1
|
Hammer L, Jiang R, Hearn J, Lashbrook J, Mitchell A, Daignault-Newton S, Dess RT, Jackson WC, Reichert Z, Alumkal JJ, Kaffenberger S, George A, Montgomery J, Salami SS, Morgan TM, Miller D, Wittman D, Hollenbeck B, Mehra R, Davenport MS, Sun Y, Schipper M, Palapattu G, Spratt DE. A Phase I Trial of Neoadjuvant Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy Prior to Radical Prostatectomy for Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 115:132-141. [PMID: 35878714 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.07.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/16/2021] [Revised: 06/12/2022] [Accepted: 07/13/2022] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Men with locally advanced prostate cancer who undergo radical prostatectomy (RP) often develop recurrence and require postoperative radiotherapy. We aimed to determine the safety of neoadjuvant stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) before RP in this population. METHODS AND PATIENTS A single-institution phase 1 trial (NCT02946008) of men with high-risk or node-positive prostate cancer were enrolled between March and October 2017. The primary endpoint was to determine the maximum tolerated dose of SBRT based on a composite 30-day post-RP toxicity goal of ≤28% of patients experiencing a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). Secondary outcomes included toxicity, efficacy, and multiple quality of life (QoL) inventories. SBRT (30-35 Gy/5 fractions) was delivered to the prostate and seminal vesicles, and 25 Gy/5 fractions to the pelvic lymph nodes. RP was performed for a median of 6 weeks post-SBRT. Hormone therapy was not allowed. RESULTS Median follow-up was 40 months (range, 33-44). Twenty-five percent of the patients (n = 4) experienced a DLT within 30 days post-RP; however, the trial was stopped early (n = 16 of planned 38 patients) owing to the proportion and severity of the late adverse events. Post-RP grade 3 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities occurred in 75% (n = 12) and 25% (n = 4) of patients, respectively. Two patients required cystectomy and urinary diversion ≥2 years post-RP. At 24 months post-RP, 75% (n = 12) of men used ≥1 pad/d and 0% had erections suitable for intercourse. Surgical margins were negative in all patients and 31% (n = 5) had complete or partial (pre-RP) MRI-response to SBRT. Three-year biochemical recurrence and distant metastasis were 45% (95% CI, 5%-68%) and 28% (95% CI, 0%-49%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS Neoadjuvant SBRT followed by RP resulted in unacceptably high toxicity and severe QoL declines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Liat Hammer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Ralph Jiang
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Jason Hearn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Jack Lashbrook
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Amyre Mitchell
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Stephanie Daignault-Newton
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Robert T Dess
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - William C Jackson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Zachery Reichert
- Department of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Joshi J Alumkal
- Department of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | | | - Arvin George
- Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | | | - Simpa S Salami
- Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Todd M Morgan
- Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - David Miller
- Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Daniela Wittman
- Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Brent Hollenbeck
- Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Rohit Mehra
- Department of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Matthew S Davenport
- Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Yilun Sun
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - Matthew Schipper
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Ganesh Palapattu
- Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Daniel E Spratt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Cleveland, Ohio.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Chang Y, Zhao X, Xiao Y, Yan S, Xu W, Wang Y, Zhang H, Ren S. Neoadjuvant radiohormonal therapy for oligo-metastatic prostate cancer: safety and efficacy outcomes from an open-label, dose-escalation, single-center, phase I/II clinical trial. Front Med 2022; 17:231-239. [PMID: 36580231 DOI: 10.1007/s11684-022-0939-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/21/2022] [Accepted: 05/12/2022] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
To evaluate the safety and efficacy of neoadjuvant radiohormonal therapy for oligometastatic prostate cancer (OMPC), we conducted a 3 + 3 dose escalation, prospective, phase I/II, single-arm clinical trial (CHiCTR1900025743), in which long-term neoadjuvant androgen deprivation was adopted 1 month before radiotherapy, comprising intensity modulated radiotherapy to the pelvis, and stereotactic body radiation therapy to all extra-pelvic bone metastases for 4-7 weeks, at 39.6, 45, 50.4, and 54 Gy. Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy was performed after 5-14 weeks. The primary outcome was treatment-related toxicities and adverse events; secondary outcomes were radiological treatment response, positive surgical margin (pSM), postoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA), pathological down-grading and tumor regression grade, and survival parameters. Twelve patients were recruited from March 2019 to February 2020, aging 66.2 years in average (range, 52-80). Median baseline PSA was 62.0 ng/mL. All underwent RARP successfully without open conversions. Ten patients recorded pathological tumor down-staging (83.3%), and 5 (41.7%) with cN1 recorded negative regional lymph nodes on final pathology. 66.7% (8/12) recorded tumor regression grading (TRG) -I and 25% (3/12) recorded TRG-II. Median follow-up was 16.5 months. Mean radiological progression-free survival (RPFS) was 21.3 months, with 2-year RPFS of 83.3%. In all, neoadjuvant radiohormonal therapy is well tolerated for oligometastatic prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yifan Chang
- Department of Urology, Shanghai Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, China
| | - Xianzhi Zhao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, China
| | - Yutian Xiao
- Department of Urology, Shanghai Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, China
| | - Shi Yan
- Department of Urology, Shanghai Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, China
| | - Weidong Xu
- Department of Urology, Shanghai Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200003, China
| | - Ye Wang
- Department of Urology, Shanghai Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, China
| | - Huojun Zhang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, China.
| | - Shancheng Ren
- Department of Urology, Shanghai Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200003, China.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Sargos P, Supiot S, Créhange G, Fromont-Hankard G, Barret E, Beauval JB, Brureau L, Dariane C, Fiard G, Gauthé M, Mathieu R, Roubaud G, Ruffion A, Renard-Penna R, Neuzillet Y, Rouprêt M, Ploussard G. Oncologic Impact and Safety of Pre-Operative Radiotherapy in Localized Prostate and Bladder Cancer: A Comprehensive Review from the Cancerology Committee of the Association Française d'Urologie. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:cancers13236070. [PMID: 34885179 PMCID: PMC8656987 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13236070] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/02/2021] [Revised: 11/26/2021] [Accepted: 11/28/2021] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Radiotherapy may have an interesting role of reinforcing the loco-regional control of cancer, in addition to surgery, when used as a preoperative treatment. This sequence has demonstrated its efficacy and safety in various malignancies, but no strong data exist in the era of uro-oncology. In this review article, we aim to highlight the potential usefulness of preoperative radiotherapy in prostate and muscle-invasive bladder cancer, aiming to enhance pathological response and local control and to prevent intraoperative tumor seeding. We also emphasize the need for further clinical studies assessing the functional safety of subsequent surgical procedures in a competitive context of new systemic agents that have proven to demonstrate a survival benefit in locally advanced urologic cancers. Abstract Preoperative radiotherapy (RT) is commonly used for the treatment of various malignancies, including sarcomas, rectal, and gynaecological cancers, but it is preferentially used as a competitive treatment to radical surgery in uro-oncology or as a salvage procedure in cases of local recurrence. Nevertheless, preoperative RT represents an attractive strategy to prevent from intraoperative tumor seeding in the operative field, to sterilize microscopic extension outside the organ, and to enhance the pathological and/or imaging tumor response rate. Several clinical works support this research field in uro-oncology. In this review article, we summarized the oncologic impact and safety of preoperative RT in localized prostate and muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Preliminary studies suggest that both modalities can be complementary as initial primary tumor treatments and that a pre-operative radiotherapy strategy could be beneficial in a well-defined population of patients who are at a very high-risk of local relapse. Future prospective trials are warranted to evaluate the oncologic benefit of such a combination of local treatments in addition to new life-prolonging systemic therapies, such as immunotherapy, and new generation hormone therapies. Moreover, the safety and the feasibility of salvage surgical procedures due to non-response or local recurrence after pelvic RT remain poorly evaluated in that context.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul Sargos
- Department of Radiotherapy, Institut Bergonié, 33000 Bordeaux, France;
| | - Stéphane Supiot
- Department of Radiotherapy, Insitut de Cancérologie de l’Ouest, 44800 St-Herblain, France;
| | - Gilles Créhange
- Department of Radiotherapy, Institut Curie, 75005 Paris, France;
| | | | - Eric Barret
- Department of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, 75014 Paris, France;
| | | | - Laurent Brureau
- Department of Urology, CHU de Pointe-à-Pitre, University of Antilles, University of Rennes, Inserm, EHESP, Irset (Institut de Recherche en Santé, Environnement et Travail)—UMR_S 1085, 97110 Pointe-à-Pitre, France;
| | - Charles Dariane
- Department of Urology, Hôpital Européen Georges-Pompidou, APHP, Paris—Paris University—U1151 Inserm-INEM, Necker, 75015 Paris, France;
| | - Gaëlle Fiard
- Department of Urology, Grenoble Alpes University Hospital, Université Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, TIMC-IMAG, 38000 Grenoble, France;
| | - Mathieu Gauthé
- Unité de Recherche Clinique en Économie de la Santé, CRESS METHODS INSERM UMR 1153, 75000 Paris, France;
| | - Romain Mathieu
- Department of Urology, CHU Rennes, 35033 Rennes, France;
| | - Guilhem Roubaud
- Department of Medical Oncology, Institut Bergonié, 33000 Bordeaux, France;
| | - Alain Ruffion
- Service d’Urologie Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud, Hospices Civils de Lyon, 69002 Lyon, France;
- Equipe 2, Centre d’Innovation en Cancérologie de Lyon (EA 3738 CICLY), Faculté de Médecine Lyon Sud, Université Lyon 1, 69002 Lyon, France
| | - Raphaële Renard-Penna
- Department of Radiology, Sorbonne University, AP-HP, Pitie-Salpetriere Hospital, 75013 Paris, France;
| | - Yann Neuzillet
- Department of Urology, Hôpital Foch, 92151 Suresnes, France;
| | - Morgan Rouprêt
- Department of Urology, Sorbonne University, GRC 5 Predictive Onco-Uro, AP-HP, Pitie-Salpetriere Hospital, 75013 Paris, France;
| | - Guillaume Ploussard
- Department of Urology, La Croix du Sud Hôpital, 31130 Quint Fonsegrives, France;
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +33-5-32027202; Fax: +33-5-32027203
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Liveringhouse C, Sim A, Yamoah K, Poch M, Wilder RB, Pow-Sang J, Johnstone PAS. Phase I dose escalation trial of stereotactic radiotherapy prior to robotic prostatectomy in high risk prostate cancer. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2021; 26:188-195. [PMID: 34211768 DOI: 10.5603/rpor.a2021.0027] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/11/2020] [Accepted: 02/02/2021] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
Background The aim of the study was to investigate the safety of combining preoperative stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) with robotic radical prostatectomy (RP) for high risk prostate cancer (HRCaP). Many patients with HRCaP will require adjuvant or salvage radiotherapy after RP. The addition of preoperative SBRT before RP may spare patients from subsequent prolonged courses of RT. Materials and methods Eligible patients had NCC N HRCaP and received a total of 25 Gy or 30 Gy in five daily fractions of SBRT to the prostate and seminal vesicles followed by robotic RP with pelvic lymphadenectomy 31-45 days later. The primary endpoint was prevalence of acute genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. Secondary endpoints were patient-reported quality of life (QOL) and biochemical recurrence (BcR). Results Three patients received preoperative SBRT to 25 Gy and four received 30 Gy. Median follow-up was 18 months. Highest toxicity was grade 2 and 3 in six (85.7%) and one (14.3%) patients, respectively. All patients developed grade 2 erectile dysfunction and 4 of 7 (57%) developed grade 2 urinary incontinence (UI) within a month after surgery. One patient developed acute grade 3 UI, but there was no grade ≥ 4 toxicity. One patient experienced acute grade 2 hemorrhoidal bleeding. On QOL, acute GU complaints were common and peaked within 3 months. Bowel symptoms were mild. Two patients with pN+ experienced BcR. Conclusions Preoperative SBRT before robotic RP in HRCaP is feasible and safe. The severity of acute GU toxicity with preoperative SBRT may be worse than RP alone, while bowel toxicity was mild.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Casey Liveringhouse
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, United States
| | - Austin Sim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, United States
| | - Kosj Yamoah
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, United States.,Department of Cancer Epidemiology, Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, United States
| | - Michael Poch
- Department of Genitourinary Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, United States
| | | | - Julio Pow-Sang
- Department of Genitourinary Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, United States
| | - Peter A S Johnstone
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, United States.,Department of Health Outcomes and Behavior, Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, United States
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Xiao YT, Zhao X, Chang Y, Lu X, Wang Y, Zhang H, Ren S. Assessing the safety and feasibility of neoadjuvant hormone and radiation therapy followed by robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for treating locally advanced prostate cancer: protocol for an open-label, dose-escalation, single-centre, phase I clinical trial. BMJ Open 2020; 10:e038678. [PMID: 33148738 PMCID: PMC7640530 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038678] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Patients with locally advanced prostate cancer are at high risk of recurrence after definitive treatment. There are emerging data that radical prostatectomy can delay the progression of castration resistance and potentially prolong survival. Neoadjuvant radiation therapy improves local control and has shown survival benefit with favourable toxicity profiles in several other malignancies. We have designed this trial to investigate whether this combination, which theoretically maximises local control, is a safe and feasible approach for treating locally advanced prostate cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS This study is a phase I, open-label study to investigate the safety and feasibility of neoadjuvant hormone and radiation therapy followed by robot-assisted radical prostatectomy by a traditional 3+3 dose-escalation design with four planned radiation dose levels (39.6 Gy/22F, 45 Gy/25F, 50.4 Gy/28F and 54 Gy/30F). Locally advanced prostate cancer patients with positive pelvic and/or retroperitoneal lymph nodes will be recruited. The primary objective is to determine the adverse events and maximal tolerable dose (MTD) of neoadjuvant radiotherapy. Toxicity will be assessed using the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria V.5.0. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION This protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Shanghai Changhai Hospital (ref. CHEC2019-070 and CHEC2019-082). The study will be performed in compliance with applicable local legislation and in accordance with the ethical principles developed by the World Medical Association in the Declaration of Helsinki 2013. Study results will be disseminated through conferences and peer-reviewed scientific journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS ChiCTR1900022716; ChiCTR1900022754.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yu-Tian Xiao
- Department of Urology, Shanghai Changhai Hospital, Shanghai, China
| | - Xianzhi Zhao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Changhai Hospital, Shanghai, China
| | - Yifan Chang
- Department of Urology, Shanghai Changhai Hospital, Shanghai, China
| | - Xiaojun Lu
- Department of Urology, Shanghai Changhai Hospital, Shanghai, China
| | - Ye Wang
- Department of Urology, Shanghai Changhai Hospital, Shanghai, China
| | - Huojun Zhang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Changhai Hospital, Shanghai, China
| | - Shancheng Ren
- Department of Urology, Shanghai Changhai Hospital, Shanghai, China
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Parikh NR, Kishan AU, Kane N, Diaz-Perez S, Ganapathy E, Nazarian R, Felix C, Mathis C, Bradley M, Sachdeva A, Wyatt B, Basehart V, Zomorodian N, Lin L, King CR, Kupelian PA, Rettig MB, Steinberg ML, Cao M, Knudsen BS, Elashoff D, Schaue D, Reiter RE, Nickols NG. Phase 1 Trial of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Neoadjuvant to Radical Prostatectomy for Patients With High-Risk Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020; 108:930-935. [PMID: 32562839 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.06.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/30/2020] [Revised: 05/19/2020] [Accepted: 06/04/2020] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) neoadjuvant to radical prostatectomy (RP) in a phase 1 trial. The primary endpoint was treatment completion rate without severe acute surgical complications. Secondary endpoints included patient-reported quality of life and physician-reported toxicities. METHODS AND MATERIALS Patients with nonmetastatic high-risk or locally advanced prostate cancer received 24 Gy in 3 fractions to the prostate and seminal vesicles over 5 days, completed 2 weeks before RP. Patients with pN1 disease were treated after multidisciplinary discussion and shared decision making. Patient-reported quality of life (International Prostate Symptom Score and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite 26-item version questionnaires) and physician-reported toxicity (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.03) were assessed before SBRT, immediately before surgery, and at 3-month intervals for 1 year. RESULTS Twelve patients were enrolled, and 11 completed treatment (1 patient had advanced disease on prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography after enrollment but before treatment). There were no significant surgical complications. After RP, 2 patients underwent additional radiation therapy to nodes with androgen suppression for pN1 disease. Median follow-up after completion of treatment was 20.1 months, with 9 of 11 patients having a follow-up period of >12 months. Two patients had biochemical recurrence (prostate-specific antigen ≥0.05) within the first 12 months, with an additional 2 patients found to have biochemical recurrence after the 12-month period. The highest Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events genitourinary grades were 0, 1, 2, and 3 (n = 1, 4, 4, and 2, respectively), and the highest gastrointestinal grades were 0, 1, and 2 (n = 9, 1, and 1, respectively). At 12 months, incontinence was the only grade ≥2 toxicity. One and 2 of 9 patients had grade 2 and 3 incontinence, respectively. On the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (26-item version), the mean/median changes in scores from baseline to 12 months were -32.8/-31.1 for urinary incontinence, -1.6/-6.2 for urinary irritative/obstructive, -2.1/0 for bowel, -34.4/-37.5 for sexual function, and -10.6/-2.5 for hormonal. The mean/median change in International Prostate Symptom Score from baseline to 12 months was 0.5/0.5. CONCLUSIONS RP after neoadjuvant SBRT appears to be feasible and safe at the dose tested. The severity of urinary incontinence may be higher than RP alone.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Neil R Parikh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Amar U Kishan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; Department of Urology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Nathanael Kane
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Silvia Diaz-Perez
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Ekambaram Ganapathy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Ramin Nazarian
- Department of Urology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Carol Felix
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Colleen Mathis
- Department of Urology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Margaret Bradley
- Department of Urology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Ankush Sachdeva
- Department of Urology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Bashir Wyatt
- Department of Urology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Vince Basehart
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Nazy Zomorodian
- Department of Urology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Lin Lin
- Department of Urology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Christopher R King
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Patrick A Kupelian
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Matthew B Rettig
- Department of Urology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Michael L Steinberg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Minsong Cao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Beatrice S Knudsen
- Departments of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California
| | - David Elashoff
- Department of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Dorthe Schaue
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Robert E Reiter
- Department of Urology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Nicholas G Nickols
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; Department of Urology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; Radiation Therapy Service, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Glicksman R, Sanmamed N, Thoms J, Zlotta AR, Finelli A, van der Kwast T, Sweet J, Jewett M, Klotz LH, Rosewall T, Fleshner NE, Bristow RG, Warde P, Berlin A. A Phase 1 Pilot Study of Preoperative Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Long-Term Toxicity and Oncologic Outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019; 104:61-66. [PMID: 30625410 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.12.054] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/06/2018] [Revised: 12/22/2018] [Accepted: 12/30/2018] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Neoadjuvant radiation therapy (RT) improves disease control in various cancers and has become an established oncologic treatment strategy. During 2001 to 2004, we conducted a phase 1 pilot study assessing the role of short-course preoperative RT (PreORT) for men with unfavorable intermediate- and high-risk localized prostate cancer. Herein, we present long-term follow-up toxicity and oncologic outcomes. METHODS AND MATERIALS Eligible patients had histologically proven prostate cancer, cT1-T2N0M0 disease, prostate-specific antigen >15 to 35 ng/mL regardless of Gleason score, or prostate-specific antigen 10 to 15 ng/mL with Gleason score ≥7. Patients received 25 Gy in 5 consecutive daily fractions (5 Gy per fraction) to the prostate only, followed by radical prostatectomy within 14 days after RT completion. Primary outcomes were intraoperative morbidity and late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal toxicities. RESULTS In total, 15 patients were enrolled; 14 patients completed PreORT followed by radical prostatectomy, which also included bilateral lymph node dissections in 13 cases. Median follow-up was 12.2 years (range, 6.7-16.3). Late GU toxicity was common, with 2 patients (13.3%) experiencing G2 toxicity and 6 patients (40%) G3 toxicity. There were no patients with G4 to G5 late GU toxicity. Late gastrointestinal toxicity was infrequent, with only 1 patient (6.7%) experiencing transient G2 proctitis. At last follow-up, 8 (53.3%) and 6 (40%) patients experienced biochemical and metastatic disease recurrence, respectively. CONCLUSIONS The use of PreORT in men with high-risk prostate cancer is associated with unexpected high rates of late GU toxicity. Future studies examining the role of RT preradical prostatectomy must cautiously select RT technique and dose schedule. Importantly, long-term follow-up data are essential to fully determine the therapeutic index of PreORT in the management of localized disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rachel Glicksman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
| | - Noelia Sanmamed
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
| | - John Thoms
- Discipline of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Canada
| | - Alexandre R Zlotta
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
| | - Antonio Finelli
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
| | - Theodorus van der Kwast
- Department of Pathology, Toronto General Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
| | - Joan Sweet
- Department of Pathology, Toronto General Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
| | - Michael Jewett
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
| | - Laurence H Klotz
- Department of Surgery (Urology), Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada
| | - Tara Rosewall
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
| | - Neil E Fleshner
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
| | - Robert G Bristow
- Manchester Cancer Research Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Padraig Warde
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
| | - Alejandro Berlin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada; Techna Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Classifying high-risk versus very high-risk prostate cancer: is it relevant to outcomes of conformal radiotherapy and androgen deprivation? Radiat Oncol 2017; 12:5. [PMID: 28061904 PMCID: PMC5216523 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-016-0743-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/24/2016] [Accepted: 12/12/2016] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate outcomes in prostate cancer patients classified as high-risk (HR) or very high-risk (VHR) who were treated with conformal radiation therapy (CRT) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). METHODS Between 11/2001 and 3/2012, 203 patients with HR disease received CRT to the prostate (78-82 Gy) and pelvic lymph nodes (46-50 Gy) with ADT (6 m-2 years). Median follow-up was 50 months (12 m-142 m). Biochemical failure was defined according to Phoenix definition. Imaging studies were used to identify local, regional or metastatic failure. Four different VHR/HR groupings were formed using the 2014 and revised 2015 NCCN guidelines. Differences were examined using Kaplan Meier (KM) estimates with log rank test and uni- and multivariate Cox regression analysis (MVA). RESULTS Failure occurred in 30/203 patients (15%). Median time to failure was 30 m (4 m-76 m). KM estimate of 4 year biochemical disease free survival (b-DFS) for the entire cohort was 87% (95%CI: 82-92%). Four year KM survival estimates for b-DFS, PCSS and OS were comparable for each NCCN subgroup. On univariate analysis, the NCCN subgroups were not predictive of b-DFS at 4 years, however, DMFS was worse for both VHR subgroups (p = .03and .01) respectively. Cox univariate analysis was also significant for: PSA ≥40 ng/ml p = 0.001; clinical stages T2c p = .004, T3b p = .02 and > 4 cores with Gleason score 8-10 p < .03. On MVA, only PSA ≥ 40 ng/ml was predictive for b-DFS or MFS at 4 years (HR: 3.75 and 3.25, p < 0.005). CONCLUSION Patients with HR and VHR disease treated with CRT and ADT had good outcomes. Stratification into HR and VHR sub-groups provided no predictive value. Only PSA ≥40 ng/ml predicted poor outcomes on MVA. Distant failure was dominant and local recurrence rare, suggesting that improved systemic treatment rather than intensification of local therapy is needed. Patients with high-risk prostate cancer are most often treated with conformal dose escalated radiation therapy with androgen deprivation. Stratification into high versus very high-risk subgroups using 2014 or revised 2015 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria did not impact treatment outcomes. Only Prostate Serum Antigen (PSA) ≥40 ng/ml was predictive of poor prognosis. Distant failure was dominant and local recurrence uncommon which challenges the notion that intensification of local therapy will further improve outcomes in patients with high-risk disease.
Collapse
|
9
|
Abstract
Locally advanced prostate cancer (LAPCA) comprises about 5-10 % of all newly diagnosed prostate cancers and is associated with the highest prostate cancer specific mortality (approximately 8-20 %). LAPCA is defined by the presence of extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle invasion, and bladder neck infiltration of pelvic lymph node metastases. It is evident that prognosis can only be improved by interdisciplinary multimodality treatment strategies. Adequate local staging by multiparametric MRI is one of the cornerstones for an individualized, risk-adapted treatment approach. This might consist of extended radical prostatectomy with an extended pelvic lymphadenectomy or intensity-modulated radiation therapy with androgen deprivation as the primary local therapeutic approach. Both treatment strategies may be combined with neoadjuvant or adjuvant radiation therapy or salvage surgery. Combination with neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy and new androgen receptor pathway inhibitors might also be possible. This article summarizes the current treatment strategies for LAPCA.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A Heidenreich
- Klinik für Urologie, Universitätsklinikum Köln, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Köln, Deutschland.
| | - D Böhmer
- Klinik für Radioonkologie und Strahlentherapie, Charité Campus Benjamin Franklin, Berlin, Deutschland
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Salomon L, Ploussard G, Hennequin C, Richaud P, Soulié M. Traitements complémentaires de la chirurgie du cancer de la prostate et chirurgie de la récidive. Prog Urol 2015; 25:1086-107. [DOI: 10.1016/j.purol.2015.08.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/23/2015] [Accepted: 08/06/2015] [Indexed: 10/22/2022]
|
11
|
Hussein AA, Cooperberg MR. Rebuttal to Drs. Markovina and Michalski. Brachytherapy 2015; 14:761-2. [PMID: 26254833 DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2015.07.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Ahmed A Hussein
- Department of Urology, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Department of Urology, Cairo University, Egypt
| | - Matthew R Cooperberg
- Department of Urology, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Moul JW. High-risk prostate cancer and radical prostatectomy in the setting and context of multidisciplinary care. Urol Oncol 2015; 33:206-7. [PMID: 25851744 DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2015.03.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/21/2015] [Revised: 03/03/2015] [Accepted: 03/03/2015] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
|
13
|
|
14
|
Radiotherapy before and after radical prostatectomy for high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 2014; 33:226-34. [PMID: 25454485 DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.09.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/15/2014] [Revised: 09/26/2014] [Accepted: 09/29/2014] [Indexed: 01/22/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Men with localized high-risk prostate cancer carry significant risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality. The best treatment approach to minimize this risk is unclear. In this review, we evaluate the role of radiation before and after radical prostatectomy. METHODS AND MATERIALS A critical review of the literature was performed regarding the application of external radiation therapy (RT) in combination with prostatectomy for high-risk localized prostate cancer. RESULTS Up to 70% of men with high-risk localized disease may require adjuvant therapy because of adverse pathologic features or biochemical recurrence in the absence of systemic disease. The utility of adjuvant RT among men with adverse pathologic features are well established at least regarding minimizing biochemical recurrence risk. The optimal timing of salvage radiation is the subject of ongoing studies. Neoadjuvant RT requires further study but is a potentially attractive method because of decreased radiation field sizes and potential radiobiologic benefits of delivering RT before surgery. Salvage prostatectomy is effective at treating local recurrence after radiation but is associated with significant surgical morbidity. CONCLUSIONS Combining local therapies including radical prostatectomy and RT can be a reasonable approach. Care should be taken at the initial presentation of high-risk localized prostate cancer to consider and plan for the likelihood of multimodality care.
Collapse
|