Dose-escalated radiotherapy to 82 Gy for prostate cancer following insertion of a peri-rectal hydrogel spacer: 3-year outcomes from a phase II trial.
Dose-escalation
Hydrogel
Prostate cancer
Radiotherapy
Rectum
Toxicity
Journal
Radiation oncology (London, England)
ISSN: 1748-717X
Titre abrégé: Radiat Oncol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101265111
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 Jul 2022
25 Jul 2022
Historique:
received:
17
05
2022
accepted:
11
07
2022
entrez:
25
7
2022
pubmed:
26
7
2022
medline:
28
7
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Dose-escalation to above 80 Gy during external beam radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer leads to improved oncological outcomes but also substantially increased rectal toxicity. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of escalating the dose to 82 Gy following insertion of a peri-rectal hydrogel spacer (HS) prior to radiotherapy. This was a single arm, open-label, prospective study of men with localised prostate cancer who were prescribed a course of intensity modulated radiotherapy escalated to 82 Gy in 2 Gy fractions following insertion of the SpaceOAR™ HS (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA). Patients were prescribed a standard course of 78 Gy in 2 Gy fractions where rectal dose constraints could not be met for the 82 Gy plan. The co-primary endpoints were the rate of grade 3 gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) adverse events (CTCAE, v4), and patient-reported quality of life (QoL) (EORTC QLQ-C30 and PR25 modules), up to 37.5 months post-treatment. Seventy patients received treatment on the study, with 64 (91.4%) receiving an 82 Gy treatment course. The median follow-up time post-treatment was 37.4 months. The rate of radiotherapy-related grade 3 GI and GU adverse events was 0% and 2.9%, respectively. There were 2 (2.9%) grade 3 adverse events related to insertion of the HS. Only small and transient declines in QoL were observed; there was no clinically or statistically significant decline in QoL beyond 13.5 months and up to 37.5 months post-treatment, compared to baseline. No late RTOG-defined grade ≥ 2 GI toxicity was observed, with no GI toxicity observed in any patient at 37.5 months post-treatment. Nine (12.9%) patients met criteria for biochemical failure within the follow-up period. Dose-escalation to 82 Gy, facilitated by use of a hydrogel spacer, is safe and feasible, with minimal toxicity up to 37.5 months post-treatment when compared to rates of rectal toxicity in previous dose-escalation trials up to 80 Gy. Trials with longer follow-up of oncological and functional outcomes are required to robustly demonstrate a sustained widening of the therapeutic window. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12621000056897 , 22/01/2021. Retrospectively registered.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Dose-escalation to above 80 Gy during external beam radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer leads to improved oncological outcomes but also substantially increased rectal toxicity. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of escalating the dose to 82 Gy following insertion of a peri-rectal hydrogel spacer (HS) prior to radiotherapy.
METHODS
METHODS
This was a single arm, open-label, prospective study of men with localised prostate cancer who were prescribed a course of intensity modulated radiotherapy escalated to 82 Gy in 2 Gy fractions following insertion of the SpaceOAR™ HS (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA). Patients were prescribed a standard course of 78 Gy in 2 Gy fractions where rectal dose constraints could not be met for the 82 Gy plan. The co-primary endpoints were the rate of grade 3 gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) adverse events (CTCAE, v4), and patient-reported quality of life (QoL) (EORTC QLQ-C30 and PR25 modules), up to 37.5 months post-treatment.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Seventy patients received treatment on the study, with 64 (91.4%) receiving an 82 Gy treatment course. The median follow-up time post-treatment was 37.4 months. The rate of radiotherapy-related grade 3 GI and GU adverse events was 0% and 2.9%, respectively. There were 2 (2.9%) grade 3 adverse events related to insertion of the HS. Only small and transient declines in QoL were observed; there was no clinically or statistically significant decline in QoL beyond 13.5 months and up to 37.5 months post-treatment, compared to baseline. No late RTOG-defined grade ≥ 2 GI toxicity was observed, with no GI toxicity observed in any patient at 37.5 months post-treatment. Nine (12.9%) patients met criteria for biochemical failure within the follow-up period.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Dose-escalation to 82 Gy, facilitated by use of a hydrogel spacer, is safe and feasible, with minimal toxicity up to 37.5 months post-treatment when compared to rates of rectal toxicity in previous dose-escalation trials up to 80 Gy. Trials with longer follow-up of oncological and functional outcomes are required to robustly demonstrate a sustained widening of the therapeutic window. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12621000056897 , 22/01/2021. Retrospectively registered.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35879722
doi: 10.1186/s13014-022-02103-5
pii: 10.1186/s13014-022-02103-5
pmc: PMC9316359
doi:
Substances chimiques
Hydrogels
0
Types de publication
Clinical Trial, Phase II
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
131Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
JAMA Oncol. 2018 Jun 14;4(6):e180039
pubmed: 29543933
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Jul 1;68(3):682-9
pubmed: 17398026
BMJ Case Rep. 2014 Dec 22;2014:
pubmed: 25535226
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Jul 15;65(4):965-74
pubmed: 16798415
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Sep;18(9):1192-1201
pubmed: 28760403
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Apr 1;97(5):976-985
pubmed: 28209443
J Endourol. 2019 Oct;33(10):868-871
pubmed: 31452385
Eur Urol. 2011 Dec;60(6):1133-9
pubmed: 21889832
BJU Int. 2012 Dec;110(11 Pt B):E647-52
pubmed: 22788857
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Jan 1;70(1):67-74
pubmed: 17765406
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Oct 1;99(2):374-377
pubmed: 28871986
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015 Aug 1;92(5):971-977
pubmed: 26054865
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Jul 15;80(4):1056-63
pubmed: 21147514
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Apr 1;82(5):1949-56
pubmed: 21763081
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Jul 10;34(20):2325-32
pubmed: 27044935
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Apr;17(4):464-474
pubmed: 26968359
Radiat Oncol. 2013 Apr 23;8:96
pubmed: 23618548
Radiat Oncol. 2014 Apr 24;9:96
pubmed: 24758224
Br J Radiol. 2021 Jan 01;94(1117):20200848
pubmed: 33095659
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Jan 1;29(1):89-96
pubmed: 21098316
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Jun 1;3(6):e208221
pubmed: 32585020
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993 Mar 3;85(5):365-76
pubmed: 8433390
Eur J Cancer. 2008 Nov;44(16):2418-24
pubmed: 18774706
Radiother Oncol. 2016 Oct;121(1):118-123
pubmed: 27647458
J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2019 Dec;63(6):836-841
pubmed: 31520465
Radiother Oncol. 2017 Oct;125(1):107-112
pubmed: 28823404
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Sep 1;69(1):95-102
pubmed: 17707267
J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2013 Dec 13;32:103
pubmed: 24330467
Radiat Oncol. 2017 Jun 16;12(1):99
pubmed: 28622770
Eur Urol. 2021 Feb;79(2):243-262
pubmed: 33172724
Radiother Oncol. 2013 Feb;106(2):210-4
pubmed: 23484879
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016 May 1;95(1):435-443
pubmed: 27084659
Urologe A. 2013 Dec;52(12):1690-7
pubmed: 23942724
Phys Med. 2016 Jan;32(1):248-54
pubmed: 26549777
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Jun 10;35(17):1884-1890
pubmed: 28296582
Radiat Oncol. 2020 Jul 22;15(1):178
pubmed: 32698843
BMC Cancer. 2013 Jan 22;13:27
pubmed: 23336502
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Mar 1;76(3 Suppl):S123-9
pubmed: 20171506
Qual Life Res. 2015 Jan;24(1):5-18
pubmed: 24277234
Future Oncol. 2014 Apr;10(5):851-64
pubmed: 24799065
Front Oncol. 2020 Apr 03;10:469
pubmed: 32346534