Genitourinary Quality-of-Life Comparison Between Urethral Sparing Prostate Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Monotherapy and Virtual High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy Boost.

Although radiation dose escalation improves prostate cancer disease control, it can cause increased toxicity. Genitourinary (GU) symptoms after prostate radiation therapy affect patient health-related quality of life (QoL). We compared patient-reported GU QoL outcomes following 2 alternative urethral sparing stereotactic body radiation therapy regimens. Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC)–26 GU scores were compared between 2 urethral sparing stereotactic body radiation therapy trials. The SPARK trial prescribed a "Monotherapy" dose of 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions to the prostate. The PROMETHEUS trial prescribed 2 phases: a 19- to 21-Gy in 2 fractions "Boost" to the prostate, followed by 46 Gy in 23 fractions or 36 Gy in 12 fractions. The biological effective dose (BED) for urethral toxicity was 123.9 Gy for Monotherapy and 155.8 to 171.2 Gy for Boost. Mixed effects logistic regression models were utilized to estimate the difference in the odds of a minimal clinically important change from baseline EPIC-26 GU score between regimens at each follow-up. 46 Monotherapy and 149 Boost patients completed baseline EPIC-26 scoring. Mean EPIC-26 GU scores revealed statistically superior urinary incontinence outcomes for Monotherapy at 12 months (mean difference, 6.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6-12.1; P =.01) and 36 months (mean difference, 9.6; 95% CI, 4.1-15.1; P <.01). Monotherapy also revealed superior mean urinary irritative/obstructive outcomes at 12 months (mean difference, 6.9; 95% CI, 2.0-12.9; P <.01) and 36 months (mean difference, 6.3; 95% CI, 1.9-10.8; P <.01). For both domains and at all time points, the absolute differences were <10%. There were no significant differences in the odds of reporting a minimal clinically important change between regimens at any time point. Even in the presence of urethral sparing, the higher BED delivered in the Boost schedule may have a small adverse effect on GU QoL compared with Monotherapy. However, this did not translate to statistically significant differences in minimal clinically important changes. Whether the higher BED of the boost arm offers an efficacy advantage is being investigated in the Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group 18.01 NINJA randomized trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]