• Traitements

  • Traitements localisés : applications cliniques

  • Prostate

Long-term patient reported outcomes from a phase III randomized prospective trial of conventional versus hypofractionated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer

Menée à partir de questionnaires auprès de 303 patients atteints d'un cancer de la prostate à risque faible ou élevé de récidive et inclus entre 2002 et 2006 dans un essai de phase III comparant une radiothérapie standard et une radiothérapie hypofractionnée, cette étude évalue, en fonction du traitement reçu et à l'aide de deux systèmes de score, la qualité de vie à long terme des patients

Purpose : To assess the long-term quality of life (QoL) outcomes from a phase III trial comparing conventional (CIMRT) versus hypofractionated (HIMRT) IMRT in patients with localized prostate cancer. Methods and Materials : Between 2002 and 2006, 303 men with low- to high-risk prostate cancer were randomized to 76 Gy in 38 fractions (CIMRT) versus 70.2 Gy in 26 fractions (HIMRT). QoL was compared using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), and EuroQoL (EQ5D) questionnaires. The primary outcome of the quality of life analysis was a minimum clinically important difference defined as a 0.5 standard deviation change from baseline for each respective QoL parameter. Treatment effects were evaluated using logistic mixed effects regression models. Results : A total of 286, 299, and 218 patients had baseline EPIC, IPSS, or EQ5D data available and were included in the analysis. Overall, there was no statistically significant difference between the two treatment arms in terms of EPIC, IPSS, or EQ5D scores over time although there was a trend towards lower EPIC urinary incontinence scores in the HIMRT arm. More patients in the HIMRT arm had a lower EPIC urinary incontinence score relative to baseline versus patients in the CIMRT arm with long-term follow-up. On multivariable analysis, there was no association between radiation fractionation scheme and any QoL parameter. When examining other clinical factors, lymph node radiation was associated with worse EPIC hormonal scores versus patients receiving no lymph node radiation. In general, QoL outcomes were generally stable over time with the exception of EPIC hormonal and EQ5D scores. Conclusions : In this randomized prospective study, there were stable QoL changes in patients receiving HIMRT or CIMRT. Our results add to the growing body of literature suggesting that HIMRT may be an acceptable treatment modality in clinically localized prostate cancer.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.12.034 2016

Voir le bulletin