JAMA oncology 2018-06-14
Effect of Standard vs Dose-Escalated Radiation Therapy for Patients With Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: The NRG Oncology RTOG 0126 Randomized Clinical Trial.
Abstract
Importance
Optimizing radiation therapy techniques for localized prostate cancer can affect patient outcomes. Dose escalation improves biochemical control, but no prior trials were powered to detect overall survival (OS) differences.
Objective
To determine whether radiation dose escalation to 79.2 Gy compared with 70.2 Gy would improve OS and other outcomes in prostate cancer.
Design, setting, and participants
The NRG Oncology/RTOG 0126 randomized clinical trial randomized 1532 patients from 104 North American Radiation Therapy Oncology Group institutions March 2002 through August 2008. Men with stage cT1b to T2b, Gleason score 2 to 6, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of 10 or greater and less than 20 or Gleason score of 7 and PSA less than 15 received 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy or intensity-modulated radiation therapy to 79.2 Gy in 44 fractions or 70.2 Gy in 39 fractions.
Main outcomes and measures
Time to OS measured from randomization to death due to any cause. American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO)/Phoenix definitions were used for biochemical failure. Acute (≤90 days of treatment start) and late radiation therapy toxic effects (>90 days) were graded using the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria, version 2.0, and the RTOG/European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Late Radiation Morbidity Scoring Scheme, respectively.
Results
With a median follow-up of 8.4 (range, 0.02-13.0) years in 1499 patients (median [range] age, 71 [33-87] years; 70% had PSA <10 ng/mL, 84% Gleason score of 7, 57% T1 disease), there was no difference in OS between the 751 men in the 79.2-Gy arm and the 748 men in the 70.2-Gy arm. The 8-year rates of OS were 76% with 79.2 Gy and 75% with 70.2 Gy (hazard ratio [HR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.83-1.20; P = .98). The 8-year cumulative rates of distant metastases were 4% for the 79.2-Gy arm and 6% for the 70.2-Gy arm (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.42-1.01; P = .05). The ASTRO and Phoenix biochemical failure rates at 5 and 8 years were 31% and 20% with 79.2 Gy and 47% and 35% with 70.2 Gy, respectively (both P < .001; ASTRO: HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.50-0.70; Phoenix: HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.44-0.65). The high-dose arm had a lower rate of salvage therapy use. The 5-year rates of late grade 2 or greater gastrointestinal and/or genitourinary toxic effects were 21% and 12% with 79.2 Gy and 15% and 7% with 70.2 Gy (P = .006 [HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.10-1.77] and P = .003 [HR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.17-2.16], respectively).
Conclusions and relevance
Despite improvements in biochemical failure and distant metastases, dose escalation did not improve OS. High doses caused more late toxic effects but lower rates of salvage therapy.
Trial registration
clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00033631.
Related Questions
Do you ever dose escalate radiotherapy to the primary in low volume metastatic prostate cancer?
Background: STAMPEDE Arm H (SOC ± RT to prostate) allowed for two fractionation schedules, 55 Gy in 20 daily fractions (67 Gy EQD2[α/β = 1.5]) and 36 Gy in 6 weekly fractions (77 Gy EQD2[α/β = 1.5]), without correction for treatment duration), and approximately half of participants received each sch...
Are there any patient characteristics that make you change fractionation when treating per STAMPEDE?
I generally favor 55/20 for patients where I am treating just the prostate in the setting of non-oligometastatic disease, and not treating the other metastases. It is a relatively low dose and I can't think of a scenario where I would turn the dose down for any patient factors. 6 Gy x 6 is very reas...
Is 80 Gy/40 Fx + ADT the new standard of care for definitive radiation of high risk prostate cancer?
For those who want a more thorough answer, enjoy. If you want you can skip to the end for the summary: For well over a decade, we are taught that dose escalation improves biochemical control but not overall survival, while ADT improves both. Do the results of GETUG AFU-18 change this? Let's take a l...
Has use of PSMA PETCT revealed increased local failures than previously known after definitive prostate EBRT with biochemical failure?
Prior to the advent of PET imaging, the published rates of local recurrence (LR) after definitive RT vary widely in phase III trials from ≈ 1% (e.g., PCS IV) to ≈ 30% (e.g., PROG 9509). The heterogeneity is likely explained by several factors including (1) differences in baseline risk of local recur...
What prostate cancer patient population would benefit from a brachytherapy boost after EBRT without the use of ADT?
The paper referenced in the question for better or worse is the best evidence we have regarding the benefit we can expect from a brachy boost, the benefit we can expect from the addition of ADT to EBRT, and if you were to compare EBRT+ADT vs EBRT+brachy. It shows that adding ADT has an OS benefit co...
When discussing definitive prostate radiation, how do you respond to patients who mention that they heard that surgery is more difficult after radiation treatment?
I love this question! I hear it quite often, and it provides an opportunity to discuss the differences between radiation and prostatectomy, and the potential benefits and risks of both. I start by stating that it is absolutely true that radiation causes scar tissue that can make surgery months to y...
Do you offer ADT in patients with intermediate risk prostate cancer who receive hypofractionated EBRT?
There is no good evidence that with different radiotherapy dose/fx or other RT modalities that the relative benefit of ADT is any different. This applies also to SBRT, brachy, and combo-brachy. The basic evidence and logic is as follows:1. ADT improves MFS and OS in multiple RCTs using lower dose co...