Pelvis Adaptive Radiotherapy (ART) (Pelvis ART)

February 3, 2026 updated by: Royal North Shore Hospital

Pelvis Adaptive Radiation Therapy

Pelvis Adaptive radiotherapy (ART) is a two phase study looking at using adaptive radiotherapy to help reduce toxicity for cancer patients having radiotherapy in the pelvic region.

Adaptive radiotherapy is a new technology that provides the ability to account for daily changes in anatomy. Adaptive radiotherapy also provides a foundation for which radiotherapy margins might be safely reduced.

Phase 1 of this study is looking to see if a radiation therapist centred adaptive workflow can be implemented. If phase 1 of this study is safe and feasible, the study will proceed to phase 2. Phase 2 of the study looks at using adaptive technology to reduce radiation treatment margins. The primary aim of this study is to see whether margin reduced treatment using adaptive radiotherapy can reduce side effects for patients with cancer in the pelvic area.

Study Overview

Detailed Description

Despite major technological advancements in the delivery of pelvic radiation therapy including the use of dynamic therapy, image guidance, integrated boosting and stereotactic techniques, toxicity from pelvic radiation remains a significant issue impacting on patient's quality of life and preventing the delivery of higher (and more curative) doses of radiation. Although evidence showed that adaptive radiotherapy demonstrating promising reduction of acute toxicity, the uptake of adaptive radiotherapy remains poor as adaptive radiation therapy is very labour intensive, time consuming and usually requires a radiation oncologist (RO) and Medical Physicist in attendance to review/modify target contours. These practices of daily multi-disciplinary team (MDT) in person attendance is not sustainable in the long term. Since 2021, Royal North Shore Hospital has been treating patients with cancer in the pelvic with Adaptive Radiation Therapy (ART) and Radiation Therapists (RT) at the site have undergone a rigorous University based Advanced Practitioner training programme. This study aims to evaluate RT-led ART in a randomised trial to assess the safety and feasibility of ART in a two stage phase 3 randomised controlled trial.

If this study can prove safety and feasibility in the first phase, it will proceed to the second phase of the study which will look at using adaptive radiotherapy to safely reduce CTV and PTV margins. The primary aim of the study will be to measure the difference in combined acute patient reported gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity between ART with margin reduction versus standard radiotherapy. Secondary aims will be to look at differences in clinician and patient reported acute and late GI and GU toxicity, disease free survival locoregional control, location of recurrence, the efficiency of ART including time taken per treatment, radiation dosimetric differences between the treatment arms and patients' perception of ART.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Estimated)

280

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Study Contact Backup

Study Locations

    • New South Wales
      • St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia, 2065
        • Recruiting
        • Northern Sydney Local Health District
        • Contact:
        • Sub-Investigator:
          • Thomas Eade
        • Sub-Investigator:
          • George Hruby
        • Sub-Investigator:
          • Joseph Chan
        • Sub-Investigator:
          • Sarah Bergamin
        • Contact:

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Adult
  • Older Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  1. Age > 18
  2. ECOG performance status 0-2
  3. Patients receiving curative or adjuvant pelvic radiation including:

    1. Prostate cancer where nodal treatment is required
    2. Prostate cancer post prostatectomy
    3. Bladder cancer
    4. Rectal cancer
    5. Anal cancer
    6. Adjuvant radiotherapy for gynaecological cancers
    7. Pelvic Lymph nodes only
  4. Ability to understand and the willingness to sign an informed consent

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Hip prosthesis
  • Patient separation from approximate radiation centre to skin edge > 24cm, measured on diagnostic scan

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Active Comparator: Adaptive radiotherapy +/- margin reduction

Phase 1 and 2: Treating Radiation Therapists (RTs) on the treatment machine will review the treatment target and organs at risk contours that are automatically generated on the plan of the day. They will modify these safely, as required, and then also approve the computer generated re-plan of the day, within the bounds of departmental protocols and decision guides (RT led).

Phase 2 only: Margin reduction facilitated by adaptive radiotherapy.

Radiotherapy using adaptive technology to recontour and re-plan daily as required. Reductions in the PTV margin will also be introduced in the second phase of this study.
Active Comparator: Standard radiotherapy
Patients will receive standard image guided radiotherapy
Standard radiation treatment used in the department of radiation oncology for cancer in pelvic area

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Dose coverage of Clinical Target Volume (CTV) (% of CTV receiving 95% of prescribed dose) will be performed between the two arms (Safety).
Time Frame: 12 months
The CTV dose coverage must be equal or better in 90% of fractions for 90% of patients in the adaptive arm will be compared with the virtual image guided radiotherapy (IGRT) fraction. Dose coverage will be calculated as the percent of CTV receiving at least 95% of the prescribed dose (TD). Percentage will be measured from 0-100%, a higher % is a better outcome.
12 months
The percentage of organ at risk (OAR) dose volume histogram (DVH) metrics satisfying departmental protocol constraints will be compared for each patient between the two arms (Safety).
Time Frame: 12 months
The OAR DVH dose constraints must be equal or better in 90% of fractions for 90% of patients compared with the virtual image guided radiotherapy (IGRT) fraction (safety). Percentage will be measured from 0-100%, a higher % is a better outcome.
12 months
The percentage of successfully delivered fractions on the adaptive arm will be measured (feasibility).
Time Frame: 12 months
At least 90% of patients must have 90% of planned adaptive treatments successfully delivered in phase 1 of the study. Percentage will be measured from 0-100%, a higher % is a better outcome.
12 months
Acute patient reported toxicity
Time Frame: Within 90 days of patients completing treatment
The study will measure the difference in patient reported combined maximum genitourinGU and GI toxicity (Grade 2 or higher) as per PRO-CTCAE between the two treatment arms. PRO-CTCAE scale is generally measured from 0 to 5, higher scale being a worse outcome.
Within 90 days of patients completing treatment

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Acute clinician reported toxicity
Time Frame: Within 90 days of patients completing treatment
The study will measure the difference in acute combined maximum genitourinary (GU) and gastroenterology (GI) toxicity (Grade 2 or higher) grading between the two treatment arms as reported by clinicians using CTCAE v5.0. The CTCAE scale is generally measured from 0 to 5, higher scale being a worse outcome.
Within 90 days of patients completing treatment
Late clinician reported toxicity
Time Frame: 5 years
The study will measure the difference in late GU and GI toxicity (Grade 2 or higher) between the two treatment arms as reported by clinicians using CTCAE v5.0. The CTCAE scale is generally measured from 0 to 5, higher scale being a worse outcome.
5 years
Late patient reported toxicity
Time Frame: 5 years
The study will measure the difference in patient reported late GU and GI toxicity (Grade 2 or higher) between the two treatment arms as per PRO-CTCAE. The PRO-CTCAE scale is generally measured from 0 to 5, higher scale being a worse outcome.
5 years
Disease free survival (DFS) (incorporating biochemical DFS for prostate cancer patients
Time Frame: 5 years
The rate of disease free survival and the rate of biochemical failure in prostate cancer as defined as Nadir+2.0, commencement of ADT for relapse or evidence of disease recurrence on imaging. DFS is measured as a continuous variable, a longer DFS is associated with better outcomes.
5 years
Time differences between treatment arms
Time Frame: 5 years
The study will assess the average absolute treatment time difference per fraction for adaptive radiation therapy compared to standard IGRT. Time is measured as a continuous variable, this is a descriptive statistic and longer or shorter time is not necessarily better or worse.
5 years
Radiation dosimetric differences between treatment arms
Time Frame: 5 years
The study will evaluate the radiation dosimetric differences between treatment using ART and treatment using standard IGRT.
5 years
Patient reported attitudes and perceptions
Time Frame: 1 and 5 years
The study will assess the patient experience with radiotherapy on a five item questionnaire that uses a five-point Likert-scale (ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree). Differences in responses for each question between the arms will be reported. Whether each perception is better or worse is dependent on the question.
1 and 5 years

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Andrew Kneebone, Northern Sydney Local Health District

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

October 9, 2025

Primary Completion (Estimated)

November 30, 2029

Study Completion (Estimated)

November 30, 2031

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

October 17, 2024

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

October 17, 2024

First Posted (Actual)

October 21, 2024

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

February 5, 2026

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

February 3, 2026

Last Verified

February 1, 2026

More Information

Terms related to this study

Other Study ID Numbers

  • Pelvis Adaptive Radiotherapy

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Pelvis Neoplasms

Clinical Trials on Adaptive radiotherapy +/- margin reduction

Subscribe