Hypofractionated, Dose Escalation Radiation Therapy for High-Risk Prostate Cancer: The Safety Analysis of the Prostate Cancer Study-5, a Groupe de Radio-Oncologie Génito-Urinaire de Quebec Led Phase 3 Trial

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)

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.

Prostate cancer and elective nodal radiation therapy for cN0 and pN0-a never ending story? : Recommendations from the prostate cancer expert panel of the German Society of Radiation Oncology (DEGRO)

For prostate cancer, the role of elective nodal irradiation (ENI) for cN0 or pN0 patients has been under discussion for years. Considering the recent publications of randomized controlled trials, the prostate cancer expert panel of the German Society of Radiation Oncology (DEGRO) aimed to discuss and summarize the current literature. Modern trials have been recently published for both treatment-naïve patients (POP-RT trial) and patients after surgery (SPPORT trial). Although there are more reliable data to date, we identified several limitations currently complicating the definitions of general recommendations. For patients with cN0 (conventional or PSMA-PET staging) undergoing definitive radiotherapy, only men with high-risk factors for nodal involvement (e.g., cT3a, GS ≥ 8, PSA ≥ 20 ng/ml) seem to benefit from ENI. For biochemical relapse in the postoperative situation (pN0) and no PSMA imaging, ENI may be added to patients with risk factors according to the SPPORT trial (e.g., GS ≥ 8; PSA > 0.7 ng/ml). If PSMA-PET/CT is negative, ENI may be offered for selected men with high-risk factors as an individual treatment approach.

Increasing Use of Shorter-Course Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer

Importance

Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the noninferiority of shorter radiotherapy (RT) courses (termed hypofractionation) compared with longer RT courses in patients with localized prostate cancer. Although shorter courses are associated with cost-effectiveness, convenience, and expanded RT access, their adoption remains variable.

Objective

To identify the current practice patterns of external beam RT for prostate cancer in the US.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study obtained data from the National Cancer Database, which collects hospital registry data from more than 1500 accredited US facilities on approximately 72% of US patients with cancer. Patients were included in the sample if they had localized prostate adenocarcinoma that was diagnosed between 2004 and 2020 and underwent external beam RT with curative intent. Analyses were conducted between February and March 2023.

Exposures

Radiotherapy schedules, which were categorized as ultrahypofractionation (≤7 fractions), moderate hypofractionation (20-30 fractions), and conventional fractionation (31-50 fractions).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Longitudinal pattern in RT fractionation schedule was the primary outcome. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to evaluate the variables associated with shorter RT courses. Covariables included age, National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group, rurality, race, facility location, facility type, median income, insurance type or status, and Charlson-Deyo Comorbidity Index.

Results

A total of 313 062 patients with localized prostate cancer (mean [SD] age, 68.8 [7.7] years) were included in the analysis. There was a temporal pattern of decline in the proportion of patients who received conventional fractionation, from 76.0% in 2004 to 36.6% in 2020 (P for trend <.001). From 2004 to 2020, use of moderate hypofractionation increased from 22.0% to 45.0% (P for trend <.001), and use of ultrahypofractionation increased from 2.0% to 18.3% (P for trend <.001). By 2020, the most common RT schedule was ultrahypofractionation for patients in the low-risk group and moderate hypofractionation for patients in the intermediate-risk group. On multivariable analysis, treatment at a community cancer program (compared with academic or research program; odds ratio [OR], 0.54 [95% CI, 0.52-0.56]; P < .001), Medicaid insurance (compared with Medicare; OR, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.41-1.57]; P < .001), Black race (compared with White race; OR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.87-0.92]; P < .001), and higher median income (compared with lower median income; OR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.25-1.31]; P < .001) were associated with receipt of shorter courses of RT.

Conclusions and Relevance

Results of this cohort study showed an increase in the use of shorter courses of RT for prostate cancer from 2004 to 2020; a number of social determinants of health appeared to be associated with reduced adoption of shorter treatment courses. Realignment of reimbursement models may be necessary to enable broader adoption of ultrahypofractionation to support technology acquisition costs.