Ruud C. Wortel

Hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for patients with localised prostate cancer (HYPRO): final efficacy results from a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND Studies have reported a low α/β ratio for prostate cancer, suggesting that hypofractionation could enhance the biological tumour dose without increasing genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity. In the multicentre phase 3, HYpofractionated irradiation for PROstate cancer (HYPRO) trial, hypofractionated radiotherapy was compared with conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for treatment of prostate cancer. We have previously reported acute and late incidence of genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity; here we report protocol-defined 5-year relapse-free survival outcomes. METHODS We did an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial at seven Dutch radiotherapy centres. We enrolled patients with intermediate-risk to high-risk T1b-T4NX-N0MX-M0 localised prostate cancer, a prostate-specific antigen concentration of 60 μg/L or less, and a WHO performance status of 0-2. We used a web-based application to randomly assign (1:1) patients to either hypofractionated radiotherapy of 64·6 Gy (19 fractions of 3·4 Gy, three fractions per week) or conventionally fractionated radiotherapy of 78·0 Gy (39 fractions of 2·0 Gy, five fractions per week). Based on an estimated α/β ratio for prostate cancer of 1·5 Gy, the equivalent total dose in fractions of 2·0 Gy was 90·4 Gy for hypofractionation compared with 78·0 Gy for conventional fractionation. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival. All analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis in all eligible patients. The HYPRO trial completed recruitment in 2010 and follow-up is ongoing. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN85138529. FINDINGS Between March 19, 2007, and Dec 3, 2010, 820 patients were enrolled, of whom 804 were eligible and assessable for intention-to-treat analyses. Of these, 407 were assigned hypofractionated radiotherapy and 397 were allocated conventionally fractionated radiotherapy. 537 (67%) of 804 patients received concomitant androgen deprivation therapy for a median duration of 32 months (IQR 10-44). Median follow-up was 60 months (IQR 51-69). Treatment failure was reported in 169 (21%) of 804 patients, 80 (20%) in the hypofractionation group and 89 (22%) in the conventional fractionation group. 5-year relapse-free survival was 80·5% (95% CI 75·7-84·4) for patients assigned hypofractionation and 77·1% (71·9-81·5) for those allocated conventional fractionation (adjusted hazard radio 0·86, 95% CI 0·63-1·16; log-rank p=0·36). There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION Hypofractionated radiotherapy was not superior to conventional radiotherapy with respect to 5-year relapse-free survival. Our hypofractionated radiotherapy regimen cannot be regarded as the new standard of care for patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk prostate cancer. FUNDING Dutch Cancer Society.

Acute Toxicity After Image-Guided Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Compared to 3D Conformal Radiation Therapy in Prostate Cancer Patients

PURPOSE Image-guided intensity modulated radiation therapy (IG-IMRT) allows significant dose reductions to organs at risk in prostate cancer patients. However, clinical data identifying the benefits of IG-IMRT in daily practice are scarce. The purpose of this study was to compare dose distributions to organs at risk and acute gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity levels of patients treated to 78 Gy with either IG-IMRT or 3D-CRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS Patients treated with 3D-CRT (n=215) and IG-IMRT (n=260) receiving 78 Gy in 39 fractions within 2 randomized trials were selected. Dose surface histograms of anorectum, anal canal, and bladder were calculated. Identical toxicity questionnaires were distributed at baseline, prior to fraction 20 and 30 and at 90 days after treatment. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grade ≥1, ≥2, and ≥3 endpoints were derived directly from questionnaires. Univariate and multivariate binary logistic regression analyses were applied. RESULTS The median volumes receiving 5 to 75 Gy were significantly lower (all P<.001) with IG-IMRT for anorectum, anal canal, and bladder. The mean dose to the anorectum was 34.4 Gy versus 47.3 Gy (P<.001), 23.6 Gy versus 44.6 Gy for the anal canal (P<.001), and 33.1 Gy versus 43.2 Gy for the bladder (P<.001). Significantly lower grade ≥2 toxicity was observed for proctitis, stool frequency ≥6/day, and urinary frequency ≥12/day. IG-IMRT resulted in significantly lower overall RTOG grade ≥2 GI toxicity (29% vs 49%, respectively, P=.002) and overall GU grade ≥2 toxicity (38% vs 48%, respectively, P=.009). CONCLUSIONS A clinically meaningful reduction in dose to organs at risk and acute toxicity levels was observed in IG-IMRT patients, as a result of improved technique and tighter margins. Therefore reduced late toxicity levels can be expected as well; additional research is needed to quantify such reductions.

Dose–surface maps identifying local dose–effects for acute gastrointestinal toxicity after radiotherapy for prostate cancer

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE We evaluated dose distributions in the anorectum and its relation to acute gastrointestinal toxicities using dose surface maps in an image-guided (IG) IMRT and 3D-conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) population. MATERIAL AND METHODS For patients treated to 78 Gy with IG-IMRT (n=260) or 3D-CRT (n=215), for whom acute toxicity data were available, three types of surface maps were calculated: (1) total anorectum using regular intervals along a central axis with perpendicular slices, (2) the rectum next to the prostate, and (3) the anal canal (horizontal slicing). For each toxicity, an average dose map was calculated for patients with and without the toxicity and subsequently dose difference maps were constructed, 3D-CRT and IG-IMRT separately. P-values were based on permutation tests. RESULTS Dose distributions in patients with grade ⩾2 acute proctitis were significantly different from dose distributions in patients without toxicity, for IG-IMRT and 3D-CRT. At the cranial and posterior rectal site, in areas receiving moderate dose levels (≈25-50 Gy), dose differences up to 10 Gy were identified for IG-IMRT. For pain, cramps, incontinence, diarrhea and mucus loss significant differences were found as well. CONCLUSIONS We demonstrated significant relationships between acute rectal toxicity and local dose distributions. This may serve as a basis for subsequent dose-effect modeling in IG-IMRT, and improved dose constraints in current clinical practice.

Hypofractionated Radiotherapy in Genitourinary Cancer: Better with Less

Over the years, most innovations in hypofractionated radiotherapy for malignancies of the genitourinary tract have involved treatment of prostate cancer, which will therefore be the main focus of this chapter. The rationale for hypofractionated radiotherapy, contemporary treatment techniques, and results of clinical trials of hypofractionated external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) or stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) are discussed. Finally, the implications of clinical data on general practice and future directions of research are discussed.