Long-term economic value of hypofractionated prostate radiation: Secondary analysis of a randomized trial

Moderate hypofractionated radiotherapy to the prostate bed with or without pelvic lymph nodes: a prospective trial

Background

Hypofractionated radiotherapy in the treatment of prostate cancer has been widely studied. However, in the postoperative setting it has been less explored. The objective of this prospective study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of hypofractionated radiotherapy in postoperative prostate cancer.

Materials and methods

A prospective study was designed to include patients with prostate cancer with an indication of postoperative radiotherapy as adjuvant or salvage. A hypofractionated radiotherapy scheme of 51 Gy in 17 fractions was performed with the possibility of treating the pelvis at a dose of 36 Gy in 12 fractions sequentially. Safety was evaluated based on acute and late toxicity [according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) scale and Common Terminology Criteria Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4.03], International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) over time, and quality of life.

Results

From August 2020 to June 2022, 31 patients completed treatment and were included in this report. 35.5% of patients received elective treatment of the pelvic nodal areas. Most patients reported minimal or low acute toxicity, with an acute gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) grade 3 or greater toxicity of 3.2% and 0%, respectively. The evolution in time of the IPSS remained without significant differences (p = 0.42). With the exception of a significant improvement in the domains of hormonal and sexual symptoms of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) questionnaire, the rest of the domains [EPIC, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Core quality of life questionnaire (C-30) and Prostate Cancer module (PR-25)] were maintained without significant differences over time. With a follow-up of 15.4 months, late GI and GU grade 2 toxicity was reported greater than 0% and 9.6%, respectively.

Conclusions

Hypofractionated radiotherapy in postoperative prostate cancer appears to be safe with low reports of relevant acute or late toxicity. Further follow-up is required to confirm these results.

Trial registration

The protocol was approved by the accredited Medical Ethical Committee of Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. All participants accepted and wrote informed consent.

Radiation technique and outcomes following moderately hypofractionated treatment of low risk prostate cancer: a secondary analysis of RTOG 0415

BACKGROUND

While moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (MHRT) for prostate cancer (PC) is commonly delivered by intensity modulated radiation therapy, IMRT has not been prospectively compared to three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) in this context. We conducted a secondary analysis of the phase III RTOG 0415 trial comparing survival and toxicity outcomes for low-risk PC following MHRT with IMRT versus 3D-CRT.

METHODS

RTOG 0415 was a phase III, non-inferiority trial randomizing low-risk PC patients to either MHRT or conventionally fractionated radiation with stratification by RT technique. A secondary analysis for differences in overall survival (OS), biochemical recurrence free survival (BRFS), or toxicity by EPIC scores and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) was performed.

RESULTS

1079 patients received the allocated intervention with a median follow up of 5.8 years. 79.1% of patients were treated with IMRT and radiation technique was balanced between arms. Across all patients, RT technique was not associated with significant differences in BRFS, OS, or rates of acute and late toxicities. For patients completing MHRT, there was a difference in the late GU toxicity distribution between 3D-CRT and IMRT but no difference in late grade 2 or greater GU or GI toxicity. Stratifying patients by RT technique and fractionation, no significant differences were observed in the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in EPIC urinary and bowel scores following RT.

CONCLUSIONS

RT technique did not impact clinical outcomes following MHRT for low-risk PC. Despite different late GU toxicity distributions in patients treated with MHRT by IMRT or 3D-CRT, there was no difference in late Grade 2 or greater GU or GI toxicity or patient reported toxicity. Increases in late GU and GI toxicity following MHRT compared to CFRT, as demonstrated in the initial publication of RTOG 0415, do not appear related to a 3D-CRT treatment technique.

Extreme hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for elderly prostate cancer patients: side effects preliminary analysis of a phase II trial

PURPOSE

Aim of this study is to evaluate safety and efficacy of SBRT in elderly patients affected by localized prostate cancer (PC).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Men aged 70 years or older were enrolled and analyzed. The SBRT schedule was 35 Gy in 5 fractions administered in 1-2 weeks. According to risk group, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was prescribed. Urinary symptoms were evaluated at baseline using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). Genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities were assessed at the end of treatment, 2 weeks after SBRT and during follow-up using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). PSA values were recorded before treatment and during follow-up as biochemical response criteria.

RESULTS

Between 07/2019 and 09/2021, 111 patients were enrolled. Median age was 77 years. At the end of treatment, no acute GU/GI toxicities ≥ G2 were observed. At 2-3 weeks after treatment, 3 patients reported G2 GU toxicity, while 14 patients referred G2 GI toxicity. During the last follow up, 26 and 2 patients reported, respectively, G1 and G2 GU toxicity, while 22 and 1 cases described, respectively, G1 and G2 GI toxicity. No late toxicities ≥ G3 were recorded. GU toxicity is related to absence of urethra sparing, increasing PTV volume, Dmax PTV and IPSS; GI toxicity is related to RT schedule (each other day is better than consecutive day), Dmax rectum and IPSS, At a median follow-up of 24 months, excellent biochemical disease control was achieved in all cases with median PSA of 0.5 ng/ml.

CONCLUSION

SBRT in elderly patients affected by PC is feasible and well tolerated with excellent biochemical disease control. Longer follow-up is needed to assess late toxicity profile and long-term clinical outcome.

Preoperative hypofractionated radiotherapy for soft tissue sarcomas: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Soft tissue sarcomas (STS) represent a diverse group of rare malignant tumors. Currently, five to six weeks of preoperative radiotherapy (RT) combined with surgery constitute the mainstay of therapy for localized high-grade sarcomas (G2-G3). Growing evidence suggests that shortening preoperative RT courses by hypofractionation neither increases toxicity rates nor impairs oncological outcomes. Instead, shortening RT courses may improve therapy adherence, raise cost-effectiveness, and provide more treatment opportunities for a wider range of patients. Presumed higher rates of adverse effects and worse outcomes are concerns about hypofractionated RT (HFRT) for STS. This systematic review summarizes the current evidence on preoperative HFRT for the treatment of STS and discusses toxicity and oncological outcomes compared to normofractionated RT.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of clinical trials describing outcomes for preoperative HFRT in the management of STS using PubMed, the Cochrane library, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase, and Ovid Medline. We followed the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Trials on retroperitoneal sarcomas, postoperative RT, and hyperthermia were excluded. Articles published until November 30th, 2021, were included.

RESULTS

Initial search yielded 94 articles. After removal of duplicate and ineligible articles, 13 articles qualified for analysis. Eight phase II trials and five retrospective analyses were reviewed. Most trials applied 5 × 5 Gy preoperatively in patients with high-grade STS. HFRT courses did not show increased rates of adverse events compared to historical trials of normofractionated RT. Toxicity rates were mostly comparable or lower than in trials of normofractionated RT. Moreover, HFRT achieved comparable local control rates with shorter duration of therapy. Currently, more than 15 prospective studies on HFRT + / - chemotherapy are ongoing.

CONCLUSIONS

Retrospective data and phase II trials suggest preoperative HFRT to be a reasonable treatment modality for STS. Oncological outcomes and toxicity profiles were favorable. To date, our knowledge is mostly derived from phase II data. No randomized phase III trial comparing normofractionated and HFRT in STS has been published yet. Multiple ongoing phase II trials applying HFRT to investigate acute and late toxicity will hopefully bring forth valuable findings.

Cost-effectiveness of hypofractionated versus conventional radiotherapy in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer: An ancillary study of the PROstate fractionated irradiation trial - PROFIT

PURPOSE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of moderate Hypofractionated Radiotherapy (H-RT) compared to Conventional Radiotherapy (C-RT) for intermediate-risk prostate caner (PCa).

METHODS

A prospective randomized clinical trial including 222 patients from six French cancer centers was conducted as an ancillary study of the international PROstate Fractionated Irradiation Trial (PROFIT). We carried-out a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) from the payer's perspective, with a time horizon of 48 months. Patients assigned to the H-RT arm received 6000 cGy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks, or 7800 cGy in 39 fractions over 7 to 8 weeks in the C-RT arm. Patients completed quality of life (QoL) questionnaire: Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) at baseline, 24 and 48 months, which were mapped to obtain a EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D) equivalent to generate Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY). We assessed differences in QALYs and costs between the two arms with Generalized Linear Models (GLMs). Costs, estimated in euro (€) 2020, were combined with QALYs to estimate the Incremental Cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with non-parametric bootstrap.

RESULTS

Total costs per patien were lower in the H-RT arm compared to the C-RT arm €3,062 (95 % CI: 2,368 to 3,754) versus €4,285 (95 % CI: 3,355 to 5,215), (p < 0.05). QALY were marginally higher in the H-RT arm, however this difference was not significant: 0.044 (95 % CI: - 0.016 to 0.099).

CONCLUSIONS

Treating localized prostate cancer with moderate H-RT could reduce national health insurance spending. Adopting such a treatment with an updated reimbursement tariff would result in improving resource allocation in RT management.

Medical Resource Use and Medical Costs for Radiotherapy-Related Adverse Effects: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Despite the need for a proper economic evaluation of new radiotherapies, the economic burden of radiotherapy-induced adverse effects remains unclear. A systematic review has been conducted to identify the existing evidence of healthcare resource use and costs related to radiotherapy-induced adverse effects and also to provide recommendations for including this evidence in economic evaluations.

METHODS

This systematic review of healthcare resource use and/or medical costs related to radiotherapy-induced adverse effects was performed up until 2020, focusing on patients with head and neck cancer, brain cancer, prostate cancer, eye cancer and breast cancer.

RESULTS

Resource use for treating the same adverse effects varied considerably across studies; for instance, the cost for mucositis ranged from USD 2949 to USD 17,244. This broad range could be related to differences in (1) severity of adverse effects in the study population, (2) study design, (3) cost estimation approach and (4) country and clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings revealed unignorable differences for the same adverse effects, which implied that the potential for the economic burden of adverse effects was being overestimated or underestimated in economic evaluation for radiotherapy.

Unwarranted variation in radiation therapy fractionation

The adoption of hypofractionation across multiple tumour sites has been slow despite robust evidence. There is considerable unwarranted variation in practice, both within and between jurisdictions. This has been attributed to inconsistencies in guidelines, physician preference, lack of technology and differing financial incentives. Unwarranted variation in the use of hypofractionation has a tremendous effect on cost to both patients and the healthcare system. This places an unnecessary burden on patients and poorly utilises scarce healthcare resources. A collaborative effort from clinicians, patients, healthcare providers and policymakers is needed to reduce unwarranted variation in practice. This will improve quality of care both for patients and at broader healthcare system level.

A Pooled Toxicity Analysis of Moderately Hypofractionated Proton Beam Therapy and Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy in Early-Stage Prostate Cancer Patients

PURPOSE

Data comparing moderately hypofractionated intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) are lacking. We aim to compare late toxicity profiles of patients with early-stage prostate cancer treated with moderately hypofractionated PBT and IMRT.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This multi-institutional analysis included patients with low- or intermediate-risk biopsy-proven prostate adenocarcinoma from 7 tertiary referral centers treated from 1998 to 2018. All patients were treated with moderately hypofractionated radiation, defined as 250 to 300 cGy per daily fraction given for 4 to 6 weeks, and stratified by use of IMRT or PBT. Primary outcomes were late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. Adjusted toxicity rates were calculated using inverse probability of treatment weighting, accounting for race, National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group, age, pretreatment International Prostate Symptom Score (GU only), and anticoagulant use (GI only).

RESULTS

A total of 1850 patients were included: 1282 IMRT (median follow-up 80.0 months) and 568 PBT (median follow-up 43.9 months). Overall toxicity rates were low, with the majority of patients experiencing no late GU (56.6%, n = 1048) or late GI (74.4%, n = 1377) toxicity. No difference was seen in the rates of late toxicity between the groups, with late grade 3+ GU toxicity of 2.0% versus 3.9% (odds ratio [OR] 0.47; 95% confidence interval 0.17-1.28) and late grade 2+ GI toxicity of 14.6% versus 4.7% (OR 2.69; confidence interval 0.80-9.05) for the PBT and IMRT cohorts, respectively. On multivariable analysis, no factors were significantly predictive of GU toxicity, and only anticoagulant use was significantly predictive of GI toxicity (OR 1.90; P = .008).

CONCLUSIONS

In this large, multi-institutional analysis of 1850 patients with early-stage prostate cancer, treatment with moderately hypofractionated IMRT and PBT resulted in low rates of toxicity. No difference was seen in late GI and GU toxicity between the modalities during long-term follow-up. Both treatments are safe and well tolerated.

Can the Adoption of Hypofractionation Guidelines Expand Global Radiotherapy Access? An Analysis for Breast and Prostate Radiotherapy

PURPOSE

The limited radiotherapy resources for global cancer control have resulted in increased interest in developing time- and cost-saving innovations to expand access to those resources. Hypofractionated regimens could minimize cost and increase access for limited-resource countries. In this investigation, we estimated the percentage cost-savings per radiotherapy course and increased radiotherapy access in African countries after adopting hypofractionation for breast and prostate radiotherapy. For perspective, results were compared with high-income countries.

METHODS

The cost and course of breast and prostate radiotherapy for conventional and hypofractionated regimens in low-resource facilities were calculated using the Radiotherapy Cost Estimator tool developed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and then compared with another activity-based costing model. The potential maximum cost savings in each country over 7 years for breast and prostate radiotherapy were then estimated using cancer incidence data from the Global Cancer Observatory database with use rates applied. The increase in radiotherapy access was estimated by current national capacities from the IAEA directory.

RESULTS

The estimated cost per course of conventional and hypofractionated regimens were US$2,232 and $1,339 for breast treatment, and $3,389 and $1,699 for prostate treatment, respectively. The projected potential maximum cost savings with full hypofractionation implementation were $1.1 billion and $606 million for breast and prostate treatment, respectively. The projected increase of radiotherapy access due to implementing hypofractionation varied between +0.3% to 25% and +0.4% to 36.0% for breast and prostate treatments, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This investigation demonstrates that adopting hypofractionated regimens as standard treatment of breast and prostate cancers can result in substantial savings and increase radiotherapy access in developing countries. Given reduced delivery cost and treatment times, we anticipate a substantial increase in radiotherapy access with additional innovations that will allow progressive hypofractionation without compromising quality.

Practical considerations for prostate hypofractionation in the developing world

External beam radiotherapy is an effective curative treatment option for localized prostate cancer, the most common cancer in men worldwide. However, conventionally fractionated courses of curative external beam radiotherapy are usually 8-9 weeks long, resulting in a substantial burden to patients and the health-care system. This problem is exacerbated in low-income and middle-income countries where health-care resources might be scarce and patient funds limited. Trials have shown a clinical equipoise between hypofractionated schedules of radiotherapy and conventionally fractionated treatments, with the advantage of drastically shortening treatment durations with the use of hypofractionation. The hypofractionated schedules are supported by modern consensus guidelines for implementation in clinical practice. Furthermore, several economic evaluations have shown improved cost effectiveness of hypofractionated therapy compared with conventional schedules. However, these techniques demand complex infrastructure and advanced personnel training. Thus, a number of practical considerations must be borne in mind when implementing hypofractionation in low-income and middle-income countries, but the potential gain in the treatment of this patient population is substantial.

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) for Prostate Cancer in Men With a High Baseline International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS ≥ 15)

Background: Patients with a high pretreatment IPSS may have higher rates of late urinary morbidity after radiation therapy for prostate cancer (1). Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) delivers fewer high-dose fractions of radiation, which may be radiobiologically favorable to the conventional low-dose external beam fractions. The urinary toxicity associated with SBRT, however, remains unclear in patients with a high IPSS (1). We report our experience using SBRT for localized prostate cancer in patients with pretreatment IPSS ≥ 15.

Methods: Localized prostate cancer patients with a pre-treatment IPSS ≥ 15 treated with SBRT at Georgetown University Hospital from 2009 to 2016 were included in this retrospective review of prospectively collected data. These patients were treated to 35–36.25 Gy in five fractions delivered via CyberKnife (Accuray Inc., Sunnyvale, CA). Urinary toxicity was assessed using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0 (CTCAE v4). Urinary quality of life was assessed using validated questionnaires (IPSS and EPIC-26).

Results: 53 patients at a median age of 71 years (range 57–89 years) received SBRT with a minimum follow up of 3 years. The median prostate size was 37 cm³ (range 12–100 cm³) and 30.2% patients received ADT. The 3-years incidence rate of Grade 3 urinary toxicity was 7.5% with median time to toxicity of 2.9 years. There were no Grade 4 or 5 toxicities. A mean baseline IPSS score of 19.8 significantly decreased to 12.9 at 3 months post-SBRT (p = 0.002) and remained stable at 36 months (13.7). A mean baseline EPIC-26 obstructive/irritative score of 64.1 significantly improved to 80.2 at 3 months (p = 0.002). This improvement was maintained to 36 months. There was no significant change from the mean baseline EPIC-26 urinary incontinence score at any point during follow up.

Conclusions: SBRT for clinically localized prostate cancer was well-tolerated in men with baseline IPSS ≥ 15 (1). Grade 3 toxicities occurred but resolved with time. Our data suggest that poor baseline urinary function does not worsen following SBRT and may even improve. High baseline IPSS score should not be considered a contraindication to SBRT.

Moderate hypofractionated helical tomotherapy for prostate cancer in a cohort of older patients: a mono-institutional report of toxicity and clinical outcomes

PURPOSE OR OBJECTIVE

To evaluate toxicity and outcomes of moderately hypofractionated helical tomotherapy for the curative treatment of a cohort of patients aged ≥ 75 years with localized prostate cancer (PC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From January 2013 to February 2017, 95 patients with median age 77 years (range 75-88) were treated for PC. 39% were low risk, 33% intermediate risk (IR), 28% high risk (HR). Median iPSA was 9.42 ng/ml (1.6-107). Androgen deprivation was prescribed according to NCCN recommendations. All patients received 70 Gy in 28 fractions to the prostate; 61.6 Gy were delivered to the seminal vesicles for IR; whole pelvis irradiation with a total dose of 50.4 Gy was added in the HR group. Toxicity evaluation was based on CTCAE V4.0 criteria, biochemical failure was defined following Phoenix criteria. Quality of Life was assessed with the EPIC-26 index. Overall survival and biochemical failure-free survival were analysed with Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

With a median follow-up of 36 months (range 24-73), acute and late toxicity were acceptable. No correlation between toxicity patterns and clinical or dosimetric parameter was registered. EPIC-26 showed a negligible difference in urinary and bowel function post-treatment that did not reach statistical significance. The 2- and 3-years OS were 93% and 87% with cancer specific survival of 97.9% and 96.2%.

CONCLUSION

Moderate hypofractionated RT reported excellent outcomes in our cohort of older patients. Shorter schedules may be proposed regardless of chronological age facilitating the treatment compliance in the older population.

Acute and late toxicity and preliminary outcomes report of moderately hypofractionated helical tomotherapy for localized prostate cancer: a mono-institutional analysis

AIMS

To assess toxicity and clinical outcomes of moderately hypofractionated helical tomotherapy (HT) for the curative treatment of localized prostate cancer (PC).

METHODS

From December 2012 to May 2018, 170 patients were treated with definitive intent for PC. Thirty-four percent were low risk, 30% intermediate risk (IR) and 36% high risk (HR). All patients received 70 Gy in 28 fractions to the prostate; 61.6 Gy were delivered to the seminal vesicles for IR; pelvic lymph nodes irradiation for a total dose of 50.4 Gy was added in the HR subgroup. Toxicity was assessed using CTCAE V4.0, and biochemical failure was defined following Phoenix criteria. Time-to-event data were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 36 months (range 12-78); acute toxicity was as follows: G1 and G2 in 27.6% and 19.4% for GI; 53% and 24% for GU. No G ≥ 3 event was observed. For late toxicity, G ≥ 3 GI and GU rates were, respectively, 3% and 2.4% at 3 years and 3% and 4.8% at 4 years; no G4 occurred. A statistical correlation between acute or late G3 incidence and clinical or dosimetric parameters was not found. At the time of analysis, 2- and 3-year biochemical relapse-free survival rates were 90% and 87.5% and 2- and 3-year overall survival rates were 96.4% and 90%, respectively. The log-rank test revealed no difference between the risk groups in terms of biochemical control (p = 0.16).

CONCLUSIONS

Moderately hypofractionated RT with HT for localized prostate cancer reported excellent outcomes with mild acute and late toxicity incidence, with promising biochemical control rates.

Hypofractionation for clinically localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Using hypofractionation (fewer, larger doses of daily radiation) to treat localized prostate cancer may improve convenience and resource use. For hypofractionation to be feasible, it must be at least as effective for cancer-related outcomes and have comparable toxicity and quality of life outcomes as conventionally fractionated radiation therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of hypofractionated external beam radiation therapy compared to conventionally fractionated external beam radiation therapy for men with clinically localized prostate cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) and trials registries from 1946 to 15 March 2019 with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors. Searches were not limited by language or publication status. We reran all searches within three months (15th March 2019) prior to publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled comparisons which included men with clinically localized prostate adenocarcinoma where hypofractionated radiation therapy (external beam radiation therapy) to the prostate using hypofractionation (greater than 2 Gy per fraction) compared with conventionally fractionated radiation therapy to the prostate delivered using standard fractionation (1.8 Gy to 2 Gy per fraction).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology. Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used Review Manager 5 for data analysis and meta-analysis. We used the inverse variance method and random-effects model for data synthesis of time-to-event data with hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) reported. For dichotomous data, we used the Mantel-Haenzel method and random-effects model to present risk ratios (RR) and 95% CI. We used GRADE to assess evidence quality for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 studies with 8278 men in our analysis comparing hypofractionation with conventional fractionation to treat prostate cancer.Primary outcomesHypofractionation may result in little or no difference in prostate cancer-specific survival [PC-SS] (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.39; studies = 8, participants = 7946; median follow-up 72 months; low-certainty evidence). For men in the intermediate-risk group undergoing conventional fractionation this corresponds to 976 per 1000 men alive after 6 years and 0 more (44 fewer to 18 more) alive per 1000 men undergoing hypofractionation.We are uncertain about the effect of hypofractionation on late radiation therapy gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.78; studies = 4, participants = 3843; very low-certainty evidence).Hypofractionation probably results in little or no difference to late radiation therapy genitourinary (GU) toxicity (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.18; studies = 4, participants = 3843; moderate-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 262 per 1000 late GU radiation therapy toxicity events with conventional fractionation and 13 more (18 fewer to 47 more) per 1000 men when undergoing hypofractionation.Secondary outcomesHypofractionation results in little or no difference in overall survival (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.07; 10 studies, 8243 participants; high-certainty evidence). For men in the intermediate-risk group undergoing conventional fractionation this corresponds to 869 per 1000 men alive after 6 years and 17 fewer (54 fewer to 17 more) participants alive per 1000 men when undergoing hypofractionation.Hypofractionation may result in little to no difference in metastasis-free survival (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.76; 5 studies, 4985 participants; low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 981 men per 1000 men metastasis-free at 6 years when undergoing conventional fractionation and 5 more (58 fewer to 19 more) metastasis-free per 1000 when undergoing hypofractionation.Hypofractionation likely results in a small, possibly unimportant reduction in biochemical recurrence-free survival based on Phoenix criteria (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.13; studies = 5, participants = 2889; median follow-up 90 months to 108 months; moderate-certainty evidence). In men of the intermediate-risk group, this corresponds to 804 biochemical-recurrence free men per 1000 participants at six years with conventional fractionation and 42 fewer (134 fewer to 37 more) recurrence-free men per 1000 participants with hypofractionationHypofractionation likely results in little to no difference to acute GU radiation therapy toxicity (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.11; 4 studies, 4174 participants at 12 to 18 weeks' follow-up; moderate-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 360 episodes of toxicity per 1000 participants with conventional fractionation and 11 more (18 fewer to 40 more) per 1000 when undergoing hypofractionation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that moderate hypofractionation (up to a fraction size of 3.4 Gy) results in similar oncologic outcomes in terms of disease-specific, metastasis-free and overall survival. There appears to be little to no increase in both acute and late toxicity.

Hypofractionated Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: When and for Whom?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize recent evidence concerning the use of moderately hypofractionated external beam radiotherapy, defined as 2.4-3.4 Gy per fraction, and ultrahypofractionated external beam radiotherapy (also known as stereotactic body radiotherapy [SBRT]), defined as at least 5 Gy per fraction, in men with localized prostate cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

Taken together, a number of recently completed randomized trials show that moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy confers similar biochemical control compared to conventionally fractionated radiotherapy without increasing late toxicity. These effects appear to extend across all baseline clinical risk groups. Several single-arm phase II studies, as well as a recently published large-scale randomized trial comparing SBRT with conventional fractionation, show very promising biochemical control and favorable acute and late treatment-related morbidity with the use of SBRT in predominantly low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. As it is associated with similar prostate cancer control and toxicity while improving patient convenience and reducing cost, moderate hypofractionation is a preferred alternative to conventional fractionation in a majority of men with localized prostate cancer choosing radiotherapy as their primary treatment modality. To date, studies conducted largely in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer report encouraging oncologic outcomes and acceptable toxicity with SBRT. Mature results of phase III trials evaluating five-fraction SBRT regimens are eagerly awaited.

Four-Year Outcomes From a Prospective Phase II Clinical Trial of Moderately Hypofractionated Proton Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy represents an effective treatment for localized prostate cancer (PC). Although large randomized trials have reported the efficacy of photon-based hypofractionated therapy, hypofractionated proton therapy (HFPT) has not been extensively studied. This study was performed to determine the clinical and patient-reported outcomes for patients with PC treated with HFPT.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Between 2010 and 2017, 184 men were enrolled on a trial of 70 Gy in 28 fractions of HFPT for low- to intermediate-risk PC. Acute and late toxicity was evaluated using National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. Patient-reported outcomes were measured by International Prostate Symptom Score, International Index of Erectile Function Questionnaire, and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite scores.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 49.2 months. Enrolled patients had low-risk (n = 18), favorable intermediate-risk (n = 78), and unfavorable intermediate-risk (n = 88) PC. Four-year rates of biochemical-clinical failure-free survival were 93.5% (95% confidence interval, 89%-98%), 94.4% (89%-100%), 92.5% (86%-100%), and 93.8% (88%-100%) in the overall group and the low-risk, favorable intermediate-risk, and unfavorable intermediate-risk cohorts, respectively (log-rank P > .4). The incidence of acute grade 2 or higher gastrointestinal (GI) and urologic toxicities were 3.8% and 12.5%, respectively. The 4-year incidence of late grade 2 or higher urologic and GI toxicity was 7.6% (4%-13%) and 13.6% (9%-20%), respectively. One late grade 3 GI toxicity was reported. All late toxicities were transient. Patient-reported International Prostate Symptom, International Index of Erectile Function, and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite scores had no significant long-term changes after completion of HFPT (Supplementary Table 1, available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.05.069).

CONCLUSIONS

HFPT is associated with low rates of toxicity and does not appear to negatively affect 4-year patient reported urinary and bowel health. Further comparative analyses are warranted to better understand differences between proton and photon HFRT.

Comparison of efficacy, safety, and costs between neoadjuvant hypofractionated radiotherapy and conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for esophageal carcinoma

Background

We compared the efficacy, safety, and costs of hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT) and conventional fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT) for the neoadjuvant treatment of esophageal cancer.

Materials and Methods

Overall, 110 patients with esophageal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy from October 2002 to July 2017 were retrospectively included and divided into a HFRT group (42 patients received 30 Gray [Gy]/10 fractions for 2 weeks) and a CFRT group [68 patients received 40 Gy/20 fractions for 4 weeks]. Concurrent chemotherapy comprised cisplatin combined with either 5‐FU or taxane. Surgery was performed 3‐8 weeks after radiotherapy. We compared the outcomes, adverse events, and costs between the two groups.

Results

Pathological downstaging was achieved in 78.6% of the HFRT group and 83.8% of the CFRT group (P = 0.612). Compared with the CFRT group, the HFRT group had similar pathological complete response (pCR) (33.3% vs 35.3%; P = 0.834), median overall survival (OS) (40.8 months vs 44.9 months; P = 0.772) and progression free survival (32.7 months vs 35.4 months; P = 0.785). The perioperative complication rates were also similar between the groups, but the treatment time and costs were significantly reduced in the HFRT group (P < 0.05). Finally, multivariate analysis identified cN0 stage, pathological downstaging and pCR as independent predictors of better OS.

Conclusion

Preoperative HFRT is effective and safe for esophageal cancer. Moreover, it is similar to CFRT in terms of overall survival and toxicity and is cost effective and less time consuming.

Ten-Year Outcomes of Moderately Hypofractionated (70 Gy in 28 fractions) Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Long-term outcomes with hypofractionated radiation therapy for prostate cancer are limited. We report 10-year outcomes for patients treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for localized prostate cancer with 70 Gy in 28 fractions at 2.5 Gy per fraction.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The study included 854 consecutive patients with localized prostate cancer treated with moderately hypofractionated IMRT and daily image guidance at a single institution between 1998 and 2012. Patients with a single intermediate risk factor were considered to have favorable intermediate-risk (FIR) disease, and those with multiple intermediate risk factors were considered unfavorable (UIR). Biochemical relapse-free survival, clinical relapse-free survival, and overall survival were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) was analyzed using competing risk regression. All grade ≥3 genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities were recorded using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event version 4.03, and cumulative incidence rates of GU and GI toxicity were calculated.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 11.3 years (maximum, 19 years). For patients with low-risk (LR), FIR, UIR, and high-risk (HR) disease, the 10-year biochemical relapse free survival rates were 88%, 78%, 71%, and 42%, respectively, (P < .0001). The 10-year clinical relapse free survival were 95%, 91%, 85%, and 72% for patients with LR, FIR, UIR, and HR, respectively, (P < .0001). For all patients, the 10-year actuarial overall survival rate was 69% (95% confidence interval, 66%-73%), and the 10-year PCSM was 6.8% (95% confidence interval, 5.1%-8.6%) overall. For patients with LR, FIR, UIR and HR disease, the 10-year PCSM rates were 2%, 5%, 5%, and 15%. Long-term grade ≥3 GU or GI toxicity remained low with 10-year cumulative incidences of 2% and 1%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

High-dose moderately hypofractionated IMRT with daily image guidance for localized prostate cancer demonstrates favorable 10-year oncologic outcomes with a low incidence of toxicity. This fractionation schedule appears to be acceptable for patients across all risk groups.

Randomized Trial of Hypofractionated, Dose-Escalated, Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) Versus Conventionally Fractionated IMRT for Localized Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Hypofractionated radiotherapy delivers larger daily doses of radiation and may increase the biologically effective dose delivered to the prostate. We conducted a randomized trial testing the hypothesis that dose-escalated, moderately hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (HIMRT) improves prostate cancer control compared with conventionally fractionated IMRT (CIMRT) for men with localized prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Men were randomly assigned to 75.6 Gy in 1.8-Gy fractions delivered over 8.4 weeks (CIMRT) or 72 Gy in 2.4 Gy fractions delivered over 6 weeks (HIMRT, biologically equivalent to 85 Gy in 1.8-Gy fractions assuming prostate cancer α-to-β ratio of 1.5). Failure was defined as prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure (nadir plus 2 ng/mL) or initiation of salvage therapy. Modified Radiation Therapy Oncology Group criteria were used to grade late (≥ 90 days after completion of radiotherapy) GI and genitourinary toxicity.

RESULTS

Most of the 206 men (72%) had cT1, Gleason score 6 or 7 (99%), and PSA level ≤ 10 ng/mL (90%) disease. Androgen deprivation therapy was received by 24%. With a median follow-up of 8.5 years, men treated with HIMRT experienced fewer treatment failures (n = 10) than men treated with CIMRT (n = 21; P = .036). The 8-year failure rate was 10.7% (95% CI, 5.8% to 19.1%) with HIMRT and 15.4% (95% CI, 9.1% to 25.4%) with CIMRT. There was no difference in overall survival ( P = .39). There was a nonsignificant increase in late grade 2 or 3 GI toxicity with HIMRT (8-year 5.0% v 12.6%; P = .08). However, GI toxicity was only 8.6% when rectal volume receiving 65 Gy of HIMRT was ≤ 15%. Late genitourinary toxicity was similar ( P = .84). There was no grade 4 toxicity.

CONCLUSION

The results of this randomized trial demonstrate superior cancer control for men with localized prostate cancer who receive dose-escalated moderately hypofractionation radiotherapy while shortening treatment duration.

Cost-containment in hypofractionated radiation therapy: a literature review

Recent technological advances in radiation therapy have allowed for greater accuracy in planning and treatment delivery. The development of hypofractionated radiation treatment regimens is an example, and has the potential to decrease the cost per episode of care, relative to conventional treatments. Our aim was to analyse published literature on the cost-effectiveness and budgetary implications of hypofractionated radiation therapy. As such, this article will quantify the projected health care cost savings and address the optimal means of treatment delivery, associated patient outcomes, and implications arising from an increased use of hypofractionated regimens.