Ananya Choudhury1, Nuria Porta2, Emma Hall2, Yee Pei Song3, Ruth Owen4, Ranald MacKay5, Catharine M L West6, Rebecca Lewis2, Syed A Hussain7, Nicholas D James8, Robert Huddart9, Peter Hoskin10. 1. Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; Department of Clinical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK. Electronic address: ananya.choudhury@nhs.net. 2. Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK. 3. Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; Department of Clinical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK. 4. Department of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK. 5. Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; Department of Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK. 6. Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 7. Department of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. 8. Radiotherapy and Imaging Division, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK. 9. Radiotherapy and Imaging Division, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 10. Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; Department of Clinical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Two radiotherapy fractionation schedules are used to treat locally advanced bladder cancer: 64 Gy in 32 fractions over 6·5 weeks and a hypofractionated schedule of 55 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks. Long-term outcomes of these schedules in several cohort studies and case series suggest that response, survival, and toxicity are similar, but no direct comparison has been published. The present study aimed to assess the non-inferiority of 55 Gy in 20 fractions to 64 Gy in 32 fractions in terms of invasive locoregional control and late toxicity in patients with locally advanced bladder cancer. METHODS: We did a meta-analysis of individual patient data from patients (age ≥18 years) with locally advanced bladder cancer (T1G3 [high-grade non-muscle invasive] or T2-T4, N0M0) enrolled in two multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trials done in the UK: BC2001 (NCT00024349; assessing addition of chemotherapy to radiotherapy) and BCON (NCT00033436; assessing hypoxia-modifying therapy combined with radiotherapy). In each trial, the fractionation schedule was chosen according to local standard practice. Co-primary endpoints were invasive locoregional control (non-inferiority margin hazard ratio [HR]=1·25); and late bladder or rectum toxicity, assessed with the Late Effects Normal Tissue Task Force-Subjective, Objective, Management, Analytic tool (non-inferiority margin for absolute risk difference [RD]=10%). If non-inferiority was met for invasive locoregional control, superiority could be considered if the 95% CI for the treatment effect excluded the null effect (HR=1). One-stage individual patient data meta-analysis models for the time-to-event and binary outcomes were used, accounting for trial differences, within-centre correlation, randomised treatment received, baseline variable imbalances, and potential confounding from relevant prognostic factors. FINDINGS: 782 patients with known fractionation schedules (456 from the BC2001 trial and 326 from the BCON trial; 376 (48%) received 64 Gy in 32 fractions and 406 (52%) received 55 Gy in 20 fractions) were included in our meta-analysis. Median follow-up was 120 months (IQR 99-159). Patients who received 55 Gy in 20 fractions had a lower risk of invasive locoregional recurrence than those who received 64 Gy in 32 fractions (adjusted HR 0·71 [95% CI 0·52-0·96]). Both schedules had similar toxicity profiles (adjusted RD -3·37% [95% CI -11·85 to 5·10]). INTERPRETATION: A hypofractionated schedule of 55 Gy in 20 fractions is non-inferior to 64 Gy in 32 fractions with regard to both invasive locoregional control and toxicity, and is superior with regard to invasive locoregional control. 55 Gy in 20 fractions should be adopted as a standard of care for bladder preservation in patients with locally advanced bladder cancer. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.
BACKGROUND: Two radiotherapy fractionation schedules are used to treat locally advanced bladder cancer: 64 Gy in 32 fractions over 6·5 weeks and a hypofractionated schedule of 55 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks. Long-term outcomes of these schedules in several cohort studies and case series suggest that response, survival, and toxicity are similar, but no direct comparison has been published. The present study aimed to assess the non-inferiority of 55 Gy in 20 fractions to 64 Gy in 32 fractions in terms of invasive locoregional control and late toxicity in patients with locally advanced bladder cancer. METHODS: We did a meta-analysis of individual patient data from patients (age ≥18 years) with locally advanced bladder cancer (T1G3 [high-grade non-muscle invasive] or T2-T4, N0M0) enrolled in two multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trials done in the UK: BC2001 (NCT00024349; assessing addition of chemotherapy to radiotherapy) and BCON (NCT00033436; assessing hypoxia-modifying therapy combined with radiotherapy). In each trial, the fractionation schedule was chosen according to local standard practice. Co-primary endpoints were invasive locoregional control (non-inferiority margin hazard ratio [HR]=1·25); and late bladder or rectum toxicity, assessed with the Late Effects Normal Tissue Task Force-Subjective, Objective, Management, Analytic tool (non-inferiority margin for absolute risk difference [RD]=10%). If non-inferiority was met for invasive locoregional control, superiority could be considered if the 95% CI for the treatment effect excluded the null effect (HR=1). One-stage individual patient data meta-analysis models for the time-to-event and binary outcomes were used, accounting for trial differences, within-centre correlation, randomised treatment received, baseline variable imbalances, and potential confounding from relevant prognostic factors. FINDINGS: 782 patients with known fractionation schedules (456 from the BC2001 trial and 326 from the BCON trial; 376 (48%) received 64 Gy in 32 fractions and 406 (52%) received 55 Gy in 20 fractions) were included in our meta-analysis. Median follow-up was 120 months (IQR 99-159). Patients who received 55 Gy in 20 fractions had a lower risk of invasive locoregional recurrence than those who received 64 Gy in 32 fractions (adjusted HR 0·71 [95% CI 0·52-0·96]). Both schedules had similar toxicity profiles (adjusted RD -3·37% [95% CI -11·85 to 5·10]). INTERPRETATION: A hypofractionated schedule of 55 Gy in 20 fractions is non-inferior to 64 Gy in 32 fractions with regard to both invasive locoregional control and toxicity, and is superior with regard to invasive locoregional control. 55 Gy in 20 fractions should be adopted as a standard of care for bladder preservation in patients with locally advanced bladder cancer. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.
Authors: Raymond H Mak; Daniel Hunt; William U Shipley; Jason A Efstathiou; William J Tester; Michael P Hagan; Donald S Kaufman; Niall M Heney; Anthony L Zietman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-11-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ananya Choudhury; Ric Swindell; John P Logue; P Anthony Elliott; Jacqueline E Livsey; Marcus Wise; Paul Symonds; James P Wylie; Vijay Ramani; Vijay Sangar; Jeanette Lyons; Ian Bottomley; Damian McCaul; Noel W Clarke; Anne E Kiltie; Richard A Cowan Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-01-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jason A Efstathiou; Daphna Y Spiegel; William U Shipley; Niall M Heney; Donald S Kaufman; Andrzej Niemierko; John J Coen; Rafi Y Skowronski; Jonathan J Paly; Francis J McGovern; Anthony L Zietman Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-11-12 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Alison Claire Tree; Kelly Jones; Shaista Hafeez; Mansour Taghavi Azar Sharabiani; Kevin Joseph Harrington; Susan Lalondrelle; Merina Ahmed; Robert Anthony Huddart Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-05-04 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Gavin B Stewart; Douglas G Altman; Lisa M Askie; Lelia Duley; Mark C Simmonds; Lesley A Stewart Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-10-03 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ghada Abo-Zaid; Boliang Guo; Jonathan J Deeks; Thomas P A Debray; Ewout W Steyerberg; Karel G M Moons; Richard David Riley Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2013-05-04 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Jons W van Hattum; Ben-Max de Ruiter; Jorg R Oddens; Maarten C C M Hulshof; Theo M de Reijke; Adriaan D Bins Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-12-22 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Matthew D Greer; Stephanie K Schaub; Stephen R Bowen; Jay J Liao; Kenneth Russell; Jonathan J Chen; Emily S Weg; Juergen Meyer; Tristan Alving; George R Schade; John L Gore; Sarah P Psutka; Robert B Montgomery; Michael Schweizer; Evan Y Yu; Petros Grivas; Jonathan L Wright; Jing Zeng Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-11-21