4.7 Article

Randomized Trial of Hypofractionated External-Beam Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 31, Issue 31, Pages 3860-+

Publisher

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2013.51.1972

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. National Cancer Institute [CA101984-01, CA-00692]
  2. Florida Biomed Bankhead Coley [09BW11]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose To determine if escalated radiation dose using hypofractionation significantly reduces biochemical and/or clinical disease failure (BCDF) in men treated primarily for prostate cancer. Patients and Methods Between June 2002 and May 2006, men with favorable-to high-risk prostate cancer were randomly allocated to receive 76 Gy in 38 fractions at 2.0 Gy per fraction (conventional fractionation intensity-modulated radiation therapy [CIMRT]) versus 70.2 Gy in 26 fractions at 2.7 Gy per fraction (hypofractionated IMRT [HIMRT]); the latter was estimated to be equivalent to 84.4 Gy in 2.0 Gy fractions. High-risk patients received long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), and some intermediate-risk patients received short-term ADT. The primary end point was the cumulative incidence of BCDF. Secondarily, toxicity was assessed. Results There were 303 assessable patients with a median follow-up of 68.4 months. No significant differences were seen between the treatment arms in terms of the distribution of patients by clinicopathologic or treatment-related (ADT use and length) factors. The 5-year rates of BCDF were 21.4% (95% CI, 14.8% to 28.7%) for CIMRT and 23.3% (95% CI, 16.4% to 31.0%) for HIMRT (P = .745). There were no statistically significant differences in late toxicity between the arms; however, in subgroup analysis, patients with compromised urinary function before enrollment had significantly worse urinary function after HIMRT. Conclusion The hypofractionation regimen did not result in a significant reduction in BCDF; however, it is delivered in 2.5 fewer weeks. Men with compromised urinary function before treatment may not be ideal candidates for this approach. (C) 2013 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available