Ivan R Vogelius1, Søren M Bentzen2. 1. Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. Electronic address: ivan.richter.vogelius@regionh.dk. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; Division of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, University of Maryland Greenebaum Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: More than a decade of randomized controlled trials in prostate cancer has established a positive radiation dose response at moderate doses and a consistently low α/β ratio in the linear quadratic model for moderate hypofractionation. The recently published large randomized trial of ultrahypofractionated prostate cancer radiation therapy adds substantially to our current knowledge of dose response and fractionation sensitivity. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Randomized trials of dose escalation and hypofractionation of radiation therapy were meta-analyzed to yield the overall best estimate of the α/β ratio. Additionally, a putative saturation of dose effect previously reported at approximately 80 Gy EQD2 was investigated by mapping the relative effectiveness assessed at 5 years onto a single reference dose-response curve. RESULTS: Meta-analysis of 14 randomized trials including 13,384 patients yielded a best estimate of α/β = 1.6 Gy (95% confidence interval, 1.3-2.0 Gy) but with highly significant heterogeneity (I2 = 70%, P = .0005). Further analysis indicated an association between increasing dose per fraction in the experimental arm and increasing α/β ratio (slope, 0.6 Gy increase in α/β per Gy increase in fraction size; P = .017). This deviation from the linear quadratic model could, however, also be explained by biochemical control maxing out at doses above approximately 80 Gy. CONCLUSIONS: Biochemical control data from randomized controlled trials of dose-per-fraction escalation in prostate cancer radiation therapy are inconsistent with the presence of a constant fractionation sensitivity in the linear-quadratic model and/or a monotonic dose response for biochemical control beyond 80 Gy equivalent dose. These observations have a potential effect on the optimal doses in future trials and the interpretation of ongoing trials of ultrahypofractionation.
PURPOSE: More than a decade of randomized controlled trials in prostate cancer has established a positive radiation dose response at moderate doses and a consistently low α/β ratio in the linear quadratic model for moderate hypofractionation. The recently published large randomized trial of ultrahypofractionated prostate cancer radiation therapy adds substantially to our current knowledge of dose response and fractionation sensitivity. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Randomized trials of dose escalation and hypofractionation of radiation therapy were meta-analyzed to yield the overall best estimate of the α/β ratio. Additionally, a putative saturation of dose effect previously reported at approximately 80 Gy EQD2 was investigated by mapping the relative effectiveness assessed at 5 years onto a single reference dose-response curve. RESULTS: Meta-analysis of 14 randomized trials including 13,384 patients yielded a best estimate of α/β = 1.6 Gy (95% confidence interval, 1.3-2.0 Gy) but with highly significant heterogeneity (I2 = 70%, P = .0005). Further analysis indicated an association between increasing dose per fraction in the experimental arm and increasing α/β ratio (slope, 0.6 Gy increase in α/β per Gy increase in fraction size; P = .017). This deviation from the linear quadratic model could, however, also be explained by biochemical control maxing out at doses above approximately 80 Gy. CONCLUSIONS: Biochemical control data from randomized controlled trials of dose-per-fraction escalation in prostate cancer radiation therapy are inconsistent with the presence of a constant fractionation sensitivity in the linear-quadratic model and/or a monotonic dose response for biochemical control beyond 80 Gy equivalent dose. These observations have a potential effect on the optimal doses in future trials and the interpretation of ongoing trials of ultrahypofractionation.
Authors: Anders Widmark; Adalsteinn Gunnlaugsson; Lars Beckman; Camilla Thellenberg-Karlsson; Morten Hoyer; Magnus Lagerlund; Jon Kindblom; Claes Ginman; Bengt Johansson; Kirsten Björnlinger; Mihajl Seke; Måns Agrup; Per Fransson; Björn Tavelin; David Norman; Björn Zackrisson; Harald Anderson; Elisabeth Kjellén; Lars Franzén; Per Nilsson Journal: Lancet Date: 2019-06-18 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: W James Morris; Scott Tyldesley; Sree Rodda; Ross Halperin; Howard Pai; Michael McKenzie; Graeme Duncan; Gerard Morton; Jeremy Hamm; Nevin Murray Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-11-24 Impact factor: 7.038
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: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-10-11
Authors: Eric E Yeoh; Rochelle J Botten; Julie Butters; Addolorata C Di Matteo; Richard H Holloway; Jack Fowler Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-10-08 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Harvey C Quon; Aldrich Ong; Patrick Cheung; William Chu; Hans T Chung; Danny Vesprini; Amit Chowdhury; Dilip Panjwani; Geordi Pang; Renee Korol; Melanie Davidson; Ananth Ravi; Boyd McCurdy; Liying Zhang; Alexandre Mamedov; Andrea Deabreu; Andrew Loblaw Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2018-03-15 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Douglas H Brand; Alison C Tree; Peter Ostler; Hans van der Voet; Andrew Loblaw; William Chu; Daniel Ford; Shaun Tolan; Suneil Jain; Alexander Martin; John Staffurth; Philip Camilleri; Kiran Kancherla; John Frew; Andrew Chan; Ian S Dayes; Daniel Henderson; Stephanie Brown; Clare Cruickshank; Stephanie Burnett; Aileen Duffton; Clare Griffin; Victoria Hinder; Kirsty Morrison; Olivia Naismith; Emma Hall; Nicholas van As Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2019-09-17 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Rebecca G Levin-Epstein; Naomi Y Jiang; Xiaoyan Wang; Shrinivasa K Upadhyaya; Sean P Collins; Simeng Suy; Nima Aghdam; Constantine Mantz; Alan J Katz; Leszek Miszczyk; Aleksandra Napieralska; Agnieszka Namysl-Kaletka; Nicholas Prionas; Hilary Bagshaw; Mark K Buyyounouski; Minsong Cao; Nzhde Agazaryan; Audrey Dang; Ye Yuan; Patrick A Kupelian; Nicholas G Zaorsky; Daniel E Spratt; Osama Mohamad; Felix Y Feng; Brandon A Mahal; Paul C Boutros; Arun U Kishan; Jesus Juarez; David Shabsovich; Tommy Jiang; Sartajdeep Kahlon; Ankur Patel; Jay Patel; Nicholas G Nickols; Michael L Steinberg; Donald B Fuller; Amar U Kishan Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2020-10-07 Impact factor: 6.280
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: Simon K B Spohn; Ilias Sachpazidis; Rolf Wiehle; Benedikt Thomann; August Sigle; Peter Bronsert; Juri Ruf; Matthias Benndorf; Nils H Nicolay; Tanja Sprave; Anca L Grosu; Dimos Baltas; Constantinos Zamboglou Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-05-14 Impact factor: 6.244