The Association between Acute and Late Genitourinary and Gastrointestinal Toxicities: An Analysis of the PACE B Study

PEACE V-Salvage Treatment of OligoRecurrent nodal prostate cancer Metastases (STORM): Acute Toxicity of a Randomized Phase 2 Trial

BACKGROUND

Treatment recommendations for patients with limited nodal recurrences are lacking, and different locoregional treatment approaches are currently being used.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this trial is to compare metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) with or without elective nodal pelvic radiotherapy (ENRT).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

PEACE V-Salvage Treatment of OligoRecurrent nodal prostate cancer Metastases (STORM) is an international, phase 2, open-label, randomized, superiority trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03569241). Patients diagnosed with positron emission tomography-detected pelvic nodal oligorecurrence (five or fewer nodes) following radical local treatment for prostate cancer were randomized in a 1:1 ratio between arm A (MDT and 6 mo of androgen deprivation therapy [ADT]) and arm B (ENRT [25 × 1.8 Gy] with MDT and 6 mo of ADT).

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

We report the secondary endpoint acute toxicity, defined as worst grade ≥2 Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0 gastrointestinal (GI) or genitourinary (GU) toxicity within 3 mo of treatment. The chi-square test was used to compare toxicity between treatment arms. We also compare the quality of life (QoL) using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ C30 and PR25 questionnaires.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Between June 2018 and April 2021, 196 patients were assigned randomly to MDT or ENRT. Ninety-seven of 99 patients allocated to MDT and 93 of 97 allocated to ENRT received per-protocol treatment. Worst acute GI toxicity proportions were as follows: grade ≥2 events in three (3%) in the MDT group versus four (4%) in the ENRT group (p = 0.11). Worst acute GU toxicity proportions were as follows: grade ≥2 events in eight (8%) in the MDT group versus 12 (13%) in the ENRT group (p = 0.95). We observed no significant difference between the study groups in the proportion of patients with a clinically significant QoL reduction from baseline for any subdomain score area.

CONCLUSIONS

No clinically meaningful differences were observed in worst grade ≥2 acute GI or GU toxicity or in QoL subdomains between MDT and ENRT.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We found no evidence of differential acute bowel or urinary side effects using metastasis-directed therapy and elective nodal radiotherapy for the treatment of patients with a pelvic lymph node recurrence.

Late Toxicity of Prostate Ultrahypofractionated Radiation Therapy Compared With Moderate Hypofractionation in a Randomized Trial

PURPOSE

We report late toxicity, quality of life (QOL), and urinary symptom score with prostate cancer radiation therapy in a randomized trial comparing moderate hypofractionation and ultrahypofrationation.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients with intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer were randomized to either Arm 1 (70 Gy/28 fractions) or Arm 2 (36.25 Gy/5 weekly fractions). Late toxicity was evaluated using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/Subjective, Objective, Management, Analytical scales. QOL was assessed with the Expanded Prostate Inventory Composite-26 Short Form and urinary function with the International Prostate Symptom Score.

RESULTS

Eighty participants were randomized. Two from Arm 1 withdrew, leaving 36 patients in Arm 1 and 42 in Arm 2. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics, except for worse International Prostate Symptom Score in Arm 2. No difference was observed in freedom from grade 3 or worse toxicity between treatments (P = .921), with only a single grade 3 event in each arm. There was no significant difference in freedom from grade 2 or worse toxicity (P = .280). No difference was observed in freedom from grade 2 or worse genitorurinary toxicity, with cumulative probabilities of 69.0% and 87.0% at 5 years for Arms 1 and 2, respectively (0.132). No difference was observed in freedom from grade 2 or worse gastrointestinal toxicity, with cumulative probabilities of 74.0% in Arm 1 and 80.0% in Arm 2 (P = .430). There were no significant differences in Expanded Prostate Inventory Composite-26 Short Form QOL between arms.

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrahypofrationation, delivered weekly, is well tolerated with no significant differences in freedom from late toxicity compared with moderate hypofractionation.

Prostate volume variation during 1.5T MR-guided adaptive stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and correlation with treatment toxicity

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate prostate volume change during daily-adaptive prostate SBRT on 1.5 T MR-linac and to correlate it with treatment toxicity.

METHODS

a series of patients affected by low-to-intermediate risk prostate cancer was treated by 5-fraction SBRT within a prospective study (Prot. n° 23748). Total dose was 35 Gy and 36.25 Gy delivered every day or on alternate days. Treatment toxicity was recorded with the following patient reported outcomes (PROMs): IPSS, ICIQ-SF, and EPIC-26.

RESULTS

254 patients were included in the analysis. Baseline median CTV volume was 55 cc (range 15.3-163.3). Mean prostate volume were 58.9 cc, and 62.7 cc at first and last fraction respectively (mean volume increase 6.4 %; p = <0.0001). We observed prostate swelling (mean 15.4 % increase) in 50 % of cases, stable volume (≤5% volume change) in 39 % of patients, and prostate shrinkage in 11 % of cases (mean 12.2 % reduction). Baseline CTV > 55 cc showed a trend towards higher CTV shrinkage (-10.5 % versus -14.5 %; p = 0.052). We found no correlation between CTV change and PROMs. Prostate swelling was generally compensated by the planned PTV expansion, even though the mean setup volume dropped from 47.4 cc to 38.9 cc at last fraction, with few cases not covered by initial setup margins.

CONCLUSION

The present study reported a significant prostate volume change during prostate SBRT on 1.5T MR-linac. We observed both prostate swelling in half of cases and few cases of prostate shrinkage. No correlations were found with PROMs in this population treatment with daily-adaptive strategy.

Prospective results for 5-year survival and toxicity of moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) in (very) high-risk prostate cancer

Purpose

High-risk (HR) prostate cancer patients usually receive high-dose radiotherapy (RT) using a two-phase sequential technique, but data on a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique are lacking. We prospectively evaluated the long-term results of urinary (GU) and digestive (GI) toxicity and survival data for high-dose RT using a SIB technique in HR and very high-risk (VHR) prostate cancer.

Methods

Patients were treated using an SIB technique in 34 fractions, at a dose of 54.4 Gy to the pelvis and seminal vesicles and 74.8 Gy to the prostate, combined with 36 months of androgen-depriving therapy in a prospective multicenter study. Acute and late GU and GI toxicity data were collected. Overall survival (OS), biochemical-relapse-free survival (bRFS), loco-regional-relapse-free survival (LRRFS), metastasis-free-survival (MFS) and disease-free-survival (DFS) were assessed.

Results

We recruited 114 patients. After a median follow-up of 62 months, very few patients experienced acute (M0-M3) (G3-4 GU = 3.7 %; G3-4 GI = 0.9 %) or late (M6-M60) severe toxicity (G3-4 GU = 5.6 %; G3-4 GI = 2.8 %). The occurrence of acute G2 + GU or GI toxicity was significantly related to the consequential late G2 + toxicity (p < 0.01 for both GU and GI). Medians of OS, bRFS, LRRFS, MFS and DFS were not reached. At 60 months, OS, bRFS, LRRFS, MFS and DFS were 88.2 % [82.1; 94.7], 86.0 % [79.4 %;93.2 %], 95.8 % [91.8 %;99.9 %], 87.2 % [80.9 %;94.0 %] and 84.1 % [77.2 %;91.6 %] respectively.

Conclusion

SIB RT at a dose of 54.4 Gy to the pelvis and 74.8 Gy to the prostate is feasible, leading to satisfying tumor control and reasonable toxicity in HR and VHR prostate cancer.