Dataset Information

Evaluation of Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy Use and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Men With Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer in Australia and New Zealand.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Randomized clinical trials in prostate cancer have reported noninferior outcomes for hypofractionated radiation therapy (HRT) compared with conventional RT (CRT); however, uptake of HRT across jurisdictions is variable.

Objective

To evaluate the use of HRT vs CRT in men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer and compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at a population level.

Design, setting, and participants

Registry-based cohort study from the Australian and New Zealand Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry (PCOR-ANZ). Participants were men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer treated with primary RT (excluding brachytherapy) from January 2016 to December 2019. Data were analyzed in March 2021.

Exposures

HRT defined as 2.5 to 3.3 Gy and CRT defined as 1.7 to 2.3 Gy per fraction.

Main outcomes and measures

Temporal trends and institutional, clinicopathological, and sociodemographic factors associated with use of HRT were analyzed. PROs were assessed 12 months following RT using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC)-26 Short Form questionnaire. Differences in PROs were analyzed by adjusting for age and National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk category.

Results

Of 8305 men identified as receiving primary RT, 6368 met the inclusion criteria for CRT (n = 4482) and HRT (n = 1886). The median age was 73.1 years (IQR, 68.2-77.3 years), 2.6% (168) had low risk, 45.7% (2911) had intermediate risk, 44.5% (2836) had high-/very high-risk, and 7.1% (453) had regional nodal disease. Use of HRT increased from 2.1% (9 of 435) in the first half of 2016 to 52.7% (539 of 1023) in the second half of 2019, with lower uptake in the high-/very high-risk (1.9% [4 of 215] to 42.4% [181 of 427]) compared with the intermediate-risk group (2.2% [4 of 185] to 67.6% [325 of 481]) (odds ratio, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.15-0.45). Substantial variability in the use of HRT for intermediate-risk disease remained at the institutional level (median 53.3%; range, 0%-100%) and clinician level (median 57.9%; range, 0%-100%) in the last 2 years of the study period. There were no clinically significant differences across EPIC-26 urinary and bowel functional domains or bother scores.

Conclusions and relevance

In this cohort study, use of HRT for prostate cancer increased substantially from 2016. This population-level data demonstrated clinically equivalent PROs and supports the continued implementation of HRT into routine practice. The wide variation in practice observed at the jurisdictional, institutional, and clinician level provides stakeholders with information that may be useful in targeting implementation strategies and benchmarking services.

SUBMITTER: Pryor DI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8561328 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluation of Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy Use and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Men With Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer in Australia and New Zealand.

Pryor David I DI Martin Jarad M JM Millar Jeremy L JL Day Heather H Ong Wee Loon WL Skala Marketa M FitzGerald Liesel M LM Hindson Benjamin B Higgs Braden B O'Callaghan Michael E ME Syed Farhan F Hayden Amy J AJ Turner Sandra L SL Papa Nathan N

JAMA network open 20211101 11

<h4>Importance</h4>Randomized clinical trials in prostate cancer have reported noninferior outcomes for hypofractionated radiation therapy (HRT) compared with conventional RT (CRT); however, uptake of HRT across jurisdictions is variable.<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the use of HRT vs CRT in men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer and compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at a population level.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>Registry-based cohort study from the Australian and New Zea ...[more]

PMID: 34724555

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo assess the long-term quality of life (QoL) outcomes from a phase 3 trial comparing 2 modes of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT): conventional IMRT (CIMRT) versus hypofractionated IMRT (HIMRT) in patients with localized prostate cancer.Methods and materialsBetween 2002 and 2006, 303 men with low-risk 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 by use of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), and EuroQoL (EQ5D) questionnaires. The primary outcome of the QoL 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 with the use of logistic mixed effects regression models.ResultsA 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 2 treatment arms in terms of EPIC, IPSS, or EQ5D scores over time, although there was a trend toward 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 other clinical factors were examined, 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.ConclusionsIn 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.

Project description:BackgroundMen with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer and a rapidly rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level are at high risk for metastasis. We hypothesized that enzalutamide, which prolongs overall survival among patients with metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer, would delay metastasis in men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer and a rapidly rising PSA level.MethodsIn this double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer and a PSA doubling time of 10 months or less who were continuing androgen-deprivation therapy to receive enzalutamide (at a dose of 160 mg) or placebo once daily. The primary end point was metastasis-free survival (defined as the time from randomization to radiographic progression or as the time to death without radiographic progression).ResultsA total of 1401 patients (median PSA doubling time, 3.7 months) underwent randomization. As of June 28, 2017, a total of 219 of 933 patients (23%) in the enzalutamide group had metastasis or had died, as compared with 228 of 468 (49%) in the placebo group. The median metastasis-free survival was 36.6 months in the enzalutamide group versus 14.7 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio for metastasis or death, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.24 to 0.35; P<0.001). The time to the first use of a subsequent antineoplastic therapy was longer with enzalutamide treatment than with placebo (39.6 vs. 17.7 months; hazard ratio, 0.21; P<0.001; such therapy was used in 15% vs. 48% of patients) as was the time to PSA progression (37.2 vs. 3.9 months; hazard ratio, 0.07; P<0.001; progression occurred in 22% vs. 69% of patients). At the first interim analysis of overall survival, 103 patients (11%) receiving enzalutamide and 62 (13%) receiving placebo had died. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 31% of the patients receiving enzalutamide, as compared with 23% of those receiving placebo.ConclusionsAmong men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer with a rapidly rising PSA level, enzalutamide treatment led to a clinically meaningful and significant 71% lower risk of metastasis or death than placebo. Adverse events were consistent with the established safety profile of enzalutamide. (Funded by Pfizer and Astellas Pharma; PROSPER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02003924 .).

Project description:BackgroundWhile there is increasing evidence on the benefits of PROMs in cancer care, the extent of routine collection and use of PROMs in clinical cancer practice across Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) is unknown. This study examined the prevalence and characteristics of PROMs use in routine clinical cancer care in ANZ.MethodsAn online survey was designed and disseminated via professional societies and organisations using a snowball sampling approach to clinical and health administration professionals managing cancer care in ANZ. A poster advertising the study was also circulated on professional social media networks via LinkedIn and Twitter inviting health professionals from ANZ to participate if they were using or intending to use PROMs in clinical cancer practice. Responders opted into the survey via the survey link.ResultsFrom 132 survey views, 91(response rate, 69%) respondents from 56 clinical practices across ANZ agreed to participate in the survey, and of these 55 (n = 55/91, 60%) respondents reported collecting PROMs within their clinical practice. The majority of the respondents were from the State of New South Wales in Australia (n = 21/55, 38%), hospital (n = 35/55, 64%), and a public setting (n = 46/55, 83%). PROMs were collected in all cancer types (n = 21/36, 58%), in all stages of the disease (n = 31/36, 86%), in an adult population (n = 33/36, 92%), applied in English (n = 33/36, 92%), and used to facilitate communication with other reasons (27/36, 75%). A geospatial map analysis provided insights into the variation in PROMs uptake between the two countries and in certain jurisdictions within Australia. This study also highlights the limited resources for PROMs implementation, and a lack of systematic priority driven approach.ConclusionPROM use across Australia and New Zealand seems variable and occurring predominantly in larger metropolitan centres with limited standardisation of approach and implementation. A greater focus on equitable adoption of PROMs in diverse cancer care settings is urgently needed.

Dataset Information

Evaluation of Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy Use and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Men With Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer in Australia and New Zealand.

Importance

Objective

Design, setting, and participants

Exposures

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Publications

Evaluation of Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy Use and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Men With Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer in Australia and New Zealand.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets