Bryant, Curtis

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 .

Purpose: To investigate the feasibility of using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-derived synthetic CTs to monitor the daily dose and trigger a plan review for adaptive proton therapy (APT) in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients. Methods: For 84 HNC patients treated with proton pencil-beam scanning (PBS), same-day CBCT and verification CT (vfCT) pairs were retrospectively collected. The ground truth CT (gtCT) was created by deforming the vfCT to the same-day CBCT, and it was then used as a dosimetric baseline and for establishing plan review trigger recommendations. Two different synthetic CT algorithms were tested; the corrected CBCT (corrCBCT) was created using an iterative image correction method and the virtual CT (virtCT) was created by deforming the planning CT to the CBCT, followed by a low-density masking process. Clinical treatment plans were recalculated on the image sets for evaluation. Results: Plan review trigger criteria for adaptive therapy were established after closely reviewing the cohort data. Compared to the vfCT, the corrCBCT and virtCT reliably produced dosimetric data more similar to the gtCT. The average discrepancy in D99 for high-risk clinical target volumes (CTV) was 1.1%, 0.7%, and 0.4% and for standard-risk CTVs was 1.8%, 0.5%, and 0.5% for the vfCT, corrCBCT, and virtCT, respectively. Conclusion: Streamlined APT has been achieved with the proposed plan review criteria and CBCT-based synthetic CT workflow.

e16555 Background: The ProtecT trial underscores the importance of treatment in men with prostate cancer and life expectancies > 10 years and the validity of radiation therapy (RT). RT can be given with photons or protons (PT). To address the controversy of which is better, clinical outcomes of photon-based intensity modulated RT (IMRT) and PT cohorts from 2 institutions were directly compared. Methods: Under respective IRB approvals, data from 2 cohorts were analyzed. The first was 301 men treated with ultrasound image guided IMRT from 2000-05 to 75.6 Gy in 42 fractions. The second was 1214 men treated with fiducial image guided PT from 2006-10 to 78 CGE in 39 fractions. Median age and followup were 74 y and 7.2 y for IMRT and 66 y and 5.6 y for PT. Hormone therapy (ADT) was used with IMRT and PT, respectively, in 3% and 7% of low-risk patients, 25% and 9.9% of intermediate-risk, and 91% and 57.8% of high-risk. Comparative endpoints were age-stratified 5-year (5Y) survival (OS), ≥ grade 3 gastrointestinal (GI) and urologic (GU) toxicity, and 5Y freedom from biochemical progression (FFBP). Results: There was a lower prevalence of GI (1.3% vs 0.1%, p = 0.0065) and GU (4.3% vs 0.1%, p < 0.0001) toxicity at last follow-up in the PT group. In the IMRT and PT cohorts, OS rates were 90.8% and 88.7% in men ≥75 (p = 0.4083). In men < 75, OS rates were 91.6% and 97.5% in the IMRT and PT low-risk patients (p = 0.003), 92.1% and 95.5% in the IMRT and PT intermediate-risk (p = 0.0535), and 92.0% and 90.0% (p = 0.4975) in the IMRT and PT high-risk. In the IMRT and PT cohorts, respectively, FFBP rates were 92.2% and 98.9% for low-risk patients (p < 0.0001), 87.3% and 94.5% for intermediate-risk patients(p = 0.0226), and 80.3% and 74.4% for high-risk patients (p = 0.5154). Conclusions: In this retrospective comparison of outcomes in cohorts of men treated with IMRT and PT for prostate cancer, FFBP rates were better with PT for men with low- and intermediate-risk disease and similar in men with high-risk disease despite longer and more frequent use of ADT in the IMRT cohort. This study underscores the difficulty of comparing retrospective series, with differences noted in age, RT dose, and ADT use between cohorts. However, the magnitude of improvement with PT is intriguing and warrants prospective testing.