Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial

David Dearnaley, Isabel Syndikus, Helen Mossop, Vincent Khoo, Alison Birtle, David Bloomfield, John Graham, Peter Kirkbride, John Logue, Zafar Malik, Julian Money-Kyrle, Joe M O'Sullivan, Miguel Panades, Chris Parker, Helen Patterson, Christopher Scrase, John Staffurth, Andrew Stockdale, Jean Tremlett, Margaret Bidmead, Helen Mayles, Olivia Naismith, Chris South, Annie Gao, Clare Cruickshank, Shama Hassan, Julia Pugh, Clare Griffin, Emma Hall, CHHiP Investigators, David Dearnaley, Isabel Syndikus, Helen Mossop, Vincent Khoo, Alison Birtle, David Bloomfield, John Graham, Peter Kirkbride, John Logue, Zafar Malik, Julian Money-Kyrle, Joe M O'Sullivan, Miguel Panades, Chris Parker, Helen Patterson, Christopher Scrase, John Staffurth, Andrew Stockdale, Jean Tremlett, Margaret Bidmead, Helen Mayles, Olivia Naismith, Chris South, Annie Gao, Clare Cruickshank, Shama Hassan, Julia Pugh, Clare Griffin, Emma Hall, CHHiP Investigators

Abstract

Background: Prostate cancer might have high radiation-fraction sensitivity that would give a therapeutic advantage to hypofractionated treatment. We present a pre-planned analysis of the efficacy and side-effects of a randomised trial comparing conventional and hypofractionated radiotherapy after 5 years follow-up.

Methods: CHHiP is a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial that recruited men with localised prostate cancer (pT1b-T3aN0M0). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to conventional (74 Gy delivered in 37 fractions over 7·4 weeks) or one of two hypofractionated schedules (60 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks or 57 Gy in 19 fractions over 3·8 weeks) all delivered with intensity-modulated techniques. Most patients were given radiotherapy with 3-6 months of neoadjuvant and concurrent androgen suppression. Randomisation was by computer-generated random permuted blocks, stratified by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group and radiotherapy treatment centre, and treatment allocation was not masked. The primary endpoint was time to biochemical or clinical failure; the critical hazard ratio (HR) for non-inferiority was 1·208. Analysis was by intention to treat. Long-term follow-up continues. The CHHiP trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN97182923.

Findings: Between Oct 18, 2002, and June 17, 2011, 3216 men were enrolled from 71 centres and randomly assigned (74 Gy group, 1065 patients; 60 Gy group, 1074 patients; 57 Gy group, 1077 patients). Median follow-up was 62·4 months (IQR 53·9-77·0). The proportion of patients who were biochemical or clinical failure free at 5 years was 88·3% (95% CI 86·0-90·2) in the 74 Gy group, 90·6% (88·5-92·3) in the 60 Gy group, and 85·9% (83·4-88·0) in the 57 Gy group. 60 Gy was non-inferior to 74 Gy (HR 0·84 [90% CI 0·68-1·03], pNI=0·0018) but non-inferiority could not be claimed for 57 Gy compared with 74 Gy (HR 1·20 [0·99-1·46], pNI=0·48). Long-term side-effects were similar in the hypofractionated groups compared with the conventional group. There were no significant differences in either the proportion or cumulative incidence of side-effects 5 years after treatment using three clinician-reported as well as patient-reported outcome measures. The estimated cumulative 5 year incidence of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grade 2 or worse bowel and bladder adverse events was 13·7% (111 events) and 9·1% (66 events) in the 74 Gy group, 11·9% (105 events) and 11·7% (88 events) in the 60 Gy group, 11·3% (95 events) and 6·6% (57 events) in the 57 Gy group, respectively. No treatment-related deaths were reported.

Interpretation: Hypofractionated radiotherapy using 60 Gy in 20 fractions is non-inferior to conventional fractionation using 74 Gy in 37 fractions and is recommended as a new standard of care for external-beam radiotherapy of localised prostate cancer.

Funding: Cancer Research UK, Department of Health, and the National Institute for Health Research Cancer Research Network.

Copyright © 2016 Dearnaley et al. Open Access article distributed under the terms of CC BY. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Trial profile
Figure 2
Figure 2
Biochemical or clinical failure-free survival (A) and overall survival (B) *Number of events reported after 7 years.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Univariable subgroup analyses of biochemical or clinical failure comparing 60 Gy (A) and 57 Gy (B) with conventional radiotherapy *Stratified by risk group; all other analyses are unstratified.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Acute RTOG toxicity by timepoint and randomised treatment group (A) Prevalence of bowel toxicity and (B) prevalence of bladder toxicity. RTOG=Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. Grade 1+=grade 1 or worse adverse event. Grade 2+=grade 2 or worse adverse event. Grade 3+=grade 3 or worse adverse event.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Late bowel and bladder toxicity by timepoint, assessment, and randomised treatment group Grade distribution of (A) bowel adverse events and (B) bladder adverse events measured with RTOG. Cumulative incidence of (C) bowel adverse events measured with RTOG and (E) bowel symptom scores measured with UCLA PCI/EPIC. Cumulative incidence of (D) bladder adverse events measured with RTOG and (F) bladder symptom scores measured with UCLA PCI/EPIC. Late toxicity data have been included in analyses if they were reported within 6 weeks of the 6 month visit, within 3 months of the 12–24 month visit, and within 6 months of the 36–60 month visit. For UCLA/EPIC, before androgen deprivation therapy data were included if they were reported within 3 months before starting androgen deprivation therapy and within 1 month after starting androgen deprivation therapy. Before radiotherapy data are included if they were reported within 3 months before radiotherapy and no more than 7 days after starting radiotherapy. Time-to-event analyses use all data reported from 6 weeks before the 6 month visit onwards. RTOG=Radiation Therapy Oncology Group scale. UCLA PCI=UCLA Prostate Cancer Index. EPIC=Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite. Grade 1+=grade 1 or worse adverse event. Grade 2+=grade 2 or worse adverse event. Grade 3+=grade 3 or worse adverse event. Very small+=score of very small, small, moderate, or big bother. Small+=score of small, moderate, or big bother. Moderate+=score of moderate or worse bother.

References

    1. Cancer Research UK Prostate cancer statistics – key facts. 2015. (accessed Feb 1, 2016).
    1. Soerjomataram I, Lortet-Tieulent J, Parkin DM. Global burden of cancer in 2008: a systematic analysis of disability-adjusted life-years in 12 world regions. Lancet. 2012;380:1840–1850.
    1. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN guidelines) for prostate cancer. 2011. (accessed Feb 1, 2016).
    1. Wolff RF, Ryder S, Bossi A. A systematic review of randomised controlled trials of radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51:2345–2367.
    1. Zaorsky NG, Ohri N, Showalter TN, Dicker AP, Den RB. Systematic review of hypofractionated radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Cancer Treat Rev. 2013;39:728–736.
    1. Dearnaley DP, Jovic G, Syndikus I. Escalated-dose versus control-dose conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer: long-term results from the MRC RT01 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:464–473.
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) clinical guideline: prostate cancer: diagnosis and treatment (CG175) 2014. (accessed Feb 1, 2016).
    1. Hou Z, Li G, Bai S. High dose versus conventional dose in external beam radiotherapy of prostate cancer: a meta-analysis of long-term follow-up. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2015;141:1063–1071.
    1. Brenner DJ, Martinez AA, Edmundson GK, Mitchell C, Thames HD, Armour EP. Direct evidence that prostate tumors show high sensitivity to fractionation (low alpha/beta ratio), similar to late-responding normal tissue. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;52:6–13.
    1. Fowler J, Chappell R, Ritter M. Is alpha/beta for prostate tumors really low? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001;50:1021–1031.
    1. Khoo VS, Dearnaley DP. Question of dose, fractionation and technique: ingredients for testing hypofractionation in prostate cancer – the CHHiP trial. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2008;20:12–14.
    1. Thames HD, Bentzen SM, Turesson I, Overgaard M, Van den Bogaert W. Time-dose factors in radiotherapy: a review of the human data. Radiother Oncol. 1990;19:219–235.
    1. Dearnaley D, Syndikus I, Sumo G. Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: preliminary safety results from the CHHiP randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:43–54.
    1. Roach M, 3rd, Marquez C, Yuo HS. Predicting the risk of lymph node involvement using the pre-treatment prostate specific antigen and Gleason score in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1994;28:33–37.
    1. Diaz A, Roach M, 3rd, Marquez C. Indications for and the significance of seminal vesicle irradiation during 3D conformal radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1994;30:323–329.
    1. South CP, Khoo VS, Naismith O, Norman A, Dearnaley DP. A comparison of treatment planning techniques used in two randomised UK external beam radiotherapy trials for localised prostate cancer. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2008;20:15–21.
    1. LENT SOMA tables. Radiother Oncol. 1995;35:17–60.
    1. Dearnaley DP, Sydes MR, Langley RE. The early toxicity of escalated versus standard dose conformal radiotherapy with neo-adjuvant androgen suppression for patients with localised prostate cancer: results from the MRC RT01 trial (ISRCTN47772397) Radiother Oncol. 2007;83:31–41.
    1. Cox JD, Stetz J, Pajak TF. Toxicity criteria of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995;31:1341–1346.
    1. Wilkins A, Mossop H, Syndikus I. Hypofractionated radiotherapy versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for patients with intermediate-risk localised prostate cancer: 2-year patient-reported outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:1605–1616.
    1. Roach M, 3rd, Hanks G, Thames H., Jr Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: recommendations of the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix Consensus Conference. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;65:965–974.
    1. Koontz BF, Bossi A, Cozzarini C, Wiegel T, D'Amico A. A systematic review of hypofractionation for primary management of prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2015;68:683–691.
    1. Tree AC, Alexander EJ, Van As NJ, Dearnaley DP, Khoo V. Biological dose escalation and hypofractionation: what is there to be gained and how will it best be done? Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2013;25:483–498.
    1. Proust-Lima C, Taylor JM, Secher S. Confirmation of a low alpha/beta ratio for prostate cancer treated by external beam radiation therapy alone using a post-treatment repeated-measures model for PSA dynamics. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;79:195–201.
    1. Miralbell R, Roberts SA, Zubizarreta E, Hendry JH. Dose-fractionation sensitivity of prostate cancer deduced from radiotherapy outcomes of 5,969 patients in seven international institutional datasets: alpha/beta=1·4 (0·9–2·2) Gy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82:e17–e24.
    1. Vogelius IR, Bentzen SM. Meta-analysis of the alpha/beta ratio for prostate cancer in the presence of an overall time factor: bad news, good news, or no news? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Physs. 2013;85:89–94.
    1. Dasu A, Toma-Dasu I. Prostate alpha/beta revisited–an analysis of clinical results from 14 168 patients. Acta Oncol. 2012;51:963–974.
    1. Zaorsky NG, Palmer JD, Hurwitz MD, Keith SW, Dicker AP, Den RB. What is the ideal radiotherapy dose to treat prostate cancer? A meta-analysis of biologically equivalent dose escalation. Radiother Oncol. 2015;115:295–300.
    1. Arcangeli G, Fowler J, Gomellini S. Acute and late toxicity in a randomized trial of conventional versus hypofractionated three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;79:1013–1021.
    1. Pollack A, Walker G, Horwitz EM. Randomized trial of hypofractionated external-beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:3860–3868.
    1. Hoffman KE, Voong KR, Pugh TJ. Risk of late toxicity in men receiving dose-escalated hypofractionated intensity modulated prostate radiation therapy: results from a randomized trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;88:1074–1084.
    1. Aluwini S, Pos F, Schimmel E. Hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for patients with prostate cancer (HYPRO): acute toxicity results from a randomised non-inferiority phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:274–283.
    1. Norkus D, Karklelyte A, Engels B. A randomized hypofractionation dose escalation trial for high risk prostate cancer patients: interim analysis of acute toxicity and quality of life in 124 patients. Radiat Oncol. 2013;8:206.
    1. Syndikus I, Morgan RC, Sydes MR, Graham JD, Dearnaley DP. Late gastrointestinal toxicity after dose-escalated conformal radiotherapy for early prostate cancer: results from the UK Medical Research Council RT01 trial (ISRCTN47772397) Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;77:773–783.
    1. Round CE, Williams MV, Mee T. Radiotherapy demand and activity in England 2006–2020. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2013;25:522–530.

Source: PubMed

3
Sottoscrivi