PURPOSE: To update the analysis of the Dutch dose-escalation trial of radiotherapy for prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 669 patients with localized prostate cancer were randomly assigned to receive 68 or 78 Gy. The patients were stratified by age, institution, use of neoadjuvant or adjuvant hormonal therapy, and treatment group. The primary endpoint was freedom from failure (FFF), with failure defined as clinical or biochemical failure. Two definitions of biochemical failure were used: the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology definition (three consecutive increases in prostate-specific antigen level) and the Phoenix definition (nadir plus 2 microe secondary endpoints were freedom from clinical failure, overall survival, and genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 70 months, the FFF using the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology definition was significantly better in the 78-Gy arm than in the 68-Gy arm (7-year FFF rate, 54% vs. 47%, respectively; p = 0.04). The FFF using the Phoenix definition was also significantly better in the 78-Gy arm than in the 68-Gy arm (7-year FFF rate, 56% vs. 45%, respectively; p = 0.03). However, no differences in freedom from clinical failure or overall survival were observed. The incidence of late Grade 2 or greater genitourinary toxicity was similar in both arms (40% and 41% at 7 years; p = 0.6). However, the cumulative incidence of late Grade 2 or greater gastrointestinal toxicity was increased in the 78-Gy arm compared with the 68-Gy arm (35% vs. 25% at 7 years; p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: The results of our study have shown a statistically significant improvement in FFF in prostate cancer patients treated with 78 Gy but with a greater rate of late gastrointestinal toxicity.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To update the analysis of the Dutch dose-escalation trial of radiotherapy for prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 669 patients with localized prostate cancer were randomly assigned to receive 68 or 78 Gy. The patients were stratified by age, institution, use of neoadjuvant or adjuvant hormonal therapy, and treatment group. The primary endpoint was freedom from failure (FFF), with failure defined as clinical or biochemical failure. Two definitions of biochemical failure were used: the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology definition (three consecutive increases in prostate-specific antigen level) and the Phoenix definition (nadir plus 2 microe secondary endpoints were freedom from clinical failure, overall survival, and genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 70 months, the FFF using the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology definition was significantly better in the 78-Gy arm than in the 68-Gy arm (7-year FFF rate, 54% vs. 47%, respectively; p = 0.04). The FFF using the Phoenix definition was also significantly better in the 78-Gy arm than in the 68-Gy arm (7-year FFF rate, 56% vs. 45%, respectively; p = 0.03). However, no differences in freedom from clinical failure or overall survival were observed. The incidence of late Grade 2 or greater genitourinary toxicity was similar in both arms (40% and 41% at 7 years; p = 0.6). However, the cumulative incidence of late Grade 2 or greater gastrointestinal toxicity was increased in the 78-Gy arm compared with the 68-Gy arm (35% vs. 25% at 7 years; p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: The results of our study have shown a statistically significant improvement in FFF in prostate cancerpatients treated with 78 Gy but with a greater rate of late gastrointestinal toxicity.
Authors: José Ángel Arranz Arija; Javier Cassinello Espinosa; Miguel Ángel Climent Durán; Fernando Rivero Herrero Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Romain Mathieu; Juan David Ospina Arango; Véronique Beckendorf; Jean-Bernard Delobel; Taha Messai; Ciprian Chira; Alberto Bossi; Elisabeth Le Prisé; Stéphane Guerif; Jean-Marc Simon; Bernard Dubray; Jian Zhu; Jean-Léon Lagrange; Pascal Pommier; Khemara Gnep; Oscar Acosta; Renaud De Crevoisier Journal: World J Urol Date: 2013-08-29 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: M Schiano di Visconte; G A Santoro; N Cracco; G Sarzo; G Bellio; M Brunner; Z Cui; K E Matzel Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2018-01-08 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Tobias Pommer; Marianne Falk; Per R Poulsen; Paul J Keall; Ricky T O'Brien; Peter Meidahl Petersen; Per Munck af Rosenschöld Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2013-03-14 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Nicholas G Zaorsky; Nitin Ohri; Timothy N Showalter; Adam P Dicker; Robert B Den Journal: Cancer Treat Rev Date: 2013-03-01 Impact factor: 12.111