Hypofractionated Versus Conventionally Fractionated Radiotherapy for Prostate Carcinoma: Final Results of Phase III Randomized Trial

Image-guided Hypofractionated Radiotherapy as an Alternative to Radical Prostatectomy in Localized Prostate Cancer in Elderly Patients with Low Life Expectancy

INTRODUCTION

Radical prostatectomy is appropriate for any patient whose cancer appears clinically localised to prostate. However because of potential perioperative morbidity, radical prostatectomy is generally reserved for patients whose life expectancy is more than ten years. Moderate hypofractionation for localized prostate cancer is safe and effective. There is a growing body of evidence in support of extreme hypofractionation for localized prostate cancer. Hypofractionation for prostate cancer was originally carried out in the pursuit of efficiency and convenience, but has now attracted greatly renewed interest based upon a hypothesis that prostate cancers have a higher sensitivity to fraction size, reflected in a low α/β ratio, then do late responding organs at risk such as the rectum or bladder.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From January 2017 to December 2020 we treated 112 patients of localised Prostate Cancer with Image Guided Radiotherapy (IGRT). They were in range of 75-85 years. They were of stage T1-T3, N0 or N1. There were significant comborbidities. ECOG performance status was 0-1. They were given 3 months of Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) before starting IGRT. Patients were immobilised with casts and subject to CT simulation. CBCT was taken daily. Dose was 70 Gy @ 250 cGy per fraction at a frequency of 5 fractions per week. Complete blood counts were done weekly for assessment of haematological toxicity. Androgen Deprivation Therapy was continued post IGRT.

RESULTS

All the patients were able to complete the treatment. Evaluation was done at one month, three month and six months post treatment. 104 out of 112 patients achieved complete response. Other 8 had near complete response. There were no acute grade 3-4 toxicities. Grade 1-2 toxicities like skin desquamation, diarrhoea, burning micturition were managed conservatively. Late toxicity was rectal bleeding seen after one year of completion of treatment and was managed with steroid enemas. 23 patients required argon plasma laser therapy.

CONCLUSION

Image guided radiotherapy is well tolerated, easy to implement and an effective alternative to radical prostatectomy in elderly patients with comorbidities and low life expectancy.

[Moderately hypofractionated dose escalation radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer, ESHYPRO: Results of a retrospective single-centre series evaluating safety and efficacy]

PURPOSE

Prostate cancer is the most frequent cancer among men and radiotherapy hypofractionation regimens have become standard treatments for the localized stages, but the absence of increased risk of acute and late genitourinary or gastrointestinal toxicity of the dose escalation still must be demonstrated.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study population included all patients with localized prostatic adenocarcinoma treated at the institut Curie from February 2016 to March 2018 by external radiation delivered by a linear accelerator using an image-guided conformal intensity modulation technique at a total dose of 75Gy in 30 fractions of 2.5Gy in the planning target volume that included the prostate and the proximal seminal vesicles, and could be paired with a prophylactic lymph node radiotherapy at 46Gy in 23 fractions with simultaneous integrated boost.

RESULTS

A total of 166 patients were included. Among them, 68.6% were unfavourable intermediate or (very) high risk. The median age and follow-up were 71.4years and 3.96years. One hundred and forty-nine patients received prophylactic lymph node radiotherapy (89.8%). One hundred and thirty-one patients received hormonotherapy (78.9%). Genito-urinary toxicity events of grades 2 or above during radiotherapy, at 6months, 1year and 5years were respectively 36.7%, 8.8%, 3.1% and 4.7%. Two patients had late grade 4 toxicity at 5years (1.6%). Grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicity events during radiotherapy, 6months, 1year and 5years were respectively 15.1%, 1.9%, 14.6% and 9.3%. Of these, eight patients had grade 3 toxicity (6.2%). There was no grade 4 toxicity. Analyses did not reveal any predictive factor for toxicity. The 5-year overall, progression-free, and specific survival rates were respectively 82.4%, 85.7%, and 93.3%. Serum prostate specific antigen concentration and cardiovascular risk factors were found to be predictive factors of deterioration in overall survival (P=0.0028 for both).

CONCLUSION

External radiotherapy for localized prostatic cancer with our moderately hypofractionated dose escalation regimen is well tolerated. In the absence of increased late toxicity, the analysis of the modes of long-term relapses will be interesting to determine the benefit of this dose escalation on local and distant relapses.

Radiation technique and outcomes following moderately hypofractionated treatment of low risk prostate cancer: a secondary analysis of RTOG 0415

BACKGROUND

While moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (MHRT) for prostate cancer (PC) is commonly delivered by intensity modulated radiation therapy, IMRT has not been prospectively compared to three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) in this context. We conducted a secondary analysis of the phase III RTOG 0415 trial comparing survival and toxicity outcomes for low-risk PC following MHRT with IMRT versus 3D-CRT.

METHODS

RTOG 0415 was a phase III, non-inferiority trial randomizing low-risk PC patients to either MHRT or conventionally fractionated radiation with stratification by RT technique. A secondary analysis for differences in overall survival (OS), biochemical recurrence free survival (BRFS), or toxicity by EPIC scores and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) was performed.

RESULTS

1079 patients received the allocated intervention with a median follow up of 5.8 years. 79.1% of patients were treated with IMRT and radiation technique was balanced between arms. Across all patients, RT technique was not associated with significant differences in BRFS, OS, or rates of acute and late toxicities. For patients completing MHRT, there was a difference in the late GU toxicity distribution between 3D-CRT and IMRT but no difference in late grade 2 or greater GU or GI toxicity. Stratifying patients by RT technique and fractionation, no significant differences were observed in the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in EPIC urinary and bowel scores following RT.

CONCLUSIONS

RT technique did not impact clinical outcomes following MHRT for low-risk PC. Despite different late GU toxicity distributions in patients treated with MHRT by IMRT or 3D-CRT, there was no difference in late Grade 2 or greater GU or GI toxicity or patient reported toxicity. Increases in late GU and GI toxicity following MHRT compared to CFRT, as demonstrated in the initial publication of RTOG 0415, do not appear related to a 3D-CRT treatment technique.

A Comparison of Field-in-Field and Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy in Delivering Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer

Purpose

This study compares the dosimetric performance of the field-in-field (FIF) technique with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for delivering hypofractionated radiation therapy to prostate patients with cancer. The FIF technique uses 6 beams, whereas IMRT uses 9 beams.

Methods and Materials

This study was conducted on 15 patients with prostate cancer treated with step-and-shoot IMRT. The prescribed dose was 60 Gy in 20 fractions. The FIF plans contained 6 photon beams, and IMRT plans were designed using a 9-field step-and-shoot technique. Dose-volume histograms and dose distributions were evaluated to compare FIF and IMRT.

Results

The results of the planning target volume indices analysis showed a significant difference in the maximum dose, dose to 2% of volume, and homogeneity index in favor of FIF and in the mean dose, dose to 98% of volume, and D95 in favor of IMRT. The results of the organs-at-risk analysis showed significant differences in the volume of the rectum and bladder receiving 60 Gy in favor of FIF and the volume of the rectum and femoral heads receiving 30 Gy, as well as the mean dose to the rectum, in favor of IMRT. IMRT had a higher median number of monitor units (MUs) and segments (886 MU, 64 segments) compared to FIF (434 MUs, 6 segments).

Conclusions

The FIF technique and IMRT had comparable results in delivering hypofractionated radiation therapy for prostate cancer. The findings of this study may aid in decision-making for patients undergoing treatment.

A pilot study of stereotactic body radiotherapy combined with pelvic radiotherapy and GTVp boost based on multiparameter magnetic resonance image in patients with high-risk prostate cancer

This pilot study aimed to explore the preliminary effects and safety of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) combined with preventive pelvic radiotherapy and primary gross tumor volumes (GTVp) boost in patients with high-risk prostate cancer based on multiparameter magnetic resonance image (mpMRI). Tumors were contoured as GTVp based on mpMRI. The prostate and proximal seminal vesicles were considered as the clinical target volume1. The pelvic lymphatic drainage area constituted clinical target volume 2. Radiation doses were 40Gy or 45Gy/5fractions to planning target volume of primary tumor, 37.5Gy/5f to prostate, seminal vesicle, and positive pelvic lymph nodes, and 25Gy/5f to pelvic synchronously. The treatment was delivered 3 times per week. Volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy were used to complete SBRT. The genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities were evaluated. Quality of life data was also captured. A total of 15 patients were enrolled in this study with a median age of 78 (56-87) from 2017 to 2020. All patients received SBRT. At 3 months after radiotherapy, the proportion of PSA < 0.006 ng/mL was 66.7% (10/15). The 2-year biochemical relapse-free survival was 93.3%. The incidence of grade 1 acute GU side effects was 80% (12/15); the incidence of acute grade 1 GI toxicity was 66.7% (10/15); and no grade 2 or higher acute GU and GI side effects was observed. Two patients presented with temporary late grade 2 GI toxicity. International Prostatic System Score increased rapidly after a transient increase at 1 week (P = .001). There were no significant differences in EORTC quality of life scores in all domains except global health status. In this pilot study, it was revealed that SBRT combined with preventive pelvic radiotherapy and GTVp boost based on mpMRI image was effective and well tolerated for patients with high-risk prostate cancer.

Targeted Radiation and Immune Therapies-Advances and Opportunities for the Treatment of Prostate Cancer

Prostate cancer is the most diagnosed malignancy in men in the United States and the second leading cause of cancer-related death. For localized disease, radiation therapy is a standard treatment that is often curative. For metastatic disease, radiation therapy has been primarily used for palliation, however, several newer systemic radiation therapies have been demonstrated to significantly improve patient outcomes and improve survival. In particular, several targeted radionuclide therapies have been approved for the treatment of advanced-stage cancer, including strontium-89, samarium-153, and radium-223 for bone-metastatic disease, and lutetium-177-labeled PSMA-617 for patients with prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-expressing metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Contrarily, immune-based treatments have generally demonstrated little activity in advanced prostate cancer, with the exception of the autologous cellular vaccine, sipuleucel-T. This has been attributed to the presence of an immune-suppressive prostate cancer microenvironment. The ability of radiation therapy to not only eradicate tumor cells but also potentially other immune-regulatory cells within the tumor immune microenvironment suggests that targeted radionuclide therapies may be well poised to combine with immune-targeted therapies to eliminate prostate cancer metastases more effectively. This review provides an overview of the recent advances of targeted radiation agents currently approved for prostate cancer, and those being investigated in combination with immunotherapy, and discusses the challenges as well as the opportunities in this field.

Preliminary Analysis of a Phase II Trial of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer With High-Risk Features After Radical Prostatectomy

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.

Prostate only radiotherapy using external beam radiotherapy: A clinician's perspective

Prostate-only radiotherapy (PORT) is widely used as the definitive treatment for localized prostate cancer. Prostate cancer has an α/β ratio; therefore, radiotherapy (RT) with a large fraction size is biologically effective for tumor control. The current external beam RT technique for PORT has been improved from three-dimensional conformal RT to intensity-modulated, stereotactic body, and image-guided RTs. These methods are associated with reduced radiation exposure to normal tissues, decreasing urinary and bowel toxicity. Several trials have shown improved local control with dose escalation through the aforementioned methods, and the efficacy and safety of intensity-modulated and stereotactic body RTs have been proven. However, the management of RT in patients with prostate cancer has not been fully elucidated. As a clinician, there are several concerns regarding the RT volume and dose considering the patient's age and comorbidities. Therefore, this review aimed to discuss the radiobiological basis and external beam technical advancements in PORT for localized prostate cancer from a clinician's perspective.

Modulation of Peripheral Immune Cell Subpopulations After RapidArc/Moderate Hypofractionated Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: Findings and Comparison With 3D Conformal/Conventional Fractionation Treatment

Radiotherapy (RT) is an important therapeutic option in patients with localized prostate cancer (PC). Unfortunately, radiation treatment causes a decrease in peripheral lymphocytes and, consequently, influences the patients' immune status. Our aim was to study changes in peripheral blood immune cell subpopulations after RT and during 6 months' follow-up in 2 groups of PC patients irradiated with different techniques and dose fractions with curative intent. We also investigated the presence of correlation between immune cell modulation and genitourinary or gastrointestinal toxicity. We enrolled 44 patients treated with curative RT (RapidArc/hypofractionation regimen or 3D conformal/conventional fractionation) for localized PC. Total white blood cell (WBC), absolute lymphocyte counts (ALCs), and peripheral immune cell subpopulations were analyzed at baseline, at the end of RT, and 3 and 6 months after the end of RT. WBC and ALC greatly decreased at the end of RT with a trend to recover at 6 months' follow-up in the hypofractionation group but not in the conventional one. Furthermore, B, total T, T CD4+, T CD8+, and NK cell values dropped significantly in both groups at the end of RT, with a minor decrease detectable in the hypofractionation group for B, total T, and T CD4+ lymphocytes with respect to the other technique/fractionation group. Double-negative T (DNT), double-positive T (DPT), and NKT cells significantly decreased at the end of RT with a slight tendency to recover values during follow-up, particularly in the hypofractionation group. No correlation with genitourinary or gastrointestinal toxicity was found. In this study, we showed, for the first time, the effects of RapidArc/moderate hypofractionation RT on immune cell subsets in patients treated for localized PC. Due to the growing interest in minority T-cell subpopulations for immunotherapy, we also reported longitudinal monitoring of the effects of RT on DNT, DPT, and NKT, which was never studied before. Our preliminary data highlight the importance of considering the effects of different RT techniques/fractionation regimens on peripheral immune cells, in the era of RT and immunotherapy combination.

Safety of accelerated hypofractionated whole pelvis radiation therapy prior to high dose rate brachytherapy or stereotactic body radiation therapy prostate boost

Background

To evaluate acute and late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities and patient reported urinary and sexual function following accelerated, hypofractionated external beam radiotherapy to the prostate, seminal vesicles and pelvic lymph nodes and high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy or stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) prostate boost.

Methods

Patients at a single institution with NCCN intermediate- and high-risk localized prostate cancer with logistical barriers to completing five weeks of whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) were retrospectively reviewed for toxicity following accelerated, hypofractionated WPRT (41.25 Gy in 15 fractions of 2.75 Gy). Patients also received prostate boost radiotherapy with either HDR brachytherapy (1 fraction of 15 Gy) or SBRT (19 Gy in 2 fractions of 9.5 Gy). The duration of androgen deprivation therapy was at the discretion of the treating radiation oncologist. Toxicity was evaluated by NCI CTCAE v 5.0.

Results

Between 2015 and 2017, 22 patients with a median age of 71 years completed accelerated, hypofractionated WPRT. Median follow-up from the end of radiotherapy was 32 months (range 2–57). 5%, 73%, and 23% of patients had clinical T1, T2, and T3 disease, respectively. 86% of tumors were Gleason grade 7 and 14% were Gleason grade 9. 68% and 32% of patients had NCCN intermediate- and high-risk disease, respectively. 91% and 9% of patients received HDR brachytherapy and SBRT prostate boost following WPRT, respectively. Crude rates of grade 2 or higher GI and GU toxicities were 23% and 23%, respectively. 3 patients (14%) had late or persistent grade 2 toxicities of urinary frequency and 1 patient (5%) had late or persistent GI toxicity of diarrhea. No patient experienced grade 3 or higher toxicity at any time. No difference in patient-reported urinary or sexual function was noted at 12 months.

Conclusions

Accelerated, hypofractionated whole pelvis radiotherapy was associated with acceptable GU and GI toxicities and should be further validated for those at risk for harboring occult nodal disease.

Ten Year Results of Extensive Nodal Radiotherapy and Moderately Hypofractionated Simultaneous Integrated Boost in Unfavorable Intermediate-, High-, and Very High-Risk Prostate Cancer

Simple Summary

Several phase III randomized trials of moderate hypofractionation, including a higher proportion of high-risk prostate cancer patients treated only to the prostate, failed to demonstrate the superiority of hypofractionated regimens. There is only one randomized phase III trial, of moderately hypofractionated high-dose radiotherapy to the prostate-only versus pelvic irradiation and prostate boost, with a sufficiently long follow-up. It demonstrated better biochemical and disease-free survival when lymph nodal radiotherapy was added. Here we present the 10-year results of our experience based on an Institutional protocol adopted after a phase I–II study, on patients with unfavorable intermediate- (UIR), high- (HR), and very high-risk (VHR) prostate cancer (PCa) treated with pelvic lymph nodal irradiation (WPRT) and moderately hypofractionated high-dose (HD) simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) to the prostate. Prognostic factors for relapse, as well as acute and late gastro-intestinal (GI) and genito-urinary (GU) toxicity were also analyzed.

Abstract

Aims: To report 10-year outcomes of WPRT and HD moderately hypofractionated SIB to the prostate in UIR, HR, and VHR PCa. Methods: From 11/2005 to 12/2015, 224 UIR, HR, and VHR PCa patients underwent WPRT at 51.8 Gy/28 fractions and SIB at 74.2 Gy (EQD2 88 Gy) to the prostate. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was prescribed in up to 86.2% of patients. Results: Median follow-up was 96.3 months (IQR: 71–124.7). Median age was 75 years (IQR: 71.3–78.1). At last follow up, G3 GI–GU toxicity was 3.1% and 8%, respectively. Ten-year biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) was 79.8% (95% CI: 72.3–88.1%), disease-free survival (DFS) 87.8% (95% CI: 81.7–94.3%), overall survival (OS) 65.7% (95% CI: 58.2–74.1%), and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) 94.9% (95% CI: 91.0–99.0%). Only two patients presented local relapse. At univariate analysis, VHR vs. UIR was found to be a significant risk factor for biochemical relapse (HR: 2.8, 95% CI: 1.17–6.67, p = 0.021). After model selection, only Gleason Score ≥ 8 emerged as a significant factor for biochemical relapse (HR = 2.3, 95% CI: 1.12–4.9, p = 0.023). Previous TURP (HR = 3.5, 95% CI: 1.62–7.54, p = 0.001) and acute toxicity ≥ G2 (HR = 3.1, 95% CI = 1.45–6.52, p = 0.003) were significant risk factors for GU toxicity ≥ G3. Hypertension was a significant factor for GI toxicity ≥ G3 (HR = 3.63, 95% CI: 1.06–12.46, p = 0.041). ADT (HR = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.12–0.8, p = 0.015) and iPsa (HR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.16–0.83, p = 0.0164) played a protective role. Conclusions: WPRT and HD SIB to the prostate combined with long-term ADT, in HR PCa, determine good outcomes with acceptable toxicity.

Phase 3 multicenter randomized trial of PSMA PET/CT prior to definitive radiation therapy for unfavorable intermediate-risk or high-risk prostate cancer [PSMA dRT]: study protocol

BACKGROUND

Definitive radiation therapy (dRT) is an effective initial treatment of intermediate-risk (IR) and high-risk (HR) prostate cancer (PCa). PSMA PET/CT is superior to standard of care imaging (CT, MRI, bone scan) for detecting regional and distant metastatic PCa. PSMA PET/CT thus has the potential to guide patient selection and the planning for dRT and improve patient outcomes.

METHODS

This is a multicenter randomized phase 3 trial (NCT04457245). We will randomize 312 patients to proceed with standard dRT (control Arm, n = 150), or undergo a PSMA PET/CT scan at the study site (both 18F-DCFPyL and 68Ga-PSMA-11 can be used) prior to dRT planning (intervention arm, n = 162). dRT will be performed at the treating radiation oncologist facility. In the control arm, dRT will be performed as routinely planned. In the intervention arm, the treating radiation oncologist can incorporate PSMA PET/CT findings into the RT planning. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is administered per discretion of the treating radiation oncologist and may be modified as a result of the PSMA PET/CT results. We assume that approximately 8% of subjects randomized to the PSMA PET arm will be found to have M1 disease and thus will be more appropriate candidates for long-term systemic or multimodal therapy, rather than curative intent dRT. PET M1 patients will thus not be included in the primary endpoint analysis. The primary endpoint is the success rate of patients with unfavorable IR and HR PCa after standard dRT versus PSMA PET-based dRT. Secondary Endpoints (whole cohort) include progression free survival (PFS), metastasis-free survival after initiation of RT, overall survival (OS), % of change in initial treatment intent and Safety.

DISCUSSION

This is the first randomized phase 3 prospective trial designed to determine whether PSMA PET/CT molecular imaging can improve outcomes in patients with PCa who receive dRT. In this trial the incorporation of PSMA PET/CT may improve the success rate of curative intent radiotherapy in two ways: to optimize patient selection as a biomarker and to personalizes the radiotherapy plan.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

UCLA IND#147591 ○ Submission: 02.27.2020 ○ Safe-to-proceed letter issued by FDA: 04.01.2020 UCLA IRB #20-000378 ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT04457245 . Date of Registry: 07.07.2020. Essen EudraCT 2020-003526-23.

Hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated image-guided volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: a phase II randomized trial from China

Purpose: To determine the safety of hypofractionated imaging-guided (IG) volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy (IG-VMAT; 70 Gy/28 fractions over 5.5 weeks) versus conventionally fractionated regimen (IG-VMAT; 80 Gy/40 fractions over 8 weeks) in Chinese patients with localized prostate cancer.

Method: In this randomized non-comparative phase II trial, 92 patients with localized prostate cancer were assigned to receive either hypofractionated IG-VMAT (HFRT; 70 Gy/2.5Gy/28f) or conventionally fractionated IG-VMAT (CFRT; 80 Gy/2Gy/40f). Primary endpoint was grade 2 or higher late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity at 2 years. The GI/GU toxicity and biochemical relapse–free survival (bRFS) were compared between the two treatment groups.

Results: Median follow-up was 26 months. The incidence of grade 2 or higher late GI/GU toxicity was low in both groups; the 5-year cumulative incidence of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group grade 2 or higher GI/GU toxicity at 2 years was 7.6% with HFRT versus 10.3% with CFRT (P = 0.707). Biochemical control was not significantly different between the two groups; the 2-year bRFS was 94.6% for HFRT versus 95.0% for CFRT (P = 0.704).

Conclusion: Hypofractionated IG-VMAT appears to be equivalent to conventionally fractionated IG-VMAT in terms of toxicity in Chinese patients with localized prostate cancer.

Prostate SBRT using O-Ring Halcyon Linac - Plan quality, delivery efficiency, and accuracy

Cone beam CT‐guided prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) treatment on the recently installed novel O‐ring coplanar geometry Halcyon Linac with a single energy 6MV‐flattening filter free (FFF) beam and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is a fast, safe, and feasible treatment modality for early stage low‐ and intermediate‐risk prostate cancer patients. Following the RTOG‐0938 compliance criteria and utilizing two‐full arc geometry, VMAT prostate SBRT plans were generated for ten consecutive patients using advanced Acuros‐based algorithm for heterogeneity corrections with Halcyon couch insert. Halcyon VMAT plans with the stacked and staggered multileaf collimators (MLC) produced highly conformal SBRT dose distributions to the prostate, lower intermediate dose spillage and similar dose to adjacent organs‐at‐risks (OARs) compared to SBRT‐dedicated Truebeam VMAT plans. Due to lower monitor units per fraction and less MLC modulation through the target, the Halcyon VMAT plan can deliver prostate SBRT fractions in and overall treatment time of less than 10 minutes (for 36.25 Gy in five fractions), significantly improving patient compliance and clinic workflow. Pretreatment quality assurance results were similar to Truebeam VMAT plans. We have implemented Halcyon Linac for prostate SBRT treatment in our institution. We recommend that others use Halcyon for prostate SBRT treatments to expand the access of curative hypofractionated treatments to other clinics only equipped with a Halcyon Linac. Clinical follow‐up results for patients who underwent prostate SBRT treatment on our Halcyon Linac is underway.

Moderately Hypofractionated Radiotherapy with Simultaneous Integrated Boost in Prostate Cancer: A Comparative Study with Conventionally Fractionated Radiation

Background

To report 5-year clinical outcomes and toxicity in organ-confined prostate cancer (PCa) for low- and intermediate-risk patients treated with a moderately hypofractionated schedule of radiotherapy (RT) delivered with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) compared to a conventionally fractionated RT regimen.

Methods

Data of 384 patients with PCa treated between August 2006 and June 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. The treatment schedule consisted of hypofractionated RT (HYPO FR) with SIB up to 70 Gy to the prostate gland and 63 Gy to seminal vesicles delivered in 28 fractions or in conventionally fractionated RT (CONV FR) up to a total dose of 80 Gy in 40 fractions. Patient allocation to treatment was based on the time period considered. For intermediate-risk patients, androgen deprivation was given for a median duration of 6 months. The 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS) were assessed. Furthermore, we evaluated gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities. Uni- and multivariate Cox regression analyses were used to test the impact of clinical variables on both outcome and toxicity.

Results

A total of 198 patients was treated with hypofractionated RT and 186 with the conventional schedule. At a median follow-up of 5 years, no significant differences were observed in terms of GI toxicity and outcome between the two groups. Early GU toxicity was significantly increased in HYPO FR, while late GU toxicity was significantly higher in CONV FR. In HYPO FR, a biochemical relapse occurred in 12 patients (6.1%), and 9 patients (4.5%) reported a clinical relapse (4 local, 2 locoregional, and 3 systemic recurrence). In CONV FR, 15 patients (8.1%) experienced a biochemical relapse and 11 patients (5.9%) showed a clinical relapse (5 local, 4 locoregional, and 3 systemic recurrences). Early grades 1-2 GU and GI toxicities were observed in 60 (30.3%) and 37 (18.7%) patients, respectively, in the hypofractionated group and in 33 (17.7%) and 27 (14.5%) patients, respectively, in the conventionally fractionated RT group. Late GU and GI toxicities occurred in 1 (0.51%) and 8 (4.1%) patients, respectively, in HYPO FR. In CONV FR, 5 (2.7%) and 6 (3.2%) patients experienced late GU and GI toxicities, respectively. The 5-year OS, bRFS, and CSS were 98.9%, 94.1%, and 99.5%, respectively, in HYPO FR, and 94.5%, 92.1%, and 99.0%, respectively, in CONV FR.

Conclusions

Results obtained in this study showed that moderately hypofractionated RT employing SIB can be an effective approach providing valuable clinical outcomes with an acceptable toxicity profile.

Dosimetric comparison among cyberknife, helical tomotherapy and VMAT for hypofractionated treatment in localized prostate cancer

Hypofractionation for localized prostate cancer treatment is rapidly spreading in the medical community and it is supported by radiobiological evidences (lower α/β ratio compared with surrounding tissues). Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is a technique to administer high doses with great precision, which is commonly performed with CyberKnife (CK) in prostate cancer treatment. Since the CyberKnife (CK) is not available at all radiotherapy center, alternative SBRT techniques are available such as Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) and Helical Tomotherapy (HT). The aim of the present study was to compare the dosimetric differences between the CK, VMAT, and HT plans for localized prostate cancer treatment.Seventeenpatients have been recruited and replanned using VMAT and HT to this purpose: they received the treatment using the CK with a prescription of 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions; bladder, rectum and penis bulb were considered as organs at risk (OAR). In order to compare the techniques, we considered DVHs, PTV coverage, Conformity Index and new Conformity Index, Homogeneity Index, beam-on time and OARs received dose.The 3 treatments methods showed a comparable coverage of the lesion (PTV 95%: 99.8 ± 0.4% CK; 98.5 ± 0.8% VMAT; 99.4 ± 0.5% HT. P < .05) and good sparing of OARs. Nevertheless, the beam-on time showed a significant difference (37 ± 9 m CK; 7.1 ± 0.3 m VMAT; 17 ± 2 m HT. P < .05).Our results showed that, although CK is the best SBRT technique for prostate cancer treatment, in case this technology is not available, it can be replaced by a similar treatment delivered by VMAT technique. VMAT can be administrated only if it has an appropriate Image Guided Radiation Therapy (IGRT) tracking system.

Assessment of non-inferiority with meta-analysis: example of hypofractionated radiation therapy in breast and prostate cancer

The aim of this study was to propose a methodology for the assessment of non-inferiority with meta-analysis. Assessment of hypofractionated RT in prostate and breast cancers is used as an illustrative example. Non-inferiority assessment of an experimental treatment versus an active comparator should rely on two elements: (1) an estimation of experimental treatment’s effect versus the active comparator based on a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and (2) the value of an objective non-inferiority margin. This margin can be defined using the reported effect of active comparator and the percentage of the active comparator’s effect that is desired to be preserved. Non-inferiority can then be assessed by comparing the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of experimental treatment’s effect to the value of the objective non-inferiority margin. Application to hypofractionated RT in breast cancer showed that hypofractionated whole breast irradiation (HWBI) appeared to be non-inferior to conventionally fractionated RT for local recurrence. This was not the case for accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI). Concerning overall survival, non-inferiority could not be claimed for either HWBI or APBI. For prostate cancer, the lack of demonstrated significant superiority of conventional RT versus no RT precluded any conclusion regarding non-inferiority of hypofractionated RT.

Tumor Control Probability Modeling and Systematic Review of the Literature of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Dose escalation improves localized prostate cancer disease control, and moderately hypofractionated external beam radiation is noninferior to conventional fractionation. The evolving treatment approach of ultrahypofractionation with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) allows possible further biological dose escalation (biologically equivalent dose [BED]) and shortened treatment time.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine Working Group on Biological Effects of Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy/SBRT included a subgroup to study the prostate tumor control probability (TCP) with SBRT. We performed a systematic review of the available literature and created a dose-response TCP model for the endpoint of freedom from biochemical relapse. Results were stratified by prostate cancer risk group.

RESULTS

Twenty-five published cohorts were identified for inclusion, with a total of 4821 patients (2235 with low-risk, 1894 with intermediate-risk, and 446 with high-risk disease, when reported) treated with a variety of dose/fractionation schemes, permitting dose-response modeling. Five studies had a median follow-up of more than 5 years. Dosing regimens ranged from 32 to 50 Gy in 4 to 5 fractions, with total BED (α/β = 1.5 Gy) between 183.1 and 383.3 Gy. At 5 years, we found that in patients with low-intermediate risk disease, an equivalent doses of 2 Gy per fraction (EQD2) of 71 Gy (31.7 Gy in 5 fractions) achieved a TCP of 90% and an EQD2 of 90 Gy (36.1 Gy in 5 fractions) achieved a TCP of 95%. In patients with high-risk disease, an EQD2 of 97 Gy (37.6 Gy in 5 fractions) can achieve a TCP of 90% and an EQD2 of 102 Gy (38.7 Gy in 5 fractions) can achieve a TCP of 95%.

CONCLUSIONS

We found significant variation in the published literature on target delineation, margins used, dose/fractionation, and treatment schedule. Despite this variation, TCP was excellent. Most prescription doses range from 35 to 40 Gy, delivered in 4 to 5 fractions. The literature did not provide detailed dose-volume data, and our dosimetric analysis was constrained to prescription doses. There are many areas in need of continued research as SBRT continues to evolve as a treatment modality for prostate cancer, including the durability of local control with longer follow-up across risk groups, the efficacy and safety of SBRT as a boost to intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and the impact of incorporating novel imaging techniques into treatment planning.

A Prospective Multi-Institutional Phase I/II Trial of Step-Wise Dose-per-Fraction Escalation in Low and Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

This phase I/II, multi-institutional trial explored the tolerance and efficacy of stepwise increasing hypofractionation (HPFX) radiation therapy regimens for fraction sizes up to 4.3 Gy in localized prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Three escalating dose-per-fraction schedules were designed to yield similar predicted tumor control while maintaining equivalent predicted late toxicity. HPFX levels I, II, and III were carried out sequentially and delivered schedules of 64.7 Gy/22 fx/2.94 Gy, 58.08 Gy/16 fx/3.63 Gy, and 51.6 Gy/12 fx/4.3 Gy, respectively with next level escalations contingent upon acceptable gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. The primary endpoints were biochemical control and toxicity.

RESULTS

A total of 347 patients were recruited by 5 institutions with 101, 111, and 135 patients treated on HPFX levels I, II, and III with median follow-ups of 100, 85.5, and 61.7 months, respectively (83.2 months combined). The National Comprehensive Cancer Network low- or intermediate-risk group distribution was 46% and 54%, respectively. Sixteen percent of patients, primarily intermediate risk, received 6 months of androgen deprivation therapy. The 8-year nadir + 2 actuarial biochemical control rates for HPFX levels I, II, and III were 91.1% ± 3.0%, 92.7% ± 2.7%, and 88.5% ± 4.6%, respectively (Kaplan-Meier log rank, 0.903). Among clinical covariates, only Gleason score reached near significance in multivariate analysis (P = .054). Twenty-six patients failed biochemically (crude incidence of 7.5%), and there were 5 cause-specific deaths. GI and genitourinary toxicities were acceptable and similar across the 3 HPFX levels. The combined actuarial cumulative incidence of grade 2+ GI and genitourinary toxicities at 7 years were 16.3% ± 2.1% and 22.1% ± 2.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

HPFX employing fraction sizes extending into the 3.6 to 4.3 Gy/fraction range can be delivered with excellent oncologic outcomes. Such schedules, positioned between moderate and ultra-HPFX, may provide additional options for patients wishing to avoid prolonged treatment schedules associated with conventionally fractionated radiation therapy for prostate cancer.

Trends in the Use of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Treatment of Prostate Cancer in the United States

IMPORTANCE

Stereotactic body radiotherapy is a hypofractionated, cost-effective treatment option for localized prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize US national trends and the clinical and socioeconomic factors associated with the use of stereotactic body radiotherapy in prostate cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cohort study used data collected by the National Cancer Database to assess the clinical and socioeconomic factors among 106 926 men diagnosed as having prostate cancer from 2010 to 2015 who underwent definitive radiotherapy and the trends in the use of this therapy. The initial analysis was performed between January and February 2018, with final updates performed August 2019.

EXPOSURE

Stereotactic body radiotherapy, defined as 5 fractions of radiotherapy.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Temporal trends and clinical and sociodemographic factors associated with stereotactic body radiotherapy use.

RESULTS

In total, 106 926 patients diagnosed as having localized prostate cancer between 2010 and 2015 and receiving definitive radiotherapy were identified. White patients composed 77.3% of this cohort, whereas black patients composed 18.7%. Government-issued insurance was used by 61.2% of patients. More than 80% of patients had a Charlson-Deyo Comorbidity Index score of 0 (range, 0 to ≥3, with lower numbers indicating fewer comorbidities). In the study population, 25.7% had low-risk disease; 26.3%, favorable intermediate-risk disease; 23.3%, unfavorable intermediate-risk disease; and 24.7%, high-risk disease. The proportion of patients who underwent radiotherapy and received stereotactic body radiotherapy (a total of 5395 patients) increased from 3.1% in 2010 to 7.2% in 2015 (odds ratio, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.33-0.40; P < .001). Among the entire cohort, patients received a median dose of 36.25 Gy (range, 30.00-50.00 Gy). Androgen deprivation therapy use increased significantly as disease risk level increased among all patients receiving radiotherapy (9.5% with low risk to 76.6% with high risk; P = .02) and among those receiving stereotactic body radiotherapy (4.1% with low risk to 33.2% with high risk; P = .04) or not receiving stereotactic body radiotherapy (9.9% with low risk to 77.6% with high risk; P = .04). Patients treated at an academic center, living in an urban area, or possessing higher incomes and those who were healthier, white individuals, or were diagnosed as having lower-risk prostate cancer had higher odds of receiving stereotactic body radiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study found that stereotactic body radiotherapy use in prostate cancer more than doubled from 2010 to 2015 but accounted for less than 10% of all patients undergoing radiotherapy. Androgen deprivation therapy use increased with disease risk among patients overall, regardless of receiving stereotactic body radiotherapy. Socioeconomic and clinical determinants of stereotactic body radiotherapy included risk category, Charlson-Deyo Comorbidity Index score, facility type and location, income, race/ethnicity, and year of diagnosis. These results are hypothesis generating; further studies evaluating potential disparities in stereotactic body radiotherapy use in localized prostate cancer are warranted.

A randomised assessment of image guided radiotherapy within a phase 3 trial of conventional or hypofractionated high dose intensity modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) improves treatment set-up accuracy and provides the opportunity to reduce target volume margins. We introduced IGRT methods using standard (IGRT-S) or reduced (IGRT-R) margins in a randomised phase 2 substudy within CHHiP trial. We present a pre-planned analysis of the impact of IGRT on dosimetry and acute/late pelvic side effects using gastrointestinal and genitourinary clinician and patient-reported outcomes (PRO) and evaluate efficacy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

CHHiP is a randomised phase 3, non-inferiority trial for men with localised prostate cancer. 3216 patients were randomly assigned to conventional (74 Gy in 2 Gy/fraction (f) daily) or moderate hypofractionation (60 or 57 Gy in 3 Gy/f daily) between October 2002 and June 2011. The IGRT substudy included a second randomisation assigning to no-IGRT, IGRT-S (standard CTV-PTV margins), or IGRT-R (reduced CTV-PTV margins). Primary substudy endpoint was late RTOG bowel and urinary toxicity at 2 years post-radiotherapy.

RESULTS

Between June 2010 to July 2011, 293 men were recruited from 16 centres. Median follow-up is 56.9(IQR 54.3-60.9) months. Rectal and bladder dose-volume and surface percentages were significantly lower in IGRT-R compared to IGRT-S group; (p < 0.0001). Cumulative proportion with RTOG grade ≥ 2 toxicity reported to 2 years for bowel was 8.3(95% CI 3.2-20.7)%, 8.3(4.7-14.6)% and 5.8(2.6-12.4)% and for urinary 8.4(3.2-20.8)%, 4.6(2.1-9.9)% and 3.9(1.5-9.9)% in no IGRT, IGRT-S and IGRT-R groups respectively. In an exploratory analysis, treatment efficacy appeared similar in all three groups.

CONCLUSION

Introduction of IGRT was feasible in a national randomised trial and IGRT-R produced dosimetric benefits. Overall side effect profiles were acceptable in all groups but lowest with IGRT and reduced margins.

ISRCTN

97182923.

Influence of the technique and comorbidities in hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To analyze the differences in toxicity and biochemical relapse-free survival with hypofractionated radiotherapy with three-dimensional radiotherapy (3D-CRT) or volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) for prostate cancer taking into account comorbidity measured using the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI).

METHODS

From January 2011 to June 2016, 451 patients with prostate cancer were treated with 60 Gy (20 daily fractions). VMAT or 3D-CRT was used. Distribution by stage: 17% low-risk, 27.2% intermediate-risk; 39.2% high-risk, 16.6% very high-risk. Mean CCI was 3.4.

RESULTS

With a median follow up of 51 months, most patients did not experience any degree of acute GI toxicity (80.9%) compared to 19.1%, who experienced some degree, mainly G-I /II. In the multivariate analysis, only technique was associated with acute GI toxicity ≥ G2. Patients treated with VMAT had greater acute GI toxicity compared with those who received 3D-CRT (23.9% vs. 13.5%, p = 0.005). With respect to acute GU toxicity, 72.7% of patients experienced some degree, fundamentally G-I/II. Neither age, CCI, nor androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) were associated with greater toxicity. Overall survival at 2, 5 and 7 years was 97%, 88% and 83% respectively. The only factor with statistical significance was CCI, with a greater number of events in individuals with a CCI ≥ 4 (p < 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer is an effective, well-tolerated treatment even for elderly patients with no associated comorbidity. Longer follow up is needed in order to report data on late toxicity.

Hypofractionation for clinically localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Using hypofractionation (fewer, larger doses of daily radiation) to treat localized prostate cancer may improve convenience and resource use. For hypofractionation to be feasible, it must be at least as effective for cancer-related outcomes and have comparable toxicity and quality of life outcomes as conventionally fractionated radiation therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of hypofractionated external beam radiation therapy compared to conventionally fractionated external beam radiation therapy for men with clinically localized prostate cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) and trials registries from 1946 to 15 March 2019 with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors. Searches were not limited by language or publication status. We reran all searches within three months (15th March 2019) prior to publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled comparisons which included men with clinically localized prostate adenocarcinoma where hypofractionated radiation therapy (external beam radiation therapy) to the prostate using hypofractionation (greater than 2 Gy per fraction) compared with conventionally fractionated radiation therapy to the prostate delivered using standard fractionation (1.8 Gy to 2 Gy per fraction).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology. Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used Review Manager 5 for data analysis and meta-analysis. We used the inverse variance method and random-effects model for data synthesis of time-to-event data with hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) reported. For dichotomous data, we used the Mantel-Haenzel method and random-effects model to present risk ratios (RR) and 95% CI. We used GRADE to assess evidence quality for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 studies with 8278 men in our analysis comparing hypofractionation with conventional fractionation to treat prostate cancer.Primary outcomesHypofractionation may result in little or no difference in prostate cancer-specific survival [PC-SS] (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.39; studies = 8, participants = 7946; median follow-up 72 months; low-certainty evidence). For men in the intermediate-risk group undergoing conventional fractionation this corresponds to 976 per 1000 men alive after 6 years and 0 more (44 fewer to 18 more) alive per 1000 men undergoing hypofractionation.We are uncertain about the effect of hypofractionation on late radiation therapy gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.78; studies = 4, participants = 3843; very low-certainty evidence).Hypofractionation probably results in little or no difference to late radiation therapy genitourinary (GU) toxicity (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.18; studies = 4, participants = 3843; moderate-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 262 per 1000 late GU radiation therapy toxicity events with conventional fractionation and 13 more (18 fewer to 47 more) per 1000 men when undergoing hypofractionation.Secondary outcomesHypofractionation results in little or no difference in overall survival (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.07; 10 studies, 8243 participants; high-certainty evidence). For men in the intermediate-risk group undergoing conventional fractionation this corresponds to 869 per 1000 men alive after 6 years and 17 fewer (54 fewer to 17 more) participants alive per 1000 men when undergoing hypofractionation.Hypofractionation may result in little to no difference in metastasis-free survival (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.76; 5 studies, 4985 participants; low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 981 men per 1000 men metastasis-free at 6 years when undergoing conventional fractionation and 5 more (58 fewer to 19 more) metastasis-free per 1000 when undergoing hypofractionation.Hypofractionation likely results in a small, possibly unimportant reduction in biochemical recurrence-free survival based on Phoenix criteria (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.13; studies = 5, participants = 2889; median follow-up 90 months to 108 months; moderate-certainty evidence). In men of the intermediate-risk group, this corresponds to 804 biochemical-recurrence free men per 1000 participants at six years with conventional fractionation and 42 fewer (134 fewer to 37 more) recurrence-free men per 1000 participants with hypofractionationHypofractionation likely results in little to no difference to acute GU radiation therapy toxicity (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.11; 4 studies, 4174 participants at 12 to 18 weeks' follow-up; moderate-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 360 episodes of toxicity per 1000 participants with conventional fractionation and 11 more (18 fewer to 40 more) per 1000 when undergoing hypofractionation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that moderate hypofractionation (up to a fraction size of 3.4 Gy) results in similar oncologic outcomes in terms of disease-specific, metastasis-free and overall survival. There appears to be little to no increase in both acute and late toxicity.

[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.

A treatment planning study comparing IMRT techniques and cyber knife for stereotactic body radiotherapy of low-risk prostate carcinoma

PURPOSE

Comparing radiation treatment plans by using the same safety margins and dose objectives for all techniques, to ascertain the optimal radiation technique for the stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) of low-risk prostate cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Treatment plans for 27 randomly selected patients were compared using intensity-modulated (IMRT) techniques as Sliding Window (SW), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and helical tomotherapy (HT), as well as Cyber Knife (CK) system. The target dose was calculated to 36.25 Gy delivered in five fractions over 1 week. Dosimetric indices for target volume and organs at risk (OAR) as well as normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) of late rectal and urinary bladder toxicities were analyzed.

RESULTS

The CK provided lower homogeneity in the target volume, but higher values for most of the conformity indices compared to the IMRT approaches. The SW demonstrated superior rectum sparing at medium-to-high dose range (V18 Gy - V32.6 Gy) compared to other techniques (p < 0.05). The whole urinary bladder experienced the best shielding by SW and VMAT at the medium dose (V18 Gy, p < 0.05 versus CK), however we obtained no relevant differences between techniques at the high dose. Generally, the CK demonstrated significantly superior rectum and bladder exposure at V18 Gy as compared to HT, SW, and VMAT. For the rectum, mean NTCP values were significantly superior for HT (NTCP = 2.3%, p < 0.05), and for urinary bladder, the NTCP showed no significant advantages for any technique.

CONCLUSION

No absolute dosimetric advantage was revealed to choose between CK or IMRT techniques for the SBRT of low-grade prostate cancer. Using the same safety margins and dose objectives, IMRT techniques demonstrated superior sparing of the rectum and bladder at a medium dose compared to CK. Comparing different IMRT approaches SW displayed superior rectum sparing at a medium-to-high dose range, whereas both SW and RA revealed superior bladder sparing compared to HT. HT demonstrated a significantly lower NTCP outcome compared to CK or IMRT techniques regarding the rectum. Radiation plans can be optimized further by an individual modification of dose objectives independent of the treatment plan strategy.

Impact of Radiation Therapy Dose Escalation on Prostate Cancer Outcomes and Toxicities

OBJECTIVES

Freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) is a common primary outcome of randomized-controlled trials of prostate cancer (PCa). We aimed to determine how increasing the PCa biologically equivalent dose (BED) of external radiation therapy (RT) is correlated with FFBF and overall patient outcomes: overall survival (OS), distant metastasis (DM), and cancer-specific mortality (CSM); as well as genitourinary (GU), and gastrointestinal toxicities.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of 6884 PCa patients from 12 randomized-controlled trials of external beam RT. Mixed effects regression models were used to estimate weighted linear relationships between BED and observed percentages of 5- and 10-year outcomes. For toxicities, a subset analysis of using 3-dimensional conformal RT (3D-CRT) versus intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) was performed.

RESULTS

Increasing BED correlated with improved FFBF: 10-year absolute improvement of 9.6% and 7.2% for low-risk and intermediate-risk patients, respectively (P<0.05); but not with improvement of OS, DM, or CSM at either time point. BED escalation was not correlated with increased acute toxicities; it was correlated with increased late gastrointestinal toxicities in patients treated with 3D-CRT (1.5% increase over BED range, P<0.01). IMRT patients had significantly fewer late toxicities, despite being treated at higher BED.

CONCLUSIONS

RT BED escalation has resulted in significantly improved PCa FFBF at up to 10 years; but not with improvement in OS, DM, or CSM. Thus, FFBF is a poor surrogate of overall patient outcomes for trials of RT. Late toxicities were less frequent with IMRT than with 3D-CRT, even at higher BED.

Plan quality improvement by DVH sharing and planner's experience: Results of a SBRT multicentric planning study on prostate

PURPOSE

To evaluate, in a multi-institutional context, the role of Dose Volume Histogram (DVH) sharing in order to achieve higher plan quality, to harmonize prostate Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) plans and to assess if the planner's experience in SBRT could lead to lower dose at organs at risk (OARs).

METHODS

During the first phase five patients enrolled for prostate SBRT were planned by multiple physicists according to common protocol. The prescription dose was 35 Gy in 5 fractions. Dosimetric parameters, modulation index (MIt), plan parameters, and planner experience level (EL) were statistically analyzed. During the second phase median DVHs from all centers were shared and physicists replanned one patient of the five, aiming at inter-planner harmonization and further OARs sparing. Data were summarized by Spearman-correlogram (p < 0.05) and boxplots. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare the re-plans to the original plans.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight SBRT plans from 13 centers were evaluated. EL correlated with modulation of plan parameters and reduction of OARs doses, such as volume receiving 28 Gy of rectum (rectum-V28Gy), rectum-V32Gy, and bladder-V30Gy. The re-plans showed significant reduced variability in rectum-V28Gy and increased PTV dose homogeneity. No significant difference in plan complexity metrics and plan parameters between plans and re-plans were obtained.

CONCLUSIONS

Planner's experience in prostate SBRT was correlated with dosimetric parameters. Sharing median DVHs reduced variability among centers whilst keeping the same level of plan complexity. SBRT planning skills can benefit from a replanning phase after sharing DVHs from multiple centers, improving plan quality and concordance among centers.

Prostate cancer dose-response, fractionation sensitivity and repopulation parameters evaluation from 25 international radiotherapy outcome data sets

OBJECTIVE

This study was undertaken to model the biochemical free survival at 5 years and to evaluate the parameters defining dose-response curve, dose-fractionation radiosensitivity and repopulation.

METHODS

It was carried out a literature search on Pubmed to retrieve data sets of patients treated with external beam radiation therapy of 1.8-4.0 Gy per fraction and overall treatment time of 3 to 10 weeks. 10 groups were identified, based on risk class and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Dose-response curve D₅₀ (dose at 50% probability of control) and g₅₀ (steepness), α/β (dose-fractionation radiosensitivity), and repopulation parameters, d_prolif and T_prolif , were calculated. Bootstrap-based cross-validation was performed and median and 95% CI (confidence interval) were evaluated.

RESULTS

25 data sets, including 20,310 patients, were considered. The median (95% CI) D₅₀ and g₅₀ values were 62 (CI 53 - 66) Gy and 1.6 (0.8 - 2.4). ADT patients showed lower values of D₅₀ and g₅₀ (57 ± 5 Gy and 1.1 ± 0.4) compared to no-ADT patients (65 ± 2 Gy and 2.3 ± 0.6), with p < 0.0001 and p = 0.002. If we did not consider any dependence on overall treatment time, the median (95% CI) value of α/β was 1.4 (1.0 - 1.9) Gy with p < 0.0001 for all patients. The median values of d_{proli f} and T_prolif were 0.0 to 0.3 Gy/d and 18-40 days.

CONCLUSION

Dose-response curve resulted dependent on risk class and ADT, with higher steepness for no-ADT patients. Low values of dose-fractionation radiosensitivity were found, supporting the use of moderate hypofractionated radiotherapy in each risk class. A limited dependence on repopulation was observed.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

Prostate cancer response to moderate hypofractionated radiotherapy was reliably quantified considering risk class and androgen deprivation therapy.

The Financial Impact of Hypofractionated Radiation for Localized Prostate Cancer in the United States

Background

Until recently, dose intensified radiotherapy was the standard radiation method for localized prostate cancer. Multiple studies have demonstrated similar efficacy and tolerability with moderate hypofractionation. In recent years there has been an increasing focus placed on understanding the cost and value of cancer care. In this study we aimed to assess the economic impact of moderate hypofractionation for payers in the United States.

Methods

We performed a population-based analysis of the total cost of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for localized prostate cancer in the US annually. The national annual target population of patients treated with definitive EBRT was calculated using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Treatment costs for various fractionation schemes were based on billing codes and 2018 pricing by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

Results

We estimate that 27,146 patients with localized prostate cancer are treated with EBRT annually in the US. The cost of standard fractionation in 45 or 39 fractions is US$ 26,782 and 23,625 per patient, respectively. With moderate hypofractionation in 28 or 20 fractions, the cost is US$ 17,793 and 13,402 per patient, respectively. The use of moderate hypofractionation would lead to 25-50% annual savings US$158,315,472-US$363,213,480 in the US.

Conclusions

Moderate hypofractionation may have the potential to save approximately US$0.16-0.36 billion annually, likely without impacting survival or tolerability. This may lead to lower personal financial toxicity. It would be reasonable for public and private payers to consider which type of radiation is most suited to reimbursement.

Phase II Trial of Pure Hypofractionated Radiotherapy in the Treatment of Localized Carcinoma of the Prostate

Purpose To evaluate acute and late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity and the biochemical control of pure hypofractionated radiotherapy (without acceleration) for the treatment of prostate cancer. Methods and materials This phase II prospective trial evaluated low-risk and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients who received hypofractionated radiotherapy. Fifty-three patients with low-risk prostate cancer received 50 Gy in 15 fractions, 156 patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer received 60 Gy in 20 fractions over eight weeks. Acute toxicity and late toxicity were graded per the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) toxicity scales and the Phoenix Definition (nadir plus two) defined biochemical failure. Results Median follow-up was 6.5 years. Acute phase grade 2/3 toxicity was 6%/0 and 8%/2% for GI and GU symptoms, respectively, and one grade 4 acute GU toxicity (0.5%). Late grade 2/3 GI and GU toxicity were 7%/0 and 8%/0.5%, respectively. There were no late grade 4 toxicities. The five-year freedom-from-biochemical-failure (FFBF) rates were 85% for low-risk patients and 80% for intermediate-risk patients. Conclusions Pure hypofractionation seems to be associated with low toxicity rates and biochemical control rates that are similar or better than those observed with accelerated hypofractionated or conventionally fractionated therapy.

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

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.

Genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity among patients with localized prostate cancer treated with conventional versus moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hypofractionated (HRT) prostate radiation therapy has the potential to deliver a higher biologically effective dose over a shorter time compared with conventional fractionation (CRT). HRT, giving fewer fractions each with higher dose, might improve the therapeutic ratio, resource use and patient convenience but the toxicity is still controversial. Our objective was to compare the gastroinstestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity of HRT versus CRT.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials studies in PubMed, Cochrane and EMBASE databases published through December 2016 was done. Only randomized trials that evaluated patients with localized prostate cancer (PCa) undergoing CRT or HRT were included. In these studies, the daily dose was 1.8 Gy or 2 Gy per day for CRT and 2.4 to 3.4 Gy for HRT.

RESULTS

7317 patients in nine studies were analyzed. Six studies included acute GU toxicity data which showed similar rates for both HRT and CRT (32.6vs. 31.9%; RD 0.00; 95% CI; -0.03,0.03; p = .81; I² = 0%). Similarly, seven studies showed no difference in late GU toxicity based on treatment schedule (28.7 vs. 28.0%; RD -0.01; 95% CI; -0.04,0.03; p = .67; I² = 52%). GI toxicity at three months after radiotherapy was higher in patients treated with HRT in six studies (27.5 vs. 21.9%; RD 0.06; 95% CI; 0.02,0.10; p = .004; I² = 39%); however, eight studies showed GI toxicity 12 months or more after radiotherapy that was statistically the same (12.9 HRT vs. 16.2% CRT; RD -0.01; 95% CI; -0.04,0.02; p = .41; I² = 58%).

CONCLUSION

In meta-analysis of the available randomized trials on moderate HRT versus CRT for prostate cancer, acute and late GU toxicity were similar for both treatment schemes. While HRT was associated with higher acute GI toxicity, late toxicity was similar.

Acute toxicity and quality of life in high risk prostate cancer patients: Updated results of randomized hypofractionation trial

Purpose

The aim of our study was to perform the final analysis of acute toxicity and quality of life data obtained from 221 consecutive patients who suffered from intermediate-to-high risk prostate cancer.

Methods

In this trial, 221 patients were randomized to receive either hypofractionated (63 Gy in 20 fractions, 4 fractions/week) or conventionally fractionated (76 Gy in 38 fractions, 5 fractions/week) radiotherapy to the prostate and seminal vesicles. Elective pelvic lymph node irradiation with 46 Gy in 23 fractions sequentially and 44 Gy in 20 fractions simultaneously was also applied.

Results

There was no statistically significant difference in acute GU and GI toxicity in men treated with hypofractionated (SIB) (Arm 2) in comparison with patients who had conventional fractionation (Arm 1) radiation therapy. Multivariate analysis using logistic regression showed statistical significant association between acute GU ≥ 1 and PTV(LN) (p = 0.008) only. We found out that clinically relevant decrease (CRD) was significantly higher only in the urinary domain of Arm 1 at month 3 (p = 0.02).

Conclusion

Our study demonstrated that hypofractionated radiotherapy was associated with a small but insignificant increase of acute toxicity. The reduction of overall treatment time has no significant influence on patients' QOL in any domain.

Clinical estimation of α/β values for prostate cancer from isoeffective phase III randomized trials with moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy

BACKGROUND

The α/β values for prostate cancer (PCa) are usually assumed to be low (1.0-1.8 Gy). This study estimated the α/β values of PCa from phase III randomized trials of conventional (CRT) versus hypofractionated (HRT) external beam radiotherapy (RT), reported as isoeffective in terms of their 5-year biochemical (BF) or biochemical and/or clinical failure (BCF) rates.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The α/β for each trial was estimated from the equivalent biological effective doses using the linear-quadratic model for each of their HRT and CRT schedules. The cumulative outcomes of these trials were evaluated by meta-analysis for odds ratio (OR), risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD).

RESULTS

Eight trials from seven studies, randomized 6993 patients between CRT (n = 2941) and HRT (n = 4052). RT treatment varied between the two treatment groups in terms of dose/fraction, total dose, overall treatment time and %patients on androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Differences in OR, RR, and RD for both BF and BCF were nonsignificant. The computed α/β ranged from 1.3 to 11.1 Gy (4.9 ± 3.9 Gy; 95% CI: 1.6-8.2). On multivariate regression, %ADT was the sole determinant of computed α/β (model R²: 0.98, p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinically estimated α/β for PCa from isoeffective randomized trials using known variables in the linear-quadratic expression ranged between 1.3 and 11.1 Gy. The estimated α/β values were inversely related to %ADT usage, which should be considered when planning future RT dose-fractionation schedules.

Moderate hypofractionation for prostate cancer

The biologic effects of changing the daily radiation dose (fractionation) have been studied for more than a century. The fractionation question in the treatment of prostate cancer came into stark relief in 1999 with the publication of a provocative report suggesting that hypofractionated regimens could maintain the therapeutic ratio with logistic and financial advantages. In the last two decades medical evidence, weak and strong, has accumulated on the efficacy and toxicity of hypofractionated regimens in the radiotherapeutic treatment of prostate cancer. This brief review will focus on the results of randomized trials that compare moderate hypofractionation (HF) to conventional fractionation (CF). Extreme HF is covered in a separate review within this issue.

Moderately hypofractionated prostate external-beam radiotherapy: an emerging standard

Research over recent years has demonstrated that curative external-beam radiotherapy can be safely and efficaciously delivered with roughly half the number of treatments which was previously considered standard. We review the data supporting this change in practice, methods for implementation, as well as emerging future directions.

Abscopal, immunological effects of radiotherapy: Narrowing the gap between clinical and preclinical experiences

Radiotherapy-despite being a local therapy that meanwhile is characterized by an impressively high degree of spatial accuracy-can stimulate systemic phenomena which occasionally lead to regression and rejection of non-irradiated, distant tumor lesions. These abscopal effects of local irradiation have been observed in sporadic clinical case reports since the beginning of the 20th century, and extensive preclinical work has contributed to identify systemic anti-tumor immune responses as the underlying driving forces. Although abscopal tumor regression still remains a rare event in the radiotherapeutic routine, increasing numbers of cases are being reported, particularly since the clinical implementation of immune checkpoint inhibiting agents. Accordingly, interests to systematically exploit the therapeutic potential of radiotherapy-stimulated systemic responses are constantly growing. The present review briefly delineates the history of radiotherapy-induced abscopal effects and the activation of systemic anti-tumor immune responses by local irradiation. We discuss preclinical and clinical reports with specific focus on the corresponding controversies, and we propose issues that should be addressed in the future in order to narrow the gap between preclinical knowledge and clinical experiences.

The alfa and beta of tumours: a review of parameters of the linear-quadratic model, derived from clinical radiotherapy studies

BACKGROUND

Prediction of radiobiological response is a major challenge in radiotherapy. Of several radiobiological models, the linear-quadratic (LQ) model has been best validated by experimental and clinical data. Clinically, the LQ model is mainly used to estimate equivalent radiotherapy schedules (e.g. calculate the equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions, EQD₂), but increasingly also to predict tumour control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) using logistic models. The selection of accurate LQ parameters α, β and α/β is pivotal for a reliable estimate of radiation response. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of published values for the LQ parameters of human tumours as a guideline for radiation oncologists and radiation researchers to select appropriate radiobiological parameter values for LQ modelling in clinical radiotherapy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We performed a systematic literature search and found sixty-four clinical studies reporting α, β and α/β for tumours. Tumour site, histology, stage, number of patients, type of LQ model, radiation type, TCP model, clinical endpoint and radiobiological parameter estimates were extracted. Next, we stratified by tumour site and by tumour histology. Study heterogeneity was expressed by the I² statistic, i.e. the percentage of variance in reported values not explained by chance.

RESULTS

A large heterogeneity in LQ parameters was found within and between studies (I² > 75%). For the same tumour site, differences in histology partially explain differences in the LQ parameters: epithelial tumours have higher α/β values than adenocarcinomas. For tumour sites with different histologies, such as in oesophageal cancer, the α/β estimates correlate well with histology. However, many other factors contribute to the study heterogeneity of LQ parameters, e.g. tumour stage, type of LQ model, TCP model and clinical endpoint (i.e. survival, tumour control and biochemical control).

CONCLUSIONS

The value of LQ parameters for tumours as published in clinical radiotherapy studies depends on many clinical and methodological factors. Therefore, for clinical use of the LQ model, LQ parameters for tumour should be selected carefully, based on tumour site, histology and the applied LQ model. To account for uncertainties in LQ parameter estimates, exploring a range of values is recommended.

The alfa and beta of tumours: a review of parameters of the linear-quadratic model, derived from clinical radiotherapy studies

Background

Prediction of radiobiological response is a major challenge in radiotherapy. Of several radiobiological models, the linear-quadratic (LQ) model has been best validated by experimental and clinical data. Clinically, the LQ model is mainly used to estimate equivalent radiotherapy schedules (e.g. calculate the equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions, EQD₂), but increasingly also to predict tumour control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) using logistic models. The selection of accurate LQ parameters α, β and α/β is pivotal for a reliable estimate of radiation response. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of published values for the LQ parameters of human tumours as a guideline for radiation oncologists and radiation researchers to select appropriate radiobiological parameter values for LQ modelling in clinical radiotherapy.

Methods and materials

We performed a systematic literature search and found sixty-four clinical studies reporting α, β and α/β for tumours. Tumour site, histology, stage, number of patients, type of LQ model, radiation type, TCP model, clinical endpoint and radiobiological parameter estimates were extracted. Next, we stratified by tumour site and by tumour histology. Study heterogeneity was expressed by the I² statistic, i.e. the percentage of variance in reported values not explained by chance.

Results

A large heterogeneity in LQ parameters was found within and between studies (I² > 75%). For the same tumour site, differences in histology partially explain differences in the LQ parameters: epithelial tumours have higher α/β values than adenocarcinomas. For tumour sites with different histologies, such as in oesophageal cancer, the α/β estimates correlate well with histology. However, many other factors contribute to the study heterogeneity of LQ parameters, e.g. tumour stage, type of LQ model, TCP model and clinical endpoint (i.e. survival, tumour control and biochemical control).

Conclusions

The value of LQ parameters for tumours as published in clinical radiotherapy studies depends on many clinical and methodological factors. Therefore, for clinical use of the LQ model, LQ parameters for tumour should be selected carefully, based on tumour site, histology and the applied LQ model. To account for uncertainties in LQ parameter estimates, exploring a range of values is recommended.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13014-018-1040-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.