Cargando…
Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial
BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer might have high radiation-fraction sensitivity that would give a therapeutic advantage to hypofractionated treatment. We present a pre-planned analysis of the efficacy and side-effects of a randomised trial comparing conventional and hypofractionated radiotherapy after 5...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Lancet Pub. Group
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4961874/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27339115 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30102-4 |
_version_ | 1782444724832960512 |
---|---|
author | Dearnaley, David Syndikus, Isabel Mossop, Helen Khoo, Vincent Birtle, Alison Bloomfield, David Graham, John Kirkbride, Peter Logue, John Malik, Zafar Money-Kyrle, Julian O'Sullivan, Joe M Panades, Miguel Parker, Chris Patterson, Helen Scrase, Christopher Staffurth, John Stockdale, Andrew Tremlett, Jean Bidmead, Margaret Mayles, Helen Naismith, Olivia South, Chris Gao, Annie Cruickshank, Clare Hassan, Shama Pugh, Julia Griffin, Clare Hall, Emma |
author_facet | Dearnaley, David Syndikus, Isabel Mossop, Helen Khoo, Vincent Birtle, Alison Bloomfield, David Graham, John Kirkbride, Peter Logue, John Malik, Zafar Money-Kyrle, Julian O'Sullivan, Joe M Panades, Miguel Parker, Chris Patterson, Helen Scrase, Christopher Staffurth, John Stockdale, Andrew Tremlett, Jean Bidmead, Margaret Mayles, Helen Naismith, Olivia South, Chris Gao, Annie Cruickshank, Clare Hassan, Shama Pugh, Julia Griffin, Clare Hall, Emma |
author_sort | Dearnaley, David |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer might have high radiation-fraction sensitivity that would give a therapeutic advantage to hypofractionated treatment. We present a pre-planned analysis of the efficacy and side-effects of a randomised trial comparing conventional and hypofractionated radiotherapy after 5 years follow-up. METHODS: CHHiP is a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial that recruited men with localised prostate cancer (pT1b–T3aN0M0). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to conventional (74 Gy delivered in 37 fractions over 7·4 weeks) or one of two hypofractionated schedules (60 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks or 57 Gy in 19 fractions over 3·8 weeks) all delivered with intensity-modulated techniques. Most patients were given radiotherapy with 3–6 months of neoadjuvant and concurrent androgen suppression. Randomisation was by computer-generated random permuted blocks, stratified by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group and radiotherapy treatment centre, and treatment allocation was not masked. The primary endpoint was time to biochemical or clinical failure; the critical hazard ratio (HR) for non-inferiority was 1·208. Analysis was by intention to treat. Long-term follow-up continues. The CHHiP trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN97182923. FINDINGS: Between Oct 18, 2002, and June 17, 2011, 3216 men were enrolled from 71 centres and randomly assigned (74 Gy group, 1065 patients; 60 Gy group, 1074 patients; 57 Gy group, 1077 patients). Median follow-up was 62·4 months (IQR 53·9–77·0). The proportion of patients who were biochemical or clinical failure free at 5 years was 88·3% (95% CI 86·0–90·2) in the 74 Gy group, 90·6% (88·5–92·3) in the 60 Gy group, and 85·9% (83·4–88·0) in the 57 Gy group. 60 Gy was non-inferior to 74 Gy (HR 0·84 [90% CI 0·68–1·03], p(NI)=0·0018) but non-inferiority could not be claimed for 57 Gy compared with 74 Gy (HR 1·20 [0·99–1·46], p(NI)=0·48). Long-term side-effects were similar in the hypofractionated groups compared with the conventional group. There were no significant differences in either the proportion or cumulative incidence of side-effects 5 years after treatment using three clinician-reported as well as patient-reported outcome measures. The estimated cumulative 5 year incidence of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grade 2 or worse bowel and bladder adverse events was 13·7% (111 events) and 9·1% (66 events) in the 74 Gy group, 11·9% (105 events) and 11·7% (88 events) in the 60 Gy group, 11·3% (95 events) and 6·6% (57 events) in the 57 Gy group, respectively. No treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: Hypofractionated radiotherapy using 60 Gy in 20 fractions is non-inferior to conventional fractionation using 74 Gy in 37 fractions and is recommended as a new standard of care for external-beam radiotherapy of localised prostate cancer. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Department of Health, and the National Institute for Health Research Cancer Research Network. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4961874 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Lancet Pub. Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-49618742016-08-03 Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial Dearnaley, David Syndikus, Isabel Mossop, Helen Khoo, Vincent Birtle, Alison Bloomfield, David Graham, John Kirkbride, Peter Logue, John Malik, Zafar Money-Kyrle, Julian O'Sullivan, Joe M Panades, Miguel Parker, Chris Patterson, Helen Scrase, Christopher Staffurth, John Stockdale, Andrew Tremlett, Jean Bidmead, Margaret Mayles, Helen Naismith, Olivia South, Chris Gao, Annie Cruickshank, Clare Hassan, Shama Pugh, Julia Griffin, Clare Hall, Emma Lancet Oncol Articles BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer might have high radiation-fraction sensitivity that would give a therapeutic advantage to hypofractionated treatment. We present a pre-planned analysis of the efficacy and side-effects of a randomised trial comparing conventional and hypofractionated radiotherapy after 5 years follow-up. METHODS: CHHiP is a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial that recruited men with localised prostate cancer (pT1b–T3aN0M0). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to conventional (74 Gy delivered in 37 fractions over 7·4 weeks) or one of two hypofractionated schedules (60 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks or 57 Gy in 19 fractions over 3·8 weeks) all delivered with intensity-modulated techniques. Most patients were given radiotherapy with 3–6 months of neoadjuvant and concurrent androgen suppression. Randomisation was by computer-generated random permuted blocks, stratified by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group and radiotherapy treatment centre, and treatment allocation was not masked. The primary endpoint was time to biochemical or clinical failure; the critical hazard ratio (HR) for non-inferiority was 1·208. Analysis was by intention to treat. Long-term follow-up continues. The CHHiP trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN97182923. FINDINGS: Between Oct 18, 2002, and June 17, 2011, 3216 men were enrolled from 71 centres and randomly assigned (74 Gy group, 1065 patients; 60 Gy group, 1074 patients; 57 Gy group, 1077 patients). Median follow-up was 62·4 months (IQR 53·9–77·0). The proportion of patients who were biochemical or clinical failure free at 5 years was 88·3% (95% CI 86·0–90·2) in the 74 Gy group, 90·6% (88·5–92·3) in the 60 Gy group, and 85·9% (83·4–88·0) in the 57 Gy group. 60 Gy was non-inferior to 74 Gy (HR 0·84 [90% CI 0·68–1·03], p(NI)=0·0018) but non-inferiority could not be claimed for 57 Gy compared with 74 Gy (HR 1·20 [0·99–1·46], p(NI)=0·48). Long-term side-effects were similar in the hypofractionated groups compared with the conventional group. There were no significant differences in either the proportion or cumulative incidence of side-effects 5 years after treatment using three clinician-reported as well as patient-reported outcome measures. The estimated cumulative 5 year incidence of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grade 2 or worse bowel and bladder adverse events was 13·7% (111 events) and 9·1% (66 events) in the 74 Gy group, 11·9% (105 events) and 11·7% (88 events) in the 60 Gy group, 11·3% (95 events) and 6·6% (57 events) in the 57 Gy group, respectively. No treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: Hypofractionated radiotherapy using 60 Gy in 20 fractions is non-inferior to conventional fractionation using 74 Gy in 37 fractions and is recommended as a new standard of care for external-beam radiotherapy of localised prostate cancer. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Department of Health, and the National Institute for Health Research Cancer Research Network. Lancet Pub. Group 2016-08 /pmc/articles/PMC4961874/ /pubmed/27339115 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30102-4 Text en © 2016 Dearnaley et al. Open Access article distributed under the terms of CC BY http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Articles Dearnaley, David Syndikus, Isabel Mossop, Helen Khoo, Vincent Birtle, Alison Bloomfield, David Graham, John Kirkbride, Peter Logue, John Malik, Zafar Money-Kyrle, Julian O'Sullivan, Joe M Panades, Miguel Parker, Chris Patterson, Helen Scrase, Christopher Staffurth, John Stockdale, Andrew Tremlett, Jean Bidmead, Margaret Mayles, Helen Naismith, Olivia South, Chris Gao, Annie Cruickshank, Clare Hassan, Shama Pugh, Julia Griffin, Clare Hall, Emma Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial |
title | Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial |
title_full | Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial |
title_fullStr | Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial |
title_short | Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial |
title_sort | conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 chhip trial |
topic | Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4961874/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27339115 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30102-4 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT dearnaleydavid conventionalversushypofractionatedhighdoseintensitymodulatedradiotherapyforprostatecancer5yearoutcomesoftherandomisednoninferiorityphase3chhiptrial AT syndikusisabel conventionalversushypofractionatedhighdoseintensitymodulatedradiotherapyforprostatecancer5yearoutcomesoftherandomisednoninferiorityphase3chhiptrial AT mossophelen conventionalversushypofractionatedhighdoseintensitymodulatedradiotherapyforprostatecancer5yearoutcomesoftherandomisednoninferiorityphase3chhiptrial AT khoovincent conventionalversushypofractionatedhighdoseintensitymodulatedradiotherapyforprostatecancer5yearoutcomesoftherandomisednoninferiorityphase3chhiptrial AT birtlealison conventionalversushypofractionatedhighdoseintensitymodulatedradiotherapyforprostatecancer5yearoutcomesoftherandomisednoninferiorityphase3chhiptrial AT bloomfielddavid conventionalversushypofractionatedhighdoseintensitymodulatedradiotherapyforprostatecancer5yearoutcomesoftherandomisednoninferiorityphase3chhiptrial AT grahamjohn conventionalversushypofractionatedhighdoseintensitymodulatedradiotherapyforprostatecancer5yearoutcomesoftherandomisednoninferiorityphase3chhiptrial AT kirkbridepeter conventionalversushypofractionatedhighdoseintensitymodulatedradiotherapyforprostatecancer5yearoutcomesoftherandomisednoninferiorityphase3chhiptrial AT loguejohn conventionalversushypofractionatedhighdoseintensitymodulatedradiotherapyforprostatecancer5yearoutcomesoftherandomisednoninferiorityphase3chhiptrial AT malikzafar conventionalversushypofractionatedhighdoseintensitymodulatedradiotherapyforprostatecancer5yearoutcomesoftherandomisednoninferiorityphase3chhiptrial AT moneykyrlejulian conventionalversushypofractionatedhighdoseintensitymodulatedradiotherapyforprostatecancer5yearoutcomesoftherandomisednoninferiorityphase3chhiptrial AT osullivanjoem conventionalversushypofractionatedhighdoseintensitymodulatedradiotherapyforprostatecancer5yearoutcomesoftherandomisednoninferiorityphase3chhiptrial AT panadesmiguel conventionalversushypofractionatedhighdoseintensitymodulatedradiotherapyforprostatecancer5yearoutcomesoftherandomisednoninferiorityphase3chhiptrial AT parkerchris conventionalversushypofractionatedhighdoseintensitymodulatedradiotherapyforprostatecancer5yearoutcomesoftherandomisednoninferiorityphase3chhiptrial AT pattersonhelen conventionalversushypofractionatedhighdoseintensitymodulatedradiotherapyforprostatecancer5yearoutcomesoftherandomisednoninferiorityphase3chhiptrial AT scrasechristopher conventionalversushypofractionatedhighdoseintensitymodulatedradiotherapyforprostatecancer5yearoutcomesoftherandomisednoninferiorityphase3chhiptrial AT staffurthjohn conventionalversushypofractionatedhighdoseintensitymodulatedradiotherapyforprostatecancer5yearoutcomesoftherandomisednoninferiorityphase3chhiptrial AT stockdaleandrew conventionalversushypofractionatedhighdoseintensitymodulatedradiotherapyforprostatecancer5yearoutcomesoftherandomisednoninferiorityphase3chhiptrial AT tremlettjean conventionalversushypofractionatedhighdoseintensitymodulatedradiotherapyforprostatecancer5yearoutcomesoftherandomisednoninferiorityphase3chhiptrial AT bidmeadmargaret conventionalversushypofractionatedhighdoseintensitymodulatedradiotherapyforprostatecancer5yearoutcomesoftherandomisednoninferiorityphase3chhiptrial AT mayleshelen conventionalversushypofractionatedhighdoseintensitymodulatedradiotherapyforprostatecancer5yearoutcomesoftherandomisednoninferiorityphase3chhiptrial AT naismitholivia conventionalversushypofractionatedhighdoseintensitymodulatedradiotherapyforprostatecancer5yearoutcomesoftherandomisednoninferiorityphase3chhiptrial AT southchris conventionalversushypofractionatedhighdoseintensitymodulatedradiotherapyforprostatecancer5yearoutcomesoftherandomisednoninferiorityphase3chhiptrial AT gaoannie conventionalversushypofractionatedhighdoseintensitymodulatedradiotherapyforprostatecancer5yearoutcomesoftherandomisednoninferiorityphase3chhiptrial AT cruickshankclare conventionalversushypofractionatedhighdoseintensitymodulatedradiotherapyforprostatecancer5yearoutcomesoftherandomisednoninferiorityphase3chhiptrial AT hassanshama conventionalversushypofractionatedhighdoseintensitymodulatedradiotherapyforprostatecancer5yearoutcomesoftherandomisednoninferiorityphase3chhiptrial AT pughjulia conventionalversushypofractionatedhighdoseintensitymodulatedradiotherapyforprostatecancer5yearoutcomesoftherandomisednoninferiorityphase3chhiptrial AT griffinclare conventionalversushypofractionatedhighdoseintensitymodulatedradiotherapyforprostatecancer5yearoutcomesoftherandomisednoninferiorityphase3chhiptrial AT hallemma conventionalversushypofractionatedhighdoseintensitymodulatedradiotherapyforprostatecancer5yearoutcomesoftherandomisednoninferiorityphase3chhiptrial AT conventionalversushypofractionatedhighdoseintensitymodulatedradiotherapyforprostatecancer5yearoutcomesoftherandomisednoninferiorityphase3chhiptrial |