방사선종양학

본문글자크기
  • [Lancet Oncol] Hypofractionated radiotherapy versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for patients with intermediate-risk localised prostate cancer: 2-year patient-reported outcomes of the rand

    The Institute of Cancer Research(UK) / Emma Hall*

  • 출처
    Lancet Oncol
  • 등재일
    2015 Oct 27.
  • 저널이슈번호
    pii: S1470-2045(15)00280-6. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00280-6. [Epub ahead of print]
  • 내용

    바로가기  >

    Abstract
    BACKGROUND:

    Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) might detect more toxic effects of radiotherapy than do clinician-reported outcomes. We did a quality of life (QoL) substudy to assess PROs up to 24 months after conventionally fractionated or hypofractionated radiotherapy in the Conventional or Hypofractionated High Dose Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer (CHHiP) trial.

    METHODS:
    The CHHiP trial is a randomised, non-inferiority phase 3 trial done in 71 centres, of which 57 UK hospitals took part in the QoL substudy. Men with localised prostate cancer who were undergoing radiotherapy were eligible for trial entry if they had histologically confirmed T1b-T3aN0M0 prostate cancer, an estimated risk of seminal vesicle involvement less than 30%, prostate-specific antigen concentration less than 30 ng/mL, and a WHO performance status of 0 or 1. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive a standard fractionation schedule of 74 Gy in 37 fractions or one of two hypofractionated schedules: 60 Gy in 20 fractions or 57 Gy in 19 fractions. Randomisation was done with computer-generated permuted block sizes of six and nine, stratified by centre and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group. Treatment allocation was not masked. UCLA Prostate Cancer Index (UCLA-PCI), including Short Form (SF)-36 and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P), or Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) and SF-12 quality-of-life questionnaires were completed at baseline, pre-radiotherapy, 10 weeks post-radiotherapy, and 6, 12, 18, and 24 months post-radiotherapy. The CHHiP trial completed accrual on June 16, 2011, and the QoL substudy was closed to further recruitment on Nov 1, 2009. Analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary endpoint of the QoL substudy was overall bowel bother and comparisons between fractionation groups were done at 24 months post-radiotherapy. The CHHiP trial is registered with ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN97182923.

    FINDINGS:
    2100 participants in the CHHiP trial consented to be included in the QoL substudy: 696 assigned to the 74 Gy schedule, 698 assigned to the 60 Gy schedule, and 706 assigned to the 57 Gy schedule. Of these individuals, 1659 (79%) provided data pre-radiotherapy and 1444 (69%) provided data at 24 months after radiotherapy. Median follow-up was 50·0 months (IQR 38·4-64·2) on April 9, 2014, which was the most recent follow-up measurement of all data collected before the QoL data were analysed in September, 2014. Comparison of 74 Gy in 37 fractions, 60 Gy in 20 fractions, and 57 Gy in 19 fractions groups at 2 years showed no overall bowel bother in 269 (66%), 266 (65%), and 282 (65%) men; very small bother in 92 (22%), 91 (22%), and 93 (21%) men; small bother in 26 (6%), 28 (7%), and 38 (9%) men; moderate bother in 19 (5%), 23 (6%), and 21 (5%) men, and severe bother in four (<1%), three (<1%) and three (<1%) men respectively (74 Gy vs 60 Gy, ptrend=0.64, 74 Gy vs 57 Gy, ptrend=0·59). We saw no differences between treatment groups in change of bowel bother score from baseline or pre-radiotherapy to 24 months.

    INTERPRETATION:
    The incidence of patient-reported bowel symptoms was low and similar between patients in the 74 Gy control group and the hypofractionated groups up to 24 months after radiotherapy. If efficacy outcomes from CHHiP show non-inferiority for hypofractionated treatments, these findings will add to the growing evidence for moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy schedules becoming the standard treatment for localised prostate cancer.

    FUNDING:
    Cancer Research UK, Department of Health, and the National Institute for Health Research Cancer Research Network.​

     

    Author information

    Wilkins A1, Mossop H1, Syndikus I2, Khoo V3, Bloomfield D4, Parker C5, Logue J6, Scrase C7, Patterson H8, Birtle A9, Staffurth J10, Malik Z11, Panades M12, Eswar C13, Graham J14, Russell M15, Kirkbride P16, O'Sullivan JM17, Gao A1, Cruickshank C1, Griffin C1, Dearnaley D3, Hall E18.
    1The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
    2Clatterbridge Cancer Centre, Wirral, UK.
    3The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
    4Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals, Brighton, UK.
    5Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
    6Christie Hospital, Manchester, UK.
    7Ipswich Hospital, Ipswich, UK.
    8Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
    9Rosemere Cancer Centre, Royal Preston Hospital, UK.
    10Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK; Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff, UK.
    11Whiston Hospital, Prescot, UK.
    12Lincoln County Hospital, Lincoln, UK.
    13Southport General Infirmary, Southport, UK.
    14Beacon Centre, Musgrove Park Hospital, Taunton, UK.
    15Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, Glasgow, UK.
    16Sheffield Teaching Hospitals Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK.
    17Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
    18The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK. Electronic address: emma.hall@icr.ac.uk.

  • 덧글달기
    덧글달기
       IP : 3.144.151.106

    등록