Hypofractionated radiotherapy in locally advanced bladder cancer: an individual patient data meta-analysis of the BC2001 and BCON trials.
Journal
The Lancet. Oncology
ISSN: 1474-5488
Titre abrégé: Lancet Oncol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100957246
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2021
02 2021
Historique:
received:
08
07
2020
revised:
28
08
2020
accepted:
29
09
2020
entrez:
4
2
2021
pubmed:
5
2
2021
medline:
20
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Two radiotherapy fractionation schedules are used to treat locally advanced bladder cancer: 64 Gy in 32 fractions over 6·5 weeks and a hypofractionated schedule of 55 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks. Long-term outcomes of these schedules in several cohort studies and case series suggest that response, survival, and toxicity are similar, but no direct comparison has been published. The present study aimed to assess the non-inferiority of 55 Gy in 20 fractions to 64 Gy in 32 fractions in terms of invasive locoregional control and late toxicity in patients with locally advanced bladder cancer. We did a meta-analysis of individual patient data from patients (age ≥18 years) with locally advanced bladder cancer (T1G3 [high-grade non-muscle invasive] or T2-T4, N0M0) enrolled in two multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trials done in the UK: BC2001 (NCT00024349; assessing addition of chemotherapy to radiotherapy) and BCON (NCT00033436; assessing hypoxia-modifying therapy combined with radiotherapy). In each trial, the fractionation schedule was chosen according to local standard practice. Co-primary endpoints were invasive locoregional control (non-inferiority margin hazard ratio [HR]=1·25); and late bladder or rectum toxicity, assessed with the Late Effects Normal Tissue Task Force-Subjective, Objective, Management, Analytic tool (non-inferiority margin for absolute risk difference [RD]=10%). If non-inferiority was met for invasive locoregional control, superiority could be considered if the 95% CI for the treatment effect excluded the null effect (HR=1). One-stage individual patient data meta-analysis models for the time-to-event and binary outcomes were used, accounting for trial differences, within-centre correlation, randomised treatment received, baseline variable imbalances, and potential confounding from relevant prognostic factors. 782 patients with known fractionation schedules (456 from the BC2001 trial and 326 from the BCON trial; 376 (48%) received 64 Gy in 32 fractions and 406 (52%) received 55 Gy in 20 fractions) were included in our meta-analysis. Median follow-up was 120 months (IQR 99-159). Patients who received 55 Gy in 20 fractions had a lower risk of invasive locoregional recurrence than those who received 64 Gy in 32 fractions (adjusted HR 0·71 [95% CI 0·52-0·96]). Both schedules had similar toxicity profiles (adjusted RD -3·37% [95% CI -11·85 to 5·10]). A hypofractionated schedule of 55 Gy in 20 fractions is non-inferior to 64 Gy in 32 fractions with regard to both invasive locoregional control and toxicity, and is superior with regard to invasive locoregional control. 55 Gy in 20 fractions should be adopted as a standard of care for bladder preservation in patients with locally advanced bladder cancer. Cancer Research UK.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Two radiotherapy fractionation schedules are used to treat locally advanced bladder cancer: 64 Gy in 32 fractions over 6·5 weeks and a hypofractionated schedule of 55 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks. Long-term outcomes of these schedules in several cohort studies and case series suggest that response, survival, and toxicity are similar, but no direct comparison has been published. The present study aimed to assess the non-inferiority of 55 Gy in 20 fractions to 64 Gy in 32 fractions in terms of invasive locoregional control and late toxicity in patients with locally advanced bladder cancer.
METHODS
We did a meta-analysis of individual patient data from patients (age ≥18 years) with locally advanced bladder cancer (T1G3 [high-grade non-muscle invasive] or T2-T4, N0M0) enrolled in two multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trials done in the UK: BC2001 (NCT00024349; assessing addition of chemotherapy to radiotherapy) and BCON (NCT00033436; assessing hypoxia-modifying therapy combined with radiotherapy). In each trial, the fractionation schedule was chosen according to local standard practice. Co-primary endpoints were invasive locoregional control (non-inferiority margin hazard ratio [HR]=1·25); and late bladder or rectum toxicity, assessed with the Late Effects Normal Tissue Task Force-Subjective, Objective, Management, Analytic tool (non-inferiority margin for absolute risk difference [RD]=10%). If non-inferiority was met for invasive locoregional control, superiority could be considered if the 95% CI for the treatment effect excluded the null effect (HR=1). One-stage individual patient data meta-analysis models for the time-to-event and binary outcomes were used, accounting for trial differences, within-centre correlation, randomised treatment received, baseline variable imbalances, and potential confounding from relevant prognostic factors.
FINDINGS
782 patients with known fractionation schedules (456 from the BC2001 trial and 326 from the BCON trial; 376 (48%) received 64 Gy in 32 fractions and 406 (52%) received 55 Gy in 20 fractions) were included in our meta-analysis. Median follow-up was 120 months (IQR 99-159). Patients who received 55 Gy in 20 fractions had a lower risk of invasive locoregional recurrence than those who received 64 Gy in 32 fractions (adjusted HR 0·71 [95% CI 0·52-0·96]). Both schedules had similar toxicity profiles (adjusted RD -3·37% [95% CI -11·85 to 5·10]).
INTERPRETATION
A hypofractionated schedule of 55 Gy in 20 fractions is non-inferior to 64 Gy in 32 fractions with regard to both invasive locoregional control and toxicity, and is superior with regard to invasive locoregional control. 55 Gy in 20 fractions should be adopted as a standard of care for bladder preservation in patients with locally advanced bladder cancer.
FUNDING
Cancer Research UK.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33539743
pii: S1470-2045(20)30607-0
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30607-0
pmc: PMC7851111
pii:
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT00024349', 'NCT00033436']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
246-255Subventions
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : C2094/A11365
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : C1491/A25351
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : C1467/A7286
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
Pays : United Kingdom
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
Références
Eur Urol. 2012 Apr;61(4):705-11
pubmed: 22101114
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016 Aug 30;16(1):113
pubmed: 27576307
Radiother Oncol. 1991 Jul;21(3):163-70
pubmed: 1924851
J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Aug;66(8):865-873.e4
pubmed: 23651765
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Feb 20;29(6):733-8
pubmed: 21205754
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004 Sep 1;60(1):60-70
pubmed: 15337540
PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e46042
pubmed: 23056232
Radiother Oncol. 1995 Apr;35(1):11-5
pubmed: 7569011
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Dec 1;32(34):3801-9
pubmed: 25366678
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018 Aug 1;101(5):1168-1171
pubmed: 30012528
Eur Urol. 2020 Feb;77(2):260-268
pubmed: 31843338
BMJ. 2010 Feb 05;340:c221
pubmed: 20139215
Radiat Oncol. 2018 May 16;13(1):96
pubmed: 29769103
N Engl J Med. 2012 Apr 19;366(16):1477-88
pubmed: 22512481
J Clin Oncol. 2002 Jul 15;20(14):3061-71
pubmed: 12118019
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995 Mar 30;31(5):1041-2
pubmed: 7713774
Radiother Oncol. 2005 Apr;75(1):34-43
pubmed: 15878099
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Jun 19;14:79
pubmed: 24943877
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2014 Aug;26(8):506-14
pubmed: 24954284
J Clin Oncol. 1993 Mar;11(3):570-9
pubmed: 8445433
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013 Oct 1;87(2):261-9
pubmed: 23958147
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Nov 20;28(33):4912-8
pubmed: 20956620
Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2019 Oct;142:76-85
pubmed: 31377435