Optimal scheduling of hypofractionated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: A systematic review and metanalysis of randomized clinical trials

Ablative Radiation Therapy for Unfavorable Prostate Tumors (ABRUPT): Preliminary Analysis of Toxicity and Quality of Life from a Prospective Study

PURPOSE

To assess late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) side effects in patients with organ-confined unfavorable prostate cancer (PCa) treated with single-dose ablative radiation therapy (SDRT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Thirty patients enrolled in a single-arm prospective trial received 24 Gy SDRT to the whole prostate with urethra-sparing and organ motion control delivered on a Linac platform with a 10 MV flattening filter-free single partial arc. Androgen deprivation therapy was prescribed as per standard of care. Treatment-related acute and late GU and GI toxicities (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events_v5 scale) and quality of life (QoL) outcomes (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] QLQ-PR25/C30, International Prostate Symptom Score [IPSS]) were assessed at different time points. Minimal important difference (MID) was established as a change of >0.5 pooled standard deviations from baseline. Statistical analysis included analysis of variance and logistic regression.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 18 months (range, 6-31 months), with no ≥G3 late side effects observed. G2 late GI and G2 late GU toxicities occurred in 1 and 2 patients, respectively. GI toxicity of any grade correlated with maximum rectal dose (P = .021). Lower baseline QoL score (P = .025), higher baseline IPSS score (P = .049), acute GU toxicity (P = .029), and acute urinary domain MID (P = .045) predicted GU toxicity of any grade. In multivariate analysis (MVA), only baseline QoL score (odds ratio [OR], 0.95, P = .031) and acute GU toxicity (OR, 8.4, P = .041) remained significant. Significant QoL change was observed only in the urinary domain (P = .005), with a median increase from 8 to 17. Late urinary MID correlated with acute urinary MID (P = .003), acute QoL MID (P = .029), acute GU toxicity (P = .030), and lower baseline urinary score (P = .033). In MVA, only acute urinary MID predicted late urinary MID (OR, 9.7, P = .035).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings provide promising data on the feasibility and safety of 24 Gy whole-gland SDRT with urethra-sparing and organ motion control, in association with androgen deprivation therapy and an adequate prophylactic medication, in organ-confined unfavorable PCa. Long-term follow-up is needed to confirm these results.

The Current Trend of Radiation Therapy for Patients with Localized Prostate Cancer

A recent approach to radiotherapy for prostate cancer is the administration of high doses of radiation to the prostate while minimizing the risk of side effects. Thus, image-guided radiotherapy utilizes advanced imaging techniques and is a feasible strategy for increasing the radiation dose. New radioactive particles are another approach to achieving high doses and safe procedures. Prostate brachytherapy is currently considered as a combination therapy. Spacers are useful to protect adjacent organs, specifically the rectum, from excessive radiation exposure.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in the Acute Phase of the Randomized Hypofractionated Irradiation for Prostate Cancer (HYPRO) Trial

PURPOSE

Many patients experience bowel and bladder toxicity during the acute phase of radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Recent literature indicates that hypofractionation (HF) might increase this acute response but little is known on patient-reported outcome during this phase with HF. We evaluated the course of patient-reported acute symptoms during HF versus standard fractionated (SF) radiation therapy within the hypofractionated irradiation for prostate cancer (HYPRO) trial.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

In the HYPRO trial patients were treated with either 64.4 Gy (HF) in 19 fractions (3 times per week) or 78 Gy (SF) in 39 fractions (5 times per week). Normalized total dose for 2 Gy/fractions (NTD_2Gy)for acute toxicity (α/β ratio of 10) for HF was 72.1 Gy with a similar dose rate of 10.2 Gy per week. Among the 794 patients who were previously eligible for acute grade ≥2 toxicity assessment, 717 had filled out ≥1 symptom questionnaires. For each maximum symptom, we scored "any complaint" and "moderate-severe complaint." Differences were tested by χ² test, and associations with clinical factors were tested using logistic regression. Significance was set at P ≤ .008 to adjust for multiple testing.

RESULTS

We observed significantly higher rates of moderate-severe painful defecation (HF 10.8%, SF 5.3%), any mucus discharge (HF 47.1%, SF 37.4%), any rectal blood loss (HF 16.1%, SF 9.3%), increased daily stool frequency ≥4 and ≥6 (HF 34.6%/13.8%, SF 25.6%/7.0%), and any urinary straining (HF 69.9%, SF 58.0%). At 3 months postradiation therapy, rates dropped considerably with similar levels for HF and SF. Hormonal treatment was associated with less acute gastrointestinal symptoms.

CONCLUSION

The increased patient-reported acute rectal symptoms with HF confirmed the previously reported results on acute grade ≥2 rectal toxicity. The increase in bladder symptoms with HF was not identified previously. These observations contradict the NTD_2Gy calculations. We observed no patterns of persisting complaints with HF after the acute period; therefore, HF is well tolerated and only associated with a temporary increase of symptoms.

Ten Year Results of Extensive Nodal Radiotherapy and Moderately Hypofractionated Simultaneous Integrated Boost in Unfavorable Intermediate-, High-, and Very High-Risk Prostate Cancer

Simple Summary

Several phase III randomized trials of moderate hypofractionation, including a higher proportion of high-risk prostate cancer patients treated only to the prostate, failed to demonstrate the superiority of hypofractionated regimens. There is only one randomized phase III trial, of moderately hypofractionated high-dose radiotherapy to the prostate-only versus pelvic irradiation and prostate boost, with a sufficiently long follow-up. It demonstrated better biochemical and disease-free survival when lymph nodal radiotherapy was added. Here we present the 10-year results of our experience based on an Institutional protocol adopted after a phase I–II study, on patients with unfavorable intermediate- (UIR), high- (HR), and very high-risk (VHR) prostate cancer (PCa) treated with pelvic lymph nodal irradiation (WPRT) and moderately hypofractionated high-dose (HD) simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) to the prostate. Prognostic factors for relapse, as well as acute and late gastro-intestinal (GI) and genito-urinary (GU) toxicity were also analyzed.

Abstract

Aims: To report 10-year outcomes of WPRT and HD moderately hypofractionated SIB to the prostate in UIR, HR, and VHR PCa. Methods: From 11/2005 to 12/2015, 224 UIR, HR, and VHR PCa patients underwent WPRT at 51.8 Gy/28 fractions and SIB at 74.2 Gy (EQD2 88 Gy) to the prostate. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was prescribed in up to 86.2% of patients. Results: Median follow-up was 96.3 months (IQR: 71–124.7). Median age was 75 years (IQR: 71.3–78.1). At last follow up, G3 GI–GU toxicity was 3.1% and 8%, respectively. Ten-year biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) was 79.8% (95% CI: 72.3–88.1%), disease-free survival (DFS) 87.8% (95% CI: 81.7–94.3%), overall survival (OS) 65.7% (95% CI: 58.2–74.1%), and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) 94.9% (95% CI: 91.0–99.0%). Only two patients presented local relapse. At univariate analysis, VHR vs. UIR was found to be a significant risk factor for biochemical relapse (HR: 2.8, 95% CI: 1.17–6.67, p = 0.021). After model selection, only Gleason Score ≥ 8 emerged as a significant factor for biochemical relapse (HR = 2.3, 95% CI: 1.12–4.9, p = 0.023). Previous TURP (HR = 3.5, 95% CI: 1.62–7.54, p = 0.001) and acute toxicity ≥ G2 (HR = 3.1, 95% CI = 1.45–6.52, p = 0.003) were significant risk factors for GU toxicity ≥ G3. Hypertension was a significant factor for GI toxicity ≥ G3 (HR = 3.63, 95% CI: 1.06–12.46, p = 0.041). ADT (HR = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.12–0.8, p = 0.015) and iPsa (HR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.16–0.83, p = 0.0164) played a protective role. Conclusions: WPRT and HD SIB to the prostate combined with long-term ADT, in HR PCa, determine good outcomes with acceptable toxicity.

Hypofractionated radiotherapy recommendations for localized prostate cancer in Brasil

OBJECTIVE

Several prospective randomized trials have shown that hypofractionation has the same efficacy and safety as the conventional fractionation in the treatment of localized prostate cancer. There are many benefits of hypofractionation, including a more convenient schedule for the patients and better use of resources, which is especially important in low- and middle-income countries like Brasil. Based on these data, the Brazilian Society of Radiotherapy (Sociedade Brasileira de Radioterapia) organized this consensus to guide and support the use of hypofractionated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer in Brasil.

METHODS

The relevant literature regarding moderate hypofractionation (mHypo) and ultra-hypofractionation (uHypo) was reviewed and discussed by a group of experts from public and private centers of different parts of Brasil. Several key questions concerning clinical indications, outcomes and technological requirements for hypofractionation were discussed and voted. For each question, consensus was reached if there was an agreement of at least 75% of the panel members.

RESULTS

The recommendations are described in this article.

CONCLUSION

This initiative will assist Brazilian radiation oncologists and medical physicists to safely treat localized prostate cancer patients with hypofractionation.

Influence of the technique and comorbidities in hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To analyze the differences in toxicity and biochemical relapse-free survival with hypofractionated radiotherapy with three-dimensional radiotherapy (3D-CRT) or volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) for prostate cancer taking into account comorbidity measured using the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI).

METHODS

From January 2011 to June 2016, 451 patients with prostate cancer were treated with 60 Gy (20 daily fractions). VMAT or 3D-CRT was used. Distribution by stage: 17% low-risk, 27.2% intermediate-risk; 39.2% high-risk, 16.6% very high-risk. Mean CCI was 3.4.

RESULTS

With a median follow up of 51 months, most patients did not experience any degree of acute GI toxicity (80.9%) compared to 19.1%, who experienced some degree, mainly G-I /II. In the multivariate analysis, only technique was associated with acute GI toxicity ≥ G2. Patients treated with VMAT had greater acute GI toxicity compared with those who received 3D-CRT (23.9% vs. 13.5%, p = 0.005). With respect to acute GU toxicity, 72.7% of patients experienced some degree, fundamentally G-I/II. Neither age, CCI, nor androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) were associated with greater toxicity. Overall survival at 2, 5 and 7 years was 97%, 88% and 83% respectively. The only factor with statistical significance was CCI, with a greater number of events in individuals with a CCI ≥ 4 (p < 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer is an effective, well-tolerated treatment even for elderly patients with no associated comorbidity. Longer follow up is needed in order to report data on late toxicity.

Hypofractionation for clinically localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Using hypofractionation (fewer, larger doses of daily radiation) to treat localized prostate cancer may improve convenience and resource use. For hypofractionation to be feasible, it must be at least as effective for cancer-related outcomes and have comparable toxicity and quality of life outcomes as conventionally fractionated radiation therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of hypofractionated external beam radiation therapy compared to conventionally fractionated external beam radiation therapy for men with clinically localized prostate cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) and trials registries from 1946 to 15 March 2019 with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors. Searches were not limited by language or publication status. We reran all searches within three months (15th March 2019) prior to publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled comparisons which included men with clinically localized prostate adenocarcinoma where hypofractionated radiation therapy (external beam radiation therapy) to the prostate using hypofractionation (greater than 2 Gy per fraction) compared with conventionally fractionated radiation therapy to the prostate delivered using standard fractionation (1.8 Gy to 2 Gy per fraction).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology. Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used Review Manager 5 for data analysis and meta-analysis. We used the inverse variance method and random-effects model for data synthesis of time-to-event data with hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) reported. For dichotomous data, we used the Mantel-Haenzel method and random-effects model to present risk ratios (RR) and 95% CI. We used GRADE to assess evidence quality for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 studies with 8278 men in our analysis comparing hypofractionation with conventional fractionation to treat prostate cancer.Primary outcomesHypofractionation may result in little or no difference in prostate cancer-specific survival [PC-SS] (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.39; studies = 8, participants = 7946; median follow-up 72 months; low-certainty evidence). For men in the intermediate-risk group undergoing conventional fractionation this corresponds to 976 per 1000 men alive after 6 years and 0 more (44 fewer to 18 more) alive per 1000 men undergoing hypofractionation.We are uncertain about the effect of hypofractionation on late radiation therapy gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.78; studies = 4, participants = 3843; very low-certainty evidence).Hypofractionation probably results in little or no difference to late radiation therapy genitourinary (GU) toxicity (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.18; studies = 4, participants = 3843; moderate-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 262 per 1000 late GU radiation therapy toxicity events with conventional fractionation and 13 more (18 fewer to 47 more) per 1000 men when undergoing hypofractionation.Secondary outcomesHypofractionation results in little or no difference in overall survival (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.07; 10 studies, 8243 participants; high-certainty evidence). For men in the intermediate-risk group undergoing conventional fractionation this corresponds to 869 per 1000 men alive after 6 years and 17 fewer (54 fewer to 17 more) participants alive per 1000 men when undergoing hypofractionation.Hypofractionation may result in little to no difference in metastasis-free survival (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.76; 5 studies, 4985 participants; low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 981 men per 1000 men metastasis-free at 6 years when undergoing conventional fractionation and 5 more (58 fewer to 19 more) metastasis-free per 1000 when undergoing hypofractionation.Hypofractionation likely results in a small, possibly unimportant reduction in biochemical recurrence-free survival based on Phoenix criteria (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.13; studies = 5, participants = 2889; median follow-up 90 months to 108 months; moderate-certainty evidence). In men of the intermediate-risk group, this corresponds to 804 biochemical-recurrence free men per 1000 participants at six years with conventional fractionation and 42 fewer (134 fewer to 37 more) recurrence-free men per 1000 participants with hypofractionationHypofractionation likely results in little to no difference to acute GU radiation therapy toxicity (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.11; 4 studies, 4174 participants at 12 to 18 weeks' follow-up; moderate-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 360 episodes of toxicity per 1000 participants with conventional fractionation and 11 more (18 fewer to 40 more) per 1000 when undergoing hypofractionation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that moderate hypofractionation (up to a fraction size of 3.4 Gy) results in similar oncologic outcomes in terms of disease-specific, metastasis-free and overall survival. There appears to be little to no increase in both acute and late toxicity.