Toxicity and Patient-Reported Outcomes of a Phase 2 Randomized Trial of Prostate and Pelvic Lymph Node Versus Prostate only Radiotherapy in Advanced Localised Prostate Cancer (PIVOTAL).
Aged
Biopsy
Humans
Lymph Nodes
/ drug effects
Lymphatic Irradiation
/ methods
Lymphatic Metastasis
Male
Middle Aged
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Pelvis
/ radiation effects
Prostate
/ radiation effects
Prostatic Neoplasms
/ radiotherapy
Radiotherapy Dosage
Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated
/ methods
Treatment Outcome
Journal
International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics
ISSN: 1879-355X
Titre abrégé: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7603616
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 03 2019
01 03 2019
Historique:
received:
19
07
2018
revised:
12
09
2018
accepted:
05
10
2018
pubmed:
12
12
2018
medline:
4
9
2019
entrez:
12
12
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To establish the toxicity profile of high-dose pelvic lymph node intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and to assess whether it is safely deliverable at multiple centers. In this phase 2 noncomparative multicenter trial, 124 patients with locally advanced, high-risk prostate cancer were randomized between prostate-only IMRT (PO) (74 Gy/37 fractions) and prostate and pelvic lymph node IMRT (P&P; 74 Gy/37 fractions to prostate, 60 Gy/37 fractions to pelvis). The primary endpoint was acute lower gastrointestinal (GI) Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) toxicity at week 18, aiming to exclude a grade 2 or greater (G2+) toxicity-free rate of 80% in the P&P group. Key secondary endpoints included patient-reported outcomes and late toxicity. One hundred twenty-four participants were randomized (62 PO, 62 P&P) from May 2011 to March 2013. Median follow-up was 37.6 months (interquartile range [IQR], 35.4-38.9 months). Participants had a median age of 69 years (IQR, 64-74 years) and median diagnostic prostate-specific androgen level of 21.6 ng/mL (IQR, 11.8-35.1 ng/mL). At week 18, G2+ lower GI toxicity-free rates were 59 of 61 (96.7%; 90% confidence interval [CI], 90.0-99.4) for the PO group and 59 of 62 (95.2%; 90% CI, 88.0-98.7) for the P&P group. Patients in both groups reported similarly low Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire symptoms and Vaizey incontinence scores. The largest difference occurred at week 6 with 4 of 61 (7%) and 16 of 61 (26%) PO and P&P patients, respectively, experiencing G2+ toxicity. At 2 years, the cumulative proportion of RTOG G2+ GI toxicity was 16.9% (95% CI, 8.9%-30.9%) for the PO group and 24.0% (95% CI, 8.4%-57.9%) for the P&P group; in addition, RTOG G2+ bladder toxicity was 5.1% (95% CI, 1.7%-14.9%) for the PO group and 5.6% (95% CI, 1.8%-16.7%) for the P&P group. PIVOTAL demonstrated that high-dose pelvic lymph node IMRT can be delivered at multiple centers with a modest side effect profile. Although safety data from the present study are encouraging, the impact of P&P IMRT on disease control remains to be established.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30528653
pii: S0360-3016(18)33854-9
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.10.003
pmc: PMC6361768
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Clinical Trial, Phase II
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
605-617Subventions
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : CRUK/10/022
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : 10588
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : C8262/A6411
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : 12518
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : C1491/A9895
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Gut. 1999 Jan;44(1):77-80
pubmed: 9862829
Eur Urol. 2008 Apr;53(4):819-25; discussion 825-7
pubmed: 17826889
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2010 Apr;22(3):236-44
pubmed: 20171852
Lancet. 2011 Dec 17;378(9809):2104-11
pubmed: 22056152
Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2006 Mar;12(3):199-204
pubmed: 16534421
Gastroenterology. 1989 Mar;96(3):804-10
pubmed: 2644154
Lancet Oncol. 2012 Jan;13(1):43-54
pubmed: 22169269
Nat Rev Urol. 2016 Jan;13(1):10-1
pubmed: 26597615
J Clin Oncol. 2007 Dec 1;25(34):5366-73
pubmed: 18048817
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001 Mar 1;49(3):685-98
pubmed: 11172950
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1994 Jan 1;28(1):33-7
pubmed: 7505775
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995 Mar 30;31(5):1341-6
pubmed: 7713792
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1986 Sep;12(9):1565-73
pubmed: 3759581
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015 Jul 15;92(4):874-83
pubmed: 26104940
Lancet Oncol. 2018 Nov;19(11):1504-1515
pubmed: 30316827
Radiother Oncol. 2009 Mar;90(3):400-7
pubmed: 18952309
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Dec 1;99(5):1234-1242
pubmed: 28939224
Lancet. 2009 Jan 24;373(9660):301-8
pubmed: 19091394
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Mar 1;97(3):495-510
pubmed: 28126299
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Mar 1;76(3):747-54
pubmed: 19540054
J Urol. 1992 Nov;148(5):1549-57; discussion 1564
pubmed: 1279218
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Mar 1;76(3 Suppl):S116-22
pubmed: 20171505
Br J Cancer. 2005 May 9;92(9):1663-70
pubmed: 15856043
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015 Dec 1;93(5):1052-63
pubmed: 26581142
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Aug;17(8):1047-1060
pubmed: 27339115