Moderate hypofractionated radiotherapy with volumetric modulated arc therapy and simultaneous integrated boost for pelvic irradiation in prostate cancer

Prospective results for 5-year survival and toxicity of moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) in (very) high-risk prostate cancer

Purpose

High-risk (HR) prostate cancer patients usually receive high-dose radiotherapy (RT) using a two-phase sequential technique, but data on a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique are lacking. We prospectively evaluated the long-term results of urinary (GU) and digestive (GI) toxicity and survival data for high-dose RT using a SIB technique in HR and very high-risk (VHR) prostate cancer.

Methods

Patients were treated using an SIB technique in 34 fractions, at a dose of 54.4 Gy to the pelvis and seminal vesicles and 74.8 Gy to the prostate, combined with 36 months of androgen-depriving therapy in a prospective multicenter study. Acute and late GU and GI toxicity data were collected. Overall survival (OS), biochemical-relapse-free survival (bRFS), loco-regional-relapse-free survival (LRRFS), metastasis-free-survival (MFS) and disease-free-survival (DFS) were assessed.

Results

We recruited 114 patients. After a median follow-up of 62 months, very few patients experienced acute (M0-M3) (G3-4 GU = 3.7 %; G3-4 GI = 0.9 %) or late (M6-M60) severe toxicity (G3-4 GU = 5.6 %; G3-4 GI = 2.8 %). The occurrence of acute G2 + GU or GI toxicity was significantly related to the consequential late G2 + toxicity (p < 0.01 for both GU and GI). Medians of OS, bRFS, LRRFS, MFS and DFS were not reached. At 60 months, OS, bRFS, LRRFS, MFS and DFS were 88.2 % [82.1; 94.7], 86.0 % [79.4 %;93.2 %], 95.8 % [91.8 %;99.9 %], 87.2 % [80.9 %;94.0 %] and 84.1 % [77.2 %;91.6 %] respectively.

Conclusion

SIB RT at a dose of 54.4 Gy to the pelvis and 74.8 Gy to the prostate is feasible, leading to satisfying tumor control and reasonable toxicity in HR and VHR prostate cancer.

"Meta-analysis of elective pelvic nodal irradiation using moderate hypofractionation for high-risk prostate cancer" (MENHYP-ENI)

OBJECTIVES

Despite several advances in planning and delivery of radiotherapy (RT) for prostate cancer, the role of elective pelvic nodal irradiation (EPNI) remains controversial for high-risk disease. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the outcomes of patients treated with moderate hypofractionated RT (MHF-RT) with EPNI using modern radiotherapy techniques.

METHODS

Eligible studies were identified on Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and proceedings of annual meetings through October 2021. We followed the PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. A meta-regression analysis was performed to assess a possible correlation between selected variables and outcomes. A p-value <0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies with a total of 1745 patients, median follow-up 61 months, treated with EPNI employing MHF-RT were included. The biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) at 5-, 7- and 10-year was 90% (95% CI 88-94%), 83% (95%CI 78-91%) and 78% (95%CI 68-88%). The 5-year prostate cancer-specific survival, disease-free survival, distant metastases-free survival and overall survival were 98% (95%CI 97-99%), 88.7% (95%CI 85-93%), 91.2% (95%CI 88-92%), and 93% (95%CI 90-96%), respectively. The rates of local, pelvic, and distant recurrence were 0.38% (95%CI 0-2%), 0.13% (95%CI 0-1.5%), and 7.35% (95%CI 2-12%), respectively. The rate of late GI and GU toxicity grade ≥ 2 were 6.7% (95%CI 4-9%), and 11.3% (95%CI 7.6-15%), with heterogeneity, but with rare cases of toxicity grade 3-5.

CONCLUSION

EPNI with concomitant MHF-RT provides satisfactory bRFS in the long-term follow-up, with low rates of GU and GI severe toxicities and minimal pelvic and local failure.

Dosimetric feasibility of moderately hypofractionated/dose escalated radiation therapy for localised prostate cancer with intensity-modulated proton beam therapy using simultaneous integrated boost (SIB-IMPT) and impact of hydrogel prostate-rectum spacer

Purpose

To examine the dosimetric feasibility of hypofractionated/dose escalated radiation therapy in patients with localized prostate carcinoma using simultaneous integrated boost intensity-modulated proton beam therapy (SIB-IMPT) in absence or presence of prostate-rectum spacer.

Methods

IMPT technique was implemented in 23 patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer treated at West German Proton Therapy Centre from March 2016 till June 2018, using SIB technique prescribing 60 GyRBE and 72 GyRBE in 30 fractions to PTV1 (prostate and seminal vesicle) and PTV2 boost (prostate and proximal seminal vesicle), respectively. In 15 patients, a transperineal injection of hydrogel was applied prior to radiotherapy to increase the distance between prostate and rectum. Planning and all treatments were performed with a 120 ml fluid-filled endorectal balloon customised daily for each patient. For each patient, 2 lateral IMPT beams were implemented taking a field-specific range uncertainty (RU) into account. Dose volume histograms (DVH) were analyzed for PTV2, PTV2 with range uncertainty margin (PTV2RU), rectum, bladder, right/left femoral heads, and penile bulb. For late rectal toxicities, the normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) were calculated using different biological models. A DVH- and NTCP-based dosimetric comparison was carried out between non-spacer and spacer groups.

Results

For the 23 patients, high-quality plans could be achieved for target volume and for other organs at risk (OARs). For PTV2, the V_107% was 0% and the D_max did not exceed 106.2% of the prescribed dose. The volume PTV2RU covered by 95% of the dose ranged from 96.16 to 99.95%. The conformality index for PTV2RU was 1.12 ± 0.057 and the homogeneity index (HI) was 1.04 ± 0.014. Rectum D_max and rectal volume receiving 73–50 Gy could be further reduced for the spacer-group. Significant reductions in mean and median rectal NTCPs (stenosis/necrosis, late rectal bleeding ≥ 2, and late rectal toxicities ≥ 3) were predicted for the spacer group in comparison to the non-spacer group.

Conclusion

Hypofractionated/dose escalated radiotherapy with SIB-IMPT is dosimetrically feasible. Further reduction of the rectal volumes receiving high and medium dose levels (73–50 Gy) and rectal NTCP could be achieved through injection of spacers between rectum and prostate.

An institutional review: dosimetry comparison between simultaneous integrated boost IMRT and VMAT for prostate cancer

Purpose:

A comparative study was performed about the plan parameters and quality indices between volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer patients. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the two methods of external beam radiotherapy IMRT and VMAT in terms of plan quality and efficacy.

Material and method:

Fifteen high-risk prostate patients were planned for radiotherapy using 6 MV photon. Three dose levels were contoured having Planning Tumour Volume 1 (PTV1 = 48 Gy), Planning Tumour Volume 2 (PTV2 = 57.6 Gy) and Planning Tumour Volume 3 (PTV3 = 60 Gy). Setup margins were given using the CHIP trial method. The prescribed PTV3 dose was 60 Gy in 20 fractions which is biologically equivalent to 74 Gy in 37 fractions using α/β = 3. In case of IMRT, seven fixed beam angles 30, 60, 105, 180, 255, 300 and 330 were used and the dose was optimised using the sliding window method. In case of rapid arc technique, one or two full arcs were used for dose optimisation while keeping all the dose constraints and other planning parameters same used in IMRT. The plan evaluation parameters and Organ at risks (OARs) doses were calculated using a dose volume histogram (DVH).

Results:

The average D2, D5, D95 and PTVmean for PTV3 were 61.22, 61.13, 58.12, 60.00 Gy and 62.41 62.24 59.53 61.12 Gy for IMRT and VMAT, respectively. The averages V60 for bladder and V30 for rectum were 22.81, 25 and 67, 65% for IMRT and VMAT, respectively. The average homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI) and gradient index (GI) were 1.04, 1.4833, 14.79 and 1.04, 1.704, 7.89 for IMRT and VMAT, respectively.

Conclusion:

VMAT takes less dose-delivery time and lesser number of monitoring units than IMRT, thus it compensates the intrafractional movements during dose delivery. The Dose GI in VMAT was much better than IMRT. This indicates sharper dose fall off near the normal tissue. No other major differences were observed in terms of plan evaluation parameters between IMRT and VMAT techniques. So, we conclude that VMAT technique is more efficient than IMRT in terms of plan quality and dose delivery.

Long-term safety of high-dose whole pelvic IMRT for high-risk localized prostate cancer through 10-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of whole pelvic intensity-modulated radiation therapy with a simultaneous-integrated boost (WP-SIB-IMRT) for locally advanced prostate cancer (LAPCa).

METHODS

All patients with cT3-4N0M0 prostate cancer treated with WP-SIB-IMRT between February 2006 and September 2009 at our institution were analyzed retrospectively. The prescribed dose was 78 Gy to the prostate and 58.5 Gy to the prophylactic pelvic lymph nodal area in 39 fractions delivered using the simultaneous-integrated boost technique. All patients received short-term neoadjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy alone (median 8.3 months). Propensity-score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to evaluate the additional benefit of prophylactic whole pelvic radiation therapy (WPRT), using the cohort of 203 LAPCa patients treated with prostate-only IMRT (PO-IMRT).

RESULTS

In total, 47 consecutive patients were analyzed. The median estimated risk of pelvic lymph node involvement was 57.5%. The median follow-up period was 10.5 years. The 10 year prostate cancer-specific survival and biochemical failure (BF) rates were 92.2 and 54.8%, respectively. The 10 year cumulative incidence rates of ≥ grade 2 late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were 21.6 and 17.2%, respectively. From a total of 250 patients, PSM analysis identified 76 patients with similar characteristics, and no significant difference in BF rates was observed between WP-SIB-IMRT and PO-IMRT cohorts (p = 0.261).

CONCLUSIONS

WP-SIB-IMRT for LAPCa was safe over long-term observation, although no clear benefit of WPRT was observed among our small and highly selected cohort. Regarding the additional efficacy of WPRT, further investigations are needed.

Radiotherapy treatment volumes for oligorecurrent nodal prostate cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Radiotherapy is an emerging treatment strategy for nodal oligorecurrent prostate cancer (PCa) patients. However, large heterogeneities exist in the RT regimens used, with series reporting the use of elective nodal radiotherapy (ENRT) strategies and others the delivery of focal treatments to the relapsing nodes with Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT). In this systematic review of the literature we compared the oncological outcomes and toxicity of the different RT regimens for nodal oligorecurrent PCa patients, with the aim of defining the optimal RT target volume in this setting.

METHODS

We performed a systemic search on the Pubmed database to identify articles reporting on the use of ENRT or SBRT for oligometastatic PCa with nodal recurrence.

RESULTS

Twenty-two articles were analyzed, including four prospective phase II trials (3 with SBRT and 1 with ENRT). Focal SBRT, delivered with an involved node, involved site, and involved field modality, was the most commonly used strategy with 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates ranging from 16 to 58% and a very low toxicity profile. Improved PFS rates were observed with ENRT strategies (52-80% at 3 years) compared to focal SBRT, despite a slightly higher toxicity rate. One ongoing randomized phase II trial is comparing both modalities in patients with nodal oligorecurrent PCa.

CONCLUSIONS

With a large variability in patterns of practice, the optimal RT strategy remains to be determined in the setting of nodal oligorecurrent PCa. Ongoing randomized trials and advances in translational research will help to shed light on the best management for these patients. .

Moderately Hypofractionated Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy With Simultaneous Integrated Boost for Prostate Cancer: Five-Year Toxicity Results From a Prospective Phase I/II Trial

BACKGROUND

In this phase I/II trial, 5-year physician-assessed toxicity and patient reported quality of life data is reported for patients undergoing moderately hypofractionated intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer using a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) and pelvic lymph node (LN) coverage.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with T1-T2 localized prostate cancer were prospectively enrolled, receiving risk group based coverage of prostate ± seminal vesicles (SVs) ± pelvic lymph nodes (LNs). Low risk (LR) received 69.6 Gy/29 fractions to the prostate, while intermediate risk (IR) and high risk (HR) patients received 72 Gy/30fx to the prostate and 54Gy/30fx to the SVs. If predicted risk of LN involvement >15%, 50.4 Gy/30fx was delivered to pelvic LNs. Androgen deprivation therapy was given to IR and HR patients.

RESULTS

There were 55 patients enrolled and 49 patients evaluable at a median follow up of 60 months. Included were 11 (20%) LR, 23 (41.8%) IR, and 21 (38.2%) HR patients. Pelvic LN treatment was given in 25 patients (51%). Prevalence rates of late grade 2 GI toxicity at 1, 3, and 5 years was 5.8, 3.9, and 5.8%, respectively, with no permanent grade 3 events. Prevalence rates of late grade 2 GU toxicity at 1, 3, and 5 years rates were 15.4, 7.7, and 13.5%, respectively, with three grade 3 events (5.8%). The biochemical relapse free survival at 5 years was 88.3%. There were no local, regional, or distant failures, with all patients still alive at last follow up.

CONCLUSION

Moderate hypofractionation of localized prostate cancer utilizing a SIB technique and LN coverage produces tolerable acute/late toxicity. Given equivalent efficacy between moderate hypofractionation schedules, the optimal regimen will be determined by long-term toxicity reported from both the physician and patient perspective.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT01117935, Date of Registration: 5/6/2010.

Dosimetric evaluation of whole-pelvis radiation therapy of prostate cancers: clinical experience

Background:

The standard treatment modalities for prostate cancer include surgery, chemotherapy, hormonal therapy and radiation therapy or any combination depending on the stage of the tumour. Radiation therapy is a common and effective treatment modality for low-intermediate-risk patients with localised prostate cancer, to treat the intact prostate and seminal vesicles or prostate bed post prostatectomy. However, for high-risk patients with lymph node involvement, treatment with radiation will usually include treatment of the whole pelvis to cover the prostate and seminal vesicles or prostate bed and the pelvic lymph nodes followed by a boost delivery dose to the prostate and seminal vesicles or prostate bed.

Materials and Methods:

We retrospectively analysed the treatment plans for 179 prostate cancer patients treated at the cancer centre with the volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) technique via RapidArc using 6 MV photon beam. Patients were either treated with a total prescription dose of 78 Gy in 39 fractions for patients with intact prostate or 66 Gy in 33 fractions for post prostatectomy patients.

Results:

There were 114 (64%) patients treated with 78 Gy/39 and 65 (36%) treated with 66 Gy/34. The mean homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI) and uniformity index (UI) for the PTV-primary of patients treated with 78 Gy are 0.06 ± 0.01, 1.04 ± 0.01 and 0.99 ± 0.01, respectively, and the corresponding mean values for patients treated with 66 Gy are 0.06 ± 0.02, 1.05 ± 0.01 and 0.99 ± 0.01, respectively. The mean PTV-primary V95%, V100% and V105% are 99.5 ± 0.5%, 78.8 ± 12.2% and 0.1 ± 0.5%, respectively, for patients treated with 78 Gy and 99.3 ± 0.9%, 78.1 ± 10.6% and 0.1 ± 0.4%, respectively, for patients treated with 66 Gy. The rectal V50Gy, V65Gy, V66.6Gy, V70Gy, V75Gy and V80Gy are 26.8 ± 9.1%, 14.2 ± 5.3%, 13.1 ± 5.0%, 10.8 ± 4.3%, 6.9 ± 3.1% and 0.1 ± 0.1%, respectively, for patients treated with 78 Gy and 33.7 ± 8.4%, 14.1 ± 4.5%, 6.7 ± 4.5%, 0.0 ± 0.2%, 0.0% and 0.0%, respectively, for patients treated with 66 Gy.

Conclusion:

The use of VMAT technique for radiation therapy of high-risk prostate cancer patients is an efficient and reliable method for achieving superior dose conformity, uniformity and homogeneity to the PTV and minimal doses to the organs at risk. Results from this study provide the basis for the development and implementation of consistent treatment criteria in radiotherapy programs, have the potential to establish an evaluation process to define a consistent, standardised and transparent treatment path for all patients that reduces significant variations in the acceptability of treatment plans and potentially improve patient standard of care.

Elective Pelvic Nodal Irradiation With a Simultaneous Hypofractionated Integrated Prostate Boost for Localised Prostate Cancer: Ready for Prime Time?

External beam radiotherapy is a standard treatment option for localised prostate cancer and hypofractionation has become an alternative to conventionally fractionated radiotherapy. In patients who receive external beam radiotherapy, elective pelvic nodal irradiation is sometimes delivered, especially in patients with unfavourable disease who are at risk of micrometastatic spread of cancer into the regional nodes. One elegant approach to combine prostate hypofractionation with elective pelvic nodal irradiation is with a simultaneous integrated boost technique, where a radical hypofractionated dose is delivered to the prostate while the regional pelvic nodes receive a lower microscopic dose simultaneously in a single radiotherapy plan over the same number of treatment fractions. This article reviews the existing published literature evaluating such an approach.

Acute and late toxicity and preliminary outcomes report of moderately hypofractionated helical tomotherapy for localized prostate cancer: a mono-institutional analysis

AIMS

To assess toxicity and clinical outcomes of moderately hypofractionated helical tomotherapy (HT) for the curative treatment of localized prostate cancer (PC).

METHODS

From December 2012 to May 2018, 170 patients were treated with definitive intent for PC. Thirty-four percent were low risk, 30% intermediate risk (IR) and 36% high risk (HR). All patients received 70 Gy in 28 fractions to the prostate; 61.6 Gy were delivered to the seminal vesicles for IR; pelvic lymph nodes irradiation for a total dose of 50.4 Gy was added in the HR subgroup. Toxicity was assessed using CTCAE V4.0, and biochemical failure was defined following Phoenix criteria. Time-to-event data were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 36 months (range 12-78); acute toxicity was as follows: G1 and G2 in 27.6% and 19.4% for GI; 53% and 24% for GU. No G ≥ 3 event was observed. For late toxicity, G ≥ 3 GI and GU rates were, respectively, 3% and 2.4% at 3 years and 3% and 4.8% at 4 years; no G4 occurred. A statistical correlation between acute or late G3 incidence and clinical or dosimetric parameters was not found. At the time of analysis, 2- and 3-year biochemical relapse-free survival rates were 90% and 87.5% and 2- and 3-year overall survival rates were 96.4% and 90%, respectively. The log-rank test revealed no difference between the risk groups in terms of biochemical control (p = 0.16).

CONCLUSIONS

Moderately hypofractionated RT with HT for localized prostate cancer reported excellent outcomes with mild acute and late toxicity incidence, with promising biochemical control rates.

Acute and Late Toxicity after Moderate Hypofractionation with Simultaneous Integrated Boost (SIB) Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer. A Single Institution, Prospective Study

ASBTRACT

To evaluate the acute and late toxicity using moderately hypofractionated, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) to prostate for patients with intermediate and high risk prostate cancer. From 2015 to 2017, 162 patients were treated with IMRT with SIB to the prostate. IMRT plans were designed to deliver 50.4Gy in 28 fractions (1.8 Gy/fraction) to the pelvic lymph nodes (whole pelvis radiotherapy, WPRT) while simultaneously delivering 57.4 Gy in 28 fractions (2.05 Gy/fraction) to the seminal vesicles and 70 Gy in 28 fractions (2.5 Gy/fraction) to the prostate for high risk patients. For intermediate risk patients the same technique was applied, without WPRT. Acute and cumulative late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities were scored according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) scoring system. Of the 162 patients enrolled, 156 (96%) completed the treatment as planned. The median follow-up time was 30 months. Seventy-eight patients (48.2%) were treated with WPRT. The rate of acute grade ≥ 2 GI and GU toxicities in all patients were 22% and 58%, respectively. The rate of cumulative late grade ≥ 2 GI and GU toxicities were 11% and 17%, respectively. Acute grade 3 GI and GU toxicities occurred in 1% and 1%. Late grade 3 GI and GU side effects occurred in 5% and 4%, respectively. None of the patients developed grade ≥ 4 toxicity. IMRT with SIB technique using moderate hypofractionation to the prostate is feasible treatment option for intermediate and high risk patients, associated with low rate of severe GU and GI toxicities.

Critical Appraisal of the Treatment Planning Performance of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy by Means of a Dual Layer Stacked Multileaf Collimator for Head and Neck, Breast, and Prostate

Purpose:

To ascertain whether a new delivery system (the Halcyon system) equipped with dual-layer stacked multileaf collimator operating in a mode, which allows independent, fully interdigitating motion of both layers and 6 flattening filter free energy, could generate plans of high clinical quality compared to a well-established delivery system with single layer multileaf collimator.

Methods:

Twenty patients in each of the 3 groups (advanced head and neck, breast, and high-risk prostate) were selected for an in silico planning study. For each patient, reference plans were developed for volumetric modulated arc therapy technique with 6 MV photon beams from a TrueBeam linear accelerator and compared against the corresponding plans for the Halcyon system. Plan comparison was performed in terms of dose volume histogram quantitative analysis.

Results:

Concerning the planning target volumes, with identical dose calculation and optimization algorithms and with identical planning techniques, no clinically relevant difference in coverage (D_98%), hot spot (D_2%), or homogeneity was observed. Similarly, for all the organs at risk, the dosimetric findings showed that (1) all planning constraints were met by the 2 delivery systems and (2) although statistical significant differences were reported for most of the parameters but none of these were judged of potential clinical relevance.

Conclusion:

The data presented confirmed that the new delivery system can generate treatment plans for volumetric modulated arc therapy with the same dosimetric quality of what is achievable with other systems routinely used in the clinics without significantly changing the current practice. Additional studies which customize the optimization parameters for each delivery device would complement the spectrum of investigations.