Conventional Versus Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Noninferiority Trials.

Eur Urol Focus 2019 Jul 5;5(4):577-584. Epub 2017 Dec 5.

Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital Boston, MA, USA; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.

Context: Whether hypofractionated radiation therapy (RT) compared with conventionally fractionated RT provides comparable or possibly improved cancer control without increased toxicity in localized prostate cancer (PC) remains unknown.

Objective: Realizing from the CHHiP trial that outcomes are highly sensitive to the dose fractionation schedule and number of treatments, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis selecting only the randomized noninferiority trials, because the randomized arms closely approximated one another in terms of the dose fractionation schedule, and compared cancer control and toxicity of hypofractionated RT with conventionally fractionated RT for localized PC.

Evidence Acquisition: Randomized noninferiority trials evaluating hypofractionated (2.4-4Gy daily fractions for 15-30 treatments) versus conventionally fractionated RT (1.8-2Gy daily fractions for 40-45 treatments) in men with localized PC were selected. Studies that were not noninferiority trials, used extreme hypofractionation, or treated metastatic disease were excluded. Three studies were retained for analysis. Data were pooled using a random-effects model to determine hazard ratio (HR) and risk ratio (RR). Heterogeneity was assessed via chi-square test, I statistics, and metaregression. The primary outcome was disease-free survival (DFS), defined as death from any cause or biochemical, local, regional, or distant progression.

Evidence Synthesis: Of the 5484 men, 3553 (64.8%) had intermediate-risk PC. Hypofractionated RT as compared with conventionally fractionated RT was associated with significantly improved DFS (HR 0.869; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.757, 0.998; p=0.047), whereas overall survival was not (HR 0.84; 95% CI, 0.66, 1.07; p=0.16). Acute grade 2 or higher gastrointestinal toxicity was significantly increased with hypofractionation (RR 1.42; 95% CI 1.15, 1.77; p=0.002); however, this did not translate into late grade 2 or higher gastrointestinal toxicity. An increase in late grade 2 or higher genitourinary complications was observed (RR 1.18; 95% CI 0.98, 1.43; p=0.08).

Conclusions: Hypofractionated RT as compared with conventionally fractionated RT could improve DFS in men with intermediate-risk PC and, therefore, would be reasonable to consider in men who do not have risk factors for late genitourinary complications.

Patient Summary: Treatment with a shorter course of radiation, using higher doses per treatment over fewer days, may be the preferred approach in appropriately selected patients with localized prostate cancer.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2017.10.011DOI Listing
July 2019
17 Reads

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

conventionally fractionated
20
noninferiority trials
16
compared conventionally
12
randomized noninferiority
12
prostate cancer
12
grade higher
12
localized prostate
12
late grade
8
dose fractionation
8
daily fractions
8
cancer control
8
fractionation schedule
8
hypofractionated compared
8
gastrointestinal toxicity
8
radiation therapy
8
higher gastrointestinal
8
hypofractionated radiation
8
hypofractionated
6
conventionally
5
cancer
5

Similar Publications