Dataset Information

Prospective Randomized Phase II Study of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) vs. Conventional Fractionated Radiotherapy (CFRT) for Chinese Patients with Early-Stage Localized Prostate Cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) has potential radiobiologic and economic advantages over conventional fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT) in localized prostate cancer (PC). This study aimed to compare the effects of these two distinct fractionations on patient-reported quality of life (PRQOL) and tolerability.

Methods

In this prospective phase II study, patients with low- and intermediate-risk localized PC were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the SBRT (36.25 Gy/5 fractions/2 weeks) or CFRT (76 Gy/38 fractions/7.5 weeks) treatment groups. The primary endpoint of variation in PRQOL at 1 year was assessed by changes in the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) questionnaire scores and analysed by z-tests and t-tests.

Results

Sixty-four eligible Chinese men were treated (SBRT, n = 31; CFRT, n = 33) with a median follow-up of 2.3 years. At 1 year, 40.0%/46.9% of SBRT/CFRT patients had a >5-point decrease in bowel score (p = 0.08/0.28), respectively, and 53.3%/46.9% had a >2-point decrease in urinary score (p = 0.21/0.07). There were no significant differences in EPIC score changes between the arms at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months, but SBRT was associated with significantly fewer grade ≥ 1 acute and 1-year late gastrointestinal toxicities (acute: 35% vs. 87%, p < 0.0001; 1-year late: 64% vs. 84%, p = 0.03), and grade ≥ 2 acute genitourinary toxicities (3% vs. 24%, p = 0.04) compared with CFRT.

Conclusion

SBRT offered similar PRQOL and less toxicity compared with CFRT in Chinese men with localized PC.

SUBMITTER: Poon DMC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8774487 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for localized prostate cancer has potential advantages over traditional radiotherapies. Herein, the authors compared national trends in use, complications, and costs of SBRT with those of traditional radiotherapies. METHODS:The authors identified men who underwent SBRT, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), brachytherapy, and proton beam therapy as primary treatment of prostate cancer between 2004 and 2011 from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER)-Medicare linked data. Temporal trend of therapy use was assessed using the Cochran-Armitage test. Two-year outcomes were compared using the chi-square test. Median treatment costs were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS:A total of 542 men received SBRT, 9647 received brachytherapy, 23,408 received IMRT, and 800 men were treated with proton beam therapy. There was a significant increase in the use of SBRT and proton beam therapy (P<.001), whereas brachytherapy use decreased (P<.001). A higher percentage of patients treated with SBRT and brachytherapy had low-grade cancer (Gleason score???6 vs???7) compared with individuals treated with IMRT and proton beam therapy (54.0% and 64.2% vs 35.2% and 49.6%, respectively; P<.001). SBRT compared with brachytherapy and IMRT was associated with equivalent gastrointestinal toxicity but more erectile dysfunction at 2-year follow-up (P<.001). SBRT was associated with more urinary incontinence compared with IMRT and proton beam therapy but less compared with brachytherapy (P<.001, respectively). The median cost of SBRT was $27,145 compared with $17,183 for brachytherapy, $37,090 for IMRT, and $54,706 for proton beam therapy (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS:The use of SBRT and proton beam therapy for localized prostate cancer has increased over time. Despite men of lower disease stage undergoing SBRT, SBRT was found to be associated with greater toxicity but lower health care costs compared with IMRT and proton beam therapy. Cancer 2016;122:2496-504. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Project description:BackgroundProstate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), which delivers high-dose precision treatment in ≤5 fractions, is a shorter, more convenient, and less expensive alternative to conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (CRFT; ∼44 fractions) or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (MFRT; 20-28 fractions). SBRT has not been widely adopted but may have radiobiologic advantages over CFRT/MFRT. We hypothesized that SBRT would be associated with improved overall survival (OS) versus CFRT or MFRT ± androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for unfavorable-intermediate-risk prostate cancer (UIR-PCa).MethodsMen with UIR-PCa treated with SBRT (35-40Gy in ≤5 fractions) or biologically equivalent doses of CFRT (72-86.4Gy in 1.8-2.0Gy/fraction) or MRFT (≥60Gy in 2.4-3.2Gy/fraction; biologically effective doses ≥120) were identified in the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Unweighted and propensity-weighted multivariable Cox analysis (MVA) was used to compare OS hazard ratios.ResultsOf 28,028 men with UIR-PCa who received CFRT with (n = 12,872) or without ADT (n = 12,984); MFRT with (n = 251) or without ADT (n = 281); and SBRT with (n = 212) or without ADT (n = 1,428) were identified. Relative to CFRT without ADT, CFRT+ ADT (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87-0.97, P = .002) and SBRT without ADT (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.61-0.89, P = .002) were both associated with improved OS on MVA. Relative to CFRT+ADT, SBRT without ADT correlated with improved OS on MVA (HR:0.81, 95% CI 0.67-0.99, P = .04). Propensity-weighted MVA demonstrated that SBRT (HR:0.80, 95% CI 0.65-0.98, P = .036) and ADT (HR:0.91, 95% CI 0.86-0.97, P = .002) correlated with improved OS. SBRT was not associated with improved OS versus MFRT.ConclusionSBRT, which offers a cheaper and shorter treatment course that mitigates COVID-19 exposure, was associated with improved OS versus CFRT for UIR-PCa. These results confirm guideline-based recommendations that SBRT is a viable option for UIR prostate cancer. The results from this large retrospective study require further validation in clinical trials.