Accelerating prostate stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy: Efficacy and toxicity of a randomized phase II study of 11 versus 29 days overall treatment time (PATRIOT).

BACKGROUND: Prostate stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) regimens differ in time, dose, and fractionation. We report an update of a multicentre, Canadian randomized phase II study to investigate the impact of overall treatment time on quality of life (QOL), efficacy, and toxicity. METHODS: Men with intermediate risk prostate cancer were randomized to 40 Gy in 5 fractions delivered every other day (EOD) versus once per week (QW). Primary outcome was proportion of patients experiencing a minimally clinically important change (MCIC) in acute bowel QOL using EPIC. Secondary outcomes were toxicity, biochemical failure (BF), other QOL domains, and the rate of salvage therapy. FINDINGS: 152 men from 3 centers were randomized; the median follow-up was 62 months. Results are described for EOD versus QW. Acute bowel and urinary QOL was reported previously. Late changes in QOL were not significantly different between the two arms. There were 1 (1.3%) vs 3 (2.7%) late grade 3 + GI toxicities (p = 0.36) and 5 (6.7%) vs 2 (2.7%) late grade 3 GU toxicities (p = 0.44). Two and 5 patients had BF (5-year failure rate 3.0 vs 7.2%, p = 0.22); 0 and 4 patients received salvage therapy (p = 0.04). 5-Year OS and CSS was 95.8% and 98.6% with no difference between arms (p = 0.49, p = 0.15). 3 patients in the QW arm developed metastases. INTERPRETATION: Although we previously reported that weekly prostate SABR had better bowel and urinary QOL compared to EOD, the updated results show no difference in late toxicity, QOL, BF, or PSA kinetics. Patients should be counseled that QW SABR reduces short-term toxicity compared to QW SABR.

Dosimetric predictors of toxicity and quality of life following prostate stereotactic ablative radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: SABR offers an effective treatment option for clinically localized prostate cancer. Here we report the dosimetric predictors of late toxicity and quality of life (QOL) in a pooled cohort of patients from four phase II trials. METHODS: The combined cohort included all three prostate cancer risk groups. The prescription dose was 35-40 Gy in 5 fractions. Toxicity (CTCAE) and QOL (EPIC) were collected. Multiple dosimetric parameters for the bladder, rectum and penile bulb were collected. Univariate (UVA) followed by multivariate (MVA) logistic regression analysis was conducted to search for significant dosimetric predictors of late GI/GU toxicity, or minimal clinically important change in the relevant QOL domain. RESULTS: 258 patients were included with median follow up of 6.1 years. For QOL, bladder Dmax, V38, D1cc, D2cc, D5cc and rectal V35 were predictors of urinary and bowel MCIC on UVA. On MVA, only bladder V38 remained significant. For late toxicity, various parameters were significant on UVA but only rectal Dmax, V38 and bladder D2cc were significant predictors on MVA. CONCLUSIONS: This report confirms that the high-dose regions in the bladder and rectum are more significant predictors of late toxicity and QOL after prostate SABR compared to low-dose regions. Caution must be taken to avoid high doses and hotspots in those organs.

Two versus five stereotactic ablative radiotherapy treatments for localized prostate cancer: A quality of life analysis of two prospective clinical trials.

PURPOSE: Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is appealing for prostate cancer (PCa) due to low α/ß, and increasing the dose per fraction could improve the therapeutic index and lead to a better quality of life (QOL). Here we report the outcomes of a QOL comparison between two phase II clinical trials: two vs. five fraction prostate SABR. METHODS: Patients had low or intermediate risk PCa. The doses prescribed were 26 Gy/2 and 40 Gy/5. Expanded prostate cancer index composite was collected. Urinary, bowel and sexual domains were analyzed. Minimal clinically important change (MCIC) was defined as >0.5 standard deviation. RESULTS: 30 and 152 patients were treated with 2-fraction and 5-fraction SABR. Median follow-up was 55 and 62 months. Five-year biochemical failure rate was 3.3% and 4.6%. The 2-fraction cohort had a significantly better mean QOL over time in the bowel domain (p = 0.0004), without a significant difference in the urinary or sexual domains. The 2-fraction cohort had a significantly lower rate of bowel MCIC (17.8% vs 42.3%, p = 0.01), but there was no difference in urinary (24.1% vs 35.7%) or sexual (15.3% vs 29.2%) MCIC. For MCIC x2 (moderate QOL change), the 2-fraction trial had significantly lower MCIC rates in both the bowel (7.1% vs 24%, p = 0.04) and sexual (0 vs 17.6%, p = 0.01) domains. CONCLUSIONS: 2-Fraction SABR is feasible to deliver and well tolerated, with significant signals of improved bowel and sexual QOL. A randomized trial of two vs. five fractions for prostate SABR is needed to confirm the promising findings of this study.

Phase II Trial of Pure Hypofractionated Radiotherapy in the Treatment of Localized Carcinoma of the Prostate.

Purpose To evaluate acute and late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity and the biochemical control of pure hypofractionated radiotherapy (without acceleration) for the treatment of prostate cancer. Methods and materials This phase II prospective trial evaluated low-risk and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients who received hypofractionated radiotherapy. Fifty-three patients with low-risk prostate cancer received 50 Gy in 15 fractions, 156 patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer received 60 Gy in 20 fractions over eight weeks. Acute toxicity and late toxicity were graded per the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) toxicity scales and the Phoenix Definition (nadir plus two) defined biochemical failure. Results Median follow-up was 6.5 years. Acute phase grade 2/3 toxicity was 6%/0 and 8%/2% for GI and GU symptoms, respectively, and one grade 4 acute GU toxicity (0.5%). Late grade 2/3 GI and GU toxicity were 7%/0 and 8%/0.5%, respectively. There were no late grade 4 toxicities. The five-year freedom-from-biochemical-failure (FFBF) rates were 85% for low-risk patients and 80% for intermediate-risk patients. Conclusions Pure hypofractionation seems to be associated with low toxicity rates and biochemical control rates that are similar or better than those observed with accelerated hypofractionated or conventionally fractionated therapy.

Once-weekly versus every-other-day stereotactic body radiotherapy in patients with prostate cancer (PATRIOT): A phase 2 randomized trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) regimens differ in time, dose, and fractionation. We completed a multicentre, randomized phase II study to investigate the impact of overall treatment time on quality of life (QOL). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Men with low and intermediate-risk prostate cancer were randomly assigned to 40 Gy in 5 fractions delivered once per week (QW) vs. every other day (EOD). QOL was assessed using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite. The primary endpoint was the proportion with a minimum clinically important change (MCIC) in bowel QOL during the acute (≤12 week) period, and analysis was by intention-to-treat. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01423474. RESULTS: 152 men from 3 centres were randomized with median follow-up of 47 months. Patients treated QW had superior acute bowel QOL with 47/69 (68%) reporting a MCIC compared to 63/70 (90%) treated EOD (p = 0.002). Fewer patients treated QW reported moderate-severe problems with bowel QOL during the acute period compared with EOD (14/70 [20%] vs. 40/70 [57%], p < 0.001). Acute urinary QOL was also better in the QW arm, with 52/67 (78%) vs 65/69 (94%) experiencing a MCIC (p = 0.006). There were no significant differences in late urinary or bowel QOL at 2 years or last follow-up. CONCLUSION: Prostate SBRT delivered QW improved acute bowel and urinary QOL compared to EOD. Patients should be counselled regarding the potential for reduced short-term toxicity and improved QOL with QW prostate SBRT.