1
|
Le Guévelou J, Murthy V, Zilli T, Nicosia L, Bossi A, Bokhorst LP, Barret E, Ouzaid I, Nguyen PL, Ferrario F, Chargari C, Arcangeli S, Magne N, Sargos P. « Augmented radiotherapy » in the management of high-risk prostate cancer (PCa): A systematic review. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2025; 207:104623. [PMID: 39827978 DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2025.104623] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/27/2024] [Revised: 01/09/2025] [Accepted: 01/14/2025] [Indexed: 01/22/2025] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND In patients with high-risk (HR) prostate cancer (PCa) treated with radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), intensification with androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) improves overall survival (OS), at the cost of significant side-effects. We hypothesized that "augmented RT" schedules (defined as either dose-escalation on the prostate gland over 78 Gy and/or addition of whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT)), combined with long-term ADT can reach excellent prostate cancer specific survival (PCSS) in this population with little detrimental impact on quality of life. METHODS We searched Pubmed database until February 8, 2024. Studies reporting both oncological and toxicity outcomes after "augmented RT" were deemed eligible. Studies without ADT or with ARPI intensification were deemed ineligible. RESULTS Dose-escalation within the prostate gland at doses over 78 Gy halved the risk of biochemical recurrence at 5 years, with however no impact on PCSS. The addition of WPRT provides a 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) reaching 89.5 % at 5 years, with no significant increase in late grade≥ 2 genito-urinary (GU) or gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. Combined approaches result in 9-year PCSS ranging between 96.1 % and 100 %. Most approaches demonstrated excellent safety profiles. CONCLUSIONS "Augmented RT" reached excellent oncological outcomes, with minimal additional toxicity. The development of biomarkers might lead to further treatment personalization, in the rapidly evolving landscape of systemic therapies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Vedang Murthy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital and Advanced Centre for Treatment Research and Education in Cancer (ACTREC), Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Mumbai, India
| | - Thomas Zilli
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland (IOSI), EOC, Bellinzona, Switzerland
| | - Luca Nicosia
- Advanced Radiation Oncology Department, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Cancer Care Center, Italy
| | - Alberto Bossi
- Centre de Radiothérapie Charlebourg, La Défense, Groupe Amethyst, 65, avenue Foch, La Garenne-Colombes 92250, France
| | | | - Eric Barret
- Department of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France
| | - Idir Ouzaid
- Department of Urology, Bichat Claude Bernard Hospital, Paris Cité University, Paris, France
| | - Paul L Nguyen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana Farber Harvard Cancer Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Federica Ferrario
- Department of Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan Bicocca, Milan, Italy
| | - Cyrus Chargari
- Department of radiation oncology, Hopital Pitié Salpétrière, Paris, France
| | - Stefano Arcangeli
- Department of Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan Bicocca, Milan, Italy
| | - Nicolas Magne
- Department of radiation oncology, Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France
| | - Paul Sargos
- Centre de Radiothérapie Charlebourg, La Défense, Groupe Amethyst, 65, avenue Foch, La Garenne-Colombes 92250, France; Department of radiation oncology, Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Haack L, Krug D, Domschikowski J, Wittenstein O, Rodler S, Nuhn P, van der Horst C, Schmalz C, Schulz C, Blanck O, Siebert FA, Fabian A. Associations of dose to the urethra and long-term patient-reported outcomes after radiotherapy with EBRT and HDR brachytherapy boost for prostate cancer. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2025; 51:100918. [PMID: 39898332 PMCID: PMC11782951 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2025.100918] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/24/2024] [Revised: 01/06/2025] [Accepted: 01/09/2025] [Indexed: 02/04/2025] Open
Abstract
Purpose Implications of radiation dose exposure to the urethra on urinary morbidity after prostate radiotherapy are poorly understood, especially by long-term patient-reported outcomes (PRO). Therefore, our primary objective was to investigate associations of urethral dose and long-term patient-reported urinary morbidity after external beam radiotherapy and high-dose rate brachytherapy boost for prostate cancer. Materials and methods We conducted a pre-registered (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/A6DC3) cross-sectional study at a tertiary academic center including a consecutive sample of patients being at least two years after treatment. Primary outcome measurements included urinary domains of the EPIC-26 questionnaire. Their associations with predefined urethral dose levels were assessed by univariable analyses (Pearson's correlation) and by predefined multivariable analyses (multiple regression). Sample size calculation was based on a predefined multivariable model. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results Among 277 screened patients, 113 patients were alive, eligible, consented, and provided PRO. The median time passed since radiotherapy was 4 years. Per univariable analysis, a higher near maximum point dose of the urethra (DU0.1cc) was associated with worse urinary incontinence (r = -0.32; CI = -0.48 - -0.13; p < 0.001) and worse overall urinary function (r = -0.21; CI = -0.38 - -0.03; p = 0.02) of the respective EPIC-26 domains. Per predefined multivariable analysis, DU0.1cc and urinary incontinence remained significantly associated (B = -0.005; CI = -0.008 - -0.002; p = 0.003). These associations were only present, when very high DU0.1 cc above 137 Gy were kept in the analysis. Conclusions Very high urethral near point doses appear to be associated with worse long-term patient-reported urinary morbidity after radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Urethral dose should be considered in practice and future trials to potentially minimize long-term urinary morbidity. Trial registration The study protocol was pre-registered prior to patient accrual on the Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/A6DC3).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lars Haack
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany
| | - David Krug
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Justus Domschikowski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany
| | - Olaf Wittenstein
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany
| | - Severin Rodler
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany
| | - Philipp Nuhn
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany
| | | | - Claudia Schmalz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany
| | - Christian Schulz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany
| | - Oliver Blanck
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany
| | - Frank-André Siebert
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany
| | - Alexander Fabian
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Guévelou JL, Sargos P, Ost P, Alongi F, Arcangeli S, Berlin A, Blanchard P, Bruynzeel A, Chapet O, Dal Pra A, Dess RT, Guckenberger M, Loblaw A, Kishan AU, Jereczek-Fossa B, Pasquier D, Shelan M, Siva S, Tree AC, Zamboglou C, Supiot S, Murthy V, Zilli T. Urethra-sparing prostate cancer radiotherapy: Current practices and future insights from an international survey. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2025; 51:100907. [PMID: 39845565 PMCID: PMC11751415 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2024.100907] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/06/2024] [Revised: 12/16/2024] [Accepted: 12/26/2024] [Indexed: 01/24/2025] Open
Abstract
Purpose In prostate cancer patients, high radiation doses to the urethra have been associated with an increased risk of severe genitourinary toxicity following dose-escalated radiotherapy. Urethra-sparing techniques have emerged as a promising approach to reduce urinary toxicity. This international survey aims to evaluate current global practices in urethra-sparing and explore future directions for the implementation of this technique in external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for prostate cancer. Methods and materials In April 2024, a survey consisting of 20 questions was distributed to 26 international radiation oncology experts in prostate cancer EBRT, with 23 experts participating. The survey focused on clinical scenarios which might take benefit from urethra-sparing, the definition of the urethra and urinary organs-at-risk, and urethral dose constraints. Results Magnetic resonance imaging with T2-weighted sequences is the preferred method for urethra contouring (83 % consensus). Based on the experts opinion, urethra-sparing should be considered for prostate cancer EBRT, regardless of pelvic irradiation, except in cases where the tumor is located within 2 mm of the urethra and/or transitional zone, or in T4 disease. Most experts would not apply specific dose constraints to the urethra for either conventional or moderate hypofractionation regimens. When delivering stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), urethra-sparing with dose hotspot limitation (urethra steering) is recommended by 70 % of the experts, in particular when combined with focal boosting (91 %). Urethra dose-reduction is also the favored approach for salvage prostate reirradiation with SBRT (70 % agreement). Large variations exists regarding urethral dose constraints. Conclusions Urethra-sparing is a promising technique for the mitigation of urinary toxicity in prostate cancer patients undergoing EBRT, particularly recommended for ultra-hypofractionation and reirradiation with SBRT. The lack of consensus on specific urethral dose constraints and optimal sparing techniques underscores the need for further research to standardize practices in this field.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer Le Guévelou
- Department of Clinical Research, Centre Eugène Marquis, Rennes, France
- Laboratoire du traitement du signal et de l’image, Université De Rennes, Rennes, France
| | - Paul Sargos
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France
- Department of Radiotherapy, Charlebourg Center, La Garenne-Colombes, France
| | - Piet Ost
- Department of Human Structure and Repair, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
- Iridium Network, Radiation Oncology, Wilrijk, Belgium
| | - Filippo Alongi
- Advanced Radiation Oncology Department, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Cancer Care Center, Italy
- University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy
| | - Stefano Arcangeli
- Radiation Oncology Department, Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, Monza, Italy
- School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan Bicocca, Milan, Italy
| | - Alejandro Berlin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Pierre Blanchard
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gustave Roussy, Université Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France
| | - Anna Bruynzeel
- Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Olivier Chapet
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hôpital Lyon Sud, Lyon, France
- Université Claude-Bernard Lyon 1, Villeurbanne, France
| | - Alan Dal Pra
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Health Systems, Miami, FL, USA
| | - Robert T. Dess
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Matthias Guckenberger
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zürich, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Andrew Loblaw
- Institute of Healthcare Policy and Management, Department of Radiation Oncology, Ontario Institute of Cancer Research, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Amar U. Kishan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Barbara Jereczek-Fossa
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - David Pasquier
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Centre Oscar Lambret, Lille, France
- CRIStAL UMR CNRS 9189, Lille University, Lille, France
| | - Mohamed Shelan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland
| | - Shankar Siva
- Division of Radiation Oncology and Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Alison C. Tree
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, UK
- The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Costantinos Zamboglou
- German Oncology Center, European University of Cyprus, 1 Nikis Avenue, 4108, Agios Athanasios, Cyprus
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Freiburg, Robert-Koch-Straße 3, 79106, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Stephane Supiot
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Freiburg, Robert-Koch-Straße 3, 79106, Freiburg, Germany
- Radiation Oncology Department, Institut de Cancérologie de l’Ouest, Nantes Saint-Herblain, France
- CNRS US2B, University of Nantes, Nantes, France
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital and Advanced Centre for Treatment Research and Education in Cancer (ACTREC), Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Mumbai, India
| | - Vedang Murthy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, EOC, Bellinzona, Switzerland
| | - Thomas Zilli
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, EOC, Bellinzona, Switzerland
- Faculty of Biomedical Sciences, Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano, Switzerland
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Nikitas J, Jamshidian P, Tree AC, Hall E, Dearnaley D, Michalski JM, Lee WR, Nguyen PL, Sandler HM, Catton CN, Lukka HR, Incrocci L, Heemsbergen W, Pos FJ, Roy S, Malone S, Horwitz E, Wong JK, Arcangeli S, Sanguineti G, Romero T, Sun Y, Steinberg ML, Valle LF, Weidhaas JB, Spratt D, Telesca D, Kishan AU. The interplay between acute and late toxicity among patients receiving prostate radiotherapy: an individual patient data meta-analysis of six randomised trials. Lancet Oncol 2025; 26:378-386. [PMID: 39894025 DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(24)00720-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/25/2024] [Revised: 12/08/2024] [Accepted: 12/10/2024] [Indexed: 02/04/2025]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The association between acute and late toxicity following prostate radiotherapy has not been well studied using data from multiple randomised clinical trials and fractionation schedules. We aimed to characterise the relationship between acute and late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity among patients receiving conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated prostate radiotherapy. METHODS This was an individual patient data meta-analysis that identified randomised phase 3 trials of conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated prostate radiotherapy in the Meta-Analysis of Randomized trials in Cancer of the Prostate (MARCAP) Consortium that had individual-level acute and late toxicity data available and were available before Dec 1, 2023. Trials without individual patient data were excluded. Data were provided to MARCAP by study investigators. The associations between acute (≤3 months after radiotherapy) and late (>3 months after radiotherapy) grade 2 or greater genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were assessed using adjusted generalised linear mixed models (adjusted for age, androgen deprivation therapy status, type of radiotherapy, radiation dose, and radiation schedule). In the subset of trials that collected Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite quality of life (QOL) evaluations, the association between acute genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity and decrements at least twice the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for urinary and bowel QOL were also evaluated. FINDINGS Six of 26 available trials met all the eligibility criteria. 6593 patients were included (conventionally fractionated: n=4248; moderately hypofractionated: n=2345). Median follow-up was 72 months (IQR 61-94). Acute grade 2 or greater genitourinary toxicity was associated with both late grade 2 or greater genitourinary toxicity (odds ratio 2·20 [95% CI 1·88-2·57], p<0·0001) and decrement at least twice the MCID in urinary QOL (1·41 [1·17-1·68], p=0·0002). Acute grade 2 or greater gastrointestinal toxicity was associated with both late grade 2 or greater gastrointestinal toxicity (2·53 [2·07-3·08], p<0·0001) and decrement at least twice the MCID in bowel QOL (1·52 [1·26-1·83], p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION Acute toxicity following prostate radiotherapy was statistically significantly associated with late toxicity and with decrement in patient-reported QOL metrics. These data support efforts to evaluate whether interventions that reduce acute toxicity ultimately reduce the risk of late toxicity. FUNDING National Institutes of Health and US Department of Defense.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John Nikitas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Parsa Jamshidian
- Department of Biostatistics, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Alison C Tree
- Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, UK
| | - Emma Hall
- Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - David Dearnaley
- Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, UK
| | - Jeff M Michalski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - W Robert Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Paul L Nguyen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Howard M Sandler
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Charles N Catton
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Himanshu R Lukka
- Juravinski Cancer Centre at Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Luca Incrocci
- Department of Radiotherapy, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Wilma Heemsbergen
- Department of Radiotherapy, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Floris J Pos
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Soumyajit Roy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Shawn Malone
- Department of Radiology, Radiation Oncology and Medical Physics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Eric Horwitz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Jessica Karen Wong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Stefano Arcangeli
- Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan Bicocca, Milan, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Sanguineti
- Department of Radiation Oncology, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy
| | - Tahmineh Romero
- Department of Medicine Statistical Core, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Yilun Sun
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Michael L Steinberg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Luca F Valle
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Greater Los Angeles VA Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Joanne B Weidhaas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Daniel Spratt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Donatello Telesca
- Department of Biostatistics, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Amar U Kishan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Ratnakumaran R, Sasitharan A, Khan A, Mayet H, Mohajer J, Hinder V, Brand DH, Fullarton R, Loblaw A, Hall E, van As N, Tree AC. Dosimetric Comparison of CyberKnife and Conventional Linac Prostate Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Plans: Analysis of the PACE-B Study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2025:S0360-3016(25)00066-5. [PMID: 39862896 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2025.01.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/17/2024] [Revised: 12/27/2024] [Accepted: 01/12/2025] [Indexed: 01/27/2025]
Abstract
PURPOSE In the PACE-B study, a nonrandomized comparison of toxicity outcomes between stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) platforms revealed fewer urinary side effects with CyberKnife (CK) compared with conventional linac (CL) SBRT. This analysis compares baseline characteristics and planning dosimetry between the CK-SBRT and CL-SBRT cohorts in PACE-B, aiming to provide insight into possible reasons for differing toxicity outcomes between the platforms. METHODS AND MATERIALS Dosimetric parameters for the surrogate urethra (SU), contoured urethra, bladder, bladder trigone (BT), and rectum were extracted from available computed tomography planning scans of PACE-B SBRT patients. The SU and BT were retrospectively delineated. Dose levels analyzed included maximum point dose (Dmax), D2, D50, and D95, where D(n) represents the dose (Gy) to (n)% of the structure. Baseline characteristics and planning dosimetry between the CK-SBRT and CL-SBRT cohorts were compared using Mann-Whitney U tests, t tests, and χ2 tests. RESULTS Of the 414 patients who received SBRT, 169 (41%) were treated with CK-SBRT and 245 (59%) with CL-SBRT, with dosimetric parameters available for 94% of patients (390/414). There was a nonstatistically significant trend toward more low-risk prostate cancer in the CK-SBRT cohort (12% vs 6% P = .02 [nonsignificant]). Margins were similar between platforms, except posteriorly, where CK-SBRT had smaller margins. CK-SBRT plans had significantly higher median SU Dmax (45.9 Gy vs 42.8 Gy, P < .0001), D2%, and D50% compared with CL-SBRT plans. Additionally, CK-SBRT plans had significantly higher median BT Dmax (43.4 Gy vs 41.6 Gy, P < .0001), D2%, and D95%, as well as higher median bladder Dmax, D50%, and D95%. CK-SBRT plans had lower median rectal D2% (35.5 Gy vs 36.0 Gy, P < .0001) but higher rectal D50% and D95%. CONCLUSIONS Although the CK-SBRT cohort showed lower urinary toxicity, the planned doses to urinary substructures were actually higher, likely due to heterogeneous dose planning. Factors like intrafraction tracking or other confounding variables may explain the differences in toxicity outcomes between the treatment platforms.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ragu Ratnakumaran
- The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Radiotherapy and Imaging Division, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom.
| | - Archana Sasitharan
- Radiotherapy and Imaging Division, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| | - Asadullah Khan
- The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Hira Mayet
- Radiotherapy and Imaging Division, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| | | | - Victoria Hinder
- Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| | - Douglas H Brand
- Department of Medical Physics and Bioengineering, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ryan Fullarton
- The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Andrew Loblaw
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Emma Hall
- Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| | - Nicholas van As
- The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Radiotherapy and Imaging Division, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| | - Alison C Tree
- The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Radiotherapy and Imaging Division, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Draulans C, Haustermans K, Pos FJ, van der Heide UA, De Cock L, van der Voort van Zyp J, De Boer H, Smeenk RJ, Kunze-Busch M, Monninkhof EM, De Roover R, Isebaert S, Kerkmeijer LGW. Stereotactic body radiotherapy with a focal boost to the intraprostatic tumor for intermediate and high risk prostate cancer: 5-year efficacy and toxicity in the hypo-FLAME trial. Radiother Oncol 2024; 201:110568. [PMID: 39362607 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110568] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/28/2024] [Revised: 09/25/2024] [Accepted: 09/27/2024] [Indexed: 10/05/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The addition of an integrated focal boost to the intraprostatic lesion is associated with improved biochemical disease-free survival (bDFS) in patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) in conventionally fractionated radiotherapy. Furthermore, whole gland stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) demonstrated to be non-inferior to conventional radiotherapy for low- and intermediate-risk PCa. To investigate the combination of ultra-hypofractionated prostate SBRT with iso-toxic focal boosting for intermediate- and high-risk PCa, we performed the hypo-FLAME trial. METHODS Patients with intermediate- or high-risk PCa were enrolled in the phase II hypo-FLAME trial. All patients were treated with 35 Gy in 5 weekly fractions to the whole prostate gland with an iso-toxic integrated boost up to 50 Gy to the multiparametric MRI-defined tumor(s). If the dose constraints to the normal tissues would be exceeded, these were prioritised over the focal boost dose. The current analysis reports on the 5-year bDFS, late toxicity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). RESULTS Between 2016 and 2018, 100 men were treated with a median follow-up of 61 months. The estimated 5-year bDFS (95 % CI) was 93 % (86 % to 97 %). At 5 years, the prevalence of grade 2 + genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity was 12 % and 4 %, respectively. CONCLUSION Ultra-hypofractionated focal boost SBRT is associated with encouraging biochemical control rates up to 5-year follow-up in patients with intermediate- and high-risk PCa. Furthermore, prostate SBRT with iso-toxic focal boosting is associated with acceptable late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity rates.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Karin Haustermans
- Department of Oncology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Floris J Pos
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Uulke A van der Heide
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Lisa De Cock
- Department of Oncology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | | | - Hans De Boer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Robert J Smeenk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Martina Kunze-Busch
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Evelyn M Monninkhof
- Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Robin De Roover
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Sofie Isebaert
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Linda G W Kerkmeijer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands; Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Arcangeli S, Chissotti C, Ferrario F, Lucchini R, Belmonte M, Purrello G, Colciago RR, De Ponti E, Faccenda V, Panizza D. Ablative Radiation Therapy for Unfavorable Prostate Tumors (ABRUPT): Preliminary Analysis of Toxicity and Quality of Life from a Prospective Study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2024; 120:1394-1403. [PMID: 38971384 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.06.030] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/21/2024] [Revised: 06/04/2024] [Accepted: 06/24/2024] [Indexed: 07/08/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE To assess late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) side effects in patients with organ-confined unfavorable prostate cancer (PCa) treated with single-dose ablative radiation therapy (SDRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS Thirty patients enrolled in a single-arm prospective trial received 24 Gy SDRT to the whole prostate with urethra-sparing and organ motion control delivered on a Linac platform with a 10 MV flattening filter-free single partial arc. Androgen deprivation therapy was prescribed as per standard of care. Treatment-related acute and late GU and GI toxicities (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events_v5 scale) and quality of life (QoL) outcomes (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] QLQ-PR25/C30, International Prostate Symptom Score [IPSS]) were assessed at different time points. Minimal important difference (MID) was established as a change of >0.5 pooled standard deviations from baseline. Statistical analysis included analysis of variance and logistic regression. RESULTS Median follow-up was 18 months (range, 6-31 months), with no ≥G3 late side effects observed. G2 late GI and G2 late GU toxicities occurred in 1 and 2 patients, respectively. GI toxicity of any grade correlated with maximum rectal dose (P = .021). Lower baseline QoL score (P = .025), higher baseline IPSS score (P = .049), acute GU toxicity (P = .029), and acute urinary domain MID (P = .045) predicted GU toxicity of any grade. In multivariate analysis (MVA), only baseline QoL score (odds ratio [OR], 0.95, P = .031) and acute GU toxicity (OR, 8.4, P = .041) remained significant. Significant QoL change was observed only in the urinary domain (P = .005), with a median increase from 8 to 17. Late urinary MID correlated with acute urinary MID (P = .003), acute QoL MID (P = .029), acute GU toxicity (P = .030), and lower baseline urinary score (P = .033). In MVA, only acute urinary MID predicted late urinary MID (OR, 9.7, P = .035). CONCLUSIONS Our findings provide promising data on the feasibility and safety of 24 Gy whole-gland SDRT with urethra-sparing and organ motion control, in association with androgen deprivation therapy and an adequate prophylactic medication, in organ-confined unfavorable PCa. Long-term follow-up is needed to confirm these results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stefano Arcangeli
- Radiation Oncology Department, Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, Monza, Italy; School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan Bicocca, Milan, Italy
| | - Chiara Chissotti
- School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan Bicocca, Milan, Italy
| | - Federica Ferrario
- School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan Bicocca, Milan, Italy
| | - Raffaella Lucchini
- School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan Bicocca, Milan, Italy
| | - Maria Belmonte
- School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan Bicocca, Milan, Italy
| | - Giorgio Purrello
- School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan Bicocca, Milan, Italy
| | | | - Elena De Ponti
- School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan Bicocca, Milan, Italy; Medical Physics Department, Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, Monza, Italy
| | - Valeria Faccenda
- Medical Physics Department, Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, Monza, Italy.
| | - Denis Panizza
- School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan Bicocca, Milan, Italy; Medical Physics Department, Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, Monza, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Ratnakumaran R, Zilli T. Toxicity After Prostate Radiation Therapy: Addressing the Transurethral Resection of the Prostate (TURP) Challenge. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2024; 120:1021-1023. [PMID: 39217541 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.07.2142] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/28/2024] [Accepted: 07/03/2024] [Indexed: 09/04/2024]
Affiliation(s)
- Ragu Ratnakumaran
- The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Radiotherapy and Imaging Division, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom.
| | - Thomas Zilli
- Radiation Oncology, Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland (IOSI), EOC, Bellinzona, Switzerland; Faculty of Biomedical Sciences, Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Le Guévelou J, Zilli T, Ferretti L, Beuzit L, De Hertogh O, Palumbo S, Jolicoeur M, Crehange G, Derashodian T, De Crevoisier R, Chapet O, Terlizzi M, Supiot S, Salembier C, Sargos P. Urinary Organs at Risk for Prostate Cancer External Beam Radiation Therapy: Contouring Guidelines on Behalf of the Francophone Group of Urological Radiation Therapy. Pract Radiat Oncol 2024; 14:541-554. [PMID: 38986900 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2024.05.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/23/2024] [Revised: 05/09/2024] [Accepted: 05/14/2024] [Indexed: 07/12/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE The occurrence of genitourinary (GU) toxicity is a common adverse event observed after external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for prostate cancer (PCa). Recent findings suggest that the dose delivered to specific urinary organs at risk (OARs) such as the ureters, bladder trigone, and urethra is involved in the development of GU toxicity. METHODS AND MATERIALS A multidisciplinary task force including 3 radiation oncologists, a uroradiologist, and a urologist was created in 2022. First, OARs potentially involved in GU toxicity were identified and discussed. A literature review was performed, addressing several questions relative to urinary OARs: anatomic and radiological definition, radiation-induced injury, and dose-volume parameters. Second, results were presented and discussed with a panel of radiation oncologists and members of the "Francophone Group of Urological Radiation Therapy." Thereafter, the "Francophone Group of Urological Radiation Therapy" experts were asked to answer a dedicated questionnaire, including 35 questions on the controversial issues related to the delineation of urinary OARs. RESULTS The following structures were identified as critical for PCa EBRT: ureters, bladder, bladder neck, bladder trigone, urethra (intraprostatic, membranous, and spongious), striated sphincter, and postenucleation or posttransurethral resection of the prostate cavity. A consensus was obtained for 32 out of 35 items. CONCLUSIONS This consensus highlights contemporary urinary structures in both the upper and lower urinary tract to be considered for EBRT treatment planning of PCa. The current recommendations also propose a standardized definition of urinary OARs for both daily practice and future clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Thomas Zilli
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, EOC, Bellinzona, Switzerland; Università della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano, Switzerland; Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
| | | | - Luc Beuzit
- Department of Radiology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Pontchaillou, Rennes, France
| | - Olivier De Hertogh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, CHR Verviers East Belgium, Verviers, Belgium
| | - Samuel Palumbo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hôpital de Jolimont, La Louvière, Belgium
| | - Marjory Jolicoeur
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Charles LeMoyne Hospital, CISSS Montérégie-center, Montréal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Gilles Crehange
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut Curie, Saint-Cloud, France
| | - Talar Derashodian
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Charles LeMoyne Hospital, CISSS Montérégie-center, Montréal, Quebec, Canada
| | | | - Olivier Chapet
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud, Pierre Benite, France
| | - Mario Terlizzi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
| | - Stéphane Supiot
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest, Nantes Saint-Herblain, France; Unité en Sciences Biologiques et Biotechnologies, University of Nantes, Nantes, France
| | - Carl Salembier
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Europe Hospitals Brussels, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Paul Sargos
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Fink C, Ristau J, Buchele C, Klüter S, Liermann J, Hoegen-Saßmannshausen P, Sandrini E, Lentz-Hommertgen A, Baumann L, Andratschke N, Baumgartl M, Li M, Reiner M, Corradini S, Hörner-Rieber J, Bonekamp D, Schlemmer HP, Belka C, Guckenberger M, Debus J, Koerber S. Stereotactic ultrahypofractionated MR-guided radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer - Acute toxicity and patient-reported outcomes in the prospective, multicenter SMILE phase II trial. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2024; 46:100771. [PMID: 38586081 PMCID: PMC10998039 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2024.100771] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/22/2023] [Revised: 02/07/2024] [Accepted: 03/24/2024] [Indexed: 04/09/2024] Open
Abstract
Background Due to superior image quality and daily adaptive planning, MR-guided stereotactic body radiation therapy (MRgSBRT) has the potential to further widen the therapeutic window in radiotherapy of localized prostate cancer. This study reports on acute toxicity rates and patient-reported outcomes after MR-guided adaptive ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer within the prospective, multicenter phase II SMILE trial. Materials and methods A total of 69 patients with localized prostate cancer underwent MRgSBRT with daily online plan adaptation. Inclusion criteria comprised a tumor stage ≤ T3a, serum PSA value ≤ 20 ng/ml, ISUP Grade group ≤ 4. A dose of 37.5 Gy was prescribed to the PTV in five fractions on alternating days with an optional simultaneous boost of 40 Gy to the dominant intraprostatic lesion defined by multiparametric MRI. Acute genitourinary (GU-) and gastrointestinal (GI-) toxicity, as defined by CTCAE v. 5.0 and RTOG as well as patient-reported outcomes according to EORTC QLQ-C30 and -PR25 scores were analyzed at completion of radiotherapy, 6 and 12 weeks after radiotherapy and compared to baseline symptoms. Results There were no toxicity-related treatment discontinuations. At the 12-week follow-up visit, no grade 3 + toxicities were reported according to CTCAE. Up until the 12-week visit, in total 16 patients (23 %) experienced a grade 2 GU or GI toxicity. Toxicity rates peaked at the end of radiation therapy and subsided within the 12-week follow-up period. At the 12-week follow-up visit, no residual grade 2 GU toxicities were reported and 1 patient (1 %) had residual grade 2 enteritic symptoms. With exception to a significant improvement in the emotional functioning score following MRgSBRT, no clinically meaningful changes in the global health status nor in relevant subscores were reported. Conclusion Daily online-adaptive MRgSBRT for localized prostate cancer resulted in an excellent overall toxicity profile without any major negative impact on quality of life.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- C.A. Fink
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - J. Ristau
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Maria Hilf Hospital Mönchengladbach, Mönchengladbach, Germany
| | - C. Buchele
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - S. Klüter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - J. Liermann
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | | | - E. Sandrini
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - A. Lentz-Hommertgen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - L. Baumann
- Institute of Medical Biometry, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - N. Andratschke
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - M. Baumgartl
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - M. Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, LMU University Hospital Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - M. Reiner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, LMU University Hospital Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - S. Corradini
- Department of Radiation Oncology, LMU University Hospital Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - J. Hörner-Rieber
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - D. Bonekamp
- Division of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - H.-P. Schlemmer
- Division of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - C. Belka
- Department of Radiation Oncology, LMU University Hospital Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - M. Guckenberger
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - J. Debus
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - S.A. Koerber
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Barmherzige Brueder Hospital Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Zilli T, Franzese C, Guckenberger M, Giaj-Levra N, Mach N, Koutsouvelis N, Achard V, Mcdonald A, Alongi F, Scorsetti M, Constantin G, Bertaut A, Miralbell R. ONE SHOT - single shot radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: 18-month results of a single arm, multicenter phase I/II trial. Radiother Oncol 2024; 194:110181. [PMID: 38403022 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110181] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/20/2023] [Revised: 02/17/2024] [Accepted: 02/19/2024] [Indexed: 02/27/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE To assess in a prospective, multicenter, single-arm phase I/II study the early safety and efficacy profile of single fraction urethra-sparing stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for men with localized prostate cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS Patients with low- and intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer without significant tumor in the transitional zone were recruited. A single-fraction of 19 Gy was delivered to the prostate, with 17 Gy dose-reduction to the urethra. Intrafraction motion was monitored using intraprostatic electromagnetic transponders with intra-fraction correction of displacements exceeding 3 mm. Genitourinary (GU), gastrointestinal (GI), and sexual toxicity during the first 18 months were evaluated using the CTCAE v4.0 grading scale. Quality of life was assessed using the International Prostate Symptom Score, the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index composite 26 score, and the International Index of Erectile Function score. RESULTS Among the 45 patients recruited in 5 centers between 2017 and 2022, 43 received the single fraction without protocol deviations, and 34 had a minimal follow-up of 18 months. The worst GU toxicity was observed at day-5 after SBRT (42.5 % and 20 % with grade 1 and 2, respectively), returning to baseline at week-12 and month-6 (<3% with grade 2), with a 12 % grade 2 flare at month 18. Gl toxicity was mild in the acute phase, with no grade ≥ 2 events (12 % grade 1 at month 6). Grade-3 proctitis was observed in one patient at month 12, with < 3 % grade 2 toxicity at month 18. Mean GU and GI bother scores showed a decline at day 5, a complete recovery at month 6, and a flare between month 12 and 18. Mean PSA dropped from 6.2 ng/ml to 1.2 ng/ml at month 18 and 0.7 ng/ml at month 24. After a median follow-up time of 26 months, 3 biochemical failures (7 %) were observed at month 17, 21 and 30. CONCLUSIONS In this multicenter phase I/II trial, we demonstrated that a 19 Gy single-fraction urethra-sparing SBRT is feasible and associated with an acceptable toxicity rate, mostly returning to the baseline at week-12 and with a symptoms flare between months 12 and 18. Longer follow-up is needed to assess the potential long-term adverse effects and the disease control efficacy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas Zilli
- Radiation Oncology, Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland; Faculty of Medicine, Geneva University, Geneva, Switzerland; Radiation Oncology, Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland (IOSI), EOC, Bellinzona, Switzerland; Facoltà Scienze Biomediche Università della Svizzera Italiana (USI), Lugano, Switzerland.
| | - Ciro Franzese
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy; Department of Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Milan, Italy
| | - Matthias Guckenberger
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zürich, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Niccolò Giaj-Levra
- Advanced Radiation Oncology Department, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don-Calabria, Negrar, Italy
| | - Nicolas Mach
- Faculty of Medicine, Geneva University, Geneva, Switzerland; Medical Oncology, Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland
| | | | - Verane Achard
- Radiation Oncology, Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland; Faculty of Medicine, Geneva University, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Andrew Mcdonald
- Radiation Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham O'Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center, Birmingham, AL, USA
| | - Filippo Alongi
- Advanced Radiation Oncology Department, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don-Calabria, Negrar, Italy; University of Brescia, Faculty of Medicine, Brescia, Italy
| | - Marta Scorsetti
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy; Department of Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Milan, Italy
| | - Guillaume Constantin
- Methodology and biostatistics unit, Centre Georges François Leclerc, Dijon, France
| | - Aurelie Bertaut
- Methodology and biostatistics unit, Centre Georges François Leclerc, Dijon, France
| | - Raymond Miralbell
- Radiation Oncology, Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland; Faculty of Medicine, Geneva University, Geneva, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Ratnakumaran R, Mohajer J, Withey SJ, H. Brand D, Lee E, Loblaw A, Tolan S, van As N, Tree AC. Developing and validating a simple urethra surrogate model to facilitate dosimetric analysis to predict genitourinary toxicity. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2024; 46:100769. [PMID: 38586079 PMCID: PMC10998036 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2024.100769] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/17/2024] [Revised: 03/08/2024] [Accepted: 03/23/2024] [Indexed: 04/09/2024] Open
Abstract
Purpose The urethra is a critical structure in prostate radiotherapy planning; however, it is impossible to visualise on CT. We developed a surrogate urethra model (SUM) for CT-only planning workflow and tested its geometric and dosimetric performance against the MRI-delineated urethra (MDU). Methods The SUM was compared against 34 different MDUs (within the treatment PTV) in patients treated with 36.25Gy (PTV)/40Gy (CTV) in 5 fractions as part of the PACE-B trial. To assess the surrogate's geometric performance, the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), Hausdorff distance (HD), mean distance to agreement (MDTA) and the percentage of MDU outside the surrogate (UOS) were calculated. To evaluate the dosimetric performance, a paired t-test was used to calculate the mean of differences between the MDU and SUM for the D99, D98, D50, D2 and D1. The D(n) is the dose (Gy) to n% of the urethra. Results The median results showed low agreement on DSC (0.32; IQR 0.21-0.41), but low distance to agreement, as would be expected for a small structure (HD 8.4mm (IQR 7.1-10.1mm), MDTA 2.4mm (IQR, 2.2mm-3.2mm)). The UOS was 30% (IQR, 18-54%), indicating nearly a third of the urethra lay outside of the surrogate. However, when comparing urethral dose between the MDU and SUM, the mean of differences for D99, D98 and D95 were 0.12Gy (p=0.57), 0.09Gy (p=0.61), and 0.11Gy (p=0.46) respectively. The mean of differences between the D50, D2 and D1 were 0.08Gy (p=0.04), 0.09Gy (p=0.02) and 0.1Gy (p=0.01) respectively, indicating good dosimetric agreement between MDU and SUM. Conclusion While there were geometric differences between the MDU and SUM, there was no clinically significant difference between urethral dose-volume parameters. This surrogate model could be validated in a larger cohort and then used to estimate the urethral dose on CT planning scans in those without an MRI planning scan or urinary catheter.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ragu Ratnakumaran
- The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- Radiotherapy and Imaging Division, Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | | | | | - Douglas H. Brand
- Department of Medical Physics and Bioengineering, University College London, UK
| | - Ernest Lee
- The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Andrew Loblaw
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Shaun Tolan
- The Clatterbridge Cancer Centre, Liverpool, UK
| | - Nicholas van As
- The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- Radiotherapy and Imaging Division, Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Alison C. Tree
- The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- Radiotherapy and Imaging Division, Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - on behalf of the PACE Trial Investigators
- The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- Radiotherapy and Imaging Division, Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
- Department of Medical Physics and Bioengineering, University College London, UK
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- The Clatterbridge Cancer Centre, Liverpool, UK
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Huck C, Achard V, Maitre P, Murthy V, Zilli T. Stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer after surgical treatment of prostatic obstruction: Impact on urinary morbidity and mitigation strategies. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2024; 45:100709. [PMID: 38179576 PMCID: PMC10765005 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2023.100709] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/27/2023] [Revised: 12/03/2023] [Accepted: 12/05/2023] [Indexed: 01/06/2024] Open
Abstract
In the past decade, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has emerged as a valid treatment option for patients with localized prostate cancer. Despite the promising results of ultra-hypofractionation in terms of tolerance and disease control, the toxicity profile of SBRT for prostate cancer patients with a history of surgical treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia is still underreported. Here we present an overview of the available data on urinary morbidity for prostate cancer patients treated with SBRT after prior surgical treatments for benign prostate hyperplasia. Technical improvements useful to minimize toxicity and possible treatments for radiation-induced urethritis are discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Constance Huck
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Vérane Achard
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Fribourg Cantonal Hospital, Fribourg, Switzerland
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Priyamvada Maitre
- Tata Memorial Hospital and Advanced Centre for Treatment Research and Education in Cancer (ACTREC), Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Mumbai, India
| | - Vedang Murthy
- Tata Memorial Hospital and Advanced Centre for Treatment Research and Education in Cancer (ACTREC), Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Mumbai, India
| | - Thomas Zilli
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland (IOSI), EOC, Bellinzona, Switzerland
- Faculty of Biomedical Sciences, Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Ong WL, Allan Hupman M, Davidson M, Ruschin M, Detsky J, Liu S, Vesprini D, Loblaw A. Urethra contouring on computed tomography urethrogram versus magnetic resonance imaging for stereotactic body radiotherapy in prostate cancer. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2024; 45:100722. [PMID: 38234697 PMCID: PMC10792737 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2023.100722] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/04/2023] [Revised: 12/24/2023] [Accepted: 12/30/2023] [Indexed: 01/19/2024] Open
Abstract
Accurate urethra contouring is critical in prostate SBRT. We compared urethra contouring on CT-urethrogram and T2-weighted MRI. The dice similarity coefficient, Jaccard index, Hausdorff distance and mean distance to agreement were evaluated. All four metrics indicate better agreement and less variability in urethra contouring on CT-urethrogram, compared to T2-weighted MRI.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wee Loon Ong
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
- Alfred Health Radiation Oncology, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - M. Allan Hupman
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Melanie Davidson
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Mark Ruschin
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Jay Detsky
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Stanley Liu
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Danny Vesprini
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Andrew Loblaw
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
- Department of Health Policy, Measurement and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Nicosia L, Ravelli P, Rigo M, Giaj-Levra N, Mazzola R, Pastorello E, Ricchetti F, Allegra AG, Ruggieri R, Alongi F. Prostate volume variation during 1.5T MR-guided adaptive stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and correlation with treatment toxicity. Radiother Oncol 2024; 190:110043. [PMID: 38056694 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.110043] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/19/2023] [Revised: 11/29/2023] [Accepted: 11/30/2023] [Indexed: 12/08/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION To evaluate prostate volume change during daily-adaptive prostate SBRT on 1.5 T MR-linac and to correlate it with treatment toxicity. METHODS a series of patients affected by low-to-intermediate risk prostate cancer was treated by 5-fraction SBRT within a prospective study (Prot. n° 23748). Total dose was 35 Gy and 36.25 Gy delivered every day or on alternate days. Treatment toxicity was recorded with the following patient reported outcomes (PROMs): IPSS, ICIQ-SF, and EPIC-26. RESULTS 254 patients were included in the analysis. Baseline median CTV volume was 55 cc (range 15.3-163.3). Mean prostate volume were 58.9 cc, and 62.7 cc at first and last fraction respectively (mean volume increase 6.4 %; p = <0.0001). We observed prostate swelling (mean 15.4 % increase) in 50 % of cases, stable volume (≤5% volume change) in 39 % of patients, and prostate shrinkage in 11 % of cases (mean 12.2 % reduction). Baseline CTV > 55 cc showed a trend towards higher CTV shrinkage (-10.5 % versus -14.5 %; p = 0.052). We found no correlation between CTV change and PROMs. Prostate swelling was generally compensated by the planned PTV expansion, even though the mean setup volume dropped from 47.4 cc to 38.9 cc at last fraction, with few cases not covered by initial setup margins. CONCLUSION The present study reported a significant prostate volume change during prostate SBRT on 1.5T MR-linac. We observed both prostate swelling in half of cases and few cases of prostate shrinkage. No correlations were found with PROMs in this population treatment with daily-adaptive strategy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luca Nicosia
- Advanced Radiation Oncology Department, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Cancer Care Center, Italy.
| | - Paolo Ravelli
- Advanced Radiation Oncology Department, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Cancer Care Center, Italy
| | - Michele Rigo
- Advanced Radiation Oncology Department, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Cancer Care Center, Italy
| | - Niccolò Giaj-Levra
- Advanced Radiation Oncology Department, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Cancer Care Center, Italy
| | - Rosario Mazzola
- Advanced Radiation Oncology Department, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Cancer Care Center, Italy
| | - Edoardo Pastorello
- Advanced Radiation Oncology Department, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Cancer Care Center, Italy
| | - Francesco Ricchetti
- Advanced Radiation Oncology Department, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Cancer Care Center, Italy
| | - Andrea Gaetano Allegra
- Advanced Radiation Oncology Department, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Cancer Care Center, Italy
| | - Ruggero Ruggieri
- Advanced Radiation Oncology Department, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Cancer Care Center, Italy
| | - Filippo Alongi
- Advanced Radiation Oncology Department, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Cancer Care Center, Italy; University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Panizza D, Faccenda V, Arcangeli S, De Ponti E. Treatment Optimization in Linac-Based SBRT for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Single-Arc versus Dual-Arc Plan Comparison. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 16:13. [PMID: 38201441 PMCID: PMC10778084 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16010013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/17/2023] [Revised: 12/12/2023] [Accepted: 12/15/2023] [Indexed: 01/12/2024] Open
Abstract
This study aimed to comprehensively present data on treatment optimization in linac-based SBRT for localized prostate cancer at a single institution. Moreover, the dosimetric quality and treatment efficiency of single-arc (SA) versus dual-arc (DA) VMAT planning and delivery approaches were compared. Re-optimization was performed on twenty low-to-intermediate-risk- (36.25 Gy in 5 fractions) and twenty high-risk (42.7 Gy in 7 fractions) prostate plans initially administered with the DA FFF-VMAT technique in 2021. An SA approach was adopted, incorporating new optimization parameters based on increased planning and clinical experience. Analysis included target coverage, organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing, treatment delivery time, and the pre-treatment verification's gamma analysis-passing ratio. The SA optimization technique has consistently produced superior plans. Rectum and bladder mean doses were significantly reduced, and comparable target coverage and homogeneity were achieved in order to maintain a urethra protection strategy. The mean SA treatment delivery time was reduced by 22%; the mean monitor units increased due to higher plan complexity; and dose measurements demonstrated optimal agreement with calculations. The substantial reduction in treatment delivery time decreased the probability of prostate motion beyond the applied margins, suggesting potential decrease in treatment-related toxicity and improved target coverage in prostate SBRT. Further investigations are warranted to assess the long-term clinical outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Denis Panizza
- Medical Physics Department, Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, 20900 Monza, Italy; (V.F.); (E.D.P.)
- School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan Bicocca, 20126 Milan, Italy;
| | - Valeria Faccenda
- Medical Physics Department, Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, 20900 Monza, Italy; (V.F.); (E.D.P.)
| | - Stefano Arcangeli
- School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan Bicocca, 20126 Milan, Italy;
- Radiation Oncology Department, Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, 20900 Monza, Italy
| | - Elena De Ponti
- Medical Physics Department, Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, 20900 Monza, Italy; (V.F.); (E.D.P.)
- School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan Bicocca, 20126 Milan, Italy;
| |
Collapse
|