Hydrogel Spacer Prospective Multicenter Randomized Controlled Pivotal Trial: Dosimetric and Clinical Effects of Perirectal Spacer Application in Men Undergoing Prostate Image Guided Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has become a viable treatment option for the many patients who receive a diagnosis of localized prostate cancer each year. Technological advancements have led to tight target conformality, allowing for high-dose-per-fraction delivery without untoward normal tissue toxicity. Biochemical control, now reported up to 5 years, appears to compare favorably with dose-escalated conventionally fractionated radiotherapy. Moreover, toxicity and quality of life follow-up data indicate genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities are likewise comparable to conventional radiation therapy. Nevertheless, because of the long natural history of prostate cancer, extended follow-up will be necessary to confirm these impressive initial results. Within this prostate SBRT review, we explore the detailed rationale for SBRT treatment, the diverse SBRT techniques utilized and their unique technical considerations, and finally data for SBRT clinical efficacy and treatment-related toxicity.

Minimal Rectal Toxicity in the Setting of Comorbid Crohn's Disease Following Prostate Cancer Radiotherapy with a Hydrogel Rectal Spacer

We present one of the first cases of a prostate cancer (PCa) patient with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and a hydrogel rectal spacer. A 73-year-old male with a past medical history significant for Crohn’s disease (CD) and the recent diagnosis of T1cN0M0 high-risk PCa was referred for definitive radiotherapy. Given the patient’s history of CD and the possible increased risk of gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity and disease exacerbation, prior to IMRT, a hydrogel spacer was placed between the prostate and the anterior rectal wall to further minimize irradiation to the rectum. The patient then received IMRT (78 Gy/2 Gy fractions at a 100 percent isodose line). Over the course of treatment, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) Grade 1 GI toxicities of mild diarrhea were noted during the fifth and sixth weeks of treatment as well as an RTOG Grade 1 genitourinary (GU) toxicity of a decrease in the urinary stream that resolved with tamsulosin. At the 3, 6, 9, and 12-month follow-ups, bowel movements and urinary stream were reported to be at baseline with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels of 0.18 ng/mL and 0.03 ng/mL at the three and nine-month follow-ups, respectively. As such, this case report suggests that IBD patients with localized PCa may be viable candidates for radiotherapy given the promising results of hydrogel spacers in combination with IMRT in limiting rectal toxicity.

Dosimetric comparison of rectal-sparing capabilities of rectal balloon vs injectable spacer gel in stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer: lessons learned from prospective trials

This study aimed to compare the rectal-sparing capabilities of rectal balloons vs absorbable injectable spacer gel in stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer. Patient samples included in this analysis were obtained from 2 multi-institutional prospective trials of SBRT for prostate cancer using a rectal balloon (n = 36 patients) and injectable spacer gel (n = 36). Treatment prescription dose was 45 Gy in 5 fractions in 42 patients; for equal comparison, the remaining 30 patients were rescaled to 45 Gy from 47.5 Gy prescription (n = 6) and 50 Gy prescription (n = 24). The median prostate volumes and body mass index in the 2 patient samples were not statistically significantly different (p= 0.67 and 0.45, respectively), supporting anatomic similarity between cohorts. The injectable spacer gel achieved dosimetric superiority over the rectal balloon with respect to the maximum dose to the rectum (42.3 vs 46.2 Gy, p < 0.001), dose delivered to 33% of the rectal circumference (28 vs 35.1 Gy, p < 0.001), and absolute volume of rectum receiving 45 Gy (V45_Gy), V40_Gy, and V30_Gy (0.3 vs 1.7 cc, 1 vs 5.4 cc, and 4.1 vs 9.6 cc, respectively; p < 0.001 in all cases). There was no difference between the 2 groups with respect to the V50_Gy of the rectum or the dose to 50% of the rectal circumference (p= 0.29 and 0.06, respectively). The V18.3_Gy of the bladder was significantly larger with the rectal balloon (19.9 vs 14.5 cc, p= 0.003). In this analysis of patients enrolled on 2 consecutive multi-institutional prospective trials of SBRT for prostate cancer, the injectable spacer gel outperformed the rectal balloon in the majority of the examined and relevant dosimetric rectal-sparing parameters. The rectal balloon did not outperform the injectable spacer gel in any measured rectal dose parameter.

Focal or whole-gland salvage prostate brachytherapy with iodine seeds with or without a rectal spacer for postradiotherapy local failure: How best to spare the rectum?

PURPOSE

Salvage prostate permanent implant (sPPI) for postradiation local failure provides high rates of biochemical control. The cumulative dose delivered to the prostate and the rectum is still unknown.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We reviewed the postimplant CT-based dosimetry of 18 selected patients who underwent sPPI with (125)I seeds for isolated biopsy-proven local failure several years after external beam radiation therapy. Ten patients had whole-prostate sPPI, and 8 patients had multiparametric MRI-based focal sPPI. In 8 patients, hyaluronic acid (HA) gel was injected into the prostate-rectum space.

RESULTS

The median cumulative biological effective dose after EBRT + sPPI for the prostate and the rectum was higher in patients treated with whole-gland sPPI than in patients treated with focal sPPI (313.5 Gy2 vs. 174.4 Gy2; p = 0.06 and 258.1 Gy3 vs. 172.6 Gy3; p < 0.01, respectively). The median D0.1cc for the rectum was significantly lower in patients who had HA gel: 63.3 Gy (29.0-78.3) vs. 83.9 Gy (34.9-180.0) (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Cumulative prostate and rectum biological effective doses were lower with focal sPPI. D0.1cc delivered to the rectum was significantly lower with HA gel, while there was no difference between focal or whole-gland plans.

Quality of Life After Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer With a Hydrogel Spacer: 5-Year Results

PURPOSE

To evaluate quality of life changes up to 5 years after prostate cancer radiation therapy (RT) with a hydrogel spacer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

In the years 2010 to 2011, 114 patients received external beam radiation therapy to the prostate; 54 patients were selected for a hydrogel injection before the beginning of RT. Treatment was performed applying fractions of 2 Gy up to a total dose of 76 Gy (n=96) or 78 Gy (n=18, all with hydrogel). Patients were surveyed before RT; at the last day of RT; and a median time of 2 months, 17 months, and 63 months after RT using a validated questionnaire (Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite). A mean score change of >5 points was defined as clinically relevant.

RESULTS

For patients treated with a hydrogel spacer, mean bowel function and bother score changes of >5 points in comparison with baseline levels were found only at the end of RT (10-15 points; P<.01). No spacer patient reported moderate or big problems with his bowel habits overall. Mean bother score changes of 21 points at the end of RT, 8 points at 2 months, 7 points at 17 months, and 6 points at 63 months after RT were found for patients treated without a spacer. A bowel bother score change >10 points was found in 6% versus 32% (P<.01) at 17 months and in 5% versus 14% (P=.2) at 63 months with versus without a spacer.

CONCLUSIONS

The first 5-year quality of life results in a group of prostate cancer patients treated with a hydrogel spacer demonstrate excellent treatment tolerability, in particular regarding bowel problems. Further studies with dose-escalated or re-irradiation concepts can be encouraged.

Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy with Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Boost for Unfavorable Prostate Cancer: A Report on 3-Year Toxicity

Background

Recent data suggest that intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plus brachytherapy boost for unfavorable prostate cancer provides improved biochemical relapse-free survival over IMRT alone. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) may be a less invasive alternative to brachytherapy boost. Here, we report the 3-year gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities of IMRT plus SBRT boost.

Materials and methods

Between March 2008 and September 2012, patients with prostate cancer were treated with robotic SBRT (19.5 Gy in three fractions) followed by fiducial-guided IMRT (45–50.4 Gy) on an institutional protocol. Toxicity was prospectively graded using the common terminology criteria for adverse events version 4.0 (CTCAEv.4) at the start of and at 1- to 6-month intervals after therapy. Rectal telangiectasias were graded using the Vienna Rectoscopy Score (VRS).

Results

At a median follow-up of 4.2 years (2.4–7.5), 108 patients (4 low-, 45 intermediate-, and 59 high-risk) with a median age of 74 years (55–92) were treated with SBRT plus IMRT, with 8% on anticoagulation and an additional 48% on antiplatelet therapy at the start of therapy. The cumulative incidence of late ≥grade 2 GI toxicity was 12%. Of these, 7% were due to late rectal bleeding, with six patients requiring up to two coagulation procedures. One patient with rectal telangiectasias was treated with hyperbaric oxygen (grade 3 toxicity). No rectal fistulas or stenoses were observed. Ten patients had multiple non-confluent telangiectasias (VRS grade 2), and three patients had multiple confluent telangiectasias (VRS grade 3). The cumulative incidence of late grade 3 GU toxicity was 6%. Most late toxicities were due to hematuria requiring bladder fulguration. There were no late ≥grade 4 GU toxicities.

Conclusion

Rates of clinically significant GI and GU toxicities are modest following IMRT plus SBRT boost. Future studies should compare cancer control, quality of life, and toxicity with other treatment modalities for patients with high-risk prostate cancer.

Can a peri-rectal hydrogel spaceOAR programme for prostate cancer intensity-modulated radiotherapy be successfully implemented in a regional setting?

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to investigate whether the implementation of a hydrogel spacer (SpaceOAR) programme for patients treated with 81 Gy prostate intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in a regional setting can reduce rectal doses and toxicity.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, 125 patients with localised prostate cancer treated between April 2014 (programme commencement) and June 2015 were compared: 65 with SpaceOAR (inserted by five different urologists) and 60 patients treated over the same time period without SpaceOAR. Patients were treated with 81 Gy in 45Fx of IMRT over 9 weeks. Planning aims included restricting rectal doses to V40 Gy < 35%, V65 Gy < 17%, V75 Gy < 10%. Acute toxicity was assessed weekly during radiotherapy and at 12 weeks.

RESULTS

Rectal volume parameters were all significantly lower in the SpaceOAR group, with an associated reduction in acute diarrhoea (13.8% vs 31.7%). There were no significant differences in the very low rates of acute and late faecal incontinence or proctitis, however, there was a trend towards increased haemorrhoid rate in the SpaceOAR group (11.7% vs 3.1%, P = 0.09).

CONCLUSION

A SpaceOAR programme in a regional setting with urologists performing low volumes of insertions (<1 per month on average) is of clinical benefit, and was associated with significantly lower radiation doses to the rectum and lower rates of acute diarrhoea.

Stereotactic ablative body radiosurgery (SABR) or Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT)

While conventional treatment relies on protracted courses of therapy using relatively small dose-per-fraction sizes of 1.8-2Gy, there is substantial evidence gathered over decades that this may not be the optimal approach for all targetable disease. Stereotactic ablative body radiosurgery (SABR) or stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is a technique which uses precise targeting to deliver high doses of radiation capable of ablating tumors directly. In this review, we will discuss the justification for and techniques used to deliver ablative doses to improve treatment outcomes, interactions with biological and immunologic therapy, and special procedures to spare normal tissue, which have facilitated the expanding role for these techniques in the management of a wide range of malignant histologies and disease states.

Rectal dose to prostate cancer patients treated with proton therapy with or without rectal spacer

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether a spacer inserted in the prerectal space could reduce modeled rectal dose and toxicity rates for patients with prostate cancer treated in silico with pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy. A total of 20 patients were included in this study who received photon therapy (12 with rectal spacer (DuraSeal™ gel) and 8 without). Two PBS treatment plans were retrospectively created for each patient using the following beam arrangements: (1) lateral-opposed (LAT) fields and (2) left and right anterior oblique (LAO/RAO) fields. Dose volume histograms (DVH) were generated for the prostate, rectum, bladder, and right and left femoral heads. The normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for ≥grade 2 rectal toxicity was calculated using the Lyman-Kutcher-Burman model and compared between patients with and without the rectal spacer. A significantly lower mean rectal DVH was achieved in patients with rectal spacer compared to those without. For LAT plans, the mean rectal V70 with and without rectal spacer was 4.19 and 13.5%, respectively. For LAO/RAO plans, the mean rectal V70 with and without rectal spacer was 5.07 and 13.5%, respectively. No significant differences were found in any rectal dosimetric parameters between the LAT and the LAO/RAO plans generated with the rectal spacers. We found that ≥ 9 mm space resulted in a significant decrease in NTCP modeled for ≥grade 2 rectal toxicity. Rectal spacers can significantly decrease modeled rectal dose and predicted ≥grade 2 rectal toxicity in prostate cancer patients treated in silico with PBS. A minimum of 9 mm separation between the prostate and anterior rectal wall yields the largest benefit.

Validation of rectal sparing throughout the course of proton therapy treatment in prostate cancer patients treated with SpaceOAR®

The purpose of this study was to investigate the consistency of rectal sparing using multiple periodic quality assurance computerized tomography imaging scans (QACT) obtained during the course of proton therapy for patients with prostate cancer treated with a hydrogel spacer. Forty-one low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients treated with image-guided proton therapy with rectal spacer hydrogel were analyzed. To assess the reproducibility of rectal sparing with the hydrogel spacer, three to four QACTs were performed for each patient on day 1 and during weeks 1, 3, and 5 of treatment. The treatment plan was calculated on the QACT and the rectum V90%, V75%, V65%, V50%, and V40% were evaluated. For the retrospective analysis, we evaluated each QACT and compared it to the corresponding treatment planning CT (TPCT), to determine the average change in rectum DVH points. We were also interested in how many patients exceeded an upper rectum V90% threshold on a QACT. Finally, we were interested in a correlation between rectum volume and V90%. On each QACT, if the rectum V90% exceeded the upper threshold of 6%, the attending physician was notified and the patient was typically prescribed additional stool softeners or laxatives and reminded of dietary compliance. In all cases of the rectum V90% exceeding the threshold, the patient had increased gas and/or stool, compared to the TPCT. On average, the rectum V90% calculated on the QACT was 0.81% higher than that calculated on the TPCT. The average increase in V75%, V65%, V50%, and V40% on the QACT was 1.38%, 1.59%, 1.87%, and 2.17%, respectively. The rectum V90% was within ± 1% of the treatment planning dose in 71.2% of the QACTs, and within ± 5% in 93.2% of the QACTs. The 6% threshold for rectum V90% was exceeded in 7 out of 144 QACTs (4.8%), identified in 5 of the 41 patients. We evaluated the average rectum V90% across all QACTs for each of these patients, and it was found that the rectum V90% never exceeded 6%. 53% of the QACTs had a rectum volume within 5 cm3 of the TPCT volume, 68% were within 10 cm3. We found that patients who exceeded the threshold on one or more QACTs had a lower TPCT rectal volume than the overall average. By extrapolating patient anatomy from three to four QACT scans, we have shown that the use of hydrogel in conjunction with our patient diet program and use of stool softeners is effective in achieving consistent rectal sparing in patients undergoing proton therapy.

Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy: What Do Clinicians Have to Know?

Radiotherapy (RT) for prostate cancer (PC) has steadily evolved over the last decades, with improving biochemical disease-free survival. Recently population based research also revealed an association between overall survival and doses ≥ 75.6 Gray (Gy) in men with intermediate- and high-risk PC. Examples of improved RT techniques are image-guided RT, intensity-modulated RT, volumetric modulated arc therapy, and stereotactic ablative body RT, which could facilitate further dose escalation. Brachytherapy is an internal form of RT that also developed substantially. New devices such as rectum spacers and balloons have been developed to spare rectal structures. Newer techniques like protons and carbon ions have the intrinsic characteristics maximising the dose on the tumour while minimising the effect on the surrounding healthy tissue, but clinical data are needed for confirmation in randomised phase III trials. Furthermore, it provides an overview of an important discussion issue in PC treatment between urologists and radiation oncologists: the comparison between radical prostatectomy and RT. Current literature reveals that all possible treatment modalities have the same cure rate, but a different toxicity pattern. We recommend proposing the possible different treatment modalities with their own advantages and side-effects to the individual patient. Clinicians and patients should make treatment decisions together (shared decision-making) while using patient decision aids.

Continued Benefit to Rectal Separation for Prostate Radiation Therapy: Final Results of a Phase III Trial

PURPOSE

SpaceOAR, a Food and Drug Administration-approved hydrogel intended to create a rectal-prostate space, was evaluated in a single-blind phase III trial of image guided intensity modulated radiation therapy. A total of 222 men were randomized 2:1 to the spacer or control group and received 79.2 Gy in 1.8-Gy fractions to the prostate with or without the seminal vesicles. The present study reports the final results with a median follow-up period of 3 years.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Cumulative (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0) toxicity was evaluated using the log-rank test. Quality of life (QOL) was examined using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), and the mean changes from baseline in the EPIC domains were tested using repeated measures models. The proportions of men with minimally important differences (MIDs) in each domain were tested using repeated measures logistic models with prespecified thresholds.

RESULTS

The 3-year incidence of grade ≥1 (9.2% vs 2.0%; P=.028) and grade ≥2 (5.7% vs 0%; P=.012) rectal toxicity favored the spacer arm. Grade ≥1 urinary incontinence was also lower in the spacer arm (15% vs 4%; P=.046), with no difference in grade ≥2 urinary toxicity (7% vs 7%; P=0.7). From 6 months onward, bowel QOL consistently favored the spacer group (P=.002), with the difference at 3 years (5.8 points; P<.05) meeting the threshold for a MID. The control group had a 3.9-point greater decline in urinary QOL compared with the spacer group at 3 years (P<.05), but the difference did not meet the MID threshold. At 3 years, more men in the control group than in the spacer group had experienced a MID decline in bowel QOL (41% vs 14%; P=.002) and urinary QOL (30% vs 17%; P=.04). Furthermore, the control group were also more likely to have experienced large declines (twice the MID) in bowel QOL (21% vs 5%; P=.02) and urinary QOL (23% vs 8%; P=.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The benefit of a hydrogel spacer in reducing the rectal dose, toxicity, and QOL declines after image guided intensity modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer was maintained or increased with a longer follow-up period, providing stronger evidence for the benefit of hydrogel spacer use in prostate radiation therapy.

Optimal design and patient selection for interventional trials using radiogenomic biomarkers: A REQUITE and Radiogenomics consortium statement

The optimal design and patient selection for interventional trials in radiogenomics seem trivial at first sight. However, radiogenomics do not give binary information like in e.g. targetable mutation biomarkers. Here, the risk to develop severe side effects is continuous, with increasing incidences of side effects with higher doses and/or volumes. In addition, a multi-SNP assay will produce a predicted probability of developing side effects and will require one or more cut-off thresholds for classifying risk into discrete categories. A classical biomarker trial design is therefore not optimal, whereas a risk factor stratification approach is more appropriate. Patient selection is crucial and this should be based on the dose-response relations for a specific endpoint. Alternatives to standard treatment should be available and this should take into account the preferences of patients. This will be discussed in detail.

Extreme hypofractionation for early prostate cancer: Biology meets technology

The aim of this review is to present the available radiobiological, technical and clinical data about extreme hypofractionation in primary prostate cancer radiotherapy. The interest in this technique is based on the favourable radiobiological characteristics of prostate cancer and supported by advantageous logistic aspects deriving from short overall treatment time. The clinical validity of short-term treatment schedule is proven by a body of non-randomised studies, using both isocentric (LINAC-based) or non-isocentric (CyberKnife^®-based) stereotactic body irradiation techniques. Twenty clinical studies, each enrolling more than 40 patients for a total of 1874 treated patients, were revised in terms of technological setting, toxicity, outcome and quality of life assessment. The implemented strategies for the tracking of the prostate and the sparing of the rectal wall have been investigated with particular attention. The urinary toxicity after prostate stereotactic body irradiation seems slightly more pronounced as compared to rectal adverse events, and this is more evident for late occurring events, but no worse as respect to conventional fractionation schemes. As far as the rate of severe acute toxicity is concerned, in all the available studies the treatment was globally well tolerated. While awaiting long-term data on efficacy and toxicity, the analysed studies suggest that the outcome profile of this approach, alongside the patient convenience and reduced costs, is promising. Forty-eight ongoing clinical trials are also presented as a preview of the expectation from the near future.

Emerging Technologies and Techniques in Radiation Therapy

The past decade has brought an improved ability to precisely target and deliver radiation as well as other focal prostate-directed therapy. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), proton beam radiation, high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy, as well as nonradiotherapy treatments such as cryoablation and high-intensity focused ultrasound are several therapeutic modalities that have been investigated for the treatment of prostate cancer in an attempt to reduce toxicity while improving cancer control. However, high-risk prostate cancer requires a comprehensive treatment of the prostate as well as areas at risk for cancer spread. Therefore, most new radiation treatment (SBRT, HDR, and proton beam radiation) modalities have been largely investigated in combination with regional radiation therapy. Though the evidence is evolving, the use of SBRT, HDR, and proton beam radiation is promising. Nonradiation focal therapy has been proposed mainly for partial gland treatment in men with low-risk disease, and its use in high-risk prostate cancer patients remains experimental.

Proctitis 1 Week after Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Implications for Clinical Trial Design

Background

Proctitis following prostate cancer radiation therapy is a primary determinant of quality of life (QOL). While previous studies have assessed acute rectal morbidity at 1 month after stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), little data exist on the prevalence and severity of rectal morbidity within the first week following treatment. This study reports the acute bowel morbidity 1 week following prostate SBRT.

Materials and methods

Between May 2013 and August 2014, 103 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer were treated with 35–36.25 Gy in five fractions using robotic SBRT delivered on a prospective clinical trial. Bowel toxicity was graded using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0 (CTCAEv.4). Bowel QOL was assessed using the EPIC-26 questionnaire bowel domain at baseline, 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months. Time-dependent changes in bowel symptoms were statistically compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Clinically significant change was assessed by the minimally important difference (MID) in EPIC score. This was defined as a change of 1/2 standard deviation (SD) from the baseline score.

Results

One-hundred and three patients with a minimum of 3 months of follow-up were analyzed. The cumulative incidence of acute grade 2 gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity was 23%. There were no acute ≥ grade 3 bowel toxicities. EPIC bowel summary scores maximally declined at 1 week after SBRT (−13.9, p < 0.0001) before returning to baseline at 3 months after SBRT (+0.03, p = 0.94). Prior to treatment, 4.9% of men reported that their bowel bother was a moderate to big problem. This increased to 28.4% (p < 0.0001) 1 week after SBRT and returned to baseline at 3 months after SBRT (0.0%, p = 0.66). Only the bowel summary and bowel bother score declines at 1 week met the MID threshold for clinically significant change.

Conclusion

The rate and severity of acute proctitis following prostate SBRT peaked at 1 week after treatment and returned to baseline by 3 months. Toxicity assessment at 1 week can therefore minimize recall bias and should aid in the design of future clinical trials focused on accurately capturing and minimizing acute morbidity following SBRT.

Interdisciplinary consensus statement on indication and application of a hydrogel spacer for prostate radiotherapy based on experience in more than 250 patients

Background

The aim of the study was to reach a consensus on indication and application of a hydrogel spacer based on multicentre experience and give new users important information to shorten the learning curve for this innovative technique.

Methods

The interdisciplinary meeting was attended by radiation oncologists and urologists, each with experience of 23 – 138 hydrogel injections (SpaceOAR®) in prostate cancer patients before dose-escalated radiotherapy. User experience was discussed and questions were defined to comprise practical information relevant for successful hydrogel injection and treatment. Answers to the defined key questions were generated. Hydrogel-associated side effects were collected to estimate the percentage, treatment and prognosis of potential risks.

Results

The main indication for hydrogel application was dose-escalated radiotherapy for histologically confirmed low or intermediate risk prostate cancer. It was not recommended in locally advanced prostate cancer. The injection or implantation was performed under transrectal ultrasound guidance via the transperineal approach after prior hydrodissection. The rate of injection-related G2-toxicity was 2% (n = 5) in a total of 258 hydrogel applications. The most frequent complication (n = 4) was rectal wall penetration, diagnosed at different intervals after hydrogel injection and treated conservatively.

Conclusions

A consensus was reached on the application of a hydrogel spacer. Current experience demonstrated feasibility, which could promote initiation of this method in more centres to reduce radiation-related gastrointestinal toxicity of dose-escalated IGRT. However, a very low rate of a potential serious adverse event could not be excluded. Therefore, the application should carefully be discussed with the patient and be balanced against potential benefits.

What is the best way to radiate the prostate in 2016?

Prostate cancer treatment with definitive radiation therapy (RT) has evolved dramatically in the past 2 decades. From the initial 2-dimensional planning using X-rays, advances in technology led to 3-dimensional conformal RT, which used computerized tomography-based planning. This has allowed delivery of higher doses of radiation to the prostate while reducing dose to the surrounding organs, resulting in improved cancer control. Today, intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) is considered standard, where radiation beams of different shapes and intensities can be delivered from a wide range of angles, thus further decreasing doses to normal organs and likely reducing treatment-related toxicity. In addition, image guidance ascertains the location of the prostate before daily treatment delivery. Brachytherapy is the placement of radioactive seeds directly in the prostate, and has a long track record as a monotherapy for low-risk prostate cancer patients with excellent long-term cancer control and quality of life outcomes. Recent studies including several randomized trials support the use of brachytherapy in combination with external beam RT for higher-risk patients. RT for prostate cancer continues to evolve. Proton therapy has a theoretical advantage over photons as it deposits most of the dose at a prescribed depth with a rapid dose fall-off thereafter; therefore it reduces some doses delivered to the bladder and rectum. Prospective studies have shown the safety and efficacy of proton therapy for prostate cancer, but whether it leads to improved patient outcomes compared to IMRT is unknown. Hypofractionated RT delivers a larger dose of daily radiation compared to conventional IMRT, and thus reduces the overall treatment time and possibly cost. An extreme form of hypofractionation is stereotactic body radiation therapy where highly precise radiation is used and treatment is completed in a total of 4 to 5 sessions. These techniques take advantage of the biological characteristic of prostate cancer, which is more sensitive to larger radiation doses per fraction, and therefore could be more effective than conventional IMRT. Multiple randomized trials have demonstrated noninferiority of moderately hypofractionated RT compared to conventional fractionation. There is also a growing body of data demonstrating the safety and efficacy of stereotactic body radiation therapy for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Impact of hydrogel spacer injections on interfraction prostate motion during prostate cancer radiotherapy

Background The dosimetric advantage of prostate-rectum spacers to displace the anterior rectal wall outside of the high-dose radiation regions has been clearly established in prostate cancer radiotherapy (RT). The aim of this study was to assess the impact of hydrogel spacer (HS) in the interfraction prostate motion in patients undergoing RT for prostate cancer. Material and methods Twenty prostate cancer patients implanted with three fiducial markers (FM) with (n = 10) or without (n = 10) HS were analyzed. Displacements between the prostate isocenter based on the FM's position and the bony anatomy were quantified in the left-right (LR), anterior-posterior (AP), superior-inferior (SI) axes by offline analyses of 122 cone beam computed tomography scans. Group systematic (M), systematic (Σ) and random (σ) setup errors were determined. Results In patients with or without HS, the overall mean interfraction prostate displacements were 0.4 versus -0.4 mm (p = 0.0001), 0.6 versus 0.6 mm (p = 0.85), and -0.6 mm versus -0.3 mm (p = 0.48) for the LR, AP, and SI axes, respectively. Prostate displacements >5 mm in the AP and SI directions were similar for both groups. No differences in M, Σ and σ setup errors were observed in the three axes between HS + or HS- patients. Conclusions HS implantation does not significantly influence the interfraction prostate motion in patients treated with RT for prostate cancer. The major expected benefit of HS is a reduction of the high-dose levels to the rectal wall without influence in prostate immobilization.

Decision analysis model evaluating the cost of a temporary hydrogel rectal spacer before prostate radiation therapy to reduce the incidence of rectal complications

PURPOSE

We conducted a decision analysis to evaluate the cost effectiveness of a newly Food and Drug Administration approved rectal spacer gel (SpaceOAR, Augmenix) for the reduction of rectal toxicity of prostate radiation therapy (RT).

METHODS

A decision tree model (TreeAge Pro) was used to compare the strategy of pretherapy placement of a spacing hydrogel before RT to RT alone. The model compared costs associated with rectal complications because of rectal toxicity over a 10-year period across 3 different RT modalities. Rectal toxicity rates were estimated from studies on conformal RT dose escalation, high-dose stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and low-dose SBRT. Rectal toxicity reduction rates (baseline reduction 70%) were estimated from recently published 15 month data using a rectal spacer. Direct and indirect cost estimates for established grades of rectal toxicity were based on national and institutional costs. Reduction in short-term complications were assumed to carry forward to a reduction in long-term toxicity. One-way and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The overall standard management cost for conformal RT was $3,428 vs. $3,946 with rectal spacer for an incremental cost of $518 over 10 years. A 1-way sensitivity analyses showed the breakeven cost of spacer at $2,332 or a breakeven overall risk reduction of 86% at a cost of $2,850. For high-dose SBRT, spacer was immediately cost effective with a savings of $2,640 and breakeven risk reduction at 36%. However, 2-way spacer cost to risk reduction sensitivity analyses were performed.

CONCLUSION

The use of a rectal spacer for conformal RT results in a marginal cost increase with a significant reduction in rectal toxicity assuming recently published 15 month rectal toxicity reduction is maintained over 10 years. For high-dose SBRT it was cost effective. Further studies would be necessary to validate the long-term benefits of rectal spacers.

Clinical commissioning of an in vivo range verification system for prostate cancer treatment with anterior and anterior oblique proton beams

The purpose of this work is the clinical commissioning of a recently developed in vivo range verification system (IRVS) for treatment of prostate cancer by anterior and anterior oblique proton beams. The IRVS is designed to perform a complete workflow for pre-treatment range verification and adjustment. It contains specifically designed dosimetry and electronic hardware and a specific software for workflow control with database connection to the treatment and imaging systems. An essential part of the IRVS system is an array of Si-diode detectors, designed to be mounted to the endorectal water balloon routinely used for prostate immobilization. The diodes can measure dose rate as function of time from which the water equivalent path length (WEPL) and the dose received are extracted. The former is used for pre-treatment beam range verification and correction, if necessary, while the latter is to monitor the dose delivered to patient rectum during the treatment and serves as an additional verification. The entire IRVS workflow was tested for anterior and 30 degree inclined proton beam in both solid water and anthropomorphic pelvic phantoms, with the measured WEPL and rectal doses compared to the treatment plan. Gafchromic films were also used for measurement of the rectal dose and compared to IRVS results. The WEPL measurement accuracy was in the order of 1 mm and after beam range correction, the dose received by the rectal wall were 1.6% and 0.4% from treatment planning, respectively, for the anterior and anterior oblique field. We believe the implementation of IRVS would make the treatment of prostate with anterior proton beams more accurate and reliable.

Dose-escalation of five-fraction SABR in prostate cancer: Toxicity comparison of two prospective trials

PURPOSE

To compare biochemical outcome and toxicities of two prospective 5-fraction stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) studies in prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

84 patients in pHART3 received 35 Gy, 30 patients in pHART6 received 40 Gy in 5-fractions to the prostate alone, once weekly. 4mm and 5mm PTV margins were used, respectively. Biochemical outcome, acute, late and cumulative genitourinary (GU)/gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities were compared.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 74 and 36 months, respectively. Median prostate specific antigen nadir was 0.4 ng/ml and 0.3 ng/ml. 2-, 4- and 6-year biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS-2+nadir) was 100%, 98.7% and 95.9% in pHART3; 100%, 100% and not reached in pHART6 (p=0.91). There was one acute grade 3 GU (retention) and late grade 4 GI (fistula) toxicity in pHART3, none in pHART6. One patient in each study had persisting grade 2+ toxicity at the last follow-up. pHART6 patients had a greater grade 2+ cumulative GU (5% versus 24.2%) and GI (7.6% versus 26.2%) toxicities.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients receiving dose-escalated SABR had slightly lower PSA nadir and similar bRFS, longer follow-up is needed to better estimate biochemical outcomes. There was a greater risk of grade 2 toxicity in pHART6 but not grade 3+ toxicities. Persisting toxicity at the last follow-up is similar.

Current role of spacers for prostate cancer radiotherapy

Radiotherapy is an established curative treatment method for prostate cancer. Optimal tumor control rates can only be achieved with high local doses, associated with a considerable risk of rectal toxicity. Apart from already widely adapted technical advances, as intensity-modulated radiation therapy, the application of spacers placed between the prostate and rectum has been increasingly used in the last years. Biodegradable spacers, including hydrogel, hyaluronic acid, collagen or an implantable balloon, can be injected or inserted in a short procedure under transrectal ultrasound guidance via a transperineal approach. A distance of about 1.0-1.5 cm is usually achieved between the rectum and prostate, excluding the rectal wall from the high isodoses. Several studies have shown well tolerated injection procedures and treatments. Apart from considerable reduction of rectal irradiation, a prospective randomized trial demonstrated a reduction of rectal toxicity after hydrogel injection in men undergoing prostate image-guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy. The results are encouraging for continuing evaluation in dose escalation, hypofractionation, stereotactic radiotherapy or re-irradiation trials in the future.