Updated results and patterns of failure in a randomized hypofractionation trial for high-risk prostate cancer

Stefano Arcangeli, Lidia Strigari, Sara Gomellini, Biancamaria Saracino, Maria Grazia Petrongari, Paola Pinnarò, Valentina Pinzi, Giorgio Arcangeli

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

139 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To report long-term results and patterns of failure after conventional and hypofractionated radiation therapy in high-risk prostate cancer. Methods and Materials: This randomized phase III trial compared conventional fractionation (80 Gy at 2 Gy per fraction in 8 weeks) vs hypofractionation (62 Gy at 3.1 Gy per fraction in 5 weeks) in combination with 9-month androgen deprivation therapy in 168 patients with high-risk prostate cancer. Freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF), freedom from local failure (FFLF), and freedom from distant failure (FFDF) were analyzed. Results: In a median follow-up of 70 months, biochemical failure (BF) occurred in 35 of the 168 patients (21%) in the study. Among these 35 patients, local failure (LF) only was detected in 11 (31%), distant failure (DF) only in 16 (46%), and both LF and DF in 6 (17%). In 2 patients (6%) BF has not yet been clinically detected. The risk reduction by hypofractionation was significant in BF (10.3%) but not in LF and DF. We found that hypofractionation, with respect to conventional fractionation, determined only an insignificant increase in the actuarial FFBF but no difference in FFLF and FFDF, when considering the entire group of patients. However, an increase in the 5-year rates in all 3 endpoints - FFBF, FFLF, and FFDF - was observed in the subgroup of patients with a pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (iPSA) level of 20 ng/mL or less. On multivariate analysis, the type of fractionation, iPSA level, Gleason score of 4+3 or higher, and T stage of 2c or higher have been confirmed as independent prognostic factors for BF. High iPSA levels and Gleason score of 4+3 or higher were also significantly associated with an increased risk of DF, whereas T stage of 2c or higher was the only independent variable for LF. Conclusion: Our results confirm the isoeffectiveness of the 2 fractionation schedules used in this study, although a benefit in favor of hypofractionation cannot be excluded in the subgroup of patients with an iPSA level of 20 ng/mL or less. The α/β ratio might be more appropriately evaluated by FFLF than FFBF results, at least in high-risk disease.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1172-1178
Number of pages7
JournalInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
Volume84
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 1 2012

Fingerprint

Prostatic Neoplasms
cancer
Neoplasm Grading
fractionation
Risk Reduction Behavior
Prostate-Specific Antigen
subgroups
Androgens
Appointments and Schedules
Radiotherapy
Multivariate Analysis
deprivation
antigens
schedules

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Radiation
  • Cancer Research

Cite this

Updated results and patterns of failure in a randomized hypofractionation trial for high-risk prostate cancer. / Arcangeli, Stefano; Strigari, Lidia; Gomellini, Sara; Saracino, Biancamaria; Petrongari, Maria Grazia; Pinnarò, Paola; Pinzi, Valentina; Arcangeli, Giorgio.

In: International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, Vol. 84, No. 5, 01.12.2012, p. 1172-1178.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Arcangeli, Stefano ; Strigari, Lidia ; Gomellini, Sara ; Saracino, Biancamaria ; Petrongari, Maria Grazia ; Pinnarò, Paola ; Pinzi, Valentina ; Arcangeli, Giorgio. / Updated results and patterns of failure in a randomized hypofractionation trial for high-risk prostate cancer. In: International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2012 ; Vol. 84, No. 5. pp. 1172-1178.
@article{93aa35de89224847b38dba2fffbf6dbd,
title = "Updated results and patterns of failure in a randomized hypofractionation trial for high-risk prostate cancer",
abstract = "Purpose: To report long-term results and patterns of failure after conventional and hypofractionated radiation therapy in high-risk prostate cancer. Methods and Materials: This randomized phase III trial compared conventional fractionation (80 Gy at 2 Gy per fraction in 8 weeks) vs hypofractionation (62 Gy at 3.1 Gy per fraction in 5 weeks) in combination with 9-month androgen deprivation therapy in 168 patients with high-risk prostate cancer. Freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF), freedom from local failure (FFLF), and freedom from distant failure (FFDF) were analyzed. Results: In a median follow-up of 70 months, biochemical failure (BF) occurred in 35 of the 168 patients (21{\%}) in the study. Among these 35 patients, local failure (LF) only was detected in 11 (31{\%}), distant failure (DF) only in 16 (46{\%}), and both LF and DF in 6 (17{\%}). In 2 patients (6{\%}) BF has not yet been clinically detected. The risk reduction by hypofractionation was significant in BF (10.3{\%}) but not in LF and DF. We found that hypofractionation, with respect to conventional fractionation, determined only an insignificant increase in the actuarial FFBF but no difference in FFLF and FFDF, when considering the entire group of patients. However, an increase in the 5-year rates in all 3 endpoints - FFBF, FFLF, and FFDF - was observed in the subgroup of patients with a pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (iPSA) level of 20 ng/mL or less. On multivariate analysis, the type of fractionation, iPSA level, Gleason score of 4+3 or higher, and T stage of 2c or higher have been confirmed as independent prognostic factors for BF. High iPSA levels and Gleason score of 4+3 or higher were also significantly associated with an increased risk of DF, whereas T stage of 2c or higher was the only independent variable for LF. Conclusion: Our results confirm the isoeffectiveness of the 2 fractionation schedules used in this study, although a benefit in favor of hypofractionation cannot be excluded in the subgroup of patients with an iPSA level of 20 ng/mL or less. The α/β ratio might be more appropriately evaluated by FFLF than FFBF results, at least in high-risk disease.",
author = "Stefano Arcangeli and Lidia Strigari and Sara Gomellini and Biancamaria Saracino and Petrongari, {Maria Grazia} and Paola Pinnar{\`o} and Valentina Pinzi and Giorgio Arcangeli",
year = "2012",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.02.049",
language = "English",
volume = "84",
pages = "1172--1178",
journal = "International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics",
issn = "0360-3016",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Updated results and patterns of failure in a randomized hypofractionation trial for high-risk prostate cancer

AU - Arcangeli, Stefano

AU - Strigari, Lidia

AU - Gomellini, Sara

AU - Saracino, Biancamaria

AU - Petrongari, Maria Grazia

AU - Pinnarò, Paola

AU - Pinzi, Valentina

AU - Arcangeli, Giorgio

PY - 2012/12/1

Y1 - 2012/12/1

N2 - Purpose: To report long-term results and patterns of failure after conventional and hypofractionated radiation therapy in high-risk prostate cancer. Methods and Materials: This randomized phase III trial compared conventional fractionation (80 Gy at 2 Gy per fraction in 8 weeks) vs hypofractionation (62 Gy at 3.1 Gy per fraction in 5 weeks) in combination with 9-month androgen deprivation therapy in 168 patients with high-risk prostate cancer. Freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF), freedom from local failure (FFLF), and freedom from distant failure (FFDF) were analyzed. Results: In a median follow-up of 70 months, biochemical failure (BF) occurred in 35 of the 168 patients (21%) in the study. Among these 35 patients, local failure (LF) only was detected in 11 (31%), distant failure (DF) only in 16 (46%), and both LF and DF in 6 (17%). In 2 patients (6%) BF has not yet been clinically detected. The risk reduction by hypofractionation was significant in BF (10.3%) but not in LF and DF. We found that hypofractionation, with respect to conventional fractionation, determined only an insignificant increase in the actuarial FFBF but no difference in FFLF and FFDF, when considering the entire group of patients. However, an increase in the 5-year rates in all 3 endpoints - FFBF, FFLF, and FFDF - was observed in the subgroup of patients with a pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (iPSA) level of 20 ng/mL or less. On multivariate analysis, the type of fractionation, iPSA level, Gleason score of 4+3 or higher, and T stage of 2c or higher have been confirmed as independent prognostic factors for BF. High iPSA levels and Gleason score of 4+3 or higher were also significantly associated with an increased risk of DF, whereas T stage of 2c or higher was the only independent variable for LF. Conclusion: Our results confirm the isoeffectiveness of the 2 fractionation schedules used in this study, although a benefit in favor of hypofractionation cannot be excluded in the subgroup of patients with an iPSA level of 20 ng/mL or less. The α/β ratio might be more appropriately evaluated by FFLF than FFBF results, at least in high-risk disease.

AB - Purpose: To report long-term results and patterns of failure after conventional and hypofractionated radiation therapy in high-risk prostate cancer. Methods and Materials: This randomized phase III trial compared conventional fractionation (80 Gy at 2 Gy per fraction in 8 weeks) vs hypofractionation (62 Gy at 3.1 Gy per fraction in 5 weeks) in combination with 9-month androgen deprivation therapy in 168 patients with high-risk prostate cancer. Freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF), freedom from local failure (FFLF), and freedom from distant failure (FFDF) were analyzed. Results: In a median follow-up of 70 months, biochemical failure (BF) occurred in 35 of the 168 patients (21%) in the study. Among these 35 patients, local failure (LF) only was detected in 11 (31%), distant failure (DF) only in 16 (46%), and both LF and DF in 6 (17%). In 2 patients (6%) BF has not yet been clinically detected. The risk reduction by hypofractionation was significant in BF (10.3%) but not in LF and DF. We found that hypofractionation, with respect to conventional fractionation, determined only an insignificant increase in the actuarial FFBF but no difference in FFLF and FFDF, when considering the entire group of patients. However, an increase in the 5-year rates in all 3 endpoints - FFBF, FFLF, and FFDF - was observed in the subgroup of patients with a pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (iPSA) level of 20 ng/mL or less. On multivariate analysis, the type of fractionation, iPSA level, Gleason score of 4+3 or higher, and T stage of 2c or higher have been confirmed as independent prognostic factors for BF. High iPSA levels and Gleason score of 4+3 or higher were also significantly associated with an increased risk of DF, whereas T stage of 2c or higher was the only independent variable for LF. Conclusion: Our results confirm the isoeffectiveness of the 2 fractionation schedules used in this study, although a benefit in favor of hypofractionation cannot be excluded in the subgroup of patients with an iPSA level of 20 ng/mL or less. The α/β ratio might be more appropriately evaluated by FFLF than FFBF results, at least in high-risk disease.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84869144788&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84869144788&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.02.049

DO - 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.02.049

M3 - Article

C2 - 22537541

AN - SCOPUS:84869144788

VL - 84

SP - 1172

EP - 1178

JO - International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics

JF - International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics

SN - 0360-3016

IS - 5

ER -