In 1993 we activated a prospective, non randomized trial in prostate cancer using CRT and 2 different fractionation regimens. The end points were to compare genito-urinary (GU) and gastro-intestinal (GI) toxicities (tox) as well as biochemical control (bRFS), utilizing a STD (2.0 Gy daily) or a HFX schedule. HFX (1.2 Gy BID) was chosen as a radiobiological method to try to reduce late tox without compromising local control (1). 370 consecutive patients (pts) entered the study in the period January 1993-January 2003. 209 were treated with STD and 161 with HFX CRT. 179 pts (87%) in the STD and 151 (94%) in the HFX were evaluable for late tox and bRFS analysis, while all 370 pts were considered for acute tox evaluation. Pre-treatment clinical variables (STD vs. HFX: median age 71 vs. 69; T1-2 64.8% vs. 60.4%; median iPSA 11.2 vs. 12 ng/ml; GPS ≥ 7 39% vs. 40%) and treatment characteristics (pelvis irradiation 43% vs. 44%; androgen deprivation 79% vs. 71%) were not statistically different in the 2 groups. CRT consisted of a 4-field technique for prostate and/or pelvic nodes and a 5-field boost with rectal shielding. Median doses were 74 Gy and 79.2 Gy (EQD2:73.9 Gy, isoeffective for tumor control assuming α/β = 10) for STD and HFX patients, respectively. Median follow-up was 29.4 months (STD: 25.2 mos; HFX: 37.7 mos; p < 0.01 t-test). GU/GI acute and late tox (RTOG-EORTC scoring) and 5-year bRFS were compared in the 2 fractionation regimens using univariate (Chi-square, log-rank test) and multivariate analyses (Cox regression hazard model). Acute ≥ grade 2 GU tox was higher in the STD group (48.6% vs. 37.3% in the HFX group, p = 0.03) while no significant difference was found for acute GI tox. Late ≥ grade 2 GU and GI tox were lower in the HFX group (5-year actuarial rate: GU: 10.1% vs. 20.3%, p = 0.05; GI: 6.0% vs. 10.6%, p = 0.18). 5-year bRFS were 70% (±13.8%, 95% CI) and 82.6 % (±7.2%) for STD and HFX, respectively (p = 0.44); a trend favouring HFX was found in the subgroup of pts who did not receive hormonal therapy (5-year bRFS: 85.9% ± 12.4% vs. 63.9% ± 23.8%, p = 0.15). Multivariate analysis revealed that only Pisansky risk groups and age were statistically related to bRFS but not fractionation regimens. Using the Nahum-Chapman TLCP model and prostate parameter set, which includes hypoxia, the TLCPs are approximately equal for the 2 regimens, whereas assuming α/β = 1.5 and no hypoxia we obtain 73% for the STD group but only 36% for the HFX group. As expected from radiobiology, HFX reduces GI and GU late tox. Concerning early bRFS, our clinical findings suggest that HFX is, at least, not detrimental with respect to standard fractionation when delivering an isoeffective total dose equivalent to 2 Gy/fr (considering α/β = 10). Whilst accepting that caution is appropriate due to the relatively short follow-up, this result seems to be inconsistent with a low α/β ratio for prostate cancer. The trend of a non-detrimental, possibly improved, clinical outcome with HFX is more consistent with the idea that α/β is relatively high and that some prostate tumours are hypoxic (2–4), with hyperfractionation probably reducing this hypoxic proportion through increased reoxygenation. If the bRFS with HFX is genuinely higher than with STD, then a plausible explanation is that hyperfractionation reduces this hypoxic proportion through increased reoxygenation.
Read full abstract