Faria, Sergio

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. NRG Oncology RTOG 0415 is a randomized phase III noninferiority (NI) clinical trial comparing conventional fractionation (73.8 Gy in 41 fractions) radiotherapy (C-RT) with hypofractionation (H-RT; 70 Gy in 28) in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. The study included 1,092 protocol-eligible patients initially reported in 2016 with a median follow-up of 5.8 years. Updated results with median follow-up of 12.8 years are now presented. The estimated 12-year disease-free survival (DFS) is 56.1% (95% CI, 51.5 to 60.5) for C-RT and 61.8% (95% CI, 57.2 to 66.0) for H-RT. The DFS hazard ratio (H-RT/C-RT) is 0.85 (95% CI, 0.71 to 1.03), confirming NI ( P < .001). Twelve-year cumulative incidence of biochemical failure (BF) was 17.0% (95% CI, 13.8 to 20.5) for C-RT and 9.9% (95% CI, 7.5 to 12.6) for H-RT. The HR (H-RT/C-RT) comparing biochemical recurrence between the two arms was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.39 to 0.78). Late grade ≥3 GI adverse event (AE) incidence is 3.2% (C-RT) versus 4.4% (H-RT), with relative risk (RR) for H-RT versus C-RT 1.39 (95% CI, 0.75 to 2.55). Late grade ≥3 genitourinary (GU) AE incidence is 3.4% (C-RT) versus 4.2% (H-RT), RR 1.26 (95% CI, 0.69 to 2.30). Long-term DFS is noninferior with H-RT compared with C-RT. BF is less with H-RT. No significant differences in late grade ≥3 GI/GU AEs were observed between assignments (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00331773 ).

Abstract Background: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men. Monitoring of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can enhance provider-patient communication, promote better decision-making, and improve survival. Geospatial factors, namely rurality and neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation, could influence the experience across cancer treatment, thus impacting PROs and survival. This study examined associations of rurality, neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation (Area Deprivation Index [ADI]) with cancer treatment-related PROs and survival in men with prostate cancer. Methods: Data from men with prostate cancer in the trial NRG Oncology/RTOG 0415 were analyzed. In this trial, 1092 men were randomized to receive conventional radiotherapy (RT) or hypofractionated RT. Patients had Gleason scores of 2-6 and prostate-specific antigen of &lt;10 ng/mL. Rurality was categorized as urban vs rural using Rural-Urban Continuum Codes via patient zip codes. Neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation was assessed by the ADI calculated via the American Community Survey by patient zip codes. The Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) measures cancer-specific quality of life (QOL); Hopkins Symptom Checklist measures anxiety and depression; EuroQoL-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) VAS and Index scores assess general health. All PROs were measured at baseline before and 6, 12, 24 and 60 months after RT. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. Mixed effects models and generalized estimating equations were used to analyze PROs. Results: We analyzed 751 patients with complete data. Patients from the ADI 25% most deprived neighborhoods (vs. the other 75% of neighborhoods) were more likely to be non-white, unmarried and from rural areas. At baseline, patients from the most deprived areas had worse EPIC bowel score (P=0.011), worse sexual score (P=0.042) and worse hormonal score (P=0.015); patients from the most deprived areas had worse self-care (P=0.04) and more pain (P=0.047). Patients from rural areas had worse EPIC urinary score (P=0.03) and sexual score (P=0.003). Longitudinal analyses showed that ADI 25% most deprived areas (β=4.05, P=0.001) and rural areas (β=-5.70, P=0.003) were associated with worse EQ-5D VAS score. Compared to the 75% less deprived neighborhoods and urban, the ADI 25% most deprived neighborhoods and rural areas respectively had 47% (HR=1.466, P=0.033) and 93% (HR=1.925, P=0.026) relative increase in risk of recurrence or death (DFS). No differences were seen in OS. Conclusions: Patients with prostate cancer from the most deprived neighborhoods and rural areas had low QOL at baseline, poor general health and DFS. Interventions should target populations from socioeconomic deprived neighborhoods and rural areas to improve patient access to supportive care services and DFS. Citation Format: Jinbing Bai, Stephanie L. Pugh, Ronald Eldridge, Katherine Yeager, Qi Zhang, W Robert Lee, Amit B. Shah, Ian S. Dayes, David P. D'Souza, Jeff M. Michalski, Jason A. Efstathiou, John M. Longo, Thomas M. Pisansky, Jordan M. Maier, Sergio L. Faria, Anand B. Desai, Samantha A. Seaward, Howard M. Sandler, Mary E. Cooley, Deborah W. Bruner. Rurality and neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation associated with patient-reported outcomes andsurvivalin men with prostate cancer in NRG RTOG 0415 [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021; 2021 Apr 10-15 and May 17-21. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(13_Suppl):Abstract nr 2528.

1 Background: To determine whether the efficacy of a hypofractionated (H) schedule is no worse than a conventional (C) schedule in men with low-risk prostate cancer. Methods: From April 2006 to December 2009, one thousand one hundred fifteen men with low-risk prostate cancer (clinical stage T1-2a, Gleason ≤ 6, PSA < 10) were randomly assigned 1:1 to a conventional (C) schedule (73.8 Gy in 41 fractions over 8.2 weeks) or to a hypofractionated (H) schedule (70 Gy in 28 fractions over 5.6 weeks). The trial was designed to establish with 90% power and alpha = 0.05 that (H) results in 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) that is not lower than (C) by more than 7% (hazard ratio (HR) < 1.52). Secondary endpoints include freedom from biochemical recurrence (FFBR) and overall survival. At the third planned interim analysis (July 2015), the NRG Oncology Data Monitoring Committee recommended that the results of the trial be reported. Results: One thousand one hundred and one protocol eligible men were randomized: 547 to C and 554 to H. Median follow-up is 5.9 years. Baseline characteristics are not different according to treatment arm. At the time of analysis 185 DFS events have been observed; 99 in the C arm and 86 in the H arm. The estimated 7-year disease-free survival is 75.6% (95% CI 70.3, 80.1) in the C arm and 81.8% (77.5, 85.3) in the H arm. The DFS HR (C/H) is 0.85 (0.64, 1.14). Comparison of biochemical recurrence (HR = 0.77, (0.51, 1.17)) and overall survival (HR = 0.95, (0.65, 1.41)) also met protocol non-inferiority criteria. Grade ≥ 3 GI toxicity is 3.0% (C) vs. 4.6% (H), Relative risk (RR) for H vs. C 1.53, (95% CI 0.86, 2.83); grade ≥ 3 GU toxicity is 4.5% (C) vs. 6.4% (H), RR = 1.43 (0.86,2.37). Conclusions: In men with low-risk prostate cancer, 70 Gy in 28 fractions over 5.6 weeks is non-inferior to 73.8 Gy in 41 fractions over 8.2 weeks. Clinical trial information: NCT00331773.