I'm interested in conversations about and I want to talk about
Know exactly what you want?
Show search

Notification

Error

The CHHiP Trial. Localised prostate cancer and IMRT

User
Posted 27 Jun 2016 at 15:58

The final results from the randomised CHHiP Trial were published on 20 June 216. If anyone, especially newcomers to the Forum, is interested in the results and what happens next I have put together some information and links about the findings from the trial.

Previously when men have had external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) the gold standard has been to have 74 Gray’s (Gy) over 37 fractions each of 2 Gy.   However, some Oncology Teams may give RT for a shorter period.  The trial looked to find the best way to deliver EBRT for men with localised prostate cancer who are in the range T1b - T3a N0 M0. Full details of the study are in the first link below, the section “Methods” on page 2 is s good starting point.   

The trial compared hypofractionated high dose intensity modulated radioptherapy (IMRT), that is a higher dose of RT for a shorter period with the standard RT. To put this into perspective a “Gray” (Gy) is a dose of RT and a” fraction” is a single treatment. A single treatment may be for more than one Gy.

The trial had 3 arms (or groups): men in Group 1 had the current treatment; men in Group 2 had 60 Gy in 20 fractions each of 3 Gy over 4 weeks and men in Group 3 had 57 Gy in 19 fractions at 3 Gy over 3.8 weeks. Most men received neoadjuvant and concurrent ADT.

The findings from the trial showed that 60 Gy in 20 fractions (ie. 3 Gy for each treatment) was as effective as 74 Gy in 37 fractions (ie. 2 Gy for each treatment). The findings also showed that the 60 Gy in 20 fractions does not cause an increase in the serious side effects. The result is that the 60 Gy dose of IMRT has been recommended as the standard of care for EBRT for localised prostate cancer.

The Group 3 option of 57 Gy in 19 fractions produced less favourable results than the 60 Gy used in Group 2. 

The advantages from the new recommendation are that men have fewer daily visits to hospital which results in significant savings in the cost of RT but there is a downside to this. The findings are based on EBRT being delivered by IMRT so before the new 60 Gy treatment option can become widely used as the new gold standard Public Health England (PHE) will have to roll out a programme to make IMRT widely available across the NHS. This means that some men will not have immediate access to the benefits of the new recommendation.  

You can find more information about the detail of the findings and how they have been received in the links below.

Men who are T3b N0 M0 or more advanced were not included in the trial and I understand that if they have RT  they will receive the current 74 Gy over 37 fractions/days at 2 Gy per day, subject to any local clinical deviations from this. 

The findings have been known for some time by Oncology Teams following a preliminary announcement of the results at a conference in 2015. At my review with my Nurse Practitioner in October 2015 I learnt that their procedure for external beam RT for localised prostate cancer has been changed. Due to reports about the CHHiP Trial IMRT is now based on 60 Gy with 20 fractions of 3 Gy over 4 weeks. For completeness, HT is given for 3 months before RT starts and later for up to 2 years if HT is needed to control any spread. The treatment plan is subject to the man’s individual circumstances.        

“Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial”

http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanonc/PIIS1470-2045(16)30102-4.pdf

“Hypofractionation for prostate cancer: tested and proven”

http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanonc/PIIS1470-2045(16)30150-4.pdf

“Prostate cancer trial results should mean fewer hospital trips to have radiotherapy”

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2016/06/20/prostate-cancer-trial-results-should-mean-fewer-hospital-trips-to-have-radiotherapy/

“Quicker radiation trial shows ‘no-brainer’ win for men with prostate cancer”

http://prostatecanceruk.org/about-us/news-and-views/2016/6/quicker-radiation-trial-shows-no-brainer-win-for-men-with-prostate-cancer

A final point, this is my view of the findings from the CHHiP Trial after speaking with others about this. You must speak with your Oncology Team to find out what changes, if any, have been made or will be made in the way that EBRT is delivered to men with localised prostate cancer in your area.

I hope this is useful.

Alan

 

 

 

 

Edited by member 24 Aug 2016 at 07:56  | Reason: Not specified

User
Posted 27 Jun 2016 at 15:58

The final results from the randomised CHHiP Trial were published on 20 June 216. If anyone, especially newcomers to the Forum, is interested in the results and what happens next I have put together some information and links about the findings from the trial.

Previously when men have had external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) the gold standard has been to have 74 Gray’s (Gy) over 37 fractions each of 2 Gy.   However, some Oncology Teams may give RT for a shorter period.  The trial looked to find the best way to deliver EBRT for men with localised prostate cancer who are in the range T1b - T3a N0 M0. Full details of the study are in the first link below, the section “Methods” on page 2 is s good starting point.   

The trial compared hypofractionated high dose intensity modulated radioptherapy (IMRT), that is a higher dose of RT for a shorter period with the standard RT. To put this into perspective a “Gray” (Gy) is a dose of RT and a” fraction” is a single treatment. A single treatment may be for more than one Gy.

The trial had 3 arms (or groups): men in Group 1 had the current treatment; men in Group 2 had 60 Gy in 20 fractions each of 3 Gy over 4 weeks and men in Group 3 had 57 Gy in 19 fractions at 3 Gy over 3.8 weeks. Most men received neoadjuvant and concurrent ADT.

The findings from the trial showed that 60 Gy in 20 fractions (ie. 3 Gy for each treatment) was as effective as 74 Gy in 37 fractions (ie. 2 Gy for each treatment). The findings also showed that the 60 Gy in 20 fractions does not cause an increase in the serious side effects. The result is that the 60 Gy dose of IMRT has been recommended as the standard of care for EBRT for localised prostate cancer.

The Group 3 option of 57 Gy in 19 fractions produced less favourable results than the 60 Gy used in Group 2. 

The advantages from the new recommendation are that men have fewer daily visits to hospital which results in significant savings in the cost of RT but there is a downside to this. The findings are based on EBRT being delivered by IMRT so before the new 60 Gy treatment option can become widely used as the new gold standard Public Health England (PHE) will have to roll out a programme to make IMRT widely available across the NHS. This means that some men will not have immediate access to the benefits of the new recommendation.  

You can find more information about the detail of the findings and how they have been received in the links below.

Men who are T3b N0 M0 or more advanced were not included in the trial and I understand that if they have RT  they will receive the current 74 Gy over 37 fractions/days at 2 Gy per day, subject to any local clinical deviations from this. 

The findings have been known for some time by Oncology Teams following a preliminary announcement of the results at a conference in 2015. At my review with my Nurse Practitioner in October 2015 I learnt that their procedure for external beam RT for localised prostate cancer has been changed. Due to reports about the CHHiP Trial IMRT is now based on 60 Gy with 20 fractions of 3 Gy over 4 weeks. For completeness, HT is given for 3 months before RT starts and later for up to 2 years if HT is needed to control any spread. The treatment plan is subject to the man’s individual circumstances.        

“Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial”

http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanonc/PIIS1470-2045(16)30102-4.pdf

“Hypofractionation for prostate cancer: tested and proven”

http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanonc/PIIS1470-2045(16)30150-4.pdf

“Prostate cancer trial results should mean fewer hospital trips to have radiotherapy”

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2016/06/20/prostate-cancer-trial-results-should-mean-fewer-hospital-trips-to-have-radiotherapy/

“Quicker radiation trial shows ‘no-brainer’ win for men with prostate cancer”

http://prostatecanceruk.org/about-us/news-and-views/2016/6/quicker-radiation-trial-shows-no-brainer-win-for-men-with-prostate-cancer

A final point, this is my view of the findings from the CHHiP Trial after speaking with others about this. You must speak with your Oncology Team to find out what changes, if any, have been made or will be made in the way that EBRT is delivered to men with localised prostate cancer in your area.

I hope this is useful.

Alan

 

 

 

 

Edited by member 24 Aug 2016 at 07:56  | Reason: Not specified

User
Posted 27 Jun 2016 at 19:47

John was on some distant relative of the Chhip trial for his salvage RT - not all hospitals taking part in the trial were able to offer it to men having salvage but at |Jimmy's they were so convinced by the early data, they were really going for it. Everything you say here lines up well with what the onco told us - if anything, he was more emphatic, absolutely convinced that the side effects were fewer and more manageable at 20 x 3Gy than at 37 x 2Gy. Not all men can withstand the higher dose though - if it is a problem, they are able to revert to more fractions at lower Grays

"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards." Soren Kierkegaard

Show Most Thanked Posts
User
Posted 27 Jun 2016 at 19:47

John was on some distant relative of the Chhip trial for his salvage RT - not all hospitals taking part in the trial were able to offer it to men having salvage but at |Jimmy's they were so convinced by the early data, they were really going for it. Everything you say here lines up well with what the onco told us - if anything, he was more emphatic, absolutely convinced that the side effects were fewer and more manageable at 20 x 3Gy than at 37 x 2Gy. Not all men can withstand the higher dose though - if it is a problem, they are able to revert to more fractions at lower Grays

"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards." Soren Kierkegaard

User
Posted 27 Jun 2016 at 22:24

Hi,

I had 19 fractions of 3gy of RT (total 57gy) plus two years HT (3 months of it prior to RT) so I think I would be classed as having a Group 3 treatment because my oncologist was convinced that this would be best for me.

Suffered quite badly with side effects for a few months but they improved with time.

Looking at the results of the trial, having 20 fractions (Group 2) would have been the best option but there again I wasn't offered the choice.

Steve

 

User
Posted 28 Jun 2016 at 07:03

Cheers Alan really useful info.

When i had my adjuvent RT I had 3.2 gy over 20 sessions ie 64 in total so slightly more. Having said that i did not suffer any significant side effects

Bri

User
Posted 11 Jul 2016 at 16:16

Start my RT in Worcester in September. The 4 week version not available yet, has to be more training done. I would have preferred the 4 week one, leaves 3 weeks to get some recovery, and less travelling. More "hey ho".

User
Posted 11 Jul 2016 at 17:11

Thanks art

My 60 gy over in theory 4 weeks (due to machine breakdowns it was a few days more than that) didn't come with any trial or IMRT but 3DRT with nigh on 6 months pre HT. Would I have had less continuing bladder frequency if IMRT was around then is the unknown. However nigh on 12 years since diagnosis I'm not complaining.

Ray

User
Posted 11 Jul 2016 at 19:22

Trail-blazer :-)

"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards." Soren Kierkegaard

User
Posted 12 Jul 2016 at 12:41

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27395453

Roy

User
Posted 12 Jul 2016 at 16:18

I was diagnosed with locally advanced prostate cancer (T3b N0 M0) in 2009. I was recruited into a clinical trial at the Royal Marsden where the hypofractionated 20 session IMRT treatment which was used in the CHHiP trial was used to irradiate the pelvic nodes as well as the prostate itself.

I had 1 year of hormone therapy (Zoladex) before the radiotherapy was started and a further two years of Zoladex treatment after the radiotherapy finished.

To my mind I tolerated both therapies very well with the minimum number of side effects. As far as I know recruitment for this trial has ended but the results have not yet been published. I'm still being followed up as part of the trial. Since finishing the treatment my PSA has slowly risen from undetectable to 0.68 ng/ml (Jan 2016) but this is not seen as a cause for further treatment by the research team.

If my experience is replicated by other participants in the trial I would expect that this regimen would be recommended as standard for locally advanced cancer.

 

Edited by member 12 Jul 2016 at 16:21  | Reason: Not specified

 
Forum Jump  
©2024 Prostate Cancer UK