Skip to content

Radiation Therapy in Treating Patients With Stage II Prostate Cancer

A Phase III Randomized Study of Hypofractionated 3D-CRT/MRT Versus Conventionally Fractionated 3D-CRT/MRT in Patients With Favorable-Risk Prostate Cancer

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 3
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT00331773
Enrollment
1116
Registered
2006-05-31
Start date
2006-04-30
Completion date
2022-12-22
Last updated
2023-01-18

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Prostate Cancer

Keywords

adenocarcinoma of the prostate, stage IIB prostate cancer, stage IIA prostate cancer

Brief summary

RATIONALE: Giving radiation therapy that uses a 3-dimensional (3-D) image of the tumor to help focus thin beams of radiation directly on the tumor, and giving hypofractionated radiation therapy (higher doses over a shorter period of time), may be less costly with fewer side effects and just as effective in treating prostate cancer. PURPOSE: This randomized phase III trial is studying several different radiation therapy regimens to compare how well they work in treating patients with stage II prostate cancer.

Detailed description

OBJECTIVES: Primary * Compare the disease-free survival (DFS) of patients with favorable-risk stage II prostate cancer treated with hypofractionated vs conventionally fractionated three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) or intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Secondary * Compare time to local progression, freedom from biochemical recurrence, and disease-specific and overall survival of patients treated with these regimens. * Determine the incidence of gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxic effects in patients treated with these regimens. * Compare the degree, duration, and significant differences in disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQOL) decrements, using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), in patients treated with these regimens. * Determine whether anxiety and/or depression, as measured by the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 (HSCL-25), are decreased with therapy that improves DFS of these patients . * Determine whether the incremental gain in DFS outweighs decrements in the generic domains of HRQOL (i.e., mobility, self care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression) in patients treated with these regimens. * Conduct a cost-utility analysis of hypofractionated 3D-CRT or IMRT as a prostate cancer therapy if this regimen is shown to be as effective as conventionally fractionated 3D-CRT or IMRT in improving DFS. OUTLINE: This is a randomized, controlled, multicenter study. Patients are stratified according to Gleason score (2-4 vs 5-6), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level (\< 4 ng/mL vs 4-\<9 ng/mL), and planned radiotherapy modality (three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy \[3D-CRT\] vs intensity-modulated radiotherapy \[IMRT\]). Patients are randomized to 1 of 2 treatment arms. * Arm I: Patients undergo conventionally fractionated 3D-CRT or IMRT once daily 5 days a week for 8.2 weeks (total of 41 treatments). * Arm II: Patients undergo hypofractionated 3D-CRT or IMRT once daily 5 days a week for 5.6 weeks (total of 28 treatments). Quality of life, anxiety, and depression are assessed at baseline and then at 6 months and 1, 2, and 5 years after the start of radiotherapy. After completion of study treatment, patients are followed every 3 months for 2 years, every 6 months for 3 years, and then annually thereafter. PROJECTED ACCRUAL: A total of 1,067 patients will be accrued to this study.

Interventions

RADIATIONConventional 3D-CRT or IMRT

Radiation therapy will be given once daily, five days a week, at 1.8 Gy per fraction, for 41 fractions and a total dose of 73.8 Gy

RADIATIONHypofractionated 3D-CRT or IMRT

Radiation therapy will be given once daily, five days a week, at 2.5 Gy per fraction, for 28 fractions and a total dose of 70 Gy.

Sponsors

National Cancer Institute (NCI)
CollaboratorNIH
NRG Oncology
CollaboratorOTHER
Radiation Therapy Oncology Group
Lead SponsorNETWORK

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
MALE
Age
18 Years to 120 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

DISEASE CHARACTERISTICS: * Histologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the prostate within the past 6 months * Clinical stage T1-2c * Combined Gleason score 2-6 * Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) \< 10 ng/mL within the past 6 months * PSA evaluated at least 10 days after prostate biopsy * For patients who received finasteride, PSA evaluated at least 30 after completion of finasteride * For patients who received dutasteride, PSA evaluated at least 90 after completion of dutasteride * No regional lymph node involvement * No distant metastases PATIENT CHARACTERISTICS: * Zubrod performance status 0-1 * No unstable angina and/or congestive heart failure requiring hospitalization within the past 6 months * No transmural myocardial infarction within the past 6 months * No acute bacterial or fungal infection requiring IV antibiotics * No chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation or other respiratory illness requiring hospitalization or precluding study treatment * No hepatic insufficiency resulting in clinical jaundice and/or coagulation defects * No known AIDS * No prior or concurrent lymphomatous/hematogenous malignancy or other invasive malignancy except nonmelanomatous skin cancer or any other cancer for which the patient has been continually disease-free for ≥ 5 years (e.g., carcinoma in situ of the bladder or oral cavity) * No other severe, active comorbidity PRIOR CONCURRENT THERAPY: * See Disease Characteristics * No prior radical prostatectomy or cryosurgery for prostate cancer * No prior hormonal therapy, including any of the following: * Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists (e.g., goserelin or leuprolide) * Antiandrogens (e.g., flutamide or bicalutamide) * Estrogens \[e.g., diethylstilbestrol (DES)\] * Surgical castration (bilateral orchiectomy) * No prior pelvic radiotherapy or prostate brachytherapy * No prior or concurrent cytotoxic chemotherapy for prostate cancer * At least 30 days since prior finasteride * At least 90 days since prior dutasteride * No concurrent neoadjuvant or adjuvant hormonal therapy * Concurrent warfarin or other blood-thinning agents allowed

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Five-year Disease-free Survival (DFS) RateAnalysis occurs after all patients have been followed for five years.Five-year rates are estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. DFS events included local progression, distant metastatic progression, biochemical recurrence as defined by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) Phoenix definition, or death from any cause. Patients who experienced second primary cancers remained under observation for DFS events.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Five-year Local Progression RateAnalysis occurs after all patients have been followed for five years.Clinical criteria for local recurrence are progression (increase in palpable abnormality) at any time, failure of regression of the palpable tumor by 2 years, and redevelopment of a palpable abnormality after complete disappearance of previous abnormalities. Histologic criteria for local recurrence are presence of prostatic carcinoma upon biopsy and positive biopsy of the palpably normal prostate more than 2 years after the start of treatment. The arms were not statistically compared because of an insufficient number of events.
Five-year Disease-specific Survival RateAnalysis occurs after all patients have been followed for five years.An event was death in association with any of the following conditions: * Primary cause of death certified as due to prostate cancer * Further clinical tumor progression occurring after initiation of salvage anti-tumor (e.g., (androgen suppression) therapy * A rise (that exceeds 1.0 ng/mL) in the serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level on at least two consecutive occasions that occurs during or after salvage androgen suppression therapy * Disease progression in the absence of any anti-tumor therapy * Death from a complication of therapy, irrespective of disease status. The arms were not statistically compared because of an insufficient number of events.
Five-year PSA Failure RateAnalysis occurs after all patients have been followed for five years.Five-year rates are shown (cumulative incidence estimates). Note, although the protocol calls this endpoint Freedom from biochemical recurrence, it defines the endpoint as The time to PSA failure. An event for PSA, i.e. biochemical, failure was the first of the following: initiation of non-protocol (e.g., salvage) hormone therapy, or an increase in PSA of at least 2 ng/mL. Time to biochemical failure was measured from study entry until the date of failure.
Five-year Overall Survival RateAnalysis occurs after all patients have been followed for five years.Five-year rates Kaplan-Meier estimates. Overall survival (OS) was measured from study entry until the date of death. Patients still alive at the time of analysis were censored at the date of last follow-up
Frequency of Patients With GU and GI Acute and Late ToxicityAcute toxicity is measured from start of treatment to 90 days from the completion of treatment. Late toxicity is defined as toxicity occuring after 90 days from completion of treatment. Analysis occured at the time of the primary endpoint analysis.The frequency of genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events as defined and graded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 3) were compared between treatment arms. Acute toxicity was defined as any toxicity beginning within 90 days of completion of RT, and late toxicity was defined as any toxicity beginning more than 90 days after the completion of RT. Acute and late GU and GI toxicity rates were tabulated and reported in two ways: dichotomized as \< grade 2 vs ≥ grade 2, and dichotomized as \< grade 3 vs ≥ grade 3. Higher grade indicates more severity.
The Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices QuestionaireBaseline, 6, 12, and 24 months, and 5 yearsThe Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices questionaire is designed to assess the use of erectile aids among patients treated for prostate cancer. This instrument is used to complement the sexual symptom domain in the EPIC. The percentage of Yes responses to the following questions are reported: Do you have a penile prosthesis, Have you used an medications or devices to aid or improve erections?.
Change From Baseline in Assessment of Anxiety and Depression Using the HSCL-25Baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 24 months, and 5 yearsAnxiety and depression were measured with the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL-25). It consists of 25 items: Part I of the HSCL-25 has 10 items for anxiety symptoms; Part II has 15 items for depression symptoms. The scale for each question includes four categories of response (Not at all, A little, Quite a bit, Extremely, rated 1 to 4, respectively). Two scores are calculated: the total score is the average of all 25 items and ranges from 0 to 100. A higher score indicates worse symptoms. The HSCL-25 tool was assessed at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 24 months, and 5 years. For each patient, the change in score from baseline to the time point is calculated by subtracting the baseline value from the time point value.
EQ-5D ScoresBaseline, 6 months, 12 months, 24 months, and 5 yearsThe EQ-5D is a 2-part self-assessment questionnaire. First part is 5 items (mobility, self care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, anxiety/depression) each with 3 problem levels (1-none, 2-moderate, 3-extreme). Health states are defined by the combination of the leveled responses to the 5 dimensions, generating 243 health states to which unconsciousness and death are added. The 2nd part is a visual analogue scale (VAS) valuing current health state, measured on a 20-cm 10-point interval scale. Worst imaginable health state is scored as 0 at the bottom of the scale, and best imaginable health state is scored as 100 at the top. Both the 5-item index score and the VAS score are transformed into a utility score between 0 -Worst health stat and 1 -Best health state. A two-sided Wilcoxon test with alpha 0.05 was used due to the skewed, thus non-normal, nature of the data.
Assessment of Trade-off Between Disease-free Survival and Quality of Life.From baseline to 5 years from the start of treatmentTo examine trade-offs between the survival time and QOL, we were to combine them for each patient into two single measurements: quality adjusted live year (QALY) and quality adjusted disease-free survival year (QADFSY). We were to use Glasziou's multiple health-state (Q-TWiST) models to use the repeated measures of EQ-5D.
Statistical Modeling of Genomic BiomarkersBaseline biomarker collection. Analysis would occur after the primary endpoint analysis.
Comparison of Disease-specific HRQOL Change in Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC); the Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Supplements the EPICBaseline, 6, 12, and 24 months, and 5 yearsProstate cancer (PC) Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) outcomes as measured by change over time in the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite \[EPIC\], a PC HRQOL instrument measuring a broad spectrum of urinary, bowel, and sexual symptoms related to radiotherapy, is compared between arms. The EPIC questionnaire was grouped into four domains (bowel, urinary, sexual, hormonal), each with a score ranging from 0 (worst) to 100 (best), and was assessed at baseline, 6, 12, and 24 months, and 5 years. The difference in score from baseline to each time point was calculated and the Wilcoxon test statistic was used to test the null hypothesis that responses are the same across the two treatment arms vs. the alternative hypothesis that they are different, using a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 at each timepoint, resulting in an alpha of 0.0125 for each domain. Each row refers to a separate analysis.

Other

MeasureTime frame
Collection of Paraffin-embedded Tissue Block, Serum, Plasma, and Buffy Coat Cells for Future Translational Research AnalysesFrom baseline to 5 years from the start of treatment.

Countries

Canada, United States

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Conventional 3D-CRT
Conventional 3D-CRT or IMRT: Radiation therapy will be given once daily, five days a week, at 1.8 Gy per fraction, for 41 fractions and a total dose of 73.8 Gy
542
Hypofractionated 3D-CRT
Hypofractionated 3D-CRT or IMRT: Radiation therapy will be given once daily, five days a week, at 2.5 Gy per fraction, for 28 fractions and a total dose of 70 Gy.
550
Total1,092

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001
Overall StudyProtocol Violation103
Overall StudyWithdrawal by Subject64

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicConventional 3D-CRTHypofractionated 3D-CRTTotal
Age, Continuous67 years67 years67 years
Sex: Female, Male
Female
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
542 Participants550 Participants1092 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
— / —— / —
other
Total, other adverse events
466 / 534497 / 545
serious
Total, serious adverse events
28 / 53432 / 545

Outcome results

Primary

Five-year Disease-free Survival (DFS) Rate

Five-year rates are estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. DFS events included local progression, distant metastatic progression, biochemical recurrence as defined by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) Phoenix definition, or death from any cause. Patients who experienced second primary cancers remained under observation for DFS events.

Time frame: Analysis occurs after all patients have been followed for five years.

Population: Eligible patients who did not withdraw consent

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Conventional 3D-CRTFive-year Disease-free Survival (DFS) Rate85.3 percentage of participants
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTFive-year Disease-free Survival (DFS) Rate86.3 percentage of participants
p-value: <0.00195% CI: [0.64, 1.14]Log Rank
Secondary

Assessment of Trade-off Between Disease-free Survival and Quality of Life.

To examine trade-offs between the survival time and QOL, we were to combine them for each patient into two single measurements: quality adjusted live year (QALY) and quality adjusted disease-free survival year (QADFSY). We were to use Glasziou's multiple health-state (Q-TWiST) models to use the repeated measures of EQ-5D.

Time frame: From baseline to 5 years from the start of treatment

Population: This analysis was not conducted because there were no differences in EQ-5D scores. See results presented for Outcome Measure 10: Evaluation and Comparison of the Cost-utility of Each Treatment Arm Using EQ-5D.

Secondary

Change From Baseline in Assessment of Anxiety and Depression Using the HSCL-25

Anxiety and depression were measured with the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL-25). It consists of 25 items: Part I of the HSCL-25 has 10 items for anxiety symptoms; Part II has 15 items for depression symptoms. The scale for each question includes four categories of response (Not at all, A little, Quite a bit, Extremely, rated 1 to 4, respectively). Two scores are calculated: the total score is the average of all 25 items and ranges from 0 to 100. A higher score indicates worse symptoms. The HSCL-25 tool was assessed at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 24 months, and 5 years. For each patient, the change in score from baseline to the time point is calculated by subtracting the baseline value from the time point value.

Time frame: Baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 24 months, and 5 years

Population: Eligible patients with a follow-up HSCL-25 who did not withdraw consent

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Conventional 3D-CRTChange From Baseline in Assessment of Anxiety and Depression Using the HSCL-256 months31.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.8
Conventional 3D-CRTChange From Baseline in Assessment of Anxiety and Depression Using the HSCL-2512 months31.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.3
Conventional 3D-CRTChange From Baseline in Assessment of Anxiety and Depression Using the HSCL-2524 months31.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.5
Conventional 3D-CRTChange From Baseline in Assessment of Anxiety and Depression Using the HSCL-255 years30.8 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.1
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTChange From Baseline in Assessment of Anxiety and Depression Using the HSCL-255 years32.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.9
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTChange From Baseline in Assessment of Anxiety and Depression Using the HSCL-256 months31.8 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 8.1
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTChange From Baseline in Assessment of Anxiety and Depression Using the HSCL-2524 months31.7 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.7
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTChange From Baseline in Assessment of Anxiety and Depression Using the HSCL-2512 months32.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 9
Comparison: The distribution of HSCL-25 at 6 months was calculated, and Wilcoxon test statistics were used to test the null hypothesis that responses are the same across the two treatment arms versus the alternative hypothesis that they are different. Significance level = 0.0125, two-sided test.p-value: 0.55Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Comparison: The distribution of HSCL-25 at 12 months was calculated, and Wilcoxon test statistics were used to test the null hypothesis that responses are the same across the two treatment arms versus the alternative hypothesis that they are different. Significance level = 0.0125, two-sided test.p-value: 0.29Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Comparison: The distribution of HSCL-25 at 24 months was calculated, and Wilcoxon test statistics were used to test the null hypothesis that responses are the same across the two treatment arms versus the alternative hypothesis that they are different. Significance level = 0.0125, two-sided test.p-value: 0.23Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Comparison: The distribution of HSCL-25 at 60 months (5 years) was calculated, and Wilcoxon test statistics were used to test the null hypothesis that responses are the same across the two treatment arms versus the alternative hypothesis that they are different. Significance level = 0.0125, two-sided test.p-value: 0.028Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Secondary

Comparison of Disease-specific HRQOL Change in Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC); the Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Supplements the EPIC

Prostate cancer (PC) Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) outcomes as measured by change over time in the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite \[EPIC\], a PC HRQOL instrument measuring a broad spectrum of urinary, bowel, and sexual symptoms related to radiotherapy, is compared between arms. The EPIC questionnaire was grouped into four domains (bowel, urinary, sexual, hormonal), each with a score ranging from 0 (worst) to 100 (best), and was assessed at baseline, 6, 12, and 24 months, and 5 years. The difference in score from baseline to each time point was calculated and the Wilcoxon test statistic was used to test the null hypothesis that responses are the same across the two treatment arms vs. the alternative hypothesis that they are different, using a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 at each timepoint, resulting in an alpha of 0.0125 for each domain. Each row refers to a separate analysis.

Time frame: Baseline, 6, 12, and 24 months, and 5 years

Population: Eligible patients with both a baseline and follow-up EPIC domain score, who did not withdraw consent

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Conventional 3D-CRTComparison of Disease-specific HRQOL Change in Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC); the Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Supplements the EPIC6 mo. EPIC Bowel Domain-4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 12.1
Conventional 3D-CRTComparison of Disease-specific HRQOL Change in Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC); the Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Supplements the EPIC6 mo. EPIC Urinary Domain0 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.5
Conventional 3D-CRTComparison of Disease-specific HRQOL Change in Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC); the Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Supplements the EPIC6 mo. EPIC Sexual Domain-8.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 20.9
Conventional 3D-CRTComparison of Disease-specific HRQOL Change in Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC); the Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Supplements the EPIC6 mo. EPIC Hormonal Domain-2.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.5
Conventional 3D-CRTComparison of Disease-specific HRQOL Change in Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC); the Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Supplements the EPIC12 mo. EPIC Bowel Domain (n=273, 294)-3.7 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 11.4
Conventional 3D-CRTComparison of Disease-specific HRQOL Change in Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC); the Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Supplements the EPIC12 mo. EPIC Urinary Domain-0.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.4
Conventional 3D-CRTComparison of Disease-specific HRQOL Change in Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC); the Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Supplements the EPIC12 mo. EPIC Sexual Domain-8.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 19.7
Conventional 3D-CRTComparison of Disease-specific HRQOL Change in Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC); the Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Supplements the EPIC12 mo. EPIC Hormonal Domain-1.6 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 8.5
Conventional 3D-CRTComparison of Disease-specific HRQOL Change in Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC); the Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Supplements the EPIC24 mo. EPIC Bowel Domain-4.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 12.4
Conventional 3D-CRTComparison of Disease-specific HRQOL Change in Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC); the Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Supplements the EPIC24 mo. EPIC Urinary Domain-0.5 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.6
Conventional 3D-CRTComparison of Disease-specific HRQOL Change in Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC); the Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Supplements the EPIC24 mo. EPIC Sexual Domain-9.7 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 21.1
Conventional 3D-CRTComparison of Disease-specific HRQOL Change in Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC); the Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Supplements the EPIC24 mo. EPIC Hormonal Domain-2.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.5
Conventional 3D-CRTComparison of Disease-specific HRQOL Change in Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC); the Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Supplements the EPIC60 mo. EPIC Bowel Domain-3.6 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 11.8
Conventional 3D-CRTComparison of Disease-specific HRQOL Change in Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC); the Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Supplements the EPIC60 mo. EPIC Urinary Domain-1.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 12.4
Conventional 3D-CRTComparison of Disease-specific HRQOL Change in Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC); the Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Supplements the EPIC60 mo. EPIC Sexual Domain-13.5 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 22.1
Conventional 3D-CRTComparison of Disease-specific HRQOL Change in Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC); the Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Supplements the EPIC60 mo. EPIC Hormonal Domain-2.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.3
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTComparison of Disease-specific HRQOL Change in Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC); the Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Supplements the EPIC60 mo. EPIC Hormonal Domain-2.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.4
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTComparison of Disease-specific HRQOL Change in Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC); the Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Supplements the EPIC6 mo. EPIC Bowel Domain-3.7 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 11.7
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTComparison of Disease-specific HRQOL Change in Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC); the Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Supplements the EPIC24 mo. EPIC Bowel Domain-6 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 12.7
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTComparison of Disease-specific HRQOL Change in Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC); the Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Supplements the EPIC6 mo. EPIC Urinary Domain-1.5 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 11.9
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTComparison of Disease-specific HRQOL Change in Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC); the Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Supplements the EPIC60 mo. EPIC Bowel Domain-5.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 12.6
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTComparison of Disease-specific HRQOL Change in Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC); the Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Supplements the EPIC6 mo. EPIC Sexual Domain-7.8 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 17.8
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTComparison of Disease-specific HRQOL Change in Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC); the Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Supplements the EPIC24 mo. EPIC Urinary Domain-0.7 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 12.4
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTComparison of Disease-specific HRQOL Change in Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC); the Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Supplements the EPIC6 mo. EPIC Hormonal Domain-1.8 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 10
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTComparison of Disease-specific HRQOL Change in Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC); the Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Supplements the EPIC60 mo. EPIC Sexual Domain-15.7 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 24.4
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTComparison of Disease-specific HRQOL Change in Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC); the Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Supplements the EPIC12 mo. EPIC Bowel Domain (n=273, 294)-7.5 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 14.6
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTComparison of Disease-specific HRQOL Change in Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC); the Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Supplements the EPIC24 mo. EPIC Sexual Domain-10.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 21
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTComparison of Disease-specific HRQOL Change in Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC); the Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Supplements the EPIC12 mo. EPIC Urinary Domain-1.8 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 13.1
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTComparison of Disease-specific HRQOL Change in Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC); the Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Supplements the EPIC60 mo. EPIC Urinary Domain-3.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 15
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTComparison of Disease-specific HRQOL Change in Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC); the Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Supplements the EPIC12 mo. EPIC Sexual Domain-8.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 20
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTComparison of Disease-specific HRQOL Change in Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC); the Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Supplements the EPIC24 mo. EPIC Hormonal Domain-1.7 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.5
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTComparison of Disease-specific HRQOL Change in Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC); the Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Supplements the EPIC12 mo. EPIC Hormonal Domain-1.6 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.4
Comparison: EPIC Bowel Domain at 6 monthsp-value: 0.72Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Comparison: EPIC Urinary Domain at 6 monthsp-value: 0.056Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Comparison: EPIC Sexual Domain at 6 monthsp-value: 0.99Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Comparison: EPIC Hormonal Domain at 6 monthsp-value: 0.49Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Comparison: EPIC Bowel Domain at 12 monthsp-value: 0.0037Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Comparison: EPIC Urinary Domain at 12 monthsp-value: 0.062Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Comparison: EPIC Sexual Domain at 12 monthsp-value: 0.94Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Comparison: EPIC Hormonal Domain at 12 monthsp-value: 0.93Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Comparison: EPIC Bowel Domain at 24 monthsp-value: 0.12Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Comparison: EPIC Urinary Domain at 24 monthsp-value: 0.81Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Comparison: EPIC Sexual Domain at 24 monthsp-value: 0.69Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Comparison: EPIC Hormonal Domain at 24 monthsp-value: 0.68Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Comparison: EPIC Bowel Domain at 60 monthsp-value: 0.071Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Comparison: EPIC Urinary Domain at 60 monthsp-value: 0.047Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Comparison: EPIC Sexual Domain at 60 monthsp-value: 0.4Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Comparison: EPIC Hormonal Domain at 60 monthsp-value: 0.91Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Secondary

EQ-5D Scores

The EQ-5D is a 2-part self-assessment questionnaire. First part is 5 items (mobility, self care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, anxiety/depression) each with 3 problem levels (1-none, 2-moderate, 3-extreme). Health states are defined by the combination of the leveled responses to the 5 dimensions, generating 243 health states to which unconsciousness and death are added. The 2nd part is a visual analogue scale (VAS) valuing current health state, measured on a 20-cm 10-point interval scale. Worst imaginable health state is scored as 0 at the bottom of the scale, and best imaginable health state is scored as 100 at the top. Both the 5-item index score and the VAS score are transformed into a utility score between 0 -Worst health stat and 1 -Best health state. A two-sided Wilcoxon test with alpha 0.05 was used due to the skewed, thus non-normal, nature of the data.

Time frame: Baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 24 months, and 5 years

Population: Eligible patients with a baseline or follow-up EQ-5D score who did not withdraw consent

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEDIAN)
Conventional 3D-CRTEQ-5D ScoresBaseline VAS Score85.0 units on a scale
Conventional 3D-CRTEQ-5D ScoresBaseline Index Score1.0 units on a scale
Conventional 3D-CRTEQ-5D Scores6 mo. VAS Score85.0 units on a scale
Conventional 3D-CRTEQ-5D Scores6 mo. Index Score1.0 units on a scale
Conventional 3D-CRTEQ-5D Scores12 mo. VAS Score85.0 units on a scale
Conventional 3D-CRTEQ-5D Scores12 mo. Index Score1.0 units on a scale
Conventional 3D-CRTEQ-5D Scores24 mo. VAS Score85.0 units on a scale
Conventional 3D-CRTEQ-5D Scores24 mo. Index Score1.0 units on a scale
Conventional 3D-CRTEQ-5D Scores60 mo. VAS Score85.0 units on a scale
Conventional 3D-CRTEQ-5D Scores60 mo. Index Score0.9 units on a scale
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTEQ-5D Scores24 mo. Index Score1.0 units on a scale
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTEQ-5D ScoresBaseline VAS Score82.0 units on a scale
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTEQ-5D Scores12 mo. Index Score1.0 units on a scale
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTEQ-5D ScoresBaseline Index Score1.0 units on a scale
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTEQ-5D Scores60 mo. Index Score0.9 units on a scale
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTEQ-5D Scores6 mo. VAS Score85.0 units on a scale
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTEQ-5D Scores24 mo. VAS Score85.0 units on a scale
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTEQ-5D Scores6 mo. Index Score1.0 units on a scale
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTEQ-5D Scores60 mo. VAS Score82.0 units on a scale
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTEQ-5D Scores12 mo. VAS Score81.5 units on a scale
Comparison: Baseline VAS scorep-value: 0.037Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Comparison: Baseline index scorep-value: 0.12Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Comparison: 6-month VAS scorep-value: 0.7Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Comparison: 6-month index scorep-value: 0.2Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Comparison: 12-month VAS scorep-value: 0.31Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Comparison: 12-month index scorep-value: 0.19Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Comparison: 24-month VAS scorep-value: 0.86Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Comparison: 24-month index scorep-value: 0.45Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Comparison: 60-month VAS scorep-value: 0.39Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Comparison: 60-month index scorep-value: 0.56Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Secondary

Five-year Disease-specific Survival Rate

An event was death in association with any of the following conditions: * Primary cause of death certified as due to prostate cancer * Further clinical tumor progression occurring after initiation of salvage anti-tumor (e.g., (androgen suppression) therapy * A rise (that exceeds 1.0 ng/mL) in the serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level on at least two consecutive occasions that occurs during or after salvage androgen suppression therapy * Disease progression in the absence of any anti-tumor therapy * Death from a complication of therapy, irrespective of disease status. The arms were not statistically compared because of an insufficient number of events.

Time frame: Analysis occurs after all patients have been followed for five years.

Population: All eligible patients

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Conventional 3D-CRTFive-year Disease-specific Survival Rate0.2 percentage of participants
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTFive-year Disease-specific Survival Rate0.2 percentage of participants
Secondary

Five-year Local Progression Rate

Clinical criteria for local recurrence are progression (increase in palpable abnormality) at any time, failure of regression of the palpable tumor by 2 years, and redevelopment of a palpable abnormality after complete disappearance of previous abnormalities. Histologic criteria for local recurrence are presence of prostatic carcinoma upon biopsy and positive biopsy of the palpably normal prostate more than 2 years after the start of treatment. The arms were not statistically compared because of an insufficient number of events.

Time frame: Analysis occurs after all patients have been followed for five years.

Population: All eligible patients.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Conventional 3D-CRTFive-year Local Progression Rate1.2 percentage of participants
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTFive-year Local Progression Rate0.4 percentage of participants
Secondary

Five-year Overall Survival Rate

Five-year rates Kaplan-Meier estimates. Overall survival (OS) was measured from study entry until the date of death. Patients still alive at the time of analysis were censored at the date of last follow-up

Time frame: Analysis occurs after all patients have been followed for five years.

Population: Eligible patients who did not withdraw consent.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Conventional 3D-CRTFive-year Overall Survival Rate93.2 percentage of participants
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTFive-year Overall Survival Rate92.5 percentage of participants
p-value: 0.00895% CI: [0.64, 1.41]Log Rank
Secondary

Five-year PSA Failure Rate

Five-year rates are shown (cumulative incidence estimates). Note, although the protocol calls this endpoint Freedom from biochemical recurrence, it defines the endpoint as The time to PSA failure. An event for PSA, i.e. biochemical, failure was the first of the following: initiation of non-protocol (e.g., salvage) hormone therapy, or an increase in PSA of at least 2 ng/mL. Time to biochemical failure was measured from study entry until the date of failure.

Time frame: Analysis occurs after all patients have been followed for five years.

Population: Eligible patients who did not withdraw consent.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Conventional 3D-CRTFive-year PSA Failure Rate8.1 percentage of participants
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTFive-year PSA Failure Rate6.3 percentage of participants
p-value: <0.00195% CI: [0.51, 1.17]Log Rank
Secondary

Frequency of Patients With GU and GI Acute and Late Toxicity

The frequency of genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events as defined and graded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 3) were compared between treatment arms. Acute toxicity was defined as any toxicity beginning within 90 days of completion of RT, and late toxicity was defined as any toxicity beginning more than 90 days after the completion of RT. Acute and late GU and GI toxicity rates were tabulated and reported in two ways: dichotomized as \< grade 2 vs ≥ grade 2, and dichotomized as \< grade 3 vs ≥ grade 3. Higher grade indicates more severity.

Time frame: Acute toxicity is measured from start of treatment to 90 days from the completion of treatment. Late toxicity is defined as toxicity occuring after 90 days from completion of treatment. Analysis occured at the time of the primary endpoint analysis.

Population: All eligible patients who started study treatment and did not withdraw consent

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Conventional 3D-CRTFrequency of Patients With GU and GI Acute and Late ToxicityLate GU: Grade >= 312 participants
Conventional 3D-CRTFrequency of Patients With GU and GI Acute and Late ToxicityAcute GI: Grade >= 33 participants
Conventional 3D-CRTFrequency of Patients With GU and GI Acute and Late ToxicityAcute GU: Grade >= 2145 participants
Conventional 3D-CRTFrequency of Patients With GU and GI Acute and Late ToxicityAcute GU: Grade >= 313 participants
Conventional 3D-CRTFrequency of Patients With GU and GI Acute and Late ToxicityLate GI: Grade >= 275 participants
Conventional 3D-CRTFrequency of Patients With GU and GI Acute and Late ToxicityLate GI: Grade >= 314 participants
Conventional 3D-CRTFrequency of Patients With GU and GI Acute and Late ToxicityLate GU: Grade >= 2121 participants
Conventional 3D-CRTFrequency of Patients With GU and GI Acute and Late ToxicityAcute GI: Grade >= 2:55 participants
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTFrequency of Patients With GU and GI Acute and Late ToxicityLate GU: Grade >= 319 participants
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTFrequency of Patients With GU and GI Acute and Late ToxicityAcute GI: Grade >= 2:58 participants
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTFrequency of Patients With GU and GI Acute and Late ToxicityLate GI: Grade >= 2121 participants
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTFrequency of Patients With GU and GI Acute and Late ToxicityAcute GI: Grade >= 34 participants
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTFrequency of Patients With GU and GI Acute and Late ToxicityLate GU: Grade >= 2161 participants
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTFrequency of Patients With GU and GI Acute and Late ToxicityAcute GU: Grade >= 2147 participants
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTFrequency of Patients With GU and GI Acute and Late ToxicityLate GI: Grade >= 322 participants
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTFrequency of Patients With GU and GI Acute and Late ToxicityAcute GU: Grade >= 318 participants
Comparison: Acute GI toxicity rates were tabulated and dichotomized as \< grade 2 vs ≥ grade 2. To evaluate the differences by treatment arm, 2 X 2 subtables were formed and relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed.p-value: 0.8595% CI: [0.73, 1.46]Regression, Logistic
Comparison: Acute GI toxicity rates were tabulated and dichotomized as \< grade 3 vs ≥ grade 3. To evaluate the differences by treatment arm, 2 X 2 subtables were formed and relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% CIs were computed.p-value: 0.7295% CI: [0.29, 5.81]Regression, Logistic
Comparison: Acute GU toxicity rates were tabulated and dichotomized as \< grade 2 vs ≥ grade 2. To evaluate the differences by treatment arm, 2 X 2 subtables were formed and relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% CIs were computed.p-value: 0.9595% CI: [0.82, 1.21]Regression, Logistic
Comparison: Acute GU toxicity rates were tabulated and dichotomized as \< grade 3 vs ≥ grade 3. To evaluate the differences by treatment arm, 2 X 2 subtables were formed and relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% CIs were computed.p-value: 0.3995% CI: [0.67, 2.74]Regression, Logistic
Comparison: Late GI toxicity rates were tabulated and dichotomized as \< grade 2 vs ≥ grade 2. To evaluate the differences by treatment arm, 2 X 2 subtables were formed and relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% CIs were computed.p-value: 0.00595% CI: [1.22, 2.06]Regression, Logistic
Comparison: Late GI toxicity rates were tabulated and dichotomized as \< grade 3 vs ≥ grade 3. To evaluate the differences by treatment arm, 2 X 2 subtables were formed and relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% CIs were computed.p-value: 0.1995% CI: [0.8, 2.99]Regression, Logistic
Comparison: Late GU toxicity rates were tabulated and dichotomized as \< grade 2 vs ≥ grade 2. To evaluate the differences by treatment arm, 2 X 2 subtables were formed and relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% CIs were computed.p-value: 0.00995% CI: [1.07, 1.61]Regression, Logistic
Comparison: Late GU toxicity rates were tabulated and dichotomized as \< grade 3 vs ≥ grade 3. To evaluate the differences by treatment arm, 2 X 2 subtables were formed and relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% CIs were computed.p-value: 0.2295% CI: [0.76, 3.18]Regression, Logistic
Secondary

Statistical Modeling of Genomic Biomarkers

Time frame: Baseline biomarker collection. Analysis would occur after the primary endpoint analysis.

Population: The protocol did not provide sufficient detail to meet National Cancer Institute requirements for release of specimens from the NRG tissue bank for the protocol-specified analysis, therefore no assays were performed and no data were collected for this outcome measure. Specimen use will require federal approval and funding separate from this trial.

Secondary

The Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Questionaire

The Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices questionaire is designed to assess the use of erectile aids among patients treated for prostate cancer. This instrument is used to complement the sexual symptom domain in the EPIC. The percentage of Yes responses to the following questions are reported: Do you have a penile prosthesis, Have you used an medications or devices to aid or improve erections?.

Time frame: Baseline, 6, 12, and 24 months, and 5 years

Population: Eligible patients answering the questionaire, who did not withdraw consent

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Conventional 3D-CRTThe Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices QuestionaireBaseline penile prosthesis question2.0 percentage of participants
Conventional 3D-CRTThe Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices QuestionaireBaseline medications/devices question24.5 percentage of participants
Conventional 3D-CRTThe Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Questionaire6 mo. penile prosthesis question2.5 percentage of participants
Conventional 3D-CRTThe Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Questionaire6 mo. medications/devices question25.0 percentage of participants
Conventional 3D-CRTThe Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Questionaire12 mo. penile prosthesis question0.3 percentage of participants
Conventional 3D-CRTThe Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Questionaire12 mo. medications/devices question29.6 percentage of participants
Conventional 3D-CRTThe Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Questionaire24 mo. penile prosthesis question1.5 percentage of participants
Conventional 3D-CRTThe Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Questionaire24 mo. medications/devices question36.3 percentage of participants
Conventional 3D-CRTThe Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Questionaire60 mo. penile prosthesis question1.7 percentage of participants
Conventional 3D-CRTThe Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Questionaire60 mo. medications/devices question35.2 percentage of participants
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTThe Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Questionaire24 mo. medications/devices question33.3 percentage of participants
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTThe Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices QuestionaireBaseline penile prosthesis question0.0 percentage of participants
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTThe Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Questionaire12 mo. medications/devices question30.3 percentage of participants
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTThe Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices QuestionaireBaseline medications/devices question23.0 percentage of participants
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTThe Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Questionaire60 mo. medications/devices question31.7 percentage of participants
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTThe Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Questionaire6 mo. penile prosthesis question0.6 percentage of participants
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTThe Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Questionaire24 mo. penile prosthesis question0 percentage of participants
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTThe Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Questionaire6 mo. medications/devices question24.1 percentage of participants
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTThe Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Questionaire60 mo. penile prosthesis question1.2 percentage of participants
Hypofractionated 3D-CRTThe Utilization of Sexual Medications/Devices Questionaire12 mo. penile prosthesis question0.6 percentage of participants
Other Pre-specified

Collection of Paraffin-embedded Tissue Block, Serum, Plasma, and Buffy Coat Cells for Future Translational Research Analyses

Time frame: From baseline to 5 years from the start of treatment.

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Mar 3, 2026