International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2023
Randomized Trial of Concomitant Hypofractionated Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Boost Versus Conventionally Fractionated Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Boost for Localized High-Risk Prostate Cancer (pHART2-RCT).
Рандомизированное исследованиеКлиническое исследование II фазыСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Glicksman Rachel M, Loblaw Andrew, Morton Gerard, Vesprini Danny, Szumacher Ewa, Chung Hans T, Chu William, Liu Stanley K, Tseng Chia-Lin, Correa Rohann, Deabreu Andrea, Mamedov Alexandre, Zhang Liying, Cheung Patrick
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The aim of this work is to report on the results of a phase 2 randomized trial of moderately hypofractionated (MH) versus conventionally fractionated (CF) radiation therapy to the prostate with elective nodal irradiation.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: This was a single-center, prospective, phase 2 randomized study. Patients with high-risk disease (cT3, prostate-specific antigen level >20 ng/mL, or Gleason score 8-10) were eligible. Patients were randomized to either MH using a simultaneous integrated boost (68 Gy in 25 fractions to prostate; 48 Gy to pelvis) or CF (46 Gy in 23 fractions with a sequential boost to the prostate of 32 Gy in 16 fractions), with long-term androgen deprivation therapy. The primary endpoint was grade ≥2 acute gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0). Secondary endpoints included late GI and GU toxicity, quality of life, and oncologic outcomes.
RESULTS: One-hundred eighty patients were enrolled; 90 were randomized to and received MH and 90 to CF. The median follow-up was 67.4 months. Seventy-five patients (41.7%) experienced a grade ≥2 acute GI and/or GU toxicity, including 34 (37.8%) in the MH and 41 (45.6%) in the CF arms, respectively (P = .29). Late grade ≥2 GI (P = .07) and GU (P = .25) toxicity was not significantly different between arms; however, late grade ≥3 GI toxicity was worse in the MH group (P = .01). There were no statistically significant quality-of-life differences between the 2 treatments. There were no statistically significant differences observed in cumulative incidence of biochemical failure (P = .71) or distant metastasis (P = .31) and overall survival (P = .46).
CONCLUSIONS: MH to the prostate and pelvis with androgen deprivation therapy for men with high-risk localized prostate cancer was not significantly different than CF with regard to acute toxicity, quality of life, and oncologic efficacy. However, late grade ≥3 GI toxicity was more common in the MH arm.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: This was a single-center, prospective, phase 2 randomized study. Patients with high-risk disease (cT3, prostate-specific antigen level >20 ng/mL, or Gleason score 8-10) were eligible. Patients were randomized to either MH using a simultaneous integrated boost (68 Gy in 25 fractions to prostate; 48 Gy to pelvis) or CF (46 Gy in 23 fractions with a sequential boost to the prostate of 32 Gy in 16 fractions), with long-term androgen deprivation therapy. The primary endpoint was grade ≥2 acute gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0). Secondary endpoints included late GI and GU toxicity, quality of life, and oncologic outcomes.
RESULTS: One-hundred eighty patients were enrolled; 90 were randomized to and received MH and 90 to CF. The median follow-up was 67.4 months. Seventy-five patients (41.7%) experienced a grade ≥2 acute GI and/or GU toxicity, including 34 (37.8%) in the MH and 41 (45.6%) in the CF arms, respectively (P = .29). Late grade ≥2 GI (P = .07) and GU (P = .25) toxicity was not significantly different between arms; however, late grade ≥3 GI toxicity was worse in the MH group (P = .01). There were no statistically significant quality-of-life differences between the 2 treatments. There were no statistically significant differences observed in cumulative incidence of biochemical failure (P = .71) or distant metastasis (P = .31) and overall survival (P = .46).
CONCLUSIONS: MH to the prostate and pelvis with androgen deprivation therapy for men with high-risk localized prostate cancer was not significantly different than CF with regard to acute toxicity, quality of life, and oncologic efficacy. However, late grade ≥3 GI toxicity was more common in the MH arm.