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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |