The GETUG 70 Gy vs. 80 Gy randomized trial for localized prostate cancer: feasibility and acute toxicity

Contour-guided deep learning based deformable image registration for dose monitoring during CBCT-guided radiotherapy of prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To evaluate deep learning (DL)-based deformable image registration (DIR) for dose accumulation during radiotherapy of prostate cancer patients.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Data including 341 CBCTs (209 daily, 132 weekly) and 23 planning CTs from 23 patients was retrospectively analyzed. Anatomical deformation during treatment was estimated using free-form deformation (FFD) method from Elastix and DL-based VoxelMorph approaches. The VoxelMorph method was investigated using anatomical scans (VMorph_Sc) or label images (VMorph_Msk), or the combination of both (VMorph_Sc_Msk). Accumulated doses were compared with the planning dose.

RESULTS

The DSC ranges, averaged for prostate, rectum and bladder, were 0.60-0.71, 0.67-0.79, 0.93-0.98, and 0.89-0.96 for the FFD, VMorph_Sc, VMorph_Msk, and VMorph_Sc_Msk methods, respectively. When including both anatomical and label images, VoxelMorph estimated more complex deformations resulting in heterogeneous determinant of Jacobian and higher percentage of deformation vector field (DVF) folding (up to a mean value of 1.90% in the prostate). Large differences were observed between DL-based methods regarding estimation of the accumulated dose, showing systematic overdosage and underdosage of the bladder and rectum, respectively. The difference between planned mean dose and accumulated mean dose with VMorph_Sc_Msk reached a median value of +6.3 Gy for the bladder and -5.1 Gy for the rectum.

CONCLUSION

The estimation of the deformations using DL-based approach is feasible for male pelvic anatomy but requires the inclusion of anatomical contours to improve organ correspondence. High variability in the estimation of the accumulated dose depending on the deformable strategy suggests further investigation of DL-based techniques before clinical deployment.

Dose-escalated radiotherapy for clinically localized and locally advanced prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer include radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, brachytherapy, active surveillance, hormonal therapy, and watchful waiting. For external beam radiation therapy, oncological outcomes may be expected to improve as the dose of radiotherapy (RT) increases. However, radiation-mediated side effects on surrounding critical organs may also increase.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of dose-escalated RT in comparison with conventional dose RT for curative treatment of clinically localized and locally advanced prostate cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases including trial registries and other sources of grey literature, up until 20 July 2022. We applied no restrictions on publication language or status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-arm randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of definitive RT in men with clinically localized and locally advanced prostate adenocarcinoma. RT was dose-escalated RT (equivalent dose in 2 Gy [EQD2] ≥ 74 Gy, lesser than 2.5 Gy per fraction) versus conventional RT (EQD2 < 74 Gy, 1.8 Gy or 2.0 Gy per fraction). Two review authors independently classified studies for inclusion or exclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently abstracted data from the included studies. We performed statistical analyses by using a random-effects model and interpreted them according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used GRADE guidance to rate the certainty of the evidence of RCTs.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine studies with 5437 men in an analysis comparing dose-escalated RT versus conventional dose RT for the treatment of prostate cancer. The mean participant age ranged from 67 to 71 years. Almost all men had localized prostate cancer (cT1-3N0M0). Primary outcomes Dose-escalated RT probably results in little to no difference in time to death from prostate cancer (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.04; I2 = 0%; 8 studies; 5231 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Assuming a risk of death from prostate cancer of 4 per 1000 at 10 years in the conventional dose RT group, this corresponds to 1 fewer men per 1000 (1 fewer to 0 more) dying of prostate cancer in the dose-escalated RT group. Dose-escalated RT probably results in little to no difference in severe RT toxicity of grade 3 or higher late gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.25; I2 = 0%; 8 studies; 4992 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); 23 more men per 1000 (10 more to 40 more) in the dose-escalated RT group assuming severe late GI toxicity as 32 per 1000 in the conventional dose RT group. Dose-escalated RT probably results in little to no difference in severe late genitourinary (GU) toxicity (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.63; I2 = 0%; 8 studies; 4962 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); 9 more men per 1000 (2 fewer to 23 more) in the dose-escalated RT group assuming severe late GU toxicity as 37 per 1000 in the conventional dose RT group. Secondary outcomes Dose-escalated RT probably results in little to no difference in time to death from any cause (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; I2 = 0%; 9 studies; 5437 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Assuming a risk of death from any cause of 101 per 1000 at 10 years in the conventional dose RT group, this corresponds to 2 fewer men per 1000 (11 fewer to 9 more) in the dose-escalated RT group dying of any cause. Dose-escalated RT probably results in little to no difference in time to distant metastasis (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.22; I2 = 45%; 7 studies; 3499 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Assuming a risk of distant metastasis of 29 per 1000 in the conventional dose RT group at 10 years, this corresponds to 5 fewer men per 1000 (12 fewer to 6 more) in the dose-escalated RT group developing distant metastases. Dose-escalated RT may increase overall late GI toxicity (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.55; I2 = 85%; 7 studies; 4328 participants; low-certainty evidence); 92 more men per 1000 (14 more to 188 more) in the dose-escalated RT group assuming overall late GI toxicity as 342 per 1000 in the conventional dose RT group. However, dose-escalated RT may result in little to no difference in overall late GU toxicity (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.29; I2 = 51%; 7 studies; 4298 participants; low-certainty evidence); 34 more men per 1000 (9 fewer to 82 more) in the dose-escalated RT group assuming overall late GU toxicity as 283 per 1000 in the conventional dose RT group. Based on long-term follow-up (up to 36 months), dose-escalated RT may result or probably results in little to no difference in the quality of life using 36-Item Short Form Survey; physical health (MD -3.9, 95% CI -12.78 to 4.98; 1 study; 300 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and mental health (MD -3.6, 95% CI -83.85 to 76.65; 1 study; 300 participants; low-certainty evidence), respectively.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to conventional dose RT, dose-escalated RT probably results in little to no difference in time to death from prostate cancer, time to death from any cause, time to distant metastasis, and RT toxicities (except overall late GI toxicity). While dose-escalated RT may increase overall late GI toxicity, it may result, or probably results, in little to no difference in physical and mental quality of life, respectively.

Early Tolerance and Tumor Control Outcomes with High-dose Ultrahypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Studies using stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) dose escalation in in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients have indicated favorable outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate tolerance and tumor control outcomes in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients treated with high-dose SBRT following our phase 1 trial.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A total of 551 patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer were treated with SBRT.

INTERVENTION

Treatment with 37.5-40Gy SBRT in five fractions directed to the prostate and seminal vesicles.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Outcome measurements included acute toxicities (<3 mo after radiotherapy [RT]) and late toxicities (>3 mo after RT) and tumor control evaluation (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] levels at 3-6-mo intervals and post-treatment prostate biopsy at 2yr).

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Acute grade 2 gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities occurred in 1.8% of patients, and late grade 2 and 3 GI toxicities were observed in 3.4% and 0.4% of patients, respectively. Acute grade 2 genitourinary (GU) toxicities occurred in 10% of patients, and grade 3 acute GU toxicities were observed in 0.7% of patients. Late grade 2 and 3 GU toxicities were observed in 21.1% and 2.5% of patients, respectively. The use of a hydrogel rectal spacer was significantly associated with reduced late GI toxicity and lower odds of developing late GU toxicity. The median follow-up was 17 mo, and 53% of those with at least 2yr of follow-up (103/193) had a biopsy performed. The 5-yr cumulative incidence of PSA failure was 2.1%, and the incidence of a positive 2-yr treatment biopsy was 12%. Limitations to this report include its retrospective nature and short follow-up time.

CONCLUSIONS

Favorable short-term outcomes were achieved with high-dose SBRT for low- and intermediate-risk disease. Severe late toxicities were observed and favorable tumor control was found.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We utilized stereotactic body radiotherapy, a form of external beam radiotherapy that delivers highly targeted high-dose treatment to the prostate, to treat over 500 localized prostate cancer patients in five sessions over 1.5 wk. Treatments were well tolerated without significant urinary or rectal side effects. Nearly 90% of those who underwent biopsies after treatment did not demonstrate residual active disease.

[Moderate or extreme hypofractionation and localized prostate cancer: The times are changing]

There are many treatment options for localized prostate cancers, including active surveillance, brachytherapy, external beam radiotherapy, and radical prostatectomy. Quality of life remains a primary objective in the absence of superiority of one strategy over another in terms of specific survival with similar long-term biochemical control rates. Despite a significant decrease in digestive and urinary toxicities thanks to IMRT and IGRT, external radiotherapy remains a treatment that lasts approximately 2 months or 1.5 months, when combined with a brachytherapy boost. Given the specific radiosensitivity of this tumor, several randomized studies have shown that a hypofractionated scheme is not inferior in terms of biochemical control and toxicities, allowing to divide the number of fractions by a factor 2 to 8. Given that SBRT becomes a validated therapeutic option for a selected population of patients with localized prostate cancer, extreme hypofractionation is becoming a strong challenger of conventional external radiotherapy or brachytherapy.

Initial results of a randomized phase III trial of high dose image guided radiation with or without androgen deprivation therapy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Prior randomized studies have shown a survival benefit using combined androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radiation therapy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer. However, these studies either used low doses of radiation (66.6 Gy to isocenter) or imaged guidance was not available. This study reports the initial differences for high dose image guided radiation with or without ADT.

METHODS

From 2012 to 2014, 56 patients were treated with and 60 patients without 6 months of ADT (N = 116) in our phase III randomized trial for intermediate-risk prostate cancer. The primary endpoints of the current analysis are Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) scores, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) scores, and bowel or urinary adverse events (AEs, graded using CTCAE v4) with and without ADT. Treatment consisted of 81 Gy in 45 treatments (tx) or 100 Gy Pd-103 implant followed by 45 Gy in 25 tx with or without ADT. Cone-beam fiducial-based guidance was done. Statistical analysis included Fisher's exact test, chi-square test, and ANCOVA.

RESULTS

Median follow-up for both groups was 2.6 years. Acute or chronic urinary and acute or chronic bowel toxicities were similar with or without ADT (acute urinary: 16 vs 25 G0-1, 39 vs 35 G2 and 1 vs 0 G3, p = 0.17; chronic urinary: 40 vs 45 G1 and 16 vs 15 G2 toxicities, p = 0.68; acute bowel: 56 vs 59 G1 and 0 vs 1 G2 toxicities, p = 0.99; chronic bowel: 56 vs 59 G1 and 0 vs 1 G2 toxicities, p = 0.99). One patient had grade 3 urinary AE (1/116 or 0.8%). No patient had grade 3 bowel AE. With the use of ADT, a temporary decline in the EPIC sexual (p = 0.004) and hormonal scores (p = 0.02) were seen for the first 3 to 6 months after the completion of radiation, but the scores recovered by 12 months. Brachytherapy plus external beam radiation was compared to external beam radiation alone; brachytherapy EPIC urinary irritative scores were temporarily lower at 3 months, 76 vs. 84 (p = 0.006), had higher IPSS scores at 3 months, 15 vs 12 (p = 0.01), and had increased acute urinary AEs (p<0.001). No difference in failures were seen with or without ADT or associated with the use of brachytherapy.

SIGNIFICANCE

Low toxicity and minimal temporary bother as measured by EPIC and IPSS were seen in both arms. ADT was well-tolerated and associated with temporary changes.

Daily Versus Weekly Prostate Cancer Image Guided Radiation Therapy: Phase 3 Multicenter Randomized Trial

PURPOSE

The optimal frequency of prostate cancer image guided radiation therapy (IGRT) has not yet been clearly identified. This study sought to compare the safety and efficacy of daily versus weekly IGRT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This phase 3 randomized trial recruited patients with N0 localized prostate cancer. The total IGRT doses in the prostate ranged from 70 Gy to 80 Gy, sparing the lymph nodes. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to 2 prostate IGRT frequency groups: daily and weekly (ie, on days 1, 2, and 3 and then weekly). The primary outcome was 5-year recurrence-free survival. Secondary outcomes included overall survival and toxicity. Post hoc analyses included biochemical progression-free interval, clinical progression-free interval, and other cancer-free interval.

RESULTS

Between June 2007 and November 2012, 470 men from 21 centers were randomized into the 2 groups. Median follow-up was 4.1 years. There was no statistically significant difference in recurrence-free survival between the groups (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.81; P = .330). Overall survival was worse in the daily group than in the weekly group (HR = 2.12 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.03-4.37]; P = .042). Acute rectal bleeding (grade ≥1) was significantly lower in the daily group (6%) (n = 14) than in the weekly group (11%) (n = 26) (P = .014). Late rectal toxicity (grade ≥1) was significantly lower in the daily group (HR = 0.71 [95% CI, 0.53-0.96]; P = .027). Biochemical progression-free interval (HR = 0.45 [95% CI, 0.25 - 0.80]; P = .007) and clinical progression-free interval (HR = 0.50 [95% CI, 0.24-1.02]; P = .057) were better in the daily group, whereas other cancer-free interval was worse in the daily group (HR = 2.21 [95% CI, 1.10-4.44]; P = .026).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with weekly control, daily IGRT control in prostate cancer significantly improves biochemical progression-free and clinical progression-free interval, and rectal toxicity.

Association between rectal bleeding and the absolute dose volume of the rectum following image-guided radiotherapy for patients with prostate cancer

The association between rectal bleeding and the received dose relative to the volume of the rectum is well established in prostate cancer patients who have undergone radiotherapy. The relative volume of the rectum is affected by the rectal anatomical volume, which depends on the definition of rectal length. Compared with the relative rectal volume, the absolute volume of the rectum may be more associated with rectal bleeding. The present study investigated the absolute volume of the rectum that may be used to predict late rectal bleeding following intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT). The cases of 82 patients of prostate cancer, who underwent IMRT and IGRT, were retrospectively evaluated by evaluating dose volume histograms. The median patient age was 73.4 years (range, 51.3-85.9 years). The median total prescribed dose was 76 Gy given in 38 fractions. The absolute and relative dose volumes of the rectum were evaluated by multivariate analysis, and the optimal dose to prevent rectal bleeding was determined. The actuarial ≥grade 1 rectal bleeding rate at 4 years was 4.5% (95% confidence interval, 1.5-13.4%) with a median observation period of 45.3 months. The absolute rectal volume (ml) treated with 60 Gy was the only significant risk factor for rectal bleeding (P<0.05), but the relative rectal volume (%) was not identified as a significant factor by the multivariate analysis. When the rectal volume of 5 or 10 ml received 60 Gy (D5cc and D10cc), rectal bleeding was expected to occur in 3.3 and 7.3% of the patients, respectively. Rectal D5cc ≤60 Gy is recommended to prevent late ≥grade 1 rectal bleeding in IGRT.

[Prostate brachytherapy: New techniques, new indications]

Prostate brachytherapy has been for a long time one of the standard treatments for low risk prostate cancer, with high rates of biochemical control and low levels of urinary and sexual late toxicity compared to other available techniques, namely external beam radiotherapy and radical prostatectomy. The aim of this article is to review the recent innovations of prostate brachytherapy, which suggest a bright future for the technique. We will discuss the extension of indications of permanent implant brachytherapy to favorable intermediate-risk patients, the use of novel isotopes such as Palladium 103 and Cesium 131, and the benefit of brachytherapy as a boost following external beam radiotherapy for intermediate and high-risk patients. We will also discuss the rise of high dose rate brachytherapy, as a boost or monotherapy, the increasing use of MRI for patient selection and treatment planning, as well as the development of brachytherapy as a means of focal therapy.

Improved outcomes with dose escalation in localized prostate cancer treated with precision image-guided radiotherapy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Dose-escalated radiotherapy (DE) improves outcomes in localized prostate cancer (PCa). The impact of DE in the context of image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) remains unknown. Herein, we determined outcomes of three sequential cohorts treated with progressive DE-IGRT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed data from 1998 to 2012. Patients treated with radical radiotherapy were included, with three sequential institutional schedules: (A) 75.6Gy, (B) 79.8Gy, (C) 78Gy, with 1.8, 1.9 and 2Gy/fraction, respectively. IGRT consisted of fiducial markers and daily EPID (A, B) or CBCT (C).

RESULTS

961 patients were included, with median follow-up of 6.1y. 30.5%, 32.6% and 36.9% were treated in A, B and C, respectively. Risk category distribution was 179 (18.6%) low-, 653 (67.9%) intermediate- and 129 (13.5%) high-risk. PSA, T-category, androgen deprivation use and risk distribution were similar among groups. BCR (biochemical recurrence) was different (p<0.001) between A, B and C with 5-year rates of 23%, 17% and 9%, respectively (HR 2.68 [95% CI 1.87-3.85] and 1.92 [95% CI 1.33-2.78] for A and B compared to C, respectively). Findings were most significant in the intermediate-risk category. Metastasis, cause-specific-death and toxicities were not different between cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest continuous BCR improvement with progressive DE-IGRT. Prospective validation considering further DE with IGRT seems warranted.

Outcome According to Elective Pelvic Radiation Therapy in Patients With High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer: A Secondary Analysis of the GETUG 12 Phase 3 Randomized Trial

PURPOSE

The role of pelvic elective nodal irradiation (ENI) in the management of prostate cancer is controversial. This study analyzed the role of pelvic radiation therapy (RT) on the outcome in high-risk localized prostate cancer patients included in the Groupe d'Etude des Tumeurs Uro-Genitales (GETUG) 12 trial.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients with a nonpretreated high-risk localized prostate cancer and a staging lymphadenectomy were randomly assigned to receive either goserelin every 3 months for 3 years and 4 cycles of docetaxel plus estramustine or goserelin alone. Local therapy was administered 3 months after the start of systemic treatment. Performance of pelvic ENI was left to the treating physician. Only patients treated with primary RT were included in this analysis. The primary endpoint was biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS).

RESULTS

A total of 413 patients treated from 2002 to 2006 were included, of whom 358 were treated using primary RT. A total of 208 patients received pelvic RT and 150 prostate-only RT. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration, Gleason score, or T stage did not differ according to performance of pelvic RT; pN+ patients more frequently received pelvic RT than pN0 patients (P<.0001). Median follow-up was 8.8 years. In multivariate analysis, bPFS was negatively impacted by pN stage (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.52 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.78-3.54], P<.0001), Gleason score 8 or higher (HR: 1.41 [95% CI: 1.03-1.93], P=.033) and PSA higher than 20 ng/mL (HR: 1.41 [95% CI: 1.02-1.96], P=.038), and positively impacted by the use of chemotherapy (HR: 0.66 [95% CI: 0.48-0.9], P=.009). There was no association between bPFS and use of pelvic ENI in multivariate analysis (HR: 1.10 [95% CI: 0.78-1.55], P=.60), even when analysis was restricted to pN0 patients (HR: 0.88 [95% CI: 0.59-1.31], P=.53). Pelvic ENI was not associated with increased acute or late patient reported toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

This unplanned analysis of a randomized trial failed to demonstrate a benefit of pelvic ENI on bPFS in high-risk localized prostate cancer patients.

Fractionated Radiation Exposure of Rat Spinal Cords Leads to Latent Neuro-Inflammation in Brain, Cognitive Deficits, and Alterations in Apurinic Endonuclease 1

Ionizing radiation causes degeneration of myelin, the insulating sheaths of neuronal axons, leading to neurological impairment. As radiation research on the central nervous system has predominantly focused on neurons, with few studies addressing the role of glial cells, we have focused our present research on identifying the latent effects of single/ fractionated -low dose of low/ high energy radiation on the role of base excision repair protein Apurinic Endonuclease-1, in the rat spinal cords oligodendrocyte progenitor cells’ differentiation. Apurinic endonuclease-1 is predominantly upregulated in response to oxidative stress by low- energy radiation, and previous studies show significant induction of Apurinic Endonuclease-1 in neurons and astrocytes. Our studies show for the first time, that fractionation of protons cause latent damage to spinal cord architecture while fractionation of HZE (²⁸Si) induce increase in APE1 with single dose, which then decreased with fractionation. The oligodendrocyte progenitor cells differentiation was skewed with increase in immature oligodendrocytes and astrocytes, which likely cause the observed decrease in white matter, increased neuro-inflammation, together leading to the observed significant cognitive defects.

Hypofractionated Helical Tomotherapy for Older Aged Patients With Prostate Cancer: Preliminary Results of a Phase I-II Trial

In our center, the feasibility and related acute toxicities of hypofractionated helical tomotherapy have been evaluated in older aged patients with prostate cancer . Between February 2009 and February 2014, 67 patients (older than 65 years) were enrolled in a prospective phase I-II study (registered number, ChiCTR-ONC-13004037). Patients in cohort 1 (n = 33) and cohort 2 (n = 34) received 76 Gy in 34 fractions (2.25 Gy/F) and 71.6 Gy in 28 fractions (2.65 Gy/F), respectively, to the prostate and seminal vesicles, while 25 patients in cohort 2 also received integrated elective lymph node irradiation (50.4 Gy). All patients were treated with helical tomotherapy, and daily image guidance was performed before each treatment. Acute toxicities were assessed with Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG)/European Organization for Research on Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) criteria. No significant difference was detected between the 2 cohorts in the incidence of acute toxicities. In cohort 1, the incidences of grade 1 and 2 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were 45.5% and 45.4%, respectively, and without grade 3 and 4 toxicities. In cohort 2, the incidences of acute grade 1 and 2 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were 47.1% and 55.9%, respectively, and grade 3 genitourinary toxicity (hematuria) was noted only in 1 patient. No significant difference was detected in the incidence of acute toxicities between the patients receiving integrated elective lymph node irradiation and those receiving irradiation to prostate and seminal vesicle in cohort 2. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed with clinical parameters. Only the baseline weight was found negatively correlated with genitourinary toxicities at a weak level (relative risk = 0.946, 95% confidence interval 0.896-0.998], P = .043). This study shows that 2 hypofractionation regimens (76 Gy/34F and 71.6 Gy/28F) delivered with HT are well tolerated in older aged patients having prostate cancer without significant difference for acute toxicities between the 2 cohorts. Late toxicities and treatment outcomes for these patients are under investigation.

Comparative efficacy and safety of treatments for localised prostate cancer: an application of network meta-analysis

CONTEXT

There is ongoing uncertainty about the optimal management of patients with localised prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of different treatments for patients with localised prostate cancer.

DESIGN

Systematic review with Bayesian network meta-analysis to estimate comparative ORs, and a score (0-100%) that, for a given outcome, reflects average rank order of superiority of each treatment compared against all others, using the Surface Under the Cumulative RAnking curve (SUCRA) statistic.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic searches of MEDLINE without language restriction.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomised trials comparing the efficacy and safety of different primary treatments (48 papers from 21 randomised trials included 7350 men).

DATA EXTRACTION

2 reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias.

RESULTS

Comparative efficacy and safety evidence was available for prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy (different types and regimens), observational management and cryotherapy, but not high-intensity focused ultrasound. There was no evidence of superiority for any of the compared treatments in respect of all-cause mortality after 5 years. Cryotherapy was associated with less gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity than radiotherapy (SUCRA: 99% and 77% for gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The limited available evidence suggests that different treatments may be optimal for different efficacy and safety outcomes. These findings highlight the importance of informed patient choice and shared decision-making about treatment modality and acceptable trade-offs between different outcomes. More trial evidence is required to reduce uncertainty. Network meta-analysis may be useful to optimise the power of evidence synthesis studies once data from new randomised controlled studies in this field are published in the future.

Efficacy and toxicity of external-beam radiation therapy for localised prostate cancer: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Many radiation regimens for treating prostate cancer have been used over the years, but which regimen is optimal for localised or locally advanced prostate cancer lacks consensus. We performed a network meta-analysis to identify the optimal radiation regimen.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed data from 27 randomised controlled trials and could group seven radiation regimens as follows: low- and high-dose radiation therapy (LDRT and HDRT), LDRT+ short- or long-term androgen deprivation therapy (LDRT+SADT and LDRT+LADT), HDRT+SADT, hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT), and HFRT+SADT. The main outcomes were overall mortality (OM), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure, cancer-specific mortality, and adverse events.

RESULTS

For the network meta-analysis of 27 trials, LDRT+LADT and LDRT+SADT were associated with decreased risk of OM as compared with LDRT alone as was LDRT+LADT compared with HDRT. Apart from HFRT, all other treatments were associated with decreased risk of PSA failure as compared with LDRT. HFRT+SADT was associated with decreased risk of cancer-specific mortality as compared with HFRT, LDRT+SADT, HDRT, and LDRT.

CONCLUSIONS

HFRT+SADT therapy might be the most efficacious treatment but with worst toxicity for localised or locally advanced prostate cancer, and HDRT showed excellent efficacy but more adverse events.

Comparison of high-dose (86.4 Gy) IMRT vs combined brachytherapy plus IMRT for intermediate-risk prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To compare tumour control and toxicity outcomes with the use of high-dose intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) alone or brachytherapy combined with IMRT (combo-RT) for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between 1997 and 2010, 870 consecutive patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer were treated at our institution with either 86.4 Gy of IMRT alone (n = 470) or combo-RT consisting of brachytherapy combined with 50.4 Gy of IMRT (n = 400). Brachytherapy consisted of low-dose-rate permanent interstitial implantation in 260 patients and high-dose-rate temporary implantation in 140 patients. The median (range) follow-up for the entire cohort was 5.3 (1-14) years.

RESULTS

For IMRT alone vs combo-RT, 7-year actuarial prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-relapse-free survival (PSA-RFS) rates were 81.4 vs 92.0% (P < 0.001), and distant metastases-free survival (DMFS) rates were 93.0 vs 97.2% (P = 0.04), respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that combo-RT was associated with better PSA-RFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.40 [95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.66], P < 0.001), and better DMFS (HR, 0.41 [0.18-0.92], P = 0.03). A higher incidence of acute genitourinary (GU) grade 2 (35.8 vs 18.9%; P < 0.01) and acute GU grade 3 (2.3 vs 0.4%; P = 0.03) toxicities occurred in the combo-RT group than in the IMRT-alone group. Most acute toxicity resolved. Late toxicity outcomes were similar between the treatment groups. The 7-year actuarial late toxicity rates for grade 2 gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity were 4.6 vs 4.1% (P = 0.89), for grade 3 GI toxicity 0.4 vs 1.4% (P = 0.36), for grade 2 GU toxicity 19.4 vs 21.2% (P = 0.14), and grade 3 GU toxicity 3.1 vs 1.4% (P = 0.74) for the IMRT vs the combo-RT group, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Enhanced dose escalation using combo-RT was associated with superior PSA-RFS and DMFS outcomes for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer compared with high-dose IMRT alone at a dose of 86.4 Gy. While acute GU toxicities were more prevalent in the combo-RT group, the incidence of late GI and GU toxicities was similar between the treatment groups.

Acute toxicity profile in prostate cancer with conventional and hypofractionated treatment

Purpose

To compare the acute toxicities in radical treatment of prostate cancer between conventional schedule (C-ARM) with 78 Gy/39 fractions and hypofractionation conformal treatment (H-ARM) with 69 Gy/23 fractions.

Methods and material

This prospective double arm study consisted of 217 patients with prostate cancer, 112 in H-ARM and 105 in C-ARM arm. C-ARM received conventional six- field conformal radiotherapy with 78 Gy in 39 fractions while H-ARM received hypofractionation with 69 Gy in 23 fractions. Weekly assessment of acute reactions was done during treatment and with one, and 3 months using RTOG scale. Univariated analysis was performed to evaluate differences between the incidences of acute reaction in the treatment arms. Variables with p value less than 0.1 were included in the multivariated logistic regression.

Results

There was no difference between H-ARM versus C-ARM for severity and incidence in genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) acute toxicity. During the treatment comparing H-ARM with C-ARM no differences was observed for GI toxicity (grade 0–3; H-ARM = 45.5%, 34%, 18.7% and 1.8% versus C-ARM = 47.6%, 35.2%, 17.2% and 0). For acute GU toxicity no difference was detected between H-ARM (grade 0–3; 22.3%, 54.5%, 18.7% and 4.5%) and C-ARM (grade 0–3; 25.8%, 53.3%, 17.1% and 3.8%).

At the 3- months follow-up, persistent Grade > =2 acute GU and GI toxicity were 2.5% and 1.8% in H-ARM versus 5.7% and 3% in C-ARM (p > 0.05). In univariated and multivariated analyses, there was not any dosimetric predictor for GI and GU toxicity.

Conclusions

Our data demonstrate that hypofractionated radiotherapy achieving high biological effective dose using conformal radiotherapy is feasible for prostate cancer, being well tolerated with minimal severe acute toxicity.

High-dose conformal radiotherapy reduces prostate cancer-specific mortality: results of a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To determine in a meta-analysis whether prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), biochemical or clinical failure (BCF), and overall mortality (OM) in men with localized prostate cancer treated with conformal high-dose radiotherapy (HDRT) are better than those in men treated with conventional-dose radiotherapy (CDRT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The MEDLINE, Embase, CANCERLIT, and Cochrane Library databases, as well as the proceedings of annual meetings, were systematically searched to identify randomized, controlled studies comparing conformal HDRT with CDRT for localized prostate cancer.

RESULTS

Five randomized, controlled trials (2508 patients) that met the study criteria were identified. Pooled results from these randomized, controlled trials showed a significant reduction in the incidence of PCSM and BCF rates at 5 years in patients treated with HDRT (p = 0.04 and p < 0.0001, respectively), with an absolute risk reduction (ARR) of PCSM and BCF at 5 years of 1.7% and 12.6%, respectively. Two trials evaluated PCSM with 10 years of follow up. The pooled results from these trials showed a statistical benefit for HDRT in terms of PCSM (p = 0.03). In the subgroup analysis, trials that used androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) showed an ARR for BCF of 12.9% (number needed to treat = 7.7, p < 0.00001), whereas trials without ADT had an ARR of 13.6% (number needed to treat = 7, p < 0.00001). There was no difference in the OM rate at 5 and 10 years (p = 0.99 and p = 0.11, respectively) between the groups receiving HDRT and CDRT.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis is the first study to show that HDRT is superior to CDRT in preventing disease progression and prostate cancer-specific death in trials that used conformational technique to increase the total dose. Despite the limitations of our study in evaluating the role of ADT and HDRT, our data show no benefit for HDRT arms in terms of BCF in trials with or without ADT.

Long-term survival and toxicity in patients treated with high-dose intensity modulated radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To report long-term survival and toxicity outcomes with the use of high-dose intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to 86.4 Gy for patients with localized prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Between August 1997 and December 2008, 1002 patients were treated to a dose of 86.4 Gy using a 5-7 field IMRT technique. Patients were stratified by prognostic risk group based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk classification criteria. A total of 587 patients (59%) were treated with neoadjuvant and concurrent androgen deprivation therapy. The median follow-up for the entire cohort was 5.5 years (range, 1-14 years).

RESULTS

For low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, 7-year biochemical relapse-free survival outcomes were 98.8%, 85.6%, and 67.9%, respectively (P<.001), and distant metastasis-free survival rates were 99.4%, 94.1%, and 82.0% (P<.001), respectively. On multivariate analysis, T stage (P<.001), Gleason score (P<.001), and >50% of initial biopsy positive core (P=.001) were predictive for distant mestastases. No prostate cancer-related deaths were observed in the low-risk group. The 7-year prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) rates, using competing risk analysis for intermediate- and high-risk groups, were 3.3% and 8.1%, respectively (P=.008). On multivariate analysis, Gleason score (P=.004), percentage of biopsy core positivity (P=.003), and T-stage (P=.033) were predictive for PCSM. Actuarial 7-year grade 2 or higher late gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicities were 4.4% and 21.1%, respectively. Late grade 3 gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity was experienced by 7 patients (0.7%) and 22 patients (2.2%), respectively. Of the 427 men with full potency at baseline, 317 men (74%) retained sexual function at time of last follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

This study represents the largest cohort of patients treated with high-dose radiation to 86.4 Gy, using IMRT for localized prostate cancer, with the longest follow-up to date. Our findings indicate that this treatment results in excellent clinical outcomes with acceptable toxicity.

Rectal planning risk volume correlation with acute and late toxicity in 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy for prostate cancer

The purpose of this study was to evaluate rectum motion during 3-Dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) in prostate cancer patients, to derive a planning volume at risk (PRV) and to correlate the PRV dose-volume histograms (DVH) with treatment complications.This study was conducted in two phases. Initially, the PRV was defined prospectively in 50 consecutive prostate cancer patients (Group 1) who received a radical course of 3-D CRT. Then, the obtained PRV was used in the radiotherapy planning of these same 50 patients plus another 59 prostate cancer patients (Group 2) previously treated between 2004 and 2008. All these patients' data, including the rectum and PRV DVHs, were correlated to acute and late complications, according to the Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC) v4.0.The largest displacement occurred in the anterior axis. Long-term gastrointestinal (GI) complications grade ≥ 2 were seen in 9.2% of the cases. Factors that influenced acute GI reactions were: doses at 25% (p 5 0.011) and 40% (p 5 0.005) of the rectum volume and at 40% of the PRV (p 5 0.012). The dose at 25% of the rectum volume (p 5 0.033) and acute complications ≥ grade 2 (p 5 0.018) were prognostic factors for long-term complications. The PRV DVH did not correlate with late toxicity. The rectum showed a significant inter-fraction motion during 3D-CRT for prostate cancer. PRV dose correlated with acute gastrointestinal complications and may be a useful tool to predict and reduce their occurrence.

[From image-guided radiotherapy to dose-guided radiotherapy]

PURPOSE

In case of tumour displacement, image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) based on the use of cone beam CT (tomographie conique) allows replacing the tumour under the accelerator by rigid registration. Anatomical deformations require however replanning, involving an estimation of the cumulative dose, session after session. This is the objective of this study.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Two examples of arc-intensity modulated radiotherapy are presented: a case of prostate cancer (total dose=80 Gy) with tomographie conique (daily prostate registration) and one head and neck cancer (70 Gy). For the head and neck cancer, the patient had a weekly scanner allowing a dose distribution calculation. The cumulative dose was calculated per voxel on the planning CT after deformation of the dose distribution (with trilinear interpolation) following the transformation given by a non-rigid registration step (Demons registration method) from: either the tomographie conique (prostate), or the weekly CT. The cumulative dose was eventually compared with the planned dose.

RESULTS

In cases of prostate irradiation, the "cumulative" dose corresponded to the planned dose to the prostate. At the last week of irradiation, it was above the planned dose for the rectum and bladder. The volume of rectal wall receiving more than 50 Gy (V50) was 20% at the planning and 26% at the end of treatment, increasing the risk of rectal toxicity (NTCP) of 14%. For the bladder wall, V50 were 73% and 82%, respectively. In head and neck, the "cumulative" dose to the parotid exceeded the planned dose (mean dose increasing from 46 Gy to 54 Gy) from the 5th week of irradiation on, suggesting the need for replanning within the first 5 weeks of radiotherapy.

CONCLUSION

The deformable registration estimates the cumulative dose delivered in the different anatomical structures. Validation on digital and physical phantoms is however required before clinical evaluation.

PSA Doubling Time Predicts for the Development of Distant Metastases for Patients Who Fail 3DCRT Or IMRT Using the Phoenix Definition

PURPOSE: PSA doubling time (PSADT) is commonly used as an indication for salvage androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for PSA failure following RT. Previously, we had shown that PSADT of <12 months is an important predictor of distant metastasis following 3DCRT using the ASTRO definition of BF. We sought to determine if this approach is still valid using the Phoenix definition. METHODS: Eligible patients included 432 men with T1-3N0M0 prostate cancer who demonstrated PSA failure after completing definitive 3DCRT or IMRT from 1989-2005. Endpoints included freedom from distant metastasis (FDM), cause-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS). PSADT was stratified by 0-6, 6-12, 12-18, 18-24, and >24 months. The median follow-up was 95 months (6-207 months). RESULTS: The 7 year FDM, CSS, and OS rates for the entire group were 73%, 77% and 52%, respectively. 7 year FDM was 50% for PSADT <6 months vs. 83% for PSADT >6 months (p=0.0001). 7 year CSS was 61% for PSADT <6 and 85% for PSADT >6 (p=0.0001). 7 year OS was 47% for PSADT <6 and 53% for PSADT >6 (p=0.04). The proportion of men with BF receiving salvage ADT with a PSADT <6 months was 59%, 6-12 was 45%, 12-18 was 42%, 18-24 was 36%, >24 was 28%. ADT was associated with improved 7 year CSS (68% vs. 46%, p=0.015). Of the 314 men with PSADT >6 months, 124 received ADT and 190 were observed. With a median follow-up of 38 months from BF, there was no demonstrable benefit to ADT in the 7 year CSS (87% vs. 79%, respectively; p=0.758). Independent predictors of FDM were PSADT (p<0.0001), GS (p=0.011), and the use of initial ADT (p=0.005). CONCLUSION: PSADT remains a significant predictor of clinical failure and CSS for men treated with 3DCRT or IMRT who fail according to the Phoenix definition. Immediate use of ADT in patients with PSADT <6 months is significantly associated with improved CSS, although the benefit is less apparent in patients with longer PSADT. These results further refine the role of PSADT in predicting which patients may benefit from salvage ADT and those who may be observed expectantly.

70 Gy versus 80 Gy in localized prostate cancer: 5-year results of GETUG 06 randomized trial

PURPOSE

To perform a randomized trial comparing 70 and 80 Gy radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 306 patients with localized prostate cancer were randomized. No androgen deprivation was allowed. The primary endpoint was biochemical relapse according to the modified 1997-American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology and Phoenix definitions. Toxicity was graded using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 1991 criteria and the late effects on normal tissues-subjective, objective, management, analytic scales (LENT-SOMA) scales. The patients' quality of life was scored using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire 30-item cancer-specific and 25-item prostate-specific modules.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 61 months. According to the 1997-American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology definition, the 5-year biochemical relapse rate was 39% and 28% in the 70- and 80-Gy arms, respectively (p = .036). Using the Phoenix definition, the 5-year biochemical relapse rate was 32% and 23.5%, respectively (p = .09). The subgroup analysis showed a better biochemical outcome for the higher dose group with an initial prostate-specific antigen level >15 ng/mL. At the last follow-up date, 26 patients had died, 10 of their disease and none of toxicity, with no differences between the two arms. According to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group scale, the Grade 2 or greater rectal toxicity rate was 14% and 19.5% for the 70- and 80-Gy arms (p = .22), respectively. The Grade 2 or greater urinary toxicity was 10% at 70 Gy and 17.5% at 80 Gy (p = .046). Similar results were observed using the LENT-SOMA scale. Bladder toxicity was more frequent at 80 Gy than at 70 Gy (p = .039). The quality-of-life questionnaire results before and 5 years after treatment were available for 103 patients with no differences found between the 70- and 80-Gy arms.

CONCLUSION

High-dose radiotherapy provided a better 5-year biochemical outcome with slightly greater toxicity.

Dose distribution in 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer: comparison of femur doses for four treatment techniques

Purpose: Conformal radiotherapy of the prostate is an increasingly common technique in the treatment of prostate cancer. When using 3D conformal radiotherapy (CFRT) methods, it is desirable to protect the vital structures such as bladder, rectum, and femur. In this study, our aim was to compare the femur head doses resulting from co-planar beam arrangements in four-field (4F), five-field (5F), six-field (6F) and seven-field (7F) treatment plans, in a dose-escalated CFRT schedule.

Materials and Methods: From January 2005 to December 2006, at Istanbul University Medical Faculty of Radiation Oncology Clinic, a total of 22 patients with carcinoma of the prostate had been scanned using computed tomography (CT) (0.50 mm) in the supine position. During the CT scanning which used the Sim Pro (CMD–USA) programme, planned target volume (PTV), clinical target volume (CTV), and dose volumes received by the bladder, rectum and femur heads were recorded and dose–volume histogram (DVH) were created. The dose volume relating to prostate and seminal vesicles was termed CTV 1, and the dose volume relating to prostate alone was termed CTV 2. During the formation of PTV, into CTV 1, from the anterior-superior-inferior 8 mm, and from posterior 5 mm tolerance were taken into account. After volume determination is calculated using XiO (CMS-USA) 3D treatment planning computer, each patient 4F (45° – 25%, 135° – 25%, 225° – 25%, 315° – 25%), 5F (0° – 20%, 45° – 20%, 90° – 20%, 270° – 20%, 315° – 20%), 6F (45° – 20%, 90° – 10%, 135° 20%, 315° – 20%, 270° – 10%, 225° – 20%) and 7F (0° – 4%, 45° – 12.9%, 90° – 22.2%, 135° – 12.9%, 315° – 12.9%, 270° – 22.2%, 225° – 12.9%) was entered; 70 – 76 Gy was calculated to be given to prostate lodge. With the use of Siemes Oncor, 18 MV photons CFRT was applied. In DVH analysis, following were observed: V50, minimum and maximum doses for head of left femur and right femur total doses.

Results: Our statistical evaluation was made using SPSS software, and we found femur doses following; 4F V50 1030 cGy (minimum 58, maximum 1390), 5F V50 2425 cGy (minimum 540, maximum 3631), 6F V50 1769 cGy (minimum 1234, maximum 3912) and 7F V50 3230 cGy (minimum 2150, maximum 4137). In comparing different techniques, the greatest rectal sparing was achieved by the 5F plan. (Rectal: 5F V%25 = 59.90 ± 6.8 Gy, 4F V%25 = 62.30 ± 10.3 Gy, 6F V%25 = 69.36 ± 5.7 Gy, 7F V%25 = 61.32 ± 7.3 Gy). The greatest femoral head sparing was achieved by the 4F techniques. When paired samples t-test was made, we found considerable lower femur doses for 4F techniques (p = 0.05).

Conclusion: We concluded that, during radiotherapy to treat carcinoma of the prostate, the dose received by the rectum is the most important factor to consider, given the potential for late toxicity in this organ. However, while using lateral fields (90–270°) so as to protect the rectum, the doses received by the femur heads were observed to be higher. Especially in older patients, the critical doses of 52 Gy for TD5/5 and 65 Gy for TD 50/5 were observed to be not reached late toxicity for 4F, 5F, 6F and 7F.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy for organ-confined prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Improved understanding of prostate cancer radiobiology combined with advances in delivery of radiation to the moving prostate offer the potential to reduce treatment-related morbidity and maintain quality of life (QOL) following prostate cancer treatment. We present preliminary results following stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) treatment for organ-confined prostate cancer.

METHODS

SBRT was performed on 304 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer: 50 received 5 fractions of 7 Gy (total dose 35 Gy) and 254 received 5 fractions of 7.25 Gy (total dose 36.25 Gy). Acute and late toxicity was assessed using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group scale. The Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite questionnaire was used to assess QOL. Prostate-specific antigen response was monitored.

RESULTS

At a median 30-month (26 - 37 month, range) follow-up there were no biochemical failures for the 35-Gy dose level. Acute Grade II urinary and rectal toxicities occurred in 4% of patients with no higher Grade acute toxicities. One Grade II late urinary toxicity occurred with no other Grade II or higher late toxicities. At a median 17-month (8 - 27 month, range) follow-up the 36.25 Gy dose level had 2 low- and 2 high-risk patients fail biochemically (biopsy showed 2 low- and 1 high-risk patients were disease-free in the gland). Acute Grade II urinary and rectal toxicities occurred in 4.7% (12/253) and 3.6% (9/253) of patients, respectively. For those patients with a minimum of 12 months follow-up, 5.8% (12/206) had late Grade II urinary toxicity and 2.9% (6/206) had late Grade II rectal toxicities. One late Grade III urinary toxicity occurred; no Grade IV toxicities occurred. For both dose levels at 17 months, bowel and urinary QOL returned to baseline values; sexual QOL decreased by 10%.

CONCLUSIONS

The low toxicity and maintained QOL are highly encouraging. Additional follow-up is needed to determine long-term biochemical control and maintenance of low toxicity and QOL.

Acute toxicity in high-risk prostate cancer patients treated with androgen suppression and hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy

PURPOSE

To report acute toxicity resulting from radiotherapy (RT) dose escalation and hypofractionation using intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) treatment combined with androgen suppression in high-risk prostate cancer patients.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Sixty patients with a histological diagnosis of high-risk prostatic adenocarcinoma (having either a clinical Stage of > or =T3a or an initial prostate-specific antigen [PSA] level of > or =20 ng/ml or a Gleason score of 8 to 10 or a combination of a PSA concentration of >15 ng/ml and a Gleason score of 7) were enrolled. RT prescription was 68 Gy in 25 fractions (2.72 Gy/fraction) over 5 weeks to the prostate and proximal seminal vesicles. The pelvic lymph nodes and distal seminal vesicles concurrently received 45 Gy in 25 fractions. The patients were treated with helical TomoTherapy-based IMRT and underwent daily megavoltage CT image-guided verification prior to each treatment. Acute toxicity scores were recorded weekly during RT and at 3 months post-RT, using Radiation Therapy Oncology Group acute toxicity scales.

RESULTS

All patients completed RT and follow up for 3 months. The maximum acute toxicity scores were as follows: 21 (35%) patients had Grade 2 gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity; 4 (6.67%) patients had Grade 3 genitourinary (GU) toxicity; and 30 (33.33%) patients had Grade 2 GU toxicity. These toxicity scores were reduced after RT; there were only 8 (13.6%) patients with Grade 1 GI toxicity, 11 (18.97%) with Grade 1 GU toxicity, and 5 (8.62%) with Grade 2 GU toxicity at 3 months follow up. Only the V60 to the rectum correlated with the GI toxicity.

CONCLUSION

Dose escalation using a hypofractionated schedule to the prostate with concurrent pelvic lymph node RT and long-term androgen suppression therapy is well tolerated acutely. Longer follow up for outcome and late toxicity is required.

No impairment of quality of life 18 months after high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: a prospective study

PURPOSE

To determine prospectively intermediate-term toxicity and quality of life (QoL) of prostate cancer patients after intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Fifty-five patients with localized prostate adenocarcinoma were treated by IMRT (76 Gy). Physicians scored acute and late toxicity using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0. Patients assessed general and prostate-specific QoL before IMRT (baseline) and at 2, 6, and 18 months using European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer questionnaires QLQ-C30(+3) and QLQ-PR25.

RESULTS

Median age was 73 years (range, 54-80 years). Risk categories were 18% low risk, 60% intermediate risk, and 22% high risk; 45% of patients received hormonal therapy (median duration, 6 months). The incidence of urinary and bowel toxicity immediately after IMRT was, respectively, 38% and 13% (Grade 2) and 2% and none (Grade 3); at 18 months it was 15% and 11% (Grade 2) and none (Grade 3). Significant worsening of QoL was reported at 2 months with regard to fatigue (+11.31, p = 1.10(-7)), urinary symptoms (+9.07, p = 3.10(-11)), dyspnea (+7.27, p = 0.008), and emotional (-7.02, p = 0.002), social (-6.36, p = 0.003), cognitive (-4.85, p = 0.004), and physical (-3.39, p = 0.007) functioning. Only fatigue (+5.86, p = 0.003) and urinary symptoms (+5.86, p = 0.0004) had not improved by 6 months. By 18 months all QoL scores except those for dyspnea (+8.02, p = 0.01) and treatment-related symptoms (+4.24, p = 0.01) had returned to baseline. These adverse effects were exacerbated by hormonal therapy.

CONCLUSION

High-dose IMRT with accurate positioning induces only a temporary worsening of QoL.

Report from the Radiation Therapy Committee of the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG): Research Objectives Workshop 2008

Strategic planning for the Radiation Therapy Committee of the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) is comprehensively evaluated every six years in an effort to maintain a current and relevant scientific focus, and to provide a standard platform for future development of protocol concepts. Participants in the 2008 Strategic Planning Workshop included clinical trial experts from multiple specialties, industry representatives from both pharmaceuticals and equipment manufacturers, and basic scientists. High-priority research areas such as image-guided radiation therapy for control of limited metastatic disease, analysis of biomarkers for treatment response and late toxicity, assessment of novel agents in combination with radiation, standardization of radiation target delineation, and the assessment of new imaging techniques to individualize cancer therapy, were discussed. Research priorities included clinical study designs featuring translational end points that identify patients most likely to benefit from combined modality therapy; intervention including combination radiation with standard chemotherapy; radiation with radiosensitizing molecular-targeted therapies; and stereotactic radiation for treatment of patients with regard to asymptomatic metastasis and radiation-induced tumor autoimmunity. The Committee concluded that the future research opportunities are among the most exciting to have developed in the last decade, and work is in progress to embark on these plans.