20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Focal Boost to the Intraprostatic Tumor in External Beam Radiotherapy for Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer: Results From the FLAME Randomized Phase III Trial

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          PURPOSE

          This study investigates whether focal boosting of the macroscopic visible tumor with external beam radiotherapy increases biochemical disease-free survival (bDFS) in patients with localized prostate cancer.

          PATIENTS AND METHODS

          In the phase III, multicenter, randomized controlled Focal Lesion Ablative Microboost in Prostate Cancer trial, 571 patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer were enrolled between 2009 and 2015. Patients assigned to standard treatment received 77 Gy (fractions of 2.2 Gy) to the entire prostate. The focal boost arm received an additional simultaneous integrated focal boost up to 95 Gy (fractions up to 2.7 Gy) to the intraprostatic lesion visible on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Organ at risk constraints were prioritized over the focal boost dose. The primary end point was 5-year bDFS. Secondary end points were disease-free survival (DFS), distant metastases-free survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, overall survival, toxicity, and health-related quality of life.

          RESULTS

          Median follow-up was 72 months. Biochemical DFS was significantly higher in the focal boost compared with the standard arm (hazard ratio 0.45, 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.71, P < .001). At 5-year follow-up bDFS was 92% and 85%, respectively. We did not observe differences in prostate cancer-specific survival ( P = .49) and overall survival ( P = .50). The cumulative incidence of late genitourinary and GI toxicity grade ≥ 2 was 23% and 12% in the standard arm versus 28% and 13% in the focal boost arm, respectively. Both for late toxicity as health-related quality of life, differences were small and not statistically significant.

          CONCLUSION

          The addition of a focal boost to the intraprostatic lesion improved bDFS for patients with localized intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer without impacting toxicity and quality of life. The Focal Lesion Ablative Microboost in Prostate Cancer study shows that a high focal boost strategy to improve tumor control while respecting organ at risk dose constraints is effective and safe.

          Related collections

          Most cited references34

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          A Proportional Hazards Model for the Subdistribution of a Competing Risk

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent.

            To present a summary of the 2016 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU) - European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) - International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) Guidelines on screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent of clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: recommendations of the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix Consensus Conference.

              In 1996 the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) sponsored a Consensus Conference to establish a definition of biochemical failure after external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). The ASTRO definition defined prostate specific antigen (PSA) failure as occurring after three consecutive PSA rises after a nadir with the date of failure as the point halfway between the nadir date and the first rise or any rise great enough to provoke initiation of therapy. This definition was not linked to clinical progression or survival; it performed poorly in patients undergoing hormonal therapy (HT), and backdating biased the Kaplan-Meier estimates of event-free survival. A second Consensus Conference was sponsored by ASTRO and the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group in Phoenix, Arizona, on January 21, 2005, to revise the ASTRO definition. The panel recommended: (1) a rise by 2 ng/mL or more above the nadir PSA be considered the standard definition for biochemical failure after EBRT with or without HT; (2) the date of failure be determined "at call" (not backdated). They recommended that investigators be allowed to use the ASTRO Consensus Definition after EBRT alone (no hormonal therapy) with strict adherence to guidelines as to "adequate follow-up." To avoid the artifacts resulting from short follow-up, the reported date of control should be listed as 2 years short of the median follow-up. For example, if the median follow-up is 5 years, control rates at 3 years should be cited. Retaining a strict version of the ASTRO definition would allow comparisons with a large existing body of literature.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal of Clinical Oncology
                JCO
                American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
                0732-183X
                1527-7755
                January 20 2021
                : JCO.20.02873
                Affiliations
                [1 ]University Medical Center Utrecht, Radiation Oncology, Utrecht, the Netherlands
                [2 ]Radboud University Medical Center, Radiation Oncology, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
                [3 ]The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
                [4 ]University Hospitals Leuven, Radiation Oncology, Leuven, Belgium
                [5 ]Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
                [6 ]Holland Proton Therapy Center, Delft, the Netherlands
                [7 ]Limburgs Oncologisch Centrum, Jessa Ziekenhuis, Radiation Oncology, Hasselt, Belgium
                Article
                10.1200/JCO.20.02873
                33471548
                4cc320d8-50dd-44a9-a43d-594da5dbe4af
                © 2021
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article