Prognostic factors for acute toxicity in prostate cancer patients treated with high-dose hypofractionated radiotherapy

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.

Proctitis 1 Week after Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Implications for Clinical Trial Design

Background

Proctitis following prostate cancer radiation therapy is a primary determinant of quality of life (QOL). While previous studies have assessed acute rectal morbidity at 1 month after stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), little data exist on the prevalence and severity of rectal morbidity within the first week following treatment. This study reports the acute bowel morbidity 1 week following prostate SBRT.

Materials and methods

Between May 2013 and August 2014, 103 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer were treated with 35–36.25 Gy in five fractions using robotic SBRT delivered on a prospective clinical trial. Bowel toxicity was graded using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0 (CTCAEv.4). Bowel QOL was assessed using the EPIC-26 questionnaire bowel domain at baseline, 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months. Time-dependent changes in bowel symptoms were statistically compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Clinically significant change was assessed by the minimally important difference (MID) in EPIC score. This was defined as a change of 1/2 standard deviation (SD) from the baseline score.

Results

One-hundred and three patients with a minimum of 3 months of follow-up were analyzed. The cumulative incidence of acute grade 2 gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity was 23%. There were no acute ≥ grade 3 bowel toxicities. EPIC bowel summary scores maximally declined at 1 week after SBRT (−13.9, p < 0.0001) before returning to baseline at 3 months after SBRT (+0.03, p = 0.94). Prior to treatment, 4.9% of men reported that their bowel bother was a moderate to big problem. This increased to 28.4% (p < 0.0001) 1 week after SBRT and returned to baseline at 3 months after SBRT (0.0%, p = 0.66). Only the bowel summary and bowel bother score declines at 1 week met the MID threshold for clinically significant change.

Conclusion

The rate and severity of acute proctitis following prostate SBRT peaked at 1 week after treatment and returned to baseline by 3 months. Toxicity assessment at 1 week can therefore minimize recall bias and should aid in the design of future clinical trials focused on accurately capturing and minimizing acute morbidity following SBRT.

Ethnic Difference in Risk of Toxicity in Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with Dynamic Arc Radiation Therapy

Aims and background

The objective of this study was to assess the influence of ethnicity on toxicity in patients treated with dynamic arc radiation therapy (ART) for prostate cancer (PC).

Methods

From June 2006 to May 2012, 162 cT1-T3 cN0 cM0 PC patients were treated with ART (primary diagnosis, n = 125; post-prostatectomy/brachytherapy biochemical recurrence, n = 26; adjuvant post-prostatectomy, n = 11) at 2 institutions. Forty-five patients were Latin Americans and 117 were Europeans. The dose prescribed to the prostate ranged between 68 Gy and 81 Gy.

Results

The median age was 69 years (range 43-87 years). The median follow-up was 18 months (range 2-74 months). Overall, only 3 patients died, none due to a cancer-related cause. Biochemical recurrence was seen in 7 patients. The rates of acute grade 2 gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities were 19.7% and 17%, respectively. Only 1 patient experienced acute grade 3 GI toxicity, whereas 11 patients (6.7%) experienced acute grade 3 GU toxicity. Multivariate analysis showed that undergoing whole pelvic lymph node irradiation was associated with a higher grade of acute GI toxicity (OR: 3.46; p = 0.003). In addition, older age was marginally associated with a higher grade of acute GI toxicity (OR: 2.10; p = 0.074). Finally, ethnicity was associated with acute GU toxicity: Europeans had lower-grade toxicity (OR: 0.27; p = 0.001).

Conclusions

Our findings suggest an ethnic difference in GU toxicity for PC patients treated with ART. In addition, we found that ART is associated with a very low risk of severe toxicity and a low recurrence rate.

Acute toxicity of hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Dose-escalated hypofractionated radiotherapy (hfrt) using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (imrt), with inclusion of the pelvic lymph nodes (plns), plus androgen suppression therapy (ast) in high-risk prostate cancer patients should improve patient outcomes, but acute toxicity could limit its feasibility.

METHODS

Our single-centre phase ii prospective study enrolled 40 high-risk prostate cancer patients. All patients received hfrt using imrt with daily mega-voltage computed tomography imaging guidance, with 95% of planning target volumes (ptv68 and ptv50) receiving 68 Gy and 50 Gy (respectively) in 25 daily fractions. The boost volume was targeted to the involved plns and the prostate (minus the urethra plus 3 mm and minus 3 mm from adjacent rectal wall) and totalled up to 75 Gy in 25 fractions. Acute toxicity scores were recorded weekly during and 3 months after radiotherapy (rt) administration.

RESULTS

For the 37 patients who completed rt and the 3-month follow-up, median age was 65.5 years (range: 50-76 years). Disease was organ-confined (T1c-T2c) in 23 patients (62.1%), and node-positive in 5 patients (13.5%). All patients received long-term ast. Maximum acute genitourinary (gu) and gastrointestinal (gi) toxicity peaked at grade 2 in 6 of 36 evaluated patients (16.6%) and in 4 of 31 evaluated patients (12.9%) respectively. Diarrhea and urinary frequency were the chief complaints. Dose-volume parameters demonstrated no correlation with toxicity. The ptv treatment objectives were met in 36 of the 37 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This hfrt dose-escalation trial in high-risk prostate cancer has demonstrated the feasibility of administering 75 Gy in 25 fractions with minimal acute gi and gu toxicities. Further follow-up will report late toxicities and outcomes.