Updated results and patterns of failure in a randomized hypofractionation trial for high-risk prostate cancer.

PURPOSE To report long-term results and patterns of failure after conventional and hypofractionated radiation therapy in high-risk prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS This randomized phase III trial compared conventional fractionation (80 Gy at 2 Gy per fraction in 8 weeks) vs hypofractionation (62 Gy at 3.1 Gy per fraction in 5 weeks) in combination with 9-month androgen deprivation therapy in 168 patients with high-risk prostate cancer. Freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF), freedom from local failure (FFLF), and freedom from distant failure (FFDF) were analyzed. RESULTS In a median follow-up of 70 months, biochemical failure (BF) occurred in 35 of the 168 patients (21%) in the study. Among these 35 patients, local failure (LF) only was detected in 11 (31%), distant failure (DF) only in 16 (46%), and both LF and DF in 6 (17%). In 2 patients (6%) BF has not yet been clinically detected. The risk reduction by hypofractionation was significant in BF (10.3%) but not in LF and DF. We found that hypofractionation, with respect to conventional fractionation, determined only an insignificant increase in the actuarial FFBF but no difference in FFLF and FFDF, when considering the entire group of patients. However, an increase in the 5-year rates in all 3 endpoints-FFBF, FFLF, and FFDF-was observed in the subgroup of patients with a pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (iPSA) level of 20 ng/mL or less. On multivariate analysis, the type of fractionation, iPSA level, Gleason score of 4+3 or higher, and T stage of 2c or higher have been confirmed as independent prognostic factors for BF. High iPSA levels and Gleason score of 4+3 or higher were also significantly associated with an increased risk of DF, whereas T stage of 2c or higher was the only independent variable for LF. CONCLUSION Our results confirm the isoeffectiveness of the 2 fractionation schedules used in this study, although a benefit in favor of hypofractionation cannot be excluded in the subgroup of patients with an iPSA level of 20 ng/mL or less. The α/β ratio might be more appropriately evaluated by FFLF than FFBF results, at least in high-risk disease.

[1]  C. Ma,et al.  Dosimetry and preliminary acute toxicity in the first 100 men treated for prostate cancer on a randomized hypofractionation dose escalation trial. , 2006, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[2]  J. Fowler,et al.  Acute and late toxicity in a randomized trial of conventional versus hypofractionated three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer. , 2011, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[3]  J. Fowler,et al.  Hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for prostate carcinoma: final results of phase III randomized trial. , 2011, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[4]  F. Calvo,et al.  Risk-adapted androgen deprivation and escalated three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer: Does radiation dose influence outcome of patients treated with adjuvant androgen deprivation? A GICOR study. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[5]  G. Perry,et al.  Serum prostate-specific antigen profile following radiotherapy for prostate cancer: implications for patterns of failure and definition of cure. , 1998, Urology.

[6]  D J Brenner,et al.  Fractionation and protraction for radiotherapy of prostate carcinoma. , 1999, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[7]  W. J. Morris,et al.  Randomized trial comparing two fractionation schedules for patients with localized prostate cancer. , 2003, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[8]  Randomized trial comparing two fractionation schedules for patients with localized prostate cancer. , 2005 .

[9]  Patrick A Kupelian,et al.  Hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy (70 gy at 2.5 Gy per fraction) for localized prostate cancer: long-term outcomes. , 2005, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[10]  George Starkschall,et al.  Prostate cancer radiation dose response: results of the M. D. Anderson phase III randomized trial. , 2002, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[11]  D. Kuban,et al.  The role of overall treatment time in the outcome of radiotherapy of prostate cancer: an analysis of biochemical failure in 4839 men treated between 1987 and 1995. , 2010, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[12]  Kyounghwa Bae,et al.  Randomized trial comparing conventional-dose with high-dose conformal radiation therapy in early-stage adenocarcinoma of the prostate: long-term results from proton radiation oncology group/american college of radiology 95-09. , 2010, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[13]  S. Arcangeli,et al.  Mathematical model for evaluating incidence of acute rectal toxicity during conventional or hypofractionated radiotherapy courses for prostate cancer. , 2009, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[14]  J. Fowler,et al.  Late outcomes following hypofractionated conformal radiotherapy vs. standard fractionation for localized prostate cancer: a nonrandomized contemporary comparison. , 2009, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[15]  Patrick A. Kupelian,et al.  Hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy (70 Gy at 2.5 Gy per fraction) for localized prostate cancer: Cleveland Clinic experience. , 2007, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[16]  V. Fonteyne,et al.  Clinical and dosimetric predictors of acute toxicity after a 4-week hypofractionated external beam radiotherapy regimen for prostate cancer: results from a multicentric prospective trial. , 2009, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[17]  Paul Schellhammer,et al.  Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: recommendations of the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix Consensus Conference. , 2006, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[18]  Lidia Strigari,et al.  A prospective phase III randomized trial of hypofractionation versus conventional fractionation in patients with high-risk prostate cancer. , 2010, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[19]  Guy Storme,et al.  Phase II study of a four-week hypofractionated external beam radiotherapy regimen for prostate cancer: report on acute toxicity. , 2006, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[20]  Joos V Lebesque,et al.  Dose-response in radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: results of the Dutch multicenter randomized phase III trial comparing 68 Gy of radiotherapy with 78 Gy. , 2006, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[21]  Rick Chappell,et al.  Is α/β for prostate tumors really low? , 2001 .

[22]  M. Parmar,et al.  Escalated-dose versus standard-dose conformal radiotherapy in prostate cancer: first results from the MRC RT01 randomised controlled trial. , 2007, The Lancet. Oncology.