The stereotactic prostate radiotherapy (SPORT) trial: A randomized feasibility study comparing prostate SABR to prostate and pelvic nodal SABR.
Authors: Fairmichael Ciaran , Redmond Kelly M. , Osman Sarah O. , Lyons Ciara A. , Mitchell Darren M. , O'Sullivan Joe M. , Cole Aidan J. , Giacometti Valentina , McGarry Conor K. , Hounsell Alan R. , Irvine Denise M. , Lundy Gavin S. , Jain Suneil 
Published: March 2021

248

Background: Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy (SABR) is increasingly used to treat low/intermediate risk localised prostate cancer (PCa). However, data on SABR +/- pelvic nodal irradiation (PNI) in high-risk disease is limited to single institution, single-arm studies. The Stereotactic Prostate Radiotherapy (SPORT) trial examined the feasibility of delivering a randomised trial of SABR ± PNI. The composite primary endpoint to determine feasibility comprised: recruitment rate, technical feasibility, acute toxicity (CTCAE v4.0) and quality of life (QoL)(EPIC). Secondary and exploratory endpoints including late toxicity (RTOG) and QoL and potential biomarkers of toxicity (plasma citrulline and DNA damage in circulating lymphocytes) are also presented. Methods: Men with localised PCa demonstrating one of T3a, Gleason score ≥4+3 or PSA>20 were eligible. T3b and T4 disease were excluded. 30 participants were randomised 1:1 to prostate SABR (P-SABR) or prostate and pelvis SABR (PPN-SABR). The prostate and proximal 1-2cm seminal vesicles received 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions over 29 days (prostate CTV 40Gy). The PPN-SABR arm also received 25 Gy in 5 fractions to the pelvic nodes. All patients had fiducial markers and a rectal spacer gel in-situ. As initial toxicity rates were low, the final 10 men received an additional integrated boost to the dominant intraprostatic lesion of up to 50 Gy, irrespective of randomisation. Results: Feasibility was demonstrated. The target recruitment of 30 men was met (83% high risk). Treatment, including an integrated boost plus PNI, was achievable using strict normal tissue constraints. Acute toxicity and QoL were acceptable (Table: Grade≥2 GU 7%, 27% and GI 0%, 7%; minimal clinically important change (MCIC) in EPIC urinary 40%, 60% and bowel score 33%, 47% in P and PPN arms respectively). At median follow up of 30 months (range 18-42 months), late toxicity and QoL were acceptable (Grade≥2 GU 7%, 20% and GI 0%, 13%; MCIC in EPIC urinary 33%, 67% and bowel score 33%, 67% in P and PPN arms respectively). All toxicity was ≤ grade 2 with the exception of one late grade 3 GU toxicity occurring in the PPN arm. Serum citrulline, a marker of small bowel function, trended towards lower levels in the PPN arm, in keeping with a significantly higher dose delivered to the small bowel in this arm. DNA damage foci in circulating lymphocytes increased at 1 hour after radiation. Foci count and repair correlated to toxicity measures will be presented. Conclusions: A randomised clinical trial comparing P-SABR to PPN-SABR is feasible. There was a suggestion of increased toxicity with PPN-SABR, but this remained acceptable. This data will inform a UK multi-centre phase 2 study. Clinical trial information: NCT03253978 . [Table: see text]