Clinical Outcomes of a Randomized Trial of Adaptive Plan-of-the-Day Treatment in Patients Receiving Ultra-hypofractionated Weekly Radiation Therapy for Bladder Cancer.
Aged, 80 and over
Algorithms
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography
/ adverse effects
Feasibility Studies
Female
Humans
Male
Neoplasm Staging
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Radiation Dose Hypofractionation
Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted
/ methods
Radiotherapy, Image-Guided
/ adverse effects
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
United Kingdom
Urinary Bladder Neoplasms
/ pathology
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 06 2021
01 06 2021
Historique:
received:
28
08
2020
revised:
18
11
2020
accepted:
25
11
2020
pubmed:
15
12
2020
medline:
27
8
2021
entrez:
14
12
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Hypofractionated radiation therapy can be used to treat patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer unable to have radical therapy. Toxicity is a key concern, but adaptive plan-of the day (POD) image-guided radiation therapy delivery could improve outcomes by minimizing the volume of normal tissue irradiated. The HYBRID trial assessed the multicenter implementation, safety, and efficacy of this strategy. HYBRID is a Phase II randomized trial that was conducted at 14 UK hospitals. Patients with T2-T4aN0M0 muscle-invasive bladder cancer unsuitable for radical therapy received 36 Gy in 6 weekly fractions, randomized (1:1) to standard planning (SP) or adaptive planning (AP) using a minimization algorithm. For AP, a pretreatment cone beam computed tomography (CT) was used to select the POD from 3 plans (small, medium, and large). Follow-up included standard cystoscopic, radiologic, and clinical assessments. The primary endpoint was nongenitourinary Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grade ≥ 3 (≥G3) toxicity within 3 months of radiation therapy. A noncomparative single stage design aimed to exclude ≥30% toxicity rate in each planning group in patients who received ≥1 fraction of radiation therapy. Local control at 3-months (both groups combined) was a key secondary endpoint. Between April 15, 2014, and August 10, 2016, 65 patients were enrolled (SP, n = 32; AP, n = 33). The median follow-up time was 38.8 months (interquartile range [IQR], 36.8-51.3). The median age was 85 years (IQR, 81-89); 68% of participants (44 of 65) were male; and 98% of participants had grade 3 urothelial cancer. In 63 evaluable participants, CTCAE ≥G3 nongenitourinary toxicity rates were 6% (2 of 33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.7%-20.2%) for the AP group and 13% (4 of 30; 95% CI, 3.8%-30.7%) for the SP group. Disease was present in 9/48 participants assessed at 3 months, giving a local control rate of 81.3% (95% CI, 67.4%-91.1%). POD adaptive radiation therapy was successfully implemented across multiple centers. Weekly ultrahypofractionated 36 Gy/6 fraction radiation therapy is safe and provides good local control rates in this older patient population.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33316362
pii: S0360-3016(20)34640-X
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.11.068
pmc: PMC8114997
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
412-424Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : C8262/A14744
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : CRUK/12/055
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : C1491/A15955
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : C1491/A25351
Pays : United Kingdom
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Semin Radiat Oncol. 2010 Apr;20(2):116-20
pubmed: 20219549
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1996 May 1;35(2):289-92
pubmed: 8635935
Eur Urol. 2013 May;63(5):823-9
pubmed: 23200811
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997 Dec;104(12):1374-9
pubmed: 9422015
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000 May 1;47(2):379-88
pubmed: 10802363
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Mar 1;79(3):705-12
pubmed: 20472358
Radiother Oncol. 1997 May;43(2):171-4
pubmed: 9192963
Eur Urol. 2003 Mar;43(3):246-57
pubmed: 12600427
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Mar 1;64(3):862-8
pubmed: 16458776
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2013 Sep;25(9):549-56
pubmed: 23880296
J Urol. 2019 Nov;202(5):905-912
pubmed: 31144594
Acta Oncol. 2014 Aug;53(8):997-1004
pubmed: 24957559
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 May 1;98(1):115-122
pubmed: 28586948
Gastroenterology. 1989 Mar;96(3):804-10
pubmed: 2644154
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Nov 1;81(3):765-71
pubmed: 20932678
J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-83
pubmed: 3558716
Br J Radiol. 2015 Apr;88(1048):20140690
pubmed: 25564753
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Feb 1;70(2):456-63
pubmed: 17904301
BMJ Open. 2020 May 26;10(5):e037134
pubmed: 32461298
Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2019 Jul 24;19:27-32
pubmed: 31388568
Eur Urol Focus. 2021 Mar;7(2):359-365
pubmed: 32088138
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 1999;11(5):330-3
pubmed: 10591821
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2013 Sep;25(9):546-8
pubmed: 23796918
N Engl J Med. 2012 Apr 19;366(16):1477-88
pubmed: 22512481
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2019 Sep;31(9):637-645
pubmed: 31122808