Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy vs Moderately Hypofractionated IMRT for Localized Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer
Importance The treatment of prostate cancer with radiotherapy is evolving. How quickly radiotherapy can be delivered, and the relative risks and benefits of such a treatment, is of significant public interest. Objective To determine whether stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) was superior to moderately hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (MH-IMRT) in terms of patient-reported urinary irritative/obstructive and bowel quality of life and disease-free survival (DFS). Design, Setting, and Participants NRG-GU005 was a phase-3, international, open-label, randomized clinical trial. The study was activated on November 16, 2017, and closed to accrual on June 8, 2022. Date of last follow-up was October 13, 2024. There were 136 centers in Asia, Canada, Europe, and the United States that accrued patients to the study. Patients with localized prostate cancer, clinical stage T1-T2b with Gleason 3 + 4 (grade group 2) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level less than 20 ng/mL or Gleason 3 + 3 (grade group 1) and PSA level 10 to 20 ng/mL were eligible. Intended accrual of 692 patients provided reductions of 8% and 10% in minimal clinically important decline (MCID) frequency for urinary-irritative/obstructive and bowel domains of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite–26 Item (EPIC-26) instrument at 2 years and greater than 80% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.62 in DFS. Interventions Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive SBRT (36.25 Gy in 5 fractions; n = 353) or MH-IMRT (70 Gy in 28 fractions or 60 Gy in 20 fractions; n =345). Main Outcomes and Measures Primary outcomes were the frequency of an MCID in the urinary irritative/obstructive and bowel domains of the EPIC-26 at 2 years and DFS at 3 years. Results A total of 698 patients were randomized. Median age was 68 years; 3% were Asian, 13% Black, and 80% White. Median follow-up was 3.2 years (range, 0-6.5). At 2 years, there was no significant difference in the urinary-irritative domain (35.4% vs 33.7%, P = .68). Urinary incontinence at 1 and 2 years after treatment and sexual function at 1 year after treatment favored SBRT. Fewer grade 3 + 4 genitourinary adverse events occurred in the SBRT vs MH-IMRT group (0.6% vs 2.5%, P = .04). There were significantly fewer MCIDs with SBRT vs MH-IMRT in the bowel domain (34.9% vs 43.8%, P = .03). At 3 years, DFS for MH-IMRT was 92.1% (95% CI, 88.9%-95.2%) vs 88.6% for SBRT (95% CI, 85.2%-92.1%) (1-sided log-rank P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance Stereotactic body radiotherapy using a modest dose prescription improved multiple quality-of-life domains but was not superior to MH-IMRT in terms of DFS. The rate of PSA failure was not significantly improved in the SBRT vs MH-IMRT group. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03367702
Authors
- Arthur Frazier
- Harold Yoon
- André Konski (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6936-7682)
- M.W. Straza
- Robert E. Wallace (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4906-2566)
- David T. Marshall (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6029-1538)
- Rebecca Paulus (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7312-1194)
- Akshar N. Patel
- Alina Mihai (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2853-5093)
- Rodney J. Ellis
- Cynthia Ménard (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2609-9208)
- Robert L. Grubb (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1153-9717)
- Thomas Schroeder
- Asim Amjad
- Stephanie L. Pugh (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5977-8912)
- David J. Gladstone (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0612-5544)
- Nirav Kapadia
- J. Daniel Pennington
- Joseph A. Miccio
- Scott C. Morgan
- Ali El-Gayed
- Terrence P. Cescon
- James B. Yu
- Alvaro Martinez
- Felix Y. Feng
- NRG-GU005 Collaborative Authors
- Jeff M. Michalski
- Howard M. Sandler
- Daniel E. Spratt
- Abhishek Ashok Solanki
- Guila Delouya
Institutions
- American College of Radiology (US)
- University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
- Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (US)
- Dartmouth–Hitchcock Medical Center (US)
- Loyola University Medical Center (US)
- Medical University of South Carolina (US)
- Oregon Health & Science University (US)
- University of New Mexico (US)
- University of California, San Francisco (US)
- Medical College of Wisconsin (US)
- Washington University in St. Louis (US)
- Reading Hospital (US)
- Ottawa Hospital (CA)
- Tampa General Hospital (US)
- Chester County Hospital (US)
- Saskatchewan Cancer Agency (CA)
- MUSC Hollings Cancer Center (US)
- McLaren Macomb (US)
- Cancer Trials Ireland (IE)
- Southeast Clinical Oncology Research Consortium (US)
- Heartland Cancer Research (US)
- University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center (US)
- Dartmouth Psychiatric Research Center (US)
- Cancer Care Specialists of Illinois (US)
- Michigan Healthcare Professionals (US)
- Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CA)
- NRG Oncology (US)
- Case Western Reserve University (US)
- Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center (US)
Publication Details
- Journal
- JAMA
- Published
- 2026-08-13
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2026.12627
- Citations
- 1
- Primary Topic
- Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 6.26