Prostate Advanced Radiation Technologies Investigating Quality of Life (PARTIQoL): Phase III Randomized Clinical Trial of Proton Therapy vs. IMRT for Localized Prostate Cancer

Author(s): J.A. Efstathiou1; B.Y. Yeap2; J.M. Michalski3; N. Horick2; A.L. Zietman1; J.P. Christodouleas4; S.C. Kamran1; R.R. Parikh5; N. Vapiwala4; S.A. Mihalcik6; D.T. Miyamoto1; J. Zeng7; H.A. Gay3; T.M. Pisansky8; M.V. Mishra9; A.J. Wisdom1; D.E. Spratt10; N.P. Mendenhall11; E.M. Soffen12; J.E. Bekelman4
Source: DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.08.012

Dr. Anjan Patel's Thoughts

Protons vs IMRT for localized prostate cancer showed no difference in outcome or quality of life. There will be longer f/u and other endpoints studied but the take-home message is that protons are not significantly better than photons.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

Patients with localized prostate cancer have several treatment options including external beam radiotherapy with either photons or protons. Proton beam therapy (PBT) has certain dosimetric advantages with the potential to reduce treatment-associated morbidity and improve oncologic outcomes, but it is generally more resource intensive than intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). To address the hypothesis that PBT results in improved patient-reported outcomes (PROs), PARTIQoL (NCT01617161) was conducted as a multi-center phase 3 randomized trial comparing the two modalities.

MATERIALS/METHODS

Patients with intermediate- or low-risk prostate cancer were randomized to PBT or IMRT, without hormonal therapy, stratified for institution, age, rectal spacer use, and fractionation (79.2 Gy/44 fractions vs 70 Gy/28 fractions). Participants were followed longitudinally to assess PROs of bowel, urinary, and sexual function for 60 months (mo) after completion of radiotherapy. Primary endpoint was to compare change from baseline in bowel quality of life (QOL) using the health care software score (range 0-100) at 24 mo. Secondary objectives include comparison of urinary and sexual functions, toxicity, and efficacy endpoints.

RESULTS

Between 06/2012-11/2021, 450 patients from 30 recruiting centers were randomized: PBT (N=226) and IMRT (N=224), of whom 221 and 216 were eligible and started radiation on the respective arms. Median follow-up was 60.3 mo among 424 patients still alive. Median age was 68 yrs (range 46-89), 59% had intermediate-risk disease, 51% received hypofractionation, 48% used a rectal spacer, and 49% of PBT patients were treated with pencil beam scanning. There was no difference between PBT or IMRT in mean change of health care software bowel score at 24 mo (p=0.836), with both arms showing only small, clinically non-meaningful decline from baseline (see Table). Similarly, there was no difference in bowel function at earlier timepoints (3, 6, 9, 12, 18 mo) or later timepoints (36, 48, 60 mo). No differences were observed in other domains (urinary, sexual, hormonal) at any timepoint. There was no difference in progression-free survival (PFS) (93.4% vs 93.7% at 60 mo, HR 1.16 [0.53, 2.57], p=0.706). There was no sustained difference in any QOL domain or PFS between arms in subgroups defined by stratification variables.

CONCLUSION

This prospective randomized clinical trial shows that patients treated with contemporary radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer achieve excellent QOL with highly effective tumor control, without measurable differences between PBT and IMRT. We continue to monitor participants for longer follow-up and secondary endpoints.

Author Affiliations

1Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; 2Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; 3Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; 4Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; 5Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ; 6Department of Radiation Oncology, Northwestern Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL; 7Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington – Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, WA; 8Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; 9Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; 10Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; 11Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL; 12Princeton Radiation Oncology, Astera Cancer Care, Jamesburg, NJ

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Articles

Radiographic Progression With and Without Prostate-Specific Antigen Rise in Patients With Advanced Prostate Cancer Treated With Enzalutamide

An important post-hoc analysis from ARCHES and PROSPER that quantifies something we've suspected clinically, roughly 1 in 4 enzalutamide-treated patients who progress radiographically have no prostate-specific antigen (PSA) rise, and the majority won't meet PCWG2/3 PSA progression criteria. Liver metastases were 5-fold more common at radiographic progression on enzalutamide versus control, suggesting lineage plasticity and AR-independent clones are the culprit. Bottom line for practice: don't wait for PSA to rise before imaging your metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) and nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) patients on ARPIs, periodic cross-sectional imaging, especially in the first two years, is warranted regardless of PSA trend.

Read More »

Alliance A222001: Oxybutynin Versus Placebo for the Treatment of Hot Flashes in Patients Receiving Androgen-Deprivation Therapy for Prostate Cancer

Solid pragmatic phase II showing oxybutynin 2.5mg and 5mg BID (twice a day) both beat placebo for hot flash reduction in men on androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), with no serious toxicities beyond expected dry mouth. Given that venlafaxine failed in this population and megestrol/medroxyprogesterone carry real concerns, this gives us an evidence-based option we can feel good about reaching for, especially in patients who also have urinary symptoms. Neurokinin B (NKB) antagonists are coming but not yet studied here, so oxybutynin fills a real gap now.

Read More »

PARP and Androgen-Signaling Inhibition plus ADT in Metastatic Prostate Cancer

Moving PARP inhibition earlier into the hormone-sensitive androgen pathway modulation–sensitive (APMS) setting, this trial shows talazoparib plus enzalutamide cuts the risk of progression or death in half (HR 0.48) in HRR-altered metastatic prostate cancer, with an impressive 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) of 77% versus 56%. The benefit extends beyond BRCA1/2 to ATM and CDK12 as well, which is clinically meaningful given that two-thirds of this population was non-BRCA.

Read More »

Improved Survival with Enzalutamide in Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer

Overall survival was 78.9% in the combination group compared with 69.5% in the leuprolide-alone group (HR 0.60). Enzalutamide monotherapy resulted in an overall survival of 73.1%, which was not statistically significant. We were already aware of the progression-free survival benefit; now we have overall survival data. This case was also presented in the MOC questions, where the correct answer was to add enzalutamide for a patient with a rising PSA on an LHRH agonist without imaging evidence of disease.

Read More »