Cited by 1,339Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesBreast Cancer Treatment Studies

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

Open access
Dearnaley, David, Syndikus, Isabel, Mossop, Helen, Khoo, Vincent, Birtle, Alison, Bloomfield, David, Graham, John, Kirkbride, Peter +21 more·2016·The Lancet Oncology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer might have high radiation-fraction sensitivity that would give a therapeutic advantage to hypofractionated treatment. We present a pre-planned analysis of the efficacy and side-effects of a randomised trial comparing conventional and hypofractionated radiotherapy after 5 years follow-up. METHODS: CHHiP is a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial that recruited men with localised prostate cancer (pT1b-T3aN0M0). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to conventional (74 Gy delivered in 37 fractions over 7·4 weeks) or one of two hypofractionated schedules (60 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks or 57 Gy in 19 fractions over 3·8 weeks) all delivered with intensity-modulated techniques. Most patients were given radiotherapy with 3-6 months of neoadjuvant and concurrent androgen suppression. Randomisation was by computer-generated random permuted blocks, stratified by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group and radiotherapy treatment centre, and treatment allocation was not masked. The primary endpoint was time to biochemical or clinical failure; the critical hazard ratio (HR) for non-inferiority was 1·208. Analysis was by intention to treat. Long-term follow-up continues. The CHHiP trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN97182923. FINDINGS: Between Oct 18, 2002, and June 17, 2011, 3216 men were enrolled from 71 centres and randomly assigned (74 Gy group, 1065 patients; 60 Gy group, 1074 patients; 57 Gy group, 1077 patients). Median follow-up was 62·4 months (IQR 53·9-77·0). The proportion of patients who were biochemical or clinical failure free at 5 years was 88·3% (95% CI 86·0-90·2) in the 74 Gy group, 90·6% (88·5-92·3) in the 60 Gy group, and 85·9% (83·4-88·0) in the 57 Gy group. 60 Gy was non-inferior to 74 Gy (HR 0·84 [90% CI 0·68-1·03], pNI=0·0018) but non-inferiority could not be claimed for 57 Gy compared with 74 Gy (HR 1·20 [0·99-1·46], pNI=0·48). Long-term side-effects were similar in the hypofractionated groups compared with the conventional group. There were no significant differences in either the proportion or cumulative incidence of side-effects 5 years after treatment using three clinician-reported as well as patient-reported outcome measures. The estimated cumulative 5 year incidence of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grade 2 or worse bowel and bladder adverse events was 13·7% (111 events) and 9·1% (66 events) in the 74 Gy group, 11·9% (105 events) and 11·7% (88 events) in the 60 Gy group, 11·3% (95 events) and 6·6% (57 events) in the 57 Gy group, respectively. No treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: Hypofractionated radiotherapy using 60 Gy in 20 fractions is non-inferior to conventional fractionation using 74 Gy in 37 fractions and is recommended as a new standard of care for external-beam radiotherapy of localised prostate cancer. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Department of Health, and the National Institute for Health Research Cancer Research Network.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1470-2045(16)30102-4

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dearnaley, D., Syndikus, I., Mossop, H., Khoo, V., Birtle, A., Bloomfield, D., Graham, J., Kirkbride, P., Logue, J., Malik, Z., Money-Kyrle, J., O'Sullivan, J. M., Panades, M., Parker, C., Patterson, H., Scrase, C., Staffurth, J., Stockdale, A., Tremlett, J., Bidmead, M., Mayles, H., Naismith, O., South, C., Gao, A., Cruickshank, C., Hassan, S., Pugh, J., Griffin, C., & Hall, E.
Affiliations
  • Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Clatterbridge Cancer Centre NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Institute of Cancer Research (GB)
  • Royal Preston Hospital (GB)
  • Musgrove Park Hospital (GB)
  • Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • The Christie Hospital (GB)
  • Lincoln County Hospital (GB)
  • Addenbrooke's Hospital (GB)
  • Ipswich Hospital (GB)
  • Velindre Cancer Centre (GB)
  • University Hospital Coventry (GB)
  • Royal Surrey County Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Dearnaley, David
Venue
The Lancet Oncology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-08
Volume
17
Issue
8
Pages
1047-1060
ISSN
1470-2045 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2465092116
Cited by
1,339
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 99 · 2025: 146 · 2024: 132 · 2023: 145 · 2022: 146 · 2021: 152 · 2020: 158 · 2019: 143 · 2018: 106 · 2017: 80 · 2016: 30
FWCI
107.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2016-08-01)
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet Oncology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Funders
  • Health Research Board (ICORG-2016-1)
  • Cancer Research UK (12518, 19727, 10588)
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0611-10106)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Radiation › Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Breast Cancer Treatment Studies
Keywords
prostate cancer, hypofractionated radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy, high-dose radiotherapy, conventional fractionation, non-inferiority, biochemical recurrence, clinical failure, androgen deprivation therapy, neoadjuvant therapy, long-term outcomes, radiation toxicity, late effects, quality of life, NCCN risk classification
MeSH terms
Radiation Dose Hypofractionation, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, International Agencies, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasm Staging, Prostatic Neoplasms, Risk Factors, Survival Rate, Treatment Outcome, Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review