Dataset Information

Phase II Study of ENZAlutamide Combined With Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy (ENZART) for Localized Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer

ABSTRACT:

Background

Intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa) is usually treated by a combination of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and a short course of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). ADT is associated with multiple side effects, including weight gain, loss of libido, and hot flashes. In contrast, anti-androgen monotherapy is generally better tolerated in spite of higher rates of gynecomastia.

Objective

This study assessed the effectiveness of enzalutamide monotherapy combined with hypofractionated EBRT (Hypo-EBRT) for treating intermediate risk prostate cancer.

Method

This trial was a multicenter, open-label phase II study of 6 months of enzalutamide monotherapy combined with Hypo-EBRT for intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Hypo-EBRT was initiated 8–12 weeks after initiating enzalutamide. The primary endpoint was PSA decline >80% measured at the 25th week of enzalutamide administration. Secondary end-points included assessment of toxicity, changes in anthropomorphic body measurements, sexual hormones, and metabolic changes.

Results

Sixty-two patients were included in the study from January 2018 to February 2020. A PSA decline of >80% was observed in all evaluable patients at the end of enzalutamide treatment and 92% achieved PSA values under 0.1 ngr/ml. All patients remain in PSA response (<80% reduction of the initial values) 6 months after the end of enzalutamide treatment. The most frequent adverse events were hypertension, asthenia, and gynecomastia. There were no significant changes in bone density, body mass index (BMI), or patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

Conclusion

Enzalutamide monotherapy is very effective along with hEBRT in reducing PSA levels for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Longer follow-up is needed to confirm the potential use of this combination in future randomized trials.

SUBMITTER: Lara P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9329530 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNormofractionated radiation regimes for definitive prostate cancer treatment usually extend over 7-8 weeks. Recently, moderate hypofractionation with doses per fraction between 2.2 and 4 Gy has been shown to be safe and feasible with oncologic non-inferiority compared to normofractionation. Radiobiologic considerations lead to the assumption that prostate cancer might benefit in particular from hypofractionation in terms of tumor control and toxicity. First data related to ultrahypofractionation demonstrate that the overall treatment time can be reduced to 5-7 fractions with single doses > 6 Gy safely, even with simultaneous focal boosting of macroscopic tumor(s). With MR-guided linear accelerators (MR-linacs) entering clinical routine, invasive fiducial implantations become unnecessary. The aim of the multicentric SMILE study is to evaluate the use of MRI-guided stereotactic radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer in 5 fractions regarding safety and feasibility.MethodsThe study is designed as a prospective, one-armed, two-stage, multi-center phase-II-trial with 68 patients planned. Low- and intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer patients will be eligible for the study as well as early high-risk patients (cT3a and/or Gleason Score ≤ 8 and/or PSA ≤ 20 ng/ml) according to d'Amico. All patients will receive definitive MRI-guided stereotactic radiation therapy with a total dose of 37.5 Gy in 5 fractions (single dose 7.5 Gy) on alternating days. A focal simultaneous integrated boost to MRI-defined tumor(s) up to 40 Gy can optionally be applied. The primary composite endpoint includes the assessment of urogenital or gastrointestinal toxicity ≥ grade 2 or treatment-related discontinuation of therapy. The use of MRI-guided radiotherapy enables online plan adaptation and intrafractional gating to ensure optimal target volume coverage and protection of organs at risk.DiscussionWith moderate hypofractionation being the standard in definitive radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer at many institutions, ultrahypofractionation could be the next step towards reducing treatment time without compromising oncologic outcomes and toxicities. MRI-guided radiotherapy could qualify as an advantageous tool as no invasive procedures have to precede in therapeutic workflows. Furthermore, MRI guidance combined with gating and plan adaptation might be essential in order to increase treatment effectivity and reduce toxicity at the same time.

Project description:PurposeTo 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 materialsBetween 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionsIn 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.

Project description:Purpose Conventionally fractionated postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) takes approximately 5 to 6 weeks. Data supporting hypofractionated PMRT is limited. We prospectively evaluated a short course of hypofractionated PMRT, in which therapy was completed in 15 treatment days. Patients and Methods We delivered PMRT at a dose of 36.63 Gy in 11 fractions of 3.33 Gy over 11 days to the chest wall and the draining regional lymph nodes, followed by an optional mastectomy scar boost of four fractions of 3.33 Gy. Our primary end point was freedom from any grade 3 or higher toxicities. We incorporated early stopping criteria on the basis of predefined toxicity thresholds. Results We enrolled 69 women with stage II to IIIa breast cancer, of whom 67 were eligible for analysis. After a median follow-up of 32 months, there were no grade 3 toxicities. There were 29 reported grade 2 toxicities, with grade 2 skin toxicities being the most frequent (16 of 67; 24%). There were two patients with isolated ipsilateral chest wall tumor recurrences (2 of 67; crude rate, 3%). Three-year estimated local recurrence-free survival was 89.2% (95% CI, 0.748 to 0.956). The 3-year estimated distant recurrence-free survival was 90.3% (95% CI, 0.797 to 0.956). Forty-one patients had chest wall reconstructions; three had expanders removed for infection before radiation therapy. The total rate of implant loss or failure was 24% (9 of 38), and the unplanned surgical correction rate was 8% (3 of 38), for a total complication rate of 32%. Conclusion To our knowledge, our phase II prospective study offers one of the shortest courses of PMRT reported, delivered in 11 fractions to the chest wall and nodes and 15 fractions inclusive of a boost. We demonstrated low toxicity and high local control with this schedule. On the basis of our data, we have designed a cooperative group phase III prospective, randomized trial of conventional versus hypofractionated PMRT that will activate soon.

Project description:PurposeThe previously published single institution randomized prospective trial failed to show superiority in the 5-year biochemical and/or clinical disease failure (BCDF) rate with moderate hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (H-IMRT) versus conventionally fractionated IMRT (C-IMRT). We now present 10-year disease outcomes using updated risk groups and definitions of biochemical failure.MethodsMen with protocol-defined intermediate- and high-risk prostate adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned to receive C-IMRT (76 Gy in 38 fractions) or H-IMRT (70.2 Gy in 26 fractions). Men with high-risk disease were all prescribed 24 months of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and had lymph node irradiation. Men with intermediate risk were prescribed 4 months of ADT at the discretion of the treating physician. The primary endpoint was cumulative incidence of BCDF. We compared disease outcomes and overall mortality by treatment arm, with sensitivity analyses for National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group adjustment.ResultsOverall, 303 assessable men were randomly assigned to C-IMRT or H-IMRT. The median follow-up was 122.9 months. Per updated NCCN risk classification, there were 28 patients (9.2%) with low-risk, 189 (62.4%) with intermediate-risk, and 86 (28.4%) with high-risk prostate cancer. The arms were equally balanced for clinicopathologic factors, except that there were more black patients in the C-IMRT arm (17.8% v 7.3%; P = .02). There was no difference in ADT use (P = .56). The 10-year cumulative incidence of BCDF was 25.9% in the C-IMRT arm and was 30.6% in the H-IMRT arm (hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.82 to 2.11). The two arms also had similar cumulative 10-year rates of biochemical failure, prostate cancer-specific mortality, and overall mortality; however, the 10-year cumulative incidence of distant metastases was higher in the H-IMRT arm (rate difference, 7.8%; 95% CI, 0.7% to 15.1%).ConclusionH-IMRT failed to demonstrate superiority compared with C-IMRT in long-term disease outcomes.