Glenn Bauman1, Michelle Ferguson2, Michael Lock3, Jeff Chen3, Belal Ahmad3, V M Venkatesan3, Tracy Sexton3, David D'Souza3, Andrew Loblaw4, Andrew Warner3, George Rodrigues3. 1. Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, Western University and London Regional Cancer Program, London, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: Glenn.bauman@lhsc.on.ca. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Allan Blair Cancer Centre, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada. 3. Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, Western University and London Regional Cancer Program, London, Ontario, Canada. 4. Department of Radiation Medicine, University of Toronto and Odette Cancer Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To initiate a phase 1/2 trial to examine the tolerability of a condensed combined-modality protocol for high-risk prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Men scoring ≥3 on the Vulnerable Elderly Scale (VES) or refusing conventionally fractionated treatment for high-risk prostate cancer were eligible to participate. Androgen suppression was delivered for 12 months, and radiation therapy was delivered using 25 Gy to pelvic nodes delivered synchronously with 40 Gy to the prostate given as 1 fraction per week over 5 weeks. The phase 1 component included predetermined stopping rules based on 6-month treatment-related toxicity, with trial suspension specified if there were ≥6 of 15 patients (40%) or ≥3 of 15 (20%) who experienced grade ≥2 or ≥3 gastrointestinal (GI) or genitourinary (GU) toxicity, respectively. RESULTS: Sixteen men were enrolled, with 7 men meeting the criteria of VES ≥3 and 9 men having a VES <3 but choosing the condensed treatment. One man was not treated owing to discovery of a synchronous primary rectal cancer. Four patients (26%) experienced grade ≥2 toxicity at 6 weeks after treatment. There were 9 of 15 (60%) who experienced grade ≥2 GI or GU toxicity and 4 of 15 (26%) grade ≥3 GI or GU toxicity at 6 months, and 5 of 15 (30%) grade ≥2 GI and GU toxicity at 6 months. A review of the 15 cases did not identify any remedial changes, thus the phase 1 criteria were not met. CONCLUSION: This novel condensed treatment had higher than anticipated late toxicities and was terminated before phase 2 accrual. Treatment factors, such as inclusion of pelvic lymph node radiation therapy, planning constraints, and treatment margins, or patient factors related to the specific frail elderly population may be contributing.
PURPOSE: To initiate a phase 1/2 trial to examine the tolerability of a condensed combined-modality protocol for high-risk prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Men scoring ≥3 on the Vulnerable Elderly Scale (VES) or refusing conventionally fractionated treatment for high-risk prostate cancer were eligible to participate. Androgen suppression was delivered for 12 months, and radiation therapy was delivered using 25 Gy to pelvic nodes delivered synchronously with 40 Gy to the prostate given as 1 fraction per week over 5 weeks. The phase 1 component included predetermined stopping rules based on 6-month treatment-related toxicity, with trial suspension specified if there were ≥6 of 15 patients (40%) or ≥3 of 15 (20%) who experienced grade ≥2 or ≥3 gastrointestinal (GI) or genitourinary (GU) toxicity, respectively. RESULTS: Sixteen men were enrolled, with 7 men meeting the criteria of VES ≥3 and 9 men having a VES <3 but choosing the condensed treatment. One man was not treated owing to discovery of a synchronous primary rectal cancer. Four patients (26%) experienced grade ≥2 toxicity at 6 weeks after treatment. There were 9 of 15 (60%) who experienced grade ≥2 GI or GU toxicity and 4 of 15 (26%) grade ≥3 GI or GU toxicity at 6 months, and 5 of 15 (30%) grade ≥2 GI and GU toxicity at 6 months. A review of the 15 cases did not identify any remedial changes, thus the phase 1 criteria were not met. CONCLUSION: This novel condensed treatment had higher than anticipated late toxicities and was terminated before phase 2 accrual. Treatment factors, such as inclusion of pelvic lymph node radiation therapy, planning constraints, and treatment margins, or patient factors related to the specific frail elderly population may be contributing.
Authors: Raymond B King; Sarah Os Osman; Ciaran Fairmichael; Denise M Irvine; Ciara A Lyons; Ananth Ravi; Joe M O'Sullivan; Alan R Hounsell; Darren M Mitchell; Conor K McGarry; Suneil Jain Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-01-23 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Raquibul Hannan; Samer Salamekh; Neil B Desai; Aurelie Garant; Michael R Folkert; Daniel N Costa; Samantha Mannala; Chul Ahn; Osama Mohamad; Aaron Laine; Dong W Nathan Kim; Tamara Dickinson; Ganesh V Raj; Rajal B Shah; Jing Wang; Xun Jia; Hak Choy; Claus G Roehrborn; Yair Lotan; Robert D Timmerman Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2021-11-11 Impact factor: 8.013
Authors: Sarah O S Osman; Prakash Jeevanandam; Nithya Kanakavelu; Denise M Irvine; Ciara A Lyons; Suneil Jain; Alan R Hounsell; Conor K McGarry Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2016-11-24 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Gargi Kothari; Andrew Loblaw; Alison C Tree; Nicholas J van As; Drew Moghanaki; Simon S Lo; Piet Ost; Shankar Siva Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-01-01
Authors: Raymond Wu; Hannah Woodford; Anne Capp; Perry Hunter; Gary Cowin; Keen-Hun Tai; Paul L Nguyen; Peter Chong; Jarad Martin Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2015-11-25 Impact factor: 3.481