Moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: updated long-term outcome and toxicity analysis

Long-term findings of rectal endoscopy and rectal bleeding after moderately hypofractionated, intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer

To present rectal endoscopic findings and toxicity after definitive moderately hypofractionated, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer. We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent IMRT for prostate cancer and underwent post-radiotherapy endoscopies between 2008 and 2018. Endoscopic findings were reviewed and graded using Vienna Rectoscopy Score (VRS). We have analyzed the association between endoscopic findings and rectal bleeding, and investigated risk factors for rectal bleeding. Total 162 patients met the inclusion criteria of this study. There was a trend of VRS worsening during the initial 3 years after radiotherapy followed by recovery. Rectal bleeding was highest at 1 year after radiotherapy and improved thereafter. The 5-year cumulative incidence of grade ≥ 2 rectal bleeding was 14.8%. In the multivariable Cox regression analysis, cardiovascular disease (hazard ratio [HR] 2.732, P = 0.037), rectal wall V65 (HR 1.158, P = 0.027), and VRS ≥ 3 in first post-radiotherapy endoscopy (HR 2.573, P = 0.031) were significant risk factors for rectal bleeding. After IMRT for prostate cancer, VRS and rectal bleeding worsened over 1-3 years after radiotherapy and recovered. Cardiovascular disease, rectal wall V65, and VRS ≥ 3 in first post-radiotherapy endoscopy were significant risk factors for rectal bleeding.

Targeting P21-Activated Kinase-1 for Metastatic Prostate Cancer

Metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) has limited therapeutic options and a high mortality rate. The p21-activated kinase (PAK) family of proteins is important in cell survival, proliferation, and motility in physiology, and pathologies such as infectious, inflammatory, vascular, and neurological diseases as well as cancers. Group-I PAKs (PAK1, PAK2, and PAK3) are involved in the regulation of actin dynamics and thus are integral for cell morphology, adhesion to the extracellular matrix, and cell motility. They also play prominent roles in cell survival and proliferation. These properties make group-I PAKs a potentially important target for cancer therapy. In contrast to normal prostate and prostatic epithelial cells, group-I PAKs are highly expressed in mPCA and PCa tissue. Importantly, the expression of group-I PAKs is proportional to the Gleason score of the patients. While several compounds have been identified that target group-I PAKs and these are active in cells and mice, and while some inhibitors have entered human trials, as of yet, none have been FDA-approved. Probable reasons for this lack of translation include issues related to selectivity, specificity, stability, and efficacy resulting in side effects and/or lack of efficacy. In the current review, we describe the pathophysiology and current treatment guidelines of PCa, present group-I PAKs as a potential druggable target to treat mPCa patients, and discuss the various ATP-competitive and allosteric inhibitors of PAKs. We also discuss the development and testing of a nanotechnology-based therapeutic formulation of group-I PAK inhibitors and its significant potential advantages as a novel, selective, stable, and efficacious mPCa therapeutic over other PCa therapeutics in the pipeline.

Propensity score-matched analysis comparing dose-escalated intensity-modulated radiation therapy versus external beam radiation therapy plus high-dose-rate brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer

Purpose

Dose-escalated external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and EBRT + high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) boost are guideline-recommended treatment options for localized prostate cancer. The purpose of this study was to compare long-term outcome and toxicity of dose-escalated EBRT versus EBRT + HDR-BT boost.

Methods

From 2002 to 2019, 744 consecutive patients received either EBRT or EBRT + HDR-BT boost, of whom 516 patients were propensity score matched. Median follow-up was 95.3 months. Cone beam CT image-guided EBRT consisted of 33 fractions of intensity-modulated radiation therapy with simultaneous integrated boost up to 76.23 Gy (D_Mean). Combined treatment was delivered as 46 Gy (D_Mean) EBRT, followed by two fractions HDR-BT boost with 9 Gy (D_90%). Propensity score matching was applied before analysis of the primary endpoint, estimated 10-year biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS), and the secondary endpoints metastasis-free survival (MFS) and overall survival (OS). Prognostic parameters were analyzed by Cox proportional hazard modelling. Genitourinary (GU)/gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity evaluation used the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events (v5.0).

Results

The estimated 10-year bRFS was 82.0% vs. 76.4% (p = 0.075) for EBRT alone versus combined treatment, respectively. The estimated 10-year MFS was 82.9% vs. 87.0% (p = 0.195) and the 10-year OS was 65.7% vs. 68.9% (p = 0.303), respectively. Cumulative 5‑year late GU ≥ grade 2 toxicities were seen in 23.6% vs. 19.2% (p = 0.086) and 5‑year late GI ≥ grade 2 toxicities in 11.1% vs. 5.0% of the patients (p = 0.002); cumulative 5‑year late grade 3 GU toxicity occurred in 4.2% vs. 3.6% (p = 0.401) and GI toxicity in 1.0% vs. 0.3% (p = 0.249), respectively.

Conclusion

Both treatment groups showed excellent long-term outcomes with low rates of severe toxicity.

Cone beam CT-based dose accumulation and analysis of delivered dose to the dominant intraprostatic lesion in primary radiotherapy of prostate cancer

Background

Evaluation of delivered dose to the dominant intraprostatic lesion (DIL) for moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy of prostate cancer by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT)-based dose accumulation and target coverage analysis.

Methods

Twenty-three patients with localized prostate cancer treated with moderately hypofractionated prostate radiotherapy with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) between December 2016 and February 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Included patients were required to have an identifiable DIL on bi-parametric planning magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). After import into the RayStation treatment planning system and application of a step-wise density override, the fractional doses were computed on each CBCT and were consecutively mapped onto the planning CT via a deformation vector field derived from deformable image registration. Fractional doses were accumulated for all CBCTs and interpolated for missing CBCTs, resulting in the delivered dose for PTV_DIL, PTV_Boost, PTV, and the organs at risk. The location of the index lesions was recorded according to the sector map of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) Version 2.1. Target coverage of the index lesions was evaluated and stratified for location.

Results

In total, 338 CBCTs were available for analysis. Dose accumulation target coverage of PTV_DIL, PTV_Boost, and PTV was excellent and no cases of underdosage in D_Mean, D_95%, D_02%, and D_98% could be detected. Delivered rectum D_Mean did not significantly differ from the planned dose. Bladder mean D_Mean was higher than planned with 19.4 ± 7.4 Gy versus 18.8 ± 7.5 Gy, p < 0.001. The penile bulb showed a decreased delivered mean D_Mean with 29.1 ± 14.0 Gy versus 29.8 ± 14.4 Gy, p < 0.001. Dorsal DILs, defined as DILs in the posterior medial peripheral zone of the prostate, showed a significantly lower delivered dose with a mean D_Mean difference of 2.2 Gy (95% CI 1.3–3.1 Gy, p < 0.001) compared to ventral lesions.

Conclusions

CBCT-based dose accumulation showed an adequate delivered dose to the dominant intraprostatic lesion and organs at risk within planning limits. Cautious evaluation of the target coverage for index lesions adjacent to the rectum is warranted to avoid underdosage.

Moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy as definitive treatment for localized prostate cancer: Pattern of practice in German-speaking countries : A survey of the Prostate Cancer Expert Panel of the German Society of Radiation Oncology (DEGRO) and the Working Party on Radiation Oncology of the German Cancer Society (DKG-ARO)

Purpose

Various randomized phase III clinical trials have compared moderately hypofractionated to normofractionated radiotherapy (RT). These modalities showed similar effectiveness without major differences in toxicity. This project was conducted by the Prostate Cancer Expert Panel of the German Society of Radiation Oncology (DEGRO) and the Working Party on Radiation Oncology of the German Cancer Society. We aimed to investigate expert opinions on the use of moderately hypofractionated RT as a definitive treatment for localized prostate cancer in German-speaking countries.

Methods

A 25-item, web-based questionnaire on moderate-hypofractionation RT was prepared by an internal committee. The experts of the DEGRO were asked to complete the questionnaire.

Results

Fourteen active members of DEGRO completed the questionnaire. The questions described indications for selecting patients eligible to receive moderate hypofractionation based on clinical and pathological factors such as age, urinary symptoms, and risk-group. The questions also collected information on the technical aspects of selection criteria, including the definition of a clinical target volume, the use of imaging, protocols for bladder and rectal filling, the choice of a fractionation schedule, and the use of image guidance. Moreover, the questionnaire collected information on post-treatment surveillance after applying moderately hypofractionated RT.

Conclusion

Although opinions varied on the use of moderate-hypofractionation RT, the current survey reflected broad agreement on the notion that moderately hypofractionated RT could be considered a standard treatment for localized prostate cancer in German-speaking countries.

Comparison of treatment plans for hypofractionated high-dose prostate cancer radiotherapy using the Varian Halcyon and the Elekta Synergy platforms

Purpose

To compare radiotherapy plans between an O‐ring and a conventional C‐arm linac for hypofractionated high‐dose prostate radiotherapy in terms of plan quality, dose distribution, and quality assurance in a multi‐vendor environment.

Methods

Twenty prostate cancer treatment plans were irradiated on the O‐ring Varian Halcyon linac and were re‐optimized for the C‐arm Elekta Synergy Agility linac. Dose‐volume histogram metrics for target coverage and organ at risk dose, quality assurance, and monitor units were retrospectively compared. Patient‐specific quality assurance with ion chamber measurements, gamma index analysis, and portal dosimetry was performed using the Varian Portal Dosimetry system and the ArcCHECK^® phantom (Sun Nuclear Corporation). Prostate‐only radiotherapy was delivered with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in 20 fractions of 2.5/3.0 Gy each.

Results

For both linacs, target coverage was excellent and plan quality comparable. Homogeneity in PTV_Boost was high for Synergy as well as Halcyon with a mean homogeneity index of 0.07 ± 0.01 and 0.05 ± 0.01, respectively. Mean dose for the organs at risk rectum and bladder differed not significantly between the linacs but were higher for the femoral heads and penile bulb for Halcyon. Quality assurance showed no significant differences in terms of ArcCHECK gamma pass rates. Median pass rate for 3%/2 mm was 99.3% (96.7 to 99.8%) for Synergy and 99.8% (95.6 to 100%) for Halcyon. Agreement between calculated and measured dose was high with a median deviation of −0.6% (−1.7 to 0.8%) for Synergy and 0.2% (−0.6 to 2.3%) for Halcyon. Monitor units were higher for the Halcyon by approximately 20% (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Hypofractionated high‐dose prostate cancer SIB VMAT on the Halcyon system is feasible with comparable plan quality in reference to a standard C‐arm Elekta Synergy linac.

Advances in Hypofractionated Irradiation-Induced Immunosuppression of Tumor Microenvironment

Hypofractionated radiotherapy is external beam irradiation delivered at higher doses in fewer fractions than conventional standard radiotherapy, which can stimulate innate and adaptive immunity to enhance the body’s immune response against cancer. The enhancement effect of hypofractionated irradiation to immune response has been widely investigated, which is considered an approach to expand the benefit of immunotherapy. Meanwhile, increasing evidence suggests that hypofractionated irradiation may induce or enhance the suppression of immune microenvironments. However, the suppressive effects of hypofractionated irradiation on immunomicroenvironment and the molecular mechanisms involved in these conditions are largely unknown. In this context, we summarized the immune mechanisms associated with hypofractionated irradiation, highlighted the advances in its immunosuppressive effect, and further discussed the potential mechanism behind this effect. In our opinion, besides its immunogenic activity, hypofractionated irradiation also triggers homeostatic immunosuppressive mechanisms that may counterbalance antitumor effects. And this may suggest that a combination with immunotherapy could possibly improve the curative potential of hypofractionated radiotherapy.

Implementation of a dedicated 1.5 T MR scanner for radiotherapy treatment planning featuring a novel high-channel coil setup for brain imaging in treatment position

Purpose

To share our experiences in implementing a dedicated magnetic resonance (MR) scanner for radiotherapy (RT) treatment planning using a novel coil setup for brain imaging in treatment position as well as to present developed core protocols with sequences specifically tuned for brain and prostate RT treatment planning.

Materials and methods

Our novel setup consists of two large 18-channel flexible coils and a specifically designed wooden mask holder mounted on a flat tabletop overlay, which allows patients to be measured in treatment position with mask immobilization. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of this setup was compared to the vendor-provided flexible coil RT setup and the standard setup for diagnostic radiology. The occurrence of motion artifacts was quantified. To develop magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocols, we formulated site- and disease-specific clinical objectives.

Results

Our novel setup showed mean SNR of 163 ± 28 anteriorly, 104 ± 23 centrally, and 78 ± 14 posteriorly compared to 84 ± 8 and 102 ± 22 anteriorly, 68 ± 6 and 95 ± 20 centrally, and 56 ± 7 and 119 ± 23 posteriorly for the vendor-provided and diagnostic setup, respectively. All differences were significant (p > 0.05). Image quality of our novel setup was judged suitable for contouring by expert-based assessment. Motion artifacts were found in 8/60 patients in the diagnostic setup, whereas none were found for patients in the RT setup. Site-specific core protocols were designed to minimize distortions while optimizing tissue contrast and 3D resolution according to indication-specific objectives.

Conclusion

We present a novel setup for high-quality imaging in treatment position that allows use of several immobilization systems enabling MR-only workflows, which could reduce unnecessary dose and registration inaccuracies.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00066-020-01703-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Implementing a new scale for failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) for risk analysis in a radiation oncology department

PURPOSE

Patients and staffs are endangered by different failure modes during clinical routine in radiation oncology and risks are difficult to stratify. We implemented the method of failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) via questionnaires in our institution and introduced an adapted scale applicable for radiation oncology.

METHODS

Failure modes in physical treatment planning and daily routine were detected and stratified by ranking occurrence, severity, and detectability in a questionnaire. Multiplication of these values offers the risk priority number (RPN). We implemented an ordinal rating scale (ORS) as a combination of earlier published scales from the literature. This scale was optimized for German radiation oncology. We compared RPN using this ORS versus use of a rather subjective visual analogue rating scale (VRS).

RESULTS

Mean RPN using ORS was 62.3 vs. 67.5 using VRS (p = 0.7). Use of ORS led to improved completeness of questionnaires (91 vs. 79%) and stronger agreement among the experts, especially concerning failure modes during radiation routine. The majority of interviewed experts found the analysis by using the ORS easier and expected a saving of time as well as higher intra- and interobserver reliability.

CONCLUSION

The introduced rating scale together with a questionnaire survey provides merit for conducting FMEA in radiation oncology as results are comparable to the use of VRS and the process is facilitated.