Radiation technique and outcomes following moderately hypofractionated treatment of low risk prostate cancer: A secondary analysis of the NRG oncology RTOG 0415 randomized clinical trial.

Authors

null

David James Carpenter

Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC

David James Carpenter , Joseph Kamel Salama , W. Robert Lee , Matthew J Boyer

Organizations

Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, Durham VA Health Care System, Radiation Oncology Service, Durham, NC

Research Funding

U.S. National Institutes of Health

Background: While intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is commonly used to deliver moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (MHRT) for prostate cancer (PC), IMRT has not been prospectively compared to three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) in the context of MHRT. This secondary analysis of the phase III RTOG 0415 trial compares survival outcomes and toxicity across RT technique between IMRT and 3D-CRT for low-risk PC. Methods: The phase III, non-inferiority trial RTOG 0415 randomized patients with low risk PC to either MHRT (70Gy at 2.5Gy/fraction) or conventionally fractionated radiation (CFRT; 73.8Gy at 1.8Gy/fraction) with stratification by RT technique. A secondary analysis for differences in overall (OS), biochemical recurrence free survival (BRFS), or toxicity by EPIC scores and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) was performed. For patient and tumor characteristics, continuous data were compared with Wilcoxon rank sum test and categorical data with Chi-squared test, as appropriate. Rates of BRFS and overall survival (OS) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: 1079 patients received the allocated intervention with a median follow up of 5.8 years. RT technique was balanced between treatment arms, with 79.1% of patients receiving IMRT. RT protocol compliance was > 95% for both IMRT and 3D-CRT. There were no significant differences in BRFS between patients treated with 3D-CRT versus IMRT for all patients (p = 0.33), those randomized to CFRT (p = 0.78), or those randomized to MHRT (p = 0.24). Overall survival did not differ by RT technique as well. For all patients, there was no difference in acute and late GI and GU toxicity rates across RT technique. For patients treated with MHRT, late grade 2 GU toxicity was more common with IMRT than 3D-CRT (31.3% vs 23.4%; p = 0.004). On logistic regression analysis, only poor baseline urinary function, defined as an EPIC score of 90 or below, correlated with acute (p < 0.001) or late (p < 0.001) GU toxicity. Baseline bowel function did not correlate to GI toxicity. Conclusions: RT technique did not impact survival outcomes or toxicity rates following MHRT for low risk PC. Higher rates of late CTCAE grade 2+ GU and GI toxicity observed within the RTOG 0415 MHRT arm were not disproportionally observed following 3D-CRT than IMRT. These data highlight the need for careful consideration of target delineation and normal tissue constraints in the selection and delivery of appropriate RT technique.

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2022 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

Poster Session A: Prostate Cancer

Track

Prostate Cancer - Advanced,Prostate Cancer - Localized

Sub Track

Symptoms, Toxicities, Patient-Reported Outcomes, and Whole-Person Care

Citation

J Clin Oncol 40, 2022 (suppl 6; abstr 243)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2022.40.6_suppl.243

Abstract #

243

Poster Bd #

L1

Abstract Disclosures

Similar Abstracts