Sinesi, Christopher

LBA5012 Background: There is a critical evidence gap on the relative benefits and harms of proton therapy (PT) compared with photon-based intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in prostate cancer. Herein we report early results from COMPPARE, a non-randomized comparative study of outcomes with PT and IMRT in prostate cancer. Methods: Between 2018-2022, 2524 patients from 51 facilities (28 PT and 23 IMRT) enrolled in COMPPARE, including 1501 treated with PT and 1023 treated with IMRT, and were followed prospectively. Treatment naïve patients with localized prostate cancer except those with very high-risk disease were eligible. Treatment was pragmatic with daily standard fractionation (1.8-2.1 Gy) and moderate hypofractionation (2.4-3.1 Gy) permitted. Use of rectal spacers and androgen deprivation were at physician discretion. Patient-reported quality of life data and treatment team-reported toxicity and disease control outcomes were collected at baseline and pre-specified time intervals via VisionTreeOptimalCare; treatment planning and delivery data were collected via the Advanced Treatment Consortium. We analyzed 1404 PT patients and 939 IMRT patients. We report the early primary endpoint of the study, a comparison of patient reported bowel urgency and bowel frequency at 2-years using the EPIC tool, and the secondary endpoints of 2-year CTCAE v5 ≥ grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicity outcomes and 3-year freedom from biochemical progression (FFBP) results reported by the study teams. Results: Study sample size was targeted at 1,500 PT patients and 1,000 IMRT patients, and median follow-up time was 4.0 years. The primary endpoint and secondary toxicity 2-year endpoints focused on the alternative hypothesis of PT superiority. All results include inverse probability of treatment weighting. Using generalized linear mixed effects models, we found there to be no significant difference in EPIC bowel urgency scores (p = 0.324) or bowel frequency scores (p = 0.514) between PT and IMRT cohorts over time up to the 2-year endpoint. For grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicity, the 2-year cumulative incidence was 5.2% for PT and 5.6% for IMRT. Gray’s Test for competing risks showed a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.91 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.65-1.28, p = 0.6] for PT versus IMRT. The exploratory non-inferiority endpoint of 3-year FFBP was 98.0% for PT and 97.9% for IMRT, and Gray’s Test showed a HR of 0.95 (95% CI: 0.52-1.71, p = 0.90). Conclusions: Analysis of early results of COMPPARE show no significant differences between PT and IMRT in patient reported bowel frequency and urgency, grade ≥2 gastrointestinal toxicity, or FFBP. Assessment of long-term disease control, late toxicity and secondary malignancy will require longer follow-up. Clinical trial information: NCT03561220 .

48 Background: The purpose of this study is to identify differences in toxicity, quality of life (QOL), and dosimetric endpoints among patients with low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma treated with either standard fractionation or hypofractionation proton-beam therapy. Methods: We analyzed the results of the first 75 patients treated in our phase III trial comparing 38Gy relative biological effectiveness (RBE) in 5 fractions (fx) (n = 46) vs. 79.2Gy (RBE) in 44 fx. (n = 29). All patients had low-risk prostate cancer and were treated with proton radiation using fiducial markers and daily image guidance. We evaluated American Urological Association (AUA) Symptom Index, adverse events (AEs), and Expanded Prostate Index Composite (EPIC) domains at pretreatment and 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, 36 and 48 months. Doses to the prostate were selected based on similar long term effects to normal tissue based on an α/β = 3.5 for an EQD2 of 76Gy. Results: The median follow-up was 36 months for both groups; 23 (30%) patients reached a follow-up of 48 months. We observed a small difference in AUA score (3.2 vs. 8.6, p = 0.002) at 1-year favoring the 79.2Gy arm. AUA scores were not statistically different at 18 months and after. Similarly, EPIC Urinary symptoms favored the 79.2Gy arm at 1 year (92.3 vs. 84.5, p = 0.009) and 18 months (92.3 vs. 85.3, p = 0.03); bother scores were not significantly different at any other time points. G2 or higher GU toxicity was similar between arms (p = 0.8). No differences in EPIC Bowel symptoms, EPIC Sexual symptoms, or bowel G2 or higher toxicities were seen. One death was observed in the 38Gy arm due to an unrelated case of multiple myeloma. The bladder V80 (79.2Gy arm, p = 0.04) and V39 (38Gy arm, p = 0.05) were predictive for G2 or higher GU AE. There was no association observed between rectal dose and G2 or higher rectal toxicity. Conclusions: Patients treated in the hypofractionated and standard arms tolerated treatment well. A small and temporary difference in the GU domain was seen favoring the standard arm. As predicted long term effects on the GU domain and bowel were similar for both arms, suggesting that the α/β is similar to 3.5 for long term effects. Clinical trial information: 01230866.