How will the CHHiP trial affect the future of prostate radiotherapy?

The Fraction Size Sensitivity of Late Genitourinary Toxicity: Analysis of Alpha/Beta (α/β) Ratios in the CHHiP Trial

PURPOSE

Moderately hypofractionated external beam intensity modulated radiation therapy (RT) for prostate cancer is now standard-of-care. Normal tissue toxicity responses to fraction size alteration are nonlinear: the linear-quadratic model is a widely used framework accounting for this, through the α/β ratio. Few α/β ratio estimates exist for human late genitourinary endpoints; here we provide estimates derived from a hypofractionation trial.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The CHHiP trial randomized 3216 men with localized prostate cancer 1:1:1 between conventionally fractionated intensity modulated RT (74 Gy/37 fractions (Fr)) and 2 moderately hypofractionated regimens (60 Gy/20 Fr and 57 Gy/19 Fr). RT plan and suitable follow-up assessment was available for 2206 men. Three prospectively assessed clinician-reported toxicity scales were amalgamated for common genitourinary endpoints: dysuria, hematuria, incontinence, reduced flow/stricture, and urine frequency. Per endpoint, only patients with baseline zero toxicity were included. Three models for endpoint grade ≥1 (G1+) and G2+ toxicity were fitted: Lyman Kutcher-Burman (LKB) without equivalent dose in 2 Gy/Fr (EQD2) correction [LKB-NoEQD2]; LKB with EQD2-correction [LKB-EQD2]; LKB-EQD2 with dose-modifying-factor (DMF) inclusion [LKB-EQD2-DMF]. DMFs were age, diabetes, hypertension, pelvic surgery, prior transurethral resection of prostate (TURP), overall treatment time and acute genitourinary toxicity (G2+). Bootstrapping generated 95% confidence intervals and unbiased performance estimates. Models were compared by likelihood ratio test.

RESULTS

The LKB-EQD2 model significantly improved performance over LKB-NoEQD2 for just 3 endpoints: dysuria G1+ (α/β = 2.0 Gy; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-3.2 Gy), hematuria G1+ (α/β = 0.9 Gy; 95% CI, 0.1-2.2 Gy) and hematuria G2+ (α/β = 0.6 Gy; 95% CI, 0.1-1.7 Gy). For these 3 endpoints, further incorporation of 2 DMFs improved on LKB-EQD2: acute genitourinary toxicity and prior TURP (hematuria G1+ only), but α/β ratio estimates remained stable.

CONCLUSIONS

Inclusion of EQD2-correction significantly improved model fitting for dysuria and hematuria endpoints, where fitted α/β ratio estimates were low: 0.6 to 2 Gy. This suggests therapeutic gain for clinician-reported GU toxicity, through hypofractionation, might be lower than expected by typical late α/β ratio assumptions of 3 to 5 Gy.

Evaluation of Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy Use and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Men With Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer in Australia and New Zealand

IMPORTANCE

Randomized clinical trials in prostate cancer have reported noninferior outcomes for hypofractionated radiation therapy (HRT) compared with conventional RT (CRT); however, uptake of HRT across jurisdictions is variable.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the use of HRT vs CRT in men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer and compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at a population level.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Registry-based cohort study from the Australian and New Zealand Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry (PCOR-ANZ). Participants were men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer treated with primary RT (excluding brachytherapy) from January 2016 to December 2019. Data were analyzed in March 2021.

EXPOSURES

HRT defined as 2.5 to 3.3 Gy and CRT defined as 1.7 to 2.3 Gy per fraction.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Temporal trends and institutional, clinicopathological, and sociodemographic factors associated with use of HRT were analyzed. PROs were assessed 12 months following RT using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC)-26 Short Form questionnaire. Differences in PROs were analyzed by adjusting for age and National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk category.

RESULTS

Of 8305 men identified as receiving primary RT, 6368 met the inclusion criteria for CRT (n = 4482) and HRT (n = 1886). The median age was 73.1 years (IQR, 68.2-77.3 years), 2.6% (168) had low risk, 45.7% (2911) had intermediate risk, 44.5% (2836) had high-/very high-risk, and 7.1% (453) had regional nodal disease. Use of HRT increased from 2.1% (9 of 435) in the first half of 2016 to 52.7% (539 of 1023) in the second half of 2019, with lower uptake in the high-/very high-risk (1.9% [4 of 215] to 42.4% [181 of 427]) compared with the intermediate-risk group (2.2% [4 of 185] to 67.6% [325 of 481]) (odds ratio, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.15-0.45). Substantial variability in the use of HRT for intermediate-risk disease remained at the institutional level (median 53.3%; range, 0%-100%) and clinician level (median 57.9%; range, 0%-100%) in the last 2 years of the study period. There were no clinically significant differences across EPIC-26 urinary and bowel functional domains or bother scores.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study, use of HRT for prostate cancer increased substantially from 2016. This population-level data demonstrated clinically equivalent PROs and supports the continued implementation of HRT into routine practice. The wide variation in practice observed at the jurisdictional, institutional, and clinician level provides stakeholders with information that may be useful in targeting implementation strategies and benchmarking services.

Seven or less Fractions is Not the Standard of Care for Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer

Evidence is accumulating for seven and less fractions in localised prostate cancer, including one large randomised trial. However, there is much more evidence yet to come and changing practice in advance of this may be premature. We review the reasons to persist with moderate hypofractionation for prostate cancer radiotherapy, until the results of further phase III studies are known.

Focal Salvage Treatment of Radiorecurrent Prostate Cancer: A Narrative Review of Current Strategies and Future Perspectives

Over the last decades, primary prostate cancer radiotherapy saw improving developments, such as more conformal dose administration and hypofractionated treatment regimens. Still, prostate cancer recurrences after whole-gland radiotherapy remain common, especially in patients with intermediate- to high-risk disease. The vast majority of these patients are treated palliatively with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), which exposes them to harmful side-effects and is only effective for a limited amount of time. For patients with a localized recurrent tumor and no signs of metastatic disease, local treatment with curative intent seems more rational. However, whole-gland salvage treatments such as salvage radiotherapy or salvage prostatectomy are associated with significant toxicity and are, therefore, uncommonly performed. Treatments that are solely aimed at the recurrent tumor itself, thereby better sparing the surrounding organs at risk, potentially provide a safer salvage treatment option in terms of toxicity. To achieve such tumor-targeted treatment, imaging developments have made it possible to better exclude metastatic disease and accurately discriminate the tumor. Currently, focal salvage treatment is being performed with different modalities, including brachytherapy, cryotherapy, high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Oncologic outcomes seem comparable to whole-gland salvage series, but with much lower toxicity rates. In terms of oncologic control, these results will improve further with better understanding of patient selection. Other developments, such as high-field diagnostic MRI and live adaptive MRI-guided radiotherapy, will further improve precision of the treatment.