Hypofractionated, Dose-Escalated Radiation Versus Conventionally Fractionated Radiation for Localized Prostate Cancer: Long-Term Update of a Phase III, Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial.
Comron Hassanzadeh, Deborah Kuban, Sarah Pasyar, Roland Bassett, Patricia Troncoso, Maheen Ansari, Pamela Schlembach, Sean McGuire, Quynh Nguyen, Steven Frank, Henry Mok, Osama Mohamad, Ryan Park, Chad Tang, Weiliang Du, Rajat Kudchadker, Seungtaek Choi, Karen Hoffman
{"title":"Hypofractionated, Dose-Escalated Radiation Versus Conventionally Fractionated Radiation for Localized Prostate Cancer: Long-Term Update of a Phase III, Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Comron Hassanzadeh, Deborah Kuban, Sarah Pasyar, Roland Bassett, Patricia Troncoso, Maheen Ansari, Pamela Schlembach, Sean McGuire, Quynh Nguyen, Steven Frank, Henry Mok, Osama Mohamad, Ryan Park, Chad Tang, Weiliang Du, Rajat Kudchadker, Seungtaek Choi, Karen Hoffman","doi":"10.1200/JCO-24-02057","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The MD Anderson dose-escalated, hypofractionated prostate radiation study was a phase III randomized trial comparing conventionally fractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (CIMRT, 75.6 Gy in 1.8-Gy fractions) with dose-escalated, hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation (HIMRT, 72 Gy in 2.4-Gy fractions) in patients with localized prostate cancer, predominantly low-risk and intermediate-risk disease. The initial publication highlighted statistically fewer treatment failures in the HIMRT arm. We present long-term updated 13-year outcomes to determine whether cancer control benefit was maintained and to evaluate distant metastases post hoc. With a median follow-up of 13.2 years (IQR, 8.8-15.9 years), treatment failure occurred less frequently in men undergoing HIMRT (n = 13) compared with those undergoing CIMRT (n = 22), although the difference no longer meets statistical significance (<i>P =</i> .08). Distant metastases were rare, and no statistically significant difference was noted (<i>P</i> = .2). There remained no statistically significant difference in late GI 2+ (10-year 10% HIMRT <i>v</i> 4% CIMRT, <i>P</i> = .09) or genitourinary grade 2+ toxicity (10-year 26% <i>v</i> 23%, <i>P</i> = .5).</p>","PeriodicalId":15384,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Oncology","volume":" ","pages":"JCO2402057"},"PeriodicalIF":42.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO-24-02057","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The MD Anderson dose-escalated, hypofractionated prostate radiation study was a phase III randomized trial comparing conventionally fractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (CIMRT, 75.6 Gy in 1.8-Gy fractions) with dose-escalated, hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation (HIMRT, 72 Gy in 2.4-Gy fractions) in patients with localized prostate cancer, predominantly low-risk and intermediate-risk disease. The initial publication highlighted statistically fewer treatment failures in the HIMRT arm. We present long-term updated 13-year outcomes to determine whether cancer control benefit was maintained and to evaluate distant metastases post hoc. With a median follow-up of 13.2 years (IQR, 8.8-15.9 years), treatment failure occurred less frequently in men undergoing HIMRT (n = 13) compared with those undergoing CIMRT (n = 22), although the difference no longer meets statistical significance (P = .08). Distant metastases were rare, and no statistically significant difference was noted (P = .2). There remained no statistically significant difference in late GI 2+ (10-year 10% HIMRT v 4% CIMRT, P = .09) or genitourinary grade 2+ toxicity (10-year 26% v 23%, P = .5).
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Clinical Oncology serves its readers as the single most credible, authoritative resource for disseminating significant clinical oncology research. In print and in electronic format, JCO strives to publish the highest quality articles dedicated to clinical research. Original Reports remain the focus of JCO, but this scientific communication is enhanced by appropriately selected Editorials, Commentaries, Reviews, and other work that relate to the care of patients with cancer.