Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: preliminary safety results from the CHHiP randomised controlled trial - 04/01/12
, Isabel Syndikus, FRCR c, Georges Sumo, MSc b, Margaret Bidmead, MSc a, David Bloomfield, FRCR d, Catharine Clark, PhD e, Annie Gao, MSc b, Shama Hassan, MSc b, Alan Horwich, ProfFRCR a, b, Robert Huddart, FRCR a, b, Vincent Khoo, MD a, b, Peter Kirkbride, FRCR j, Helen Mayles, MSc c, Philip Mayles, PhD c, Olivia Naismith, MSc a, Chris Parker, FRCR a, Helen Patterson, FRCR f, Martin Russell, FRCP g, Christopher Scrase, FRCR h, Chris South, MSc a, John Staffurth, MD i, Emma Hall, PhD bSummary |
Background |
Prostate cancer might have high radiation-fraction sensitivity, implying a therapeutic advantage of hypofractionated treatment. We present a pre-planned preliminary safety analysis of side-effects in stages 1 and 2 of a randomised trial comparing standard and hypofractionated radiotherapy.
Methods |
We did a multicentre, randomised study and recruited men with localised prostate cancer between Oct 18, 2002, and Aug 12, 2006, at 11 UK centres. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive conventional or hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and all were given with 3–6 months of neoadjuvant androgen suppression. Computer-generated random permuted blocks were used, with risk of seminal vesicle involvement and radiotherapy-treatment centre as stratification factors. The conventional schedule was 37 fractions of 2 Gy to a total of 74 Gy. The two hypofractionated schedules involved 3 Gy treatments given in either 20 fractions to a total of 60 Gy, or 19 fractions to a total of 57 Gy. The primary endpoint was proportion of patients with grade 2 or worse toxicity at 2 years on the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) scale. The primary analysis included all patients who had received at least one fraction of radiotherapy and completed a 2 year assessment. Treatment allocation was not masked and clinicians were not blinded. Stage 3 of this trial completed the planned recruitment in June, 2011. This study is registered, number ISRCTN97182923.
Findings |
153 men recruited to stages 1 and 2 were randomly assigned to receive conventional treatment of 74 Gy, 153 to receive 60 Gy, and 151 to receive 57 Gy. With 50·5 months median follow-up (IQR 43·5–61·3), six (4·3%; 95% CI 1·6–9·2) of 138 men in the 74 Gy group had bowel toxicity of grade 2 or worse on the RTOG scale at 2 years, as did five (3·6%; 1·2–8·3) of 137 men in the 60 Gy group, and two (1·4%; 0·2–5·0) of 143 men in the 57 Gy group. For bladder toxicities, three (2·2%; 0·5–6·2) of 138 men, three (2·2%; 0·5–6·3) of 137, and none (0·0%; 97·5% CI 0·0–2·6) of 143 had scores of grade 2 or worse on the RTOG scale at 2 years.
Interpretation |
Hypofractionated high-dose radiotherapy seems equally well tolerated as conventionally fractionated treatment at 2 years.
Funding |
Stage 1 was funded by the Academic Radiotherapy Unit, Cancer Research UK programme grant; stage 2 was funded by the Department of Health and Cancer Research UK.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Plan
Vol 13 - N° 1
P. 43-54 - janvier 2012 Retour au numéro
Article précédent
- EGFR expression as a predictor of survival for first-line chemotherapy plus cetuximab in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: analysis of data from the phase 3 FLEX study
- Robert Pirker, Jose R Pereira, Joachim von Pawel, Maciej Krzakowski, Rodryg Ramlau, Keunchil Park, Filippo de Marinis, Wilfried EE Eberhardt, Luis Paz-Ares, Stephan Störkel, Karl-Maria Schumacher, Anja von Heydebreck, Ilhan Celik, Kenneth J O’Byrne
- Participation and yield of colonoscopy versus non-cathartic CT colonography in population-based screening for colorectal cancer: a randomised controlled trial
- Esther M Stoop, Margriet C de Haan, Thomas R de Wijkerslooth, Patrick M Bossuyt, Marjolein van Ballegooijen, C Yung Nio, Marc J van de Vijver, Katharina Biermann, Maarten Thomeer, Monique E van Leerdam, Paul Fockens, Jaap Stoker, Ernst J Kuipers, Evelien Dekker
Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?