,1992. 
 
81. Desai J, Stock RG, Stone NN, et al. Acute urinary morbidity following I-125 interstitial implantation 
of the prostate gland. Radiat Oncol Investig. 6:135-141, 1998. 
 
82. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Lief JH, et al. Temporal resolution of urinary morbidity following prostate 
brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 47:121-128, 2000. 
 
83. Egawa S, Shimura S, Irie A, et al. Toxicity and health-related quality of life during and after high 
dose rate brachytherapy followed by external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Jpn J Clin 
Oncol.31:541-547, 2001. 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
69
 
84. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Wallner KE, et al. Prophylactic versus therapeutic alpha-blockers after 
permanent prostate brachytherapy. Urology. 60:650-655, 2002. 
 
85. Michalski JM, Lawton C, El Naqa I, et al. Development of RTOG consensus guidelines for the 
definition of the clinical target volume for postoperative conformal radiation therapy for prostate 
cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;Submitted. 
 
86. Wiltshire KL, Brock KK, Haider MA, et al. Anatomic boundaries of the clinical target volume 
(prostate bed) after radical prostatectomy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;69:1090-1099. 
 
87. Pollack A, Price R, Dong L, et al. Intact Prostate Cancer: Overview. In: Mundt AJ, Roeske JC, 
eds. Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy: A Clinical Perspective. Ontario, Canada: BC Decker; 
2005: 459-463. 
 
88. Buyyounouski MK, Horwitz EM, Price RA, et al. IMRT for prostate cancer. In: Bortfeld T, Schmidt-
Ullrich R, de Neve W, eds. IMRT Handbook: Concepts & Clinical Applications. Heidelberg, 
Germany: Springer-Verlag; 2005. 
 
89. Wei JT, Dunn RL, Litwin MS, et al. Development and validation of the expanded prostate cancer 
index composite (EPIC) for comprehensive assessment of health-related quality of life in men with 
prostate cancer. Urology. 56:899-905, 2000. 
 
90. Hough R, Landsverk J, Stone J. Comparison of psychiatric screening questionnaires for primary 
care patients. Final report for NIMH Contract No. (DB) 122:913-922, 1995. 
 
91. Hesbacher P, Rickels K, Downing RW, et al. Assessment of psychiatric illness severity by family 
physicians. Social Science & Medicine. 12(1-A):45-47, 1978. 
 
92. Hesbacher PT, Rickels K, Morris RJ, et al. Psychiatric illness in family practice. J Clin Psychiatry. 
41:6-10, 1980. 
 
93. Derogatis LR, Melisaratos N. The Brief Symptom Inventory: An introductory report. Psychol Med. 
13:595-605, 1983. 
 
94. Bolton P. Cross-cultural validity and reliability testing of a standard psychiatric assessment 
instrument without a gold standard. J Nerv Ment Dis. 189:238-242, 2001. 
 
95. Meyers CA, et al. Neurocognitive function and progression in patients with brain metastases 
treated with whole brain radiation and motexafin gadolinium: Results of a randomized phase III 
trial. J Clin Oncol. 22: 157-165, 2004. 
 
96. Benedict RHB, Schretlen D, Groninger L, Brandt J:  Hopkins Verbal Learning Test - Revised:  
Normative data and analysis of inter-form and test-retest reliability. Clin Neuropsychologist.12:43-
55,1998. 
 
97. 
Benton AL, Hamsher KdeS. Multilingual Aphasia Examination. Iowa City, IA: AJA 
Associates; 1989. 
 
98. Lezak MD, Howieson DB, Loring DW. Neuropschological Assessment. 4th ed. New York, NY: 
Oxford University Press; 2004. 
 
99. Schulz MW, Chen J, Woo HH, et al. A comparison of techniques for eliciting patient preferences 
in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol. 168:155-159, 2002. 
 
100. Badia X, Herdman M, Kind P. The influence of ill-health experience on the valuation of health. 
Pharmacoeconomics. 13:687-696, 1998. 
 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
70
101. Wu AW, Jacobson KL, Frick KD, et al. Validity and responsiveness of the euroqol as a measure 
of health-related quality of life in people enrolled in an AIDS clinical trial. Qual Life Res. 11:273-282, 
2002. 
 
102. Zelen M. The randomization and stratification of patients to clinical trials. J Chronic Dis. 27:365-
375,  1974. 
 
103. Chen TT, Simon, RM. Extension of one-sided test to multiple treatment trials. Control Clin Trials. 
15: 124-134, 1994. 
 
104. Haybittle,J.L. Repeated assessment of results in clinical trials of cancer treatment. Br J Radiol. 
Oct;44(526):793-7, 1971. 
 
105. 
Peto R, Pike MC, Armitage P, Breslow NE, Cox DR, Howard SV, Mantel N, McPherson K, 
Peto J, Smith PG. Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of 
each patient. I. Introduction and design. Br J Cancer. Dec;34(6):585-612, 1976. 
 
106. 
Freidlin B, Korn EL. Testing treatment effects in the presence of competing risks. Stat 
Med. 24:1703-1712, 2005. 
 
107. 
Schoenfeld DA. The asymptotic properties of nonparametric test for comparing survival 
distributions. Biometrika. 68:316-319, 1981. 
 
108. 
Agresti A. Categorical Data Analysis. New York: Wiley; 1990. 
 
109. 
Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat 
Assoc. 53:447-457, 1958. 
 
110. 
Mantel N. Evaluation of survival data and two new rank order statistics arising in its 
consideration. Canc Chemo Rep. 50:163-170, 1966. 
 
111. 
Kim K, Tsiatis AA. Study duration for clinical trials with survival response and early 
stopping rule. Biometrics. 46:81-92, 1990. 
 
112. 
Kalbfleisch JD, Ross LP. The statistical analysis of failure time data. New York: John 
Wiley & Sons; 1980. 
 
113. 
Gaynor JJ, Feuer EJ, Tan CC, et al. On the use of cause-specific failure and conditional 
failure probabilities: examples from clinical oncology data. JASA.  88:400-403, 1993. 
 
114. 
Gray RJ. A class of K-sample tests for comparing the cumulative incidence of a 
competing risk. Annual Statistics. 16:1141-1143, 1988. 
 
115. 
Cox DR. Regression models and life tables. J Royal Statistics Soc. 34:187-220, 1972. 
 
116. 
Simon R, Korn EL, McShane LM, et al. Design and Analysis of DNA Microarray 
Investigations. New York: Springer; 2003. 
 
117. 
Dobbin KK, Kawasaki ES, Petersen DW, Simon RM. Characterizing dye bias in 
microarray experiments. Bioinformatics. 21:2430-2437, 2005. 
 
118. 
Yang YH, Dudoit S, Luu P, et al. Normalization for cDNA microarray data: A robust 
composite method addressing single and multiple slide systematic variation. Nucleic Acids Res.15:30, 
2002. 
 
119. 
Dudoit S, Yang YH, Callow MJ, Speed TP. Statistical methods for identifying genes with 
differential expression in replicated cDNA microarray experiments. Stat Sin. 12:111-139, 2002. 
 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
71
120. 
Troyanskaya O, Cantor M, Sherlock G, et al.  Missing value estimation methods for DNA 
microarrays Bioinformatics. 17:520-525, 2001. 
 
121. 
Korn  EL, Troenndle  JF, McShane  LM, Simon R. Controlling the number of false 
discoveries: Application to high-dimensional genomic data. J Stat Planning and Inference.124:2448-
2455.22, 2003. 
 
122. 
Verbeke G, Molenberghs G. Linear mixed models for longitudinal data. New York: 
Springer-Verlag, Inc.; 2000. 
 
123. 
Bonferroni CE. Teoria statistica delle classi e calcolo delle probabilita. In: Volume in 
Onore di Ricarrdo dalla Volta: Universita di Firenza. 1937: 1-62. 
 
124. 
Home page: the expanded prostate cancer index composite (EPIC). 
http://roadrunner.cancer.med.umich.edu/epic/ 
 
125. 
Glasziou, P.P., Cole, B.F., Gelber, R.D., Hilden, J., and Simes, R.J. Quality adjusted 
survival analysis with repeated quality of life measures. Stat Med. 17: 1215-1229, 1998. 
 
126. 
Donaldson GW, Moinpour CM. Learning to live with missing quality-of-life data in 
advanced-stage disease trials. J Clin Oncol. 23:7380-7384, 2005. 
 
127. 
Guidance for industry patient-reported outcome measures:  Use in medical product 
development to support labeling claims: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Food 
and Drug Administration. pp. http://www.qolpro.org/ (accessed Aug. 1, 2006). 
 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
72
 
 
APPENDIX I   (19-Feb-2019) 
 
STUDY PARAMETER TABLE: PRE-TREATMENT ASSESSMENTS 
 
Assessments 
(May be 
required for 
eligibility) 
120 days prior 
to registration 
90 days prior 
to registration 
60 days prior 
to registration 
45 days prior 
to registration 
30 days prior to 
registration 
Prostate biopsy 
with Gleason 
score 
Prostatectomy Gleason 
History/physical 
 
 
X 
 
 
Digital rectal 
exam 
 
 
X 
 
 
Performance 
status 
X 
CT or MRI of 
pelvis* 
X 
 
 
 
 
Bone Scan* 
X 
 
 
 
 
CBC w/ diff  
 
X 
 
 
 
AST or ALT 
 
X 
 
 
 
PSA * 
 
 
 
 
X 
Testosterone 
 
X 
 
 
 
Alk phos 
 
 
 
 
Recommended 
CT-sim  
 
 
 
 
X 
Urethrogram or 
MRI-sim 
 
 
 
 
Recommended 
Tissue for 
banking 
If patient consents 
Blood Plasma 
Serum†, urine for 
banking 
If patient consents 
AUA SI 
 
 
 
 
X 
*And as needed based on reporting requirements. 
† Includes serum for beta-amyloid testing. 
-Continued on next page- 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
73
 
APPENDIX I 
STUDY PARAMETER TABLE: ASSESSMENTS DURING TREATMENT 
 
Assessments 
During Treatment 
 
 
Arms 2 & 3: Within 2 wks prior 
to start of RT  
Weekly during 
RT  
During 6th week 
of RT  
History/physical 
 
X 
 
Performance status 
 
X 
 
CBC w/ diff 
X 
 
X 
AST or ALT 
X 
 
X 
PSA * 
X 
 
 
Testosterone 
X 
 
X 
Blood, Plasma, serum†, urine for 
banking 
 
 
X 
AUA SI 
X 
 
X 
Adverse event evaluation* 
 
X 
 
*And as needed based on reporting requirements. 
† Includes serum for beta-amyloid testing.  
-Continued on next page- 
 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
74
 
APPENDIX I 
STUDY PARAMETER TABLE: ASSESSMENTS IN FOLLOW-UP 
 
Assessments 
Follow up After RT 
Long-
term 
Follow 
up 
 
1.5 mo 
3 mo 
6 mo 
9 mo 
12 
mo 
(yr1) 
q 3 
mos. 
for 1 
yr. 
q 6 
mos. 
for 6 
yrs. 
q 6 mo 
there-
after 
Annually  
thereafter 
As 
indicated 
in 
Sections 
11.2 and 
11.3 
History/physical 
 
X 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
X 
Performance 
status 
 
X 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
 
X 
CT or MRI of 
pelvis* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
X 
Bone Scan* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
X 
Digital rectal 
exam 
 
X 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
X 
CBC w/ diff  
 
X 
X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AST or ALT 
X* 
X* 
X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PSA * 
X 
X** 
X** 
X** 
X** 
X** 
 
X** 
 
X 
Testosterone 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
 
X 
 
 
Urine for 
banking 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Year 5 
 
Serum†, 
plasma, for 
banking 
 
X 
X 
 
X 
 
 
 
Years 2-
6 yrs 
 
AUA SI 
 
X 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
EPIC, HSCL-
25, EQ-5D, 
Document use 
of sexual 
meds/devices^ 
 
 
 
 
X 
 
 
 
 
Year 5 
HVLT-R, Trail 
making A & B, 
COWAT^ 
 
 
 
 
x 
 
 
 
 
Year 5 
Adverse event 
eval* 
 
X 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
X 
*And as needed based on reporting requirements. 
** If the PSA is ≤ 0.1 ng/mL, PSA will be drawn every 3 months from the completion of radiotherapy for 
two years, and at 6-month intervals thereafter. 
If PSA post-radiotherapy is ≥ 0.2 ng/mL, then continue at 3-month intervals (See Section 11.3.2). 
† Includes serum for beta-amyloid testing. 
^ Completion of QOL assessments in follow up are for patients who provided consent for the QOL 
portion of the study prior to QOL closure. 
 
 
 
 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
75
APPENDIX II (10/22/09) 
 
ZUBROD PERFORMANCE SCALE 
 
0 
Fully active, able to carry on all predisease activities without restriction  
 
1 
Restricted in physically strenuous activity but ambulatory and able to carry 
work of a light or sedentary nature.  For example, light housework, office 
work  
 
2 
Ambulatory and capable of all self-care but unable to carry out any work 
activities.  Up and about more than 50% of waking hours  
 
3 
Capable of only limited self-care, confined to bed or chair 50% or more of 
waking hours  
 
4 
Completely disabled. Cannot carry on self-care. Totally confined to bed  
 
5 
Death  
 
 
 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
76
APPENDIX III  
 
AJCC STAGING SYSTEM 
PROSTATE, 6th Edition 
 
DEFINITION OF TNM 
 
Primary Tumor, Clinical (T) 
TX 
 
Primary tumor cannot be assessed 
T0 
 
No evidence of primary tumor 
 
T1 
 
Clinically inapparent tumor neither palpable nor visible by imaging 
 
 
T1a 
Tumor incidental histologic finding in 5% or less of tissue resected 
 
 
T1b 
Tumor incidental histologic finding in more than 5% of tissue resected 
 
 
T1c 
Tumor identified by needle biopsy (e.g., because of elevated PSA) 
 
T2 
 
Tumor confined with prostate* 
 
 
T2a 
Tumor involves one-half of one lobe or less  
 
 
T2b 
Tumor involves more than one-half of one lobe but not both lobes 
 
 
T2c 
Tumor involves both lobes 
 
 
 
T3 
 
Tumor extends through prostate capsule** 
 
 
T3a 
Extracapsular extension (unilateral or bilateral) 
 
T3b 
Tumor involves the seminal vesicle(s) 
 
T4 
Tumor is fixed or invades adjacent structures other than seminal vesicles: bladder neck, external 
sphincter, rectum, levator muscles and/or pelvic wall 
 
*Note: Tumor found in one or both lobes by needle biopsy, but not palpable or reliably visible by imaging, is 
classified as T1c. 
 
**Note: Invasion into the prostatic apex or into (but not beyond) the prostatic capsule is not classified as T3, but as 
T2. 
 
Regional Lymph Nodes (N) (1/8/09) 
Clinical 
NX 
Regional lymph nodes cannot be assessed 
N0 
No regional lymph node metastasis 
N1 
Metastasis in regional lymph node(s) 
 
Pathologic 
pNX 
Regional nodes not sampled 
pN0 
No positive regional nodes 
pN1 
Metastases in regional node(s) 
 
 
Primary Tumor, Pathologic (pT) 
pT2* 
Organ confined 
 
pT2a 
Unilateral, involving one-half of one lobe or less 
 
pT2b 
Unilateral, involving more than one-half of one lobe but not both lobes 
 
pT2c 
Bilateral disease 
pT3 
Extraprostatic extension 
 
pT3a 
Extraprostatic extension** 
 
pT3b 
Seminal vesicle invasion 
pT4 
Invasion of bladder, rectum 
*Note: There is no pathologic T1 classification. 
**Note:  Positive surgical margin should be indicated by an R1 descriptor (residual microscopic disease). 
***Note: The type of prostatectomy (radical retropubic, perineal, robotic) should be recorded. 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
77
APPENDIX III (Continued) 
 
AJCC STAGING SYSTEM 
PROSTATE, 6th Edition 
 
 
Distant Metastasis (M)* 
MX 
 
Presence of distant metastasis cannot be assessed (not evaluated by any modality) 
M0 
 
No distant metastasis 
M1 
 
Distant metastasis 
 
 
M1a 
Nonregional lymph node(s) 
 
 
M1b 
Bone(s) 
 
 
M1c 
Other site(s) with or without bone disease 
 
*Note:  When more than one site of metastasis is present, the most advanced category is used; 
 
 pM1c is most advanced. 
 
Histopathologic Grade (G) 
GX 
 
Grade cannot be assessed 
G1 
 
Well-differentiated (slight anaplasia [Gleason 2-4]) 
G2 
 
Moderately differentiated (moderate anaplasia [Gleason 5-6]) 
G3-4 
 
Poorly undifferentiated or undifferentiated (marked anaplasia [Gleason 7-10]) 
 
Stage Grouping 
Stage I  
T1a 
 
 
N0 
 
 
M0 
 
G1 
 
Stage II  
T1a 
 
 
N0 
 
 
M0 
 
G2, G3-4 
 
 
T1b 
 
 
N0 
 
 
M0 
 
Any G 
 
 
T1c 
 
 
N0 
 
 
M0 
 
Any G 
 
 
T1 
 
 
N0 
 
 
N0 
 
Any G 
 
 
T2 
 
 
N0 
 
 
M0 
 
Any G 
 
Stage III 
T3 
 
 
N0 
 
 
M0 
 
Any G 
 
 
 
 
Stage IV 
T4 
 
 
N0 
 
 
M0 
 
Any G 
 
 
Any T  
 
N1 
 
 
M0 
 
Any G 
Any T 
Any  N 
M1 
Any G 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
78
APPENDIX IV (22JUN2017) 
 
APPENDICES FOR NRG ONCOLOGY BIOSPECIMEN COLLECTION 
Blood Collection Kit Instructions 
Urine Collection Kit Instructions 
Shipping Instructions: 
U.S. Postal Service Mailing Address: For FFPE or Non-frozen Specimens Only 
NRG Oncology Biospecimen Bank- San Francisco University of California San Francisco 
Campus Box 1800 
2340 Sutter Street, Room S341 
San Francisco, CA 94143-1800 
Courier Address (FedEx, UPS, etc.): For Frozen or Trackable Specimens 
NRG Oncology Biospecimen Bank- San Francisco 
University of California San Francisco 
2340 Sutter Street, Room S341  
San Francisco, CA 94115 
 
 
Include all NRG Oncology paperwork in pocket of biohazard bag.  
 
Check that the Specimen Transmittal Form has the consent boxes checked off.  
 
Check that all samples are labeled with the NRG Oncology study and case number, and include date of 
collection as well as collection time point (e.g., pretreatment, post-treatment). 
 
 
FFPE Specimens: 
o Slides should be shipped in a plastic slide holder/slide box. Place a small wad of padding in top of the 
container. If you can hear the slides shaking it is likely that they will break during shipping.  
o FFPE Blocks can be wrapped with paper towel, or placed in a cardboard box with padding. Do not wrap 
blocks with bubble wrap. Place padding in top of container so that if you shake the container the blocks 
are not shaking. If you can hear the slides shaking it is likely that they will break during shipping.   
o Slides, Blocks, or Plugs can be shipped ambient or with a cold pack either by United States Postal 
Service (USPS) to the USPS address (94143) or by Courier to the Street Address (94115). Do NOT 
ship on Dry Ice. 
 
 
Frozen Specimens:  
o Multiple cases may be shipped in the same cooler, but make sure each one is in a separate bag and 
clearly identified. 
o Place specimens and absorbent shipping material in Styrofoam cooler filled with dry ice (at least 7 lbs). 
There should be plenty of dry ice under and above the specimens. If the volume of specimens is greater 
than the volume of dry ice then ship in a larger Styrofoam box, or two separate boxes. Any Styrofoam 
box can be used, as long as it is big enough. 
o Specimens received thawed due to insufficient dry ice or shipping delays will be discarded and the site 
will be notified.  
o Send frozen specimens via overnight courier to the address above. Specimens should only be shipped 
Monday through Wednesday (Monday-Tuesday for Canada) to prevent thawing due to delivery delays. 
Saturday or holiday deliveries cannot be accepted. Samples can be stored frozen at -80 C until ready to 
ship. 
 
 
For Questions regarding collection/shipping please contact the NRG Oncology Biospecimen Bank 
by e-mail: NRGBB@ucsf.edu or phone: 415-476-7864 or Fax: 415-476-5271. 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
79
APPENDIX IV 
 
BLOOD COLLECTION KIT AND INSTRUCTIONS 
 
This Kit is for collection, processing, storage, and shipping of serum, plasma, or whole blood (as 
specified by the protocol): 
 
Kit contents: Sites will have to provide their own blood draw tubes 
• 
Fifteen (15) 1 ml cryovials for first time point, Ten (10) 1 ml cryovials for subsequent timepoints 
• 
Biohazard bags (3) and Absorbent shipping material (3) 
• 
1 Styrofoam container (inner) and Cardboard shipping (outer) box 
• 
UN1845 DRY Ice Sticker and UN3373 Biological Substance Category B Stickers 
• 
Specimen Transmittal Form and Kit Instructions 
 
PREPARATION AND PROCESSING OF SERUM, PLASMA AND WHOLE BLOOD: 
(A) Serum (if requested): Red Top Tube 
 
Label Five (5) 1ml cryovials for the serum collected. Label them with the NRG Oncology study and 
case number, collection date, time, and time point, and clearly mark cryovials “serum”. 
Process: 
1. Allow one red top tube to clot for 30 minutes at room temperature. 
2. Spin in a standard clinical centrifuge at ~2500 RPM for 10 minutes at 4C (preferred). If sites are 
unable to process samples at 4C then spinning at room temperature is acceptable if done within 2 
hours of draw but must be noted on the STF. 
3. Aliquot 0.5 ml serum into as many cryovials as are necessary for the serum collected into five 
cryovials labeled with NRG Oncology study and case numbers, collection date/time, protocol time-
point collected (e.g. pretreatment, post-treatment), and clearly mark specimen as “serum”. 
4. Place cryovials into biohazard bag and immediately freeze at -70 to -90 C, and store frozen until 
ready to ship. See below for storage conditions. 
5. Store serum at -70 to -90 C until ready to ship on dry ice. See below for storage conditions. 
 
PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT EVERY SPECIMEN IS LABELED and include collection time point on the 
Specimen Transmittal Form. 
 
(B) Plasma (If requested): Purple Top EDTA tube #1 
 
Label Five (5) 1ml cryovials for the plasma collected. Label them with the NRG Oncology study and 
case number, collection date, time, and time point, and clearly mark cryovials “plasma”. 
Process: 
1. After collection of blood into a purple top tube,, invert tube(s) multiple times to ensure adequate mixing 
of EDTA. 
2. Centrifuge specimen(s) within one hour of collection in a standard clinical centrifuge at ~2500 RPM for 
10 minutes at 4C (preferred). If sites are unable to process samples at 4C then spinning at room 
temperature is acceptable if done within 2 hours of draw but must be noted on the STF..  
3. If the interval between specimen collection and processing is anticipated to be more than one hour, 
keep specimen on ice until centrifuging is performed. 
4. Carefully pipette and aliquot 0.5 ml plasma for the plasma collected into five cryovials labeled with NRG 
Oncology study and case numbers, collection date/time, time point collected and clearly mark specimen 
as “plasma”.  Avoid pipetting up the buffy coat layer. 
5. Place cryovials into biohazard bag and immediately freeze at -70 to -90C. 
6. Store frozen plasma until ready to ship on dry ice.  
7. See below for storage conditions. 
 
PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT EVERY SPECIMEN IS LABELED and include collection time point on the 
Specimen Transmittal Form. 
 
(continued on next page) 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
80
 
APPENDIX IV 
 
BLOOD COLLECTION KIT INSTRUCTIONS (continued) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(C) Whole Blood for DNA (if requested): Purple Top EDTA tube #2 
 
Label as many 1ml cryovials (3 to 5) as necessary for the whole blood collected..Label them with the NRG 
Oncology study and case number, collection date/time, and time point, and clearly mark cryovials “blood”. 
 
Process: 
1. After collection of blood into a purple top tube, invert tube(s) multiple times to ensure adequate mixing 
of EDTA. Blood can also be mixed for 5 minutes on a mixer at room temperature. 
2. Carefully pipette and aliquot 1.0 ml blood into as many cryovials (3-5) as are necessary for the blood 
collected  labeled with NRG Oncology study and case numbers, collection date/time, time point 
collected and clearly mark specimen as “blood”. 
3. Place cryovials into biohazard bag and freeze immediately at -70 to -80 Celsius. 
4. Store blood samples frozen until ready to ship on dry ice.  
5. See below for storage conditions. 
 
PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT EVERY SPECIMEN IS LABELED and include collection time point on 
Specimen Transmittal Form. 
 
Freezing and Storage: 
 Freeze Blood samples in a -80C Freezer or on Dry Ice or snap freeze in liquid nitrogen. 
 
Store at –80C (-70C to -90C) until ready to ship.  
If a -80C Freezer is not available,  
▪ 
Samples can be stored short term in a -20C freezer (non-frost free preferred) for up to 
one week (please ship out Monday-Wednesday only; Canada: Monday-Tuesday only). 
OR: 
▪ 
Samples can be stored in plenty of dry ice for up to one week, replenishing daily (please 
ship out on Monday-Wednesday only; Canada: Monday-Tuesday only). 
OR: 
▪ 
Samples can be stored in liquid nitrogen vapor phase (ship out Monday-Wednesday only; 
Canada: Monday-Tuesday only). 
 
Please indicate on Specimen Transmittal Form the storage conditions used and time stored. 
 
Shipping/Mailing: 
 
Ship specimens on Dry Ice overnight Monday-Wednesday (Monday-Tuesday from Canada) to prevent 
thawing due to delivery delays. Saturday and holiday deliveries cannot be accepted.  
 
Include all NRG Oncology paperwork in a sealed plastic bag and tape to the outside top of the Styrofoam 
box. 
 
Wrap frozen specimens of same type (i.e., all serum together, plasma together and whole bloods 
together) in absorbent shipping material and place each specimen type in a separate biohazard bag.  
Place specimen bags into the Styrofoam cooler and fill with plenty of dry ice (7-10 lbs/3.5kg minimum).  
Add padding to avoid the dry ice from breaking the tubes.  
 
Place Styrofoam coolers into outer cardboard box, and attach shipping label and UN3373 and UN1895 
stickers to outer cardboard box.  
 
 
 
(continued on next page)  
 
 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
81
APPENDIX IV 
 
BLOOD COLLECTION KIT INSTRUCTIONS (continued) 
 
 
Multiple cases may be shipped in the same cooler, but make sure each one is in a separate bag and that 
there is enough room for plenty of dry ice. Add padding to avoid the dry ice from breaking the tubes. 
 
For questions regarding collection, shipping or to order a Blood Collection Kit, please e-mail 
NRGBB @ucsf.edu or call (415)476-7864. 
 
Shipping Address: 
Courier Address (FedEx, UPS, etc.): For all Frozen Specimens 
NRG Oncology Biospecimen Bank- San Francisco 
University of California San Francisco 
2340 Sutter Street, Room S341 
San Francisco, CA 94115 
For questions, call 415-476-7864 or e-mail: NRGBB @ucsf.edu  

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
82
APPENDIX IV (continued) 
URINE COLLECTION KIT INSTRUCTIONS  
This Kit is for collection, processing, storage, and shipping of urine specimens. 
 
Kit Contents: 
• 
One (1) Sterile Urine collection cup 
• one-two 15 ml polypropylene centrifuge tubes 
• 
Two 7 ml disposable pipettes 
• Biohazard bags 
• 
Absorbent paper towel 
• Parafilm for sealing outside of tubes 
 
Preparation and Processing of Urine Specimens: 
Process: 
• 
A clean catch urine specimen will be collected. To collect the specimen, use the following instructions: 
o 
Males should wipe clean the head of the penis and females need to wipe between the labia with soapy 
water/cleansing wipes to remove any contaminants.  
o 
After urinating a small amount into the toilet bowl to clear the urethra of contaminants, collect a sample of 
urine in the collection cup. 
o 
After 10-25 mL urine has been collected, remove the container from the urine stream without stopping the 
flow of urine. 
o 
Finish voiding the bladder into the toilet bowl. 
• 
Aliquot 5-10 mls of Urine one-two 15 ml polypropylene centrifuge tubes (disposable pipets are provided in the 
kit). Do not fill with more than 10 mls to avoid cracking of tubes due to expansion during freezing. Replace the 
cap and tighten on the tubes. Make sure the cap is not cross-threaded or placed on incorrectly or leaking will 
occur.  
• 
Use parafilm to seal the cap around the outside rim of the urine tube to prevent leakage.  
• 
Discard remaining Urine and collection cup. 
• 
Clearly label the specimen with the NRG Oncology study and case number, collection date and time, time 
point of collection, and clearly mark specimens as “urine”. Labels can fall off at cold temperatures so label the 
tube with a sharpie first before using a label, or don’t use a sticky label. 
• 
Wrap Urine Tubes with absorbent material (paper towels) and place into biohazard bag and seal the bag. 
Freeze and store Urine samples in a -20C or -80C freezer until ready to ship. 
 
PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT EVERY SPECIMEN IS LABELED with NRG Oncology study and case numbers, 
collection date/time, and time point collected (e.g. pretreatment, post-treatment). 
 
Storage and Shipping: 
Freezing and Storage: 
 
Urine specimens may be sent in batches or with other frozen biospecimens, if within 30-60 days of collection. Store 
at -20C or -80C (-70C to -90C) until ready to ship. If a -80C Freezer is not available:  
▪ 
Samples can be stored short term in a -20 C freezer (non-frost free preferred) for up to one week (please 
ship out Monday-Wednesday only; Canada: Monday-Tuesday only). 
 
OR: 
▪ 
Samples can be stored in plenty of Dry Ice for up to one week, replenishing daily (please ship out Monday-
Wednesday only; Canada: Monday-Tuesday only). 
▪ 
Please indicate on Specimen Transmittal Form the storage conditions used and time stored. 
 
Shipping/Mailing: 
 
Ship specimens on Dry Ice overnight Monday-Wednesday (Monday-Tuesday from Canada) to prevent thawing 
due to delivery delays.  Saturday and holiday deliveries cannot be accepted.  
 
Include all NRG Oncology paperwork in a sealed plastic bag and tape to the outside top of the Styrofoam box. 
 
Place sealed specimen bags into the Styrofoam cooler and fill with plenty of dry ice (7-10 lbs/3.5kg minimum). Add 
padding to avoid the dry ice from breaking the tubes.  
 
Place Styrofoam coolers into outer cardboard box, and attach shipping label and UN3373 and UN1895 stickers to 
outer cardboard box. 
 
Multiple cases may be shipped in the same cooler, but make sure each one is in a separate bag and that there is 
enough room for plenty of dry ice. Add padding to avoid the dry ice from breaking the tubes. 
 
Samples received thawed will be discarded, and a notification will be sent immediately to the Principal Investigator 
and Clinical Research Assistant of the submitting institution. The institution should send a subsequent sample, 
collected as close as possible to the original planned collection date. 
 
For questions regarding ordering, collection, or shipping of a Urine Collection Kit, please e-mail 
NRGBB@ucsf.edu or call (415)476-7864 or fax (415) 476-5271. 
Shipping Address: FedEx/UPS/Courier address (For all frozen samples) 
NRG Oncology Biospecimen Bank - San Francisco 
2340 Sutter Street, Room S341, San Francisco, CA  94115 
Contact Phone: (415) 476-7864 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
83
 
APPENDIX V (12/10/13) 
RTOG 0534 Neurocognitive Battery: Certification Process and Test Instructions 
 
Examiner Certification 
Prior to testing a patient, potential examiners must view the training video and take the post-test. Administrators 
that have previously been certified for RTOG 0525, 0614, or 0825 do not need to go through the training 
procedure again, but must fax the certification worksheet to Dr. Wefel, and indicate that they have previously been 
certified. Please note previous certification for RTOG 0212, 0214 and 0424 is not sufficient. Training, which takes 
15-30 minutes, will involve review of the forms and instructions for the administration and scoring of the 
neurocognitive test battery (Hopkins Verbal Learning Test - Revised, Trail Making Test Parts A and B, and 
Controlled Oral Word Association Test) and discussion of study-specific logistics.    
 
The trainee will then complete a practice assessment for review. This assessment must be faxed to Dr. Wefel 
(see certification worksheet below), and he will review the results with the trainee. If the trainee demonstrates 
competency, he/she will be approved to administer the tests to study subjects as part of RTOG 0534.  Dr. Wefel 
will fax his approval to the CTSU for documentation and to ensure that only certified examiners are testing 
subjects on RTOG 0534. 
 
Examiner Certification Worksheet 
This worksheet must be completed and signed by the person requesting certification and submitted to Dr. Wefel 
prior to the registration of patients to RTOG 0534.  
 
 
(Y) 
 
1. Have you reviewed the Neuropsychological Test Instructions in Appendix VI of the 0534 
protocol? 
 
(Y) 
 
2. Have you been trained by Dr. Wefel at an RTOG meeting or by teleconference, watched the 
0534 Neuropsychological Test Administration video, or previously been certified for RTOG 0525, 
0614, or 0825 within the past 6 months? 
 
(Y) 
 3.  Have you completed and submitted the post-test associated with the training video and a  
“practice” neuropsychological assessment? 
 
 
(Y) 
 4. Have you contacted Dr. Wefel (See Section 11.9) for test translations and found that  
no translations are available for your institution?  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Signature of test administrator 
 
 
 
 
Date 
(Person who read Appendix VI, completed a RTOG meeting training or teleconference or watched video and 
completed the “practice” Neuropsychological Assessment) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
___ 
Printed name of test administrator 
 
 
 
Institution number/Name-NCI Code 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
___ 
Telephone number of test administrator  
 
 
Fax number of test administrator 
 
If you have any questions regarding the certification, please contact Dr. Wefel. Once you have completed this 
form, please attach the Neuropsychological Assessment forms from the “practice” individual and the training video 
post test and and fax to: 
Dr. Jeffrey S. Wefel; phone: 713.563.0514; FAX: 713.794.4999; e-mail: jwefel@mdanderson.org 
 
 
For Dr. Wefel’s Use Only (To fax to 215-569-0206, CTSU) 
 
 
(Y/N) 
The above individual has been certified for administering the neurocognitive assessments for this 
 
 
 
study. 
 
Signature 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Date 
 
 
 
 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
84
APPENDIX V (Continued) 
 
Testing: General Information 
1. As noted above, copies of the test forms and summary sheets for the first case from each site must be 
faxed to Dr. Wefel for review.   
2. Testing should be completed in one session. Test instructions must be followed verbatim with every 
patient at every assessment visit. 
3. Tests should be administered in the following order to every patient and at each assessment visit:  HVLT-
R Part A (Learning Trials); Trail Making Test Part A; Trail Making Test Part B; COWAT; HVLT-R Part B 
(Delayed Recall); and the HVLT-R Part C (Delayed Recognition). 
4. Follow the instructions on the Forms Packet Index before submitting forms to RTOG.  
5. All test results are recorded on the Neurocognitive Evaluation Summary Form (CS), which is found in the 
Forms Packet. Study/case-specific labels must be applied to all forms.   
6. Note: Test results are not submitted to Dr. Wefel, nor to RTOG Headquarters (test results are recorded 
on forms and submitted).  Sites should keep all original test records, and test results must remain on file 
at the institution as source documentation pending request for submission by RTOG or a Study Chair. In 
the event of questions, contact Dr. Wefel. 
7. Patients should not be given copies of their tests to avoid learning the material between test 
administrations. 
8. The HVLT-R and the COWAT have alternate forms or versions in order to reduce the effects of practice.  
See the test instructions below for the versions to be administered at pre-treatment and subsequent 
sessions.  The forms should continue to be alternated in this order for the duration of the study.  The 
forms packet will contain alternate versions of these neuropsychological tests.   
Before dismissing the patient, thank him/her for their cooperation. Remind the patient of their next 
appointment and that these tests will be repeated.   
In the event that a patient cannot complete a given test, please write the reason(s) on the test form AND the 
data summary form. 
 
Testing: Specific Instructions 
Note: Administer the tests in the following order to every patient at each assessment visit. 
 
1. HOPKINS VERBAL LEARNING TEST - REVISED (HVLT-R) 
This test has three parts and six alternate forms (only the first 4 forms will be used in this study): 
Part A - Free Recall:  Complete the three learning trials first 
Part B - Delayed Recall:  Complete after Trail Making Tests and COWAT 
Part C - Delayed Recognition:  Complete after Delayed Recall 
 
  
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
   
 
 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
85
APPENDIX V (Continued) 
 
• 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
2. TRAIL MAKING TEST [Timed Test] 
 
Part A – Sample:  Place the Sample A worksheet flat on the table, directly in front of the patient (the bottom of the 
worksheet should be approximately six inches from the edge of the table).  Give the patient a black pen and say: 
Examiner: “On this page (point) are some numbers. Begin at number 1 (point to 1) and draw a line from 1 
to 2 (point to 2), 2 to 3 (point to 3), 3 to 4 (point to 4), and so on, in order, until you reach the end (point to 
the circle marked END).  Draw the lines as fast as you can. Ready, begin.” 
 
If the patient completes Sample A correctly, and in a manner demonstrating that s/he understands what to do, 
proceed immediately to Test A. If the patient makes a mistake on Sample A, point out the error and explain it. 
The following explanations of mistakes serve as illustrations: 
• 
This is where you start (point to number 1).  
• 
You skipped this circle (point to the circle omitted).  
• 
You should go from number 1 to 2, 2 to 3, and so on, until you reach the circle marked END. 
 
If it is clear that the patient intended to touch a circle but missed it, do not count it as an omission.  Remind the 
patient, however, to be sure to touch the circles.  If the patient still cannot complete Sample A, take his/her hand 
and guide him/her through the trail using the opposite end of the pen, lightly touching the worksheet to avoid 
making marks on he copy. Then say:  
Examiner: “Remember, begin at number 1 (point to 1) and draw a line from 1 to 2 (point to 2), 2 to 3 (point 
to 3), 3 to 4 (point to 4) and so on, in order, until you reach the circle marked END (point). Do not skip 
around, but go from one number to the next in proper order. Remember to work as fast as you can. 
Ready, begin.” 
 
If the patient does not succeed, or it becomes evident that s/he cannot do the task, DISCONTINUE testing and 
indicate the corresponding reason on the Trail Making Data Sheet.  If the patient completes Sample A correctly 
and appears to understand what to do, proceed immediately to Part A. 
 
Part A – Test:  After the patient has completed Sample A, place the Part A test worksheet directly in front of the 
patient and say: 
Examiner: “Good! Let’s try the next one. On this page are numbers from 1 to 25. Do this the same way. 
Begin at number 1 (point) and draw a line from 1 to 2 (point to 2), 2 to 3 (point to 3), 3 to 4 (point to 4) and 
so on, in order, until you reach the circle marked END (point). Do not skip around, but go from one 
number to the next in proper order. Remember to work as fast as you can. Ready, begin.”  
• 
Start timing as soon as the instruction is given to “begin” 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
86
APPENDIX V (Continued) 
 
• 
Watch closely in order to catch any errors as soon as they are made.  If the patient makes an error, call it 
to his/her attention immediately and have him/her proceed from the point the mistake occurred 
• 
The patient must complete the test in 3 minutes or less. 
• 
DO NOT STOP TIMING UNTIL HE/SHE REACHES THE CIRCLE MARKED “END”. 
• 
Collect the worksheet and record the time to completion on the Trail Making Data Sheet in minutes and 
seconds 
• 
If the patient does not complete the test within 3 minutes terminate the testing.  The test can also be 
discontinued if the patient is extremely confused and is unable to perform the task.  Collect the worksheet 
and complete the Trail Making Data Sheet indicating the reason the test was terminated and the last 
correct number reached on the test.  
 
Part B – Sample:  Place the Sample B worksheet flat on the table, directly in front of the patient (the bottom of the 
worksheet should be approximately six inches from the edge of the table) and say: 
Examiner:  “On this page (point) are some numbers and letters. Begin at number 1 (point to 1) and draw a 
line from 1 to A (point), A to 2 (point to 2), 2 to B (point to B), B to 3 (point to 3), 3 to C (point to C) and so 
on, in order, until you reach the end (point to the circle marked END). Remember, first you have a number 
(point to 1), then a letter (point to A), then a number (point to 2), then a letter (point to B), and so on. Draw 
the lines as fast as you can. Ready, begin.” 
 
If the patient completes Sample B correctly, and in a manner demonstrating that s/he understands what to do, 
proceed immediately to Part B. If the patient makes a mistake on Sample B, point out the error and explain it. 
The following explanations of mistakes serve as illustrations: 
• 
You started with the wrong circle. This is where you start (point to number 1) 
• 
You skipped this circle (point to the circle omitted)  
• 
You should go from number 1 (point) to A (point), A to 2 (point to 2), 2 to B (point to B), B to 3 
(point to 3) and so on, until you reach the circle marked END (point). 
 
If it is clear the patient intended to touch a circle but missed it, do not count it as an omission.  Remind the patient, 
however, to be sure to touch the circles. If the patient still cannot complete Sample B, take their hand and guide 
them through the trail using the opposite end of the pen, lightly touching the worksheet to avoid making marks on 
the copy. Then say:  
Examiner:  “Now you try it. Remember, begin at number 1 (point to 1) and draw a line from 1 to A (point to 
A), A to 2 (point to 2), 2 to B (point to B), B to 3 (point to 3) and so on, in order, until you reach the circle 
marked END (point). Ready, begin.” 
 
If the patient does not succeed or it becomes evident that s/he cannot do the task, DISCONTINUE testing and 
indicate the corresponding reason on the Trail Making Data Sheet.  If the patient completes Sample A correctly 
and appears to understand what to do, proceed immediately to Part A. 
 
Part B – Test:   
After the patient has completed Sample B, place the Part B Worksheet directly in front of the patient and say: 
Examiner: “Good! Let’s try the next one. On this page are both numbers and letters. Do this the same 
way. Begin at number 1 (point) and draw a line from 1 to A (point to A), A to 2 (point to 2), 2 to B (point to 
B), B to 3 (point to 3), 3 to C (point to C) and so on, in order, until you reach the circle marked END (point). 
Remember, first you have a number (point to 1), then a letter (point to A), then a number (point to 2), then 
a letter (point to B), and so on. Do not skip around, but go from one circle to the next in the proper order. 
Draw the lines as fast as you can. Ready, begin.”   
• 
Start timing as soon as the instruction is given to “begin”. 
• 
Watch closely in order to catch any errors as soon as they are made.  If the patient makes an error, call it 
to his/her attention immediately and have him/her proceed from the point the mistake occurred 
• 
The patient must complete the test in 5 minutes or less. 
• 
DO NOT STOP TIMING UNTIL HE/SHE REACHES THE CIRCLE MARKED “END”. 
• 
Collect the worksheet and record the time to completion on the Trail Making Data Sheet in minutes and 
seconds. 
 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
87
APPENDIX V (Continued) 
 
• 
If the patient does not complete the test within 5 minutes terminate the testing.  The test can also be 
discontinued if the patient is extremely confused and is unable to perform the task.  Collect the worksheet 
and complete the Trail Making Data Sheet indicating the reason the test was terminated and the last 
correct number or letter reached on the test.  
 
3.  CONTROLLED ORAL WORD ASSOCIATION TEST (COWAT) [Timed Test] 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 

 
 
  
 
 
                   
 
 
  
 
        RTOG 0534, Version Date:  March 1, 2019 
 
88
APPENDIX V (Continued) 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.  HOPKINS VERBAL LEARNING TEST - REVISED (HVLT-R)