A Phase 1/2 Trial of Brief Androgen Suppression and Stereotactic Radiation Therapy (FASTR) for High-Risk Prostate Cancer

• Published in: International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics Vol. 92; no. 4; pp. 856 - 862
• Main Authors: Bauman, Glenn, MD, Ferguson, Michelle, MD, Lock, Michael, MD, Chen, Jeff, PhD, Ahmad, Belal, MD, Venkatesan, V.M., MD, Sexton, Tracy, MD, PhD, D'Souza, David, MD, Loblaw, Andrew, MD, Warner, Andrew, MSc, Rodrigues, George, MD, PhD
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 15-07-2015
• Subjects: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Androgen Antagonists - therapeutic use; ANDROGENS; Combined Modality Therapy - methods; Dose Fractionation; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone - agonists; HAZARDS; Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine; Humans; LYMPH NODES; Male; MEN; Middle Aged; NEOPLASMS; PLANNING; PROSTATE; Prostatic Neoplasms - drug therapy; Prostatic Neoplasms - surgery; Radiology; RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; Radiosurgery; RADIOTHERAPY; RECTUM; TOXICITY
• ISSN: 0360-3016; 1879-355X
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.02.046

Purpose To initiate a phase 1/2 trial to examine the tolerability of a condensed combined-modality protocol for high-risk prostate cancer. Methods and Materials Men scoring ≥3 on the Vulnerable Elderly Scale (VES) or refusing conventionally fractionated treatment for high-risk prostate cancer were eligible to participate. Androgen suppression was delivered for 12 months, and radiation therapy was delivered using 25 Gy to pelvic nodes delivered synchronously with 40 Gy to the prostate given as 1 fraction per week over 5 weeks. The phase 1 component included predetermined stopping rules based on 6-month treatment-related toxicity, with trial suspension specified if there were ≥6 of 15 patients (40%) or ≥3 of 15 (20%) who experienced grade ≥2 or ≥3 gastrointestinal (GI) or genitourinary (GU) toxicity, respectively. Results Sixteen men were enrolled, with 7 men meeting the criteria of VES ≥3 and 9 men having a VES <3 but choosing the condensed treatment. One man was not treated owing to discovery of a synchronous primary rectal cancer. Four patients (26%) experienced grade ≥2 toxicity at 6 weeks after treatment. There were 9 of 15 (60%) who experienced grade ≥2 GI or GU toxicity and 4 of 15 (26%) grade ≥3 GI or GU toxicity at 6 months, and 5 of 15 (30%) grade ≥2 GI and GU toxicity at 6 months. A review of the 15 cases did not identify any remedial changes, thus the phase 1 criteria were not met. Conclusion This novel condensed treatment had higher than anticipated late toxicities and was terminated before phase 2 accrual. Treatment factors, such as inclusion of pelvic lymph node radiation therapy, planning constraints, and treatment margins, or patient factors related to the specific frail elderly population may be contributing.