Importance Optimizing radiation therapy techniques for localized prostate cancer can affect patient outcomes. Dose escalation improves biochemical control, but no prior trials were powered to detect overall survival (OS) differences. Objective To determine whether radiation dose escalation to 79.2 Gy compared with 70.2 Gy would improve OS and other outcomes in prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants The NRG Oncology/RTOG 0126 randomized clinical trial randomized 1532 patients from 104 North American Radiation Therapy Oncology Group institutions March 2002 through August 2008. Men with stage cT1b to T2b, Gleason score 2 to 6, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of 10 or greater and less than 20 or Gleason score of 7 and PSA less than 15 received 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy or intensity-modulated radiation therapy to 79.2 Gy in 44 fractions or 70.2 Gy in 39 fractions. Main Outcomes and Measures Time to OS measured from randomization to death due to any cause. American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO)/Phoenix definitions were used for biochemical failure. Acute (≤90 days of treatment start) and late radiation therapy toxic effects (>90 days) were graded using the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria, version 2.0, and the RTOG/European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Late Radiation Morbidity Scoring Scheme, respectively. Results With a median follow-up of 8.4 (range, 0.02-13.0) years in 1499 patients (median [range] age, 71 [33-87] years; 70% had PSA <10 ng/mL, 84% Gleason score of 7, 57% T1 disease), there was no difference in OS between the 751 men in the 79.2-Gy arm and the 748 men in the 70.2-Gy arm. The 8-year rates of OS were 76% with 79.2 Gy and 75% with 70.2 Gy (hazard ratio [HR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.83-1.20;P = .98). The 8-year cumulative rates of distant metastases were 4% for the 79.2-Gy arm and 6% for the 70.2-Gy arm (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.42-1.01;P = .05). The ASTRO and Phoenix biochemical failure rates at 5 and 8 years were 31% and 20% with 79.2 Gy and 47% and 35% with 70.2 Gy, respectively (bothP < .001; ASTRO: HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.50-0.70; Phoenix: HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.44-0.65). The high-dose arm had a lower rate of salvage therapy use. The 5-year rates of late grade 2 or greater gastrointestinal and/or genitourinary toxic effects were 21% and 12% with 79.2 Gy and 15% and 7% with 70.2 Gy (P = .006 [HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.10-1.77] andP = .003 [HR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.17-2.16], respectively). Conclusions and Relevance Despite improvements in biochemical failure and distant metastases, dose escalation did not improve OS. High doses caused more late toxic effects but lower rates of salvage therapy. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier:NCT00033631

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) has emerged as a new treatment option for patients with oligometastatic disease. SABR delivers precise, high-dose, hypofractionated radiotherapy, and achieves excellent rates of local control for primary tumors or metastases. A recent randomized phase II trial evaluated SABR in a group of patients with a small burden of oligometastatic disease (mostly with 1–3 metastatic lesions), and found that SABR was associated with benefits in progression-free survival and overall survival. The goal of this phase III trial is to assess the impact of SABR in patients with 4–10 metastatic cancer lesions. One hundred and fifty-nine patients will be randomized in a 1:2 ratio between the control arm (consisting of standard of care palliative-intent treatments), and the SABR arm (consisting of standard of care treatment + SABR to all sites of known disease). Randomization will be stratified by two factors: histology (Group 1: prostate, breast, or renal; Group 2: all others), and type of pre-specified systemic therapy (Group 1: immunotherapy/targeted; Group 2: cytotoxic; Group 3: observation). SABR is to be completed within 2 weeks, allowing for rapid initiation of systemic therapy. Recommended SABR doses are 20 Gy in 1 fraction, 30 Gy in 3 fractions, or 35 Gy in 5 fractions, chosen to minimize risks of toxicity. The primary endpoint is overall survival, and secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, time to development of new metastatic lesions, quality of life, and toxicity. Translational endpoints include assessment of circulating tumor cells, cell-free DNA, and tumor tissue as prognostic and predictive markers, including assessment of immunological predictors of response and long-term survival. This study will provide an assessment of the impact of SABR on clinical outcomes and quality of life, to determine if long-term survival can be achieved for selected patients with 4–10 oligometastatic lesions. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03721341 . Date of registration: October 26, 2018.

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) has emerged as a new treatment option for patients with oligometastatic disease. SABR delivers precise, high-dose, hypofractionated radiotherapy, and achieves excellent rates of local control. Survival outcomes for patients with oligometastatic disease treated with SABR appear promising, but conclusions are limited by patient selection, and the lack of adequate controls in most studies. The goal of this multicenter randomized phase II trial is to assess the impact of a comprehensive oligometastatic SABR treatment program on overall survival and quality of life in patients with up to 5 metastatic cancer lesions, compared to patients who receive standard of care treatment alone.

To compare the effectiveness and tolerability of gabapentin with placebo for the treatment of hot flashes in women who enter menopause naturally. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted across the greater Toronto area between March 2004 and April 2006 in the community and primary care settings. Eligible participants were 200 women in natural menopause, aged 45 to 65 years, having at least 14 hot flashes per week. Study participants were randomized to receive gabapentin 300 mg oral capsules or placebo three times daily for 4 weeks. The primary outcome measure was the mean percentage change from baseline to week 4 in daily hot flash score, determined from participant diaries. Secondary outcome measures included changes in weekly mean hot flash scores and frequencies, quality of life, and adverse events. Of the 197 participants, 193 (98%) completed the study. Analysis was by intention to treat. Hot flash scores decreased by 51% (95% CI: 43%-58%) in the gabapentin group, compared with 26% (95% CI: 18%-35%) on placebo, from baseline to week 4. This twofold improvement was statistically significant (P < 0.001). The Menopause-Specific Quality-of-Life vasomotor score decreased by 1.7 (95% CI: 1.3-2.1; P < 0.001) in the gabapentin group. These women reported greater dizziness (18%), unsteadiness (14%), and drowsiness (12%) at week 1 compared with those taking placebo; however, these symptoms improved by week 2 and returned to baseline levels by week 4. Gabapentin at 900 mg/day is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for hot flashes.