Is the alpha-beta ratio of prostate cancer really low? A prospective, non-randomized trial comparing standard and...

The objectives of the current study were to compare genito-urinary (GU) and gastro-intestinal (GI) toxicities as well as biochemical control (bRFS) in prostate cancer, utilizing conventional (2.0 Gy daily) (STD) or hyperfractionated (HFX) conformal irradiation (CRT). HFX (1.2 Gy BID) was chosen as a radiobiological method to try to reduce long term sequelae without compromising local control.

Three-hundred-and-seventy consecutive patients (pts) entered this prospective, non-randomized trial in the period January 1993-January 2003; 209 were treated with STD and 161 with HFX CRT. All were evaluable for acute toxicity analysis, 179 (STD) and 151 pts (HFX) being evaluable for late sequelae and bRFS analyses. Pt characteristics were not statistically different in the two 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 and 79.2 Gy for STD and HFX patients respectively, the latter dose being isoeffective for tumour control assuming alpha/beta=10 (EQD(2)=73.9 Gy). Median follow-up was 29.4 months (25.2 mos for STD; 37.7 mos for HFX; P<0.01). The two regimens were compared in terms of acute and late GU and GI toxicities and 5-year bRFS by univariate and multivariate analyses.

Acute grade> or =2 GU toxicity was higher in the STD group (48.6% versus 37.3% in HFX, P=0.03), while no significant difference was found for acute GI toxicity. Late grade> or =2 GU and GI toxicities were lower in the HFX group (5-year actuarial rate: GU: 10.1% versus 20.3%, P=0.05; GI: 6.0% versus 10.6%, P=0.18). Five-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% versus 63.9%+/-23.8%, P=0.15). Multivariate analysis revealed only risk groups and age statistically related to bRFS but not fractionation regimen. Using the Nahum-Chapman TLCP model and prostate parameter set, which includes hypoxia, the TLCPs are approximately equal for the two regimens, whereas assuming alpha/beta=1.5 and no hypoxia we obtain 73% for the STD group but only 36% for the HFX group.

As expected from radiobiological considerations, HFX reduces GI and GU late toxicities. Concerning early bRFS, our clinical findings suggest that HFX is no less effective than STD when delivering an isoeffective (alpha/beta=10) dose. Despite the relatively short follow-up, this result appears to be inconsistent with a low alpha/beta ratio for prostate cancer.