According to findings from the phase 3 PACE-B trial, genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were similar among patients with prostate cancer receiving conventionally fractioned or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy and stereotactic body radiotherapy.
Conventionally fractionated radiotherapy and 5 fraction stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) yielded similar 2-year Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) toxicity rates in patients with prostate cancer, according to results from the open-label, multicohort, randomized phase 3 PACE-B trial (NCT01584258)
At 24 months, RTOG grade 2 or worse genitourinary (GU) toxicities—one of the study’s co-primary end points—occurred in 2% of those receiving control radiotherapy compared with 3% of those in the SBRT cohort. Moreover, RTOG grade 2 or worse gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities were observed in 3% of those in the control radiotherapy cohort and 2% of those in the SBRT cohort.
A total of 874 patients enrolled and were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either the control radiotherapy (n = 381) or SBRT (n = 384). Patients in the control group received 78 Gy in 39 fractions over 7.8 weeks or 62 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks. In the other cohort, patients received 36.25 Gy of SBRT in 5 fractions over 1 to 2 weeks.
Patients were eligible to participate in the study if they had a World Health Oorganization performance status of 0 to 2, low-risk or intermediate-risk histologically-confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma, and at least 10 biopsy cores taken up to 18 months prior to randomization.
Secondary end points for the trial included the cumulative incidence of RTOG grade 2 or worse GU and GI toxicity up to 24 months, Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grade 2 or worse erectile dysfunction, and other CTCAE parameters such as hot flashes, fatigue, anorexia, weight loss, and radiation dermatitis.
At baseline, the patient median age was 69.7 years (range, 65.6-74.0) for the control radiotherapy cohort and 69.6 years (range, 65.4-73.8) for the SBRT group. Most patients in each respective arm had T2c tumors (39% vs 36%). Moreover, most patients in the control radiotherapy and SBRT arms, respectively, had National Comprehensive Cancer Network intermediate-risk prostate cancer, (90% vs 92%) and Gleason scores of 3+4 (80% vs 85%).
The trial prospectively included a subgroup analysis comparing patients who received SBRT using robotic non-coplanar radiotherapy (CyberKnife) compared with conventional linear accelerator (linac). Differences in CTCAE GU toxicity profile for robotic non-coplanar radiotherapy and conventional linac were seen in dysuria, incontinence, and retention of CTCAE elements; however, the differences were small. Differences between control radiotherapy delivered by robotic non-coplanar radiotherapy and linac were not significant. CTCAE grade 2 or worse GU incidents were observed in 4% of patients who received robotic non-coplanar control radiotherapy and 9% of those given CRT via a conventional linac center. Investigators did not observe any serious adverse effects (AEs) or any treatment-related deaths within during the analysis.
Tree AC, Ostler P, van der Voet H, et al. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer (PACE-B): 2-year toxicity results from an open-label, randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23(10):P1308-1320. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00517-4
Prolaris in Practice: Guiding ADT Benefits, Clinical Application, and Expert Insights From ACRO 2025
April 15th 2025Steven E. Finkelstein, MD, DABR, FACRO discuses how Prolaris distinguishes itself from other genomic biomarker platforms by providing uniquely actionable clinical information that quantifies the absolute benefit of androgen deprivation therapy when added to radiation therapy, offering clinicians a more precise tool for personalizing prostate cancer treatment strategies.
CCR Scores and Beyond: Precision Strategies for Treatment Intensification in Prostate Cancer
April 15th 2025Alvaro Martinez, MD discusses how emerging genomic risk stratification tools such as the clinical cell-cycle risk (CCR) score are transforming personalized prostate cancer treatment by enabling more nuanced assessments of metastasis risk and treatment intensification strategies beyond traditional NCCN risk groupings.