Patient-reported Urinary, Bowel, and Sexual Function After Hypofractionated Intensity-modulated Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Results From a Randomized Trial

Choosing the right questions - A systematic review of patient reported outcome measures used in radiotherapy and proton beam therapy

The implementation of PROMs into clinical practice has been shown to improve quality of care. This systematic review aims to identify which PROMs are suitable for implementation within routine clinical practice in a radiotherapy or PBT service.The bibliographic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and EMCARE were searched. Articles published between 1st January 2008 to 1st June 2023, that reported PROMs being utilised as an outcome measure were included. Inclusion criteria also included being written in English, involving human patients, aged 16 and above, receiving external beam radiotherapy or PBT for six defined tumour sites. PROMs identified within the included articles were subjected to quality assessment using the COSMIN reporting guidelines. Results are reported as per PRISMA guidelines. A total of 268 studies were identified in the search, of which 52 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The use of 39 different PROMs was reported. The PROMs identified were mostly tumour or site-specific quality of life (n = 23) measures but also included generic cancer (n = 3), health-related quality-of-life (n = 6), and symptom specific (n = 7) measures.None of the PROMs identified received a high GRADE score for good content. There were 13 PROMs that received a moderate GRADE score. The remaining PROMs either had limited evidence of development and validation within the patient cohorts investigated, or lacked relevance or comprehensiveness needed for routine PROMs collection in a radiotherapy or PBT service.This review highlights that there are a wide variety of PROMs being utilised within radiotherapy research, but most lack specificity to radiotherapy side-effects. There is a risk that by using non-specific PROMs in clinical practice, patients might not receive the supportive care that they need.

Dose-escalated radiotherapy for clinically localized and locally advanced prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer include radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, brachytherapy, active surveillance, hormonal therapy, and watchful waiting. For external beam radiation therapy, oncological outcomes may be expected to improve as the dose of radiotherapy (RT) increases. However, radiation-mediated side effects on surrounding critical organs may also increase.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of dose-escalated RT in comparison with conventional dose RT for curative treatment of clinically localized and locally advanced prostate cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases including trial registries and other sources of grey literature, up until 20 July 2022. We applied no restrictions on publication language or status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-arm randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of definitive RT in men with clinically localized and locally advanced prostate adenocarcinoma. RT was dose-escalated RT (equivalent dose in 2 Gy [EQD2] ≥ 74 Gy, lesser than 2.5 Gy per fraction) versus conventional RT (EQD2 < 74 Gy, 1.8 Gy or 2.0 Gy per fraction). Two review authors independently classified studies for inclusion or exclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently abstracted data from the included studies. We performed statistical analyses by using a random-effects model and interpreted them according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used GRADE guidance to rate the certainty of the evidence of RCTs.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine studies with 5437 men in an analysis comparing dose-escalated RT versus conventional dose RT for the treatment of prostate cancer. The mean participant age ranged from 67 to 71 years. Almost all men had localized prostate cancer (cT1-3N0M0). Primary outcomes Dose-escalated RT probably results in little to no difference in time to death from prostate cancer (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.04; I2 = 0%; 8 studies; 5231 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Assuming a risk of death from prostate cancer of 4 per 1000 at 10 years in the conventional dose RT group, this corresponds to 1 fewer men per 1000 (1 fewer to 0 more) dying of prostate cancer in the dose-escalated RT group. Dose-escalated RT probably results in little to no difference in severe RT toxicity of grade 3 or higher late gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.25; I2 = 0%; 8 studies; 4992 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); 23 more men per 1000 (10 more to 40 more) in the dose-escalated RT group assuming severe late GI toxicity as 32 per 1000 in the conventional dose RT group. Dose-escalated RT probably results in little to no difference in severe late genitourinary (GU) toxicity (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.63; I2 = 0%; 8 studies; 4962 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); 9 more men per 1000 (2 fewer to 23 more) in the dose-escalated RT group assuming severe late GU toxicity as 37 per 1000 in the conventional dose RT group. Secondary outcomes Dose-escalated RT probably results in little to no difference in time to death from any cause (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; I2 = 0%; 9 studies; 5437 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Assuming a risk of death from any cause of 101 per 1000 at 10 years in the conventional dose RT group, this corresponds to 2 fewer men per 1000 (11 fewer to 9 more) in the dose-escalated RT group dying of any cause. Dose-escalated RT probably results in little to no difference in time to distant metastasis (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.22; I2 = 45%; 7 studies; 3499 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Assuming a risk of distant metastasis of 29 per 1000 in the conventional dose RT group at 10 years, this corresponds to 5 fewer men per 1000 (12 fewer to 6 more) in the dose-escalated RT group developing distant metastases. Dose-escalated RT may increase overall late GI toxicity (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.55; I2 = 85%; 7 studies; 4328 participants; low-certainty evidence); 92 more men per 1000 (14 more to 188 more) in the dose-escalated RT group assuming overall late GI toxicity as 342 per 1000 in the conventional dose RT group. However, dose-escalated RT may result in little to no difference in overall late GU toxicity (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.29; I2 = 51%; 7 studies; 4298 participants; low-certainty evidence); 34 more men per 1000 (9 fewer to 82 more) in the dose-escalated RT group assuming overall late GU toxicity as 283 per 1000 in the conventional dose RT group. Based on long-term follow-up (up to 36 months), dose-escalated RT may result or probably results in little to no difference in the quality of life using 36-Item Short Form Survey; physical health (MD -3.9, 95% CI -12.78 to 4.98; 1 study; 300 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and mental health (MD -3.6, 95% CI -83.85 to 76.65; 1 study; 300 participants; low-certainty evidence), respectively.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to conventional dose RT, dose-escalated RT probably results in little to no difference in time to death from prostate cancer, time to death from any cause, time to distant metastasis, and RT toxicities (except overall late GI toxicity). While dose-escalated RT may increase overall late GI toxicity, it may result, or probably results, in little to no difference in physical and mental quality of life, respectively.

Cost-effectiveness of hypofractionated versus conventional radiotherapy in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer: An ancillary study of the PROstate fractionated irradiation trial - PROFIT

PURPOSE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of moderate Hypofractionated Radiotherapy (H-RT) compared to Conventional Radiotherapy (C-RT) for intermediate-risk prostate caner (PCa).

METHODS

A prospective randomized clinical trial including 222 patients from six French cancer centers was conducted as an ancillary study of the international PROstate Fractionated Irradiation Trial (PROFIT). We carried-out a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) from the payer's perspective, with a time horizon of 48 months. Patients assigned to the H-RT arm received 6000 cGy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks, or 7800 cGy in 39 fractions over 7 to 8 weeks in the C-RT arm. Patients completed quality of life (QoL) questionnaire: Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) at baseline, 24 and 48 months, which were mapped to obtain a EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D) equivalent to generate Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY). We assessed differences in QALYs and costs between the two arms with Generalized Linear Models (GLMs). Costs, estimated in euro (€) 2020, were combined with QALYs to estimate the Incremental Cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with non-parametric bootstrap.

RESULTS

Total costs per patien were lower in the H-RT arm compared to the C-RT arm €3,062 (95 % CI: 2,368 to 3,754) versus €4,285 (95 % CI: 3,355 to 5,215), (p < 0.05). QALY were marginally higher in the H-RT arm, however this difference was not significant: 0.044 (95 % CI: - 0.016 to 0.099).

CONCLUSIONS

Treating localized prostate cancer with moderate H-RT could reduce national health insurance spending. Adopting such a treatment with an updated reimbursement tariff would result in improving resource allocation in RT management.

"Meta-analysis of elective pelvic nodal irradiation using moderate hypofractionation for high-risk prostate cancer" (MENHYP-ENI)

OBJECTIVES

Despite several advances in planning and delivery of radiotherapy (RT) for prostate cancer, the role of elective pelvic nodal irradiation (EPNI) remains controversial for high-risk disease. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the outcomes of patients treated with moderate hypofractionated RT (MHF-RT) with EPNI using modern radiotherapy techniques.

METHODS

Eligible studies were identified on Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and proceedings of annual meetings through October 2021. We followed the PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. A meta-regression analysis was performed to assess a possible correlation between selected variables and outcomes. A p-value <0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies with a total of 1745 patients, median follow-up 61 months, treated with EPNI employing MHF-RT were included. The biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) at 5-, 7- and 10-year was 90% (95% CI 88-94%), 83% (95%CI 78-91%) and 78% (95%CI 68-88%). The 5-year prostate cancer-specific survival, disease-free survival, distant metastases-free survival and overall survival were 98% (95%CI 97-99%), 88.7% (95%CI 85-93%), 91.2% (95%CI 88-92%), and 93% (95%CI 90-96%), respectively. The rates of local, pelvic, and distant recurrence were 0.38% (95%CI 0-2%), 0.13% (95%CI 0-1.5%), and 7.35% (95%CI 2-12%), respectively. The rate of late GI and GU toxicity grade ≥ 2 were 6.7% (95%CI 4-9%), and 11.3% (95%CI 7.6-15%), with heterogeneity, but with rare cases of toxicity grade 3-5.

CONCLUSION

EPNI with concomitant MHF-RT provides satisfactory bRFS in the long-term follow-up, with low rates of GU and GI severe toxicities and minimal pelvic and local failure.

Long-Term Outcomes of Dose-Escalated Hypofractionated Radiotherapy in Localized Prostate Cancer

This retrospective study aimed to provide some clinical outcomes regarding effectiveness, toxicity, and quality of life in PCa patients treated with dose-escalated moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy (HFRT). Patients received HFRT to a total dose of 66 Gy in 22 fractions (3 Gy/fraction) delivered via volume modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in 2011-2016. Treatment effectiveness was measured by the biochemical failure-free survival rate. Toxicity was assessed according to the criteria of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) and quality of life according to the criteria of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). In this regard, quality of life (QoL) was measured longitudinally, at a median of 2 and 5 years after RT. Enrolled patients had low-risk (40.2%), intermediate-risk (47.5%), and high-risk (12.3%) PCa. Median follow-up was 75 months. The biochemical failure-free survival rate was 94.2%. The incidence of acute grade 2 or higher gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity was 9.84% and 28.69%, respectively. The incidence rate of late grade 2 or higher GI and GU toxicity was 1.64% and 4.10%, respectively. Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) scores showed that the majority of patients maintained their QoL. HFRT to 66 Gy with VMAT was associated with adequate biochemical control, low toxicity and good reported GU and GI quality of life.

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer: Preliminary results of toxicity

To the Editor, Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in men in Morocco after lung cancer. External radiotherapy (RTE) is a curative therapeutic option for localized prostate cancer, However the conventional RTE remains a long treatment (7- 8 weeks, 5 days a week) which is demanding for patients and make difficult to manage the waiting lists. The development of imaging and irradiation techniques over the last decades has allowed a high precision in the delivery of the dose to the target organ and a better protection of the organs at risk (OAR), which has encouraged the hypo fractionated irradiation of localized prostate cancer, especially after the results of radiobiology studies that suggested a low report a/b for the prostate.

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.

Localized and Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer: Treatment Options

BACKGROUND

There are many treatment options for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer with radiotherapy and surgery representing the main local therapeutic strategies.

SUMMARY

Depending on the risk of disease recurrence, we can stratify patients into low-, intermediate- and high-risk groups, which will guide patients' treatment. For low-risk patients, active surveillance is an option. Brachytherapy is also an option for low- and intermediate-risk patients and can be used as a boost following external beam radiotherapy for high-risk patients. For intermediate- and high-risk patients, radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy should be considered. Moreover, in addition to radiotherapy, concomitant androgen deprivation therapy may be needed. Finally, after radical prostatectomy and depending on pathological, biological and clinical factors, radiotherapy ± androgen deprivation therapy can be proposed as an adjuvant or salvage treatment. Key Messages: With radiotherapy and surgery being well-established treatment options for localized prostate cancer patients with equally good overall survival rates, priority must be given to patients' choice concerning the logistics and the toxicity profile of each option.

Five-year outcomes from a prospective comparative effectiveness study evaluating external-beam radiotherapy with or without low-dose-rate brachytherapy boost for localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

To inform patients who are in the process of selecting prostate cancer treatment, the authors compared disease-specific function after external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) alone versus EBRT plus a low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy boost (EBRT-LDR).

METHODS

For this prospective study, men who had localized prostate cancer in 2011 and 2012 were enrolled. Assessments at baseline, 0.5, 1, 3, and 5 years included the patient-reported Expanded Prostate Index Composite, the 36-item Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form Health Survey, and treatment-related regret. Regression models were adjusted for baseline function and for patient and treatment characteristics. The minimum clinically important difference in scores on the Expanded Prostate Index Composite 26-item instrument was from 5 to 7 for urinary irritation and from 4 to 6 for bowel function.

RESULTS

Six-hundred ninety-five men met inclusion criteria and received either EBRT (n = 583) or EBRT-LDR (n = 112). Patients in the EBRT-LDR group were younger (median age, 66 years [interquartile range [IQR], 60-71 years] vs 69 years [IQR, 64-74 years]; P < .001), were less likely to receive pelvic radiotherapy (10% vs 18%; P = .040), and had higher baseline 36-item Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form Health Survey physical function scores (median score, 95 [IQR, 86-100] vs 90 [IQR, 70-100]; P < .001). Over a 3-year period, compared with EBRT, EBRT-LDR was associated with worse urinary irritative scores (adjusted mean difference at 3 years, -5.4; 95% CI, -9.3, -1.6) and bowel function scores (-4.1; 95% CI, -7.6, -0.5). The differences were no longer clinically meaningful at 5 years (difference in urinary irritative scores: -4.5; 95% CI, -8.4, -0.5; difference in bowel function scores: -2.1; 95% CI, -5.7, -1.4). However, men who received EBRT-LDR were more likely to report moderate or big problems with urinary function bother (adjusted odds ratio, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.5-8.2) and frequent urination (adjusted odds ratio, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.2-5.6) through 5 years. There were no differences in survival or treatment-related regret between treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with EBRT alone, EBRT-LDR was associated with clinically meaningful worse urinary irritative and bowel function over 3 years after treatment and more urinary bother at 5 years.

LAY SUMMARY

In men with prostate cancer who received external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with or without a brachytherapy boost (EBRT-LDR), EBRT-LDR was associated with clinically worse urinary irritation and bowel function through 3 years but resolved after 5 years. Men who received EBRT-LDR continued to report moderate-to-big problems with urinary function bother and frequent urination through 5 years. There was no difference in treatment-related regret or survival between patients who received EBRT and those who received EBRT-LDR. These intermediate-term estimates of function may facilitate counseling for men who are selecting treatment.

Health-Related Quality of Life and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Radiation Oncology Clinical Trials

OPINION STATEMENT

The importance of assessing health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is now well recognized as an essential measure when evaluating the effectiveness of new cancer therapies. Quality of life measures provide for a multi-dimensional understanding of the impact of cancer treatment on measures ranging from functional, psychological, and social aspects of a patient's health. Patient-reported outcomes provide for an assessment of physical and functional symptoms that are directly elicited from patients. Collection of PROs and HRQoL data has been shown to not only be feasible but also provide for reliable measures that correlate with established outcomes measures better than clinician-scored toxicities. The importance of HRQoL measures has been emphasized by both patients and clinicians, as well as policy makers and regulatory bodies. Given the benefits associated with measuring HRQoL and PROs in oncology clinical trials, it is increasingly important to establish methods to effectively incorporate PROs and HRQoL measures into routine clinical practice.

Risk of erectile dysfunction after modern radiotherapy for intact prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a prevalent side effect of prostate cancer treatment. We hypothesized that the previously reported rates of ED may have improved with the advent of modern technology. The purpose of this project was to evaluate modern external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy techniques to determine the incidence of radiotherapy (RT) induced ED.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature published between January 2002 and December 2018 was performed to obtain patient reported rates of ED after definitive external beam radiotherapy, ultrafractionated stereotactic radiotherapy, and brachytherapy (BT) to the prostate in men who were potent prior to RT. Univariate and multivariate analyses of radiation dose, treatment strategy, and length of follow-up were analyzed to ascertain their relationship with RT-induced ED.

RESULTS

Of 890 articles reviewed, 24 met inclusion criteria, providing data from 2714 patients. Diminished erectile function status post RT was common and similar across all studies. The median increase in men reporting ED was 17%, 26%, 23%, and 23%, 3DCRT, IMRT, low dose rate BT, and SBRT, respectively, at 2-year median follow-up.

CONCLUSION

ED is a common side effect of RT. Risk of post-RT ED is similar for both LDR brachytherapy and external beam RT with advanced prostate targeting and penile-bulb sparing techniques utilized in modern RT techniques.

Challenges in Reporting the Effect of Radiotherapy on Erectile Function

BACKGROUND

Erectile dysfunction (ED) is the most common side effect of prostate radiotherapy (RT), but reported rates over time and across modalities have varied widely.

AIM

To evaluate the published literature between 2002 and 2018 for high quality data utilizing prospectively gathered patient-reported ED, and to summarize the challenges in reporting of RT-induced ED (RIED).

METHODS

A PubMed search and literature review was performed to identify articles describing rates of ED before and after definitive external beam RT or brachytherapy without androgen deprivation.

OUTCOMES

Patient-reported ED, patient and treatment variables, and study follow-up constituted the main outcomes of this study.

RESULTS

24 articles were identified, reporting RIED rates between 17% and 90%. Variables contributing to this range included patient, treatment, and study characteristics known to impact ED reporting.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

For future studies, we recommend the use of validated patient-reported questionnaires and reporting of baseline function and comorbidities, RT type and dose, and use of androgen deprivation therapy and erectile aids at the time of ED measurement. With sufficient follow-up to understand the late nature of RIED, these recommendations will improve comparison of results between studies and the applicability of results to patients undergoing pretreatment counseling regarding the risks of RIED.

STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS

The literature search and formulation of results were based on a broad understanding of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines and the literature, but because of the focus on data reporting, a comprehensive systematic review of all RIED literature was not performed.

CONCLUSION

Reported rates of ED after RT vary widely due to differences in patients' baseline reported erectile function, age, comorbidities, and characteristics of the treatment delivered. The methodology of ED measurement has significant impact on the applicability and comparability of results to other studies and clinical practice. Nukala V, Incrocci L, Hunt AA, et al. Challenges in Reporting the Effect of Radiotherapy on Erectile Function. J Sex Med 2020;17:1053-1059.

Patient-Reported Functional Outcomes After Hypofractionated or Conventionally Fractionated Radiation for Prostate Cancer: A National Cohort Study in England

PURPOSE

The aim of the current study was to determine patient-reported functional outcomes in men with prostate cancer (PCa) undergoing moderately hypofractionated (H-RT) or conventionally fractionated radiation therapy (C-RT) in a national cohort study.

PATIENDS AND METHODS

All men diagnosed with PCa between April 2014 and September 2016 in the English National Health Service undergoing C-RT or H-RT were identified in the National Prostate Cancer Audit and mailed a questionnaire at least 18 months after diagnosis. We estimated differences in patient-reported urinary, bowel, sexual, and hormonal function-Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite short-form 26 domain scores on a 0 to 100 scale-and health-related quality of life-EQ-5D-5L on a 0 to 1 scale-using linear regression with adjustment for patient, tumor, and treatment-related factors in addition to GI and genitourinary baseline function, with higher scores representing better outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 17,058 men in the cohort, 77% responded: 8,432 men received C-RT (64.2%) and 4,699 H-RT (35.8%). Men in the H-RT group were older (age ≥ 70 years: 67.5% v 60.9%), fewer men had locally advanced disease (56.5% v 71.3%), were less likely to receive androgen-deprivation therapy (79.5% v 87.8%), and slightly more men had pretreatment genitourinary procedures (24.2% v 21.2%). H-RT was associated with small increases in adjusted mean Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite short-form 26 sexual (3.3 points; 95% CI, 2.1 to 4.5; P < .001) and hormonal function scores (3.2 points; 95% CI, 1.8 to 4.6; P < .001). These differences failed to meet established thresholds for a clinically meaningful change. There were no statistically significant differences in urinary or bowel function and quality of life.

CONCLUSION

This is the first national cohort study comparing functional outcomes after H-RT and C-RT reported by patients. These real-world results further support the use of H-RT as the standard for radiation therapy in men with nonmetastatic PCa.

Ten-Year Results From a Phase II Study on Image Guided, Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy With Simultaneous Integrated Boost in High-Risk Prostate Cancer

Purpose

There is no consensus on how to treat high-risk prostate cancer, and long-term results from hypofractionated radiation therapy are lacking. We report 10-year results after image guided, intensity modulated radiation therapy with hypofractionated simultaneous integrated boost and elective pelvic field.

Methods and Materials

Between 2007 and 2009, 97 consecutive patients with high-risk prostate cancer were included, treated with 2.7 to 2.0 Gy × 25 Gy to the prostate, seminal vesicles, and elective pelvic field. Toxicity was scored according to Radiation Therapy Oncology Group criteria and biochemical disease-free survival (BFS) defined by the Phoenix definition. Patients were subsequently divided into 3 groups: high risk (HR; n = 32), very high risk (VHR; n = 50), and N+/s–prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≥100 (n = 15). Differences in outcomes were examined using Kaplan-Meier analyses.

Results

BFS in the patients at HR and VHR was 64%, metastasis-free survival 80%, prostate cancer-specific survival 90%, and overall survival (OS) 72%. VHR versus HR subgroups demonstrated significantly different BFS, 54% versus 79% (P = .01). Metastasis-free survival and prostate cancer-specific survival in the VHR group versus HR group were 76% versus 87% (P = .108) and 74% versus 100% (P = .157). Patients reaching nadir PSA <0.1 (n = 80) had significantly better outcomes than the rest (n = 17), with BFS 70% versus 7% (P < .001). Acute grade 2 gastrointestinal tract (GI) and genitourinary tract (GU) toxicity occurred in 27% and 40%, grade 3 GI and GU toxicity in 1% and 3%. Late GI and GU grade 2 toxicity occurred in 1% and 8%.

Conclusions

High-risk prostate cancer patients obtained favorable 10-year outcomes with low toxicity. There were significantly better results in the HR versus the VHR group, both better than the N+/PSA ≥100 group. A nadir PSA value < 0.1 predicted good prognosis.

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.

Methods of assessing late radiotherapy effects on bowel function

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Pelvic radiation disease in the form of chronic radiation-induced consequences of treatment is under recognized by healthcare professionals and under reported by patients. Gastrointestinal symptoms are not routinely assessed, and may not be causally associated with previous radiotherapy. These symptoms are therefore often under treated.

RECENT FINDINGS

A literature search was conducted in Ovid Medline, which included Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Ovid Embase for articles published between 2016 and April 2018. A total of 11 articles were selected for review. A wide range of patient reported outcome measure instruments are used in research and practice. Clinical symptom grading is restricted to a fewer number of tools but may not always capture issues, such as urgency, that are important to the patient. Clinician and patient concordance in the assessment of outcomes is limited. Initiatives to prompt communication of the relative risks of the late consequences of treatment and comparative effectiveness of treatments decisions are developing, as are new techniques to limit irradiation of healthy tissue.

SUMMARY

Nonstandardized outcome measurement reduces the ability to aggregate toxicity and patient outcomes across clinical trials. The development of standardized screening and treatment algorithms for gastrointestinal symptoms can systematically locate and treat gastrointestinal late effects of treatment.

Impact of image guidance on toxicity and tumour outcome in moderately hypofractionated external-beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer

To report toxicity and efficacy outcome of moderately hypofractionated image-guided external-beam radiotherapy in a large series of patients treated for prostate cancer (PCa). Between 10/2006 and 12/2015, 572 T1-T3N0M0 PCa patients received 70.2 Gy in 26 fractions at 2.7 Gy/fraction: 344 patients (60%) with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and 228 (40%) with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer criteria and Houston definition (nadir + 2) were used for toxicity and biochemical failure evaluation, respectively. Median age was 74 years (interquartile range 69-77). Compared with 3D-CRT, in IMRT group more high-risk patients (29% vs 18%; P = 0.002) and more high-volume target (75% vs 60%; P < 0.001) were included. Acute gastro-intestinal (GI) toxicity G > 1 were registered in 8% and in 11% IMRT and 3D-CRT patients, respectively, whereas late GI G > 1 were observed in 2% and 16% IMRT and 3D-CRT patients, respectively. Acute genito-urinary (GU) toxicity G > 1 were registered in 26% and 40% IMRT and 3D-CRT patients, respectively, whereas late GU G > 1 occurred in 5% IMRT and 15% 3D-CRT patients. Multivariate proportional hazard Cox models confirmed significantly greater risk of late toxicity with 3D-CRT compared to IMRT for GU > 1 (P = 0.004) and for GI > 1 (P < 0.001). With a median 4-year follow-up, overall survival (OS), clinical progression-free survival (cPFS) and biochemical PFS (bPFS) for the whole series were 91%, 92% and 91%, respectively. cPFS and bPFS were significantly different by risk groups. Multivariate Cox models for bPFS and cPFS showed no difference between irradiation techniques and a significant impact of risk group and initial PSA. Moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy is a viable treatment option for localized PCa with excellent tumour control and satisfactory toxicity profile. IMRT seems associated with a reduction in toxicity, whereas tumour control was equal between IMRT and 3D-CRT patients and depended mainly on the risk category.

Randomized Trial of Hypofractionated, Dose-Escalated, Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) Versus Conventionally Fractionated IMRT for Localized Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Hypofractionated radiotherapy delivers larger daily doses of radiation and may increase the biologically effective dose delivered to the prostate. We conducted a randomized trial testing the hypothesis that dose-escalated, moderately hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (HIMRT) improves prostate cancer control compared with conventionally fractionated IMRT (CIMRT) for men with localized prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Men were randomly assigned to 75.6 Gy in 1.8-Gy fractions delivered over 8.4 weeks (CIMRT) or 72 Gy in 2.4 Gy fractions delivered over 6 weeks (HIMRT, biologically equivalent to 85 Gy in 1.8-Gy fractions assuming prostate cancer α-to-β ratio of 1.5). Failure was defined as prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure (nadir plus 2 ng/mL) or initiation of salvage therapy. Modified Radiation Therapy Oncology Group criteria were used to grade late (≥ 90 days after completion of radiotherapy) GI and genitourinary toxicity.

RESULTS

Most of the 206 men (72%) had cT1, Gleason score 6 or 7 (99%), and PSA level ≤ 10 ng/mL (90%) disease. Androgen deprivation therapy was received by 24%. With a median follow-up of 8.5 years, men treated with HIMRT experienced fewer treatment failures (n = 10) than men treated with CIMRT (n = 21; P = .036). The 8-year failure rate was 10.7% (95% CI, 5.8% to 19.1%) with HIMRT and 15.4% (95% CI, 9.1% to 25.4%) with CIMRT. There was no difference in overall survival ( P = .39). There was a nonsignificant increase in late grade 2 or 3 GI toxicity with HIMRT (8-year 5.0% v 12.6%; P = .08). However, GI toxicity was only 8.6% when rectal volume receiving 65 Gy of HIMRT was ≤ 15%. Late genitourinary toxicity was similar ( P = .84). There was no grade 4 toxicity.

CONCLUSION

The results of this randomized trial demonstrate superior cancer control for men with localized prostate cancer who receive dose-escalated moderately hypofractionation radiotherapy while shortening treatment duration.

Comparison of Patient-reported Outcomes After External Beam Radiation Therapy and Combined External Beam With Low-dose-rate Brachytherapy Boost in Men With Localized Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

To compare patient-reported disease-specific functional outcomes after external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and EBRT combined with low-dose-rate brachytherapy prostate boost (EB-LDR) among men with localized prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The prospective, population-based Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation study enrolled men with localized prostate cancer in 2011 to 2012. The 26-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite measured patient-reported disease-specific function at baseline and at 6, 12, and 36 months. Higher domain scores indicate better function. Minimal clinically important difference was defined as 6 for urinary incontinence, 5 for urinary irritative function, 4 for bowel function, 12 for sexual function, and 4 for hormonal function. Multivariable linear and logistic regression models were fit to estimate the effect of treatment on patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

Five-hundred seventy-eight men received EBRT and 109 received EB-LDR. Median patient age was 69 years, and 70% had intermediate- or high-risk disease. Men in the EB-LDR group were younger (P < .001) and less likely to receive androgen deprivation therapy (P < .001). Baseline urinary, bowel, sexual, and hormonal function was similar between treatment groups (P > .05). On multivariable analyses, men receiving EB-LDR reported worse urinary irritative function at 6 months (adjusted mean difference [AMD] -14.4, P < .001), 12 months (AMD -12.9, P < .001), and 36 months (AMD -4.7, P = .034) than men receiving EBRT. At 12 months, men receiving EB-LDR reported worse bowel function (AMD -5.8, P = .002), but these differences were not seen at 36 months. There were no significant differences in sexual or hormone function between treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Men treated with EB-LDR report worse bowel function at 1 year and worse urinary irritative function through 3 years compared with men treated with EBRT alone. These side effect profiles should be discussed with patients when considering EB-LDR versus EBRT treatment.

[Hypofractionated irradiation of prostate cancer: What is the radiobiological understanding in 2017?]

For prostate cancer, hypofractionation has been based since 1999 on radiobiological data, which calculated a very low alpha/beta ratio (1.2 to 1.5Gy). This suggested that a better local control could be obtained, without any toxicity increase. Consequently, two types of hypofractionated schemes were proposed: "moderate" hypofractionation, with fractions of 2.5 to 4Gy, and "extreme" hypofractionation, utilizing stereotactic techniques, with fractions of 7 to 10Gy. For moderate hypofractionation, the linear-quadratic (LQ) model has been used to calculate the equivalent doses of the new protocols. The available trials have often shown a "non-inferiority", but no advantage, while the equivalent doses calculated for the hypofractionated arms were sometimes very superior to the doses of the conventional arms. This finding could suggest either an alpha/beta ratio lower than previously calculated, or a negative impact of other radiobiological parameters, which had not been taken into account. For "extreme" hypofractionation, the use of the LQ model is discussed for high dose fractions. Moreover, a number of radiobiological questions are still pending. The reduced overall irradiation time could be either a positive point (better local control) or a negative one (reduced reoxygenation). The prolonged duration of the fractions could lead to a decrease of efficacy (because allowing for reparation of sublethal lesions). Finally, the impact of the large fractions on the microenvironment and/or immunity remains discussed. The reported series appear to show encouraging short to mid-term results, but the results of randomized trials are still awaited. Today, it seems reasonable to only propose those extreme hypofractionated schemes to well-selected patients, treating small volumes with high-level stereotactic techniques.

Reducing rectal injury in men receiving prostate cancer radiation therapy: current perspectives

Dose escalation is now the standard of care for the treatment of prostate cancer with radiation therapy. However, the rectum tends to be the dose-limiting structure when treating prostate cancer, given its close proximity. Early and late toxicities can occur when the rectum receives large doses of radiation therapy. New technologies allow for prevention of these toxicities. In this review, we examine the evidence that supports various dose constraints employed to prevent these rectal injuries from occurring. We also examine the use of intensity-modulated radiation therapy and how this compares to older radiation therapy techniques that allow for further sparing of the rectum during a radiation therapy course. We then review the literature on endorectal balloons and the effects of their daily use throughout a radiation therapy course. Tissue spacers are now being investigated in greater detail; these devices are injected into the rectoprostatic fascia to physically increase the distance between the prostate and the anterior rectal wall. Last, we review the use of systemic drugs, specifically statin medications and antihypertensives, as well as their impact on rectal toxicity.

Comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer treatments for patient-centered outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA Compliant)

BACKGROUND

In the context of prostate cancer (PCa) characterized by the multiple alternative treatment strategies, comparative effectiveness analysis is essential for informed decision-making. We analyzed the comparative effectiveness of PCa treatments through systematic review and meta-analysis with a focus on outcomes that matter most to newly diagnosed localized PCa patients.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of literature published in English from 1995 to October 2016. A search strategy was employed using terms "prostate cancer," "localized," "outcomes," "mortality," "health related quality of life," and "complications" to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective, and retrospective studies. For observational studies, only those adjusting for selection bias using propensity-score or instrumental-variables approaches were included. Multivariable adjusted hazard ratio was used to assess all-cause and disease-specific mortality. Funnel plots were used to assess the level of bias.

RESULTS

Our search strategy yielded 58 articles, of which 29 were RCTs, 6 were prospective studies, and 23 were retrospective studies. The studies provided moderate data for the patient-centered outcome of mortality. Radical prostatectomy demonstrated mortality benefit compared to watchful waiting (all-cause HR = 0.63 CI = 0.45, 0.87; disease-specific HR = 0.48 CI = 0.40, 0.58), and radiation therapy (all-cause HR = 0.65 CI = 0.57, 0.74; disease-specific HR = 0.51 CI = 0.40, 0.65). However, we had minimal comparative information about tradeoffs between and within treatment for other patient-centered outcomes in the short and long-term.

CONCLUSION

Lack of patient-centered outcomes in comparative effectiveness research in localized PCa is a major hurdle to informed and shared decision-making. More rigorous studies that can integrate patient-centered and intermediate outcomes in addition to mortality are needed.

Long-Term Patient-Reported Outcomes From a Phase 3 Randomized Prospective Trial of Conventional Versus Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

To assess the long-term quality of life (QoL) outcomes from a phase 3 trial comparing 2 modes of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT): conventional IMRT (CIMRT) versus hypofractionated IMRT (HIMRT) in patients with localized prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Between 2002 and 2006, 303 men with low-risk to high-risk prostate cancer were randomized to 76 Gy in 38 fractions (CIMRT) versus 70.2 Gy in 26 fractions (HIMRT). QoL was compared by use of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), and EuroQoL (EQ5D) questionnaires. The primary outcome of the QoL analysis was a minimum clinically important difference defined as a 0.5 standard deviation change from baseline for each respective QoL parameter. Treatment effects were evaluated with the use of logistic mixed effects regression models.

RESULTS

A total of 286, 299, and 218 patients had baseline EPIC, IPSS, or EQ5D data available and were included in the analysis. Overall, there was no statistically significant difference between the 2 treatment arms in terms of EPIC, IPSS, or EQ5D scores over time, although there was a trend toward lower EPIC urinary incontinence scores in the HIMRT arm. More patients in the HIMRT arm had a lower EPIC urinary incontinence score relative to baseline versus patients in the CIMRT arm with long-term follow-up. On multivariable analysis, there was no association between radiation fractionation scheme and any QoL parameter. When other clinical factors were examined, lymph node radiation was associated with worse EPIC hormonal scores versus patients receiving no lymph node radiation. In general, QoL outcomes were generally stable over time, with the exception of EPIC hormonal and EQ5D scores.

CONCLUSIONS

In this randomized prospective study, there were stable QoL changes in patients receiving HIMRT or CIMRT. Our results add to the growing body of literature suggesting that HIMRT may be an acceptable treatment modality in clinically localized prostate cancer.