International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Gleason Grade Groups stratify outcomes in the CHHiP Phase 3 prostate radiotherapy trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the results of Gleason Grade Group (GGG) classification following central pathology review with previous local pathology assessment, and to examine the difference between using overall and worst GGG in a large patient cohort treated with radiotherapy and short-course hormone therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with low- to high-risk localized prostate cancer were randomized into the multicentre CHHiP fractionation trial between 2002 and 2011. Patients received short-course hormone therapy (≤6 month) and radical intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Of 2749 consented patients, 1875 had adequate diagnostic biopsy tissue for blinded central pathology review. The median follow-up was 9.3 years. Agreement between local pathology and central pathology-derived GGG and between central pathology-derived overall and worst GGG was assessed using kappa (κ) statistics. Multivariate Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier methods were used to compare the biochemical/clinical failure (BCF) and distant metastases (DM) outcomes of patients with GGG 1-5. RESULTS: There was poor agreement between local pathology- and central pathology-derived GGG (κ = 0.19) but good agreement between overall and worst GGG on central pathology review (κ = 0.89). Central pathology-derived GGG stratified BCF and DM outcomes better than local pathology, while overall and worst GGG on central pathology review performed similarly. GGG 3 segregated with GGG 4 for BCF, with BCF-free rates of 90%, 82%, 74%, 71% and 58% for GGGs 1-5, respectively, at 8 years when assessed using overall GGG. There was a progressive decrease in DM-free rates from 98%, 96%, 92%, 88% and 83% for GGGs 1-5, respectively, at 8 years with overall GGG. Patients (n = 57) who were upgraded from GGG 2-3 using worst GS had BCF-free and DM-free rates of 74% and 92% at 8 years. CHHiP eligibility criteria limit the interpretation of these results. CONCLUSION: Contemporary review of International Society of Urological Pathology GGG successfully stratified patients treated with short-course hormone therapy and IMRT with regard to both BCF-free and DM-free outcomes. Patients upgraded from GGG 2 to GGG 3 using worst biopsy GS segregate with GGG 3 on long-term follow-up. We recommend that both overall and worst GS be used to derive GGG.

Observation versus screening spinal MRI and pre-emptive treatment for spinal cord compression in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and spinal metastases in the UK (PROMPTS): an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Early diagnosis of malignant spinal cord compression (SCC) is crucial because pretreatment neurological status is the major determinant of outcome. In metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, SCC is a clinically significant cause of disease-related morbidity and mortality. We investigated whether screening for SCC with spinal MRI, and pre-emptive treatment if radiological SCC (rSCC) was detected, reduced the incidence of clinical SCC (cSCC) in asymptomatic patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and spinal metastasis. METHODS: We did a parallel-group, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3, superiority trial. Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were recruited from 45 National Health Service hospitals in the UK. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years, with an Eastern Co-operative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, asymptomatic spinal metastasis, no previous SCC, and no spinal MRI in the past 12 months. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using a minimisation algorithm with a random element (balancing factors were treatment centre, alkaline phosphatase [normal vs raised, with the upper limit of normal being defined at each participating laboratory], number of previous systemic treatments [first-line vs second-line or later], previous spinal treatment, and imaging of thorax and abdomen), to no MRI (control group) or screening spinal MRI (intervention group). Serious adverse events were monitored in the 24 h after screening MRI in the intervention group. Participants with screen-detected rSCC were offered pre-emptive treatment (radiotherapy or surgical decompression was recommended per treating physician's recommendation) and 6-monthly spinal MRI. All patients were followed up every 3 months, and then at month 30 and 36. The primary endpoint was time to and incidence of confirmed cSCC in the intention-to-treat population (defined as all patients randomly assigned), with the primary timepoint of interest being 1 year after randomisation. The study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN74112318, and is now complete. FINDINGS: Between Feb 26, 2013, and April 25, 2017, 420 patients were randomly assigned to the control (n=210) or screening MRI (n=210) groups. Median age was 74 years (IQR 68 to 79), 222 (53%) of 420 patients had normal alkaline phosphatase, and median prostate-specific antigen concentration was 48 ng/mL (IQR 17 to 162). Screening MRI detected rSCC in 61 (31%) of 200 patients with assessable scans in the intervention group. As of data cutoff (April 23, 2020), at a median follow-up of 22 months (IQR 13 to 31), time to cSCC was not significantly improved with screening (hazard ratio 0·64 [95% CI 0·37 to 1·11]; Gray's test p=0·12). 1-year cSCC rates were 6·7% (95% CI 3·8-10·6; 14 of 210 patients) for the control group and 4·3% (2·1-7·7; nine of 210 patients) for the intervention group (difference -2·4% [95% CI -4·2 to 0·1]). Median time to cSCC was not reached in either group. No serious adverse events were reported within 24 h of screening. INTERPRETATION: Despite the substantial incidence of rSCC detected in the intervention group, the rate of cSCC in both groups was low at a median of 22 months of follow-up. Routine use of screening MRI and pre-emptive treatment to prevent cSCC is not warranted in patients with asymptomatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with spinal metastasis. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer might have high radiation-fraction sensitivity that would give a therapeutic advantage to hypofractionated treatment. We present a pre-planned analysis of the efficacy and side-effects of a randomised trial comparing conventional and hypofractionated radiotherapy after 5 years follow-up. METHODS: CHHiP is a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial that recruited men with localised prostate cancer (pT1b-T3aN0M0). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to conventional (74 Gy delivered in 37 fractions over 7·4 weeks) or one of two hypofractionated schedules (60 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks or 57 Gy in 19 fractions over 3·8 weeks) all delivered with intensity-modulated techniques. Most patients were given radiotherapy with 3-6 months of neoadjuvant and concurrent androgen suppression. Randomisation was by computer-generated random permuted blocks, stratified by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group and radiotherapy treatment centre, and treatment allocation was not masked. The primary endpoint was time to biochemical or clinical failure; the critical hazard ratio (HR) for non-inferiority was 1·208. Analysis was by intention to treat. Long-term follow-up continues. The CHHiP trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN97182923. FINDINGS: Between Oct 18, 2002, and June 17, 2011, 3216 men were enrolled from 71 centres and randomly assigned (74 Gy group, 1065 patients; 60 Gy group, 1074 patients; 57 Gy group, 1077 patients). Median follow-up was 62·4 months (IQR 53·9-77·0). The proportion of patients who were biochemical or clinical failure free at 5 years was 88·3% (95% CI 86·0-90·2) in the 74 Gy group, 90·6% (88·5-92·3) in the 60 Gy group, and 85·9% (83·4-88·0) in the 57 Gy group. 60 Gy was non-inferior to 74 Gy (HR 0·84 [90% CI 0·68-1·03], pNI=0·0018) but non-inferiority could not be claimed for 57 Gy compared with 74 Gy (HR 1·20 [0·99-1·46], pNI=0·48). Long-term side-effects were similar in the hypofractionated groups compared with the conventional group. There were no significant differences in either the proportion or cumulative incidence of side-effects 5 years after treatment using three clinician-reported as well as patient-reported outcome measures. The estimated cumulative 5 year incidence of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grade 2 or worse bowel and bladder adverse events was 13·7% (111 events) and 9·1% (66 events) in the 74 Gy group, 11·9% (105 events) and 11·7% (88 events) in the 60 Gy group, 11·3% (95 events) and 6·6% (57 events) in the 57 Gy group, respectively. No treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: Hypofractionated radiotherapy using 60 Gy in 20 fractions is non-inferior to conventional fractionation using 74 Gy in 37 fractions and is recommended as a new standard of care for external-beam radiotherapy of localised prostate cancer. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Department of Health, and the National Institute for Health Research Cancer Research Network.

Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: preliminary safety results from the CHHiP randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer might have high radiation-fraction sensitivity, implying a therapeutic advantage of hypofractionated treatment. We present a pre-planned preliminary safety analysis of side-effects in stages 1 and 2 of a randomised trial comparing standard and hypofractionated radiotherapy. METHODS: We did a multicentre, randomised study and recruited men with localised prostate cancer between Oct 18, 2002, and Aug 12, 2006, at 11 UK centres. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive conventional or hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and all were given with 3-6 months of neoadjuvant androgen suppression. Computer-generated random permuted blocks were used, with risk of seminal vesicle involvement and radiotherapy-treatment centre as stratification factors. The conventional schedule was 37 fractions of 2 Gy to a total of 74 Gy. The two hypofractionated schedules involved 3 Gy treatments given in either 20 fractions to a total of 60 Gy, or 19 fractions to a total of 57 Gy. The primary endpoint was proportion of patients with grade 2 or worse toxicity at 2 years on the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) scale. The primary analysis included all patients who had received at least one fraction of radiotherapy and completed a 2 year assessment. Treatment allocation was not masked and clinicians were not blinded. Stage 3 of this trial completed the planned recruitment in June, 2011. This study is registered, number ISRCTN97182923. FINDINGS: 153 men recruited to stages 1 and 2 were randomly assigned to receive conventional treatment of 74 Gy, 153 to receive 60 Gy, and 151 to receive 57 Gy. With 50·5 months median follow-up (IQR 43·5-61·3), six (4·3%; 95% CI 1·6-9·2) of 138 men in the 74 Gy group had bowel toxicity of grade 2 or worse on the RTOG scale at 2 years, as did five (3·6%; 1·2-8·3) of 137 men in the 60 Gy group, and two (1·4%; 0·2-5·0) of 143 men in the 57 Gy group. For bladder toxicities, three (2·2%; 0·5-6·2) of 138 men, three (2·2%; 0·5-6·3) of 137, and none (0·0%; 97·5% CI 0·0-2·6) of 143 had scores of grade 2 or worse on the RTOG scale at 2 years. INTERPRETATION: Hypofractionated high-dose radiotherapy seems equally well tolerated as conventionally fractionated treatment at 2 years. FUNDING: Stage 1 was funded by the Academic Radiotherapy Unit, Cancer Research UK programme grant; stage 2 was funded by the Department of Health and Cancer Research UK.

PEARLS - A multicentre phase II/III trial of extended field radiotherapy for androgen sensitive prostate cancer patients with PSMA-avid pelvic and/or para-aortic lymph nodes at presentation.

PEARLS is a multi-stage randomised controlled trial for prostate cancer patients with pelvic and/or para-aortic PSMA-avid lymph node disease at presentation. The aim of the trial is to determine whether extending the radiotherapy field to cover the para-aortic lymph nodes (up to L1/L2 vertebral interspace) can improve outcomes for this patient group.

PIVOTALboost: A phase III randomised controlled trial of prostate and pelvis versus prostate alone radiotherapy with or without prostate boost (CRUK/16/018).

•PIVOTALboost evaluates benefits/toxicity of pelvic node RT and focal boost dose escalation.•Unfavourable intermediate/high risk and bulky local disease are most likely to benefit.•Functional MRI imaging is used to select patients for different types of dose escalation.•HDR brachytherapy or focal dose escalation with IMRT are used as options.•Training and support is provided to reduce variations of contouring and radiotherapy planning.•The trial is recruiting patients in 38 radiotherapy centres through the UK.

Methodology for tissue sample collection within a translational sub-study of the CHHiP trial (CRUK/06/016), a large randomised phase III trial in localised prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: This article presents the methodology for tissue sample collection in Trans-CHHiP, the main translational study within the CHHiP (Conventional or Hypofractionated High dose intensity modulated radiotherapy in Prostate cancer, ISRCTN 97182923) trial. The CHHiP trial randomised 3216 men with localised prostate cancer to 3 different radiotherapy fractionation schedules. Trans-CHHiP aims to identify biomarkers of fraction sensitivity. METHODS: We outline the process of tissue collection, including central review by a study-specific specialist uropathologist and comparison of the centrally-assigned Gleason grade group with that assigned by the recruiting-centre pathologist. RESULTS: 2047 patients provided tissue from 107 pathology departments between August 2012 and April 2014. A highly motivated Clinical Trials Unit chasing samples and a central Trans-CHHiP group that regularly reviewed progress were important for successful sample collection. Agreement in Gleason grade group assigned by the recruiting centre pathologist and the central study-specific uropathologist occurred in 886 out of 1854 (47.8%) cases. Key lessons learned were the need for prospective consent for tissue collection when recruiting patients to the main trial, and the importance of Material Transfer Agreement (MTA) integration into the initial trial site agreement. CONCLUSIONS: This methodology enabled collection of 2047 patient samples from a large randomised radiotherapy trial. Central pathological review is important to minimise subjectivity in Gleason grade grouping and the impact of grade shift.