Early results of COMPPARE, a prospective comparison of outcomes with proton and photon radiation in prostate cancer.
Abstract
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 .
Article Details
Journal Info
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Authors (20)
Nancy P. Mendenhall
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL
Curtis Bryant
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL
Aaron J. Katz
Christopher G. Morris
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL
Amy M. Crisp
Center for Data Solutions, University of Florida, Jacksonville
Todd A. DeWees
DeWStat LLC, Phoenix, AZ
Folakemi Odedina
Jeff M. Michalski
Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
Jerry D. Slater
Department of Radiation Medicine, Loma Linda University School of Medicine, Loma Linda, CA
Seungtaek Choi
Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
Hesham Gayar
Karmanos Cancer Institute, Flint, MI
Christopher Sinesi
Hampton University Proton Cancer Instittute, Hampton, VA
Robert A. Zlotecki
Department of Radiation Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC
David T. Marshall
Mark Raymond Waddle
Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN
Bradford Hoppe
2Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, United States
Timothy Showalter
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA
Steven J. DiBiase
Department of Radiation Oncology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY
William Robert Lee
Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC
Ronald C. Chen
University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS