Per Fransson1, Per Nilsson2, Adalsteinn Gunnlaugsson2, Lars Beckman3, Björn Tavelin4, David Norman4, Camilla Thellenberg-Karlsson4, Morten Hoyer5, Magnus Lagerlund6, Jon Kindblom7, Claes Ginman8, Bengt Johansson9, Kirsten Björnlinger10, Mihajl Seke11, Måns Agrup12, Björn Zackrisson4, Elisabeth Kjellén2, Lars Franzén4, Anders Widmark4. 1. Department of Nursing, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden. Electronic address: per.m.fransson@umu.se. 2. Department of Hematology, Oncology and Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. 3. Department of Oncology, Sundsvall Hospital, Sundsvall, Sweden. 4. Department of Radiation Sciences, Oncology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden. 5. Department of Oncology and Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. 6. Department of Oncology, Kalmar Hospital, Kalmar, Sweden. 7. Department of Oncology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. 8. Department of Oncology, Karlstad Central Hospital, Karlstad, Sweden. 9. Department of Oncology, Örebro University Hospital, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden. 10. Department of Oncology, Ryhov Hospital, Jönköping, Sweden. 11. Department of Oncology, Centrallasarettet, Växjö, Sweden. 12. Department of Oncology, Linköping University Hospital, Linköping, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The HYPO-RT-PC trial compared conventionally fractionated radiotherapy with ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy in patients with localised prostate cancer. Ultra-hypofractionation was non-inferior to conventional fractionation regarding 5-year failure-free survival and toxicity. We aimed to assess whether patient-reported quality of life (QOL) differs between conventional fractionation and ultra-hypofractionation up to 6 years after treatment in the HYPO-RT-PC trial. METHODS: HYPO-RT-PC is a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial done in 12 centres (seven university hospitals and five county hospitals) in Sweden and Denmark. Inclusion criteria were histologically verified intermediate-to-high-risk prostate cancer (defined as T1c-T3a with one or two of the following risk factors: stage T3a; Gleason score ≥7; and prostate-specific antigen 10-20 ng/mL with no evidence of lymph node involvement or distant metastases), age up to 75 years, and WHO performance status 0-2. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to conventional fractionation (78·0 Gy in 39 fractions, 5 days per week for 8 weeks) or ultra-hypofractionation (42·7 Gy in seven fractions, 3 days per week for 2·5 weeks) via a minimisation algorithm with stratification by trial centre, T-stage, Gleason score, and prostate-specific antigen. QOL was measured using the validated Prostate Cancer Symptom Scale (PCSS) and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) at baseline, the end of radiotherapy, months 3, 6, 12, and 24 after radiotherapy, every other year thereafter up to 10 years, and at 15 years. The primary endpoint (failure-free survival) has been reported elsewhere. Here we report QOL, a secondary endpoint analysed in the per-protocol population, up to 6 years after radiotherapy. The HYPO-RT-PC trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN45905321. FINDINGS: Between July 1, 2005, and Nov 4, 2015, 1200 patients were enrolled and 1180 were randomly assigned (conventional fractionation n=591, ultra-hypofractionation n=589); 1165 patients (conventional fractionation n=582, ultra-hypofractionation n=583) were included in this QOL analysis. 158 (71%) of 223 patients in the conventional fractionation group and 146 (66%) of 220 in the ultra-hypofractionation group completed questionnaires at 6 years. The median follow-up was 48 months (IQR 25-72). In seven of ten bowel symptoms or problems the proportion of patients with clinically relevant deteriorations at the end of radiotherapy was significantly higher in the ultra-hypofractionation group than in the conventional fractionation group (stool frequency [p<0·0001], rush to toilet [p=0·0013], flatulence [p=0·0013], bowel cramp [p<0·0001], mucus [p=0·0014], blood in stool [p<0·0001], and limitation in daily activity [p=0·0014]). There were no statistically significant differences in the proportions of patients with clinically relevant acute urinary symptoms or problems (total 14 items) and sexual functioning between the two treatment groups at end of radiotherapy. Thereafter, there were no clinically relevant differences in urinary, bowel, or sexual functioning between the groups. At the 6-year follow-up there was no difference in the incidence of clinically relevant deterioration between the groups for overall urinary bother (43 [33%] of 132 for conventional fractionation vs 33 [28%] of 120 for ultra-hypofractionation; mean difference 5·1% [95% CI -4·4 to 14·6]; p=0·38), overall bowel bother (43 [33%] of 129 vs 34 [28%] of 123; 5·7% [-3·8 to 15·2]; p=0·33), overall sexual bother (75 [60%] of 126 vs 59 [50%] of 117; 9·1% [-1·4 to 19·6]; p=0·15), or global health/QOL (56 [42%] of 134 vs 46 [37%] of 125; 5·0% [-5·0 to 15·0]; p=0·41). INTERPRETATION: Although acute toxicity was higher for ultra-hypofractionation than conventional fractionation, this long-term patient-reported QOL analysis shows that ultra-hypofractionation was as well tolerated as conventional fractionation up to 6 years after completion of treatment. These findings support the use of ultra-hypofractionation radiotherapy for intermediate-to-high-risk prostate cancer. FUNDING: The Nordic Cancer Union, the Swedish Cancer Society, and the Swedish Research Council.
BACKGROUND: The HYPO-RT-PC trial compared conventionally fractionated radiotherapy with ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy in patients with localised prostate cancer. Ultra-hypofractionation was non-inferior to conventional fractionation regarding 5-year failure-free survival and toxicity. We aimed to assess whether patient-reported quality of life (QOL) differs between conventional fractionation and ultra-hypofractionation up to 6 years after treatment in the HYPO-RT-PC trial. METHODS: HYPO-RT-PC is a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial done in 12 centres (seven university hospitals and five county hospitals) in Sweden and Denmark. Inclusion criteria were histologically verified intermediate-to-high-risk prostate cancer (defined as T1c-T3a with one or two of the following risk factors: stage T3a; Gleason score ≥7; and prostate-specific antigen 10-20 ng/mL with no evidence of lymph node involvement or distant metastases), age up to 75 years, and WHO performance status 0-2. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to conventional fractionation (78·0 Gy in 39 fractions, 5 days per week for 8 weeks) or ultra-hypofractionation (42·7 Gy in seven fractions, 3 days per week for 2·5 weeks) via a minimisation algorithm with stratification by trial centre, T-stage, Gleason score, and prostate-specific antigen. QOL was measured using the validated Prostate Cancer Symptom Scale (PCSS) and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) at baseline, the end of radiotherapy, months 3, 6, 12, and 24 after radiotherapy, every other year thereafter up to 10 years, and at 15 years. The primary endpoint (failure-free survival) has been reported elsewhere. Here we report QOL, a secondary endpoint analysed in the per-protocol population, up to 6 years after radiotherapy. The HYPO-RT-PC trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN45905321. FINDINGS: Between July 1, 2005, and Nov 4, 2015, 1200 patients were enrolled and 1180 were randomly assigned (conventional fractionation n=591, ultra-hypofractionation n=589); 1165 patients (conventional fractionation n=582, ultra-hypofractionation n=583) were included in this QOL analysis. 158 (71%) of 223 patients in the conventional fractionation group and 146 (66%) of 220 in the ultra-hypofractionation group completed questionnaires at 6 years. The median follow-up was 48 months (IQR 25-72). In seven of ten bowel symptoms or problems the proportion of patients with clinically relevant deteriorations at the end of radiotherapy was significantly higher in the ultra-hypofractionation group than in the conventional fractionation group (stool frequency [p<0·0001], rush to toilet [p=0·0013], flatulence [p=0·0013], bowel cramp [p<0·0001], mucus [p=0·0014], blood in stool [p<0·0001], and limitation in daily activity [p=0·0014]). There were no statistically significant differences in the proportions of patients with clinically relevant acute urinary symptoms or problems (total 14 items) and sexual functioning between the two treatment groups at end of radiotherapy. Thereafter, there were no clinically relevant differences in urinary, bowel, or sexual functioning between the groups. At the 6-year follow-up there was no difference in the incidence of clinically relevant deterioration between the groups for overall urinary bother (43 [33%] of 132 for conventional fractionation vs 33 [28%] of 120 for ultra-hypofractionation; mean difference 5·1% [95% CI -4·4 to 14·6]; p=0·38), overall bowel bother (43 [33%] of 129 vs 34 [28%] of 123; 5·7% [-3·8 to 15·2]; p=0·33), overall sexual bother (75 [60%] of 126 vs 59 [50%] of 117; 9·1% [-1·4 to 19·6]; p=0·15), or global health/QOL (56 [42%] of 134 vs 46 [37%] of 125; 5·0% [-5·0 to 15·0]; p=0·41). INTERPRETATION: Although acute toxicity was higher for ultra-hypofractionation than conventional fractionation, this long-term patient-reported QOL analysis shows that ultra-hypofractionation was as well tolerated as conventional fractionation up to 6 years after completion of treatment. These findings support the use of ultra-hypofractionation radiotherapy for intermediate-to-high-risk prostate cancer. FUNDING: The Nordic Cancer Union, the Swedish Cancer Society, and the Swedish Research Council.
Authors: Neil R Parikh; Mary Ann Clark; Parashar Patel; Kayla Kafka-Peterson; Lalaine Zaide; Ting Martin Ma; Michael L Steinberg; Minsong Cao; Ann C Raldow; James Lamb; Amar U Kishan Journal: Appl Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-10-05
Authors: Wilfred Ngwa; Beatrice W Addai; Isaac Adewole; Victoria Ainsworth; James Alaro; Olusegun I Alatise; Zipporah Ali; Benjamin O Anderson; Rose Anorlu; Stephen Avery; Prebo Barango; Noella Bih; Christopher M Booth; Otis W Brawley; Jean-Marie Dangou; Lynette Denny; Jennifer Dent; Shekinah N C Elmore; Ahmed Elzawawy; Diane Gashumba; Jennifer Geel; Katy Graef; Sumit Gupta; Serigne-Magueye Gueye; Nazik Hammad; Laila Hessissen; Andre M Ilbawi; Joyce Kambugu; Zisis Kozlakidis; Simon Manga; Lize Maree; Sulma I Mohammed; Susan Msadabwe; Miriam Mutebi; Annet Nakaganda; Ntokozo Ndlovu; Kingsley Ndoh; Jerry Ndumbalo; Mamsau Ngoma; Twalib Ngoma; Christian Ntizimira; Timothy R Rebbeck; Lorna Renner; Anya Romanoff; Fidel Rubagumya; Shahin Sayed; Shivani Sud; Hannah Simonds; Richard Sullivan; William Swanson; Verna Vanderpuye; Boateng Wiafe; David Kerr Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2022-05-09 Impact factor: 54.433
Authors: Ingrid Masson; Martine Bellanger; Geneviève Perrocheau; Marc-André Mahé; David Azria; Pascal Pommier; Nathalie Mesgouez-Nebout; Philippe Giraud; Didier Peiffert; Bruno Chauvet; Philippe Dudouet; Naji Salem; Georges Noël; Jonathan Khalifa; Igor Latorzeff; Catherine Guérin-Charbonnel; Stéphane Supiot Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: William Swanson; Richard Ndi Samba; Michael Lavelle; Ahmed Elzawawy; Erno Sajo; Wilfred Ngwa; Luca Incrocci Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: John N Staffurth; Joanne S Haviland; Anna Wilkins; Isabel Syndikus; Vincent Khoo; David Bloomfield; Chris Parker; John Logue; Christopher Scrase; Alison Birtle; Zafar Malik; Miguel Panades; Chinnamani Eswar; John Graham; Martin Russell; Catherine Ferguson; Joe M O'Sullivan; Clare A Cruickshank; David Dearnaley; Emma Hall Journal: Eur Urol Oncol Date: 2021-09-03
Authors: Palak Kundu; Eric Y Lin; Stephanie M Yoon; Neil R Parikh; Dan Ruan; Amar U Kishan; Alan Lee; Michael L Steinberg; Albert J Chang Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-03-08 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: David I Pryor; Jarad M Martin; Jeremy L Millar; Heather Day; Wee Loon Ong; Marketa Skala; Liesel M FitzGerald; Benjamin Hindson; Braden Higgs; Michael E O'Callaghan; Farhan Syed; Amy J Hayden; Sandra L Turner; Nathan Papa Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-11-01
Authors: Antonio Lazo; Alejandro de la Torre-Luque; Gregorio Arregui; Daniel Rivas; Ana Serradilla; Joaquin Gómez; Francisca Jurado; María Isabel Núñez; Escarlata López Journal: Biology (Basel) Date: 2022-03-11