Daniel A Hamstra1, Neil Mariados2, John Sylvester3, Dhiren Shah4, Lawrence Karsh5, Richard Hudes6, David Beyer7, Steven Kurtzman8, Jeffrey Bogart9, R Alex Hsi10, Michael Kos11, Rodney Ellis12, Mark Logsdon13, Shawn Zimberg14, Kevin Forsythe15, Hong Zhang16, Edward Soffen17, Patrick Francke18, Constantine Mantz19, Peter Rossi20, Theodore DeWeese21, Stephanie Daignault-Newton22, Benjamin W Fischer-Valuck23, Anupama Chundury23, Hiram Gay23, Walter Bosch23, Jeff Michalski23. 1. Texas Oncology, Texas Center for Proton Therapy, Irving, Texas. Electronic address: Daniel.Hamstra@gmail.com. 2. Associated Medical Professionals of NY, PLLC, Syracuse, New York. 3. 21st Century Oncology, Inc, Lakewood Ranch, East Bradenton, Florida. 4. Western New York Urology Associates, LLC, Doing Business as Cancer Care of WNY, Cheektowaga, New York. 5. The Urology Center of Colorado, Denver, Colorado. 6. Chesapeake Urology Associates, Doing Business as Chesapeake Urology Research Associates (The Prostate Center), Owings Mills, Maryland. 7. Arizona Oncology Services Foundation, Phoenix, Arizona. 8. Urological Surgeons of Northern California Inc, Campbell, California. 9. The Research Foundation of State University of New York/State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York. 10. Peninsula Cancer Center, Poulsbo, Washington. 11. Urology Nevada, Reno, Nevada. 12. University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio. 13. Sutter Health Sacramento Sierra Region, Doing Business as Sutter Institute for Medical Research, Sacramento, California. 14. Advanced Radiation Centers of New York, Lake Success, New York. 15. Oregon Urology Institute, Springfield, Oregon. 16. University of Rochester, Rochester, New York. 17. CentraState Medical Center, Freehold, New Jersey. 18. Carolina Regional Cancer Center, LLC, 21st Century Oncology, Inc, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. 19. 21st Century Oncology, Inc, Fort Meyers, Florida. 20. Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 21. The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 22. Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 23. Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri.
Abstract
PURPOSE: SpaceOAR, a Food and Drug Administration-approved hydrogel intended to create a rectal-prostate space, was evaluated in a single-blind phase III trial of image guided intensity modulated radiation therapy. A total of 222 men were randomized 2:1 to the spacer or control group and received 79.2 Gy in 1.8-Gy fractions to the prostate with or without the seminal vesicles. The present study reports the final results with a median follow-up period of 3 years. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Cumulative (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0) toxicity was evaluated using the log-rank test. Quality of life (QOL) was examined using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), and the mean changes from baseline in the EPIC domains were tested using repeated measures models. The proportions of men with minimally important differences (MIDs) in each domain were tested using repeated measures logistic models with prespecified thresholds. RESULTS: The 3-year incidence of grade ≥1 (9.2% vs 2.0%; P=.028) and grade ≥2 (5.7% vs 0%; P=.012) rectal toxicity favored the spacer arm. Grade ≥1 urinary incontinence was also lower in the spacer arm (15% vs 4%; P=.046), with no difference in grade ≥2 urinary toxicity (7% vs 7%; P=0.7). From 6 months onward, bowel QOL consistently favored the spacer group (P=.002), with the difference at 3 years (5.8 points; P<.05) meeting the threshold for a MID. The control group had a 3.9-point greater decline in urinary QOL compared with the spacer group at 3 years (P<.05), but the difference did not meet the MID threshold. At 3 years, more men in the control group than in the spacer group had experienced a MID decline in bowel QOL (41% vs 14%; P=.002) and urinary QOL (30% vs 17%; P=.04). Furthermore, the control group were also more likely to have experienced large declines (twice the MID) in bowel QOL (21% vs 5%; P=.02) and urinary QOL (23% vs 8%; P=.02). CONCLUSIONS: The benefit of a hydrogel spacer in reducing the rectal dose, toxicity, and QOL declines after image guided intensity modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer was maintained or increased with a longer follow-up period, providing stronger evidence for the benefit of hydrogel spacer use in prostate radiation therapy.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: SpaceOAR, a Food and Drug Administration-approved hydrogel intended to create a rectal-prostate space, was evaluated in a single-blind phase III trial of image guided intensity modulated radiation therapy. A total of 222 men were randomized 2:1 to the spacer or control group and received 79.2 Gy in 1.8-Gy fractions to the prostate with or without the seminal vesicles. The present study reports the final results with a median follow-up period of 3 years. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Cumulative (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0) toxicity was evaluated using the log-rank test. Quality of life (QOL) was examined using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), and the mean changes from baseline in the EPIC domains were tested using repeated measures models. The proportions of men with minimally important differences (MIDs) in each domain were tested using repeated measures logistic models with prespecified thresholds. RESULTS: The 3-year incidence of grade ≥1 (9.2% vs 2.0%; P=.028) and grade ≥2 (5.7% vs 0%; P=.012) rectal toxicity favored the spacer arm. Grade ≥1 urinary incontinence was also lower in the spacer arm (15% vs 4%; P=.046), with no difference in grade ≥2 urinary toxicity (7% vs 7%; P=0.7). From 6 months onward, bowel QOL consistently favored the spacer group (P=.002), with the difference at 3 years (5.8 points; P<.05) meeting the threshold for a MID. The control group had a 3.9-point greater decline in urinary QOL compared with the spacer group at 3 years (P<.05), but the difference did not meet the MID threshold. At 3 years, more men in the control group than in the spacer group had experienced a MID decline in bowel QOL (41% vs 14%; P=.002) and urinary QOL (30% vs 17%; P=.04). Furthermore, the control group were also more likely to have experienced large declines (twice the MID) in bowel QOL (21% vs 5%; P=.02) and urinary QOL (23% vs 8%; P=.02). CONCLUSIONS: The benefit of a hydrogel spacer in reducing the rectal dose, toxicity, and QOL declines after image guided intensity modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer was maintained or increased with a longer follow-up period, providing stronger evidence for the benefit of hydrogel spacer use in prostate radiation therapy.
Authors: Marigdalia K Ramirez-Fort; Marc J Rogers; Roberto Santiago; Sean S Mahase; Melissa Mendez; Yi Zheng; Xiang Kong; James A Kashanian; M Junaid Niaz; Shearwood McClelland; Xiaodong Wu; Neil H Bander; Peter Schlegel; John P Mulhall; Christopher S Lange Journal: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Date: 2020-03-19
Authors: Scott C Morgan; Karen Hoffman; D Andrew Loblaw; Mark K Buyyounouski; Caroline Patton; Daniel Barocas; Soren Bentzen; Michael Chang; Jason Efstathiou; Patrick Greany; Per Halvorsen; Bridget F Koontz; Colleen Lawton; C Marc Leyrer; Daniel Lin; Michael Ray; Howard Sandler Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-10-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jianqing Lin; Robert B Den; Jacob Greenspan; Timothy N Showalter; Jean H Hoffman-Censits; Costas D Lallas; Edouard J Trabulsi; Leonard G Gomella; Mark D Hurwitz; Benjamin Leiby; Adam P Dicker; W Kevin Kelly Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2020-02-03 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Avani D Rao; Ziwei Feng; Eun Ji Shin; Jin He; Kevin M Waters; Stephanie Coquia; Robert DeJong; Lauren M Rosati; Lin Su; Dengwang Li; Juan Jackson; Stephen Clark; Jeffrey Schultz; Danielle Hutchings; Seong-Hun Kim; Ralph H Hruban; Theodore L DeWeese; John Wong; Amol Narang; Joseph M Herman; Kai Ding Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2017-08-14 Impact factor: 7.038
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: Alejandro Berlin; Anne Di Tomasso; Heather Ballantyne; Susan Patterson; Tony Lam; Aravind Sundaramurthy; Joelle Helou; Andrew Bayley; Peter Chung Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Ziwei Feng; Avani D Rao; Zhi Cheng; Eun Ji Shin; Joseph Moore; Lin Su; Seong-Hun Kim; John Wong; Amol Narang; Joseph M Herman; Todd McNutt; Dengwang Li; Kai Ding Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-07-19 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Chad Tang; Xiudong Lei; Grace L Smith; Hubert Y Pan; Kenneth Hess; Aileen Chen; Karen E Hoffman; Brian F Chapin; Deborah A Kuban; Mitchell Anscher; Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Steven J Frank; Benjamin D Smith Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-04-13