Postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer : Morbidity of local-only or local-plus-pelvic radiotherapy

Unraveling the safety of adjuvant radiotherapy in prostate cancer: impact of older age and hypofractionated regimens on acute and late toxicity - a multicenter comprehensive analysis

Background

The objective of this study was to assess the impact of age and other patient and treatment characteristics on toxicity in prostate cancer patients receiving adjuvant radiotherapy (RT).

Materials and methods

This observational study (ICAROS-1) evaluated both acute (RTOG) and late (RTOG/EORTC) toxicity. Patient- (age; Charlson's comorbidity index) and treatment-related characteristics (nodal irradiation; previous TURP; use, type, and duration of ADT, RT fractionation and technique, image-guidance systems, EQD2 delivered to the prostate bed and pelvic nodes) were recorded and analyzed.

Results

A total of 381 patients were enrolled. The median EQD2 to the prostate bed (α/β=1.5) was 71.4 Gy. The majority of patients (75.4%) were treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Acute G3 gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity rates were 0.5% and 1.3%, respectively. No patients experienced >G3 acute toxicity. The multivariable analysis of acute toxicity (binomial logistic regression) showed a statistically significant association between older age (> 65) and decreased odds of G≥2 GI acute toxicity (OR: 0.569; 95%CI: 0.329-0.973; p: 0.040) and decreased odds of G≥2 GU acute toxicity (OR: 0.956; 95%CI: 0.918-0.996; p: 0.031). The 5-year late toxicity-free survival rates for G≥3 GI and GU toxicity were 98.1% and 94.5%, respectively. The only significant correlation found (Cox's regression model) was a reduced risk of late GI toxicity in patients undergoing hypofractionation (HR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.18-0.78; p: 0.008).

Conclusions

The unexpected results of this analysis could be explained by a "response shift bias" concerning the protective effect of older age and by treatment in later periods (using IMRT/VMAT) concerning the favorable effect of hypofractionation. However, overall, the study suggests that age should not be a reason to avoid adjuvant RT and that the latter is well-tolerated even with moderately hypofractionated regimens.

The cost of elective nodal coverage in prostate cancer: Late quality of life outcomes and dosimetric analysis with 0, 45 or 54 Gy to the pelvis

•

Pelvic nodal radiation to 54 Gy correlates with worse urinary quality of life.

•

Pelvic nodal radiation to 45 Gy does not correlate with urinary quality of life.

•

Post-operative radiation resulted in greater urinary quality of life decline.

•

Pelvic nodal radiation did not correlate with bowel quality of life.

Purpose

Elective pelvic lymph node radiotherapy (PLNRT) in prostate cancer is often omitted from definitive (n = 267) and post prostatectomy (n = 160) radiotherapy (RT) due to concerns regarding toxicity and efficacy. Data comparing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) with or without PLNRT is limited. Our long-term supposition is that PLNRT, particularly to higher doses afforded by IMRT, will decrease pelvic failure rate in select patients. We aim to establish the impact of two different PLNRT doses on long term quality of life (QOL).

Methods and materials

Prostate cancer patients (n = 428) recorded baseline scores using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), prior to definitive or post-prostatectomy RT. PLNRT, if given, was prescribed to 45 or 54 Gy at 1.8 Gy per fraction. New EPIC scores were recorded 20–36 months after radiotherapy. Absolute change in each domain subscale and summary score was recorded, along with if these changes met minimally important difference (MID) criteria. A separate multivariate analysis (MVA) was performed for each measure. Subsequent dosimetric analysis was performed.

Results

Frequency of a MID decline was significantly greater with PLNRT to 54 Gy for urinary function, incontinence, and overall. No urinary decline was correlated with PLNRT to 45 Gy. PLNRT to 54 Gy was significant for decline in urinary function, bother, irritative, incontinence, and overall score in one or both MVA models while 45 Gy was not. Postoperative status was significant for decline in urinary function, incontinence, and overall. Amongst postoperative patients, there was significantly greater decline in urinary function score in the salvage setting. Neither 54 nor 45 Gy significantly affected bowel subscale or overall score decline.

Conclusions

Using conventional fractionation, adding PLNRT to 54 Gy, but not 45 Gy, correlates with worse urinary QOL, with postoperative patients experiencing a steeper decline. PLNRT had no significant impact on bowel QOL with either dose.

Comparative effectiveness of moderate hypofractionation with volumetric modulated arc therapy versus conventional 3D-radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy

PURPOSE

Hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer is well established for definitive treatment, but not well defined in the postoperative setting. The purpose of this analysis was to assess oncologic outcomes and toxicity in a large cohort of patients treated with conventionally fractionated three-dimensional (3D) conformal radiotherapy (CF) and hypofractionated volumetric modulated arc therapy (HF) after radical prostatectomy.

METHODS

Between 1994 and 2019, a total of 855 patients with prostate carcinoma were treated by postoperative radiotherapy using CF (total dose 65-72 Gy, single fraction 1.8-2 Gy) in 572 patients and HF (total dose 62.5-63.75 Gy, single fraction 2.5-2.55 Gy) in 283 patients. The association of treatment modality with biochemical control, overall survival (OS), and gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity was assessed using logistic and Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

There was no difference between the two modalities regarding biochemical control rates (77% versus 81%, respectively, for HF and CF at 24 months and 58% and 64% at 60 months; p = 0.20). OS estimates after 5 years: 95% versus 93% (p = 0.72). Patients undergoing HF had less frequent grade 2 or higher acute GI or GU side effects (p = 0.03 and p = 0.005, respectively). There were no differences in late GI side effects between modalities (hazard ratio 0.99). Median follow-up was 23 months for HF and 72 months for CF (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

For radiation therapy of resected prostate cancer, our analysis of this largest single-centre cohort (n = 283) treated with hypofractionation with advanced treatment techniques compared with conventional fractionation did not yield different outcomes in terms of biochemical control and toxicities. Prospective investigating of HF is merited.

Efficacy and Toxicity of Whole Pelvic Radiotherapy Versus Prostate-Only Radiotherapy in Localized Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

There is little level 1 evidence regarding the relative efficacy and toxicity of whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) compared with prostate-only radiotherapy (PORT) for localized prostate cancer.

Methods

We used Cochrane, PubMed, Embase, Medline databases, and ClinicalTrials.gov to systematically search for all relevant clinical studies. The data on efficacy and toxicity were extracted for quality assessment and meta-analysis to quantify the effect of WPRT on biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS), progression-free survival (PFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), overall survival (OS), gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, and genitourinary (GU) toxicity compared with PORT. The review is registered on PROSPERO, number: CRD42021254752.

Results

The results revealed that compared with PORT, WPRT significantly improved 5-year BFFS and PFS, and it was irrelevant to whether the patients had undergone radical prostatectomy (RP). In addition, for the patients who did not receive RP, the 5-year DMFS of WPRT was better than that of PORT. However, WPRT significantly increased not only the grade 2 or worse (G2+) acute GI toxicity of non-RP studies and RP studies, but also the G2+ late GI toxicity of non-RP studies. Subgroup analysis of non-RP studies found that, when the pelvic radiation dose was >49 Gy (equivalent-doses-in-2-Gy-fractions, EQD-2), WPRT was more beneficial to PFS than PORT, but significantly increased the risk of G2+ acute and late GU toxicity.

Conclusions

Meta-analysis demonstrates that WPRT can significantly improve BFFS and PFS for localized prostate cancer than PORT, but the increased risk of G2+ acute and late GI toxicity must be considered.

Systematic Review Registration

PROSPERO CRD42021254752.

Comparison of relative and absolute rectal dose-volume parameters and clinical correlation with acute and late radiation proctitis in prostate cancer patients

PURPOSE

To compare relative and absolute dose-volume parameters (DV) of the rectum and their clinical correlation with acute and late radiation proctitis (RP) after radiotherapy (RT) for prostate cancer (PCa).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

366 patients received RT for PCa. In total, 49.2% received definitive RT, 20.2% received postoperative RT and 30.6% received salvage RT for biochemical recurrence. In 77.9% of patients, RT was delivered to the prostate or prostate bed, and additional whole pelvic RT was performed in 22.1%. 33.9% received 3D-RT, and 66.1% received IMRT. The median follow-up was 59.5 months (18.0-84.0 months). The relative (in %) and absolute (in ccm) rectal doses from 20-75 Gy including the receiver operating characteristics curves (rAUC) from 30-65 Gy (in % and ccm) and several other clinical parameters were analyzed in univariate and multivariate analyses. We performed the statistical analyses separately for the entire cohort (n = 366), patients with (n = 81) and without (n = 285) pelvic RT, comparing RP vs. RP ≥ grade I.

RESULTS

With the exception of the V50_Gyccm (p = 0.02) in the univariate analyses for acute RP in the entire patient cohort, no absolute DV parameter (in ccm) was statistically significant associated with either acute or late RP. In the multivariate analyses, 3D-RT (p < 0.008) and rAUC_V30-50 Gy% (p = 0.006) were significant parameters for acute RP for the entire cohort, and the V50_Gy% (p = 0.01) was the significant parameter for patients with pelvic RT. The rAUC_V40-50 Gy% (p = 0.004) was significant for RT to the prostate/prostate bed. Regarding the statistical analysis for late RP, the rAUC_V30-65 Gy% (p = 0.001) was significant for the entire cohort, and rAUC_V30-50 Gy% (p = 0.001) was significant for RT of the prostate/prostate bed. No parameter was significant in patients with pelvic RT.

CONCLUSION

Absolute DV parameters in ccm are not required for RT in PCa patients.

Early and late toxicity profiles of patients receiving immediate postoperative radiotherapy versus salvage radiotherapy for prostate cancer after prostatectomy

PURPOSE

The present study aims to evaluate both early and late toxicity profiles of patients receiving immediate postoperative radiotherapy (RT; adjuvant RT or additive RT) compared to salvage RT.

METHODS

We evaluated 253 patients with prostate cancer treated with either immediate postoperative (adjuvant RT, n = 42; additive RT, n = 39) or salvage RT (n = 137). Thirty-five patients received salvage treatment but did not achieve a postoperative prostate specific antigen (PSA) level <0.1 ng/ml and thus were excluded from analysis.

RESULTS

A significantly higher rate of early grade 1/2 proctitis in the immediate postoperative RT group without additional pelvic RT was observed (p = 0.02). Patients in the immediate postoperative RT group without additional pelvic RT showed significantly more early urinary tract obstructions (p = 0.003). Toxicity rates of early (<3 months) and late (3-6 months) postoperative RT were similar (p > 0.05). Baseline recovery rate of erectile dysfunction was better in patients with immediate postoperative RT without additional pelvic RT (p = 0.02; hazard ratio (HR) = 2.22, 95%-confidence interval, 95%-CI: 1.12-4.37). Recovery rate of urinary incontinence showed no significant difference in all groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Patients receiving immediate postoperative RT (adjuvant or additive RT) without additional pelvic RT experience early gastrointestinal (GI) side effect proctitis and, as well as early genitourinary (GU) toxicity urinary tract obstruction more frequently than patients treated with salvage RT. Therefore, complete recovery after surgery is essential. However, we suggest basing the treatment decision on the patient's postoperative clinical condition and evaluation of any adverse risk factors, since many studies demonstrate a clear benefit for immediate postoperative RT (adjuvant or additive RT) in terms of oncological outcome.

Contemporary role of postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer

While radical prostatectomy (RP) has provided long-term disease control for the majority of patients with localized prostate cancer (CaP), nearly 30% of all surgical patients have disease progression. For high-risk patients, more than half of men experience disease recurrence within 10 years. Postoperative radiotherapy is the only known potentially curative treatment for a large number of patients following prostatectomy. Lately, there have been several advances with the potential to improve outcomes for patients undergoing postoperative radiotherapy. This article will give an overview of the existing literature and current controversies on: (I) timing of postoperative radiation; (II) use of concomitant androgen deprivation therapy; (III) optimal dose to the prostate bed; (IV) use of hypofractionation; (V) elective treatment of the pelvic lymph nodes; (VI) novel imaging modalities, and (VII) genomic biomarkers.