Intensity-modulated fractionated radiotherapy versus stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer (PACE-B): acute toxicity findings from an international, randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority trial

Douglas H Brand, Alison C Tree, Peter Ostler, Hans van der Voet, Andrew Loblaw, William Chu, Daniel Ford, Shaun Tolan, Suneil Jain, Alexander Martin, John Staffurth, Philip Camilleri, Kiran Kancherla, John Frew, Andrew Chan, Ian S Dayes, Daniel Henderson, Stephanie Brown, Clare Cruickshank, Stephanie Burnett, Aileen Duffton, Clare Griffin, Victoria Hinder, Kirsty Morrison, Olivia Naismith, Emma Hall, Nicholas van As, PACE Trial Investigators, D Dodds, E Lartigau, S Patton, A Thompson, M Winkler, P Wells, T Lymberiou, D Saunders, M Vilarino-Varela, P Vavassis, T Tsakiridis, R Carlson, G Rodrigues, J Tanguay, S Iqbal, M Winkler, S Morgan, A Mihai, A Li, O Din, M Panades, R Wade, Y Rimmer, J Armstrong, M Panades, N Oommen, Douglas H Brand, Alison C Tree, Peter Ostler, Hans van der Voet, Andrew Loblaw, William Chu, Daniel Ford, Shaun Tolan, Suneil Jain, Alexander Martin, John Staffurth, Philip Camilleri, Kiran Kancherla, John Frew, Andrew Chan, Ian S Dayes, Daniel Henderson, Stephanie Brown, Clare Cruickshank, Stephanie Burnett, Aileen Duffton, Clare Griffin, Victoria Hinder, Kirsty Morrison, Olivia Naismith, Emma Hall, Nicholas van As, PACE Trial Investigators, D Dodds, E Lartigau, S Patton, A Thompson, M Winkler, P Wells, T Lymberiou, D Saunders, M Vilarino-Varela, P Vavassis, T Tsakiridis, R Carlson, G Rodrigues, J Tanguay, S Iqbal, M Winkler, S Morgan, A Mihai, A Li, O Din, M Panades, R Wade, Y Rimmer, J Armstrong, M Panades, N Oommen

Abstract

Background: Localised prostate cancer is commonly treated with external-beam radiotherapy. Moderate hypofractionation has been shown to be non-inferior to conventional fractionation. Ultra-hypofractionated stereotactic body radiotherapy would allow shorter treatment courses but could increase acute toxicity compared with conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy. We report the acute toxicity findings from a randomised trial of standard-of-care conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy versus five-fraction stereotactic body radiotherapy for low-risk to intermediate-risk localised prostate cancer.

Methods: PACE is an international, phase 3, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial. In PACE-B, eligible men aged 18 years and older, with WHO performance status 0-2, low-risk or intermediate-risk prostate adenocarcinoma (Gleason 4 + 3 excluded), and scheduled to receive radiotherapy were recruited from 37 centres in three countries (UK, Ireland, and Canada). Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) by computerised central randomisation with permuted blocks (size four and six), stratified by centre and risk group, to conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (78 Gy in 39 fractions over 7·8 weeks or 62 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks, respectively) or stereotactic body radiotherapy (36·25 Gy in five fractions over 1-2 weeks). Neither participants nor investigators were masked to allocation. Androgen deprivation was not permitted. The primary endpoint of PACE-B is freedom from biochemical or clinical failure. The coprimary outcomes for this acute toxicity substudy were worst grade 2 or more severe Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxic effects score up to 12 weeks after radiotherapy. Analysis was per protocol. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01584258. PACE-B recruitment is complete and follow-up is ongoing.

Findings: Between Aug 7, 2012, and Jan 4, 2018, we randomly assigned 874 men to conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (n=441) or stereotactic body radiotherapy (n=433). 432 (98%) of 441 patients allocated to conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy and 415 (96%) of 433 patients allocated to stereotactic body radiotherapy received at least one fraction of allocated treatment. Worst acute RTOG gastrointestinal toxic effect proportions were as follows: grade 2 or more severe toxic events in 53 (12%) of 432 patients in the conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy group versus 43 (10%) of 415 patients in the stereotactic body radiotherapy group (difference -1·9 percentage points, 95% CI -6·2 to 2·4; p=0·38). Worst acute RTOG genitourinary toxicity proportions were as follows: grade 2 or worse toxicity in 118 (27%) of 432 patients in the conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy group versus 96 (23%) of 415 patients in the stereotactic body radiotherapy group (difference -4·2 percentage points, 95% CI -10·0 to 1·7; p=0·16). No treatment-related deaths occurred.

Interpretation: Previous evidence (from the HYPO-RT-PC trial) suggested higher patient-reported toxicity with ultrahypofractionation. By contrast, our results suggest that substantially shortening treatment courses with stereotactic body radiotherapy does not increase either gastrointestinal or genitourinary acute toxicity.

Funding: Accuray and National Institute of Health Research.

Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Trial profile Crossovers between treatment groups were analysed per-protocol for this acute toxicity substudy. Dose fractionation regimens administered within each group are shown. *One patient who received two fractions of stereotactic body radiotherapy then developed grade 3 toxicity (urosepsis) and switched to conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (further 46 Gy in 23 fractions) was not excluded from the toxicity analysis because he had toxic effects after two fractions of sterotactic body radiotherapy. †One patient who received a single incomplete fraction of stereotactic body radiotherapy (

Figure 2

Acute Radiation Therapy Oncology Group…

Figure 2

Acute Radiation Therapy Oncology Group toxicity for gastrointestinal (A) and genitourinary (B) systems…

Figure 2
Acute Radiation Therapy Oncology Group toxicity for gastrointestinal (A) and genitourinary (B) systems As each group allowed two different treatment durations (CFMHRT 78 Gy in 39 fractions and 62 Gy in 20 fractions; SBRT 36·25 Gy in five fractions over 1 or 2 weeks) it was necessary to interpolate data where assessments did not overlap. Raw data are presented in the appendix (p 17), with all four schedules shown separately. Numbers at risk for each arm are asynchronous because they are shown only at data collection timepoints (which are non-simultaneous relative to the start of radiotherapy). Week 0 is the baseline toxicity score taken before start of radiotherapy. CFMHRT=conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy. SBRT=stereotactic body radiotherapy.

Figure 3

Acute CTCAE toxicity for gastrointestinal…

Figure 3

Acute CTCAE toxicity for gastrointestinal (A) and genitourinary systems As each group allowed…

Figure 3
Acute CTCAE toxicity for gastrointestinal (A) and genitourinary systems As each group allowed two different treatment durations (CFMHRT 78 Gy in 39 fractions and 62 Gy in 20 fractions; SBRT 36·25 Gy in five fractions over 1 or 2 weeks) it was necessary to interpolate data. Raw data are presented in the appendix (p 21), with all four schedules presented separately. Numbers at risk for each arm are asynchronous because they are shown only at data collection timepoints (which are non-simultaneous relative to the start of radiotherapy). The initial points for CFMHRT are connected by grey dashed lines to emphasise that there were no CTCAE assessments during radiotherapy delivery. Week 0 is the baseline toxicity score taken before start of radiotherapy. CTCAE=Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. CFMHRT=conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy. SBRT=stereotactic body radiotherapy.

Figure 4

Changes from baseline in expanded…

Figure 4

Changes from baseline in expanded prostate cancer index composite (26 question) subdomains Urinary…

Figure 4
Changes from baseline in expanded prostate cancer index composite (26 question) subdomains Urinary bother is graphed separately, as it does not form part of the urinary incontinence or obstructive subdomain scores. Error bars show 95% CIs for estimates of mean subdomain scores. The time period between baseline scoring and week 4 after radiotherapy follow-up is variable, since the total time of radiotherapy delivery varied (SBRT in 1 or 2 weeks; CFMHRT in 4 or 7·8 weeks). Week 0 is the baseline score taken before start of radiotherapy. Scores are change from baseline, with 0 representing no change. CFMHRT=conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy. SBRT=stereotactic body radiotherapy.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Acute Radiation Therapy Oncology Group toxicity for gastrointestinal (A) and genitourinary (B) systems As each group allowed two different treatment durations (CFMHRT 78 Gy in 39 fractions and 62 Gy in 20 fractions; SBRT 36·25 Gy in five fractions over 1 or 2 weeks) it was necessary to interpolate data where assessments did not overlap. Raw data are presented in the appendix (p 17), with all four schedules shown separately. Numbers at risk for each arm are asynchronous because they are shown only at data collection timepoints (which are non-simultaneous relative to the start of radiotherapy). Week 0 is the baseline toxicity score taken before start of radiotherapy. CFMHRT=conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy. SBRT=stereotactic body radiotherapy.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Acute CTCAE toxicity for gastrointestinal (A) and genitourinary systems As each group allowed two different treatment durations (CFMHRT 78 Gy in 39 fractions and 62 Gy in 20 fractions; SBRT 36·25 Gy in five fractions over 1 or 2 weeks) it was necessary to interpolate data. Raw data are presented in the appendix (p 21), with all four schedules presented separately. Numbers at risk for each arm are asynchronous because they are shown only at data collection timepoints (which are non-simultaneous relative to the start of radiotherapy). The initial points for CFMHRT are connected by grey dashed lines to emphasise that there were no CTCAE assessments during radiotherapy delivery. Week 0 is the baseline toxicity score taken before start of radiotherapy. CTCAE=Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. CFMHRT=conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy. SBRT=stereotactic body radiotherapy.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Changes from baseline in expanded prostate cancer index composite (26 question) subdomains Urinary bother is graphed separately, as it does not form part of the urinary incontinence or obstructive subdomain scores. Error bars show 95% CIs for estimates of mean subdomain scores. The time period between baseline scoring and week 4 after radiotherapy follow-up is variable, since the total time of radiotherapy delivery varied (SBRT in 1 or 2 weeks; CFMHRT in 4 or 7·8 weeks). Week 0 is the baseline score taken before start of radiotherapy. Scores are change from baseline, with 0 representing no change. CFMHRT=conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy. SBRT=stereotactic body radiotherapy.

References

    1. Cancer Research UK Prostate cancer incidence statistics.
    1. Government of Canada Canadian cancer statistics: a 2018 special report on cancer incidence by stage. June, 2018.
    1. American Cancer Society Cancer facts and figures 2018. 2018.
    1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer. 2016.
    1. Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA. 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1415–1424.
    1. Donovan JL, Hamdy FC, Lane JA. Patient-reported outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1425–1437.
    1. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Fractionation and protraction for radiotherapy of prostate carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;43:1095–1101.
    1. Fowler J, Chappell R, Ritter M. Is α/β for prostate tumors really low? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001;50:1021–1031.
    1. Bentzen SM, Ritter MA. The α/β ratio for prostate cancer: what is it, really? Radiother Oncol. 2005;76:1–3.
    1. Vogelius IR, Bentzen SM. Meta-analysis of the α/β ratio for prostate cancer in the presence of an overall time factor: bad news, good news, or no news? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;85:89–94.
    1. Dearnaley D, Syndikus I, Mossop H. Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:1047–1060.
    1. Zemplényi AT, Kaló Z, Kovács G. Cost-effectiveness analysis of intensity-modulated radiation therapy with normal and hypofractionated schemes for the treatment of localised prostate cancer. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2018;27
    1. Lee WR, Dignam JJ, Amin MB. Randomized phase 3 noninferiority study comparing two radiotherapy fractionation schedules in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:2325–2332.
    1. Catton CN, Lukka H, Gu CS. Randomized trial of a hypofractionated radiation regimen for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:1884–1890.
    1. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2017;71:618–629.
    1. Sanda MG, Cadeddu JA, Kirkby E. Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline. Part 2: recommended approaches and details of specific care options. J Urol. 2018;199:990–997.
    1. Peach MS, Showalter TN, Ohri N. Systematic review of the relationship between acute and late gastrointestinal toxicity after radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer. 2015;2015
    1. Jackson WC, Silva J, Hartman HE. Stereotactic body radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of over 6000 patients treated on prospective studies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019;104:778–789.
    1. Widmark A, Gunnlaugsson A, Beckman L. Ultra-hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the HYPO-RT-PC randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2019;394:385–395.
    1. Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol. 1982;5:649–655.
    1. Brierley JD, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C. 6th edn. Wiley-Blackwell; Oxford: 2003. TNM classification of malignant tumours.
    1. Szymanski KM, Wei JT, Dunn RL, Sanda MG. Development and validation of an abbreviated version of the expanded prostate cancer index composite instrument for measuring health-related quality of life among prostate cancer survivors. Urology. 2010;76:1245–1250.
    1. Skolarus TA, Dunn RL, Sanda MG. Minimally important difference for the expanded prostate cancer index composite short form. Urology. 2015;85:101–115.
    1. Barry MJ, Fowler FJ, O'Leary MP. The American Urological Association symptom index for benign prostatic hyperplasia. The Measurement Committee of the American Urological Association. J Urol. 1992;148:1549–1557.
    1. Meier RM, Bloch DA, Cotrutz C. Multicenter trial of stereotactic body radiation therapy for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer: survival and toxicity endpoints. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018;102:296–303.
    1. Schwarz F, Christie D. Use of ‘sham’ radiotherapy in randomized clinical trials. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2008;52:269–277.
    1. Lips IM, van der Heide UA, Haustermans K. Single blind randomized phase 3 trial to investigate the benefit of a focal lesion ablative microboost in prostate cancer (FLAME-trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2011;12:255.
    1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network Prostate Cancer (version 1.2019) 2019.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnere