1
|
Gao RW, Ma J, Pisansky TM, Kruse JJ, Stish BJ, Kowalchuk RO, McMenomy BP, Waddle MR, Phillips RM, Choo R, Davis BJ. Dosimetric Features of Ultra-Hypofractionated Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy for Prostate Cancer. Int J Part Ther 2024; 12:100015. [PMID: 38827121 PMCID: PMC11137510 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpt.2024.100015] [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: 12/05/2023] [Revised: 02/08/2024] [Accepted: 03/06/2024] [Indexed: 06/04/2024] Open
Abstract
Purpose To report clinical and dosimetric characteristics of 5-fraction stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) using intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for localized prostate cancer. Materials and Methods All patients receiving IMPT SABR from 2017 to 2021 for localized prostate cancer at our institution were included. Five fractions were delivered every other day to the prostate +/- seminal vesicles [clinical target volume (CTV)] with 3 mm/3% robustness. A 4-field arrangement with 2 anterior oblique and 2 opposed lateral beams was used in most patients (97%), and most (99%) had a retroprostatic hydrogel spacer. Results A total of 534 patients with low (14%), favorable intermediate (45%), unfavorable intermediate (36%), high (4.0%), or very high-risk (0.6%) disease are evaluated. Prescription dose was 36.25 Gy (31%), 38 Gy (38%), or 40 Gy (31%) was prescribed. Median volume percentage of CTV receiving at least 100% of prescription dose [V100% (%)] was 100% [interquartile range: 99.99-100]. Rectum V50% (%), V80% (%), and V90% (%) were significantly lower in patients who had spacer, with a mean difference of -9.70%, -6.59%, and -4.42%, respectively, compared to those who did not have spacer. Femoral head dose was lower with a 4-field arrangement. Mean differences in left and right femoral head V40% (%) were -6.99% and -10.74%, respectively. Conclusion We provide a large, novel report of patients treated with IMPT SABR for localized prostate cancer. Four-field IMPT with hydrogel spacer provides significant sparing of rectum and femoral heads without compromising target coverage.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert W. Gao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Jiasen Ma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Thomas M. Pisansky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Jon J. Kruse
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Bradley J. Stish
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Roman O. Kowalchuk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | | | - Mark R. Waddle
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Ryan M. Phillips
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Richard Choo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Brian J. Davis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Vieceli M, Park J, Hsi WC, Saki M, Mendenhall NP, Johnson P, Artz M. Potential Therapeutic Improvements in Prostate Cancer Treatment Using Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Therapy with LET d Optimization and Disease-Specific RBE Models. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16:780. [PMID: 38398171 PMCID: PMC10886728 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16040780] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/03/2024] [Revised: 02/11/2024] [Accepted: 02/12/2024] [Indexed: 02/25/2024] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To demonstrate the feasibility of improving prostate cancer patient outcomes with PBS proton LETd optimization. METHODS SFO, IPT-SIB, and LET-optimized plans were created for 12 patients, and generalized-tissue and disease-specific LET-dependent RBE models were applied. The mean LETd in several structures was determined and used to calculate mean RBEs. LETd- and dose-volume histograms (LVHs/DVHs) are shown. TODRs were defined based on clinical dose goals and compared between plans. The impact of robust perturbations on LETd, TODRs, and DVH spread was evaluated. RESULTS LETd optimization achieved statistically significant increased target volume LETd of ~4 keV/µm compared to SFO and IPT-SIB LETd of ~2 keV/µm while mitigating OAR LETd increases. A disease-specific RBE model predicted target volume RBEs > 1.5 for LET-optimized plans, up to 18% higher than for SFO plans. LET-optimized target LVHs/DVHs showed a large increase not present in OARs. All RBE models showed a statistically significant increase in TODRs from SFO to IPT-SIB to LET-optimized plans. RBE = 1.1 does not accurately represent TODRs when using LETd optimization. Robust evaluations demonstrated a trade-off between increased mean target LETd and decreased DVH spread. CONCLUSION The demonstration of improved TODRs provided via LETd optimization shows potential for improved patient outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael Vieceli
- University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL 32206, USA
- Medical Physics Graduate Program, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA
| | - Jiyeon Park
- University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL 32206, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA
| | - Wen Chien Hsi
- University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL 32206, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA
| | - Mo Saki
- University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL 32206, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA
| | - Nancy P Mendenhall
- University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL 32206, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA
| | - Perry Johnson
- University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL 32206, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA
| | - Mark Artz
- University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL 32206, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Starling MTM, Thibodeau S, de Sousa CFPM, Restini FCF, Viani GA, Gouveia AG, Mendez LC, Marta GN, Moraes FY. Optimizing Clinical Implementation of Hypofractionation: Comprehensive Evidence Synthesis and Practical Guidelines for Low- and Middle-Income Settings. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16:539. [PMID: 38339290 PMCID: PMC10854666 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16030539] [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: 11/06/2023] [Revised: 01/15/2024] [Accepted: 01/16/2024] [Indexed: 02/12/2024] Open
Abstract
The global cancer burden, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), worsens existing disparities, amplified by the rising costs of advanced treatments. The shortage of radiation therapy (RT) services is a significant issue in LMICs. Extended conventional treatment regimens pose significant challenges, especially in resource-limited settings. Hypofractionated radiotherapy (HRT) and ultra-hypofractionated/stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) offer promising alternatives by shortening treatment durations. This approach optimizes the utilization of radiotherapy machines, making them more effective in meeting the growing demand for cancer care. Adopting HRT/SBRT holds significant potential, especially in LMICs. This review provides the latest clinical evidence and guideline recommendations for the application of HRT/SBRT in the treatment of breast, prostate, and lung cancers. It emphasizes the critical importance of rigorous training, technology, stringent quality assurance, and safety protocols to ensure precise and secure treatments. Additionally, it addresses practical considerations for implementing these treatments in LMICs, highlighting the need for comprehensive support and collaboration to enhance patient access to advanced cancer care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Stephane Thibodeau
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, Kingston General Hospital, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Canada
| | | | | | - Gustavo A. Viani
- Department of Medical Imagings, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, Hematology and Oncology of University of São Paulo (FMRP-USP), Ribeirão Preto 14049-900, Brazil
- Latin America Cooperative Oncology Group (LACOG), Porto Alegre 90619-900, Brazil
| | - Andre G. Gouveia
- Latin America Cooperative Oncology Group (LACOG), Porto Alegre 90619-900, Brazil
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, Juravinski Cancer Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8V 5C2, Canada
| | - Lucas C. Mendez
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON N6A 5W9, Canada
| | - Gustavo Nader Marta
- Radiation Oncology Department, Hospital Sirio Libanês, Sao Paulo 01308-050, Brazil
- Latin America Cooperative Oncology Group (LACOG), Porto Alegre 90619-900, Brazil
| | - Fabio Ynoe Moraes
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, Kingston General Hospital, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Canada
- Latin America Cooperative Oncology Group (LACOG), Porto Alegre 90619-900, Brazil
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Ong WL, Loblaw A. The march toward single-fraction stereotactic body radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer-Quo Vadimus? World J Urol 2023; 41:3485-3491. [PMID: 37921936 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-023-04663-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/05/2023] [Accepted: 10/01/2023] [Indexed: 11/05/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is an emerging treatment option for localized prostate cancer. There is increasing interest to reduce the number of fractions for prostate SBRT. METHODS We provide a narrative review and summary of prospective trials of different fractionation schedules for prostate SBRT, focusing on efficacy, toxicities, and quality of life outcomes. RESULTS There are two randomized phase 3 trials comparing standard external beam radiotherapy with ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy. HYPO-RT-PC compared 78 Gy in 39 fractions vs 42.7 Gy in 7 fractions (3D-CRT or IMRT) showing non-inferiority in 5-year biochemical recurrence-free survival and equivalent tolerability. PACE-B trial compared 78 Gy in 39-fraction or 62 Gy in 20-fraction vs 36.25 Gy in 5-fraction prostate SBRT, with no significant differences in toxicity outcomes at 2 years. Five-year efficacy data for PACE-B are expected in 2024. Five-fraction prostate SBRT is currently the most common and well-established fractionation schedule with multiple prospective phase 2 trials published to date. There is more limited data on 1-4 fraction prostate SBRT. All fractionation schedules had acceptable toxicity outcomes. Experience from a high-dose-rate brachytherapy randomized trial showed inferior efficacy with single-fraction compared to two-fraction brachytherapy. Hence, caution should be applied in adopting single-fraction prostate SBRT. CONCLUSION Two-fraction SBRT is likely the shortest fractionation schedule that maintains the therapeutic ratio. Several randomized trials currently recruiting will likely provide us with more definite answers about whether two-fraction prostate SBRT should become a standard-of-care option. Enrollment of eligible patients into these trials should be encouraged.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wee Loon Ong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Rm T2-161, 2075 Bayview Ave, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada
- Alfred Health Radiation Oncology, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Andrew Loblaw
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Rm T2-161, 2075 Bayview Ave, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada.
- Institute of Health Policy, Measurement and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Brand DH, Brüningk SC, Wilkins A, Naismith O, Gao A, Syndikus I, Dearnaley DP, van As N, Hall E, Gulliford S, Tree AC. The Fraction Size Sensitivity of Late Genitourinary Toxicity: Analysis of Alpha/Beta (α/β) Ratios in the CHHiP Trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 115:327-336. [PMID: 35985457 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.08.030] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/09/2022] [Revised: 08/04/2022] [Accepted: 08/06/2022] [Indexed: 01/14/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Moderately hypofractionated external beam intensity modulated radiation therapy (RT) for prostate cancer is now standard-of-care. Normal tissue toxicity responses to fraction size alteration are nonlinear: the linear-quadratic model is a widely used framework accounting for this, through the α/β ratio. Few α/β ratio estimates exist for human late genitourinary endpoints; here we provide estimates derived from a hypofractionation trial. METHODS AND MATERIALS The CHHiP trial randomized 3216 men with localized prostate cancer 1:1:1 between conventionally fractionated intensity modulated RT (74 Gy/37 fractions (Fr)) and 2 moderately hypofractionated regimens (60 Gy/20 Fr and 57 Gy/19 Fr). RT plan and suitable follow-up assessment was available for 2206 men. Three prospectively assessed clinician-reported toxicity scales were amalgamated for common genitourinary endpoints: dysuria, hematuria, incontinence, reduced flow/stricture, and urine frequency. Per endpoint, only patients with baseline zero toxicity were included. Three models for endpoint grade ≥1 (G1+) and G2+ toxicity were fitted: Lyman Kutcher-Burman (LKB) without equivalent dose in 2 Gy/Fr (EQD2) correction [LKB-NoEQD2]; LKB with EQD2-correction [LKB-EQD2]; LKB-EQD2 with dose-modifying-factor (DMF) inclusion [LKB-EQD2-DMF]. DMFs were age, diabetes, hypertension, pelvic surgery, prior transurethral resection of prostate (TURP), overall treatment time and acute genitourinary toxicity (G2+). Bootstrapping generated 95% confidence intervals and unbiased performance estimates. Models were compared by likelihood ratio test. RESULTS The LKB-EQD2 model significantly improved performance over LKB-NoEQD2 for just 3 endpoints: dysuria G1+ (α/β = 2.0 Gy; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-3.2 Gy), hematuria G1+ (α/β = 0.9 Gy; 95% CI, 0.1-2.2 Gy) and hematuria G2+ (α/β = 0.6 Gy; 95% CI, 0.1-1.7 Gy). For these 3 endpoints, further incorporation of 2 DMFs improved on LKB-EQD2: acute genitourinary toxicity and prior TURP (hematuria G1+ only), but α/β ratio estimates remained stable. CONCLUSIONS Inclusion of EQD2-correction significantly improved model fitting for dysuria and hematuria endpoints, where fitted α/β ratio estimates were low: 0.6 to 2 Gy. This suggests therapeutic gain for clinician-reported GU toxicity, through hypofractionation, might be lower than expected by typical late α/β ratio assumptions of 3 to 5 Gy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Douglas H Brand
- Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom; Urology Unit, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
| | - Sarah C Brüningk
- Department of Biosystems Science and Engineering, ETH Zurich, Basel, Switzerland; Swiss Institute for Bioinformatics (SIB), Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Anna Wilkins
- Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom; Urology Unit, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Olivia Naismith
- Radiotherapy Trials QA Group (RTTQA), Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Annie Gao
- Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom; Urology Unit, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Isabel Syndikus
- Radiotherapy Department, Clatterbridge Cancer Centre, Liverpool, United Kingdom
| | - David P Dearnaley
- Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom; Urology Unit, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Nicholas van As
- Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom; Urology Unit, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Emma Hall
- Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| | - Sarah Gulliford
- Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Radiotherapy Physics, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Alison C Tree
- Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom; Urology Unit, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Laughlin BS, Voss MM, Toesca DA, Daniels T, Golafshar MA, Keole SR, Wong WW, Rwigema JC, Davis B, Schild SE, Stish BJ, Choo R, Lester S, DeWees TA, Vargas CE. Preliminary Analysis of a Phase II Trial of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer With High-Risk Features After Radical Prostatectomy. Adv Radiat Oncol 2022; 8:101143. [PMID: 36845611 PMCID: PMC9943785 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2022.101143] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/03/2022] [Accepted: 11/30/2022] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose There are limited data regarding using stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in the postprostatectomy setting. Here, we present a preliminary analysis of a prospective phase II trial that aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of postprostatectomy SBRT for adjuvant or early salvage therapy. Materials and Methods Between May 2018 and May 2020, 41 patients fulfilled inclusion criteria and were stratified into 3 groups: group I (adjuvant), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) < 0.2 ng/mL with high-risk features including positive surgical margins, seminal vesicle invasion, or extracapsular extension; group II (salvage), with PSA ≥ 0.2 ng/mL but < 2 ng/mL; or group III (oligometastatic), with PSA ≥ 0.2 ng/mL but < 2 ng/mL and up to 3 sites of nodal or bone metastases. Androgen deprivation therapy was not offered to group I. Androgen deprivation therapy was offered for 6 months for group II and 18 months for group III patients. SBRT dose to the prostate bed was 30 to 32 Gy in 5 fractions. Baseline-adjusted physician reported toxicities (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events), patient reported quality-of-life (Expanded Prostate Index Composite, Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System), and American Urologic Association scores were evaluated for all patients. Results The median follow-up was 23 months (range, 10-37). SBRT was adjuvant in 8 (20%) patients, salvage in 28 (68%), and salvage with the presence of oligometastases in 5 (12%) patients. Urinary, bowel, and sexual quality of life domains remained high after SBRT. Patients tolerated SBRT with no grade 3 or higher (3+) gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicities. The baseline adjusted acute and late toxicity grade 2 genitourinary (urinary incontinence) rate was 2.4% (1/41) and 12.2% (5/41). At 2 years, clinical disease control was 95%, and biochemical control was 73%. Among the 2 clinical failures, 1 was a regional node and the other a bone metastasis. Oligometastatic sites were salvaged successfully with SBRT. There were no in-target failures. Conclusions Postprostatectomy SBRT was very well tolerated in this prospective cohort, with no significant effect on quality of life metrics postirradiation, while providing excellent clinical disease control.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Molly M. Voss
- Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona
| | | | - Thomas Daniels
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona,Department of Radiation Oncology, NYU Langone Health, Brooklyn, New York
| | | | - Sameer R. Keole
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona
| | - William W. Wong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona
| | | | - Brian Davis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | - Brad J. Stish
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Richard Choo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Scott Lester
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Todd A. DeWees
- Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona
| | - Carlos E. Vargas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona,Corresponding author: Carlos E. Vargas, MD
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Carpenter DJ, Natesan D, Floyd RW, Oyekunle T, Niedzwiecki D, Waters L, Godfrey D, Moravan MJ, Bitting RL, Gingrich JR, Lee WR, Salama JK. Impact of Race on Outcomes of High-Risk Patients With Prostate Cancer Treated With Moderately Hypofractionated Radiotherapy in an Equal Access Setting. Fed Pract 2022; 39:S35-S41. [PMID: 36426110 PMCID: PMC9662313 DOI: 10.12788/fp.0305] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/16/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (MHRT) is an accepted treatment for localized prostate cancer; however, limited MHRT data address high-risk prostate cancer (HRPC) and/or African American patients. We report clinical outcomes and toxicity profiles for individuals with HRPC treated in an equal access system. METHODS We identified patients with HRPC treated with MHRT at a US Department of Veterans Affairs referral center. Exclusion criteria included < 12 months follow-up and elective nodal irradiation. MHRT included 70 Gy over 28 fractions or 60 Gy over 20 fractions. Acute and late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities were graded using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5.0. Clinical endpoints, including biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS), distant metastases-free survival (DMFS), overall survival (OS), and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods. Clinical outcomes, acute toxicity, and late toxicity-free survival were compared between African American and White patients with logistic regression and log-rank testing. RESULTS Between November 2008 and August 2018, 143 patients with HRPC were treated with MHRT and followed for a median of 38.5 months; 82 (57%) were African American and 61 were White patients. Concurrent androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was provided for 138 (97%) patients for a median duration of 24 months. No significant differences between African American and White patients were observed for 5-year OS (73% [95% CI, 58%-83%] vs 77% [95% CI, 60%-97%]; P = .55), PCSS (90% [95% CI, 79%-95%] vs 87% [95 % CI, 70%-95%]; P = .57), DMFS (91% [95% CI, 80%-96%] vs 81% [95% CI, 62%-91%]; P = .55), or BRFS (83% [95% CI, 70%-91%] vs 71% [95% CI, 53%-82%]; P = .57), respectively. Rates of acute grade 3+ GU and GI were low overall (4% and 1%, respectively). Late toxicities were similarly favorable with no significant differences by race. CONCLUSIONS Individuals with HRPC treated with MHRT in an equal access setting demonstrated favorable clinical outcomes that did not differ by race, alongside acceptable rates of acute and late toxicities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Divya Natesan
- Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
| | - R Warren Floyd
- Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Taofik Oyekunle
- Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
- Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, North Carolina
| | | | - Laura Waters
- Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, North Carolina
| | - Devon Godfrey
- Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
- Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, North Carolina
| | | | - Rhonda L Bitting
- Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, North Carolina
- Duke Cancer Institute, Center for Prostate & Urologic Cancers, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Jeffrey R Gingrich
- Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, North Carolina
- Duke Cancer Institute, Center for Prostate & Urologic Cancers, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
| | - W Robert Lee
- Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Joseph K Salama
- Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
- Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, North Carolina
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Brand DH, Kirby AM, Yarnold JR, Somaiah N. How Low Can You Go? The Radiobiology of Hypofractionation. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2022; 34:280-287. [PMID: 35260319 DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2022.02.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/28/2021] [Revised: 01/25/2022] [Accepted: 02/11/2022] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
Hypofractionated radical radiotherapy is now an accepted standard of care for tumour sites such as prostate and breast cancer. Much research effort is being directed towards more profoundly hypofractionated (ultrahypofractionated) schedules, with some reaching UK standard of care (e.g. adjuvant breast). Hypofractionation exerts varying influences on each of the major clinical end points of radiotherapy studies: acute toxicity, late toxicity and local control. This review will discuss these effects from the viewpoint of the traditional 5 Rs of radiobiology, before considering non-canonical radiobiological effects that may be relevant to ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy. The principles outlined here may assist the reader in their interpretation of the wealth of clinical data presented in the tumour site-specific articles in this special issue.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- D H Brand
- The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - A M Kirby
- The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - J R Yarnold
- The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - N Somaiah
- The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Schröder C, Tang H, Windisch P, Zwahlen DR, Buchali A, Vu E, Bostel T, Sprave T, Zilli T, Murthy V, Förster R. Stereotactic Radiotherapy after Radical Prostatectomy in Patients with Prostate Cancer in the Adjuvant or Salvage Setting: A Systematic Review. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14030696. [PMID: 35158961 PMCID: PMC8833497 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14030696] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/04/2022] [Revised: 01/22/2022] [Accepted: 01/26/2022] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Stereotactic body radiotherapy, a type of high-precision radiotherapy delivering high doses within few treatment sessions has proven to be effective and well tolerated in prostate cancer patients treated with definite radiotherapy. This systematic review summarizes the available data and analyzes whether this modern treatment may routinely be offered to prostate cancer patients after radical prostatectomy. Abstract (1) Background: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men and can be treated with radical prostatectomy (RPE) or radiotherapy in the primary setting. Stereotactic radiotherapy (SBRT) has proven to be effective and well tolerated in this setting. However, if SBRT is an equally promising treatment option if applied in the adjuvant or salvage setting after RPE remains unknown. (2) Methods: We searched the PubMed and Embase databases with the following full-text queries in August 2021 for any combination of the terms “SBRT”, “prostate”, “adjuvant”, “postoperative”, “salvage”, “stereotactic radiotherapy”, “prostate bed”. There were no limitations regarding publication date or language. We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. (3) Results: We identified 11 individual studies that were included in this systematic review. Three publications included patients without prior radiotherapy and the remaining eight patients with prior radiotherapy. In all but two publications the radiation target was the macroscopic recurrence. SBRT was overall well tolerated with acceptable rates of acute and late gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicity. Quality of life was published for two phase I trials with good results. There was a very heterogeneous reporting on biochemical control after SBRT. (4) Conclusions: At this point, ultra-hypofractionated RT using SBRT to the prostate bed remains experimental and its use should be restricted to clinical trials. Given the biological rationale for extreme hypofractionation in patients with prostate cancer and the acceptable toxicity rates that have been reported, further exploration of this field is warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christina Schröder
- Institute for Radiation Oncology, Cantonal Hospital Winterthur (KSW), 8400 Winterthur, Switzerland; (C.S.); (H.T.); (P.W.); (D.R.Z.)
| | - Hongjian Tang
- Institute for Radiation Oncology, Cantonal Hospital Winterthur (KSW), 8400 Winterthur, Switzerland; (C.S.); (H.T.); (P.W.); (D.R.Z.)
| | - Paul Windisch
- Institute for Radiation Oncology, Cantonal Hospital Winterthur (KSW), 8400 Winterthur, Switzerland; (C.S.); (H.T.); (P.W.); (D.R.Z.)
| | - Daniel Rudolf Zwahlen
- Institute for Radiation Oncology, Cantonal Hospital Winterthur (KSW), 8400 Winterthur, Switzerland; (C.S.); (H.T.); (P.W.); (D.R.Z.)
| | - André Buchali
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ruppiner Kliniken GmbH, Brandenburg Medical School (MHB), 16816 Neuruppin, Germany;
| | - Erwin Vu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cantonal Hospital St. Gallen (KSSG), 9000 St. Gallen, Switzerland;
| | - Tilman Bostel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Mainz, 55131 Mainz, Germany;
| | - Tanja Sprave
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Freiburg, 79106 Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany;
| | - Thomas Zilli
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Geneva (HUG), 1205 Geneva, Switzerland;
| | - 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 400012, India;
| | - Robert Förster
- Institute for Radiation Oncology, Cantonal Hospital Winterthur (KSW), 8400 Winterthur, Switzerland; (C.S.); (H.T.); (P.W.); (D.R.Z.)
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +41-52-266-31-40
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Patient-Reported Quality of Life Outcomes after Moderately Hypofractionated and Normofractionated Proton Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14030517. [PMID: 35158785 PMCID: PMC8833499 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14030517] [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: 12/15/2021] [Revised: 01/12/2022] [Accepted: 01/18/2022] [Indexed: 02/04/2023] Open
Abstract
We retrospectively evaluated the three-year patient-reported quality of life (QOL) after moderately hypofractionated proton therapy (MHPT) for localized prostate cancer in comparison with that after normofractionated PT (NFPT) using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-50. Patients who received MHPT (60-63 Gy (relative biological effectiveness equivalents; RBE)/20-21 fractions) (n = 343) or NFPT (74-78 Gy (RBE)/37-39 fractions) (n = 296) between 2013 and 2016 were analyzed. The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) threshold was defined as one-half of a standard deviation of the baseline value. The median follow-up was 56 months and 83% completed questionnaires at 36 months. Clinically meaningful score deterioration was observed in the urinary domain at 1 month in both groups and in the sexual domain at 6-36 months in the NFPT group, but not observed in the bowel domain. At 36 months, the mean score change for urinary summary was -0.3 (MHPT) and -1.6 points (NFPT), and that for bowel summary was +0.1 and -2.0 points; the proportion of patients with MCID was 21% and 24% for urinary summary and 18% and 29% for bowel summary. Overall, MHPT had small negative impacts on QOL over three years, and the QOL after MHPT and NFPT was similar.
Collapse
|
11
|
The Journey of Radiotherapy Dose Escalation in High Risk Prostate Cancer; Conventional Dose Escalation to Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) Boost Treatments. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2021; 20:e25-e38. [PMID: 34740548 DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2021.09.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/29/2021] [Revised: 07/08/2021] [Accepted: 09/27/2021] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
High risk prostate cancer (HR-PrCa) is a subset of localized PrCa with significant potential for morbidity and mortality associated with disease recurrence and metastasis. Radiotherapy combined with Androgen Deprivation Therapy has been the standard of care for many years in HR-PrCa. In recent years, dose escalation, hypo-fractionation and high precision delivery with immobilization and image-guidance have substantially changed the face of modern PrCa radiotherapy, improving treatment convenience and outcomes. Ultra-hypo-fractionated radiotherapy delivered with high precision in the form of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) combines delivery of high biologically equivalent dose radiotherapy with the convenience of a shorter treatment schedule, as well as the promise of similar efficacy and reduced toxicity compared to conventional radiotherapy. However, rigorous investigation of SBRT in HR-PrCa remains limited. Here, we review the changes in HR-PrCa radiotherapy through dose escalation, hypo- and ultra-hypo-fractionated radiotherapy boost treatments, and the radiobiological basis of these treatments. We focus on completed and on-going trials in this disease utilizing SBRT as a sole radiation modality or as boost therapy following pelvic radiation.
Collapse
|
12
|
Her EJ, Haworth A, Sun Y, Williams S, Reynolds HM, Kennedy A, Ebert MA. Biologically Targeted Radiation Therapy: Incorporating Patient-Specific Hypoxia Data Derived from Quantitative Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:4897. [PMID: 34638382 PMCID: PMC8507789 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13194897] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/27/2021] [Revised: 09/24/2021] [Accepted: 09/27/2021] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Hypoxia has been linked to radioresistance. Strategies to safely dose escalate dominant intraprostatic lesions have shown promising results, but further dose escalation to overcome the effects of hypoxia require a novel approach to constrain the dose in normal tissue.to safe levels. In this study, we demonstrate a biologically targeted radiotherapy (BiRT) approach that can utilise multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) to target hypoxia for favourable treatment outcomes. METHODS mpMRI-derived tumour biology maps, developed via a radiogenomics study, were used to generate individualised, hypoxia-targeting prostate IMRT plans using an ultra- hypofractionation schedule. The spatial distribution of mpMRI textural features associated with hypoxia-related genetic profiles was used as a surrogate of tumour hypoxia. The effectiveness of the proposed approach was assessed by quantifying the potential benefit of a general focal boost approach on tumour control probability, and also by comparing the dose to organs at risk (OARs) with hypoxia-guided focal dose escalation (DE) plans generated for five patients. RESULTS Applying an appropriately guided focal boost can greatly mitigate the impact of hypoxia. Statistically significant reductions in rectal and bladder dose were observed for hypoxia-targeting, biologically optimised plans compared to isoeffective focal DE plans. CONCLUSION Results of this study suggest the use of mpMRI for voxel-level targeting of hypoxia, along with biological optimisation, can provide a mechanism for guiding focal DE that is considerably more efficient than application of a general, dose-based optimisation, focal boost.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emily J. Her
- School of Physics, Mathematics and Computing, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA 6009, Australia; (E.J.H.); (M.A.E.)
| | - Annette Haworth
- Institute of Medical Physics, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia;
| | - Yu Sun
- Institute of Medical Physics, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia;
| | - Scott Williams
- The Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia;
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia
| | - Hayley M. Reynolds
- Auckland Bioengineering Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland 1010, New Zealand;
| | - Angel Kennedy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, WA 6009, Australia;
| | - Martin A. Ebert
- School of Physics, Mathematics and Computing, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA 6009, Australia; (E.J.H.); (M.A.E.)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, WA 6009, Australia;
- 5D Clinics, Perth, WA 6010, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Fukata K, Kawamura H, Kubo N, Kanai T, Torikoshi M, Nakano T, Tashiro M, Ohno T. Retrospective comparison of rectal toxicity between carbon-ion radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy based on treatment plan, normal tissue complication probability model, and clinical outcomes in prostate cancer. Phys Med 2021; 90:6-12. [PMID: 34521017 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2021.08.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/04/2021] [Revised: 08/04/2021] [Accepted: 08/27/2021] [Indexed: 10/20/2022] Open
Abstract
This retrospective study assessed the treatment planning data and clinical outcomes for 152 prostate cancer patients: 76 consecutive patients treated by carbon-ion radiation therapy and 76 consequtive patients treated by moderate hypo-fractionated intensity-modulated photon radiation therapy. These two modalities were compared using linear quadratic model equivalent doses in 2 Gy per fraction for rectal or rectal wall dose-volume histogram, 3.6 Gy per fraction-converted rectal dose-volume histogram, normal tissue complication probability model, and actual clinical outcomes. Carbon-ion radiation therapy was predicted to have a lower probability of rectal adverse events than intensity-modulated photon radiation therapy based on dose-volume histograms and normal tissue complication probability model. There was no difference in the clinical outcome of rectal adverse events between the two modalities compared in this study.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kyohei Fukata
- Cancer Center, School of Medicine, Keio University, Tokyo, Japan; Department of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Gunma, Japan; Section of Medical Physics and Engineering, Kanagawa Cancer Center, Yokohama, Japan.
| | - Hidemasa Kawamura
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Gunma, Japan; Gunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center, Gunma, Japan
| | - Nobuteru Kubo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Gunma, Japan
| | - Tatsuaki Kanai
- Gunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center, Gunma, Japan; Osaka Heavy Ion Therapy Center, Osaka, Japan
| | - Masami Torikoshi
- Gunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center, Gunma, Japan; International Science and Technology Center, Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan
| | - Takashi Nakano
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Gunma, Japan; Gunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center, Gunma, Japan; Quantum Life and Medical Science Directorate, National Institutes for Quantum and Radiological Science and Technology, Chiba, Japan
| | | | - Tatsuya Ohno
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Gunma, Japan; Gunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center, Gunma, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Jang H, Park J, Artz M, Zhang Y, Ricci JC, Huh S, Johnson PB, Kim MH, Chun M, Oh YT, Noh OK, Park HJ. Effective Organs-at-Risk Dose Sparing in Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Using a Half-Beam Technique in Whole Pelvic Irradiation. Front Oncol 2021; 11:611469. [PMID: 34490075 PMCID: PMC8416480 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.611469] [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: 09/29/2020] [Accepted: 07/19/2021] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Although there are some controversies regarding whole pelvic radiation therapy (WPRT) due to its gastrointestinal and hematologic toxicities, it is considered for patients with gynecological, rectal, and prostate cancer. To effectively spare organs-at-risk (OAR) doses using multi-leaf collimator (MLC)’s optimal segments, potential dosimetric benefits in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) using a half-beam technique (HF) were investigated for WPRT. Methods While the size of a fully opened field (FF) was decided to entirely include a planning target volume in all beam’s eye view across arc angles, the HF was designed to use half the FF from the isocenter for dose optimization. The left or the right half of the FF was alternatively opened in VMAT-HF using a pair of arcs rotating clockwise and counterclockwise. Dosimetric benefits of VMAT-HF, presented with dose conformity, homogeneity, and dose–volume parameters in terms of modulation complex score, were compared to VMAT optimized using the FF (VMAT-FF). Consequent normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) by reducing the irradiated volumes was evaluated as well as dose–volume parameters with statistical analysis for OAR. Moreover, beam-on time and MLC position precision were analyzed with log files to assess plan deliverability and clinical applicability of VMAT-HF as compared to VMAT-FF. Results While VMAT-HF used 60%–70% less intensity modulation complexity than VMAT-FF, it showed superior dose conformity. The small intestine and colon in VMAT-HF showed a noticeable reduction in the irradiated volumes of up to 35% and 15%, respectively, at an intermediate dose of 20–45 Gy. The small intestine showed statistically significant dose sparing at the volumes that received a dose from 15 to 45 Gy. Such a dose reduction for the small intestine and colon in VMAT-HF presented a significant NTCP reduction from that in VMAT-FF. Without sacrificing the beam delivery efficiency, VMAT-HF achieved effective OAR dose reduction in dose–volume histograms. Conclusions VMAT-HF led to deliver conformal doses with effective gastrointestinal-OAR dose sparing despite using less modulation complexity. The dose of VMAT-HF was delivered with the same beam-on time with VMAT-FF but precise MLC leaf motions. The VMAT-HF potentially can play a valuable role in reducing OAR toxicities associated with WPRT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hyunsoo Jang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dongguk University College of Medicine, Gyeongju, South Korea
| | - Jiyeon Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, United States.,University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL, United States
| | - Mark Artz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, United States.,University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL, United States
| | - Yawei Zhang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, United States.,University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL, United States
| | - Jacob C Ricci
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Orlando Health Cancer Institute, Orlando, FL, United States
| | - Soon Huh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, United States.,University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL, United States
| | - Perry B Johnson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, United States.,University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL, United States
| | - Mi-Hwa Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, South Korea
| | - Mison Chun
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, South Korea
| | - Young-Taek Oh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, South Korea
| | - O Kyu Noh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, South Korea
| | - Hae-Jin Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, South Korea
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Brand DH, Brüningk SC, Wilkins A, Fernandez K, Naismith O, Gao A, Syndikus I, Dearnaley DP, Tree AC, van As N, Hall E, Gulliford S. Estimates of Alpha/Beta (α/β) Ratios for Individual Late Rectal Toxicity Endpoints: An Analysis of the CHHiP Trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021; 110:596-608. [PMID: 33412260 PMCID: PMC8129972 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.12.041] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/06/2020] [Revised: 12/10/2020] [Accepted: 12/24/2020] [Indexed: 12/04/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Changes in fraction size of external beam radiation therapy exert nonlinear effects on subsequent toxicity. Commonly described by the linear-quadratic model, fraction size sensitivity of normal tissues is expressed by the α/β ratio. We sought to study individual α/β ratios for different late rectal effects after prostate external beam radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS The CHHiP trial (ISRCTN97182923) randomized men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer 1:1:1 to 74 Gy/37 fractions (Fr), 60 Gy/20 Fr, or 57 Gy/19 Fr. Patients in the study had full dosimetric data and zero baseline toxicity. Toxicity scales were amalgamated to 6 bowel endpoints: bleeding, diarrhea, pain, proctitis, sphincter control, and stricture. Lyman-Kutcher-Burman models with or without equivalent dose in 2 Gy/Fr correction were log-likelihood fitted by endpoint, estimating α/β ratios. The α/β ratio estimate sensitivity was assessed using sequential inclusion of dose modifying factors (DMFs): age, diabetes, hypertension, inflammatory bowel or diverticular disease (IBD/diverticular), and hemorrhoids. 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were bootstrapped. Likelihood ratio testing of 632 estimator log-likelihoods compared the models. RESULTS Late rectal α/β ratio estimates (without DMF) ranged from bleeding (G1 + α/β = 1.6 Gy; 95% CI, 0.9-2.5 Gy) to sphincter control (G1 + α/β = 3.1 Gy; 95% CI, 1.4-9.1 Gy). Bowel pain modelled poorly (α/β, 3.6 Gy; 95% CI, 0.0-840 Gy). Inclusion of IBD/diverticular disease as a DMF significantly improved fits for stool frequency G2+ (P = .00041) and proctitis G1+ (P = .00046). However, the α/β ratios were similar in these no-DMF versus DMF models for both stool frequency G2+ (α/β 2.7 Gy vs 2.5 Gy) and proctitis G1+ (α/β 2.7 Gy vs 2.6 Gy). Frequency-weighted averaging of endpoint α/β ratios produced: G1 + α/β ratio = 2.4 Gy; G2 + α/β ratio = 2.3 Gy. CONCLUSIONS We estimated α/β ratios for several common late adverse effects of rectal radiation therapy. When comparing dose-fractionation schedules, we suggest using late a rectal α/β ratio ≤ 3 Gy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Douglas H Brand
- Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom; Urology Unit, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
| | - Sarah C Brüningk
- Department of Biosystems Science and Engineering, ETH Zurich, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Anna Wilkins
- Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom; Urology Unit, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Tumour Cell Biology Laboratory, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
| | - Katie Fernandez
- Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| | - Olivia Naismith
- Radiotherapy Trials QA Group, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Annie Gao
- Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom; Urology Unit, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Isabel Syndikus
- Radiotherapy Department, Clatterbridge Cancer Centre, United Kingdom
| | - David P Dearnaley
- Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom; Urology Unit, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Alison C Tree
- Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom; Urology Unit, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Nicholas van As
- Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom; Urology Unit, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Emma Hall
- Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| | - Sarah Gulliford
- Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Radiotherapy Physics, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Her EJ, Ebert MA, Kennedy A, Reynolds HM, Sun Y, Williams S, Haworth A. Standard versus hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: assessing the impact on dose modulation and normal tissue effects when using patient-specific cancer biology. Phys Med Biol 2021; 66:045007. [PMID: 32408293 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ab9354] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
Hypofractionation of prostate cancer radiotherapy achieves tumour control at lower total radiation doses, however, increased rectal and bladder toxicities have been observed. To realise the radiobiological advantage of hypofractionation whilst minimising harm, the potential reduction in dose to organs at risk was investigated for biofocused radiotherapy. Patient-specific tumour location and cell density information were derived from multiparametric imaging. Uniform-dose plans and biologically-optimised plans were generated for a standard schedule (78 Gy/39 fractions) and hypofractionated schedules (60 Gy/20 fractions and 36.25 Gy/5 fractions). Results showed that biologically-optimised plans yielded statistically lower doses to the rectum and bladder compared to isoeffective uniform-dose plans for all fractionation schedules. A reduction in the number of fractions increased the target dose modulation required to achieve equal tumour control. On average, biologically-optimised, moderately-hypofractionated plans demonstrated 15.3% (p-value: <0.01) and 23.8% (p-value: 0.02) reduction in rectal and bladder dose compared with standard fractionation. The tissue-sparing effect was more pronounced in extreme hypofractionation with mean reduction in rectal and bladder dose of 43.3% (p-value: < 0.01) and 41.8% (p-value: 0.02), respectively. This study suggests that the ability to utilise patient-specific tumour biology information will provide greater incentive to employ hypofractionation in the treatment of localised prostate cancer with radiotherapy. However, to exploit the radiobiological advantages given by hypofractionation, greater attention to geometric accuracy is required due to increased sensitivity to treatment uncertainties.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E J Her
- School of Physics, Mathematics and Computing, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
17
|
Schad MD, Patel AK, Ling DC, Smith RP, Beriwal S. Hypofractionated Prostate Radiation Therapy: Adoption and Dosimetric Adherence Through Clinical Pathways in an Integrated Oncology Network. JCO Oncol Pract 2020; 17:e537-e547. [PMID: 33095692 DOI: 10.1200/op.20.00508] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Updates to consensus guidelines in October 2018 recommending moderately hypofractionated external beam radiotherapy (mHF-EBRT) in prostate cancer lagged several years after publication of evidence supporting its efficacy. In January 2018, we amended our prostate cancer clinical pathway (CP) to facilitate adoption of mHF-EBRT. Herein, we analyze patterns of care and changes in mHF-EBRT use after the CP modification. METHODS Our prostate CP was amended in January 2018 to make mHF-EBRT the recommended treatment for patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer pursuing curative EBRT monotherapy. Normal-tissue dose constraints accompanied the CP modification to guide planning. Use of mHF-EBRT from 2015 to 2017 was compared with use in 2018 after the CP modification, using the Cochran-Armitage test for trend. Predictors of mHF-EBRT use and adherence to dose constraints were analyzed with binary logistic regression. RESULTS In 560 patients treated with EBRT monotherapy, mHF-EBRT use increased from 3.7% in 2015-2017 to 85.6% in 2018 (P < .001), whereas conventionally fractionated EBRT (CF-EBRT) use decreased from 96.3% to 14.4% (P < .001). Consultation year of 2018 (odds ratio [OR], 214.6; 95% CI, 94.5 to 484.6; P < .001), treatment at an academic facility (OR, 4.5; 95% CI, 1.8 to 11.3; P = 0.001), and having a smaller prostate (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.00; P = .028) predicted for mHF-EBRT use. At least five of six recommended bladder and rectal dose constraints were met in 89.4% of patients. CONCLUSION Modification of our prostate cancer CP, in concert with institutional policies to monitor and audit CP compliance, facilitated rapid adoption of mHF-EBRT in our large, integrated cancer center with good adherence to dosimetric constraints.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Ankur K Patel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - Diane C Ling
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - Ryan P Smith
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - Sushil Beriwal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Ricco A, Mukhopadhyay N, Deng X, Holdford D, Skinner V, Saraiya S, Moghanaki D, Anscher MS, Chang MG. Moderately Hypofractionated Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy With Simultaneous Integrated Boost for Prostate Cancer: Five-Year Toxicity Results From a Prospective Phase I/II Trial. Front Oncol 2020; 10:1686. [PMID: 32974208 PMCID: PMC7471868 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.01686] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/18/2020] [Accepted: 07/29/2020] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anthony Ricco
- Massey Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, Richmond, VA, United States
| | - Nitai Mukhopadhyay
- Department of Biostatistics, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, United States
| | - Xiaoyan Deng
- Department of Biostatistics, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, United States
| | - Diane Holdford
- Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, United States
| | - Vicki Skinner
- Hunter Holmes McGuire Veterans Administration Medical Center, Richmond, VA, United States
| | - Siddharth Saraiya
- Massey Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, Richmond, VA, United States
| | - Drew Moghanaki
- Massey Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, Richmond, VA, United States
- Hunter Holmes McGuire Veterans Administration Medical Center, Richmond, VA, United States
| | - Mitchell S. Anscher
- Massey Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, Richmond, VA, United States
| | - Michael G. Chang
- Massey Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, Richmond, VA, United States
- Hunter Holmes McGuire Veterans Administration Medical Center, Richmond, VA, United States
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Sukhikh ES, Sukhikh LG, Lushnikova PA, Tatarchenko MA, Abdelrahman AR. Dosimetric and radiobiological comparison of simultaneous integrated boost and sequential boost of locally advanced cervical cancer. Phys Med 2020; 73:83-88. [PMID: 32334401 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2020.04.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/22/2020] [Revised: 04/02/2020] [Accepted: 04/12/2020] [Indexed: 01/29/2023] Open
Abstract
Introduction Some patients with locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) cannot undergo brachytherapy (BT). Possible treatment includes two-stage external beam radiotherapy (sequential boost - SEQ) or single-stage external beam radiotherapy (simultaneous integrated boost - SIB). The goal of this paper was to carry out dosimetric and radiobiological comparison of these techniques with respect to tumour and organs-at-risk (OARs) irradiation. Methods The anatomic data of six patients with LACC were used for this study. The single-stage SIB-VMAT (25, 27 or 30 fractions) and double-stage SEQ-VMAT (25 + 6 fractions) plans were developed to deliver EQD2=50 Gy to the pelvic region and EQD2=90 Gy to the tumour. The developed plans were compared with respect to an EQD2 dose delivered to a tumour and to the OARs, expected tumour control probability and normal tissue complications probability. Results The developed SIB-VMAT and SEQ-VMAT plans had physical coverage of the CTV tumours with more than 95% of the prescribed dose delivered to more than 95% of the volume. The irradiation of the tumour for both SIB-VMAT and SEQ-VMAT has comparable EQD2 values close to 87-88 Gy. SIB-VMAT treatment plans provided lower levels of irradiation of OARs than SEQ-VMAT plans. The optimal number of fractions for SIB-VMAT was 27. Conclusion SIB-VMAT is a better treatment option for patients with LACC that are not eligible for BT. Results show that both SIB-VMAT and SEQ-VMAT allowed good coverage of the tumour and high-quality dose delivery. SIB-VMAT allowed minimising irradiation of OARs and shortening the overall treatment time by a week.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E S Sukhikh
- Tomsk Regional Oncology Centre, 115, Lenin avenue, Tomsk 634050, Russia; Tomsk Polytechnic University, 30, Lenin avenue, Tomsk 634050, Russia.
| | - L G Sukhikh
- Tomsk Polytechnic University, 30, Lenin avenue, Tomsk 634050, Russia
| | - P A Lushnikova
- Tomsk Regional Oncology Centre, 115, Lenin avenue, Tomsk 634050, Russia
| | - M A Tatarchenko
- Tomsk Regional Oncology Centre, 115, Lenin avenue, Tomsk 634050, Russia; Tomsk Polytechnic University, 30, Lenin avenue, Tomsk 634050, Russia
| | | |
Collapse
|
20
|
Paetkau O, Gagne IM, Alexander A. SpaceOAR© hydrogel rectal dose reduction prediction model: a decision support tool. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2020; 21:15-25. [PMID: 32250042 PMCID: PMC7324696 DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12860] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/19/2019] [Revised: 02/10/2020] [Accepted: 03/04/2020] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Prostate cancer external beam radiation therapy can result in toxicity due to organ at risk (OAR) dose, potentially impairing quality of life. A polyethylene glycol-based spacer, SpaceOAR© hydrogel (SOH), implanted between prostate gland and rectum may significantly reduce dose received by the rectum and hence risk of rectal toxicity. SOH implant is not equally effective in all patients. Determining patients in which the implant will offer most benefit, in terms of rectal dose reduction, allows for effective management of SOH resources. Several factors have been shown to be correlated with reduction in rectal dose including distance between rectum and planning treatment volume (PTV), volume of rectum in the PTV, and change in rectum volume pre- to post-SOH. Several of these factors along with other pre-SOH CT metrics were able to predict reduction in rectal dose associated with SOH implant. Rectal V55Gy metric, was selected as the dose level of interest in the context of 60 Gy in 20 fraction treatment plans. Models were produced to predict change in RV55Gy and pre-SOH hydrogel RV55Gy. These models offered R-squared between 0.81 and 0.88 with statistical significance in each model. Applying an ω 1 = 3% lower limit of pre-SOH RV55 Gy and an ω 2 = 3.5% lower limit on change in RV55 Gy, retained 60% of patients experiencing the largest rectal dose reduction from the hydrogel. This may offer a clinically useful tool in deciding which patients should receive SOH implant given limited resources. Predictive models, nomograms, and a workflow diagram were produced for clinical management of SOH implant.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Owen Paetkau
- Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
| | - Isabelle M Gagne
- Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada.,Department of Medical Physics, BC Cancer - Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
| | - Abraham Alexander
- Department of Radiation Oncology, BC Cancer - Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada.,Department of Surgery, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Her EJ, Haworth A, Rowshanfarzad P, Ebert MA. Progress towards Patient-Specific, Spatially-Continuous Radiobiological Dose Prescription and Planning in Prostate Cancer IMRT: An Overview. Cancers (Basel) 2020; 12:E854. [PMID: 32244821 PMCID: PMC7226478 DOI: 10.3390/cancers12040854] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/09/2020] [Revised: 03/12/2020] [Accepted: 03/27/2020] [Indexed: 01/30/2023] Open
Abstract
Advances in imaging have enabled the identification of prostate cancer foci with an initial application to focal dose escalation, with subvolumes created with image intensity thresholds. Through quantitative imaging techniques, correlations between image parameters and tumour characteristics have been identified. Mathematical functions are typically used to relate image parameters to prescription dose to improve the clinical relevance of the resulting dose distribution. However, these relationships have remained speculative or invalidated. In contrast, the use of radiobiological models during treatment planning optimisation, termed biological optimisation, has the advantage of directly considering the biological effect of the resulting dose distribution. This has led to an increased interest in the accurate derivation of radiobiological parameters from quantitative imaging to inform the models. This article reviews the progress in treatment planning using image-informed tumour biology, from focal dose escalation to the current trend of individualised biological treatment planning using image-derived radiobiological parameters, with the focus on prostate intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emily Jungmin Her
- Department of Physics, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia
| | - Annette Haworth
- Institute of Medical Physics, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2050, Australia
| | - Pejman Rowshanfarzad
- Department of Physics, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia
| | - Martin A. Ebert
- Department of Physics, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, WA 6009, Australia
- 5D Clinics, Claremont, WA 6010, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Isfahanian N, Lukka H, Dayes I, Quan K, Schnarr KL, Douvi G, Goldberg M, Wright J, Swaminath A, Chow T, Diamond K, Cutz JC, Kavsak P, Thabane L, Tsakiridis T. A Randomized Phase II Trial of Prostate Boost Irradiation With Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) or Conventional Fractionation (CF) External Beam Radiotherapy (EBRT) in Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer: The PBS Trial (NCT03380806). Clin Genitourin Cancer 2020; 18:e410-e415. [PMID: 32265129 DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2019.12.020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/22/2019] [Revised: 12/25/2019] [Accepted: 12/26/2019] [Indexed: 01/24/2023]
Abstract
Standard therapy for high-risk (HR) prostate cancer (PrCa) involves androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and pelvic conventional fractionation (CF) external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) followed by boost CF-EBRT treatment to prostate for a total of 78 to 80 Gy in 39 to 40 fractions. This is a long and inconvenient treatment for patients. Brachytherapy boost treatment studies indicate that escalation of biological dose of radiotherapy (RT) can improve outcomes in HR-PrCa. However, brachytherapy is an invasive treatment associated with increased toxicity and requires specialized resources. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is a promising, non-invasive alternative to brachytherapy. However, its impact on patient quality of life (QoL) and RT-associated toxicity has not been investigated in a randomized setting. In this study, we investigate SBRT as a boost treatment, following pelvic CF-EBRT, in patients with HR-PrCa treated with ADT. One hundred patients with locally advanced PrCa will be randomized to receive daily CF-EBRT of 45 to 46 Gy in 23 to 25 fractions followed by either daily CF-EBRT of 32 to 33 Gy in 15 to 16 fractions (control arm) or SBRT boost treatment of 19.5 to 21 Gy in 3 fractions (1 fraction per week) (experimental arm). The primary objective of the PBS trial is early bowel and urinary QoL (expanded prostate index composite [EPIC], up to 6 months after RT). This phase II randomized study (PBS) provides an appropriate setting to investigate effectively the impact of SBRT boost on QoL and toxicity in patients with HR-PrCa, before this modality can be compared against the current standard of care in larger phase III protocols.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Naghmeh Isfahanian
- Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, Juravinski Cancer Center, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Department of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Himanshu Lukka
- Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, Juravinski Cancer Center, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Department of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Ian Dayes
- Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, Juravinski Cancer Center, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Department of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Kimmen Quan
- Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, Juravinski Cancer Center, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Department of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Kara Lynne Schnarr
- Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, Juravinski Cancer Center, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Department of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Georgia Douvi
- Department of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Mira Goldberg
- Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, Juravinski Cancer Center, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Jim Wright
- Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, Juravinski Cancer Center, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Department of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Anand Swaminath
- Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, Juravinski Cancer Center, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Department of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Tom Chow
- Medical Physics, Department of Oncology, Juravinski Cancer Center, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Kevin Diamond
- Medical Physics, Department of Oncology, Juravinski Cancer Center, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Jean Claude Cutz
- Departments of Oncology, Pathology and Molecular Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Peter Kavsak
- Departments of Oncology, Pathology and Molecular Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Lehana Thabane
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Biostatistics Unit, St Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Theodoros Tsakiridis
- Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, Juravinski Cancer Center, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Department of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Departments of Oncology, Pathology and Molecular Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Ozkan EE, Ozseven A, Cerkesli ZAK. Evaluating the predictive value of quantec rectum tolerance dose suggestions on acute rectal toxicity in prostate carcinoma patients treated with IMRT. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2019; 25:50-54. [PMID: 31889921 DOI: 10.1016/j.rpor.2019.12.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/02/2019] [Revised: 09/23/2019] [Accepted: 12/04/2019] [Indexed: 12/01/2022] Open
Abstract
Aim To investigate the predictive value of convenience of rectum dosimetry with Quantitative Analysis of Normal Tissue Effects in the Clinic (QUANTEC) dose limits, maximum rectum dose (Dmax), total rectal volume (TVrectum), rectal volume included in PTV (VrectumPTV) on Grade 2-3 acute rectal toxicity for utilization in clinical practice. Background Numerous previous data have reported frequent acute proctitis after external-beam RT of prostate cancer. Predicting toxicity limited with dose information is inadequate in clinical practice due to comorbidities and medications used. Materials and Method Sixty-four non-metastatic prostate cancer patients treated with IMRT were enrolled. Patients were treated to a total dose of 70-76 Gy. Rectal dose volume histograms (DVH) of all patients were evaluated retrospectively, and a QUANTEC Score between 0 and 5 was calculated for each patient. The correlation between the rectal DVH data, QUANTEC score, TVrectum, VrectumPTV, rectum Dmax and Grade 2-3 rectal toxicity was investigated. Results In the whole group grade 1, 2 and 3 acute rectal toxicities were 25%, 18.8% and 3.1%, respectively. In the DVH data, rectum doses of all patients were under RTOG dose limits. Statistically significant correlation was found between grade 2-3 rectal toxicity and TVrectum (p = 0,043); however. It was not correlated with QUANTEC score, VrectumPTV and Dmax. Conclusion Our results were not able to show any significant correlation between increasing convenience with QUANTEC limits and lower rectal toxicity. Conclusively, new dosimetric definitions are warranted to predict acute rectal toxicity more accurately in prostate cancer patients during IMRT treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E Elif Ozkan
- Suleyman Demirel University, Department of Radiation Oncology, Isparta, Turkey
| | - Alper Ozseven
- Suleyman Demirel University, Department of Radiation Oncology, Isparta, Turkey
| | | |
Collapse
|
24
|
Casares-Magaz O, Bülow S, Pettersson NJ, Moiseenko V, Pedersen J, Thor M, Einck J, Hopper A, Knopp R, Muren LP. High accumulated doses to the inferior rectum are associated with late gastro-intestinal toxicity in a case-control study of prostate cancer patients treated with radiotherapy. Acta Oncol 2019; 58:1543-1546. [PMID: 31364905 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2019.1632476] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Affiliation(s)
| | - Steffen Bülow
- Department of Medical Physics, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Niclas J. Pettersson
- Department of Medical Physics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Vitali Moiseenko
- Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
| | - Jesper Pedersen
- Department of Medical Physics, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Maria Thor
- Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, NY, USA
| | - John Einck
- Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
| | - Austin Hopper
- Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
| | - Rick Knopp
- Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
| | - Ludvig Paul Muren
- Department of Medical Physics, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Kainuma T, Kawakami S, Tsumura H, Satoh T, Tabata KI, Iwamura M, Hayakawa K, Ishiyama H. A phase I dose-escalation trial of stereotactic body radiotherapy using 4 fractions for patients with localized prostate cancer. Radiat Oncol 2019; 14:158. [PMID: 31477122 PMCID: PMC6720398 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-019-1369-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/28/2019] [Accepted: 08/22/2019] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To report results from our phase I dose-escalation study of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) using 4 fractions for patients with localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS & METHODS Fraction sizes of 8 Gy, 8.5 Gy, and 9 Gy were defined as levels 1, 2, and 3. The prescribed dose was delivered to at least 95% of the planning target volume. Image-guided, intensity-modulated radiotherapy was delivered to all patients. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was defined as acute toxicity of Grade 3 or higher. The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was defined as the level at which ≥30% of patients showed DLT. The recommended dose (RD) was defined to be one dose level below the MTD. If no patients at level 3 showed DLT, level 3 was defined as the recommended dose (RD). RESULTS Nine patients were enrolled in each level. All patients were low or intermediate risk. Median durations of follow-up for patients at levels 1-3 were 48.9 months, 42.6 months, and 18.4 months, respectively. Protocol treatment was completed for all patients. No patient showed DLT at each dose level. Level 3 was therefore designated as the RD for the phase II study. Although most toxicities were Grade 1, genitourinary toxicity was common compared to gastrointestinal toxicity. Three-year biochemical control rate was 90.3%. CONCLUSION The dose level of 36 Gy in 4 fractions with a 2-day break was tolerable and highly encouraging for SBRT of localized prostate cancer. The phase II trial to confirm the efficacy and toxicity of this treatment is now on going. TRIAL REGISTRATION UMIN, UMIN000010236 . Registered 13 March 2013.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Takuro Kainuma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kitasato University School of Medicine, 1-15-1 Kitasato, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, Japan
| | - Shogo Kawakami
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kitasato University School of Medicine, 1-15-1 Kitasato, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, Japan
| | - Hideyasu Tsumura
- Department of Urology, Kitasato University School of Medicine, 1-15-1 Kitasato, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, Japan
| | - Takefumi Satoh
- Department of Urology, Kitasato University School of Medicine, 1-15-1 Kitasato, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, Japan
| | - Ken-Ichi Tabata
- Department of Urology, Kitasato University School of Medicine, 1-15-1 Kitasato, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, Japan
| | - Masatsugu Iwamura
- Department of Urology, Kitasato University School of Medicine, 1-15-1 Kitasato, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, Japan
| | - Kazushige Hayakawa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kitasato University School of Medicine, 1-15-1 Kitasato, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, Japan
| | - Hiromichi Ishiyama
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kitasato University School of Medicine, 1-15-1 Kitasato, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, Japan.
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Widmark A, Gunnlaugsson A, Beckman L, Thellenberg-Karlsson C, Hoyer M, Lagerlund M, Kindblom J, Ginman C, Johansson B, Björnlinger K, Seke M, Agrup M, Fransson P, Tavelin B, Norman D, Zackrisson B, Anderson H, Kjellén E, Franzén L, Nilsson P. Ultra-hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the HYPO-RT-PC randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2019; 394:385-395. [PMID: 31227373 DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(19)31131-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 496] [Impact Index Per Article: 99.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/28/2019] [Revised: 04/24/2019] [Accepted: 04/25/2019] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer has gained increased attention due to its proposed high radiation-fraction sensitivity. Recent reports from studies comparing moderately hypofractionated and conventionally fractionated radiotherapy support the clinical use of moderate hypofractionation. To date, there are no published randomised studies on ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy. Here, we report the outcomes of the Scandinavian HYPO-RT-PC phase 3 trial with the aim to show non-inferiority of ultra-hypofractionation compared with conventional fractionation. METHODS In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 non-inferiority trial done in 12 centres in Sweden and Denmark, we recruited men up to 75 years of age with intermediate-to-high-risk prostate cancer and a WHO performance status between 0 and 2. Patients were randomly assigned to ultra-hypofractionation (42·7 Gy in seven fractions, 3 days per week for 2·5 weeks) or conventional fractionated radiotherapy (78·0 Gy in 39 fractions, 5 days per week for 8 weeks). No androgen deprivation therapy was allowed. The primary endpoint was time to biochemical or clinical failure, analysed in the per-protocol population. The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 4% at 5 years, corresponding to a critical hazard ratio (HR) limit of 1·338. Physician-recorded toxicity was measured according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) morbidity scale and patient-reported outcome measurements with the Prostate Cancer Symptom Scale (PCSS) questionnaire. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN45905321. FINDINGS Between July 1, 2005, and Nov 4, 2015, 1200 patients were randomly assigned to conventional fractionation (n=602) or ultra-hypofractionation (n=598), of whom 1180 (591 conventional fractionation and 589 ultra-hypofractionation) constituted the per-protocol population. 1054 (89%) participants were intermediate risk and 126 (11%) were high risk. Median follow-up time was 5·0 years (IQR 3·1-7·0). The estimated failure-free survival at 5 years was 84% (95% CI 80-87) in both treatment groups, with an adjusted HR of 1·002 (95% CI 0·758-1·325; log-rank p=0·99). There was weak evidence of an increased frequency of acute physician-reported RTOG grade 2 or worse urinary toxicity in the ultra-hypofractionation group at end of radiotherapy (158 [28%] of 569 patients vs 132 [23%] of 578 patients; p=0·057). There were no significant differences in grade 2 or worse urinary or bowel late toxicity between the two treatment groups at any point after radiotherapy, except for an increase in urinary toxicity in the ultra-hypofractionation group compared to the conventional fractionation group at 1-year follow-up (32 [6%] of 528 patients vs 13 [2%] of 529 patients; (p=0·0037). We observed no differences between groups in frequencies at 5 years of RTOG grade 2 or worse urinary toxicity (11 [5%] of 243 patients for the ultra-hypofractionation group vs 12 [5%] of 249 for the conventional fractionation group; p=1·00) and bowel toxicity (three [1%] of 244 patients vs nine [4%] of 249 patients; p=0·14). Patient-reported outcomes revealed significantly higher levels of acute urinary and bowel symptoms in the ultra-hypofractionation group compared with the conventional fractionation group but no significant increases in late symptoms were found, except for increased urinary symptoms at 1-year follow-up, consistent with the physician-evaluated toxicity. INTERPRETATION Ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy is non-inferior to conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for intermediate-to-high risk prostate cancer regarding failure-free survival. Early side-effects are more pronounced with ultra-hypofractionation compared with conventional fractionation whereas late toxicity is similar in both treatment groups. The results support the use of ultra-hypofractionation for radiotherapy of prostate cancer. FUNDING The Nordic Cancer Union, the Swedish Cancer Society, and the Swedish Research Council.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anders Widmark
- Department of Radiation Sciences, Oncology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
| | - Adalsteinn Gunnlaugsson
- Department of Hematology, Oncology and Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| | - Lars Beckman
- Department of Oncology, Sundsvall Hospital, Sundsvall, Sweden
| | | | - Morten Hoyer
- Department of Oncology and Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | | | - Jon Kindblom
- Department of Oncology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Claes Ginman
- Department of Oncology, Karlstad Central Hospital, Karlstad, Sweden
| | - Bengt Johansson
- Department of Oncology, Örebro University Hospital, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden
| | | | - Mihajl Seke
- Department of Oncology, Centrallasarettet, Växjö, Sweden
| | - Måns Agrup
- Department of Oncology, Linköping University Hospital, Linköping, Sweden
| | - Per Fransson
- Department of Nursing, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
| | - Björn Tavelin
- Department of Radiation Sciences, Oncology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
| | - David Norman
- Department of Radiation Sciences, Oncology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
| | - Björn Zackrisson
- Department of Radiation Sciences, Oncology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
| | - Harald Anderson
- Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Cancer Epidemiology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| | - Elisabeth Kjellén
- Department of Hematology, Oncology and Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| | - Lars Franzén
- Department of Radiation Sciences, Oncology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
| | - Per Nilsson
- Department of Hematology, Oncology and Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Kubo N, Kawamura H, Oike T, Sato H, Iwanaga M, Mizukami T, Adachi A, Matsui H, Ito K, Suzuki K, Nakano T. Hypofractionated Intensity-modulated Radiotherapy for Intermediate- and High-risk Prostate Cancer: A Retrospective Study. In Vivo 2019; 33:1235-1241. [PMID: 31280214 DOI: 10.21873/invivo.11595] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/03/2019] [Revised: 05/29/2019] [Accepted: 05/31/2019] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Seventy-five consecutive patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer treated with IMRT (63 Gy/21 fractions/7 weeks) between 2010 and 2013 were retrospectively analyzed. PSA relapse and adverse events were determined based on the Phoenix criteria and the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0, respectively. RESULTS The 5-year PSA relapse-free rate, clinical relapse-free rate, and overall survival rate for all patients was 92.1%, 95.1%, and 92.9%, respectively. The incidence of late grade 2 gastrointestinal- and genitourinary-toxicity at 5 years was 1.3% and 17.1%, respectively. No grade 3 or greater toxicities were observed. CONCLUSION These data indicate that hypofractionated IMRT (63 Gy in a total of 21 fractions with 3 fractions per week) is effective and safe for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nobuteru Kubo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Gunma, Japan
| | - Hidemasa Kawamura
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Gunma, Japan
| | - Takahiro Oike
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Gunma, Japan
| | - Hiro Sato
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Gunma, Japan
| | - Mototaro Iwanaga
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Gunma, Japan
| | - Tatsuji Mizukami
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Gunma, Japan
| | - Akiko Adachi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Gunma, Japan
| | - Hiroshi Matsui
- Department of Urology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Gunma, Japan
| | - Kazuto Ito
- Institute for Preventive Medicine, Kurosawa Hospital, Gunma, Japan
| | - Kazuhiro Suzuki
- Department of Urology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Gunma, Japan
| | - Takashi Nakano
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Gunma, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Marteinsdottir M, Paganetti H. Applying a variable relative biological effectiveness (RBE) might affect the analysis of clinical trials comparing photon and proton therapy for prostate cancer. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2019; 64:115027. [DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ab2144] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
|
29
|
Greco C, Vazirani AA, Pares O, Pimentel N, Louro V, Morales J, Nunes B, Vasconcelos AL, Antunes I, Kociolek J, Fuks Z. The evolving role of external beam radiotherapy in localized prostate cancer. Semin Oncol 2019; 46:246-253. [DOI: 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2019.08.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/28/2019] [Accepted: 08/07/2019] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
|
30
|
Sukhikh ES, Sukhikh LG, Taletsky AV, Vertinsky AV, Izhevsky PV, Sheino IN. Influence of SBRT fractionation on TCP and NTCP estimations for prostate cancer. Phys Med 2019; 62:41-46. [PMID: 31153397 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2019.04.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/24/2018] [Revised: 04/17/2019] [Accepted: 04/22/2019] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Stereotactic body radiation therapy is widely used for the hypofractionated treatment of prostate cancer. The range of total doses used in different clinical trials varies from 33.5 to 50 Gy delivered in 4 or 5 fractions. The choice of an optimal total dose value and fractionation regimen for a particular patient can be carried out using the integral radiobiological criteria, namely tumour control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP). In this study, we have investigated the dependence of simulated TCP/NTCP values on total dose in the range of 30-40 Gy delivered in 4 or 5 fractions for patients with low-risk prostate cancer in order to find the optimal total dose value and fractionation regimen. METHODS The anatomic data (DICOM CT images) of 12 patients with low-risk prostate cancer, who were treated at Tomsk Regional Oncology Centre, were used for the calculation. Dosimetric treatment plans for all patients were simulated using VMAT with 2 arcs in the Monaco treatment planning system v5.10 (Elekta Instrument AB, Stockholm) with a total dose equal to 36.25 Gy. The dosimetric plans were rescaled in the dose range of 30-40 Gy. The TCP and NTCP values were calculated based on differential dose volume histograms using the Niemierko model for both TCP and NTCP, and the Källman-s model for NTCP calculations. The TCP calculation was carried out using the uncertainty of well-known tumour radiobiological parameters values, including α/β value. NTCP was calculated for an anterior rectal wall, which was the most irradiated organ at risk due to its close contact with the planning target volume. RESULTS The TCP and NTCP calculations for VMAT of the prostate cancer have shown that the optimal total dose ranges were equal to 32-34 Gy delivered in 4 fractions or 35-38 Gy delivered in 5 fractions. At doses lower than the optimal ones, the TCP values were lower than 95%, while TCP uncertainties were significant (as low as 80%). This fact might bring unexpectedly poor treatment results. At doses higher than optimal ones, the probability of toxicity to the anterior rectal wall became significant. CONCLUSION The optimization of radiation therapy regimen based on TCP/NTCP criteria could help to determine an optimal total dose and a number of fractions for a particular patient depending on patient-specific anatomic features and planned dose distribution.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E S Sukhikh
- Tomsk Regional Oncology Centre, 115, Lenin Avenue, Tomsk 634050, Russia; Tomsk Polytechnic University, 30, Lenin Avenue, Tomsk 634050, Russia.
| | - L G Sukhikh
- Tomsk Polytechnic University, 30, Lenin Avenue, Tomsk 634050, Russia
| | - A V Taletsky
- Tomsk Regional Oncology Centre, 115, Lenin Avenue, Tomsk 634050, Russia
| | - A V Vertinsky
- Tomsk Regional Oncology Centre, 115, Lenin Avenue, Tomsk 634050, Russia
| | - P V Izhevsky
- Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Centre, 46, Zhivopisnaya street, Moscow 123182, Russia
| | - I N Sheino
- Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Centre, 46, Zhivopisnaya street, Moscow 123182, Russia
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Radiobiological dose calculation parameters for cervix cancer brachytherapy: A systematic review. Brachytherapy 2019; 18:546-558. [PMID: 30956052 DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2019.02.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/20/2018] [Revised: 02/22/2019] [Accepted: 02/28/2019] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
The GEC-ESTRO recommendation in cervical cancer treatment planning, including external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy boosts, is to use radiobiological dose calculations. Such calculations utilize the linear-quadratic model to estimate the effect of multiple cellular response factors and dose delivery parameters. The radiobiological parameters utilized in these calculations are literature values estimated based on clinical and experimental results. However, the impact of the uncertainties associated with these parameters is often not fully appreciated. This review includes a summary of the radiobiological dose calculation (for both high-dose-rate and pulsed-dose-rate brachytherapy boost treatments) for cervical cancer and a compilation of the reported values of the associated parameters. As discrepancies exist between conventionally recommended and published values, equivalencies between current brachytherapy boosts may be imprecise and could create underappreciated uncertainties in the radiobiological dose calculations. This review highlights these uncertainties by calculating the radiobiological dose delivered by the brachytherapy boost when assuming different radiobiological parameter values (within the range reported by previous research). Furthermore, conventional treatment planning does not consider the effects of proliferation of the tumor over the treatment time, which can significantly decrease its radiobiological dose and can introduce an additional variance of over 7 Gy10. Further investigation of uncertainties in parameter values and modifications of current dose models could improve the accuracy of radiobiological dose calculation.
Collapse
|
32
|
Takemoto S, Shibamoto Y, Sugie C, Manabe Y, Yanagi T, Iwata H, Murai T, Ishikura S. Long-term results of intensity-modulated radiotherapy with three dose-fractionation regimens for localized prostate cancer. JOURNAL OF RADIATION RESEARCH 2019; 60:221-227. [PMID: 30566649 PMCID: PMC6430249 DOI: 10.1093/jrr/rry089] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/04/2018] [Revised: 07/18/2018] [Indexed: 06/09/2023]
Abstract
We evaluated long-term outcomes of three protocols of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for localized prostate cancer. Between 2005 and 2014, 348 patients were treated with 5-field IMRT. The first 74 patients were treated with a daily fraction of 2.0 Gy to 74 Gy (low-risk prostate cancer) or 78 Gy (intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer); then 101 patients were treated with 2.1-Gy daily fractions to 73.5 or 77.7 Gy. More recently, 173 patients were treated with 2.2-Gy fractions to 72.6 or 74.8 Gy. The median age of all patients was 70 years and the median follow-up period was 82 months. The median follow-up periods were 124 months in the 2.0-Gy group, 98 months in the 2.1-Gy group, and 69 months in the 2.2-Gy group. The overall and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure-free survival (PSA-FFS) rates were, respectively, 89 and 68% at 10 years for the 2.0-Gy group, 91 and 84% at 8 years for the 2.1-Gy group, and 93 and 92% at 6 years for the 2.2-Gy group. The PSA-FFS rate for high-risk patients in all groups was 80% at 7 years. The cumulative incidences of Grade ≥2 late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity were, respectively, 7.2 and 12.4% at 10 years for the 2.0-Gy group, 7.4 and 14.1% at 8 years for the 2.1-Gy group, and 7.1 and 7.9% at 6 years for the 2.2-Gy group. All three fractionation schedules yielded good tumor control with acceptable toxicities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shinya Takemoto
- Department of Radiology, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, 1 Kawasumi, Mizuho-cho, Mizuho-ku, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan
- Department of Radiology, Fujieda Heisei Memorial Hospital, 123-1 Mizukami, Fujieda, Shizuoka, Japan
| | - Yuta Shibamoto
- Department of Radiology, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, 1 Kawasumi, Mizuho-cho, Mizuho-ku, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan
| | - Chikao Sugie
- Department of Radiology, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, 1 Kawasumi, Mizuho-cho, Mizuho-ku, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan
| | - Yoshihiko Manabe
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Nanbu Tokushukai Hospital, 171-1 Hokama, Yaese-cho, Shimajiri-gun, Okinawa, Japan
| | - Takeshi Yanagi
- Department of Radiology, Narita Memorial Hospital, 134 Haneihonmachi, Toyohashi, Aichi, Japan
| | - Hiromitsu Iwata
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Nagoya Proton Therapy Center, Nagoya City West Medical Center, 1–1-1 Hirate-cho, Kita-ku, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan
| | - Taro Murai
- Department of Radiology, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, 1 Kawasumi, Mizuho-cho, Mizuho-ku, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan
| | - Satoshi Ishikura
- Department of Radiology, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, 1 Kawasumi, Mizuho-cho, Mizuho-ku, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Takakusagi Y, Kawamura H, Okamoto M, Kaminuma T, Kubo N, Mizukami T, Sato H, Onishi M, Ohtake N, Sekihara T, Nakano T. Long-term outcome of hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy using TomoTherapy for localized prostate cancer: A retrospective study. PLoS One 2019; 14:e0211370. [PMID: 30807581 PMCID: PMC6391012 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211370] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/12/2018] [Accepted: 01/11/2019] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Recently, the clinical outcome of prostate cancer treated by hypofractionated radiation therapy has been reported. However, there are few reports from Japan. In Hidaka Hospital, hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy (HIMRT) for prostate cancer was initiated in 2007. The purpose of this study is to analyze the long-term outcome. METHODS Ninety-two patients with localized prostate cancer treated with HIMRT at Hidaka Hospital between 2007 and 2009 were retrospectively analyzed. HIMRT was delivered using TomoTherapy. The prescription dose was 66 Gy at 95% of the PTV in 22 fractions performed 3 days a week over 7 weeks in all patients. The overall survival rate, biochemical relapse-free rate, and acute and late toxicities were evaluated. RESULTS The median follow-up duration was 78 (range 14-100) months. The median age at the start of the HIMRT was 72 (range 46-84) years. The disease characteristics were as follows: stage T1c, 45; T2a, 20; T2b, 5; T2c, 1; T3a, 13; T3b, 6; T4, 2; Gleason score 6, 13; 7, 44; 8, 20; 9, 15; 10, 0; pretreatment PSA ≤10 ng/mL, 42; 10 to ≤20, 27; and >20, 23. According to the D'Amico classification system, 10, 37, and 45 patients were classified as low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk. The overall survival rate, the cause-specific survival rate, and the biochemical relapse-free rate at 5 years was 94.7%, 100% and 98.9%, respectively. Severe acute toxicity (grade 3 or more) was not observed. The late urinary toxicity was 52.2% in grade 0, 28.3% in grade 1, 19.6% in grade 2, and 2.2% in grade 3. The late rectal toxicity was 78.3% in grade 0, 7.6% in grade 1, 9.8% in grade 2, and 4.3% in grade 3. CONCLUSIONS The present study demonstrated that HIMRT using TomoTherapy for prostate cancer has a favorable outcome with tolerable toxicity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yosuke Takakusagi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Showa-machi, Maebashi, Gunma, Japan
- Oncology Center, Hidaka Hospital, Nakao-machi, Takasaki, Gunma, Japan
| | - Hidemasa Kawamura
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Showa-machi, Maebashi, Gunma, Japan
- Oncology Center, Hidaka Hospital, Nakao-machi, Takasaki, Gunma, Japan
- * E-mail:
| | - Masahiko Okamoto
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Showa-machi, Maebashi, Gunma, Japan
| | - Takuya Kaminuma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Showa-machi, Maebashi, Gunma, Japan
| | - Nobuteru Kubo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Showa-machi, Maebashi, Gunma, Japan
| | - Tatsuji Mizukami
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Showa-machi, Maebashi, Gunma, Japan
| | - Hiro Sato
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Showa-machi, Maebashi, Gunma, Japan
| | - Masahiro Onishi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Showa-machi, Maebashi, Gunma, Japan
| | - Nobuaki Ohtake
- Department of Urology, Hidaka Hospital, Nakao-machi, Takasaki, Gunma, Japan
| | - Tetsuo Sekihara
- Department of Urology, Hidaka Hospital, Nakao-machi, Takasaki, Gunma, Japan
| | - Takashi Nakano
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Showa-machi, Maebashi, Gunma, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Are We Now Able to Define Guidelines for Moderate Hypofractionation in Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019; 100:871-873. [PMID: 29485065 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.12.274] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/09/2017] [Revised: 12/01/2017] [Accepted: 12/19/2017] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- David J Brenner
- Center for Radiological Research, Department of Radiation Oncology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York.
| | - Eric J Hall
- Center for Radiological Research, Department of Radiation Oncology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Hypofractionated Versus Standard Fractionated Proton-beam Therapy for Low-risk Prostate Cancer: Interim Results of a Randomized Trial PCG GU 002. Am J Clin Oncol 2019; 41:115-120. [PMID: 26523442 DOI: 10.1097/coc.0000000000000241] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To identify differences in terms of quality of life, the American Urological Association Symptom Index (AUA), or adverse events (AEs) among patients with prostate cancer treated with either standard fractionation or hypofractionation proton-beam therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients were prospectively randomized to receive 38 Gy relative biological effectiveness (RBE) in 5 treatments (n=49) or 79.2 Gy RBE in 44 treatments (n=33). All patients had low-risk prostate cancer and were treated with proton therapy using fiducial markers and daily image guidance. RESULTS Median follow-up for both groups was 18 months; 33 patients had follow-up of 2 years or longer. Baseline median (range) AUA was 4.7 (0 to 13) for the 38 Gy RBE arm and 4.8 (0 to 17) for the 79.2 Gy RBE arm. We observed no difference between the groups regarding the Expanded Prostate Index Composite urinary, bowel, or sexual function scores at 3, 6, 12, 18, or 24 months after treatment. The only significant difference was the AUA score at 12 months (8 for the 38 Gy RBE arm vs. 5 for the 79.2 Gy RBE arm; P=0.04); AUA scores otherwise were similar between groups. No grade 3 or higher AEs occurred in either arm. CONCLUSIONS Patients treated with proton therapy in this randomized trial tolerated treatment well, with excellent quality-of-life scores, persistent low AUA, and no grade 3 or higher AEs on either arm. We showed no apparent clinical difference in outcomes with hypofractionated proton-beam therapy compared with standard fractionation on the basis of this interim analysis.
Collapse
|
36
|
Morgan SC, Rumble RB, Sandler H. Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: An ASTRO, ASCO, and AUA Evidence-Based Guideline Summary. J Oncol Pract 2019. [DOI: 10.1200/jop.18.00616] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Scott C. Morgan
- The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
37
|
SpaceOAR to improve dosimetric outcomes for monotherapy high-dose-rate prostate implantation in a patient with ulcerative colitis. J Contemp Brachytherapy 2018; 10:577-582. [PMID: 30662483 PMCID: PMC6335554 DOI: 10.5114/jcb.2018.81001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/08/2018] [Accepted: 11/28/2018] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
High-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy is an attractive option for patients receiving definitive radiation therapy for prostate cancer with decreased overall dose to the pelvis. However, ulcerative colitis increases rectal toxicity risk and may be a contraindication. A synthetic hydrogel, SpaceOAR (Augmentix Inc., Waltham, MA, USA), can facilitate the use of HDR brachytherapy for patients where rectal toxicity is a limiting factor. SpaceOAR gel (13.19 cc) was utilized in a monotherapy HDR prostate treatment with Ir-192 under transrectal ultrasound guidance, with the intention of decreasing rectal dose. SpaceOAR gel was inserted transperineally into the patient 18 days prior to the procedure. The HDR brachytherapy procedure was tolerated without incident. All planning constraints were met, and the following dosimetry was achieved: Prostate - V100% = 97.3%, V150% = 35%, V200% = 14.5%; Urethra - V118% = 0%; Rectum - D2 cc = 51.6%, V75% = 0 cc. The rectum-catheter spacing was on average between 6-8 mm. Average spacing for our 10 most recent patients without SpaceOAR was 3 mm. SpaceOAR did not hinder or distort ultrasound imaging or increase treatment time. SpaceOAR successfully increases catheter-rectal wall spacing and decreases rectal dose due to improved planning capabilities, while decreasing the likelihood of rectal perforation. One application of this tool is presented to mitigate potential toxicities associated with ulcerative colitis. At five months, one week, and one day follow-up, the patient reported no bowel issues following HDR brachytherapy.
Collapse
|
38
|
Morgan SC, Hoffman K, Loblaw DA, Buyyounouski MK, Patton C, Barocas D, Bentzen S, Chang M, Efstathiou J, Greany P, Halvorsen P, Koontz BF, Lawton C, Leyrer CM, Lin D, Ray M, Sandler H. Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: Executive Summary of an ASTRO, ASCO, and AUA Evidence-Based Guideline. Pract Radiat Oncol 2018; 8:354-360. [DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2018.08.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 111] [Impact Index Per Article: 18.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/24/2018] [Accepted: 08/01/2018] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
|
39
|
Morgan SC, Hoffman K, Loblaw DA, Buyyounouski MK, Patton C, Barocas D, Bentzen S, Chang M, Efstathiou J, Greany P, Halvorsen P, Koontz BF, Lawton C, Leyrer CM, Lin D, Ray M, Sandler H. Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: An ASTRO, ASCO, and AUA Evidence-Based Guideline. J Clin Oncol 2018; 36:JCO1801097. [PMID: 30307776 PMCID: PMC6269129 DOI: 10.1200/jco.18.01097] [Citation(s) in RCA: 106] [Impact Index Per Article: 17.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Scott C. Morgan
- Scott C. Morgan, The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa; D. Andrew Loblaw, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Karen Hoffman, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Mark K. Buyyounouski, Stanford University, Stanford; Palto Alto VA Health System, Palo Alto, CA; Caroline Patton, American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, VA; Daniel Barocas, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; Soren Bentzen, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Michael Chang, Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center and Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA; Jason Efstathiou, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston MA; Patrick Greany, Patient representative, Tallahassee, FL; Per Halvorsen, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA; Bridget F. Koontz, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Colleen Lawton, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; C. Marc Leyrer, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC; Daniel Lin, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Michael Ray, Radiology Associates of Appleton, ThedaCare Regional Cancer Center, Appleton, WI; and Howard Sandler, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Karen Hoffman
- Scott C. Morgan, The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa; D. Andrew Loblaw, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Karen Hoffman, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Mark K. Buyyounouski, Stanford University, Stanford; Palto Alto VA Health System, Palo Alto, CA; Caroline Patton, American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, VA; Daniel Barocas, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; Soren Bentzen, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Michael Chang, Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center and Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA; Jason Efstathiou, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston MA; Patrick Greany, Patient representative, Tallahassee, FL; Per Halvorsen, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA; Bridget F. Koontz, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Colleen Lawton, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; C. Marc Leyrer, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC; Daniel Lin, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Michael Ray, Radiology Associates of Appleton, ThedaCare Regional Cancer Center, Appleton, WI; and Howard Sandler, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | - D. Andrew Loblaw
- Scott C. Morgan, The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa; D. Andrew Loblaw, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Karen Hoffman, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Mark K. Buyyounouski, Stanford University, Stanford; Palto Alto VA Health System, Palo Alto, CA; Caroline Patton, American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, VA; Daniel Barocas, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; Soren Bentzen, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Michael Chang, Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center and Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA; Jason Efstathiou, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston MA; Patrick Greany, Patient representative, Tallahassee, FL; Per Halvorsen, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA; Bridget F. Koontz, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Colleen Lawton, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; C. Marc Leyrer, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC; Daniel Lin, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Michael Ray, Radiology Associates of Appleton, ThedaCare Regional Cancer Center, Appleton, WI; and Howard Sandler, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Mark K. Buyyounouski
- Scott C. Morgan, The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa; D. Andrew Loblaw, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Karen Hoffman, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Mark K. Buyyounouski, Stanford University, Stanford; Palto Alto VA Health System, Palo Alto, CA; Caroline Patton, American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, VA; Daniel Barocas, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; Soren Bentzen, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Michael Chang, Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center and Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA; Jason Efstathiou, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston MA; Patrick Greany, Patient representative, Tallahassee, FL; Per Halvorsen, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA; Bridget F. Koontz, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Colleen Lawton, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; C. Marc Leyrer, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC; Daniel Lin, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Michael Ray, Radiology Associates of Appleton, ThedaCare Regional Cancer Center, Appleton, WI; and Howard Sandler, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Caroline Patton
- Scott C. Morgan, The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa; D. Andrew Loblaw, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Karen Hoffman, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Mark K. Buyyounouski, Stanford University, Stanford; Palto Alto VA Health System, Palo Alto, CA; Caroline Patton, American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, VA; Daniel Barocas, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; Soren Bentzen, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Michael Chang, Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center and Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA; Jason Efstathiou, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston MA; Patrick Greany, Patient representative, Tallahassee, FL; Per Halvorsen, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA; Bridget F. Koontz, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Colleen Lawton, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; C. Marc Leyrer, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC; Daniel Lin, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Michael Ray, Radiology Associates of Appleton, ThedaCare Regional Cancer Center, Appleton, WI; and Howard Sandler, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Daniel Barocas
- Scott C. Morgan, The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa; D. Andrew Loblaw, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Karen Hoffman, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Mark K. Buyyounouski, Stanford University, Stanford; Palto Alto VA Health System, Palo Alto, CA; Caroline Patton, American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, VA; Daniel Barocas, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; Soren Bentzen, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Michael Chang, Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center and Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA; Jason Efstathiou, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston MA; Patrick Greany, Patient representative, Tallahassee, FL; Per Halvorsen, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA; Bridget F. Koontz, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Colleen Lawton, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; C. Marc Leyrer, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC; Daniel Lin, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Michael Ray, Radiology Associates of Appleton, ThedaCare Regional Cancer Center, Appleton, WI; and Howard Sandler, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Soren Bentzen
- Scott C. Morgan, The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa; D. Andrew Loblaw, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Karen Hoffman, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Mark K. Buyyounouski, Stanford University, Stanford; Palto Alto VA Health System, Palo Alto, CA; Caroline Patton, American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, VA; Daniel Barocas, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; Soren Bentzen, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Michael Chang, Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center and Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA; Jason Efstathiou, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston MA; Patrick Greany, Patient representative, Tallahassee, FL; Per Halvorsen, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA; Bridget F. Koontz, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Colleen Lawton, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; C. Marc Leyrer, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC; Daniel Lin, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Michael Ray, Radiology Associates of Appleton, ThedaCare Regional Cancer Center, Appleton, WI; and Howard Sandler, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Michael Chang
- Scott C. Morgan, The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa; D. Andrew Loblaw, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Karen Hoffman, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Mark K. Buyyounouski, Stanford University, Stanford; Palto Alto VA Health System, Palo Alto, CA; Caroline Patton, American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, VA; Daniel Barocas, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; Soren Bentzen, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Michael Chang, Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center and Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA; Jason Efstathiou, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston MA; Patrick Greany, Patient representative, Tallahassee, FL; Per Halvorsen, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA; Bridget F. Koontz, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Colleen Lawton, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; C. Marc Leyrer, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC; Daniel Lin, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Michael Ray, Radiology Associates of Appleton, ThedaCare Regional Cancer Center, Appleton, WI; and Howard Sandler, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Jason Efstathiou
- Scott C. Morgan, The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa; D. Andrew Loblaw, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Karen Hoffman, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Mark K. Buyyounouski, Stanford University, Stanford; Palto Alto VA Health System, Palo Alto, CA; Caroline Patton, American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, VA; Daniel Barocas, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; Soren Bentzen, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Michael Chang, Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center and Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA; Jason Efstathiou, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston MA; Patrick Greany, Patient representative, Tallahassee, FL; Per Halvorsen, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA; Bridget F. Koontz, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Colleen Lawton, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; C. Marc Leyrer, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC; Daniel Lin, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Michael Ray, Radiology Associates of Appleton, ThedaCare Regional Cancer Center, Appleton, WI; and Howard Sandler, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Patrick Greany
- Scott C. Morgan, The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa; D. Andrew Loblaw, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Karen Hoffman, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Mark K. Buyyounouski, Stanford University, Stanford; Palto Alto VA Health System, Palo Alto, CA; Caroline Patton, American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, VA; Daniel Barocas, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; Soren Bentzen, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Michael Chang, Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center and Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA; Jason Efstathiou, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston MA; Patrick Greany, Patient representative, Tallahassee, FL; Per Halvorsen, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA; Bridget F. Koontz, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Colleen Lawton, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; C. Marc Leyrer, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC; Daniel Lin, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Michael Ray, Radiology Associates of Appleton, ThedaCare Regional Cancer Center, Appleton, WI; and Howard Sandler, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Per Halvorsen
- Scott C. Morgan, The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa; D. Andrew Loblaw, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Karen Hoffman, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Mark K. Buyyounouski, Stanford University, Stanford; Palto Alto VA Health System, Palo Alto, CA; Caroline Patton, American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, VA; Daniel Barocas, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; Soren Bentzen, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Michael Chang, Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center and Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA; Jason Efstathiou, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston MA; Patrick Greany, Patient representative, Tallahassee, FL; Per Halvorsen, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA; Bridget F. Koontz, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Colleen Lawton, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; C. Marc Leyrer, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC; Daniel Lin, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Michael Ray, Radiology Associates of Appleton, ThedaCare Regional Cancer Center, Appleton, WI; and Howard Sandler, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Bridget F. Koontz
- Scott C. Morgan, The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa; D. Andrew Loblaw, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Karen Hoffman, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Mark K. Buyyounouski, Stanford University, Stanford; Palto Alto VA Health System, Palo Alto, CA; Caroline Patton, American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, VA; Daniel Barocas, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; Soren Bentzen, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Michael Chang, Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center and Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA; Jason Efstathiou, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston MA; Patrick Greany, Patient representative, Tallahassee, FL; Per Halvorsen, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA; Bridget F. Koontz, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Colleen Lawton, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; C. Marc Leyrer, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC; Daniel Lin, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Michael Ray, Radiology Associates of Appleton, ThedaCare Regional Cancer Center, Appleton, WI; and Howard Sandler, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Colleen Lawton
- Scott C. Morgan, The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa; D. Andrew Loblaw, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Karen Hoffman, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Mark K. Buyyounouski, Stanford University, Stanford; Palto Alto VA Health System, Palo Alto, CA; Caroline Patton, American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, VA; Daniel Barocas, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; Soren Bentzen, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Michael Chang, Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center and Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA; Jason Efstathiou, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston MA; Patrick Greany, Patient representative, Tallahassee, FL; Per Halvorsen, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA; Bridget F. Koontz, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Colleen Lawton, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; C. Marc Leyrer, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC; Daniel Lin, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Michael Ray, Radiology Associates of Appleton, ThedaCare Regional Cancer Center, Appleton, WI; and Howard Sandler, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | - C. Marc Leyrer
- Scott C. Morgan, The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa; D. Andrew Loblaw, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Karen Hoffman, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Mark K. Buyyounouski, Stanford University, Stanford; Palto Alto VA Health System, Palo Alto, CA; Caroline Patton, American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, VA; Daniel Barocas, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; Soren Bentzen, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Michael Chang, Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center and Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA; Jason Efstathiou, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston MA; Patrick Greany, Patient representative, Tallahassee, FL; Per Halvorsen, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA; Bridget F. Koontz, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Colleen Lawton, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; C. Marc Leyrer, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC; Daniel Lin, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Michael Ray, Radiology Associates of Appleton, ThedaCare Regional Cancer Center, Appleton, WI; and Howard Sandler, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Daniel Lin
- Scott C. Morgan, The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa; D. Andrew Loblaw, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Karen Hoffman, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Mark K. Buyyounouski, Stanford University, Stanford; Palto Alto VA Health System, Palo Alto, CA; Caroline Patton, American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, VA; Daniel Barocas, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; Soren Bentzen, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Michael Chang, Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center and Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA; Jason Efstathiou, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston MA; Patrick Greany, Patient representative, Tallahassee, FL; Per Halvorsen, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA; Bridget F. Koontz, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Colleen Lawton, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; C. Marc Leyrer, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC; Daniel Lin, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Michael Ray, Radiology Associates of Appleton, ThedaCare Regional Cancer Center, Appleton, WI; and Howard Sandler, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Michael Ray
- Scott C. Morgan, The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa; D. Andrew Loblaw, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Karen Hoffman, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Mark K. Buyyounouski, Stanford University, Stanford; Palto Alto VA Health System, Palo Alto, CA; Caroline Patton, American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, VA; Daniel Barocas, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; Soren Bentzen, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Michael Chang, Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center and Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA; Jason Efstathiou, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston MA; Patrick Greany, Patient representative, Tallahassee, FL; Per Halvorsen, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA; Bridget F. Koontz, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Colleen Lawton, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; C. Marc Leyrer, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC; Daniel Lin, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Michael Ray, Radiology Associates of Appleton, ThedaCare Regional Cancer Center, Appleton, WI; and Howard Sandler, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Howard Sandler
- Scott C. Morgan, The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa; D. Andrew Loblaw, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Karen Hoffman, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Mark K. Buyyounouski, Stanford University, Stanford; Palto Alto VA Health System, Palo Alto, CA; Caroline Patton, American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, VA; Daniel Barocas, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; Soren Bentzen, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Michael Chang, Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center and Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA; Jason Efstathiou, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston MA; Patrick Greany, Patient representative, Tallahassee, FL; Per Halvorsen, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA; Bridget F. Koontz, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Colleen Lawton, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; C. Marc Leyrer, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC; Daniel Lin, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Michael Ray, Radiology Associates of Appleton, ThedaCare Regional Cancer Center, Appleton, WI; and Howard Sandler, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Initial toxicity, quality-of-life outcomes, and dosimetric impact in a randomized phase 3 trial of hypofractionated versus standard fractionated proton therapy for low-risk prostate cancer. Adv Radiat Oncol 2018; 3:322-330. [PMID: 30202801 PMCID: PMC6128091 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2018.02.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/01/2017] [Revised: 02/09/2018] [Accepted: 02/13/2018] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose Randomized evidence for extreme hypofractionation in prostate cancer is lacking. We aimed to identify differences in toxicity and quality-of-life outcomes between standard fractionation and extreme hypofractionated radiation in a phase 3 randomized trial. Methods and materials We analyzed the results of the first 75 patients in our phase 3 trial, comparing 38 Gy relative biologic effectiveness (RBE) in 5 fractions (n = 46) versus 79.2 Gy RBE in 44 fractions (n = 29). Patients received proton radiation using fiducials and daily image guidance. We evaluated American Urological Association Symptom Index (AUASI), adverse events (AEs), and Expanded Prostate Index Composite (EPIC) domains. The primary endpoint of this interim analysis was the cumulative incidence of grade 2 (G2) or higher AEs. The randomized patient allocation scheme was a 2:1 ratio favoring the 38 Gy RBE arm. Results The median follow-up was 36 months; 30% of patients reached 48-month follow-up. AUASI scores differed <5 points (4.4 vs 8.6; P = .002) at 1 year, favoring the 79.2 Gy arm. Differences in AUASI were not significant at ≥18 months. EPIC urinary symptoms favored the 79.2 Gy arm at 1 year (92.3 vs 84.5; P = .009) and 18 months (92.3 vs 85.3; P = .03); bother scores were not significant at other time points. Cumulative ≥G2 genitourinary toxicity was similar between the 79.2 Gy and 38 Gy arms (34.5% vs 30.4%; P = .80). We found no differences in the EPIC domains of bowel symptoms, sexual symptoms, or bowel ≥G2 toxicities. Bladder V80 (79.2 Gy arm; P = .04) and V39 (38 Gy arm; P = .05) were predictive for cumulative G2 genitourinary AEs. Conclusions Low AE rates were seen in both study arms. Early temporary differences in genitourinary scores disappeared over time. Bladder constraints were associated with genitourinary AEs.
Collapse
|
41
|
Musunuru HB, D'Alimonte L, Davidson M, Ho L, Cheung P, Vesprini D, Liu S, Chu W, Chung H, Ravi A, Deabreu A, Zhang L, Commisso K, Loblaw A. Phase 1-2 Study of Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy Including Regional Lymph Node Irradiation in Patients With High-Risk Prostate Cancer (SATURN): Early Toxicity and Quality of Life. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2018; 102:1438-1447. [PMID: 30071295 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.07.2005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 40] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/03/2018] [Revised: 07/02/2018] [Accepted: 07/22/2018] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Five-fraction stereotactic ablative radiation therapy appears to be gaining popularity in treatment of prostate cancer, but it has not been extensively tested in the context of pelvic radiation. The objective of this prospective prostate and pelvic SABR study is to report the acute toxicity, late toxicity, and quality of life (QoL) after study completion. METHODS AND MATERIALS A phase 1/2 study was conducted for patients with high-risk prostate cancer. Radiation therapy was planned to deliver 25 Gy to pelvis and seminal vesicles (SV) and a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) of up to 40 Gy to the prostate in 5 fractions, weekly, over 29 days. Androgen deprivation therapy was used for 12 to 18 months. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0 was used to assess worst acute and late toxicities. QoL data was captured using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite questionnaire (EPIC). RESULTS Thirty patients completed the planned treatment with a median follow-up of 25.7 months (range, 18.5-30.7 months). The following "worst" acute and late toxicities were observed: grade 2 genitourinary toxicity, 46.7% and 52%, respectively; grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicity, 3.3% and 32%, respectively. No grade 3 or higher toxicities were noted. Mean (95% confidence interval) EPIC urinary QoL scores were 86.6 (81.9-91.3), 87.1 (81.4-92.6), and 87.9 (80.1-95.7) at baseline, 3 months and 24 months; bowel scores were 94.1 (91.3-97.0), 93.2 (89.1-97.2), and 92.4 (87.7- 97.1), respectively. CONCLUSIONS This gantry-based novel fractionation schedule incorporating pelvic radiation for high-risk prostate cancer in combination with androgen deprivation therapy is feasible and well tolerated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Laura D'Alimonte
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Melanie Davidson
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Ling Ho
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Patrick Cheung
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Daniel Vesprini
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Stanley Liu
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - William Chu
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Hans Chung
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Ananth Ravi
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Andrea Deabreu
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Liying Zhang
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Kristina Commisso
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Andrew Loblaw
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Health Policy, Measurement and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Tornero-López AM, Guirado D. Radiobiological considerations in combining doses from external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy for cervical cancer. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2018; 23:562-573. [PMID: 30534020 DOI: 10.1016/j.rpor.2018.05.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/09/2017] [Revised: 03/27/2018] [Accepted: 05/25/2018] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
The recommended radio-therapeutic treatment for cervix cancer consists of a first phase of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) plus a second phase of brachytherapy (BT), the combined treatment being delivered within 8 weeks. In order to assess a comprehensive dosimetry of the whole treatment, it is necessary to take into account that these two phases are characterized by different spatial and temporal dosimetric distributions, which complicates the task of the summation of the two contributions, EBRT and BT. Radiobiology allows to tackle this issue pragmatically by means of the LQ model and, in fact, this is the usual tool currently in use for this matter. In this work, we describe the rationale behind the summation of the dosimetric contributions of the two phases of the treatment, EBRT and BT, for cervix cancer, as carried out with the LQ model. Besides, we address, from a radiobiological point of view, several important considerations regarding the use of the LQ model for this task. One of them is the analysis of the effect of the overall treatment time in the result of the global treatment. Another important question considered is related to the fact that the capacity of LQ to predict the treatment outcomes is deteriorated when the dose per fraction of the radiotherapic scheme exceeds 6-10 Gy, which is a typical brachytherapy fractionation. Finally, we analyze the influence of the uncertainty and the variability of the main parameters utilized in the LQ model formulation in the assessment of the global dosimetry.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ana M Tornero-López
- Servicio de Radiofísica y Protección Radiológica, Hospital Universitario de Gran Canaria Dr. Negrín, E-35010 Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain
| | - Damián Guirado
- Unidad de Radiofísica, Hospital Universitario San Cecilio, E-18016 Granada, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Effect of Hypofractionation on Prostate Cancer Radiotherapy. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER MANAGEMENT 2017. [DOI: 10.5812/ijcm.12204] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
|
44
|
Clinical analysis of the approximate, 3-dimensional, biological effective dose equation in multiphase treatment plans. Med Dosim 2017; 43:11-22. [PMID: 28867367 DOI: 10.1016/j.meddos.2017.07.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/28/2016] [Revised: 06/12/2017] [Accepted: 07/25/2017] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
Abstract
A multiphase, approximate biological effective dose (BEDA) equation was introduced because most treatment planning systems (TPS) are incapable of calculating the true BED (BEDT). This work investigates the accuracy and precision of the multiphase BEDA relative to the BEDT in clinical cases. Ten patients with head and neck cancer and 10 patients with prostate cancer were studied using their treatment plans from Pinnacle3 9.2 (Philips Medical, Fitchburg, WI). The organs at risk (OARs) that were studied are the normal brain, left and right optic nerves, optic chiasm, spinal cord, brainstem, bladder, and rectum. BEDA and BEDT distributions were calculated using MATLAB 2010b (MathWorks, Natick, MA) and analyzed on a voxel basis for percent error, percent error volume histograms (PEVHs), Pearson correlation coefficient, and Bland-Altman analysis. The maximum BED values that were calculated using the BEDA and BEDT methods were also analyzed. BEDA was found to always underestimate BEDT. The accuracy and precision of BEDA distributions varied between the organs: for optic chiasm and brainstem, 50% of the patients had an overall BEDA percent error of <1%; for left and right optic nerves, rectum, and bladder, 60% to 70% of the patients had an overall BEDA percent error of <1%; and for normal brain and spinal cord, 80% of the patients had an overall BEDA percent error of <1%. BEDA distributions had maximum errors ranging from 2% to 11%, with the 11% error occurring for bladder. BEDA produced much more accurate maximum BED values with adjacent organs such as normal brain, bladder, and rectum. This study has shown that BEDA can calculate BED distributions with acceptable accuracy under certain circumstances. However, its consistency and accuracy strongly depend on the dose distributions of the different treatment phases. One should be cautious when using BEDA.
Collapse
|
45
|
Hashimoto Y, Motegi A, Akimoto T, Mitsuhashi N, Iizuka J, Tanabe K, Ishii Y, Kono S, Izumi S, Karasawa K. The 5-year outcomes of moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (66 Gy in 22 fractions, 3 fractions per week) for localized prostate cancer: a retrospective study. Int J Clin Oncol 2017; 23:165-172. [DOI: 10.1007/s10147-017-1175-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/02/2017] [Accepted: 07/24/2017] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
|
46
|
Ödén J, Eriksson K, Toma-Dasu I. Incorporation of relative biological effectiveness uncertainties into proton plan robustness evaluation. Acta Oncol 2017; 56:769-778. [PMID: 28464736 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2017.1290825] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The constant relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of 1.1 is typically assumed in proton therapy. This study presents a method of incorporating the variable RBE and its uncertainties into the proton plan robustness evaluation. MATERIAL AND METHODS The robustness evaluation was split into two parts. In part one, the worst-case physical dose was estimated using setup and range errors, including the fractionation dependence. The results were fed into part two, in which the worst-case RBE-weighted doses were estimated using a Monte Carlo method for sampling the input parameters of the chosen RBE model. The method was applied to three prostate, breast and head and neck (H&N) plans for several fractionation schedules using two RBE models. The uncertainties in the model parameters, linear energy transfer and α/β were included. The resulting DVH error bands were compared with the use of a constant RBE without uncertainties. RESULTS All plans were evaluated as robust using the constant RBE. Applying the proposed methodology using the variable RBE models broadens the DVH error bands for all structures studied. The uncertainty in α/β was the dominant factor. The variable RBE also shifted the nominal DVHs towards higher doses for most OARs, whereas the direction of this shift for the clinical target volumes (CTVs) depended on the treatment site, RBE model and fractionation schedule. The average RBE within the CTV, using one of the RBE models and 2 Gy(RBE) per fraction, varied between 1.11-1.26, 1.06-1.16 and 1.14-1.25 for the breast, H&N and prostate patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS A method of incorporating RBE uncertainties into the robustness evaluation has been proposed. By disregarding the variable RBE and its uncertainties, the variation in the RBE-weighted CTV and OAR doses may be underestimated. This could be an essential factor to take into account, especially in normal tissue complication probabilities based comparisons between proton and photon plans.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jakob Ödén
- Department of Physics, Medical Radiation Physics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
- RaySearch Laboratories, Stockholm, Sweden
| | | | - Iuliana Toma-Dasu
- Department of Physics, Medical Radiation Physics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
- Department of Oncology and Pathology, Medical Radiation Physics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
Moulton CR, House MJ, Lye V, Tang CI, Krawiec M, Joseph DJ, Denham JW, Ebert MA. Spatial features of dose-surface maps from deformably-registered plans correlate with late gastrointestinal complications. Phys Med Biol 2017; 62:4118-4139. [PMID: 28445167 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/aa663d] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
This study investigates the associations between spatial distribution of dose to the rectal surface and observed gastrointestinal toxicities after deformably registering each phase of a combined external beam radiotherapy (EBRT)/high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDRBT) prostate cancer treatment. The study contains data for 118 patients where the HDRBT CT was deformably-registered to the EBRT CT. The EBRT and registered HDRBT TG43 dose distributions in a reference 2 Gy/fraction were 3D-summed. Rectum dose-surface maps (DSMs) were obtained by virtually unfolding the rectum surface slice-by-slice. Associations with late peak gastrointestinal toxicities were investigated using voxel-wise DSM analysis as well as parameterised spatial patterns. The latter were obtained by thresholding DSMs from 1-80 Gy (increment = 1) and extracting inferior-superior extent, left-right extent, area, perimeter, compactness, circularity and ellipse fit parameters. Logistic regressions and Mann-Whitney U-tests were used to correlate features with toxicities. Rectal bleeding, stool frequency, diarrhoea and urgency/tenesmus were associated with greater lateral and/or longitudinal spread of the high doses near the anterior rectal surface. Rectal bleeding and stool frequency were also influenced by greater low-intermediate doses to the most inferior 20% of the rectum and greater low-intermediate-high doses to 40-80% of the rectum length respectively. Greater low-intermediate doses to the superior 20% and inferior 20% of the rectum length were associated with anorectal pain and urgency/tenesmus respectively. Diarrhoea, completeness of evacuation and proctitis were also related to greater low doses to the posterior side of the rectum. Spatial features for the intermediate-high dose regions such as area, perimeter, compactness, circularity, ellipse eccentricity and confinement to ellipse fits were strongly associated with toxicities other than anorectal pain. Consequently, toxicity is related to the shape of isodoses as well as dose coverage. The findings indicate spatial constraints on doses to certain sections of the rectum may be important for reducing toxicities and optimising dose.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Calyn R Moulton
- School of Physics, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia, Australia
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
48
|
Ödén J, Eriksson K, Toma-Dasu I. Inclusion of a variable RBE into proton and photon plan comparison for various fractionation schedules in prostate radiation therapy. Med Phys 2017; 44:810-822. [PMID: 28107554 DOI: 10.1002/mp.12117] [Citation(s) in RCA: 43] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/28/2016] [Revised: 11/29/2016] [Accepted: 01/12/2017] [Indexed: 11/06/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE A constant relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of 1.1 is currently used in proton radiation therapy to account for the increased biological effectiveness compared to photon therapy. However, there is increasing evidence that proton RBE vary with the linear energy transfer (LET), the dose per fraction, and the type of the tissue. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the impact of disregarding variations in RBE when comparing proton and photon dose plans for prostate treatments for various fractionation schedules using published RBE models and several α/β assumptions. METHODS Photon and proton dose plans were created for three generic prostate cancer cases. Three BED3Gy equivalent schedules were studied, 78, 57.2, and 42.8 Gy in 39, 15, and 7 fractions, respectively. The proton plans were optimized assuming a constant RBE of 1.1. By using the Monte Carlo calculated dose-averaged LET (LETd ) distribution and assuming α/β values on voxel level, three variable RBE models were applied to the proton dose plans. The impact of the variable RBE was studied in the plan comparison, which was based on the dose distribution, DVHs, and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) for the rectum. Subsequently, the physical proton dose was reoptimized for each proton plan based on the LETd distribution, to achieve a homogeneous RBE-weighted target dose when applying a specific RBE model and still fulfill the clinical goals for the rectum and bladder. RESULTS All the photon and proton plans assuming RBE = 1.1 met the clinical goals with similar target coverage. The proton plans fulfilled the robustness criteria in terms of range and setup uncertainty. Applying the variable RBE models generally resulted in higher target doses and rectum NTCP compared to the photon plans. The increase was most pronounced for the fractionation dose of 2 Gy(RBE), whereas it was of less magnitude and more dependent on model and α/β assumption for the hypofractionated schedules. The reoptimized proton plans proved to be robust and showed similar target coverage and doses to the organs at risk as the proton plans optimized with a constant RBE. CONCLUSIONS Model predicted RBE values may differ substantially from 1.1. This is most pronounced for fractionation doses of around 2 Gy(RBE) with higher doses to the target and the OARs, whereas the effect seems to be of less importance for the hypofractionated schedules. This could result in misleading conclusions when comparing proton plans to photon plans. By accounting for a variable RBE in the optimization process, robust and clinically acceptable dose plans, with the potential of lowering rectal NTCP, may be generated by reoptimizing the physical dose. However, the direction and magnitude of the changes in the physical proton dose to the prostate are dependent on RBE model and α/β assumptions and should therefore be used conservatively.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jakob Ödén
- Department of Physics, Medical Radiation Physics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, 17176, Sweden.,RaySearch Laboratories, Stockholm, 11134, Sweden
| | | | - Iuliana Toma-Dasu
- Department of Physics, Medical Radiation Physics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, 17176, Sweden.,Department of Oncology and Pathology, Medical Radiation Physics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, 17176, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
49
|
Moulton CR, House MJ, Lye V, Tang CI, Krawiec M, Joseph DJ, Denham JW, Ebert MA. Accumulation of rectum dose-volume metrics for prostate external beam radiotherapy combined with brachytherapy: Evaluating deformably registered dose distribution addition using parameter-based addition. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2017; 61:534-542. [PMID: 28185419 DOI: 10.1111/1754-9485.12593] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/24/2016] [Accepted: 12/29/2016] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION To investigate the accuracy of deriving dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters from deformably registered data by comparing values with the simple addition of DVHs from each phase of a combined external beam radiotherapy (EBRT)/high-dose-rate (HDR-BT) brachytherapy prostate treatment. METHODS Eighty-two patients received EBRT in 23 fractions of 2 Gy and HDR-BT TG43 in three fractions of 6.5 Gy. The HDR-BT CT was deformably registered to the EBRT CT. The rectum D0.1cc , D1cc , D2cc and D10cc were calculated in two ways. (i) Parameter-adding: the EBRT DVH parameters (or the EBRT prescription dose) were added to the unregistered HDR-BT DVH parameters. (ii) Distribution-adding: the parameters were extracted after the EBRT doses were 3D-summed with the registered HDR-BT doses. Resulting differences between the parameters were investigated. RESULTS The D0.1cc , D1cc and D2cc from parameter-adding were 21.3% (P < 0.001), 6.3% (P < 0.001) and 3.5% (P < 0.001) smaller than those from distribution-adding. The D10cc was 2.2% (P = 0.015) larger for distribution-adding. CONCLUSION Distribution-adding was confounded by unsystematic inter/intra-observer rectum-contouring errors and registration accuracy near the anterior rectal wall. Consequently, clinical use of distribution-adding to assess rectal doses requires careful contour and registration evaluation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Calyn R Moulton
- School of Physics, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Michael J House
- School of Physics, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Victoria Lye
- Radiation Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Colin I Tang
- Radiation Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Michele Krawiec
- Radiation Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia
| | - David J Joseph
- Radiation Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia.,School of Surgery, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia, Australia
| | - James W Denham
- School of Medicine and Population Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Martin A Ebert
- School of Physics, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia, Australia.,Radiation Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
Chen CY, Lee LM, Yu HW, Lee SP, Lee HL, Lin YW, Wen YC, Chen YJ, Chen CP, Tsai JT. Dosimetric and radiobiological comparison of Cyberknife and Tomotherapy in stereotactic body radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. JOURNAL OF X-RAY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 2017; 25:465-477. [PMID: 28157113 DOI: 10.3233/xst-16169] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE As recent studies have suggested relatively low α/β for prostate cancer, the interest in hypofractionated stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer is rising. The aim of this study is to compare dosimetric results of Cyberknife (CK) with Tomotherapy (HT) in SBRT for localized prostate cancer. Furthermore, the radiobiologic consequences of heterogeneous dose distribution are also analyzed. MATERIAL AND METHOD A total of 12 cases of localized prostate cancer previously treated with SBRT were collected. Treatments had been planned and delivered using CK. Then HT plans were generated for comparison afterwards. The prescribed dose was 37.5Gy in 5 fractions. Dosimetric indices for target volumes and organs at risk (OAR) were compared. For radiobiological evaluation, generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) were calculated and compared. RESULT Both CK and HT achieved target coverage while meeting OAR constraints adequately. HT plans resulted in better dose homogeneity (Homogeneity index: 1.04±0.01 vs. 1.21±0.01; p = 0.0022), target coverage (97.74±0.86% vs. 96.56±1.17%; p = 0.0076) and conformity (new vonformity index: 1.16±0.05 vs. 1.21±0.04; p = 0.0096). HT was shown to predict lower late rectal toxicity as compared to CK. Integral dose to body was also significantly lower in HT plans (46.59±6.44 Gy'L vs 57.05±11.68 Gy'L; p = 0.0029). CONCLUSION Based on physical dosimetry and radiobiologic considerations, HT may have advantages over CK, specifically in rectal sparing which could translate into clinical benefit of decreased late toxicities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chun-You Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Wan Fang Hospital, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Liang-Ming Lee
- Department of Urology, Wan Fang Hospital, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Hsiao-Wei Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Steve P Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Hsin-Lun Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Yung-Wei Lin
- Department of Urology, Wan Fang Hospital, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Yu-Ching Wen
- Department of Urology, Wan Fang Hospital, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Yi-Ju Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Wan Fang Hospital, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Chiu-Ping Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Wan Fang Hospital, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Jo-Ting Tsai
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Shuang Ho Hospital, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan
| |
Collapse
|