Nonrandomized Comparison of Efficacy and Side Effects of Bicalutamide Compared With Luteinizing Hormone-Releasing Hormone (LHRH) Analogs in Combination With Radiation Therapy in the CHHiP Trial.
Androgen Antagonists
/ adverse effects
Anilides
/ adverse effects
Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
Erectile Dysfunction
Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone
/ therapeutic use
Humans
Male
Nitriles
/ adverse effects
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Prostatic Neoplasms
/ drug therapy
Tosyl Compounds
/ adverse effects
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 2022
01 06 2022
Historique:
received:
20
05
2021
revised:
19
12
2021
accepted:
23
12
2021
pubmed:
13
1
2022
medline:
18
5
2022
entrez:
12
1
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
CHHiP is a randomized trial evaluating moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy for treatment of localized prostate cancer. Of all participants, 97% of them had concurrent short-course hormone therapy (HT), either luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analog (LHRHa) or 150 mg of bicalutamide daily. This exploratory analysis compares efficacy and side effects in a nonrandomized comparison. In our study, 2700 patients received LHRHa and 403 received bicalutamide. The primary endpoint was biochemical/clinical failure. Groups were compared with Cox regression adjusted for various prognostic factors and stratified by radiation therapy dose. A key secondary endpoint was erectile dysfunction (ED) assessed by clinicians (using scores from Late Effects on Normal Tissues: Subjective/Objective/Management [LENT-SOM] subjective erectile function for vaginal penetration) and patients (single items within the University of California-Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index [UCLA PCI] and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite [EPIC]-50 questionnaires) at 2 years and compared between HT regimens by χ Bicalutamide patients were significantly younger (median 67 vs 69 years LHRHa). Median follow-up was 9.3 years. There was no difference in biochemical or clinical failure with an adjusted hazard ratio or 0.97 (95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.23; P = .8). At 2 years, grade ≥2 LENT-SOM ED was reported in significantly more LHRHa patients (313 out of 590; 53%) versus bicalutamide (17 out of 68; 25%) (P < .0001). There were no differences in ED seen with UCLA-PCI and EPIC-50 questionnaires. In this nonrandomized comparison, there was no evidence of a difference in efficacy according to type of HT received. Bicalutamide preserved clinician assessed (LENT-SOM) erectile function at 2 years but patient-reported outcomes were similar between groups.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35017008
pii: S0360-3016(21)03433-7
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.12.160
pmc: PMC9119688
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Androgen Antagonists
0
Anilides
0
Nitriles
0
Tosyl Compounds
0
Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone
33515-09-2
bicalutamide
A0Z3NAU9DP
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
305-315Subventions
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : C46/A10588
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : C33589/A28284
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : C46/A3976
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : 7253
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : 12518
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : C33589/A19727
Pays : United Kingdom
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Med Care. 1996 Mar;34(3):220-33
pubmed: 8628042
JAMA Oncol. 2020 May 1;6(5):735-743
pubmed: 32215583
J Urol. 2004 Nov;172(5 Pt 1):1871-6
pubmed: 15540741
Med Care. 1998 Jul;36(7):1002-12
pubmed: 9674618
N Engl J Med. 2017 Feb 2;376(5):417-428
pubmed: 28146658
Eur Urol. 2015 May;67(5):825-36
pubmed: 25097095
BJU Int. 2017 Nov;120(5B):E87-E95
pubmed: 28464446
Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2019 Dec 31;21:77-84
pubmed: 32072028
Radiother Oncol. 2005 Jul;76(1):4-10
pubmed: 16145740
Radiother Oncol. 2020 Jan;142:62-71
pubmed: 31767473
BMC Med. 2012 Aug 28;10:96
pubmed: 22925442
Cancer. 2016 Aug 15;122(16):2595-603
pubmed: 27219522
Ann Intern Med. 2000 Apr 4;132(7):566-77
pubmed: 10744594
J Clin Oncol. 2016 May 20;34(15):1748-56
pubmed: 26976418
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jun 30;(6):CD009266
pubmed: 24979481
Urology. 1997 Dec;50(6):920-8
pubmed: 9426724
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Jul 15;65(4):965-74
pubmed: 16798415
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Jun;95(24):e3873
pubmed: 27310974
Radiother Oncol. 1995 Apr;35(1):17-60
pubmed: 7569012
BJU Int. 2006 Sep;98(3):563-72
pubmed: 16771791
Urol Oncol. 2020 Feb;38(2):62-70
pubmed: 30446448
Eur Urol. 2013 Dec;64(6):895-902
pubmed: 23541457
Lancet Oncol. 2015 Dec;16(16):1605-16
pubmed: 26522334
Urology. 2002 Sep;60(3 Suppl 1):64-71
pubmed: 12231053
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2014 Aug;12(4):234-40
pubmed: 24594503
Urology. 2010 Nov;76(5):1245-50
pubmed: 20350762
Radiother Oncol. 2007 Apr;83(1):31-41
pubmed: 17391791
Urology. 2000 Dec 20;56(6):899-905
pubmed: 11113727
N Engl J Med. 2009 Jun 11;360(24):2516-27
pubmed: 19516032
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1987 Mar;13(3):351-7
pubmed: 3494005
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2020 Mar 15;106(4):693-702
pubmed: 32092343
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2012 Sep;10(3):190-5
pubmed: 22677511
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005 Apr 1;61(5):1285-90
pubmed: 15817329
Lancet Oncol. 2005 Nov;6(11):841-50
pubmed: 16257791
BJU Int. 2006 Mar;97(3):476-9
pubmed: 16469011
BJU Int. 2010 Apr;105(8):1074-81
pubmed: 22129214
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Aug;17(8):1047-1060
pubmed: 27339115
Anticancer Res. 2019 Nov;39(11):6373-6378
pubmed: 31704870