Dataset Information

Is hypofractionated whole pelvis radiotherapy (WPRT) as well tolerated as conventionally fractionated WPRT in prostate cancer patients? The HOPE trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Patients with high-risk prostate cancer are at increased risk of lymph node metastasis and are thought to benefit from whole pelvis radiotherapy (WPRT). There has been recent interest in the use of hypofractionated radiotherapy in treating prostate cancer. However, toxicity and cancer outcomes associated with hypofractionated WPRT are unclear at this time. This phase II study aims to investigate the impact in quality of life associated with hypofractionated WPRT compared to conventionally fractionated WPRT. METHODS:Fifty-eight patients with unfavourable intermediate-, high- or very high-risk prostate cancer will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio between high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT)?+?conventionally fractionated (45?Gy in 25 fractions) WPRT vs. HDR-BT?+?hypofractionated (25?Gy in 5 fractions) WPRT. Randomization will be performed with a permuted block design without stratification. The primary endpoint is late bowel toxicity and the secondary endpoints include acute and late urinary and sexual toxicity, acute bowel toxicity, biochemical failure-, androgen deprivation therapy-, metastasis- and prostate cancer-free survival of the hypofractionated arm compared to the conventionally fractionated arm. DISCUSSION:To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare hypofractionated WPRT to conventionally fractionated WPRT with HDR-BT boost. Hypofractionated WPRT is a more attractive and convenient treatment approach, and may become the new standard of care if demonstrated to be well-tolerated and effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION:This trial was prospectively registered in ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT04197141 on December 12, 2019.

SUBMITTER: Mendez LC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7547418 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Is hypofractionated whole pelvis radiotherapy (WPRT) as well tolerated as conventionally fractionated WPRT in prostate cancer patients? The HOPE trial.

Mendez Lucas C LC Arifin Andrew J AJ Bauman Glenn S GS Velker Vikram M VM Ahmad Belal B Lock Michael M Venkatesan Varagur M VM Sexton Tracy L TL Rodrigues George B GB Chen Jeff J Schaly Bryan B Warner Andrew A D'Souza David P DP

BMC cancer 20201009 1

<h4>Background</h4>Patients with high-risk prostate cancer are at increased risk of lymph node metastasis and are thought to benefit from whole pelvis radiotherapy (WPRT). There has been recent interest in the use of hypofractionated radiotherapy in treating prostate cancer. However, toxicity and cancer outcomes associated with hypofractionated WPRT are unclear at this time. This phase II study aims to investigate the impact in quality of life associated with hypofractionated WPRT compared to co ...[more]

PMID: 33036579

Similar Datasets

Project description:Purpose: Late gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity after radiotherapy for prostate cancer may have significant impact on the cancer survivor's quality of life. To date, little is known about local dose-effects after modern radiotherapy including hypofractionation. In the current study we related the local spatial distribution of radiation dose in the rectum to late patient-reported gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities for conventionally fractionated (CF) and hypofractionated (HF) modern radiotherapy in the randomized HYPRO trial. Material and Methods: Patients treated to 78 Gy in 2 Gy fractions (n = 298) or 64.6 Gy in 3.4 Gy fractions (n = 295) with available late toxicity questionnaires (n ? 2 within 1-5 years post-treatment) and available 3D planning data were eligible for this study. The majority received intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). We calculated two types of dose surface maps: (1) the total delineated rectum with its central axis scaled to unity, and (2) the delineated rectum with a length of 7 cm along its central axis aligned on the prostate's half-height point (prostate-half). For each patient-reported GI symptom, dose difference maps were constructed by subtracting average co-registered EQD2 (equivalent dose in 2 Gy) dose maps of patients with and without the symptom of interest, separately for HF and CF. P-values were derived from permutation tests. We evaluated patient-reported moderate to severe GI symptoms. Results: Observed incidences of rectal bleeding and increased stool frequency were significantly higher in the HF group. For rectal bleeding (p = 0.016), mucus discharge (p = 0.015), and fecal incontinence (p = 0.001), significant local dose-effects were observed in HF patients but not in CF patients. For rectal pain, similar local dose-effects (p < 0.05) were observed in both groups. No significant local dose-effects were observed for increased stool frequency. Total rectum mapping vs. prostate-half mapping showed similar results. Conclusion: We demonstrated significant local dose-effect relationships for patient-reported late GI toxicity in patients treated with modern RT. HF patients were at higher risk for increased stool frequency and rectal bleeding, and showed the most pronounced local dose-effects in intermediate-high dose regions. These findings suggest that improvement of current treatment optimization protocols could lead to clinical benefit, in particular for HF treatment.

Project description:BackgroundPatient-reported outcomes (PROs) might detect more toxic effects of radiotherapy than do clinician-reported outcomes. We did a quality of life (QoL) substudy to assess PROs up to 24 months after conventionally fractionated or hypofractionated radiotherapy in the Conventional or Hypofractionated High Dose Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer (CHHiP) trial.MethodsThe CHHiP trial is a randomised, non-inferiority phase 3 trial done in 71 centres, of which 57 UK hospitals took part in the QoL substudy. Men with localised prostate cancer who were undergoing radiotherapy were eligible for trial entry if they had histologically confirmed T1b-T3aN0M0 prostate cancer, an estimated risk of seminal vesicle involvement less than 30%, prostate-specific antigen concentration less than 30 ng/mL, and a WHO performance status of 0 or 1. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive a standard fractionation schedule of 74 Gy in 37 fractions or one of two hypofractionated schedules: 60 Gy in 20 fractions or 57 Gy in 19 fractions. Randomisation was done with computer-generated permuted block sizes of six and nine, stratified by centre and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group. Treatment allocation was not masked. UCLA Prostate Cancer Index (UCLA-PCI), including Short Form (SF)-36 and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P), or Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) and SF-12 quality-of-life questionnaires were completed at baseline, pre-radiotherapy, 10 weeks post-radiotherapy, and 6, 12, 18, and 24 months post-radiotherapy. The CHHiP trial completed accrual on June 16, 2011, and the QoL substudy was closed to further recruitment on Nov 1, 2009. Analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary endpoint of the QoL substudy was overall bowel bother and comparisons between fractionation groups were done at 24 months post-radiotherapy. The CHHiP trial is registered with ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN97182923.Findings2100 participants in the CHHiP trial consented to be included in the QoL substudy: 696 assigned to the 74 Gy schedule, 698 assigned to the 60 Gy schedule, and 706 assigned to the 57 Gy schedule. Of these individuals, 1659 (79%) provided data pre-radiotherapy and 1444 (69%) provided data at 24 months after radiotherapy. Median follow-up was 50·0 months (IQR 38·4-64·2) on April 9, 2014, which was the most recent follow-up measurement of all data collected before the QoL data were analysed in September, 2014. Comparison of 74 Gy in 37 fractions, 60 Gy in 20 fractions, and 57 Gy in 19 fractions groups at 2 years showed no overall bowel bother in 269 (66%), 266 (65%), and 282 (65%) men; very small bother in 92 (22%), 91 (22%), and 93 (21%) men; small bother in 26 (6%), 28 (7%), and 38 (9%) men; moderate bother in 19 (5%), 23 (6%), and 21 (5%) men, and severe bother in four (<1%), three (<1%) and three (<1%) men respectively (74 Gy vs 60 Gy, ptrend=0.64, 74 Gy vs 57 Gy, ptrend=0·59). We saw no differences between treatment groups in change of bowel bother score from baseline or pre-radiotherapy to 24 months.InterpretationThe incidence of patient-reported bowel symptoms was low and similar between patients in the 74 Gy control group and the hypofractionated groups up to 24 months after radiotherapy. If efficacy outcomes from CHHiP show non-inferiority for hypofractionated treatments, these findings will add to the growing evidence for moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy schedules becoming the standard treatment for localised prostate cancer.FundingCancer Research UK, Department of Health, and the National Institute for Health Research Cancer Research Network.

Project description:PurposeThe adoption of hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation (HF-WBI) remains low, in part because of concerns regarding its safety when used with a tumor bed boost or in patients who have received chemotherapy or have large breast size. To address this, we conducted a randomized, multicenter trial to compare conventionally fractionated whole-breast irradiation (CF-WBI; 50 Gy/25 fx + 10 to 14 Gy/5 to 7 fx) with HF-WBI (42.56 Gy/16 fx + 10 to 12.5 Gy/4 to 5 fx).Patients and methodsFrom 2011 to 2014, 287 women with stage 0 to II breast cancer were randomly assigned to CF-WBI or HF-WBI, stratified by chemotherapy, margin status, cosmesis, and breast size. The trial was designed to test the hypothesis that HF-WBI is not inferior to CF-WBI with regard to the proportion of patients with adverse cosmetic outcome 3 years after radiation, assessed using the Breast Cancer Treatment Outcomes Scale. Secondary outcomes included photographically assessed cosmesis scored by a three-physician panel and local recurrence-free survival. Analyses were intention to treat.ResultsA total of 286 patients received the protocol-specified radiation dose, 30% received chemotherapy, and 36.9% had large breast size. Baseline characteristics were well balanced. Median follow-up was 4.1 years. Three-year adverse cosmetic outcome was 5.4% lower with HF-WBI ( Pnoninferiority = .002; absolute risks were 8.2% [n = 8] with HF-WBI v 13.6% [n = 15] with CF-WBI). For those treated with chemotherapy, adverse cosmetic outcome was higher by 4.1% (90% upper confidence limit, 15.0%) with HF-WBI than with CF-WBI; for large breast size, adverse cosmetic outcome was 18.6% lower (90% upper confidence limit, -8.0%) with HF-WBI. Poor or fair photographically assessed cosmesis was noted in 28.8% of CF-WBI patients and 35.4% of HF-WBI patients ( P = .31). Three-year local recurrence-free survival was 99% with both HF-WBI and CF-WBI ( P = .37).ConclusionThree years after WBI followed by a tumor bed boost, outcomes with hypofractionation and conventional fractionation are similar. Tumor bed boost, chemotherapy, and larger breast size do not seem to be strong contraindications to HF-WBI.

Project description:ImportanceThe most appropriate dose fractionation for whole-breast irradiation (WBI) remains uncertain.ObjectiveTo assess acute and 6-month toxic effects and quality of life (QOL) with conventionally fractionated WBI (CF-WBI) vs hypofractionated WBI (HF-WBI).Design, setting, and participantsUnblinded randomized trial of CF-WBI (n = 149; 50.00 Gy/25 fractions + boost [10.00-14.00 Gy/5-7 fractions]) vs HF-WBI (n = 138; 42.56 Gy/16 fractions + boost [10.00-12.50 Gy/4-5 fractions]) following breast-conserving surgery administered in community-based and academic cancer centers to 287 women 40 years or older with stage 0 to II breast cancer for whom WBI without addition of a third field was recommended; 76% of study participants (n = 217) were overweight or obese. Patients were enrolled from February 2011 through February 2014 and observed for a minimum of 6 months.InterventionsAdministration of CF-WBI or HF-WBI.Main outcomes and measuresPhysician-reported acute and 6-month toxic effects using National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria, and patient-reported QOL using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy for Patients with Breast Cancer (FACT-B). All analyses were intention to treat, with outcomes compared using the χ2 test, Cochran-Armitage test, and ordinal logistic regression.ResultsOf 287 participants, 149 were randomized to CF-WBI and 138 to HF-WBI. Treatment arms were well matched for baseline characteristics, including FACT-B total score (HF-WBI, 120.1 vs CF-WBI, 118.8; P = .46) and individual QOL items such as somewhat or more lack of energy (HF-WBI, 38% vs CF-WBI, 39%; P = .86) and somewhat or more trouble meeting family needs (HF-WBI, 10% vs CF-WBI, 14%; P = .54). Maximum physician-reported acute dermatitis (36% vs 69%; P < .001), pruritus (54% vs 81%; P < .001), breast pain (55% vs 74%; P = .001), hyperpigmentation (9% vs 20%; P = .002), and fatigue (9% vs 17%; P = .02) during irradiation were lower in patients randomized to HF-WBI. The rate of overall grade 2 or higher acute toxic effects was less with HF-WBI than with CF-WBI (47% vs 78%; P < .001). Six months after irradiation, physicians reported less fatigue in patients randomized to HF-WBI (0% vs 6%; P = .01), and patients randomized to HF-WBI reported less lack of energy (23% vs 39%; P < .001) and less trouble meeting family needs (3% vs 9%; P = .01). Multivariable regression confirmed the superiority of HF-WBI in terms of patient-reported lack of energy (odds ratio [OR], 0.39; 95% CI, 0.24-0.63) and trouble meeting family needs (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.16-0.75).Conclusions and relevanceTreatment with HF-WBI appears to yield lower rates of acute toxic effects than CF-WBI as well as less fatigue and less trouble meeting family needs 6 months after completing radiation therapy. These findings should be communicated to patients as part of shared decision making.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01266642.

Project description:BackgroundEvidence supporting the efficacy of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for localized prostate cancer is accumulating, but comparative studies of patient-reported quality of life (QOL) following SBRT versus conventionally fractionated external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or active surveillance (AS) are limited.ObjectiveTo compare QOL of patients pursuing SBRT and EBRT versus AS.Design, setting, and participantsA population-based cohort of 680 men with newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer was prospectively enrolled from 2011 to 2013.InterventionSBRT, EBRT without androgen deprivation therapy, or AS.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisQOL was prospectively assessed before treatment (baseline), and at 3, 12, and 24mo after treatment using the validated Prostate Cancer Symptom Indices, which contain four domains: sexual dysfunction, urinary obstruction/irritation, urinary incontinence, and bowel problems. Propensity weighting via logistic regression models was used to balance baseline characteristics, and the mean QOL scores of EBRT and SBRT patients were compared against AS patients as the control group.Results and limitationsCompared with AS patients, EBRT patients had worse urinary obstructive/irritative symptoms and sexual dysfunction at 3mo, and worse bowel symptoms at 3 and 24mo. SBRT patients had similar scores as AS patients in all domains and across all time points; however, due to small sample size, worse sexual function and urinary incontinence in SBRT patients cannot be ruled out. Further research is needed to assess long-term outcomes.ConclusionsIn a nonrandomized cohort of men with localized prostate cancer, SBRT appeared to result in favorable QOL results through 2yr of follow-up, but worse sexual function and urinary incontinence compared with AS cannot be ruled out completely. Larger studies with longer follow-up are needed to confirm these findings.Patient summaryStereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and active surveillance appear to have similar quality of life outcomes through 2yr, although worse sexual function and urinary incontinence from SBRT cannot be ruled out completely.

Dataset Information

Is hypofractionated whole pelvis radiotherapy (WPRT) as well tolerated as conventionally fractionated WPRT in prostate cancer patients? The HOPE trial.

Publications

Is hypofractionated whole pelvis radiotherapy (WPRT) as well tolerated as conventionally fractionated WPRT in prostate cancer patients? The HOPE trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets