Talha Shaikh1, Tianyu Li2, Elizabeth A Handorf2, Matthew E Johnson1, Lora S Wang1, Mark A Hallman1, Richard E Greenberg3, Robert A Price1, Robert G Uzzo3, Charlie Ma1, David Chen3, Daniel M Geynisman4, Alan Pollack5, Eric M Horwitz6. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. Department of Surgical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami, Miami, Florida. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: eric.horwitz@fccc.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the long-term quality of life (QoL) outcomes from a phase 3 trial comparing 2 modes of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT): conventional IMRT (CIMRT) versus hypofractionated IMRT (HIMRT) in patients with localized prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 2002 and 2006, 303 men with low-risk to high-risk prostate cancer were randomized to 76 Gy in 38 fractions (CIMRT) versus 70.2 Gy in 26 fractions (HIMRT). QoL was compared by use of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), and EuroQoL (EQ5D) questionnaires. The primary outcome of the QoL analysis was a minimum clinically important difference defined as a 0.5 standard deviation change from baseline for each respective QoL parameter. Treatment effects were evaluated with the use of logistic mixed effects regression models. RESULTS:A total of 286, 299, and 218 patients had baseline EPIC, IPSS, or EQ5D data available and were included in the analysis. Overall, there was no statistically significant difference between the 2 treatment arms in terms of EPIC, IPSS, or EQ5D scores over time, although there was a trend toward lower EPIC urinary incontinence scores in the HIMRT arm. More patients in the HIMRT arm had a lower EPIC urinary incontinence score relative to baseline versus patients in the CIMRT arm with long-term follow-up. On multivariable analysis, there was no association between radiation fractionation scheme and any QoL parameter. When other clinical factors were examined, lymph node radiation was associated with worse EPIC hormonal scores versus patients receiving no lymph node radiation. In general, QoL outcomes were generally stable over time, with the exception of EPIC hormonal and EQ5D scores. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized prospective study, there were stable QoL changes in patients receiving HIMRT or CIMRT. Our results add to the growing body of literature suggesting that HIMRT may be an acceptable treatment modality in clinically localized prostate cancer.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To assess the long-term quality of life (QoL) outcomes from a phase 3 trial comparing 2 modes of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT): conventional IMRT (CIMRT) versus hypofractionated IMRT (HIMRT) in patients with localized prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 2002 and 2006, 303 men with low-risk to high-risk prostate cancer were randomized to 76 Gy in 38 fractions (CIMRT) versus 70.2 Gy in 26 fractions (HIMRT). QoL was compared by use of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), and EuroQoL (EQ5D) questionnaires. The primary outcome of the QoL analysis was a minimum clinically important difference defined as a 0.5 standard deviation change from baseline for each respective QoL parameter. Treatment effects were evaluated with the use of logistic mixed effects regression models. RESULTS: A total of 286, 299, and 218 patients had baseline EPIC, IPSS, or EQ5D data available and were included in the analysis. Overall, there was no statistically significant difference between the 2 treatment arms in terms of EPIC, IPSS, or EQ5D scores over time, although there was a trend toward lower EPIC urinary incontinence scores in the HIMRT arm. More patients in the HIMRT arm had a lower EPIC urinary incontinence score relative to baseline versus patients in the CIMRT arm with long-term follow-up. On multivariable analysis, there was no association between radiation fractionation scheme and any QoL parameter. When other clinical factors were examined, lymph node radiation was associated with worse EPIC hormonal scores versus patients receiving no lymph node radiation. In general, QoL outcomes were generally stable over time, with the exception of EPIC hormonal and EQ5D scores. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized prospective study, there were stable QoL changes in patients receiving HIMRT or CIMRT. Our results add to the growing body of literature suggesting that HIMRT may be an acceptable treatment modality in clinically localized prostate cancer.
Authors: David Dearnaley; Isabel Syndikus; Georges Sumo; Margaret Bidmead; David Bloomfield; Catharine Clark; Annie Gao; Shama Hassan; Alan Horwich; Robert Huddart; Vincent Khoo; Peter Kirkbride; Helen Mayles; Philip Mayles; Olivia Naismith; Chris Parker; Helen Patterson; Martin Russell; Christopher Scrase; Chris South; John Staffurth; Emma Hall Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2011-12-12 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Stephanie T H Peeters; Wilma D Heemsbergen; Peter C M Koper; Wim L J van Putten; Annerie Slot; Michel F H Dielwart; Johannes M G Bonfrer; Luca Incrocci; Joos V Lebesque Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-05-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Anthony L Zietman; Kyounghwa Bae; Jerry D Slater; William U Shipley; Jason A Efstathiou; John J Coen; David A Bush; Margie Lunt; Daphna Y Spiegel; Rafi Skowronski; B Rodney Jabola; Carl J Rossi Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Alan Pollack; Gail Walker; Eric M Horwitz; Robert Price; Steven Feigenberg; Andre A Konski; Radka Stoyanova; Benjamin Movsas; Richard E Greenberg; Robert G Uzzo; Charlie Ma; Mark K Buyyounouski Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-10-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Darius Norkus; Agata Karklelyte; Benedikt Engels; Harijati Versmessen; Romas Griskevicius; Mark De Ridder; Guy Storme; Eduardas Aleknavicius; Ernestas Janulionis; Konstantinas Povilas Valuckas Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2013-09-04 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Anna Wilkins; Helen Mossop; Isabel Syndikus; Vincent Khoo; David Bloomfield; Chris Parker; John Logue; Christopher Scrase; Helen Patterson; Alison Birtle; John Staffurth; Zafar Malik; Miguel Panades; Chinnamani Eswar; John Graham; Martin Russell; Peter Kirkbride; Joe M O'Sullivan; Annie Gao; Clare Cruickshank; Clare Griffin; David Dearnaley; Emma Hall Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-10-28 Impact factor: 41.316
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: B A Jereczek-Fossa; A Maucieri; G Marvaso; S Gandini; C Fodor; D Zerini; G Riva; O Alessandro; A Surgo; S Volpe; G Fanetti; S Arculeo; M A Zerella; S Parisi; P Maisonneuve; A Vavassori; F Cattani; R Cambria; C Garibaldi; A Starzyńska; G Musi; O De Cobelli; M Ferro; F Nolè; D Ciardo; R Orecchia Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2018-11-27 Impact factor: 3.064
Authors: Stefan Höcht; Daniel M Aebersold; Clemens Albrecht; Dirk Böhmer; Michael Flentje; Ute Ganswindt; Tobias Hölscher; Thomas Martin; Felix Sedlmayer; Frederik Wenz; Daniel Zips; Thomas Wiegel Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2016-09-14 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Vladimir Avkshtol; Karen J Ruth; Eric A Ross; Mark A Hallman; Richard E Greenberg; Robert A Price; Brooke Leachman; Robert G Uzzo; Charlie Ma; David Chen; Daniel M Geynisman; Mark L Sobczak; Eddie Zhang; Jessica K Wong; Alan Pollack; Eric M Horwitz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-03-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Julie Nossiter; Arunan Sujenthiran; Thomas E Cowling; Matthew G Parry; Susan C Charman; Paul Cathcart; Noel W Clarke; Heather Payne; Jan van der Meulen; Ajay Aggarwal Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-01-02 Impact factor: 44.544