Intensity-modulated fractionated radiotherapy versus stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer (PACE-B): acute toxicity findings from an international, randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority trial

Phase II prospective trial "Give Me Five" short-term high precision radiotherapy for early prostate cancer with simultaneous boost to the dominant intraprostatic lesion: the impact of toxicity on quality of life (AIRC IG-13218)

As part of the AIRC IG-13218 (NCT01913717), we analyzed data from patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with extreme hypofractionated radiotherapy (RT) and simultaneous boost to the intraprostatic lesion. The aim of the study is to identify clinically meaningful information through the analysis of validated questionnaires testing gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) RT-related toxicity and their impact on quality of life (QoL). At the end of RT treatment, clinical assessment and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurements were performed every 3 months for at least 2 years and GI and GU toxicities were evaluated contextually. QoL of enrolled patients was assessed by International Prostate Symptoms score (IPSS), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), EORTC QLQ prostate specific (QLQ-PR25), and sexual activity by International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5). Patients' score changes were calculated at the end of RT, at one month after RT and at 12 and 24 months. Sixty-five prospectively enrolled patients were analyzed. Extensive analysis of different QoL assessments showed that patients' tolerance was satisfactory across all the considered time points, with no statistically significant change of QoL from baseline compared to that before RT. Overall survival and biochemical progression-free survival at 2-years were of 98% and 97%, respectively. Despite the toxicity of extreme hypofractionation was low and tumor control was encouraging, a longer follow-up is necessary to confirm our findings. The increasing dose to the dominant intraprostatic lesion does not worsen the RT toxicity and consequently does not affect patients' QoL, thus questioning the possibility of an even more escalated treatment.

Impact of hydrogel peri-rectal spacer insertion on prostate gland intra-fraction motion during 1.5 T MR-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy

Background

The assessment of organ motion is a crucial feature for prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Rectal spacer may represent a helpful device in order to outdistance rectal wall from clinical target, but its impact on organ motion is still a matter of debate. MRI-Linac is a new frontier in radiation oncology as it allows a superior visualization of the real-time anatomy of the patient and the current highest level of adaptive radiotherapy.

Methods

We present data regarding a total of 100 fractions in 20 patients who underwent MRI-guided prostate SBRT for low-to-intermediate risk prostate cancer with or without spacer. Translational and rotational shifts were computed on the pre- and post-treatment MRI acquisitions referring to the delivery position for antero-posterior, latero-lateral and cranio-caudal direction, and assessed using the Mann-Whitney U-Test.

Results

All patients were treated with a five sessions schedule (35 Gy/5fx) using MRI-Linac for a median fraction treatment time of 50 min (range, 46–65). In the entire study sample, median rotational displacement was 0.1° in cranio-caudal, − 0.002° in latero-lateral and 0.01° in antero-posterior direction; median translational shift was 0.11 mm in cranio-caudal, − 0.24 mm in latero-lateral and − 0.22 mm in antero-posterior. A significant difference between spacer and no-spacer patients in terms of rotational shifts in the antero-posterior direction (p = 0.033) was observed; also for translational shifts a positive trend was detected in antero-posterior direction (p = 0.07), although with no statistical significance. We observed statistically significant differences in the pre-treatment planning phase in favor of the spacer cohort for several rectum dose constraints: rectum V32Gy < 5% (p = 0.001), V28 Gy < 10% (p = 0.001) and V18Gy < 35% (p = 0.039). Also for bladder V35 Gy < 1 cc, the use of spacer provided a dosimetric advantage compared to the no-spacer subpopulation (p = 0.04). Furthermore, PTV V33.2Gy > 95% was higher in the spacer cohort compared to the no-spacer one (p = 0.036).

Conclusion

In our experience, the application of rectal hydrogel spacer for prostate SBRT resulted in a significant impact on rotational antero-posterior shifts contributing to limit prostate intra-fraction motion. Further studies with larger sample size and longer follow-up are required to confirm this ideally favorable effect and to assess any potential impact on clinical outcomes.

Current topics in radiotherapy for genitourinary cancers: Consensus statements of the Genitourinary Radiation Oncologists of Canada

INTRODUCTION

The biennial meeting of the Genitourinary Radiation Oncologists of Canada (GUROC) took place November 22-23, 2019. A consensus-building session was held during the meeting addressing topics of emerging interest or controversy in the management of genitourinary malignancies.

METHODS

Draft statements were debated among all meeting attendees in an open forum with anonymous live voting. Statements for which there was at least 75% agreement among attendees were adopted as GUROC consensus.

RESULTS

Four evidence-based consensus statements were developed. First, the use of prostate radiotherapy is recommended in the setting of de novo low-volume metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer to improve overall survival. Second, the support of ongoing randomized trials evaluating metastasis-directed ablative local therapy in oligometastatic prostate cancer is recommended; where such trials are available, off-trial use of oligometastasis-directed ablative radiotherapy at this time is strongly discouraged. Third, routine use of prostate-rectal hydrogel spacer devices in patients with localized prostate cancer planned to receive external beam radiotherapy is not recommended; instead, selective use in patients at highest risk of rectal toxicity may be considered. Finally, multidisciplinary consultation is recommended for all patients with newly diagnosed localized muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

The GUROC consensus statements provide practical guidance to clinicians in areas of current controversy in the management of prostate and bladder cancer, and it is hoped that their implementation will contribute to improved outcomes in real-world practice and greater support of clinical trials.

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) for Prostate Cancer in Men With a High Baseline International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS ≥ 15)

Background: Patients with a high pretreatment IPSS may have higher rates of late urinary morbidity after radiation therapy for prostate cancer (1). Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) delivers fewer high-dose fractions of radiation, which may be radiobiologically favorable to the conventional low-dose external beam fractions. The urinary toxicity associated with SBRT, however, remains unclear in patients with a high IPSS (1). We report our experience using SBRT for localized prostate cancer in patients with pretreatment IPSS ≥ 15.

Methods: Localized prostate cancer patients with a pre-treatment IPSS ≥ 15 treated with SBRT at Georgetown University Hospital from 2009 to 2016 were included in this retrospective review of prospectively collected data. These patients were treated to 35–36.25 Gy in five fractions delivered via CyberKnife (Accuray Inc., Sunnyvale, CA). Urinary toxicity was assessed using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0 (CTCAE v4). Urinary quality of life was assessed using validated questionnaires (IPSS and EPIC-26).

Results: 53 patients at a median age of 71 years (range 57–89 years) received SBRT with a minimum follow up of 3 years. The median prostate size was 37 cm³ (range 12–100 cm³) and 30.2% patients received ADT. The 3-years incidence rate of Grade 3 urinary toxicity was 7.5% with median time to toxicity of 2.9 years. There were no Grade 4 or 5 toxicities. A mean baseline IPSS score of 19.8 significantly decreased to 12.9 at 3 months post-SBRT (p = 0.002) and remained stable at 36 months (13.7). A mean baseline EPIC-26 obstructive/irritative score of 64.1 significantly improved to 80.2 at 3 months (p = 0.002). This improvement was maintained to 36 months. There was no significant change from the mean baseline EPIC-26 urinary incontinence score at any point during follow up.

Conclusions: SBRT for clinically localized prostate cancer was well-tolerated in men with baseline IPSS ≥ 15 (1). Grade 3 toxicities occurred but resolved with time. Our data suggest that poor baseline urinary function does not worsen following SBRT and may even improve. High baseline IPSS score should not be considered a contraindication to SBRT.

Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy Recommendations in Response to COVID-19

PURPOSE

During a global pandemic, the benefit of routine visits and treatment of patients with cancer must be weighed against the risks to patients, staff, and society. Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers radiation oncology departments treat, and efficient resource utilization is essential in the setting of a pandemic. Herein, we aim to establish recommendations and a framework by which to evaluate prostate radiation therapy management decisions.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Radiation oncologists from the United States and the United Kingdom rapidly conducted a systematic review and agreed upon recommendations to safely manage patients with prostate cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. A RADS framework was created: remote visits, and avoidance, deferment, and shortening of radiation therapy was applied to determine appropriate approaches.

RESULTS

Recommendations were provided by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group regarding clinical node-positive, postprostatectomy, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1 disease. Across all prostate cancer stages, telemedicine consultations and return visits were recommended when resources/staff available. Delays in consultations and return visits of between 1 and 6 months were deemed safe based on stage of disease. Treatment can be avoided or delayed until safe for very low, low, and favorable intermediate-risk disease. Unfavorable intermediate-risk, high-risk, clinical node-positive, recurrence postsurgery, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1 disease can receive neoadjuvant hormone therapy for 4 to 6 months as necessary. Ultrahypofractionation is preferred for localized, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1, and moderate hypofractionation is preferred for postprostatectomy and clinical node positive disease. Salvage is preferred to adjuvant radiation.

CONCLUSIONS

Resources can be reduced for all identified stages of prostate cancer. The RADS (remote visits, and avoidance, deferment, and shortening of radiation therapy) framework can be applied to other disease sites to help with decision making in a global pandemic.

Prostate bed and organ-at-risk deformation: Prospective volumetric and dosimetric data from a phase II trial of stereotactic body radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy

PURPOSE

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in the post-prostatectomy setting is investigational. A major concern is the deformable prostate bed clinical target volume (CTV) and the closely juxtaposed organs-at-risk (OARs). We report a volumetric and dosimetric analysis of kilovoltage cone-beam CT (CBCT) data from the first 18 patients enrolled on a phase II trial of post-prostatectomy SBRT. With instructions on bladder filling and rectal preparation, we hypothesized acceptable CTV coverage while minimal overdosing to OARs could be achieved.

METHODS

All patients received 5 fractions of 6-6.8 Gy to the prostate bed. CBCT were taken prior to and halfway through each fraction. CTV and OARs were contoured for each CBCT. Changes in inter- and intra-fraction volume and dose were calculated. Relative changes in CTV V95%, bladder V32.5 Gy, and rectal V32.5 Gy and V27.5 Gy were evaluated.

RESULTS

Interfraction CTV volume remained stable, with median change +5.69% (IQR -1.73% to +9.84%). CTV V95% exhibited median change -0.74% (IQR -9.15% to -0.07%). Volumetric and dosimetric changes were minor from interfraction rotation and intrafraction motion. CTV V95% was ≥93% in 13 of 18 (72%) patients; in the remaining five, median change was -14.09% (IQR -16.64% to -13.56%). Interfraction CTV volume change was significantly larger among patients with CTV V95% <93% (+25.04% vs. +2.85%, p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

With specific bladder and rectum filling protocols, CTV underdosing and overdosing to bladder and rectum are avoided in majority of patients. Changes in CTV shape may account for the underdosing that may be observed.

Urethra-Sparing Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Quality Assurance of a Randomized Phase 2 Trial

PURPOSE

To present the radiation therapy quality assurance results from a prospective multicenter phase 2 randomized trial of short versus protracted urethra-sparing stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for localized prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Between 2012 and 2015, 165 patients with prostate cancer from 9 centers were randomized and treated with SBRT delivered either every other day (arm A, n = 82) or once a week (arm B, n = 83); 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions were prescribed to the prostate with (n = 92) or without (n = 73) inclusion of the seminal vesicles (SV), and the urethra planning-risk volume received 32.5 Gy. Patients were treated either with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT; n = 112) or with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT; n = 53). Deviations from protocol dose constraints, planning target volume (PTV) homogeneity index, PTV Dice similarity coefficient, and number of monitor units for each treatment plan were retrospectively analyzed. Dosimetric results of VMAT versus IMRT and treatment plans with versus without inclusion of SV were compared.

RESULTS

At least 1 major protocol deviation occurred in 51 patients (31%), whereas none was observed in 41. Protocol violations were more frequent in the IMRT group (P < .001). Furthermore, the use of VMAT yielded better dosimetric results than IMRT for urethra planning-risk volume D_98% (31.1 vs 30.8 Gy, P < .0001), PTV D_2% (37.9 vs 38.7 Gy, P < .0001), homogeneity index (0.09 vs 0.10, P < .0001), Dice similarity coefficient (0.83 vs 0.80, P < .0001), and bladder wall V_50% (24.5% vs 33.5%, P = .0001). To achieve its goals volumetric modulated arc therapy required fewer monitor units than IMRT (2275 vs 3378, P <.0001). The inclusion of SV in the PTV negatively affected the rectal wall V_90% (9.1% vs 10.4%, P = .0003) and V_80% (13.2% vs 15.7%, P = .0003).

CONCLUSIONS

Protocol deviations with potential impact on tumor control or toxicity occurred in 31% of patients in this prospective clinical trial. Protocol deviations were more frequent with IMRT. Prospective radiation therapy quality assurance protocols should be strongly recommended for SBRT trials to minimize potential protocol deviations.

Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer

Prostate cancer remains the most common and second most deadly cancer diagnosed amongst U.S. men. External beam radiotherapy is a standard-of-care definitive treatment option for localized prostate cancer and historically constituted an 8–9-week treatment course comprised of 39–45 doses of 1.8–2.0 Gy each (conventional fractionation, CF). Based on the notion that prostate cancer may respond favorably to a higher dose per day, considerable research efforts have been focused on characterizing the safety and efficacy profile of shorter and shorter radiation courses. Ultrahypofractionation (UHF) involves condensing the radiation course into just 5–7 treatments of 6–8 Gy each. When utilizing modern techniques that allow the precise sculpting of a dose distribution that delivers high doses to the prostate and lower doses to surrounding normal tissues over five or fewer treatments, this treatment is called stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Two randomized trials (HYPO-RT-PC and PACE-B) have compared UHF to longer radiation courses. The former demonstrated that UHF and CF have similar long-term toxicity and efficacy, while the latter demonstrated that modern SBRT has equivalent short-term toxicity as well. A separate report from a consortium of studies data provides prospective, albeit nonrandomized, data supporting the longer-term safety and efficacy of SBRT specifically. Thus, mounting high-level evidence suggests that SBRT is an acceptable standard care of option for men with localized prostate cancer.

Translating the Immunobiology of SBRT to Novel Therapeutic Combinations for Advanced Prostate Cancer

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is an increasingly used radiation modality for the treatment of both localized and metastatic prostate cancer. Substantial data suggests that prostate cancer may be more sensitive to higher doses of radiation per fraction due to its low α/β ratio. This increased sensitivity raises important questions as to how SBRT should be combined with systemic therapy for clinically significant prostate cancer, including whether androgen deprivation therapy retains its beneficial effects when combined with SBRT. Furthermore, pre-clinical and clinical data suggest pronounced immunomodulatory effects of SBRT, including observed improvements in T cell priming and trafficking. These data support investigational strategies combining SBRT with immunotherapy. Here we aim to review the data for the use of SBRT in both the local and metastatic disease settings as well as ongoing translational and clinical research examining combinations with ADT, immunotherapy and other targeted agents.

Triggered Imaging With Auto Beam Hold and Pre-/Posttreatment CBCT During Prostate SABR: Analysis of Time Efficiency, Target Coverage, and Normal Volume Changes

PURPOSE

Our purpose was to investigate time efficiency and target coverage for prostate stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) using triggered imaging (TI) and auto beam hold.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A total of 20 patients were treated with volumetric modulated arc-based SABR. Treatment verification consisted of pre- and post-radiation therapy cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) with gold marker-based TI every 3 seconds. In case of ≥3 mm (deviation limit) displacement, the treatment was interrupted and imaging-based correction was performed. Beam interruptions, intrafractional shifts, and treatment times were recorded. Prostate, rectum, and bladder were delineated on each CBCT. Target coverage was evaluated by comparing the individual prostate delineations with 98% isodose contour volumes (% of the evaluated volumes exceeding the reference). Both inter- and intrafractional changes of bladder and rectal volumes were assessed.

RESULTS

The average overall treatment time (±standard deviation) was 18 ± 11 min, with a radiation delivery time of 6 ± 3 min if no intrafractional CBCT acquisitions were necessary (91% of fractions). On average, 1.2 beam interruptions per fraction were required with 0/1 correction in 71% of the fractions. The mean residual 3-dimensional shift was 1.6 mm, exceeding the deviation limit in 8%. In the case of intrafractional CBCT and/or ≥2 corrections the treatment time dramatically increased. The 98% isodose lines did not encompass the prostate in only 8/180 (4%) evaluations in 6 different patients, leading to a loss of D98 between 0.1%-6% as a worst case scenario. The bladder volumes showed significant increases during treatment (P < .01) while rectal volumes were stable.

CONCLUSIONS

Time efficiency of TI + auto beam hold with 3 mm/3 sec threshold during prostate SABR is comparable with competitive techniques, resulting in minimal 3-dimensional residual errors with maintained target coverage. Technical developments are necessary to further reduce radiation delivery time. Use of CBCT allowed full control of rectal volumes, while bladder volumes showed significant increases over time.

Dosimetric predictors of patient-reported toxicity after prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy: Analysis of full range of the dose-volume histogram using ensemble machine learning

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

This study aims to evaluate the associations between dosimetric parameters and patient-reported outcomes, and to identify latent dosimetric parameters that most correlate with acute and subacute patient-reported urinary and rectal toxicity after prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) using machine learning methods.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eighty-six patients who underwent prostate SBRT (40 Gy in 5 fractions) were included. Patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes were derived from bowel and bladder symptom scores on the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26) at 3 and 12 months post-SBRT. We utilized ensemble machine learning (ML) to interrogate the entire dose-volume histogram (DVH) to evaluate relationships between dose-volume parameters and HRQOL changes. The latent predictive dosimetric parameters that were most associated with HRQOL changes in urinary and rectal function were thus identified. An external cohort of 26 prostate SBRT patients was acquired to further test the predictive models.

RESULTS

Bladder dose-volume metrics strongly predicted patient-reported urinary irritative and incontinence symptoms (area under the curves [AUCs] of 0.79 and 0.87, respectively) at 12 months. Maximum bladder dose, bladder V102.5%, bladder volume, and conformity indices (V50/VPTV and V100/VPTV) were most predictive of HRQOL changes in both urinary domains. No strong rectal toxicity dosimetric association was identified (AUC = 0.64).

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated the application of advanced ML methods to identify a set of dosimetric variables that most highly correlated with patient-reported urinary HRQOL. DVH quantities identified with these methods may be used to achieve outcome-driven planning objectives to further reduce patient-reported toxicity with prostate SBRT.

Urinary Morbidity in Men Treated With Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) for Localized Prostate Cancer Following Transurethral Resection of the Prostate (TURP)

Background: Clinical data suggest that stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) provides similar clinical outcomes as other radiation modalities for prostate cancer. However, data reporting on the safety of SBRT after TURP is limited. Herein, we report our experience using SBRT to deliver hypofractionated radiotherapy in patients with a history of TURP including physician-reported toxicities and patient-reported quality of life.

Methods: Forty-seven patients treated with SBRT from 2007 to 2016 at Georgetown University Hospital for localized prostate carcinoma with a history of prior TURP were included in this retrospective analysis. Treatment was delivered using the CyberKnife® (Accuray Incorporated, Sunnyvale, CA) with doses of 35 Gy or 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions without prostatic urethral sparing. Toxicities were recorded and scored using the CTCAE v.4. Cystoscopy findings were retrospectively reviewed. Urinary quality of life data was assessed using the International Prostate Symptom Scoring (IPSS) and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite 26 (EPIC-26). A Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test was used to determine if there was a statistically significant increase or decrease in IPSS or EPIC scores between timepoints. Minimally important differences were calculated by obtaining half the standard deviation at time of start of treatment.

Results: Forty-seven patients at a median age of 72 years (range 63–84) received SBRT. The mean follow-up was 4.7 years (range 2–10 years). Late Grade 2 and grade 3 urinary toxicity occurred in 23 (48.9%) and 3 (6.4%) men, respectively. There were no Grade 4 or 5 toxicities. Approximately 51% of patients experienced hematuria following treatment. Mean time to hematuria was 10.5 months. Twenty-five cystoscopies were performed during follow-up and the most common finding was hyperemia, varices of the bladder neck/TURP defect, and/or necrotic tissue in the TURP defect. Baseline urinary QOL composite scores were low, but they did not clinically significantly decline in the first 2 years following treatment.

Conclusions: In patients with prior TURP, prostate SBRT was well-tolerated. GU toxicity rates were comparable to similar patients treated with conventionally fractionated radiation therapy. Urinary quality of life was poor at baseline, but did not worsen clinically over time. Stricter dosimetric criteria could potentially improve the rate of high-grade late toxicity, but may increase the risk of peri-urethral recurrence.

A comparison of a moderately hypofractionated IMRT planning technique used in a randomised UK external beam radiotherapy trial with an in-house technique for localised prostate cancer

AIM

To compare the radiotherapy technique used in a randomised trial with VMAT and an in-house technique for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND

Techniques are evolving with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) commonly used. The CHHiP trial used a 3 PTV forward planned IMRT technique (FP_CH). Our centre has adopted a simpler two PTV technique with locally calculated margins.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

25 patients treated with FP_CH to 60 Gy in 20 fractions were re-planned with VMAT (VMAT_CH) and a two PTV protocol (VMAT_60/52 and VMAT_60/48). Target coverage, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), monitor units (MU) and dose to the rectum, bladder, hips and penile bulb were compared.

RESULTS

PTV coverage was high for all techniques. VMAT_CH plans had better CI than FP_CH (p ≤  0.05). VMAT_60/52/48 plans had better CI than VMAT_CH. FP_CH had better HI and fewer MU than VMAT (p ≤  0.05). More favourable rectum doses were found for VMAT _CH than FP_CH (V_48.6, V_52.8, V₅₇, p ≤  0.05) with less difference for bladder (p ≥  0.05). Comparing VMAT_CH to VMAT_60/52/48 showed little differences for the bladder and rectum but VMAT_CH had larger penile bulb doses (V_40.8, V_48.6, mean, D_2, p ≤  0.05). Femoral head doses (V_40.8) were similarly low for all techniques (p = ≥ 0.05).

CONCLUSION

VMAT produced more conformal plans with smaller rectum doses compared to FP_CH albeit worse HI and more MU. VMAT_60/52 and VMAT_60/48 plans had similar rectal and bladder doses to VMAT_CH but better CI and penile bulb doses which may reduce toxicity.

Clinical Assessment of Prostate Displacement and Planning Target Volume Margins for Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy of Prostate Cancer

Purpose: To assess the optimal planning target volume (PTV) margins for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) of prostate cancer based on inter- and intra-fractional prostate motion determined from daily image guidance. Methods and Materials: Two hundred and five patients who were enrolled on two prospective studies of SBRT (8 Gy × 5 fractions) for localized prostate cancer treated at a single institution between 2012 and 2017 had complete inter- and intra-fractional shift data available. All patients had scheduled kilovoltage planar imaging during SBRT with rigid registration to intraprostatic fiducials prior to each of four half-arcs delivered per fraction, as well as cone beam CT verification of anatomy prior to each fraction. Inter- and intra- fractional shift data were obtained to estimate the required PTV margins based on the classic van Herk formula. Inter- and intra-fractional motion were compared between patients with and without severe toxicities using the independent two-sample Wilcoxon test. Results: The margins required to account for inter-fractional motion were estimated to be 0.99, 1.52, and 1.45 cm in lateral (LR), longitudinal (SI), and vertical (AP) directions, respectively. The margins required to account for intra-fractional motion were estimated to be 0.19, 0.27, and 0.31 cm in LR, SI and AP directions, respectively. Large intra-fractional shifts were mostly observed in the SI and AP directions, with 2.0 and 5.4% of patients experiencing average intra-fractional motion >3 mm in the SI and AP directions, respectively, compared with none experiencing mean shifts >3 mm in the LR direction. Six patients experienced grade 3 gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicity. There were no significant differences in mean inter- or intra-fractional motion in any of the cardinal directions compared to patients without severe toxicity (inter-fractional p = 0.46-0.99, intra-fractional p = 0.10-0.84). Conclusion: The inter- and intra-fractional margins estimated from this study are in line with prior reported values. Intra-fractional prostate motion was generally small with larger margins required for the SI and AP directions, notably just slightly exceeding the commonly used 3 mm posterior PTV margin even with realignment between half-arcs. Development of severe toxicity was not significantly associated with the degree of inter- or intra-fractional motion.

COVID-19: Global radiation oncology's targeted response for pandemic preparedness

As the global COVID-19 pandemic escalates there is a need within radiation oncology to work to support our patients in the best way possible. Measures are required to reduce infection spread between patients and within the workforce. Departments need contingency planning to create capacity and continue essential treatments despite a reduced workforce. The #radonc community held an urgent online journal club on Twitter in March 2020 to discuss these issues and create some consensus on crucial next steps. There were 121 global contributors. This document summarises these discussions around themes of infection prevention, rationalisation of workload and working practice in the presence of infection.

1.5 T MR-guided and daily adapted SBRT for prostate cancer: feasibility, preliminary clinical tolerability, quality of life and patient-reported outcomes during treatment

Background

Unity Elekta is a unique magnetic resonance (MR)-linac that conjugates a 1.5 Tesla MR unit with a 7 MV flattening filter free accelerator.A prospective observational study for the clinical use of Elekta Unity is currently ongoing in our department. Herein, we present our preliminary report on the feasibility, quality of life, and patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) for localized prostate cancer (PC) treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT).

Methods

The SBRT protocol consisted of a 35 Gy schedule delivered in 5 fractions within 2 weeks. Toxicity and quality of life (QoL) were assessed at baseline and after treatment using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0, International Prostatic Symptoms Score (IPSS), ICIQ-SF, IIEF-5, and EORTC-QLQ-C30 and PR-25 questionnaires.

Results

Between October 2019 and January 2020, 25 patients with localized PC were recruited. The median age was 68 years (range, 54–82); 4 were low risk, 11 favorable intermediate risk (IR) and 10 unfavorable IR. Median iPSA was 6.8 ng/ml (range, 1–19), and 9 of these patients (36%) received concurrent androgen deprivation therapy. Median prostate volume was 36 cc (range, 20–61); median baseline IPSS was 5 (range, 0–10). Median time for fraction was 53 min (range, 34–86); adaptive strategy with daily critical structure and target re-contouring and daily replanning (adapt to shape) was performed in all cases. No grade ≥ 3 adverse event was observed, three patients (12%) reported grade 2 acute genitourinary toxicity (urinary frequency, urinary tract pain and urinary retention), while only one patient reported mild rectal pain. No relevant deteriorations were reported in PROMs.

Conclusion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first experience reporting feasibility, clinician-reported outcome measurements, and PROMs for 1.5 T MR-guided adaptive SBRT for localized prostate cancer. The preliminary data collected here report optimal safety and excellent tolerability, as also confirmed by PROMs questionnaires. Moreover, the data on technical feasibility and timing of online daily adapted planning and delivery are promising. More mature data are warranted.

Trial registration

Date of approval April 2019 and numbered MRI/LINAC n°23,748.

Standard and Hypofractionated Dose Escalation to Intraprostatic Tumor Nodules in Localized Prostate Cancer: Efficacy and Toxicity in the DELINEATE Trial

PURPOSE

To report a planned analysis of the efficacy and toxicity of dose escalation to the intraprostatic dominant nodule identified on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging using standard and hypofractionated external beam radiation therapy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

DELINEATE is a single centre prospective phase 2 multicohort study including standard (cohort A: 74 Gy in 37 fractions) and moderately hypofractionated (cohort B: 60 Gy in 20 fractions) prostate image guided intensity modulated radiation therapy in patients with National Comprehensive Cancer Network intermediate- and high-risk disease. Patients received an integrated boost of 82 Gy (cohort A) and 67 Gy (cohort B) to lesions visible on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Fifty-five patients were treated in cohort A, and 158 patients were treated in cohort B; the first 50 sequentially treated patients in cohort B were included in this planned analysis. The primary endpoint was late Radiation Therapy Oncology Group rectal toxicity at 1 year. Secondary endpoints included acute and late toxicity measured with clinician- and patient-reported outcomes at other time points and biochemical relapse-free survival for cohort A. Median follow-up was 74.5 months for cohort A and 52.0 months for cohort B.

RESULTS

In cohorts A and B, 27% and 40% of patients, respectively, were classified as having National Comprehensive Cancer Network high-risk disease. The cumulative 1-year incidence of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group grade 2 or worse rectal and urinary toxicity was 3.6% and 0% in cohort A and 8% and 10% in cohort B, respectively. There was no reported late grade 3 rectal toxicity in either cohort. Within cohort A, 4 of 55 (7%) patients had biochemical relapse.

CONCLUSIONS

Delivery of a simultaneous integrated boost to intraprostatic dominant nodules is feasible in prostate radiation therapy using standard and moderately hypofractionated regimens, with rectal and genitourinary toxicity comparable to contemporary series without an intraprostatic boost.

A Prospective Multi-Institutional Phase I/II Trial of Step-Wise Dose-per-Fraction Escalation in Low and Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

This phase I/II, multi-institutional trial explored the tolerance and efficacy of stepwise increasing hypofractionation (HPFX) radiation therapy regimens for fraction sizes up to 4.3 Gy in localized prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Three escalating dose-per-fraction schedules were designed to yield similar predicted tumor control while maintaining equivalent predicted late toxicity. HPFX levels I, II, and III were carried out sequentially and delivered schedules of 64.7 Gy/22 fx/2.94 Gy, 58.08 Gy/16 fx/3.63 Gy, and 51.6 Gy/12 fx/4.3 Gy, respectively with next level escalations contingent upon acceptable gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. The primary endpoints were biochemical control and toxicity.

RESULTS

A total of 347 patients were recruited by 5 institutions with 101, 111, and 135 patients treated on HPFX levels I, II, and III with median follow-ups of 100, 85.5, and 61.7 months, respectively (83.2 months combined). The National Comprehensive Cancer Network low- or intermediate-risk group distribution was 46% and 54%, respectively. Sixteen percent of patients, primarily intermediate risk, received 6 months of androgen deprivation therapy. The 8-year nadir + 2 actuarial biochemical control rates for HPFX levels I, II, and III were 91.1% ± 3.0%, 92.7% ± 2.7%, and 88.5% ± 4.6%, respectively (Kaplan-Meier log rank, 0.903). Among clinical covariates, only Gleason score reached near significance in multivariate analysis (P = .054). Twenty-six patients failed biochemically (crude incidence of 7.5%), and there were 5 cause-specific deaths. GI and genitourinary toxicities were acceptable and similar across the 3 HPFX levels. The combined actuarial cumulative incidence of grade 2+ GI and genitourinary toxicities at 7 years were 16.3% ± 2.1% and 22.1% ± 2.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

HPFX employing fraction sizes extending into the 3.6 to 4.3 Gy/fraction range can be delivered with excellent oncologic outcomes. Such schedules, positioned between moderate and ultra-HPFX, may provide additional options for patients wishing to avoid prolonged treatment schedules associated with conventionally fractionated radiation therapy for prostate cancer.

Seven or less Fractions is Not the Standard of Care for Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer

Evidence is accumulating for seven and less fractions in localised prostate cancer, including one large randomised trial. However, there is much more evidence yet to come and changing practice in advance of this may be premature. We review the reasons to persist with moderate hypofractionation for prostate cancer radiotherapy, until the results of further phase III studies are known.

Study protocol of a randomised controlled trial of prostate radiotherapy in high-risk and node-positive disease comparing moderate and extreme hypofractionation (PRIME TRIAL)

INTRODUCTION

There has been an interest in studying the efficacy of extreme hypofractionation in low and intermediate risk prostate cancer utilising the low alpha/beta ratio of prostate. Its role in high-risk and node-positive prostate cancer, however, is unknown. We hypothesise that a five-fraction schedule of extreme hypofractionation will be non-inferior to a moderately hypofractionated regimen over 5 weeks in efficacy and will have acceptable toxicity and quality of life while reducing the cost implications during treatment.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is an ongoing, non-inferiority, multicentre, randomised trial (NCT03561961) of two schedules for National Cancer Control Network high-risk and/or node-positive non-metastatic carcinoma of the prostate. The standard arm will be a schedule of 68 Gy/25# over 5 weeks while the test arm will be extremely hypofractionated radiotherapy with stereotactic body radiation therapy to 36.25 Gy/5# (7 to 10 days). The block randomisation will be stratified by nodal status (N0/N+), hormonal therapy (luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone therapy/orchiectomy) and centre. All patients will receive daily image-guided radiotherapy.The primary end point is 4-year biochemical failure free survival (BFFS). The power calculations assume 4-year BFFS of 80% in the moderate hypofractionation arm. With a 5% one-sided significance and 80% power, a total of 434 patients will be randomised to both arms equally (217 in each arm). The secondary end points include overall survival, prostate cancer specific survival, acute and late toxicities, quality of life and out-of-pocket expenditure.

DISCUSSION

The trial aims to establish a therapeutically efficacious and cost-efficient modality for high-risk and node-positive prostate cancer with an acceptable toxicity profile. Presently, this is the only trial evaluating and answering such a question in this cohort.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The trial has been approved by IEC-III of Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Registered with CTRI/2018/05/014054 (http://ctri.nic.in) on 24 May 2018.

Prostate Fiducial Marker Placement in Patients on Anticoagulation: Feasibility Prior to Prostate SBRT

Background and Purpose: Fiducial marker placement is required in patients undergoing robotic-based Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) or image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) for prostate cancer. Many patients take antiplatelet or anticoagulant medication due to other medical comorbidities. They are often required to temporarily discontinue these medications prior to invasive medical procedures as they are prone to bleed. Some patients are unable to discontinue therapy due to an elevated risk of thromboembolic events. The purpose of this study is to report this institution's experience placing fiducial markers in prostate cancer patients who are on chronic antiplatelet or anticoagulant medication. Materials and Methods: From August 2015-March 2019 57 patients on chronic antiplatelet or anticoagulation therapy who were not cleared to stop these medications underwent transrectal ultrasound guided (TRUS) fiducial marker placement for SBRT/IGRT. All patients were monitored by a registered nurse during the procedure for prolonged bleeding that required staff to hold pressure to the area with a 4 × 4 gauze until it resolved. All patients were also called the following day to assess for ongoing bleeding events. Treatment planning CT scan confirmed the ideal geometry of the marker placement. Results: All 57 patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant medication who underwent fiducial marker placement were discharged home the same day of the procedure. Four patients experienced persistent bleeding that required a nurse to hold prolonged pressure to the area. No patient experienced significant bleeding the following day or any untoward cardiovascular event. Conclusions: This series suggests the use of antiplatelet or anticoagulant medication is not an absolute contraindication to fiducial marker placement in patients undergoing SBRT or IGRT for prostate cancer. These patients should be closely monitored after the procedure for bleeding complications. Practitioners may consider the patient's medical comorbidities, risk factors for thromboembolism, and overall functional status as there is no standardized protocol for discontinuing anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy for fiducial marker placement.

Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy for Intermediate- or High-Risk Prostate Cancer

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is a relatively novel form of high precision radiotherapy. For low- and intermediate risk patients, ultrahypofractionation (UHF - more than 5 Gy per day) has been compared to conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy in two large randomized studies. A third smaller randomized study examined the question of the optimal frequency of treatments. The results of these studies will be reviewed. SABR for high risk prostate cancer has been shown to be feasible and is well tolerated with careful planning and setup techniques. However, there is currently insufficient data supporting its use for high-risk patients to offer SABR outside of a clinical trial. SABR costs less to the radiotherapydepartments and, the patient, as well as increasing system capacity. Therefore, it has the potential to be widely adopted in the next few years.