Cargando…

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: What is the Appropriate Patient-Reported Outcome for Clinical Trial Design?

Purpose: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is increasingly utilized as primary treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer. Consensus regarding the appropriate patient-reported outcome (PRO) endpoints for clinical trials evaluating radiation modalities for early stage prostate cancer...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Woo, Jennifer Ai-Lian, Chen, Leonard N., Wang, Hongkun, Cyr, Robyn A., Bhattasali, Onita, Kim, Joy S., Moures, Rudy, Yung, Thomas M., Lei, Siyuan, Collins, Brian Timothy, Suy, Simeng, Dritschilo, Anatoly, Lynch, John H., Collins, Sean P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4379875/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25874188
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2015.00077
_version_ 1782364250755301376
author Woo, Jennifer Ai-Lian
Chen, Leonard N.
Wang, Hongkun
Cyr, Robyn A.
Bhattasali, Onita
Kim, Joy S.
Moures, Rudy
Yung, Thomas M.
Lei, Siyuan
Collins, Brian Timothy
Suy, Simeng
Dritschilo, Anatoly
Lynch, John H.
Collins, Sean P.
author_facet Woo, Jennifer Ai-Lian
Chen, Leonard N.
Wang, Hongkun
Cyr, Robyn A.
Bhattasali, Onita
Kim, Joy S.
Moures, Rudy
Yung, Thomas M.
Lei, Siyuan
Collins, Brian Timothy
Suy, Simeng
Dritschilo, Anatoly
Lynch, John H.
Collins, Sean P.
author_sort Woo, Jennifer Ai-Lian
collection PubMed
description Purpose: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is increasingly utilized as primary treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer. Consensus regarding the appropriate patient-reported outcome (PRO) endpoints for clinical trials evaluating radiation modalities for early stage prostate cancer is lacking. To aid in clinical trial design, this study presents PROs over a 36-month period following SBRT for clinically localized prostate cancer. Methods: Between February 2008 and September 2010, 174 hormone-naïve patients with clinically localized prostate cancer were treated with 35–36.25 Gy SBRT (CyberKnife, Accuray) delivered in 5 fractions. Patients completed the validated Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC)-26 questionnaire at baseline and all follow-ups. The proportion of patients developing a clinically significant decline in each EPIC domain score was determined. The minimally important difference (MID) was defined as a change of one-half the standard deviation from the baseline. Per Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0938, we also examined the patients who experienced a decline in EPIC urinary domain summary score of >2 points (unacceptable toxicity defined as ≥60% of all patients reporting this degree of decline) and EPIC bowel domain summary score of >5 points (unacceptable toxicity defined as >55% of all patients reporting this degree of decline) from baseline to 1 year. Results: A total of 174 patients at a median age of 69 years received SBRT with a minimum follow-up of 36 months. The proportion of patients reporting a clinically significant decline (MID for urinary/bowel are 5.5/4.4) in EPIC urinary/bowel domain scores was 34%/30% at 6 months, 40%/32.2% at 12 months, and 32.8%/21.5% at 36 months. The patients reporting a decrease in the EPIC urinary domain summary score of >2 points was 43.2% (CI: 33.7%, 54.6%) at 6 months, 51.6% (CI: 43.4%, 59.7%) at 12 months, and 41.8% (CI: 33.3%, 50.6%) at 36 months. The patients reporting a decrease in the EPIC bowel domain summary score of >5 points was 29.6% (CI: 21.9%, 39.3%) at 6 months, 29% (CI: 22%, 36.8%) at 12 months, and 22.4% (CI: 15.7%, 30.4%) at 36 months. Conclusion: Following prostate SBRT, clinically significant urinary symptoms are more common than bowel symptoms. Our prostate SBRT treatment protocol meets the RTOG 0938 criteria for moving forward to a Phase III trial comparing it to conventionally fractionated radiation therapy. Notably, between 12 and 36 months, the proportion of patients reporting a significant decrease in both EPIC urinary and bowel domain scores declined, suggesting a late improvement in these symptom domains. Further investigation is needed to elucidate (1) which EPIC domains bear the greatest influence on post-treatment quality of life and (2) at what time point PRO endpoint(s) should be assessed.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4379875
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43798752015-04-13 Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: What is the Appropriate Patient-Reported Outcome for Clinical Trial Design? Woo, Jennifer Ai-Lian Chen, Leonard N. Wang, Hongkun Cyr, Robyn A. Bhattasali, Onita Kim, Joy S. Moures, Rudy Yung, Thomas M. Lei, Siyuan Collins, Brian Timothy Suy, Simeng Dritschilo, Anatoly Lynch, John H. Collins, Sean P. Front Oncol Oncology Purpose: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is increasingly utilized as primary treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer. Consensus regarding the appropriate patient-reported outcome (PRO) endpoints for clinical trials evaluating radiation modalities for early stage prostate cancer is lacking. To aid in clinical trial design, this study presents PROs over a 36-month period following SBRT for clinically localized prostate cancer. Methods: Between February 2008 and September 2010, 174 hormone-naïve patients with clinically localized prostate cancer were treated with 35–36.25 Gy SBRT (CyberKnife, Accuray) delivered in 5 fractions. Patients completed the validated Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC)-26 questionnaire at baseline and all follow-ups. The proportion of patients developing a clinically significant decline in each EPIC domain score was determined. The minimally important difference (MID) was defined as a change of one-half the standard deviation from the baseline. Per Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0938, we also examined the patients who experienced a decline in EPIC urinary domain summary score of >2 points (unacceptable toxicity defined as ≥60% of all patients reporting this degree of decline) and EPIC bowel domain summary score of >5 points (unacceptable toxicity defined as >55% of all patients reporting this degree of decline) from baseline to 1 year. Results: A total of 174 patients at a median age of 69 years received SBRT with a minimum follow-up of 36 months. The proportion of patients reporting a clinically significant decline (MID for urinary/bowel are 5.5/4.4) in EPIC urinary/bowel domain scores was 34%/30% at 6 months, 40%/32.2% at 12 months, and 32.8%/21.5% at 36 months. The patients reporting a decrease in the EPIC urinary domain summary score of >2 points was 43.2% (CI: 33.7%, 54.6%) at 6 months, 51.6% (CI: 43.4%, 59.7%) at 12 months, and 41.8% (CI: 33.3%, 50.6%) at 36 months. The patients reporting a decrease in the EPIC bowel domain summary score of >5 points was 29.6% (CI: 21.9%, 39.3%) at 6 months, 29% (CI: 22%, 36.8%) at 12 months, and 22.4% (CI: 15.7%, 30.4%) at 36 months. Conclusion: Following prostate SBRT, clinically significant urinary symptoms are more common than bowel symptoms. Our prostate SBRT treatment protocol meets the RTOG 0938 criteria for moving forward to a Phase III trial comparing it to conventionally fractionated radiation therapy. Notably, between 12 and 36 months, the proportion of patients reporting a significant decrease in both EPIC urinary and bowel domain scores declined, suggesting a late improvement in these symptom domains. Further investigation is needed to elucidate (1) which EPIC domains bear the greatest influence on post-treatment quality of life and (2) at what time point PRO endpoint(s) should be assessed. Frontiers Media S.A. 2015-03-31 /pmc/articles/PMC4379875/ /pubmed/25874188 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2015.00077 Text en Copyright © 2015 Woo, Chen, Wang, Cyr, Bhattasali, Kim, Moures, Yung, Lei, Collins, Suy, Dritschilo, Lynch and Collins. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Oncology
Woo, Jennifer Ai-Lian
Chen, Leonard N.
Wang, Hongkun
Cyr, Robyn A.
Bhattasali, Onita
Kim, Joy S.
Moures, Rudy
Yung, Thomas M.
Lei, Siyuan
Collins, Brian Timothy
Suy, Simeng
Dritschilo, Anatoly
Lynch, John H.
Collins, Sean P.
Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: What is the Appropriate Patient-Reported Outcome for Clinical Trial Design?
title Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: What is the Appropriate Patient-Reported Outcome for Clinical Trial Design?
title_full Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: What is the Appropriate Patient-Reported Outcome for Clinical Trial Design?
title_fullStr Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: What is the Appropriate Patient-Reported Outcome for Clinical Trial Design?
title_full_unstemmed Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: What is the Appropriate Patient-Reported Outcome for Clinical Trial Design?
title_short Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: What is the Appropriate Patient-Reported Outcome for Clinical Trial Design?
title_sort stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer: what is the appropriate patient-reported outcome for clinical trial design?
topic Oncology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4379875/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25874188
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2015.00077
work_keys_str_mv AT woojenniferailian stereotacticbodyradiationtherapyforprostatecancerwhatistheappropriatepatientreportedoutcomeforclinicaltrialdesign
AT chenleonardn stereotacticbodyradiationtherapyforprostatecancerwhatistheappropriatepatientreportedoutcomeforclinicaltrialdesign
AT wanghongkun stereotacticbodyradiationtherapyforprostatecancerwhatistheappropriatepatientreportedoutcomeforclinicaltrialdesign
AT cyrrobyna stereotacticbodyradiationtherapyforprostatecancerwhatistheappropriatepatientreportedoutcomeforclinicaltrialdesign
AT bhattasalionita stereotacticbodyradiationtherapyforprostatecancerwhatistheappropriatepatientreportedoutcomeforclinicaltrialdesign
AT kimjoys stereotacticbodyradiationtherapyforprostatecancerwhatistheappropriatepatientreportedoutcomeforclinicaltrialdesign
AT mouresrudy stereotacticbodyradiationtherapyforprostatecancerwhatistheappropriatepatientreportedoutcomeforclinicaltrialdesign
AT yungthomasm stereotacticbodyradiationtherapyforprostatecancerwhatistheappropriatepatientreportedoutcomeforclinicaltrialdesign
AT leisiyuan stereotacticbodyradiationtherapyforprostatecancerwhatistheappropriatepatientreportedoutcomeforclinicaltrialdesign
AT collinsbriantimothy stereotacticbodyradiationtherapyforprostatecancerwhatistheappropriatepatientreportedoutcomeforclinicaltrialdesign
AT suysimeng stereotacticbodyradiationtherapyforprostatecancerwhatistheappropriatepatientreportedoutcomeforclinicaltrialdesign
AT dritschiloanatoly stereotacticbodyradiationtherapyforprostatecancerwhatistheappropriatepatientreportedoutcomeforclinicaltrialdesign
AT lynchjohnh stereotacticbodyradiationtherapyforprostatecancerwhatistheappropriatepatientreportedoutcomeforclinicaltrialdesign
AT collinsseanp stereotacticbodyradiationtherapyforprostatecancerwhatistheappropriatepatientreportedoutcomeforclinicaltrialdesign