Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Clinical Outcomes of the CHIRP Trial: A Phase II Prospective Randomized Trial of Conventionally Fractionated Versus Moderately Hypofractionated Prostate and Pelvic Nodal Radiation Therapy in Patients With High-Risk Prostate Cancer.
Wang, Michael H; Vos, Larissa J; Yee, Don; Patel, Samir; Pervez, Nadeem; Parliament, Matthew; Usmani, Nawaid; Danielson, Brita; Amanie, John; Pearcey, Robert; Ghosh, Sunita; Field, Colin; Fallone, B Gino; Murtha, Albert D.
Afiliação
  • Wang MH; Division of Radiation Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, AB, Canada; Department of Oncology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
  • Vos LJ; Clinical Trials Unit, Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
  • Yee D; Division of Radiation Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, AB, Canada; Department of Oncology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
  • Patel S; Division of Radiation Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, AB, Canada; Department of Oncology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
  • Pervez N; Division of Radiation Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, AB, Canada; Department of Oncology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
  • Parliament M; Division of Radiation Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, AB, Canada; Department of Oncology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
  • Usmani N; Division of Radiation Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, AB, Canada; Department of Oncology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
  • Danielson B; Division of Radiation Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, AB, Canada; Department of Oncology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
  • Amanie J; Division of Radiation Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, AB, Canada; Department of Oncology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
  • Pearcey R; Division of Radiation Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, AB, Canada; Department of Oncology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
  • Ghosh S; Department of Oncology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada; Division of Medical Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
  • Field C; Department of Oncology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada; Division of Medical Physics, Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
  • Fallone BG; Department of Oncology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada; Division of Medical Physics, Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
  • Murtha AD; Division of Radiation Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, AB, Canada; Department of Oncology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada. Electronic address: Albert.Murtha@ahs.ca.
Pract Radiat Oncol ; 11(5): 384-393, 2021.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33705985
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

Hypofractionated radiation therapy (HFRT) may offer treatment advantages for patients with prostate cancer. However, HFRT may also increase the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) or genitourinary (GU) toxicity compared with conventionally fractionated radiation therapy (CFRT). Several large trials have found that HFRT is well tolerated in mixed risk population studies. Here, we report on a phase II, randomized controlled study conducted to evaluate these endpoints in exclusively high-risk patients with prostate cancer treated with prostate and pelvic nodal radiation. METHODS AND MATERIALS After giving informed consent, patients with high-risk prostate cancer were randomly assigned to prostate plus pelvic nodal radiation therapy with either HFRT (68 Gy in 25 fractions) or CFRT (78 Gy in 39 fractions) and 18 months of androgen suppression therapy. Toxicity was scored using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.0). Biochemical failure was determined by the Phoenix definition. Patients were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis.

RESULTS:

From 2012 to 2018, 111 patients with high-risk prostate cancer were enrolled and 109 patients were treated. The cumulative incidence of grade 2 or higher acute GI toxicity was not significantly different between the arms (HFRT 18.9% vs CFRT 21.8%; P = .812). Similarly, acute GU (HFRT 30.2% vs CFRT 30.9%; P = 1.00), late GI (HFRT 16.0% vs CFRT 10.0%; P = .554), and late GU (HFRT 16.0% vs CFRT 6.0%; P = .200) were not significantly different between the arms. Median follow-up was 38.0 months (4.8-77.8 months). The 3-year biochemical recurrence-free survival was not significantly different between the 2 arms (97.3% for HFRT vs 91.0% for CFRT; P = .606). The 3-year overall survival was 94.8% in the HFRT arm and 100.0% in the CFRT arm (P = .116).

CONCLUSIONS:

HFRT and CFRT using intensity modulated radiation therapy were both well tolerated for patients with high-risk prostate cancer and resulted in similar 3-year biochemical recurrence-free survival and overall survival.
Assuntos

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Neoplasias da Próstata / Radioterapia de Intensidade Modulada Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Etiology_studies / Observational_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Humans / Male Idioma: En Revista: Pract Radiat Oncol Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Canadá

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Neoplasias da Próstata / Radioterapia de Intensidade Modulada Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Etiology_studies / Observational_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Humans / Male Idioma: En Revista: Pract Radiat Oncol Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Canadá