Dose-escalated Adaptive Radiotherapy for Bladder Cancer: Results of the Phase 2 RAIDER Randomised Controlled Trial.

Adaptive radiotherapy Image-guided radiotherapy Muscle-invasive bladder cancer Radiotherapy Randomised controlled trial

Journal

European urology
ISSN: 1873-7560
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 7512719

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
24 Sep 2024
Historique:
received: 29 04 2024
revised: 19 07 2024
accepted: 02 09 2024
medline: 9 10 2024
pubmed: 9 10 2024
entrez: 8 10 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Delivering radiotherapy to the bladder is challenging as it is a mobile, deformable structure. Dose-escalated adaptive image-guided radiotherapy could improve outcomes. RAIDER aimed to demonstrate the safety of such a schedule. RAIDER is an international phase 2 noncomparative randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN26779187). Patients with unifocal T2-T4a urothelial bladder cancer were randomised (1:1:2) to standard whole bladder radiotherapy (WBRT), standard-dose adaptive radiotherapy (SART), or dose-escalated adaptive radiotherapy (DART). Two fractionation (f) schedules recruited independently. WBRT and SART dose was 55 Gy/20f or 64 Gy/32f, and DART dose was 60 Gy/20f or 70 Gy/32f. For SART and DART, a radiotherapy plan (small, medium, or large) was chosen daily. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with radiotherapy-related late Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade ≥3 toxicity; the trial was designed to rule out >20% toxicity with DART. A total of 345 patients were randomised between October 2015 and April 2020: 41/46 WBRT, 41/46 SART, and 81/90 DART patients in the 20f/32f cohorts, respectively. The median age was 72/73 yr; 78%/85% had T2 tumours, 46%/52% had neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and 70%/71% had radiosensitising therapy. The median follow-up was 42.1/38.2 mo. Sixty-six of 77 (86%) 20f and 74 of 82 (90%) 32f participants planned for DART met the mandatory medium plan dose constraints. Radiotherapy-related grade ≥3 toxicity was reported in one of 58 patients (90% confidence interval [CI] 0.1, 7.9) with 20f DART and zero of 56 patients with 32f DART. Two-year overall survival was 77% (95% CI 69, 82) for WBRT + SART and 80% (95% CI 73, 85) for DART (hazard ratio = 0.84, 95% CI 0.59, 1.21, p = 0.4). Thirteen of 345 (3.8%) participants had salvage cystectomy. Grade ≥3 late toxicity was low. DART was safe and feasible to deliver, meeting preset toxicity thresholds. Disease-related outcomes are promising for dose-escalated treatments, with a low salvage cystectomy rate and overall survival similar to that seen in cystectomy cohorts.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
Delivering radiotherapy to the bladder is challenging as it is a mobile, deformable structure. Dose-escalated adaptive image-guided radiotherapy could improve outcomes. RAIDER aimed to demonstrate the safety of such a schedule.
METHODS METHODS
RAIDER is an international phase 2 noncomparative randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN26779187). Patients with unifocal T2-T4a urothelial bladder cancer were randomised (1:1:2) to standard whole bladder radiotherapy (WBRT), standard-dose adaptive radiotherapy (SART), or dose-escalated adaptive radiotherapy (DART). Two fractionation (f) schedules recruited independently. WBRT and SART dose was 55 Gy/20f or 64 Gy/32f, and DART dose was 60 Gy/20f or 70 Gy/32f. For SART and DART, a radiotherapy plan (small, medium, or large) was chosen daily. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with radiotherapy-related late Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade ≥3 toxicity; the trial was designed to rule out >20% toxicity with DART.
KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS UNASSIGNED
A total of 345 patients were randomised between October 2015 and April 2020: 41/46 WBRT, 41/46 SART, and 81/90 DART patients in the 20f/32f cohorts, respectively. The median age was 72/73 yr; 78%/85% had T2 tumours, 46%/52% had neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and 70%/71% had radiosensitising therapy. The median follow-up was 42.1/38.2 mo. Sixty-six of 77 (86%) 20f and 74 of 82 (90%) 32f participants planned for DART met the mandatory medium plan dose constraints. Radiotherapy-related grade ≥3 toxicity was reported in one of 58 patients (90% confidence interval [CI] 0.1, 7.9) with 20f DART and zero of 56 patients with 32f DART. Two-year overall survival was 77% (95% CI 69, 82) for WBRT + SART and 80% (95% CI 73, 85) for DART (hazard ratio = 0.84, 95% CI 0.59, 1.21, p = 0.4). Thirteen of 345 (3.8%) participants had salvage cystectomy.
CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS CONCLUSIONS
Grade ≥3 late toxicity was low. DART was safe and feasible to deliver, meeting preset toxicity thresholds. Disease-related outcomes are promising for dose-escalated treatments, with a low salvage cystectomy rate and overall survival similar to that seen in cystectomy cohorts.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39379236
pii: S0302-2838(24)02596-X
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2024.09.006
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Robert Huddart (R)

The Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK; The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, UK. Electronic address: Robert.Huddart@icr.ac.uk.

Shaista Hafeez (S)

The Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK; The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, UK.

Clare Griffin (C)

The Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK.

Ananya Choudhury (A)

The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, The Christie, Manchester, UK.

Farshad Foroudi (F)

Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia.

Isabel Syndikus (I)

The Clatterbridge Cancer Centre, Bebington, UK.

Benjamin Hindson (B)

Canterbury Regional Cancer and Haematology Service, Christchurch Hospital, Christchurch, New Zealand.

Amanda Webster (A)

University College Hospital, London, UK; University College Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, University College Hospital, London, UK.

Helen McNair (H)

The Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK; The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, UK.

Alison Birtle (A)

Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Rosemere Cancer Centre, Royal Preston Hospital, Preston, UK; University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK.

Mohini Varughese (M)

Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, Exeter, UK.

Ann Henry (A)

University of Leeds, Leeds, UK; Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK.

Duncan B McLaren (DB)

NHS Lothian, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK.

Omi Parikh (O)

Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Rosemere Cancer Centre, Royal Preston Hospital, Preston, UK.

Ashok Nikapota (A)

Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton, UK.

Colin Tang (C)

Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, WA, Australia.

Emma Patel (E)

National Radiotherapy Trials Quality Assurance Group (RTTQA), Mount Vernon Hospital, Middlesex, UK.

Elizabeth Miles (E)

National Radiotherapy Trials Quality Assurance Group (RTTQA), Mount Vernon Hospital, Middlesex, UK.

Karole Warren-Oseni (K)

The Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK; The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, UK.

Tomas Kron (T)

Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Courtney Hill (C)

TROG Cancer Research, Waratah, NSW, Australia.

Lara Philipps (L)

The Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK.

Catalina Vassallo-Bonner (C)

The Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK.

Ka Ching Cheung (KC)

The Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK.

Hannah Gribble (H)

The Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK.

Rebecca Lewis (R)

The Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK.

Emma Hall (E)

The Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK.

Classifications MeSH