onc brain

Individual patient data meta-analysis from the MARCAP Consortium, 12 eligible trials, 10,853 patients, median follow-up 11.4 years (IQR 9.0-15.0). Three intensification questions analyzed separately: ADT use, neoadjuvant ADT prolongation, adjuvant ADT prolongation.

Localized prostate cancer treated with definitive radiotherapy, stratified by NCCN prognostic risk group. The RT ± ADT comparison ran 2,557 control vs 2,579 experimental (NCCN high 32.6% vs 32.8%, intermediate 47.6% vs 48.7%); the adjuvant-prolongation comparison was high-risk enriched at 71.5% vs 71.1% NCCN high across 1,900 vs 1,874 pts.

Dose was analyzed as a binary ≥74 Gy vs <74 Gy split, with the companion HEAT analysis using 64 to <74 Gy vs ≥74 Gy and escalation up to 79.2 Gy. Brachytherapy boost is discussed as an escalation route alongside external-beam dose.

ADT addition improved MFS HR 0.83 (0.77-0.89) and OS HR 0.86 (0.80-0.92). Adjuvant prolongation improved MFS HR 0.84 (0.78-0.91) and OS HR 0.85 (0.78-0.94); neoadjuvant prolongation did neither (MFS HR 0.95, OS HR 0.95). 10-yr MFS 61% (59-63) with ADT vs 52% (50-54) without; 10-yr OS 65% (63-67) vs 57% (55-59).

The 2022 HEAT network meta-analysis (13 trials, 11,862 pts) found dose escalation improved biochemical RFS but not MFS or OS, and named high-dose RT plus long-term ADT the best strategy. PROG 05/09 and GETUG-18 are invoked to explain the gap: a 21% 5-year biochemical benefit in low risk where metastasis is rare, versus 3% in high risk where it is not.

The pooled trials span 30+ years of practice, so the RT technique behind the <74 Gy stratum is not the technique a reader delivers today. The stated optimal durations (closer to 12 months high risk, 24+ months very high risk) come from DHARMA, accepted but unpublished, so that specific number is not yet auditable.

The framing claim is that dose escalation and ADT are not interchangeable levers: escalation buys biochemical control, ADT buys metastasis-free and overall survival, and the two do not substitute. The dogma that dose escalation obviates ADT is named as widely repeated and never demonstrated.

IPD meta-analysis of randomised trials, large N, long f/u. Reinforces ADT intensification over dose escalation; no new randomisation, and duration guidance rests on unpublished DHARMA.

Subset analysis of the phase 3 HERO trial, which randomized 934 men with advanced prostate cancer 2:1 to relugolix or leuprolide for 48 weeks. This report covers a 90-day recovery period after treatment discontinuation.

184 men who completed 48 weeks of assigned therapy and had no plan to start alternative ADT within the next 12 weeks (24 weeks after a last leuprolide 3-month depot). 137 had received relugolix, 47 leuprolide.

Relugolix 120 mg orally once daily after a single 360 mg loading dose on Day 1, versus leuprolide injections every 12 weeks, each for 48 weeks.

Time to testosterone recovery to ≥280 ng/dL by Kaplan-Meier, PSA during the recovery phase, and adverse events during recovery. No oncologic efficacy endpoint in this analysis.

During recovery, 96% of men had at least one adverse event and 15% had a grade ≥3 event, similar in both groups.

The 90-day window sits inside the pharmacologic tail of a 3-month leuprolide depot, so part of the 53.9% vs 3.2% gap is measurement timing rather than a durable biologic difference. The leuprolide median of 112.0 days derives from 2 recovery events.

Consistent in direction with the parent HERO result, where relugolix gave deeper sustained castration (96.7% vs 88.8%, difference 7.9%, 95% CI 4.1 to 11.8, P<0.001). The trade the two readings define is depth of suppression on-treatment against speed of recovery off-treatment, both favoring the oral antagonist.

This settles a kinetic question, not a clinical one: no recurrence, quality-of-life, or cardiometabolic endpoint is tied to the faster recovery here. Whether restoring normal testosterone months earlier translates into measurable benefit, or into a PSA that reflects recovering physiology rather than disease, remains untested.

Post-hoc subset of a phase 3 trial, non-randomised entry criterion, 137 vs 47 arms; recovery kinetics are a pharmacologic expectation, not a new clinical outcome.

Phase 3 international randomised trial, 1:1 central allocation by ICR-CTSU with permuted blocks, stratified by centre and NCCN risk group. Treatment allocation was open-label. Of 874 randomised, 844 formed the analysis population (SBRT=414, CRT=430), median follow-up 85.7 and 85.6 mo.

Men with low-/intermediate-risk localised prostate cancer. Baseline characteristics balanced; baseline PROM data pooled across arms given equivalent pretreatment function.

SBRT 36.25 Gy in five fractions versus CRT 78 Gy in 39 fractions or 62 Gy in 20 fractions. Image-guidance method was not analysed as a variable, and rectal spacer use is not reported in this analysis.

Primary comparison: SBRT vs CRT at 5 yr for each PROM endpoint, using EPIC-26 urinary incontinence, sexual and bowel domains plus the Vaizey faecal incontinence score at baseline, 1, 2 and 5 yr. Binary outcomes by chi-squared with Wilson 95% CIs; continuous by Mann-Whitney.

All predefined between-group differences were nonsignificant. Sexual domain median score fell from 48.7 (IQR 22.2-77.8) to 26.3 (IQR 16.7-57) for SBRT and 54.2 (IQR 27.8-75.0) to 24.3 (IQR 16.7-52.8) for CRT, p=0.89.

Moderate or big urinary leakage problems reached 6% (15/250) SBRT and 4% (9/244) CRT; bowel problems 5% in both arms. Solid stool incontinence never/rarely in 94% (232/248) SBRT and 90% (217/241) CRT; liquid stool 92% in both.

PACE-B previously showed SBRT non-inferior to conventional and moderately hypofractionated RT for efficacy but with higher cumulative GU adverse events; these PROMs argue that excess did not persist to 5 yr. Against TrueNTH's robotic prostatectomy benchmark at 1 yr (42% leak- and pad-free, 6% of baseline-potent men retaining intercourse-adequate erections), the RT curves sit far better, and PACE-A reported pad use of 4.6% after SBRT versus 46.9% after prostatectomy.

The EPIC-26 irritative/obstructive domain was not included, removing the symptom cluster most often attributed to SBRT, though the authors note no 5-yr difference was seen in prior reporting. There is no untreated control arm, so age-related decline is unseparated from treatment effect, and no analysis by image-guidance method.

The clinically useful claim is narrow and real: five fractions buys convenience without a late functional cost relative to 20 or 39 fractions. The cross-modality framing against surgery is the weaker half, comparing separate cohorts at different timepoints with a shared instrument rather than a randomised contrast.

Prespecified 5-yr PROM analysis of a phase 3 RCT; all between-group differences nonsignificant, supporting five-fraction SBRT already in guideline use. Attrition to ~60% limits precision.

Protocol-planned secondary analysis of the TROG 08.03 RAVES phase 3 noninferiority RCT, 166 aRT vs 167 sRT. Median follow-up 6 yr (IQR 4 to 7.1) in both arms. Complete-case analysis, no imputation, chi-square per timepoint.

High-risk features after RP: positive margins, extraprostatic extension, or seminal vesicle invasion. 82% Gleason 7, 3% Gleason 8, 12% Gleason 9. Median age 63.8 vs 63.9 yr (p = 0.9).

64 Gy in 32 fractions to the prostate fossa in both arms, mostly 3D-CRT rather than IMRT. aRT within 6 mo of RP; sRT triggered at PSA 0.20 ng/ml and delivered within 4 mo. Concurrent ADT and pelvic nodal treatment were not permitted.

Primary: proportion with a minimal clinically important change, defined as a >0.5 SD decline from baseline on each QLQ-PR25 domain. MCIC thresholds were 7 points urinary, 2 points bowel, 14 sexual activity, 12 sexual functioning. Global QOL by QLQ-C30.

The RP-to-RT interval regression is the cleanest read: no coefficient approached significance at 3, 4, or 5 yr in any domain, with the largest estimate 0.20 (95% CI -0.29 to 0.70, p = 0.4).

GETUG-AFU 17 and RADICALS reported the same directional late GU penalty for adjuvant RT, though cross-trial comparison is blocked by differing urinary grading. Prior clinician-rated series put CTCAE grade 2 incontinence at 10 to 20%, bracketing the 16% seen here.

The aRT versus never-irradiated comparison is not randomized: those 87 men were selected by not recurring, so comorbidity and baseline continence are unbalanced by construction. The sRT-received group's worse sexual activity at 3 and 4 yr is confounded by higher-risk disease and likely more ADT off-protocol, and the 5-yr sexual functioning cells are as small as n = 10.

The patient-reported bowel signal is invisible on CTCAE (RAVES showed no clinician-rated GI difference), and the patient-reported urinary trend never reached consistent significance despite a 70% vs 54% clinician-rated G2+ GU gap. The two instruments are measuring different things, and neither alone describes what a man experiences.

Protocol-planned secondary analysis of a randomized trial; supports the established early-salvage standard. Exploratory, unadjusted for multiple testing, 3D-CRT era.

IPD meta-analysis of randomised phase 3 CFRT vs MHFRT trials via the MARCAP consortium. Searches on Dec 15, 2023 and re-run Jan 8, 2025 screened 1696 records down to 7 eligible trials. Three separate analyses: efficacy, physician-scored late toxicity, and patient-reported outcomes.

Localised prostate cancer on trials that published patient-level efficacy AND late toxicity data. 3454 pts across three isodose trials, 2426 pts across four dose-escalated trials. Trials whose CFRT arm fell below modern dose were excluded.

The intervention split is the whole point: isodose MHFRT (same equivalent dose in fewer fractions, eg 60 Gy in 20 fractions) versus dose-escalated MHFRT. The CFRT comparator had to deliver ≥70 Gy in 2 Gy equivalents.

Primary (efficacy): progression-free survival. Co-primary toxicity endpoints: late grade 2 or higher GU and GI. Co-primary PRO endpoints: clinically-significant decrement in urinary or bowel quality of life.

The GI signal sits entirely in the dose-escalated stratum and shows up on both physician grading and patient report; the isodose stratum carries neither. GU odds ran above 1 in both comparisons with intervals crossing unity.

CHHiP and PROFIT established 60 Gy in 20 fractions as non-inferior to conventional fractionation. The escalated schedules were built on the premise that a higher equivalent dose in fewer fractions would improve control; pooled here that premise fails on PFS while adding bowel toxicity.

Toxicity scales and PRO instruments were not uniform across the seven trials, and the dose-escalated stratum pools four schedules that are not interchangeable, so the OR describes escalation as a class, not one regimen. Follow-up also differs between strata (5.4 vs 7.1 yrs).

With efficacy answered as a null, the schedule decision turns entirely on toxicity, and the toxicity difference runs one way. Escalating per-fraction dose beyond isodose buys no measurable PFS while adding bowel morbidity that pts themselves report, which leaves little argument for an escalated MHFRT schedule in intact localised disease.

Pooled IPD from seven randomised phase 3 trials, aligned with existing moderate-hypofractionation practice; refines which regimen rather than establishing a new modality or population.

Randomized, non-blinded phase III, 1:1, N=698 (MH-IMRT 345, SBRT 353), stratified by Gleason score, PSA, and rectal manipulation. The trial's oncologic primary endpoint sits elsewhere; this analysis reports the patient-reported secondary endpoints.

Localized intermediate-risk prostate cancer, median age 68 (IMRT) and 69 (SBRT). Two patients were ineligible (one high-risk, one PSA out of window). Baseline EPIC domains were balanced across arms, all p≥0.093.

SBRT 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions delivered 2-3 per week, PTV expansion 5mm except 3mm posteriorly and anteriorly, PTV max capped at 38.78 Gy unless the urethra was visualized and contoured (acceptable variation 43.5 Gy). MH-IMRT 70 Gy/28 fx or 60 Gy/20 fx, PTV expansion 8mm except 5mm posteriorly. CTV was prostate ± 1cm proximal seminal vesicles. Rectal manipulation was common: SpaceOAR in 55% overall.

EPIC-26 at baseline, 12 and 24 months. MCID thresholds: >5 points urinary irritative/obstructive, >6 urinary incontinence, >10 sexual, >4 bowel and hormonal. Individual MCID rather than group mean scores was the analytic unit, with an exploratory longitudinal linear model adjusted for baseline score, arm, stratification factors, T-stage, age, and race.

The arm-level MCID and toxicity comparisons are tabulated above. Longitudinal modeling of urinary incontinence gave a least square mean difference of 2.91 (95% CI 0.85-4.97, p=0.0058) favoring SBRT, while sexual and hormonal domains showed no significant treatment effect.

Investigator-reported toxicity favored SBRT across the board: grade ≥3 GU 0.6% vs 2.5% (p=0.04), any-grade rectal hemorrhage 10.5% vs 17.3% (p=0.01), any-grade fatigue 39.2% vs 50.8% (p=0.0025). The GU finding is the one that most often runs the other way in ultrahypofractionation series, so it is worth reading as the trial's own answer to the pre-trial toxicity concern.

PACE-B is the other large randomized SBRT vs moderate hypofractionation comparison, and both trials show lower urinary incontinence decline with SBRT despite differing MCID definitions. Prior patient-level meta-analysis had suggested less clinically meaningful bowel and urinary irritative/obstructive decline at two years with SBRT, and the 1-year bowel result here is directionally consistent.

Differential attrition ran against the IMRT arm: 22 IMRT patients (6.4%) died or withdrew before year 1 versus 4 SBRT patients (1.1%), and 22 IMRT patients never received the assigned RT after withdrawal versus 1 in the SBRT arm. Completion was 79.9% (IMRT) and 84.0% (SBRT) at year 1. The domain-by-timepoint pattern (bowel and sexual at 1yr, incontinence at 2yr) is the kind of scattered significance that multiplicity should temper.

The trial was designed when the open question was whether five fractions cost the patient something. The PRO answer is that it does not, and the investigator-reported toxicity answer is that it may cost less. What the QoL data cannot do is settle whether SBRT is oncologically non-inferior, which is the primary endpoint and is not reported in this source.

Prespecified PRO secondary analysis of a phase III trial, non-blinded with patient-reported endpoints; aligns with PACE-B rather than establishing a new position. Oncologic primary endpoint not reported here.

International investigator-initiated phase 3, N=802 from 8 countries, accrued March 2014 to June 2018, median follow-up 8 years. Powered at 80% for an HR 0.67. Primary was changed from OS to MFS during the trial because deaths ran below projection.

High-risk clinically localized or locally-advanced disease suitable for EBRT: 90% Gleason 8-10, 36% PSA >20 ng/ml, 12% cN1 by conventional imaging. 40% planned for pelvic RT and 8% for a brachytherapy boost.

Experimental: enzalutamide 160 mg daily x 24 months plus LHRH agonist x24 months. Control: conventional NSAA x6 months plus LHRH agonist x24 months. The control is an active antiandrogen, not ADT alone.

Prostate to 78Gy, or 46Gy plus brachytherapy boost, starting 16 weeks after hormonal therapy. Pelvic nodal RT required for cN1 (46Gy elective nodes plus boost to gross nodes) and optional for cN0 but declared before randomization. QA was unusually tight: credentialing, benchmarking, real-time review of the first 5 plans per site, then 20% random sampling.

Primary: MFS. Secondary: OS, CSS, PSA PFS, clinical PFS, castration resistance, HRQoL, adverse events, cost-effectiveness. Main effects by unstratified log-rank at alpha=0.05, Cox HRs, all p-values nominal without multiplicity adjustment, five prespecified subgroups tested by interaction.

Primary MFS not met. PFS favored enzalutamide at a nominal p=0.044 and OS was flat; the subgroup detail sits in the table above.

STAMPEDE's abiraterone-based intensification in non-metastatic high-risk disease produced an MFS HR 0.53 against ENZARAD's 0.88, and the ENZARAD cN1 subgroup HR mirrors the STAMPEDE result. The gap plausibly reflects population, not drug: cN1 11% vs 39%, median PSA 14 vs 35 ng/ml, cT3-4 47% vs 92%.

The pelvic-RT subgroup is not a clean randomized comparison of pelvic coverage: it carried 28% N1 and 62% Gleason 9/10 against 0% N1 and 49% Gleason 9/10 in the no-pelvic-RT group, so risk enrichment and biological interaction are entangled. The presenter named both explanations and could separate neither.

Two prespecified subgroups moving together on MFS and OS, with OS HRs tracking MFS HRs as ICECaP surrogacy predicts, is more internally consistent than a lone subgroup blip. It still does not establish that enzalutamide works only when the pelvis is treated.

Adequately powered phase 3 missed its primary MFS endpoint against an active NSAA control; benefit rests on two prespecified subgroups with overlapping risk composition.

Systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis (X-MET collaboration), PROSPERO CRD42023479078. Searched Embase, PubMed, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and ClinicalTrials.gov to Nov 3 2023, updated May 4 2025; dual independent screening in Covidence, Cochrane RoB 2.0. Of 2975 studies screened, 7 phase 2 trials randomising 574 men were included.

Published randomised prospective trials in oligometastatic (up to five metastases) prostate cancer with data sufficient for PFS and OS. Most patients were castration-sensitive (n=375, 65%); ARTO enrolled entirely CRPC and the two EXTEND baskets a CRPC subset. The primary tumour had received prior definitive local therapy in 491 patients (85.5%), required in every trial except the EXTEND baskets and ARTO.

Co-primary: progression-free survival and overall survival. Secondary: radiographic PFS and castration resistance-free survival. Primary analysis restricted to the six trials randomising MDT plus SOC versus SOC, with both a random-effects trial-level analysis and a patient-level analysis stratified by trial.

Effect sizes are in the endpoint table. Trial- and patient-level estimates agreed closely on all four endpoints, and OS showed HR<1 in every individual trial without reaching significance in aggregate.

The constituent trials are the ones that currently drive MDT practice: STOMP and ORIOLE (small randomised phase 2, ADT-free intervals and progression), ARTO (MDT added to abiraterone in CRPC), the two EXTEND hormone baskets, and the prostate subgroup of SABR-COMET (16 men). Pooling them raises precision on PFS but cannot add the phase 3 evidence none of them supply, and the ongoing randomised phase 3 programmes remain the gate.

The SOC arm was not one thing: observation in all or part of STOMP, ORIOLE and COMET-SABR, and second-generation ARPI use differed between arms (59.8%, n=134 in SOC vs 50.4%, n=125 in MDT), which cuts against MDT rather than for it. Four abstract-only randomised primary analyses could not supply IPD and were excluded, and the prostate contribution from SABR-COMET is 16 men.

PFS is where the estimate is tight and consistent; OS is where the question stays open, and at p=0.051 the honest read is an underpowered signal, not a negative result. The endpoint most likely to matter to practice is CRFS (HR 0.58) in castration-sensitive disease, because deferring castration resistance is the outcome MDT is being asked to deliver.

Pools only phase 2 trials with non-blinded randomisation and mixed SOC; co-primary OS missed (p=0.051). Supports existing MDT practice rather than establishing level 1 evidence.