The Fraction Size Sensitivity of Late Genitourinary Toxicity: Analysis of Alpha/Beta (α/ß) Ratios in the CHHiP Trial.

PURPOSE: Moderately hypofractionated external beam intensity modulated radiation therapy (RT) for prostate cancer is now standard-of-care. Normal tissue toxicity responses to fraction size alteration are nonlinear: the linear-quadratic model is a widely used framework accounting for this, through the α/ß ratio. Few α/ß ratio estimates exist for human late genitourinary endpoints; here we provide estimates derived from a hypofractionation trial. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The CHHiP trial randomized 3216 men with localized prostate cancer 1:1:1 between conventionally fractionated intensity modulated RT (74 Gy/37 fractions (Fr)) and 2 moderately hypofractionated regimens (60 Gy/20 Fr and 57 Gy/19 Fr). RT plan and suitable follow-up assessment was available for 2206 men. Three prospectively assessed clinician-reported toxicity scales were amalgamated for common genitourinary endpoints: dysuria, hematuria, incontinence, reduced flow/stricture, and urine frequency. Per endpoint, only patients with baseline zero toxicity were included. Three models for endpoint grade ≥1 (G1+) and G2+ toxicity were fitted: Lyman Kutcher-Burman (LKB) without equivalent dose in 2 Gy/Fr (EQD2) correction [LKB-NoEQD2]; LKB with EQD2-correction [LKB-EQD2]; LKB-EQD2 with dose-modifying-factor (DMF) inclusion [LKB-EQD2-DMF]. DMFs were age, diabetes, hypertension, pelvic surgery, prior transurethral resection of prostate (TURP), overall treatment time and acute genitourinary toxicity (G2+). Bootstrapping generated 95% confidence intervals and unbiased performance estimates. Models were compared by likelihood ratio test. RESULTS: The LKB-EQD2 model significantly improved performance over LKB-NoEQD2 for just 3 endpoints: dysuria G1+ (α/ß = 2.0 Gy; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-3.2 Gy), hematuria G1+ (α/ß = 0.9 Gy; 95% CI, 0.1-2.2 Gy) and hematuria G2+ (α/ß = 0.6 Gy; 95% CI, 0.1-1.7 Gy). For these 3 endpoints, further incorporation of 2 DMFs improved on LKB-EQD2: acute genitourinary toxicity and prior TURP (hematuria G1+ only), but α/ß ratio estimates remained stable. CONCLUSIONS: Inclusion of EQD2-correction significantly improved model fitting for dysuria and hematuria endpoints, where fitted α/ß ratio estimates were low: 0.6 to 2 Gy. This suggests therapeutic gain for clinician-reported GU toxicity, through hypofractionation, might be lower than expected by typical late α/ß ratio assumptions of 3 to 5 Gy.

Effect on Overall Survival of Locoregional Treatment in a Cohort of De Novo Metastatic Prostate Cancer Patients: A Single Institution Retrospective Analysis From the Royal Marsden Hospital.

BACKGROUND: The optimal management of the primary tumor in metastatic at diagnosis (M1) prostate cancer (PCa) patients is not yet established. We retrospectively evaluated the effect of locoregional treatment (LRT) on overall survival (OS) hypothesizing that this could improve outcome through better local disease control and the induction of an antitumor immune response (abscopal effect). PATIENTS AND METHODS: M1 at diagnosis PCa patients referred to the Prostate Targeted Therapy Group at the Royal Marsden between June 2003 and December 2013 were identified. LRT was defined as either surgery, radiotherapy (RT) or transurethral prostatectomy (TURP) administered to the primary tumor at any time point from diagnosis to death. Kaplan-Meier analyses generated OS data. The association between LRT and OS was evaluated in univariate (UV) and multivariate (MV) Cox regression models. RESULTS: Overall 300 patients were identified; 192 patients (64%) experienced local symptoms at some point during their disease course; 72 patients received LRT (56.9% TURP, 52.7% RT). None of the patients were treated with prostatectomy. LRT was more frequently performed in patients with low volume disease (35.4% vs. 16.2%; P < .001), lower prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level at diagnosis (median PSA: 75 vs. 184 ng/mL; P = .005) and local symptoms (34.2% vs. 4.8%; P < .001). LRT was associated in UV and MV analysis with longer OS (62.1 vs. 55.8 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; P = .044), which remained significant for RT (69.4 vs. 55.1 months; HR, 0.54; P = .002) but not for TURP. RT was associated with better OS independent of disease volume at diagnosis. CONCLUSION: These data support the conduct of randomized phase III trials to evaluate the benefit of local control in patients with M1 disease at diagnosis.

Transatlantic Consensus Group on active surveillance and focal therapy for prostate cancer.

UNLABELLED: What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Active surveillance for prostate cancer is gaining increasing acceptance for low risk prostate cancer. Focal therapy is an emerging tissue preservation strategy that aims for treat only areas of cancer. Early phase trials have shown that side-effects can be significantly reduced using focal therapy. There is significant uncertainty in both active surveillance and focal therapy. This consensus group paper provides a road-map for clinical practice and research for both tissue-preserving strategies in the areas of patient population, tools for risk stratification and cancer localisation, treatment interventions as well as comparators and outcome measures in future comparative trials. OBJECTIVE: To reach consensus on key issues for clinical practice and future research in active surveillance and focal therapy in managing localized prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A group of expert urologists, oncologists, radiologists, pathologists and computer scientists from North America and Europe met to discuss issues in patient population, interventions, comparators and outcome measures to use in both tissue-preserving strategies of active surveillance and focal therapy. Break-out sessions were formed to provide agreement or highlight areas of disagreement on individual topics which were then collated by a writing group into statements that formed the basis of this report and agreed upon by the whole Transatlantic Consensus Group. RESULTS: The Transatlantic group propose that emerging diagnostic tools such as precision imaging and transperineal prostate mapping biopsy can improve prostate cancer care. These tools should be integrated into prostate cancer management and research so that better risk stratification and more effective treatment allocation can be applied. The group envisaged a process of care in which active surveillance, focal therapy, and radical treatments lie on a continuum of complementary therapies for men with a range of disease grades and burdens, rather than being applied in the mutually exclusive and competitive way they are now. CONCLUSION: The changing landscape of prostate cancer epidemiology requires the medical community to re-evaluate the entire prostate cancer diagnostic and treatment pathway in order to minimize harms resulting from over-diagnosis and over-treatment. Precise risk stratification at every point in this pathway is required alongside paradigm shifts in our thinking about what constitutes cancer in the prostate.