Dose-Escalated Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: 15-Year Outcomes Data

Case-Matched Outcomes of Proton Beam and Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer

Purpose

Although both intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) offer effective long-term disease control for localized prostate cancer (PCa), there are limited data directly comparing the 2 modalities.

Methods

The data from 334 patients treated with conventionally fractionated (79.2 GyRBE in 44 fractions) PBT or IMRT were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity score matching was used to balance factors associated with biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS). Age, race, and comorbidities (not BFFS associates) remained imbalanced after matching. Univariable and covariate-adjusted multivariable (MVA) Cox regression models were used to determine if modality affected BFFS.

Results

Of 334 patients, 176 (52.7%) were included in the matched cohort with exact matching to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group. With a median follow-up time of 9.0 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 7.8-10.2 years), long-term BFFS was similar between the IMRT and PBT matched arms with 8-year estimates of 85% (95% CI: 76%-91%) and 91% (95% CI: 82%-96%, P = .39), respectively. On MVA, modality was not significantly associated with BFFS in both the unmatched (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.35-1.63, P = .47) and matched (HR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.33-2.33, P = .78) cohorts. Prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) and overall survival (OS) were also similar (P > .05). However, in an unmatched analysis, the PBT arm had significantly fewer incidences of secondary cancers within the irradiated field (0.6%, 95% CI: 0.0%-3.1% versus 4.5%, 95% CI: 1.8%-9.0%, P = .028).

Conclusions

Both PBT and IMRT offer excellent long-term disease control for PCa, with no significant differences between the 2 modalities in BFFS, PCSS, and OS in matched patients. In the unmatched cohort, fewer incidences of secondary malignancy were noted in the PBT group; however, owing to overall low incidence of secondary cancer and imbalanced patient characteristics between the 2 groups, these data are strictly hypothesis generating and require further investigation.

Comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy with the 5-field technique, helical tomotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy for localized prostate cancer

The outcomes of three methods of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for localized prostate cancer were evaluated. Between 2010 and 2018, 308 D'Amico intermediate- or high-risk patients were treated with 2.2 Gy daily fractions to a total dose of 74.8 Gy in combination with hormonal therapy. Overall, 165 patients were treated with 5-field IMRT using a sliding window technique, 66 were then treated with helical tomotherapy and 77 were treated with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). The median age of patients was 71 years. The median follow-up period was 75 months. Five-year overall survival (OS) and biochemical or clinical failure-free survival (FFS) rates were 95.5 and 91.6% in the 5-field IMRT group, 95.1 and 90.3% in the tomotherapy group and 93.0 and 88.6% in the VMAT group, respectively, with no significant differences among the three groups. The 5-year cumulative incidence of late grade ≥2 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were 7.3 and 6.2%, respectively, for all patients. Late grade ≥2 gastrointestinal toxicities were less frequent in patients undergoing VMAT (0%) than in patients undergoing 5-field IMRT (7.3%) and those undergoing tomotherapy (11%) (P = 0.025), and this finding appeared to be correlated with the better rectal DVH parameters in patients undergoing VMAT. Other toxicities did not differ significantly among the three groups, although bladder dose-volume parameters were slightly worse in the tomotherapy group than in the other groups. Despite differences in the IMRT delivery methods, X-ray energies and daily registration methods, all modalities may be used as IMRT for localized prostate cancer.

Urethra Sparing With Target Motion Mitigation in Dose-Escalated Extreme Hypofractionated Prostate Cancer Radiotherapy: 7-Year Results From a Phase II Study

Purpose

To explore whether the rectal distension-mediated technique, harnessing human physiology to achieve intrafractional prostate motion mitigation, enables urethra sparing by inverse dose painting, thus promoting dose escalation with extreme hypofractionated stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) in prostate cancer.

Materials and Methods

Between June 2013 and December 2018, 444 patients received 5 × 9 Gy SABR over 5 consecutive days. Rectal distension-mediated SABR was employed via insertion of a 150-cm3 air-inflated endorectal balloon. A Foley catheter loaded with 3 beacon transponders was used for urethra visualization and online tracking. MRI-based planning using Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy - Image Guided Radiotherapy (VMAT-IGRT) with inverse dose painting was employed in delivering the planning target volume (PTV) dose and in sculpting exposure of organs at risk (OARs). A 2-mm margin was used for PTV expansion, reduced to 0 mm at the interface with critical OARs. All plans fulfilled Dmean ≥45 Gy. Target motion ≥2 mm/5 s motions mandated treatment interruption and target realignment prior to completion of the planned dose delivery.

Results

Patient compliance to the rectal distension-mediated immobilization protocol was excellent, achieving reproducible daily prostate localization at a patient-specific retropubic niche. Online tracking recorded ≤1-mm intrafractional target deviations in 95% of treatment sessions, while target realignment in ≥2-mm deviations enabled treatment completion as scheduled in all cases. The cumulative incidence rates of late grade ≥2 genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities were 5.3% and 1.1%, respectively. The favorable toxicity profile was corroborated by patient-reported quality of life (QOL) outcomes. Median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) nadir by 5 years was 0.19 ng/ml. The cumulative incidence rate of biochemical failure using the Phoenix definition was 2%, 16.6%, and 27.2% for the combined low/favorable-intermediate, unfavorable intermediate, and high-risk categories, respectively. Patients with a PSA failure underwent a 68Ga-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen (68Ga-PSMA) scan showing a 20.2% cumulative incidence of intraprostatic relapses in biopsy International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade ≥3.

Conclusion

The rectal distension-mediated technique is feasible and well tolerated. Dose escalation to 45 Gy with urethra-sparing results in excellent toxicity profiles and PSA relapse rates similar to those reported by other dose-escalated regimens. The existence of intraprostatic recurrences in patients with high-risk features confirms the notion of a high α/β ratio in these phenotypes resulting in diminished effectiveness with hypofractionated dose escalation.

Combined hyperthermia and radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a systematic review

Optimization of treatment strategies for prostate cancer patients treated with curative radiation therapy (RT) represents one of the major challenges for the radiation oncologist. Dose escalation or combination of RT with systemic therapies is used to improve tumor control in patients with unfavorable prostate cancer, at the risk of increasing rates and severity of treatment-related toxicities. Elevation of temperature to a supra-physiological level has been shown to both increase tumor oxygenation and reduce DNA repair capabilities. Thus, hyperthermia (HT) combined with RT represents a compelling treatment strategy to improve the therapeutic ratio in prostate cancer patients. The aim of the present systematic review is to report on preclinical and clinical evidence supporting the combination of HT and RT for prostate cancer, discussing future applications and developments of this combined treatment.

Dosimetric Comparison of Ultra-Hypofractionated and Conventionally Fractionated Radiation Therapy Boosts for Patients with High-Risk Prostate Cancer

Recent comparison of an ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy (UF-RT) boost to a conventionally fractionated (CF-RT) option showed similar toxicity and disease control outcomes. An analysis of the treatment plans for these patients is needed for evaluating calculated doses for different organs, treatment beam-on time, and requirements for human and financial resources. Eighty-six plans for UF-RT and 93 plans for CF-RT schemes were evaluated. The biologically equivalent dose, EQD2, summed for the first phase and the boost, was calculated for dose-volume parameters for organs at risk (OARs), as well as for the PTV1. ArcCHECK measurements for the boost plans were used for a comparison of planned and delivered doses. Monitor units and beam-on times were recorded by the Eclipse treatment planning system. Statistical analysis was performed with a significance level of 0.05. Dosimetric parameter values for OARs were well within tolerance for both groups. EQD2 for the PTV1 was on average 84 Gy for UF-RT patients and 76 Gy for CF-RT patients. Gamma passing rate for planned/delivered doses comparison was above 98% for both groups with 3 mm/3% distance to agreement/dose difference criteria. Total monitor units per fraction were 647 ± 94 and 2034 ± 570 for CF-RT and UF-RT, respectively. The total delivery time for boost radiation for the patients in the UF-RT arm was, on average, four times less than the total time for a conventional regimen with statistically equal clinical outcomes for the two arms in this study.

High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy as Monotherapy for Low- and Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer. Oncological Outcomes After a Median 15-Year Follow-Up

Introduction

To evaluate the oncological outcome of high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy (BRT) as monotherapy for clinically localised prostate cancer (PCA).

Material and Methods

Between January 2002 and February 2004, 141 consecutive patients with clinically localised PCA were treated with HDR-BRT monotherapy. The cohort comprised 103 (73%) low-, 32 (22.7%) intermediate- and 6 (4.3%) high risk patients according to D’Amico classification or 104 (73.8%) low-, 24 (17.0%) intermediate favourable-, 12 (8.5%) intermediate unfavourable- and one (0.7%) very high risk patient according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) one. Patients received four fractions of 9.5 Gy delivered within a single implant up to a total physical dose of 38 Gy. Catheter-implantation was transrectal ultrasound-based whereas treatment planning CT-based. Thirty-three patients (23.4%) received ADT neoadjuvantly and continued concurrently with BRT. Biochemical relapse-free survival (BRFS) was defined according to the Phoenix Consensus Criteria and genitourinary (GU)/gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity evaluated using the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0.

Results

Median age at treatment and median follow-up time was 67.2 and 15.2 years, respectively. Twenty-three (16.3%) patients experienced a biochemical relapse and 5 (3.5%) developed distant metastases, with only one patient dying of PCA. The BRFS was 85.1% at 15 years and 78.7% at 18 years. The corresponding overall survival, metastases-free survival, and prostate cancer specific mortality at 15- and 18-years was 73.9%/59.1%, 98.3%/90.6%, and 100%/98.5% respectively. Late grade 3 GI and GU toxicity was 4.2% and 5.6% respectively. Erectile dysfunction grade 3 was reported by 27 (19%) patients. From the prognostic factors evaluated, tumor stage (≤T2b compared to ≥T2c) along with the risk group (low-intermediate vs. high) when using the D’Amico classification but not when the NCCN one was taken into account, correlated significantly with BRFS.

Conclusion

Our long-term results confirm HDR-BRT to be a safe and effective monotherapeutic treatment modality for low- and intermediate risk PCA.

Sildenafil Citrate and Risk of Biochemical Recurrence in Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with Radiation Therapy: Post-Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Sildenafil citrate has been shown to be protective of sexual function when given concurrently and following prostate radiation therapy (RT), but some evidence suggests an increased biochemical recurrence (BCR) risk in patients taking sildenafil after radical prostatectomy.

AIM

To evaluate whether sildenafil use is associated with increased risk of BCR in patients receiving prostate RT, we performed a secondary analysis of a randomized placebo-controlled trial (RPCT) that compared sildenafil citrate to placebo during and after prostate RT.

METHODS

The study population consisted of prostate cancer patients who initiated radiation treatment at our institution and participated in our multi-institutional RPCT that compared 6 months of sildenafil 50 mg once a day to placebo with a 24-month follow-up. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was allowed. Prostate cancer prognostic risk grouping was not an exclusion criterion, but most study participants had low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Statistical analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier plots and log-rank testing.

OUTCOMES

The primary outcomes of this report were biochemical recurrence and overall survival rates, where BCR was defined according to the Phoenix definition.

RESULTS

Data of 162 men were analyzed. Nine men had inadequate PSA follow-up and the remaining 153 men were included in the final report. Median age was 61 years. At a median follow-up of 8.3 years (range: 3.0-12.2), 5/94 (5.3%) and 2/59 (3.4%) patients developed BCR in the sildenafil and placebo groups, respectively. The 6-year BCR-free survival was 98.8% for all patients, 98.1% for the sildenafil cohort, and 100% for the placebo cohort. The 10-year BCR-free survival was 94.4% for all patients, 95.6% for the sildenafil cohort, and 92.9% for the placebo cohort. There was no difference in BCR-free survival between the sildenafil and placebo groups by log-rank comparison (p = 0.36).

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

This analysis informs clinical decision making about the safety of using sildenafil during and after prostate RT.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS

This study included patients who were treated in the setting of a prospective, randomized placebo-controlled trial, and who attained high medication compliance. However, the study was limited by the post-hoc nature of the analysis, use of ADT in some patients, inadequate study power to detect a difference in BCR between sildenafil and placebo groups.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic sildenafil citrate was not associated with biochemical recurrence risk in prostate cancer patients treated with radiation. However, the study was inadequately powered to definitively conclude a negative finding.

Automatic localization of the prostatic urethra for image guided radiation therapy

•

Prostatic urethra can be used for image guided radiation for prostate cancer.

•

Computer “finds” the urethra by digital subtraction of scans with / without contrast.

•

Urethra segmentation used to setup the patient and position prostate as in simulation.

•

A catheter with continuous aerated gel flow is used to detect the urethra under US.

Treatment of prostate cancer with radiation therapy (RT) requires image guided RT (IGRT) to focus the radiation on the target volumes while minimizing doses to organs at risk. Here we describe a urinary catheter that allows imaging of the prostatic urethra and uses it for automatic localization of the prostate for IGRT. The catheter has a contrast lumen that can be empty or full with contrast. Computerized tomography is performed twice, with contrast lumen empty and full, allowing urethral autosegmentation using digital subtraction. Under ultrasound, continuous urethral visualization is possible by pumping aerated gel in- and out of the contrast lumen.

Maintaining consistent bladder filling during external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer

•

Radiation for prostate cancer is preferably provided with a full urinary bladder.

•

There are discrepancies how well current methods achieve consistent bladder filling.

•

A urinary catheter with a check-valve controlled by a float is under development.

Radiation therapy for patients with prostate cancer is preferably provided with a full urinary bladder. Full bladder can potentially move the small intestine out of the radiation treatment regions, and results in decreased small bowel radiation dose and gastrointestinal toxicity. Maintaining consistent bladder filling during computerized tomography simulation scan used for treatment planning and at daily radiation treatments is challenging. Here we present an in-development urinary catheter with a floating balloon that drains the bladder only when urine reaches to a prespecified level, and review current methods used in clinic to ensure consistent bladder filling. These includes bladder filling protocols, ultrasound scanning and biofeedback techniques.

Impact of radiation dose on recurrence in high-risk prostate cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Dose escalated radiation therapy (RT) combined with long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is a standard of care option for men with high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa). However, the optimal dose of escalated RT and ADT is not known. Here we assessed the impact of radiation dose and length of ADT on biochemical recurrence in a multi-institutional cohort stratified by the Cambridge prognostic group (CPG). We hypothesized that radiation dose and length of ADT would impact outcome in similar risk groups of our patients.

METHODS

Two-hundred and forty-four patients were included, 132 from Oslo University Hospital, Department of Oncology and 112 from Johns Hopkins Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology. Biochemical recurrence was defined as prostate-specific antigen (PSA) nadir +2 ng/mL. Time to recurrence was estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis and when stratified by CPG the log-rank test was used. Cox regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with risk of recurrence. Site of recurrence was investigated.

RESULTS

The median follow-up time was 7.4 years. The vast majority (71%) of patients were classified as high-risk (CPG 4) or very high-risk features (CPG 5). Significantly more PSA recurrences occurred in CPG 5 (41%) compared with CPG 4 (25%) (P = .04) and five-year cumulative recurrence-free survival was lower for CPG 4 and 5 (89% and 68%) compared with CPG 1, 2, and 3 (100%, 100%, and 93%). The recurrence-free survival for CPG 5 was significantly higher for prostate irradiation of 80 Gy as compared with 74 Gy (P = .011). For CPG 4 and 5 no local recurrences were detected in patients receiving 80 Gy. On stepwise Cox regression analysis neither age nor length of ADT were independent prognostic factors for recurrence free survival.

CONCLUSION

Prostate dose escalation from 74 to 80 Gy decreases risk of recurrence in high-risk PCa. Further studies are needed to identify the optimal combination of ADT and RT.