Distribution analysis of hydrogel spacer and evaluation of rectal dose reduction in Japanese prostate cancer patients undergoing stereotactic body radiation therapy

Photon vs proton hypofractionation in prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

High-level evidence on hypofractionated proton therapy (PT) for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) patients is currently missing. The aim of this study is to provide a systematic literature review to compare the toxicity and effectiveness of curative radiotherapy with photon therapy (XRT) or PT in PCa.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched up to April 2022. Men with a diagnosis of PCa who underwent curative hypofractionated RT treatment (PT or XRT) were included. Risk of grade (G) ≥ 2 acute and late genitourinary (GU) OR gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity were the primary outcomes of interest. Secondary outcomes were five-year biochemical relapse-free survival (b-RFS), clinical relapse-free, distant metastasis-free, and prostate cancer-specific survival. Heterogeneity between study-specific estimates was assessed using Chi-square statistics and measured with the I2 index (heterogeneity measure across studies).

RESULTS

A total of 230 studies matched inclusion criteria and, due to overlapped populations, 160 were included in the present analysis. Significant lower rates of G ≥ 2 acute GI incidence (2 % vs 7 %) and improved 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival (95 % vs 91 %) were observed in the PT arm compared to XRT. PT benefits in 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival were maintained for the moderate hypofractionated arm (p-value 0.0122) and among patients in intermediate and low-risk classes (p-values < 0.0001 and 0.0368, respectively). No statistically relevant differences were found for the other considered outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The present study supports that PT is safe and effective for localized PCa treatment, however, more data from RCTs are needed to draw solid evidence in this setting and further effort must be made to identify the patient subgroups that could benefit the most from PT.

An optimal method of hydrogel spacer insertion for stereotactic body radiation therapy of prostate cancer

PURPOSE

This study aimed to explore an ideal method for hydrogel spacer insertion by analyzing the efficacy and safety of our originally developed apex expansion method.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Overall, 100 patients with low- and intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy were included. A hydrogel spacer was inserted in 64 and 36 patients using the conventional and apex expansion methods, respectively. For dosimetry, we trisected the rectum into the upper rectum, middle rectum, and lower rectum on the sagittal section of magnetic resonance imaging. We compared the dose to each part of the rectum between the two methods using dose-volume histograms. Genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity assessments were conducted until 3 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

The whole rectal dose in the apex expansion method group was lower than that in the conventional method group, which was significant in all dose regions (V5-V35). Similarly, in the apex expansion method group, the dose to the middle rectum was lower in the low- to high-dose region (V10-V35), and the dose to the lower rectum was lower in the middle- to high-dose region (V15-35). No Grade ≥ 3 toxicity or procedure-related complications were observed. Additionally, Grade 2 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities during the treatment showed no significant differences between the two methods.

CONCLUSION

The apex expansion method may be safe and effective in achieving a more efficient rectal dose reduction by expanding the anterior perirectal space in the prostatic apex area.

Characterization of an Iodinated Rectal Spacer for Prostate Photon and Proton Radiation Therapy

PURPOSE

Conventional rectal spacers (nonI-SPs) are low-contrast on computed tomography (CT), often necessitating magnetic resonance imaging for accurate delineation. A new formulation of spacers (I-SPs) incorporates iodine to improve radiopacity and CT visualization. We characterized placement, stability, and plan quality of I-SPs compared to nonI-SPs.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients with intact prostate cancer (n = 50) treated with I-SPs and photons were compared to randomly selected patients (n = 50) with nonI-SPs (photon or proton therapy). The I-SP was contoured on the planning CT and cone beam CTs at 3 timepoints: first, middle, and final treatment (n = 200 scans). I-SPs Hounsfield units (HU), volume, surface area (SA), centroid position relative to prostate centroid, and distance between prostate/rectum centroids were compared on the planning CTs between each cohort. I-SP changes were evaluated on cone beam CTs over courses of treatment. Dosimetric evaluations of plan quality and robustness were performed. I-SP was tested in a phantom to characterize its relative linear stopping power for protons.

RESULTS

I-SPs yielded a distinct visible contrast on planning CTs compared to nonI-SPs (HU 138 vs 12, P < .001), allowing delineation on CT alone. The delineated volume and SA of I-SPs were smaller than nonI-SPs (volume 8.9 vs 10.6 mL, P < .001; SA 28 vs 35 cm², P < .001), yet relative spacer position and prostate-rectal separation were similar (P = .79). No significant change in HU, volume, SA, or relative position of the I-SPs hydrogel occurred over courses of treatment (all P > .1). Dosimetric analysis concluded there were no significant changes in plan quality or robustness for I-SPs compared to nonI-SPs. The I-SP relative linear stopping power was 1.018, necessitating HU override for proton planning.

CONCLUSIONS

I-SPs provide a manifest CT contrast, allowing for delineation on planning CT alone with no magnetic resonance imaging necessary. I-SPs radiopacity, size, and relative position remained stable over courses of treatment from 28 to 44 fractions. No changes in plan quality or robustness were seen comparing I-SPs and nonI-SPs.

Rectal spacers in patients with prostate cancer undergoing radiotherapy: A survey of UK uro-oncologists

AIM

To understand the awareness and use of rectal spacers for prostate cancer patients undergoing radical radiotherapy in the United Kingdom.

METHODS

An expert-devised online questionnaire was completed by members of the British Uro-oncology Group (BUG).

RESULTS

Sixty-three specialists completed the survey (50% of BUG members at that point in time). Only 37% had used rectal spacers, mostly for private patients or those with pre-existing bowel conditions. However, many (68%) would like to use these devices in future. More than 70% of the uro-oncologists felt that bowel toxicity was underreported, but 60% believed that the use of radiotherapy without bowel toxicity was achievable with the use of rectal spacers.

CONCLUSIONS

The current use of rectal spacers by UK uro-oncologists for patients with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer receiving radiotherapy is low and largely restricted by resourcing issues.

Multi-institutional retrospective analysis of ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy for Japanese prostate cancer patients

To report outcomes and risk factors of ultrahypofractionated (UHF) radiotherapy for Japanese prostate cancer patients. This multi-institutional retrospective analysis comprised 259 patients with localized prostate cancer from 6 hospitals. A total dose of 35–36 Gy in 4–5 fractions was prescribed for sequential or alternate-day administration. Biochemical failure was defined according to the Phoenix ASTRO consensus. Toxicities were assessed using National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria version 4. Tumor control and toxicity rates were analyzed by competing risk frames. Median follow-up duration was 32 months (range 22–97 months). 2- and 3-year biochemical control rates were 97.7% and 96.4%, respectively. Initial prostate-specific antigen (p < 0.01) and neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (p < 0.05) were identified as risk factors for biochemical recurrence. 2- and 3-year cumulative ≥ Grade 2 late genitourinary (GU) toxicities were 5.8% and 7.4%, respectively. Corresponding rates of gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities were 3.9% and 4.5%, respectively. Grade 3 rates were lower than 1% for both GU and GI toxicities. No grade 4 or higher toxicities were encountered. Biologically effective dose was identified as a risk factor for ≥ Grade 2 late GU and GI toxicities (p < 0.05). UHF radiotherapy offered effective, safe treatment for Japanese prostate cancer with short-term follow-up. Our result suggest higher prescribed doses are related to higher toxicity rates.