| 1. |
- Fransson, Per, et al.
(författare)
-
Ultra-hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer (HYPO-RT-PC) : patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes of a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial
- 2021
-
Ingår i: The Lancet Oncology. - : Elsevier. - 1470-2045 .- 1474-5488. ; 22:2, s. 235-245
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: The HYPO-RT-PC trial compared conventionally fractionated radiotherapy with ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy in patients with localised prostate cancer. Ultra-hypofractionation was non-inferior to conventional fractionation regarding 5-year failure-free survival and toxicity. We aimed to assess whether patient-reported quality of life (QOL) differs between conventional fractionation and ultra-hypofractionation up to 6 years after treatment in the HYPO-RT-PC trial.METHODS: HYPO-RT-PC is a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial done in 12 centres (seven university hospitals and five county hospitals) in Sweden and Denmark. Inclusion criteria were histologically verified intermediate-to-high-risk prostate cancer (defined as T1c-T3a with one or two of the following risk factors: stage T3a; Gleason score ≥7; and prostate-specific antigen 10-20 ng/mL with no evidence of lymph node involvement or distant metastases), age up to 75 years, and WHO performance status 0-2. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to conventional fractionation (78·0 Gy in 39 fractions, 5 days per week for 8 weeks) or ultra-hypofractionation (42·7 Gy in seven fractions, 3 days per week for 2·5 weeks) via a minimisation algorithm with stratification by trial centre, T-stage, Gleason score, and prostate-specific antigen. QOL was measured using the validated Prostate Cancer Symptom Scale (PCSS) and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) at baseline, the end of radiotherapy, months 3, 6, 12, and 24 after radiotherapy, every other year thereafter up to 10 years, and at 15 years. The primary endpoint (failure-free survival) has been reported elsewhere. Here we report QOL, a secondary endpoint analysed in the per-protocol population, up to 6 years after radiotherapy. The HYPO-RT-PC trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN45905321.FINDINGS: Between July 1, 2005, and Nov 4, 2015, 1200 patients were enrolled and 1180 were randomly assigned (conventional fractionation n=591, ultra-hypofractionation n=589); 1165 patients (conventional fractionation n=582, ultra-hypofractionation n=583) were included in this QOL analysis. 158 (71%) of 223 patients in the conventional fractionation group and 146 (66%) of 220 in the ultra-hypofractionation group completed questionnaires at 6 years. The median follow-up was 48 months (IQR 25-72). In seven of ten bowel symptoms or problems the proportion of patients with clinically relevant deteriorations at the end of radiotherapy was significantly higher in the ultra-hypofractionation group than in the conventional fractionation group (stool frequency [p<0·0001], rush to toilet [p=0·0013], flatulence [p=0·0013], bowel cramp [p<0·0001], mucus [p=0·0014], blood in stool [p<0·0001], and limitation in daily activity [p=0·0014]). There were no statistically significant differences in the proportions of patients with clinically relevant acute urinary symptoms or problems (total 14 items) and sexual functioning between the two treatment groups at end of radiotherapy. Thereafter, there were no clinically relevant differences in urinary, bowel, or sexual functioning between the groups. At the 6-year follow-up there was no difference in the incidence of clinically relevant deterioration between the groups for overall urinary bother (43 [33%] of 132 for conventional fractionation vs 33 [28%] of 120 for ultra-hypofractionation; mean difference 5·1% [95% CI -4·4 to 14·6]; p=0·38), overall bowel bother (43 [33%] of 129 vs 34 [28%] of 123; 5·7% [-3·8 to 15·2]; p=0·33), overall sexual bother (75 [60%] of 126 vs 59 [50%] of 117; 9·1% [-1·4 to 19·6]; p=0·15), or global health/QOL (56 [42%] of 134 vs 46 [37%] of 125; 5·0% [-5·0 to 15·0]; p=0·41).INTERPRETATION: Although acute toxicity was higher for ultra-hypofractionation than conventional fractionation, this long-term patient-reported QOL analysis shows that ultra-hypofractionation was as well tolerated as conventional fractionation up to 6 years after completion of treatment. These findings support the use of ultra-hypofractionation radiotherapy for intermediate-to-high-risk prostate cancer.
|
|
| 2. |
- Colleoni, Marco, et al.
(författare)
-
Extended adjuvant intermittent letrozole versus continuous letrozole in postmenopausal women with breast cancer (SOLE): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.
- 2018
-
Ingår i: The Lancet. Oncology. - : Elsevier. - 1474-5488 .- 1470-2045. ; 19:1, s. 127-138
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In animal models of breast cancer, resistance to continuous use of letrozole can be reversed by withdrawal and reintroduction of letrozole. We therefore hypothesised that extended intermittent use of adjuvant letrozole would improve breast cancer outcome compared with continuous use of letrozole in postmenopausal women.We did the multicentre, open-label, randomised, parallel, phase 3 SOLE trial in 240 centres (academic, primary, secondary, and tertiary care centres) in 22 countries. We enrolled postmenopausal women of any age with hormone receptor-positive, lymph node-positive, and operable breast cancer for which they had undergone local treatment (surgery with or without radiotherapy) and had completed 4-6 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy. They had to be clinically free of breast cancer at enrolment and without evidence of recurrent disease at any time before randomisation. We randomly assigned women (1:1) to treatment groups of either continuous use of letrozole (2·5 mg/day orally for 5 years) or intermittent use of letrozole (2·5 mg/day orally for 9 months followed by a 3-month break in years 1-4 and then 2·5 mg/day during all 12 months of year 5). Randomisation was done by principal investigators or designee at respective centres through the internet-based system of the International Breast Cancer Study Group, was stratified by type of previous endocrine therapy (aromatase inhibitors only vs selective oestrogen receptor modulators only vs both therapies), and used permuted block sizes of four and institutional balancing. No one was masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival, analysed by the intention-to-treat principle using a stratified log-rank test. All patients in the intention-to-treat population who initiated protocol treatment during their period of trial participation were included in the safety analyses. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00553410, and EudraCT, number 2007-001370-88; and long-term follow-up of patients is ongoing.Between Dec 5, 2007, and Oct 8, 2012, 4884 women were enrolled and randomised after exclusion of patients at a non-adherent centre, found to have inadequate documentation of informed consent, immediately withdrew consent, or randomly assigned to intervention groups in error. 4851 women comprised the intention-to-treat population that compared extended intermittent letrozole use (n=2425) with continuous letrozole use (n=2426). After a median follow-up of 60 months (IQR 53-72), disease-free survival was 85·8% (95% CI 84·2-87·2) in the intermittent letrozole group compared with 87·5% (86·0-88·8) in the continuous letrozole group (hazard ratio 1·08, 95% CI 0·93-1·26; p=0·31). Adverse events were reported as expected and were similar between the two groups. The most common grade 3-5 adverse events were hypertension (584 [24%] of 2417 in the intermittent letrozole group vs 517 [21%] of 2411 in the continuous letrozole group) and arthralgia (136 [6%] vs 151 [6%]). 54 patients (24 [1%] in the intermittent letrozole group and 30 [1%] in the continuous letrozole group) had grade 3-5 CNS cerebrovascular ischaemia, 16 (nine [<1%] vs seven [<1%]) had grade 3-5 CNS haemorrhage, and 40 (19 [1%] vs 21 [1%]) had grade 3-5 cardiac ischaemia. In total, 23 (<1%) of 4851 patients died while on trial treatment (13 [<1%] of 2417 patients in the intermittent letrozole group vs ten [<1%] of 2411 in the continuous letrozole group).In postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, extended use of intermittent letrozole did not improve disease-free survival compared with continuous use of letrozole. An alternative schedule of extended adjuvant endocrine therapy with letrozole, including intermittent administration, might be feasible and the results of the SOLE trial support the safety of temporary treatment breaks in selected patients who might require them.Novartis and the International Breast Cancer Study Group.
|
|
| 3. |
- Johansson, Eva, et al.
(författare)
-
Long-term quality-of-life outcomes after radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting : the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group-4 randomised trial
- 2011
-
Ingår i: The Lancet Oncology. - : Elsevier. - 1470-2045 .- 1474-5488. ; 12:9, s. 891-899
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: For men with localised prostate cancer, surgery provides a survival benefit compared with watchful waiting. Treatments are associated with morbidity. Results for functional outcome and quality of life are rarely reported beyond 10 years and are lacking from randomised settings. We report results for quality of life for men in the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Study Number 4 (SPCG-4) after a median follow-up of more than 12 years.METHODS: All living Swedish and Finnish men (400 of 695) randomly assigned to radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in SPCG-4 from 1989 to 1999 were included in our analysis. An additional 281 men were included in a population-based control group matched for region and age. Physical symptoms, symptom-induced stress, and self-assessed quality of life were evaluated with a study-specific questionnaire. Longitudinal data were available for 166 Swedish men who had answered quality-of-life questionnaires at an earlier timepoint.FINDINGS: 182 (88%) of 208 men in the radical prostatectomy group, 167 (87%) of 192 men in the watchful-waiting group, and 214 (76%) of 281 men in the population-based control group answered the questionnaire. Men in SPCG-4 had a median follow-up of 12·2 years (range 7-17) and a median age of 77·0 years (range 61-88). High self-assessed quality of life was reported by 62 (35%) of 179 men allocated radical prostatectomy, 55 (34%) of 160 men assigned to watchful waiting, and 93 (45%) of 208 men in the control group. Anxiety was higher in the SPCG-4 groups (77 [43%] of 178 and 69 [43%] of 161 men) than in the control group (68 [33%] of 208 men; relative risk 1·42, 95% CI 1·07-1·88). Prevalence of erectile dysfunction was 84% (146 of 173 men) in the radical prostatectomy group, 80% (122 of 153) in the watchful-waiting group, and 46% (95 of 208) in the control group and prevalence of urinary leakage was 41% (71 of 173), 11% (18 of 164), and 3% (six of 209), respectively. Distress caused by these symptoms was reported significantly more often by men allocated radical prostatectomy than by men assigned to watchful waiting. In a longitudinal analysis of men in SPCG-4 who provided information at two follow-up points 9 years apart, 38 (45%) of 85 men allocated radical prostatectomy and 48 (60%) of 80 men allocated watchful waiting reported an increase in number of physical symptoms; 50 (61%) of 82 and 47 (64%) of 74 men, respectively, reported a reduction in quality of life.INTERPRETATION: For men in SPCG-4, negative side-effects were common and added more stress than was reported in the control population. In the radical prostatectomy group, erectile dysfunction and urinary leakage were often consequences of surgery. In the watchful-waiting group, side-effects can be caused by tumour progression. The number and severity of side-effects changes over time at a higher rate than is caused by normal ageing and a loss of sexual ability is a persistent psychological problem for both interventions. An understanding of the patterns of side-effects and time dimension of their occurrence for each treatment is important for full patient information.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
