1
|
Gogineni E, Chen H, Cruickshank IK, Koempel A, Gogineni A, Li H, Deville C. In Silico Comparison of Three Different Beam Arrangements for Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy for Postoperative Whole Pelvic Irradiation of Prostate Cancer. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16:2702. [PMID: 39123430 PMCID: PMC11311848 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16152702] [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: 04/15/2024] [Revised: 07/17/2024] [Accepted: 07/23/2024] [Indexed: 08/12/2024] Open
Abstract
Background and purpose: Proton therapy has been shown to provide dosimetric benefits in comparison with IMRT when treating prostate cancer with whole pelvis radiation; however, the optimal proton beam arrangement has yet to be established. The aim of this study was to evaluate three different intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) beam arrangements when treating the prostate bed and pelvis in the postoperative setting. Materials and Methods: Twenty-three post-prostatectomy patients were planned using three different beam arrangements: two-field (IMPT2B) (opposed laterals), three-field (IMPT3B) (opposed laterals inferiorly matched to a posterior-anterior beam superiorly), and four-field (IMPT4B) (opposed laterals inferiorly matched to two posterior oblique beams superiorly) arrangements. The prescription was 50 Gy radiobiological equivalent (GyE) to the pelvis and 70 GyE to the prostate bed. Comparisons were made using paired two-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Results: CTV coverages were met for all IMPT plans, with 99% of CTVs receiving ≥ 100% of prescription doses. All organ at risk (OAR) objectives were met with IMPT3B and IMPT4B plans, while several rectum objectives were exceeded by IMPT2B plans. IMPT4B provided the lowest doses to OARs for the majority of analyzed outcomes, with significantly lower doses than IMPT2B +/- IMPT3B for bladder V30-V50 and mean dose; bowel V15-V45 and mean dose; sigmoid maximum dose; rectum V40-V72.1, maximum dose, and mean dose; femoral head V37-40 and maximum dose; bone V40 and mean dose; penile bulb mean dose; and skin maximum dose. Conclusion: This study is the first to compare proton beam arrangements when treating the prostate bed and pelvis. four-field plans provided better sparing of the bladder, bowel, and rectum than 2- and three-field plans. The data presented herein may help inform the future delivery of whole pelvis IMPT for prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emile Gogineni
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH 43210, USA; (A.K.); (A.G.)
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA; (H.C.); (I.K.C.J.); (H.L.); (C.D.J.)
| | - Hao Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA; (H.C.); (I.K.C.J.); (H.L.); (C.D.J.)
| | - Ian K. Cruickshank
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA; (H.C.); (I.K.C.J.); (H.L.); (C.D.J.)
| | - Andrew Koempel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH 43210, USA; (A.K.); (A.G.)
| | - Aarush Gogineni
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH 43210, USA; (A.K.); (A.G.)
| | - Heng Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA; (H.C.); (I.K.C.J.); (H.L.); (C.D.J.)
| | - Curtiland Deville
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA; (H.C.); (I.K.C.J.); (H.L.); (C.D.J.)
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Gao RW, Ma J, Pisansky TM, Kruse JJ, Stish BJ, Kowalchuk RO, McMenomy BP, Waddle MR, Phillips RM, Choo R, Davis BJ. Dosimetric Features of Ultra-Hypofractionated Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy for Prostate Cancer. Int J Part Ther 2024; 12:100015. [PMID: 38827121 PMCID: PMC11137510 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpt.2024.100015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/05/2023] [Revised: 02/08/2024] [Accepted: 03/06/2024] [Indexed: 06/04/2024] Open
Abstract
Purpose To report clinical and dosimetric characteristics of 5-fraction stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) using intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for localized prostate cancer. Materials and Methods All patients receiving IMPT SABR from 2017 to 2021 for localized prostate cancer at our institution were included. Five fractions were delivered every other day to the prostate +/- seminal vesicles [clinical target volume (CTV)] with 3 mm/3% robustness. A 4-field arrangement with 2 anterior oblique and 2 opposed lateral beams was used in most patients (97%), and most (99%) had a retroprostatic hydrogel spacer. Results A total of 534 patients with low (14%), favorable intermediate (45%), unfavorable intermediate (36%), high (4.0%), or very high-risk (0.6%) disease are evaluated. Prescription dose was 36.25 Gy (31%), 38 Gy (38%), or 40 Gy (31%) was prescribed. Median volume percentage of CTV receiving at least 100% of prescription dose [V100% (%)] was 100% [interquartile range: 99.99-100]. Rectum V50% (%), V80% (%), and V90% (%) were significantly lower in patients who had spacer, with a mean difference of -9.70%, -6.59%, and -4.42%, respectively, compared to those who did not have spacer. Femoral head dose was lower with a 4-field arrangement. Mean differences in left and right femoral head V40% (%) were -6.99% and -10.74%, respectively. Conclusion We provide a large, novel report of patients treated with IMPT SABR for localized prostate cancer. Four-field IMPT with hydrogel spacer provides significant sparing of rectum and femoral heads without compromising target coverage.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert W. Gao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Jiasen Ma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Thomas M. Pisansky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Jon J. Kruse
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Bradley J. Stish
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Roman O. Kowalchuk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | | | - Mark R. Waddle
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Ryan M. Phillips
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Richard Choo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Brian J. Davis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Corrao G, Marvaso G, Mastroleo F, Biffi A, Pellegrini G, Minari S, Vincini MG, Zaffaroni M, Zerini D, Volpe S, Gaito S, Mazzola GC, Bergamaschi L, Cattani F, Petralia G, Musi G, Ceci F, De Cobelli O, Orecchia R, Alterio D, Jereczek-Fossa BA. Photon vs proton hypofractionation in prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiother Oncol 2024; 195:110264. [PMID: 38561122 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110264] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/14/2023] [Revised: 03/21/2024] [Accepted: 03/24/2024] [Indexed: 04/04/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND High-level evidence on hypofractionated proton therapy (PT) for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) patients is currently missing. The aim of this study is to provide a systematic literature review to compare the toxicity and effectiveness of curative radiotherapy with photon therapy (XRT) or PT in PCa. METHODS PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched up to April 2022. Men with a diagnosis of PCa who underwent curative hypofractionated RT treatment (PT or XRT) were included. Risk of grade (G) ≥ 2 acute and late genitourinary (GU) OR gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity were the primary outcomes of interest. Secondary outcomes were five-year biochemical relapse-free survival (b-RFS), clinical relapse-free, distant metastasis-free, and prostate cancer-specific survival. Heterogeneity between study-specific estimates was assessed using Chi-square statistics and measured with the I2 index (heterogeneity measure across studies). RESULTS A total of 230 studies matched inclusion criteria and, due to overlapped populations, 160 were included in the present analysis. Significant lower rates of G ≥ 2 acute GI incidence (2 % vs 7 %) and improved 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival (95 % vs 91 %) were observed in the PT arm compared to XRT. PT benefits in 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival were maintained for the moderate hypofractionated arm (p-value 0.0122) and among patients in intermediate and low-risk classes (p-values < 0.0001 and 0.0368, respectively). No statistically relevant differences were found for the other considered outcomes. CONCLUSION The present study supports that PT is safe and effective for localized PCa treatment, however, more data from RCTs are needed to draw solid evidence in this setting and further effort must be made to identify the patient subgroups that could benefit the most from PT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Giulia Corrao
- Division of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy; Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Giulia Marvaso
- Division of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy; Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Federico Mastroleo
- Division of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy; Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Annalisa Biffi
- National Centre of Healthcare Research and Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy; Unit of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Public Health, Department of Statistics and Quantitative Methods, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
| | - Giacomo Pellegrini
- National Centre of Healthcare Research and Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy; Unit of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Public Health, Department of Statistics and Quantitative Methods, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
| | - Samuele Minari
- National Centre of Healthcare Research and Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
| | - Maria Giulia Vincini
- Division of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
| | - Mattia Zaffaroni
- Division of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
| | - Dario Zerini
- Division of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Stefania Volpe
- Division of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy; Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Simona Gaito
- Proton Clinical Outcomes Unit, The Christie NHS Proton Beam Therapy Centre, Manchester, UK; Division of Clinical Cancer Science, School of Medical Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | | | - Luca Bergamaschi
- Division of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Federica Cattani
- Unit of Medical Physics, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Petralia
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy; Division of Radiology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Gennaro Musi
- Division of Urology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Francesco Ceci
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy; Division of Nuclear Medicine and Theranostics, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Ottavio De Cobelli
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy; Division of Urology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Roberto Orecchia
- Scientific Directorate, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Daniela Alterio
- Division of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Barbara Alicja Jereczek-Fossa
- Division of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy; Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Vieceli M, Park J, Hsi WC, Saki M, Mendenhall NP, Johnson P, Artz M. Potential Therapeutic Improvements in Prostate Cancer Treatment Using Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Therapy with LET d Optimization and Disease-Specific RBE Models. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16:780. [PMID: 38398171 PMCID: PMC10886728 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16040780] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/03/2024] [Revised: 02/11/2024] [Accepted: 02/12/2024] [Indexed: 02/25/2024] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To demonstrate the feasibility of improving prostate cancer patient outcomes with PBS proton LETd optimization. METHODS SFO, IPT-SIB, and LET-optimized plans were created for 12 patients, and generalized-tissue and disease-specific LET-dependent RBE models were applied. The mean LETd in several structures was determined and used to calculate mean RBEs. LETd- and dose-volume histograms (LVHs/DVHs) are shown. TODRs were defined based on clinical dose goals and compared between plans. The impact of robust perturbations on LETd, TODRs, and DVH spread was evaluated. RESULTS LETd optimization achieved statistically significant increased target volume LETd of ~4 keV/µm compared to SFO and IPT-SIB LETd of ~2 keV/µm while mitigating OAR LETd increases. A disease-specific RBE model predicted target volume RBEs > 1.5 for LET-optimized plans, up to 18% higher than for SFO plans. LET-optimized target LVHs/DVHs showed a large increase not present in OARs. All RBE models showed a statistically significant increase in TODRs from SFO to IPT-SIB to LET-optimized plans. RBE = 1.1 does not accurately represent TODRs when using LETd optimization. Robust evaluations demonstrated a trade-off between increased mean target LETd and decreased DVH spread. CONCLUSION The demonstration of improved TODRs provided via LETd optimization shows potential for improved patient outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael Vieceli
- University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL 32206, USA
- Medical Physics Graduate Program, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA
| | - Jiyeon Park
- University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL 32206, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA
| | - Wen Chien Hsi
- University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL 32206, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA
| | - Mo Saki
- University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL 32206, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA
| | - Nancy P Mendenhall
- University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL 32206, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA
| | - Perry Johnson
- University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL 32206, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA
| | - Mark Artz
- University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL 32206, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Takagi M, Hasegawa Y, Tateoka K, Takada Y, Hareyama M. Dosimetric Comparison Study of Proton Therapy Using Line Scanning versus Passive Scattering and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16:403. [PMID: 38254892 PMCID: PMC10814771 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16020403] [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: 12/13/2023] [Revised: 01/11/2024] [Accepted: 01/15/2024] [Indexed: 01/24/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The proton irradiation modality has transitioned from passive scattering (PS) to pencil beam scanning. Nevertheless, the documented outcomes predominantly rely on PS. METHODS Thirty patients diagnosed with prostate cancer were selected to assess treatment planning across line scanning (LS), PS, and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Dose constraints encompassed clinical target volume (CTV) D98 ≥ 73.0 Gy (RBE), rectal wall V65 < 17% and V40 < 35%, and bladder wall V65 < 25% and V40 < 50%. The CTV, rectal wall, and bladder wall dose volumes were calculated and evaluated using the Freidman test. RESULTS The LS technique adhered to all dose limitations. For the rectal and bladder walls, 10 (33.3%) and 21 (70.0%) patients in the PS method and 5 (16.7%) and 1 (3.3%) patients in VMAT, respectively, failed to meet the stipulated requirements. The wide ranges of the rectal and bladder wall volumes (V10-70) were lower with LS than with PS and VMAT. LS outperformed VMAT across all dose-volume rectal and bladder wall indices. CONCLUSION The LS method demonstrated a reduction in rectal and bladder doses relative to PS and VMAT, thereby suggesting the potential for mitigating toxicities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Masaru Takagi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sapporo Teishinkai Hospital, Sapporo 065-0033, Japan
| | - Yasuhiro Hasegawa
- Department of Radiation Physics, Sapporo Teishinkai Hospital, Sapporo 065-0033, Japan
| | - Kunihiko Tateoka
- Department of Radiation Physics, Sapporo Teishinkai Hospital, Sapporo 065-0033, Japan
| | - Yu Takada
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sapporo Teishinkai Hospital, Sapporo 065-0033, Japan
| | - Masato Hareyama
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sapporo Teishinkai Hospital, Sapporo 065-0033, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Sosa AJ, Thames HD, Sanders JW, Choi SL, Nguyen QN, Mok H, Ron Zhu X, Shah S, Mayo LL, Hoffman KE, Tang C, Lee AK, Pugh TJ, Kudchadker R, Frank SJ. Proton therapy for the management of localized prostate cancer: Long-term clinical outcomes at a comprehensive cancer center. Radiother Oncol 2023; 188:109854. [PMID: 37597805 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109854] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/22/2023] [Revised: 08/02/2023] [Accepted: 08/09/2023] [Indexed: 08/21/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Proton therapy (PT) has emerged as a standard-of-care treatment option for localized prostate cancer at our comprehensive cancer center. However, there are few large-scale analyses examining the long-term clinical outcomes. Therefore, this article aims to evaluate the long-term effectiveness and toxicity of PT in patients with localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS Review of 2772 patients treated from May 2006 through January 2020. Disease risk was stratified according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines as low [LR, n = 640]; favorable-intermediate [F-IR, n = 850]; unfavorable-intermediate [U-IR, n = 851]; high [HR, n = 315]; or very high [VHR, n = 116]. Biochemical failure and toxicity were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimates and multivariate models. RESULTS The median patient age was 66 years; the median follow-up time was 7.0 years. Pelvic lymph node irradiation was prescribed to 28 patients (1%) (2 [0.2%] U-IR, 11 [3.5%] HR, and 15 [12.9%] VHR). The median dose was 78 Gy in 1.8-2.0 Gy(RBE) fractions. Freedom from biochemical relapse (FFBR) rates at 5 years and 10 years were 98.2% and 96.8% for the LR group; 98.3% and 93.6%, F-IR; 94.2% and 90.2%, U-IR; 94.3% and 85.2%, HR; and 86.1% and 68.5%, VHR. Two patients died of prostate cancer. Overall rates of late grade ≥ 3 GU and GI toxicity were 0.87% and 1.01%. CONCLUSIONS Proton therapy for localized prostate cancer demonstrated excellent clinical outcomes in this large cohort, even among higher-risk groups with historically poor outcomes despite aggressive therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alan J Sosa
- Departments of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Howard D Thames
- Departments of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jeremiah W Sanders
- Departments of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Seungtaek L Choi
- Departments of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Quynh-Nhu Nguyen
- Departments of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Henry Mok
- Departments of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - X Ron Zhu
- Departments of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Shalin Shah
- Departments of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Lauren L Mayo
- Departments of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Karen E Hoffman
- Departments of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Chad Tang
- Departments of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Andrew K Lee
- Texas Center for Proton Therapy, Irving, TX, USA
| | | | - Reena Kudchadker
- Departments of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Steven J Frank
- Departments of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Initial Quality of Life and Toxicity Analysis of a Randomized Phase 3 Study of Moderately Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy With or Without Androgen Suppression for Intermediate-Risk Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate: PCG GU003. Adv Radiat Oncol 2023; 8:101142. [PMID: 36896215 PMCID: PMC9991536 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2022.101142] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/11/2022] [Accepted: 11/30/2022] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose Our objective was to report the quality of life (QoL) analysis and toxicity in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in Proton Collaborative Group (PCG) GU003. Methods and Materials Between 2012 and 2019, patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer were enrolled. Patients were randomized to receive moderately hypofractionated proton beam therapy (PBT) to 70 Gy relative biologic effectiveness in 28 fractions to the prostate with or without 6 months of ADT. Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite, Short-Form 12, and the American Urological Association Symptom Index instruments were given at baseline and 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after PBT. Toxicities were assessed according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4). Results One hundred ten patients were randomized to PBT either with 6 months of ADT (n = 55) or without ADT (n = 55). The median follow-up was 32.4 months (range, 5.5-84.6). On average, 101 out of 110 (92%) patients filled out baseline QoL and patient-reported outcome surveys. The compliance was 84%, 82%, 64%, and 42% at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively. Baseline median American Urological Association Symptom Index was comparable between arms (6 [11%] ADT vs 5 [9%] no ADT, P = .359). Acute and late grade 2+ genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity were similar between arms. The ADT arm experienced a QoL decline of mean scores in the sexual (-16.1, P < .001) and hormonal (-6.3, P < .001) domains, with the largest time-specific hormonal differences at 3 (-13.8, P < .001) and 6 (-11.2, P < .001) months. The hormonal QoL domain returned to baseline 6 months after therapy. There was a trend to baseline in sexual function 6 months after completion of ADT. Conclusions After 6 months of ADT, sexual and hormonal domains returned to baseline 6 months after completion of treatment for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.
Collapse
|
8
|
Hasan S, Lazarev S, Garg M, Gozland R, Chang J, Hartsell W, Chen J, Tsai H, Vargas C, Simone CB, Gorovets D. Proton therapy for high-risk prostate cancer: Results from the Proton Collaborative Group PCG 001-09 prospective registry trial. Prostate 2023; 83:850-856. [PMID: 36946610 DOI: 10.1002/pros.24525] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/07/2022] [Revised: 02/07/2023] [Accepted: 02/22/2023] [Indexed: 03/23/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Data for proton therapy in high-risk prostate cancer (HRPC) are limited. Using the Proton Collaborative Group prospective registry, we evaluated outcomes for HRPC patients treated with proton therapy. METHODS A totsl of 605 men with localized HRPC treated with proton therapy from 8/2009 to 3/2019 at nine institutions were selected. Outcomes examined included freedom from progression (FFP), metastasis free survival (MFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity. Multivariable cox/binomial regression models were used to assess predictors of FFP and toxicity. RESULTS Median age was 71 years. Gleason grade groups 4 (49.4%) and 5 (31.7%) were most common, as were clinical stage T1c (46.1%) and cT2 (41.3%). The median pretreatment prostate specific antigen (PSA) was 9.18 and median International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) was 6. Androgen deprivation therapy was given in 63.6%. Median dose was 79.2 GyE in 44 fractions. Pelvic lymph nodes were treated in 58.2% of cases. Pencil beam scanning was used in 54.5%, uniform scanning in 38.8%, and a rectal spacer in 14.2%. At a median followup of 22 months, the 3- and 5-year FFP were 90.7% and 81.4%, respectively. Five-year MFS and OS were 92.8% and 95.9%, respectively. Independent correlates of FFP included Gleason ≥8, PSA > 10, and cT2 (all p < 0.05). No grade 4 or 5 adverse events were reported. There were 23 (5%) grade 2 and 0 grade 3 gastrointestinal events. Prevalence of late grade 3, late grade 2, acute grade 3, and acute grade 2 genitourinary toxicity was 1.7%, 5.8%, 0%, and 21.8%, respectively. Prevalence of grade 2 and 3 erectile dysfunction at 2 years was 48.4% and 8.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS In the largest series published to date, our results suggest early outcomes using proton therapy for HRPC are encouraging for both safety and efficacy. Further evaluation is needed to determine if an advantage exists to use protons over other radiation techniques in this population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Stanislav Lazarev
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Madhur Garg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York, USA
| | - Rachel Gozland
- Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, USA
| | - John Chang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Oklahoma Proton Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA
| | - William Hartsell
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Jonathan Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Henry Tsai
- ProCure Proton Therapy Center, Somerset, New Jersey, USA
| | - Carlos Vargas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
| | | | - Daniel Gorovets
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Kiseleva V, Gordon K, Vishnyakova P, Gantsova E, Elchaninov A, Fatkhudinov T. Particle Therapy: Clinical Applications and Biological Effects. Life (Basel) 2022; 12:2071. [PMID: 36556436 PMCID: PMC9785772 DOI: 10.3390/life12122071] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/08/2022] [Revised: 12/01/2022] [Accepted: 12/06/2022] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Particle therapy is a developing area of radiotherapy, mostly involving the use of protons, neutrons and carbon ions for cancer treatment. The reduction of side effects on healthy tissues in the peritumoral area is an important advantage of particle therapy. In this review, we analyze state-of-the-art particle therapy, as compared to conventional photon therapy, to identify clinical benefits and specify the mechanisms of action on tumor cells. Systematization of published data on particle therapy confirms its successful application in a wide range of cancers and reveals a variety of biological effects which manifest at the molecular level and produce the particle therapy-specific molecular signatures. Given the rapid progress in the field, the use of particle therapy holds great promise for the near future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Viktoriia Kiseleva
- National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology Named after Academician V.I. Kulakov of Ministry of Healthcare of Russian Federation, 117198 Moscow, Russia
| | - Konstantin Gordon
- Research Institute of Molecular and Cellular Medicine, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), 117198 Moscow, Russia
- A. Tsyb Medical Radiological Research Center, 249031 Obninsk, Russia
| | - Polina Vishnyakova
- National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology Named after Academician V.I. Kulakov of Ministry of Healthcare of Russian Federation, 117198 Moscow, Russia
- Research Institute of Molecular and Cellular Medicine, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), 117198 Moscow, Russia
| | - Elena Gantsova
- Research Institute of Molecular and Cellular Medicine, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), 117198 Moscow, Russia
| | - Andrey Elchaninov
- National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology Named after Academician V.I. Kulakov of Ministry of Healthcare of Russian Federation, 117198 Moscow, Russia
- Research Institute of Molecular and Cellular Medicine, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), 117198 Moscow, Russia
- A.P. Avtsyn Research Institute of Human Morphology of Federal State Budgetary Scientific Institution “Petrovsky National Research Centre of Surgery”, 117418 Moscow, Russia
| | - Timur Fatkhudinov
- Research Institute of Molecular and Cellular Medicine, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), 117198 Moscow, Russia
- A.P. Avtsyn Research Institute of Human Morphology of Federal State Budgetary Scientific Institution “Petrovsky National Research Centre of Surgery”, 117418 Moscow, Russia
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Ishikawa H, Hiroshima Y, Kanematsu N, Inaniwa T, Shirai T, Imai R, Suzuki H, Akakura K, Wakatsuki M, Ichikawa T, Tsuji H. Carbon-ion radiotherapy for urological cancers. Int J Urol 2022; 29:1109-1119. [PMID: 35692124 PMCID: PMC9796467 DOI: 10.1111/iju.14950] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/27/2021] [Accepted: 05/16/2022] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
Abstract
Carbon-ions are charged particles with a high linear energy transfer, and therefore, they make a better dose distribution with greater biological effects on the tumors compared with photons and protons. Since prostate cancer, renal cell carcinoma, and retroperitoneal sarcomas such as liposarcoma and leiomyosarcoma are known to be radioresistant tumors, carbon-ion radiotherapy, which provides the advantageous radiobiological properties such as an increasing relative biological effectiveness toward the Bragg peak, a reduced oxygen enhancement ratio, and a reduced dependence on fractionation and cell-cycle stage, has been tested for these urological tumors at the National Institute for Radiological Sciences since 1994. To promote carbon-ion radiotherapy as a standard cancer therapy, the Japan Carbon-ion Radiation Oncology Study Group was established in 2015 to create a registry of all treated patients and conduct multi-institutional prospective studies in cooperation with all the Japanese institutes. Based on accumulating evidence of the efficacy and feasibility of carbon-ion therapy for prostate cancer and retroperitoneal sarcoma, it is now covered by the Japanese health insurance system. On the other hand, carbon-ion radiotherapy for renal cell cancer is not still covered by the insurance system, although the two previous studies showed the efficacy. In this review, we introduce the characteristics, clinical outcomes, and perspectives of carbon-ion radiotherapy and our efforts to disseminate the use of this new technology worldwide.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hitoshi Ishikawa
- QST HospitalNational Institutes for Quantum Science and TechnologyChibaJapan
| | - Yuichi Hiroshima
- QST HospitalNational Institutes for Quantum Science and TechnologyChibaJapan
| | - Nobuyuki Kanematsu
- QST HospitalNational Institutes for Quantum Science and TechnologyChibaJapan
| | - Taku Inaniwa
- QST HospitalNational Institutes for Quantum Science and TechnologyChibaJapan
| | - Toshiyuki Shirai
- QST HospitalNational Institutes for Quantum Science and TechnologyChibaJapan
| | - Reiko Imai
- QST HospitalNational Institutes for Quantum Science and TechnologyChibaJapan
| | - Hiroyoshi Suzuki
- Department of UrologyToho University Sakura Medical CenterChibaJapan
| | - Koichiro Akakura
- Department of UrologyJapan Community Health‐care Organization Tokyo Shinjuku Medical CenterTokyoJapan
| | - Masaru Wakatsuki
- QST HospitalNational Institutes for Quantum Science and TechnologyChibaJapan
| | - Tomohiko Ichikawa
- Department of UrologyChiba University Graduate School of MedicineChibaJapan
| | - Hiroshi Tsuji
- QST HospitalNational Institutes for Quantum Science and TechnologyChibaJapan
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Chilukuri S, Sundar S, Patro K, Sawant M, Sivaraman R, Arjunan M, Panda PK, Sharma D, Jalali R. Comparison of Estimated Late Toxicities between IMPT and IMRT Based on Multivariable NTCP Models for High-Risk Prostate Cancers Treated with Pelvic Nodal Radiation. Int J Part Ther 2022; 9:42-53. [PMID: 35774485 PMCID: PMC9238124 DOI: 10.14338/ijpt-21-00042.1] [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: 11/03/2021] [Accepted: 03/24/2022] [Indexed: 11/27/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose To compare the late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary toxicities (GU) estimated using multivariable normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models, between pencil-beam scanning proton beam therapy (PBT) and helical tomotherapy (HT) in patients of high-risk prostate cancers requiring pelvic nodal irradiation (PNI) using moderately hypofractionated regimen. Materials and Methods Twelve consecutive patients treated with PBT at our center were replanned with HT using the same planning goals. Six late GI and GU toxicity domains (stool frequency, rectal bleeding, fecal incontinence, dysuria, urinary incontinence, and hematuria) were estimated based on the published multivariable NTCP models. The ΔNTCP (difference in absolute NTCP between HT and PBT plans) for each of the toxicity domains was calculated. A one-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to analyze distribution of data, and either a paired t test or a Wilcoxon matched-pair signed rank test was used to test statistical significance. Results Proton beam therapy and HT plans achieved adequate target coverage. Proton beam therapy plans led to significantly better sparing of bladder, rectum, and bowel bag especially in the intermediate range of 15 to 40 Gy, whereas doses to penile bulb and femoral heads were higher with PBT plans. The average ΔNTCP for grade (G)2 rectal bleeding, fecal incontinence, stool frequency, dysuria, urinary incontinence, and G1 hematuria was 12.17%, 1.67%, 2%, 5.83%, 2.42%, and 3.91%, respectively, favoring PBT plans. The average cumulative ΔNTCP for GI and GU toxicities (ΣΔNTCP) was 16.58% and 11.41%, respectively, favoring PBT. Using a model-based selection threshold of any G2 ΔNTCP >10%, 67% (8 patients) would be eligible for PBT. Conclusion Proton beam therapy plans led to superior sparing of organs at risk compared with HT, which translated to lower NTCP for late moderate GI and GU toxicities in patients of prostate cancer treated with PNI. For two-thirds of our patients, the difference in estimated absolute NTCP values between PBT and HT crossed the accepted threshold for minimal clinically important difference.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Srinivas Chilukuri
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, India
| | - Sham Sundar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, India
| | - Kartikeswar Patro
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, India
| | - Mayur Sawant
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, India
| | - Rangasamy Sivaraman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, India
| | - Manikandan Arjunan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, India
| | - Pankaj Kumar Panda
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, India
| | - Dayananda Sharma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, India
| | - Rakesh Jalali
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, India
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Forsthoefel M, Hankins R, Ballew E, Frame C, DeBlois D, Pang D, Krishnan P, Unger K, Kowalczyk K, Lynch J, Dritschilo A, Collins SP, Lischalk JW. Prostate Cancer Treatment with Pencil Beam Proton Therapy Using Rectal Spacers sans Endorectal Balloons. Int J Part Ther 2022; 9:28-41. [PMID: 35774493 PMCID: PMC9238133 DOI: 10.14338/ijpt-21-00039] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/22/2021] [Accepted: 02/01/2022] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose Proton beam radiotherapy (PBT) has been used for the definitive treatment of localized prostate cancer with low rates of high-grade toxicity and excellent patient-reported quality-of-life metrics. Technological advances such as pencil beam scanning (PBS), Monte Carlo dose calculations, and polyethylene glycol gel rectal spacers have optimized prostate proton therapy. Here, we report the early clinical outcomes of patients treated for localized prostate cancer using modern PBS–PBT with hydrogel rectal spacing and fiducial tracking without the use of endorectal balloons. Materials and Methods This is a single institutional review of consecutive patients treated with histologically confirmed localized prostate cancer. Prior to treatment, all patients underwent placement of fiducials into the prostate and insertion of a hydrogel rectal spacer. Patients were typically given a prescription dose of 7920 cGy at 180 cGy per fraction using a Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm. Acute and late toxicity were evaluated using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 5. Biochemical failure was defined using the Phoenix definition. Results From July 2018 to April 2020, 33 patients were treated (median age, 75 years). No severe acute toxicities were observed. The most common acute toxicity was urinary frequency. With a median follow-up of 18 months, there were no high-grade genitourinary late toxicities; however, one grade 3 gastrointestinal toxicity was observed. Late erectile dysfunction was common. One treatment failure was observed at 21 months in a patient treated for high-risk prostate cancer. Conclusion Early clinical outcomes of patients treated with PBS–PBT using Monte Carlo–based planning, fiducial placement, and rectal spacers sans endorectal balloons demonstrate minimal treatment-related toxicity with good oncologic outcomes. Rectal spacer stabilization without the use of endorectal balloons is feasible for the use of PBS–PBT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew Forsthoefel
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Ryan Hankins
- Department of Urology, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Elizabeth Ballew
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Cara Frame
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA
| | - David DeBlois
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Dalong Pang
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Pranay Krishnan
- Department of Radiology, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Keith Unger
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Keith Kowalczyk
- Department of Urology, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA
| | - John Lynch
- Department of Urology, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Anatoly Dritschilo
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Sean P. Collins
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Jonathan W. Lischalk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University Langone Hospital – Long Island, New York, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Henderson RH, Bryant CM, Nichols RC, Mendenhall WM, Hoppe BS, Su Z, Morris CG, Mendenhall NP. Five- and seven-year outcomes for image-guided moderately accelerated hypofractionated proton therapy for prostate cancer. Acta Oncol 2022; 61:468-477. [PMID: 34965846 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2021.2016948] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND To report 5- and 7-year outcomes after image-guided moderately accelerated hypofractionated proton therapy (AHPT) for prostate cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS We reviewed the first 582 prostate cancer patients enrolled on prospective outcomes tracking trial and treated with double-scattered moderately AHPT between 2008 and 2015. 269 patients had low-risk (LR) and 313 had intermediate-risk (IR) disease, including 149 with favorable intermediate-risk (FIR) and 164 with unfavorable intermediate-risk (UIR) disease. LR patients received a median 70.0GyRBE (2.5GyRBE/fraction) and IR patients received a median of 72.5 GyRBE. Seventeen patients (UIR, n = 12) received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for a median of 6 months. Toxicities were graded per the CTCAE, v4.0, and patient-reported quality-of-life data were reviewed. RESULTS Median follow-up was 8.0 years (0.9-12.2). The 5- and 7-year rates of freedom from biochemical progression (FFBP) overall and in the LR and IR subsets, respectively, were 96.8/95.2%, 98.8/98.8%, and 95.0/91.9%. For the FIR and UIR subsets, they were 97.2/95.2% and 93.1/88.8%. Actuarial 5- and 7-year rates of late CTCAE, v4.0, grade 2 gastrointestinal (GI), grade 3 GI, and grade 3 genitourinary (GU) toxicities were 9.9%/11.2%, 1.4/1.4% and 1.3/2.1%, respectively. No grade ≥4 GI or GU toxicities occurred. The mean (standard deviation, SD) IPSS and EPIC Composite bowel function and bother scores were 7 (SD = 5), 97 (SD = 7), and 94 (SD = 6), respectively at baseline, 7 (SD = 5), 92 (SD = 13), and 92 (SD = 9) at the 5-year follow-up, and 7 (SD = 5), 93 (SD = 12), and 92 (SD = 10) at the 7-year follow-up. CONCLUSION Image-guided AHPT 5- and 7-year outcomes show high efficacy, minimal physician-assessed toxicity, and excellent patient-reported outcomes in this cohort.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Randal H. Henderson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Curtis M. Bryant
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - R. Charles Nichols
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - William M. Mendenhall
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Bradford S. Hoppe
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Zhong Su
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Christopher G. Morris
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Nancy P. Mendenhall
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Wu YY, Fan KH. Proton therapy for prostate cancer: current state and future perspectives. Br J Radiol 2022; 95:20210670. [PMID: 34558308 PMCID: PMC8978248 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20210670] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/27/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Localized prostate cancer can be treated with several radiotherapeutic approaches. Proton therapy (PT) can precisely target tumors, thus sparing normal tissues and reducing side-effects without sacrificing cancer control. However, PT is a costly treatment compared with conventional photon radiotherapy, which may undermine its overall efficacy. In this review, we summarize current data on the dosimetric rationale, clinical benefits, and cost of PT for prostate cancer. METHODS An extensive literature review of PT for prostate cancer was performed with emphasis on studies investigating dosimetric advantage, clinical outcomes, cost-effective strategies, and novel technology trends. RESULTS PT is safe, and its efficacy is comparable to that of standard photon-based therapy or brachytherapy. Data on gastrointestinal, genitourinary, and sexual function toxicity profiles are conflicting; however, PT is associated with a low risk of second cancer and has no effects on testosterone levels. Regarding cost-effectiveness, PT is suboptimal, although evolving trends in radiation delivery and construction of PT centers may help reduce the cost. CONCLUSION PT has several advantages over conventional photon radiotherapy, and novel approaches may increase its efficacy and safety. Large prospective randomized trials comparing photon therapy with proton-based treatments are ongoing and may provide data on the differences in efficacy, toxicity profile, and quality of life between proton- and photon-based treatments for prostate cancer in the modern era. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE PT provides excellent physical advantages and has a superior dose profile compared with X-ray radiotherapy. Further evidence from clinical trials and research studies will clarify the role of PT in the treatment of prostate cancer, and facilitate the implementation of PT in a more accessible, affordable, efficient, and safe way.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yao-Yu Wu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Linkou Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University, Taoyuan City, Taiwan
| | - Kang-Hsing Fan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, New Taipei Municipal TuCheng Hospital, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Nakashima H, Takatsu T, Imai R. Radiation-induced osteosarcoma in the pubic bone after proton radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a case report. J Rural Med 2022; 17:94-100. [PMID: 35432636 PMCID: PMC8984621 DOI: 10.2185/jrm.2021-047] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/08/2021] [Accepted: 11/26/2021] [Indexed: 11/27/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective: Radiation-induced sarcoma (RIS), which develops after
radiotherapy, occurs as a secondary sarcoma in the irradiated area after a long latency
period following radiation exposure. Patient: A 59-year-old man underwent hormone therapy for prostate cancer,
followed by proton therapy (74 GyE) four years ago. Positron emission tomography/computed
tomography performed 2.5 years later revealed 18F-FDG accumulation in the left
pubis. Three years after proton therapy, the patient developed gradually worsening left
inguinal pain and visited our department. Imaging revealed bone destruction with a mixture
of osteolysis and osteogenesis in the left pubis and the presence of an extraosseous
tumor. Following biopsy, the patient was diagnosed with osteosarcoma. Results: A systemic investigation revealed lung metastasis, and chemotherapy
was initiated. The lung metastases shrank, and carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT, 70.4 GyE)
was performed on the left pubic lesion after colostomy. Six months after carbon ion
radiotherapy, recurrence was observed in the irradiated field, and CIRT was performed
again. However, the patient died 22 months after the initial diagnosis because of
cancerous pleurisy and pericarditis. Conclusions: Although RIS is rare, it should be actively identified using
biopsy to confirm the diagnosis, keeping in mind that it is an important late complication
of radiotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hiroatsu Nakashima
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Gifu Prefectural Tajimi Hospital, Japan
| | - Tetsuro Takatsu
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Gifu Prefectural Tajimi Hospital, Japan
| | - Reiko Imai
- Division of Radiation Oncology, QST Hospital, National Institutes for Quantum and Radiological Science and Technology, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Chen X, Yu Q, Li P, Fu S. Landscape of Carbon Ion Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer: Clinical Application and Translational Research. Front Oncol 2021; 11:760752. [PMID: 34804961 PMCID: PMC8602827 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.760752] [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: 08/18/2021] [Accepted: 10/20/2021] [Indexed: 12/03/2022] Open
Abstract
Carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT) is a useful and advanced technique for prostate cancer. This study sought to investigate the clinical efficacy and translational research for prostate cancer with carbon ion radiotherapy. We integrated the data from published articles, clinical trials websites, and our data. The efficacy of CIRT for prostate cancer was assessed in terms of overall survival, biochemical recurrence-free survival, and toxicity response. Up to now, clinical treatment of carbon ion radiotherapy has been carried in only five countries. We found that carbon ion radiotherapy induced little genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity when used for prostate cancer treatment. To some extent, it led to improved outcomes in overall survival, biochemical recurrence-free survival than conventional radiotherapy, especially for high-risk prostate cancer. Carbon ion radiotherapy brought clinical benefits for prostate cancer patients, and quality of life assessment indicated that CIRT affected patients to a lesser extent. Potential biomarkers from our omics-based study could be used to predict the efficacy of prostate cancer with CIRT. Carbon ion radiotherapy brought clinical benefits for prostate cancer patients. The omics-based translational research may provide insights into individualized therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xue Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.,Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College of Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Qi Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.,Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College of Fudan University, Shanghai, China.,Proton & Heavy Ion Medical Center, State Key Laboratory of Radiation Medicine and Protection, School of Radiation Medicine and Protection, Soochow University, Suzhou, China.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Concord Cancer Center, Shanghai, China
| | - Ping Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Proton and Heavy lon Center, Shanghai, China
| | - Shen Fu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.,Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College of Fudan University, Shanghai, China.,Proton & Heavy Ion Medical Center, State Key Laboratory of Radiation Medicine and Protection, School of Radiation Medicine and Protection, Soochow University, Suzhou, China.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Concord Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.,Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Ion-beam Application (MOE), Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Pedersen J, Liang X, Bryant C, Mendenhall N, Li Z, Muren LP. Normal tissue complication probability models for prospectively scored late rectal and urinary morbidity after proton therapy of prostate cancer. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol 2021; 20:62-68. [PMID: 34805558 PMCID: PMC8590075 DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2021.10.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/15/2021] [Revised: 10/02/2021] [Accepted: 10/11/2021] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Background and purpose Photons and protons have fundamentally different properties, i.e. protons have a reduced dose bath but a higher relative biological effectiveness. Photon-based normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models may therefore not immediately be applicable to proton therapy (PT). The aim was to derive parameters of the Lyman-Kutcher-Burman (LKB) NTCP model using prospectively recorded late morbidity data from PT, focusing on rectal morbidity and prostate cancer. Materials and methods Prospectively collected data were available for 1151 prostate cancer patients treated with passive scattering PT and prescribed target doses of 78–82 Gy (RBE = 1.1) in 2 Gy fractions. Morbidity data (CTCAE v3.0) consisted of two alternative late grade 2 rectal bleeding endpoints: Medical Grade2A (GR2A) and procedural Grade2B (GR2B), as well as late grade 3 + urinary morbidity. GR2A + 2B were observed in 156/1047 patients (15%), GR2B in 45/1047 patients (4%), and urinary grade 3 + in 51/1151 patients (4%). LKB NTCP model parameters (D50, m, and n) were derived by maximum likelihood estimation. Results For the rectum/rectal wall the volume parameter n was low (0.07–0.14) for both GR2A + 2B and GR2B, as was the m parameter (range: 0.16–0.20). For the bladder/bladder wall both parameters were high (n-range: 0.20–0.36; m-range: 0.32–0.36). D50 parameters were higher for GR2B of the rectum/rectal wall (95.9–98.0 Gy) and bladder/bladder wall (118.1–119.9 Gy), but lower for GR2A2B (71.7–73.6 Gy). Conclusion PT specific LKB NTCP model parameters were derived from a population of more than 1000 patients. The D50 parameter differed for all structures and endpoints and deviated from typical photon-based LKB model values.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jesper Pedersen
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital/Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Xiaoying Liang
- University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Curtis Bryant
- University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Nancy Mendenhall
- University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Zuofeng Li
- University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Ludvig P Muren
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital/Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Bao A, Barsky AR, Maxwell R, Bekelman JE, Both S, Christodouleas JP, Deville C, Fang P, Tochner ZA, Vapiwala N. Long-term Clinical Outcomes in Favorable Risk Prostate Cancer Patients Receiving Proton Beam Therapy. Int J Part Ther 2021; 8:14-24. [PMID: 35530185 PMCID: PMC9009454 DOI: 10.14338/ijpt-21-00016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/07/2021] [Accepted: 07/19/2021] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose Long-term data regarding the disease control outcomes of proton beam therapy (PBT) for patients with favorable risk intact prostate cancer (PC) are limited. Herein, we report our institution's long-term disease control outcomes in PC patients with clinically localized disease who received PBT as primary treatment. Methods One hundred sixty-six favorable risk PC patients who received definitive PBT to the prostate gland at our institution from 2010 to 2012 were retrospectively assessed. The outcomes studied were biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS), biochemical failure, local failure, regional failure, distant failure, PC-specific survival, and overall survival. Patterns of failure were also analyzed. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to estimate independent predictors of BFFS. Results The median length of follow-up was 8.3 years (range, 1.2–10.5 years). The majority of patients had low-risk disease (58%, n = 96), with a median age of 64 years at the onset of treatment. Of 166 treated men, 13 (7.8%), 8 (4.8%), 2 (1.2%) patient(s) experienced biochemical failure, local failure, regional failure, respectively. Regional failure was seen in an obturator lymph node in 1 patient and the external iliac lymph nodes in the other. None of the patients experienced distant failure. There were 5 (3.0%) deaths, none of which were due to PC. The 5- and 8-year BFFS rate were 97% and 92%, respectively. None of the clinical disease characteristics or treatment-related factors assessed were associated with BFFS on multivariate Cox proportional hazards modeling (all P > .05). Conclusion Disease control rates reported in our assessment of PBT were similar to those reported in previous clinically localized intact PC analyses, which used intensity-modulated radiotherapy, three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, or radical prostatectomy as definitive therapy. In addition, BFFS rates were similar, if not improved, to previous PBT studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alicia Bao
- Ohio State College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - Andrew R. Barsky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Russell Maxwell
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Justin E. Bekelman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Stefan Both
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | | | - Curtiland Deville
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Penny Fang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Zelig A. Tochner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Neha Vapiwala
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Li M, Li X, Yao L, Han X, Yan W, Liu Y, Fu Y, Wang Y, Huang M, Zhang Q, Wang X, Yang K. Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Proton and Carbon Ion Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front Oncol 2021; 11:709530. [PMID: 34712607 PMCID: PMC8547329 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.709530] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/14/2021] [Accepted: 09/15/2021] [Indexed: 01/10/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) are promising methods for prostate cancer, however, the consensus of an increasing number of studies has not been reached. We aimed to provide systematic evidence for evaluating the efficacy and safety of CIRT and PBT for prostate cancer by comparing photon radiotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS We searched for studies focusing on CIRT and PBT for prostate cancer in four online databases until July 2021. Two independent reviewers assessed the quality of included studies and used the GRADE approach to rate the quality of evidence. R 4.0.2 software was used to conduct the meta-analysis. A meta-regression test was performed based on the study design and tumor stage of each study. RESULTS A total of 33 studies including 13 CIRT- and 20 PBT-related publications, involving 54,101, participants were included. The quality of the included studies was found to be either low or moderate quality. Random model single-arm meta-analysis showed that both the CIRT and PBT have favorable efficacy and safety, with similar 5-year overall survival (OS) (94 vs 92%), the incidence of grade 2 or greater acute genitourinary (AGU) toxicity (5 vs 13%), late genitourinary (LGU) toxicity (4 vs 5%), acute gastrointestinal (AGI) toxicity (1 vs 1%), and late gastrointestinal (LGI) toxicity (2 vs 4%). However, compared with CIRT and PBT, photon radiotherapy was associated with lower 5-year OS (72-73%) and a higher incidence of grade 2 or greater AGU (28-29%), LGU (13-14%), AGI (14-19%), and LGI toxicity (8-10%). The meta-analysis showed the 3-, 4-, and 5-year local control rate (LCR) of CIRT for prostate cancer was 98, 97, and 99%; the 3-, 4-, 5-, and 8-year biochemical relapse-free rate (BRF) was 92, 91, 89, and 79%. GRADE assessment results indicated that the certainty of the evidence was very low. Meta-regression results did not show a significant relationship based on the variables studied (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS Currently available evidence demonstrated that the efficacy and safety of CIRT and PBT for prostate cancer were similar, and they may significantly improve the OS, LCR, and reduce the incidence of GU and GI toxicity compared with photon radiotherapy. However, the quantity and quality of the available evidence are insufficient. More high-quality controlled studies are needed in the future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Meixuan Li
- Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
- Evidence-Based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
- Key Laboratory of Evidence-Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, China
- Health Technology Assessment Center of Lanzhou University, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
| | - Xiuxia Li
- Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
- Evidence-Based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
- Key Laboratory of Evidence-Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, China
- Health Technology Assessment Center of Lanzhou University, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
| | - Liang Yao
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Xue Han
- The Second School of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
| | - Wenlong Yan
- The First School of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
| | - Yujun Liu
- The First School of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
| | - Yiwen Fu
- The Second School of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
| | - Yakun Wang
- The First School of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
| | - Min Huang
- The First School of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
| | - Qiuning Zhang
- Institute of Modern Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou, China
- Lanzhou Heavy Ions Hospital, Lanzhou, China
| | - Xiaohu Wang
- Institute of Modern Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou, China
- Lanzhou Heavy Ions Hospital, Lanzhou, China
| | - Kehu Yang
- Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
- Evidence-Based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
- Key Laboratory of Evidence-Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, China
- Health Technology Assessment Center of Lanzhou University, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Freitas H, Magalhaes Martins P, Tessonnier T, Ackermann B, Brons S, Seco J. Dataset for predicting single-spot proton ranges in proton therapy of prostate cancer. Sci Data 2021; 8:252. [PMID: 34588458 PMCID: PMC8481263 DOI: 10.1038/s41597-021-01028-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/14/2020] [Accepted: 08/05/2021] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
The number of radiotherapy patients treated with protons has increased from less than 60,000 in 2007 to more than 220,000 in 2019. However, the considerable uncertainty in the positioning of the Bragg peak deeper in the patient raised new challenges in the proton therapy of prostate cancer (PCPT). Here, we describe and share a dataset where 43 single-spot anterior beams with defined proton energies were delivered to a prostate phantom with an inserted endorectal balloon (ERB) filled either with water only or with a silicon-water mixture. The nuclear reactions between the protons and the silicon yield a distinct prompt gamma energy line of 1.78 MeV. Such energy peak could be identified by means of prompt gamma spectroscopy (PGS) for the protons hitting the ERB with a three-sigma threshold. The application of a background-suppression technique showed an increased rejection capability for protons hitting the prostate and the ERB with water only. We describe each dataset, document the full processing chain, and provide the scripts for the statistical analysis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hugo Freitas
- German Cancer Research Center - DKFZ, Heidelberg, Germany
- Departamento de Física e Astronomia, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal
| | - Paulo Magalhaes Martins
- German Cancer Research Center - DKFZ, Heidelberg, Germany.
- Instituto de Biofísica e Engenharia Biomédica, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal.
| | - Thomas Tessonnier
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Benjamin Ackermann
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Stephan Brons
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Joao Seco
- German Cancer Research Center - DKFZ, Heidelberg, Germany.
- Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Magalhaes Martins P, Freitas H, Tessonnier T, Ackermann B, Brons S, Seco J. Towards real-time PGS range monitoring in proton therapy of prostate cancer. Sci Rep 2021; 11:15331. [PMID: 34321492 PMCID: PMC8319377 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-93612-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/12/2020] [Accepted: 06/24/2021] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
Proton therapy of prostate cancer (PCPT) was linked with increased levels of gastrointestinal toxicity in its early use compared to intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). The higher radiation dose to the rectum by proton beams is mainly due to anatomical variations. Here, we demonstrate an approach to monitor rectal radiation exposure in PCPT based on prompt gamma spectroscopy (PGS). Endorectal balloons (ERBs) are used to stabilize prostate movement during radiotherapy. These ERBs are usually filled with water. However, other water solutions containing elements with higher atomic numbers, such as silicon, may enable the use of PGS to monitor the radiation exposure of the rectum. Protons hitting silicon atoms emit prompt gamma rays with a specific energy of 1.78 MeV, which can be used to monitor whether the ERB is being hit. In a binary approach, we search the silicon energy peaks for every irradiated prostate region. We demonstrate this technique for both single-spot irradiation and real treatment plans. Real-time feedback based on the ERB being hit column-wise is feasible and would allow clinicians to decide whether to adapt or continue treatment. This technique may be extended to other cancer types and organs at risk, such as the oesophagus.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paulo Magalhaes Martins
- German Cancer Research Center - DKFZ, Heidelberg, Germany.
- Instituto de Biofísica e Engenharia Biomédica, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.
| | - Hugo Freitas
- German Cancer Research Center - DKFZ, Heidelberg, Germany
- Departamento de Física e Astronomia, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal
| | - Thomas Tessonnier
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Benjamin Ackermann
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Stephan Brons
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Joao Seco
- German Cancer Research Center - DKFZ, Heidelberg, Germany.
- Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Mendenhall WM, Brooks ED, Smith S, Morris CG, Bryant CB, Henderson RH, Nichols RC, McIntyre K, Klein SL, Mendenhall NP. Insurance Approval for Definitive Proton Therapy for Prostate Cancer. Int J Part Ther 2021; 8:36-42. [PMID: 35127974 PMCID: PMC8768894 DOI: 10.14338/ijpt-21-00002.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/07/2021] [Accepted: 05/29/2021] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose To determine factors that influence insurance approval for definitive proton therapy (PT) for prostate cancer. Materials and Methods Between 2014 and 2018, 1592 insured patients with localized prostate cancer were evaluated and recommended to undergo definitive PT; 547 patients (34.4%) had commercial insurance, whereas 1045 patients (65.6%) had Medicare/Medicaid. Of those with Medicare, 164 patients (15.7%) had Medicare alone; 677 (64.8%) had supplemental plans; and 204 (19.5%) had secondary commercial insurance. Insurance that “covered” PT for prostate cancer implied that it was an indication designated in the coverage policy. “Not covered” means that the insurance policy did not list prostate cancer as an indication for PT. Of all 1592 patients, 1263 (79.3%) belonged to plans that covered PT per policy. However, approval for PT was still required via medical review for 619 patients (38.9%), comparative dosimetry for 56 patients (3.5%), peer-to-peer discussion for 234 patients (14.7%), and administrative law judge hearings for 3 patients (<0.1%). Multivariate analyses of factors affecting approval were conducted, including risk group (low/intermediate versus high), insurance type (commercial versus Medicare/Medicaid), whether PT was included as a covered benefit under the plan (covered versus not covered), and time period (2014-16 versus 2017 versus 2018). Results On multivariate analysis, factors affecting PT approval for prostate treatment included coverage of PT per policy (97.1% had approval with insurance that covered PT versus 48.6% whose insurance did not cover PT; P < .001); insurance type (32.5% had approval with commercial insurance versus 97.4% with Medicare; P < .001); and time, with 877/987 patients (88.9%) approved between 2014 and 2016, 255/312 patients (81.7%) approved during 2017, and 255/293 patients (87.0%) approved thereafter (P = .02). Clinical factors, including risk group, had no bearing on insurance approval (P = .44). Conclusion Proton insurance approval for prostate cancer has decreased, is most influenced by the type of insurance a patient belongs to, and is unrelated to clinical factors (risk group) in this study. More work is needed to help navigate appropriate access to care and to assist patients seeking definitive PT for prostate cancer treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- William M. Mendenhall
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA
- University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Eric D. Brooks
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA
- University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Stephanie Smith
- University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Christopher G. Morris
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA
- University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Curtis B. Bryant
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA
- University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Randal H. Henderson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA
- University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Romaine C. Nichols
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA
- University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Kathy McIntyre
- University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Stuart L. Klein
- University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Nancy P. Mendenhall
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA
- University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Kubeš J, Haas A, Vondráček V, Andrlík M, Navrátil M, Sláviková S, Vítek P, Dědečková K, Prausová J, Ondrová B, Vinakurau Š, Grebenyuk A, Doležal T, Velacková B, Rosina J. Ultrahypofractionated Proton Radiation Therapy in the Treatment of Low and Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer-5-Year Outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021; 110:1090-1097. [PMID: 33587990 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.02.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/12/2020] [Revised: 01/28/2021] [Accepted: 02/07/2021] [Indexed: 10/22/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To analyze the 5-year biochemical disease-free survival (bDFS) and late toxicity profile in patients with prostate cancer treated with pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS Between January 2013 and March 2016, 284 patients with prostate cancer were treated using intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT), with an ultrahypofractionated schedule (36.25 GyE in 5 fractions). Five patients were immediately lost from follow-up and thus were excluded from analysis. Data for 279 patients were prospectively collected and analyzed with a median follow-up time of 56.5 (range, 3.4-87.5) months. The mean age at time of treatment was 64.5 (40.1-85.7) years, and the median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) value was 6.35 μg/L (0.67-17.3 μg/L). A total of 121 (43.4%) patients had low-risk, 125 patients (44.8%) had favorable, and 33 (11.8%) unfavorable intermediate-risk cancer. In addition, 49 (17.6%) patients underwent neoadjuvant hormonal therapy, and no patients had adjuvant hormonal therapy. bDFS and late toxicity profiles were evaluated. RESULTS The median treatment time was 9 days (range, 7-18 days). The 5-year bDFS was 96.9%, 91.7%, and 83.5% for the low-, favorable, and unfavorable intermediate-risk group, respectively. Late toxicity (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v.4) was as follows: gastrointestinal: grade 1, 62 patients (22%), grade 2, 20 patients (7.2%), and grade 3, 1 patient (0.36%); genitourinary: grade 1, 80 patients (28.7%), grade 2, 14 patients (5%), and grade 3, 0 patients. PSA relapse was observed in 17 patients (6.1%), and lymph node or bone recurrence was detected in 11 patients. Four (1.4%) local recurrences were detected. Nine patients (3.2%) died of causes unrelated to prostate cancer. No deaths related to prostate cancer were reported. CONCLUSION Ultrahypofractionated proton beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer is effective with long-term bDFS comparable with other fractionation schedules and with minimal serious long-term GI and GU toxicity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jiří Kubeš
- Department of Oncology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic; Proton Therapy Center Czech, Prague, Czech Republic; Department of Health Care Disciplines and Population Protection, Faculty of Biomedical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Kladno, Czech Republic
| | - Alexandra Haas
- Department of Oncology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic; Proton Therapy Center Czech, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Vladimír Vondráček
- Proton Therapy Center Czech, Prague, Czech Republic; Department of Health Care Disciplines and Population Protection, Faculty of Biomedical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Kladno, Czech Republic
| | - Michal Andrlík
- Proton Therapy Center Czech, Prague, Czech Republic; Department of Health Care Disciplines and Population Protection, Faculty of Biomedical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Kladno, Czech Republic.
| | - Matěj Navrátil
- Proton Therapy Center Czech, Prague, Czech Republic; Department of Health Care Disciplines and Population Protection, Faculty of Biomedical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Kladno, Czech Republic
| | - Silvia Sláviková
- Department of Oncology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic; Proton Therapy Center Czech, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Pavel Vítek
- Department of Oncology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic; Proton Therapy Center Czech, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Kateřina Dědečková
- Department of Oncology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic; Proton Therapy Center Czech, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Jana Prausová
- Department of Oncology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Barbora Ondrová
- Department of Oncology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic; Proton Therapy Center Czech, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Štěpán Vinakurau
- Department of Oncology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic; Proton Therapy Center Czech, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Alexander Grebenyuk
- Pavlov First Saint Petersburg State Medical University, Department of Health Protection and Disaster Medicine, Saint Petersburg, Russia
| | | | | | - Jozef Rosina
- Department of Health Care Disciplines and Population Protection, Faculty of Biomedical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Kladno, Czech Republic; Department of Medical Biophysics and Informatics, 3rd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Fagundes M, Rodrigues MA, Olszewski S, Khan F, McKenzie C, Gutierrez A, Chuong M, Mehta M. Expanding the Utilization of Rectal Spacer Hydrogel for Larger Prostate Glands (>80 cc): Feasibility and Dosimetric Outcomes. Adv Radiat Oncol 2021; 6:100651. [PMID: 34195489 PMCID: PMC8233470 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2021.100651] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/03/2020] [Revised: 11/26/2020] [Accepted: 01/05/2021] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose The Hydrogel Spacer Prospective Randomized Pivotal Trial achieved mean rectoprostatic spacing of 12.6 mm resulting in lowering of rectal V70 from 12.4% (without spacer) to 3.3% (with spacer) in patients with glands up to 80 cm3. The value of this approach in patients with larger glands is inadequately established. This study assesses the feasibility and dosimetric outcomes of perirectal spacing in patients with prostate cancer with larger glands (>80 cm3). Methods and Materials Between January 2017 and December 2019, 33 patients with prostate glands >80 cm3 (mean 108.1 cm3; range, 81.1-186.6 cm3) were treated, 15 with glands >80 to 100 cm3 and 18 >100 cm3. Median follow-up was 10 months (range, 3-26). The median international prostate symptom score was 9 (range, 1-18). Hydrogel was placed under local anesthesia in all cases. Treatment modality included intensity modulated radiation therapy in 15 and proton therapy (PT) in 18 patients. Treatment targeted the prostate plus seminal vesicles in 21 patients and 12 also had elective nodal irradiation. Conventional fractionation (CF) to 78 Gy in 39 fractions was used in 16 and moderate hypofractionation (HF) to 70 Gy in 28 fractions in 17 patients. Results In the CF group, mean rectum (r) V75, 70, 60, 50 was 0.87%, 2.25%, 5.61%, and 10.5%, respectively. For glands >80 to 100 cm3 and >100 cm3, rV70 was 2.55% and 2%, respectively. In HF patients, mean rV65, 63, 60, and 50 was 1.67%, 2.3%, 3.4%, and 8.6%. For glands >80 to 100 cm3 and >100 cm3, rV63 was 2% and 2.56%, respectively. Overall, the mean midgland rectoprostatic hydrogel separation was 9.3 mm (range, 4.7-19.4 mm). All patients tolerated treatment well; no acute grade 2 or higher adverse gastrointestinal events were observed. Conclusions Hydrogel placement is feasible in prostate glands larger than 80 cm3 with favorable dosimetric outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marcio Fagundes
- Radiation Oncology Department, Miami Cancer Institute, Miami, Florida
| | | | - Steve Olszewski
- Radiation Oncology Department, Miami Cancer Institute, Miami, Florida
| | - Fazal Khan
- Radiation Oncology Department, Miami Cancer Institute, Miami, Florida
| | - Craig McKenzie
- Radiation Oncology Department, Miami Cancer Institute, Miami, Florida
| | - Alonso Gutierrez
- Radiation Oncology Department, Miami Cancer Institute, Miami, Florida
| | - Michael Chuong
- Radiation Oncology Department, Miami Cancer Institute, Miami, Florida
| | - Minesh Mehta
- Radiation Oncology Department, Miami Cancer Institute, Miami, Florida
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Kim KS, Wu HG. Who Will Benefit from Charged-Particle Therapy? Cancer Res Treat 2021; 53:621-634. [PMID: 34176253 PMCID: PMC8291184 DOI: 10.4143/crt.2021.299] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/08/2021] [Accepted: 06/14/2021] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Charged-particle therapy (CPT) such as proton beam therapy (PBT) and carbon-ion radiotherapy (CIRT) exhibit substantial physical and biological advantages compared to conventional photon radiotherapy. As it can reduce the amount of radiation irradiated in the normal organ, CPT has been mainly applied to pediatric cancer and radioresistent tumors in the eloquent area. Although there is a possibility of greater benefits, high set-up cost and dearth of high level of clinical evidence hinder wide applications of CPT. This review aims to present recent clinical results of PBT and CIRT in selected diseases focusing on possible indications of CPT. We also discussed how clinical studies are conducted to increase the number of patients who can benefit from CPT despite its high cost.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kyung Su Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ewha Womans University College of Medicine, Seoul,
Korea
| | - Hong-Gyun Wu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul,
Korea
- Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, Seoul,
Korea
- Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul,
Korea
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul,
Korea
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Petersen SE, Høyer M. Androgen Deprivation Therapy Combined With Particle Therapy for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review. Front Oncol 2021; 11:695647. [PMID: 34249753 PMCID: PMC8260995 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.695647] [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: 04/15/2021] [Accepted: 05/31/2021] [Indexed: 12/09/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose There is high-level evidence for addition of androgen deprivation therapy to photon-based radiotherapy of the prostate in intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. Little is known about the value of ADT in particle therapy of prostate cancer. We are conducting a systematic review on biochemical disease-free survival, overall survival, and morbidity after combined particle therapy and ADT for prostate cancer. Methods A thorough search in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were conducted, searching for relevant studies. Clinical studies on prostate cancer and the treatment combination of particle therapy and androgen deprivation therapy were included. The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021230801). Results A total of 298 papers were identified. Fifteen papers reporting on 7,202 patients after proton or carbon-ion therapy for localized prostate cancer where a fraction or all patients received ADT were selected for analysis. Three thousand five hundred and nineteen (49%) of the patients had received combined ADT and particle therapy. Primarily high-risk (87%), to a lesser extent intermediate-risk (34%) and low-risk patients (12%) received ADT. There were no comparative studies on the effect of ADT in patients treated with particles and no studies identified ADT as an independent prognostic factor related to survival outcomes. Conclusions The review found no evidence to support that the effects on biochemical disease-free survival and morbidity of combining ADT to particle therapy differs from the ADT effects in conventional photon based radiotherapy. The available data on the topic is limited.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Morten Høyer
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Houben J, McColl G, Ham Kaanders J, Smeenk RJ. Patient reported toxicity and quality of life after hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for intermediate- and high risk prostate cancer. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2021; 29:40-46. [PMID: 34113724 PMCID: PMC8170415 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2021.05.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/09/2021] [Revised: 05/04/2021] [Accepted: 05/16/2021] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Background and purpose For irradiation of localized prostate-cancer, moderately-hypofractionated regimens with a variety of dose per fraction are used. We adopted a regimen of 70 Gy in 28 fractions of 2.5 Gy, using state of the art radiotherapy (RT) and closely monitored the efficacy, toxicity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in a large cohort, using patient-reported outcomes. Materials and methods Between 2008 and 2016, 462 patients with intermediate- to high-risk localized prostate cancer were treated with RT, 28 fractions of 2.5 Gy, using IMRT/VMAT, an online fiducial-maker based correction protocol and a daily inserted endorectal balloon. Overall freedom from failure (no biochemical or clinical recurrence) , as well as self-reported genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) related toxicity and HRQoL are reported. Results Overall freedom from failure rates at 3 and 5 years were 92.0% (89.1–94.9%) and 83.5% (78.6–88.4%), respectively. Prevalence rates of grade ≥ 2 GU/GI-toxicity were 16.3%/6.3% and 22,1%/3.2% after 3 and 5 years respectively. The 5-year actuarial incidences of grade ≥ 2 GU/GI-toxicity were 43.5%/18.5%. HRQoL worsened during RT and gradually recovered thereafter, In accordance with the prevalence rates. Conclusion Treatment of intermediate- or high-risk localized prostate cancer with RT to 70 Gy in 28 fractions with IMRT/VMAT, using fiducial markers and an endorectal balloon leads to good long-term tumor control rates and acceptable patient reported toxicity rates. Furthermore, patient-reported outcomes, including HRQoL, are essential for a good comparison between different studies. Finally, prevalence rates show a better correlation with HRQoL than actuarial incidence rates do and might therefore better represent the burden of toxicity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeroen Houben
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Gill McColl
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Johannes Ham Kaanders
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Robert J Smeenk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Hattori Y, Iwata H, Nakajima K, Nomura K, Hayashi K, Toshito T, Hashimoto S, Umemoto Y, Mizoe JE, Ogino H, Shibamoto Y. Changes in sexual function and serum testosterone levels in patients with prostate cancer after image-guided proton therapy. JOURNAL OF RADIATION RESEARCH 2021; 62:517-524. [PMID: 33675355 PMCID: PMC8127670 DOI: 10.1093/jrr/rrab002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/28/2020] [Revised: 12/29/2020] [Accepted: 02/01/2021] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
Since sexual function and testosterone levels after image-guided proton therapy (IGPT) have not yet been examined in detail, we prospectively evaluated changes before and after IGPT. Among patients treated with IGPT with or without combined androgen blockade (CAB) therapy between February 2013 and September 2014, patients who agreed to participate in the study and were followed up for >3 years after IGPT were evaluated. Serum testosterone levels were regularly measured together with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels before and after IGPT. The Erection Hardness Score (EHS) and the sexual domain summary, function subscale and bother subscale of the sexual domain in the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) were assessed. There were 38 low-risk, 46 intermediate-risk and 43 high- or very-high-risk patients (NCCN classification). Although serum testosterone levels in low-risk patients did not decrease after IGPT, reductions were observed in the average EHS and the sexual domain summary score of the EPIC. In intermediate-, high- and very-high-risk patients, testosterone and PSA levels both increased following the termination of CAB after IGPT, and the average EHS increased. The sexual domain summary score gradually increased, but not above minimally important differences. In intermediate-risk patients, the function subscale increased from 4.4 to 14.8 (P < 0.05) 12 months after IGPT and reached a plateau after 60 months. The results of the present study would suggest the potential of IGPT, and further prospective studies to directly compare IGPT with other modalities are warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yukiko Hattori
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Nagoya Proton Therapy Center, Nagoya City West Medical Center, 1-1-1 Hirate-cho, Kita-ku, Nagoya 462-8508, Japan
| | - Hiromitsu Iwata
- Corresponding author. Department of Radiation Oncology, Nagoya Proton Therapy Center, Nagoya City West Medical Center, 1-1-1 Hirate-cho, Kita-ku, Nagoya 462-8508, Japan. Tel: +81 52 991 8577; Fax: +81 52 991 8599; E-mail:
| | - Koichiro Nakajima
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Nagoya Proton Therapy Center, Nagoya City West Medical Center, 1-1-1 Hirate-cho, Kita-ku, Nagoya 462-8508, Japan
- Department of Radiology, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, 1 Kawasumi, Mizuho-cho, Mizuho-ku, Nagoya 467-8601, Japan
| | - Kento Nomura
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Nagoya Proton Therapy Center, Nagoya City West Medical Center, 1-1-1 Hirate-cho, Kita-ku, Nagoya 462-8508, Japan
- Department of Radiology, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, 1 Kawasumi, Mizuho-cho, Mizuho-ku, Nagoya 467-8601, Japan
| | - Kensuke Hayashi
- Department of Proton Therapy Technology, Nagoya Proton Therapy Center, 1-1-1 Hirate-cho, Kita-ku, Nagoya 462-8508, Japan
| | - Toshiyuki Toshito
- Department of Proton Therapy Physics, Nagoya Proton Therapy Center, 1-1-1 Hirate-cho, Kita-ku, Nagoya 462-8508, Japan
| | - Shingo Hashimoto
- Department of Radiology, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, 1 Kawasumi, Mizuho-cho, Mizuho-ku, Nagoya 467-8601, Japan
| | - Yukihiro Umemoto
- Department of Nephro-Urology, Nagoya City West Medical Center, 1-1-1 Hirate-cho, Kita-ku, Nagoya 462-8508, Japan
| | - Jun-etsu Mizoe
- Sapporo High Functioning Radiotherapy Center, Hokkaido Ohno Memorial Hospital, 2-1-16-1 Miyanosawa, Nishi-ku, Sapporo 063-0052, Japan
| | - Hiroyuki Ogino
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Nagoya Proton Therapy Center, Nagoya City West Medical Center, 1-1-1 Hirate-cho, Kita-ku, Nagoya 462-8508, Japan
- Department of Radiology, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, 1 Kawasumi, Mizuho-cho, Mizuho-ku, Nagoya 467-8601, Japan
| | - Yuta Shibamoto
- Department of Radiology, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, 1 Kawasumi, Mizuho-cho, Mizuho-ku, Nagoya 467-8601, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Bryant CM, Henderson RH, Nichols RC, Mendenhall WM, Hoppe BS, Vargas CE, Daniels TB, Choo CR, Parikh RR, Giap H, Slater JD, Vapiwala N, Barrett W, Nanda A, Mishra MV, Choi S, Liao JJ, Mendenhall NP. Consensus Statement on Proton Therapy for Prostate Cancer. Int J Part Ther 2021; 8:1-16. [PMID: 34722807 PMCID: PMC8489490 DOI: 10.14338/ijpt-20-00031.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/09/2020] [Accepted: 02/02/2021] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Proton therapy is a promising but controversial treatment in the management of prostate cancer. Despite its dosimetric advantages when compared with photon radiation therapy, its increased cost to patients and insurers has raised questions regarding its value. Multiple prospective and retrospective studies have been published documenting the efficacy and safety of proton therapy for patients with localized prostate cancer and for patients requiring adjuvant or salvage pelvic radiation after surgery. The Particle Therapy Co-Operative Group (PTCOG) Genitourinary Subcommittee intends to address current proton therapy indications, advantages, disadvantages, and cost effectiveness. We will also discuss the current landscape of clinical trials. This consensus report can be used to guide clinical practice and research directions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Curtis M. Bryant
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Randal H. Henderson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - R. Charles Nichols
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - William M. Mendenhall
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Bradford S. Hoppe
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | | | | | - C. Richard Choo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Rahul R. Parikh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | - Huan Giap
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, FL, USA
| | - Jerry D. Slater
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA, USA
| | - Neha Vapiwala
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - William Barrett
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA
| | - Akash Nanda
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Orlando Health, Orlando, FL, USA
| | - Mark V. Mishra
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Seungtaek Choi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jay J. Liao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Nancy P. Mendenhall
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
30
|
Kharod SM, Mercado CE, Morris CG, Bryant CM, Mendenhall NP, Mendenhall WM, Nichols RC, Hoppe BS, Liang X, Su Z, Li Z, Henderson RH. Postoperative or Salvage Proton Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer After Radical Prostatectomy. Int J Part Ther 2021; 7:52-64. [PMID: 33829073 PMCID: PMC8019576 DOI: 10.14338/ijpt-20-00021.1] [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: 04/07/2020] [Accepted: 01/08/2021] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose Postprostatectomy radiation improves disease control, but limited data exist regarding outcomes, toxicities, and patient-reported quality of life with proton therapy. Method and Materials The first 102 patients who were enrolled on an outcome tracking protocol between 2006 and 2017 and treated with double-scattered proton therapy after prostatectomy were retrospectively reviewed. Eleven (11%) received adjuvant radiation, while 91 (89%) received salvage radiation. Seventy-four received double-scattered proton therapy to the prostate bed only. Twenty-eight received a double-scattered proton therapy prostate-bed boost after prostate-bed and pelvic-node treatment. Eleven adjuvant patients received a median dose of 66.6 GyRBE (range, 66.0-70.2). Ninety-one salvage patients received a median dose of 70.2 GyRBE (range, 66.0-78.0). Forty-five patients received androgen deprivation therapy for a median 9 months (range, 1-30). Toxicities were scored using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0 criteria, and patient-reported quality-of-life data were reviewed. Results The median follow-up was 5.5 years (range, 0.8-11.4 years). Five-year biochemical relapse-free and distant metastases-free survival rates were 72% and 91% for adjuvant patients, 57% and 97% for salvage patients, and 57% and 97% overall. Acute and late grade 3 or higher genitourinary toxicity rates were 1% and 7%. No patients had grade 3 or higher gastrointestinal toxicity. Acute and late grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicities were 5% and 2%. The mean values and SDs of the International Prostate Symptom Score, International Index of Erectile Function, and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite bowel function and bother were 7.5 (SD = 5.9), 10.2 (SD = 8.3), 92.8 (SD = 11.1), and 91.2 (SD = 6.4), respectively, at baseline, and 12.1 (SD = 9.1), 10.1 (SD = 6.7), 87.3 (SD = 18), and 86.7 (SD = 13.8) at the 5-year follow-up. Conclusion High-dose postprostatectomy proton therapy provides effective long-term biochemical control and freedom from metastasis, with low acute and long-term gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shivam M Kharod
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | | | - Christopher G Morris
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Curtis M Bryant
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Nancy P Mendenhall
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - William M Mendenhall
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - R Charles Nichols
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Bradford S Hoppe
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Xiaoying Liang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Zhong Su
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Zuofeng Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Randal H Henderson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Guo X, Gui F, Guo M, Peng J, Yu X. The Preventive Effect of Computed Tomography Image-Guided Electroacupuncture Combined with Continuous Femoral Nerve Block on Deep Vein Thrombosis After Total Knee Arthroplasty Based on an Adaptive Algorithm. World Neurosurg 2020; 149:362-371. [PMID: 33248303 DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.10.159] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/31/2020] [Revised: 10/29/2020] [Accepted: 10/30/2020] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
Based on an adaptive algorithm model, this study proposed 2 special model structures of randomized fusion and an optimized convolution kernel and use it for image recognition. The adaptive algorithm model combined image-guided electroacupuncture with a continuous femoral nerve block to prevent deep vein thrombosis after total knee arthroplasty. A total of 200 patients after total knee arthroplasty were randomly divided into 4 groups. We assessed the incidence of postoperative lower limb deep vein thrombosis and platelet count before and after surgery. Electroacupuncture combined with continuous femoral nerve block can reduce the incidence of deep vein thrombosis and has obvious advantages in multimode prevention. The effective analgesia provided by electroacupuncture combined with continuous femoral nerve block relieved postoperative pain. It also enabled patients to participate in joint movement and lower limb muscle strength training as soon as possible, which not only is conducive to postoperative functional recovery, but also reduces the body stress response triggered by pain and the hypercoagulable state. Moreover, electroacupuncture stimulation of electroacupuncture points can reduce the inflammatory edema associated with surgery, improve blood circulation at the surgical site, and activate the body's anticoagulation mechanism. This study provides new ideas and references for formulating multimode prevention and control strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xiangrong Guo
- Department of Radiology, The Fourth Hospital of Wuhan, Wuhan City, China
| | - Fen Gui
- Department of Urology, The First Hospital of Wuhan, Wuhan City, China
| | - Meiqin Guo
- Department of Cardiology, The First Hospital of Guiyang, Guiyang City, China
| | - Junhong Peng
- Department of Radiology, The Fourth Hospital of Wuhan, Wuhan City, China
| | - Xianjun Yu
- Department of Radiology, The Fourth Hospital of Wuhan, Wuhan City, China.
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Takagi M, Demizu Y, Fujii O, Terashima K, Niwa Y, Daimon T, Tokumaru S, Fuwa N, Hareyama M, Okimoto T. Proton Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: Long-Term Results From a Single-Center Experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020; 109:964-974. [PMID: 33186616 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.11.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/29/2020] [Revised: 10/22/2020] [Accepted: 11/02/2020] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Although proton therapy is controversial, it has been used to treat localized prostate cancer over the past 2 decades. The purpose of this study is to examine the long-term efficacy and toxicity of proton therapy for localized prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS This was a retrospective observational study of 2021 patients from 2003 to 2014 at a single institution. Patients were classified using the risk groups defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, version 4.2019. Ninety-eight percent of the patients received 74 Gy (relative biological effectiveness) in 37 fractions. Fifty-one and 6% of the patients received neoadjuvant and adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy, respectively. The outcomes were the time of freedom from biochemical relapse and the time to late toxicity by the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0. The outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and were analyzed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS The median follow-up period was 84 months (interquartile range, 60-110). The 5- and 10-year freedom from biochemical relapse rates were 100% and 100%, 99% and 88%, 93% and 86%, 90% and 79%, 88% and 68%, and 76% and 63% for the very low, low, favorable intermediate, unfavorable intermediate, high, and very high-risk groups, respectively. Patients with higher risk experienced biochemical relapse after shorter periods. The 5-year rates of grade 2 or higher late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity were 2.2% and 4.0%, respectively. The results of multivariable analyses indicate that younger patients more often experienced biochemical relapse. CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrates the favorable biochemical controls of proton therapy even in advanced localized prostate cancer patients with a low incidence of late toxicities, supporting the feasibility of conducting prospective clinical trials. The risk groups defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, version 4.2019, are useful to classify patients with localized prostate cancer. Our findings might suggest the necessity to develop a treatment strategy that accounts for the patient's age.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Masaru Takagi
- Proton Therapy Center, Sapporo Teishinkai Hospital, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan; Department of Radiology, Hyogo Ion Beam Medical Center, Tatsuno, Hyogo, Japan.
| | - Yusuke Demizu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hyogo Ion Beam Medical Center Kobe Proton Center, Kobe, Hyogo, Japan; Department of Radiology, Hyogo Ion Beam Medical Center, Tatsuno, Hyogo, Japan
| | - Osamu Fujii
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hakodate Goryoukaku Hospital, Hakodate, Hokkaido, Japan
| | - Kazuki Terashima
- Department of Radiology, Hyogo Ion Beam Medical Center, Tatsuno, Hyogo, Japan
| | - Yasue Niwa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tsuyama Chuo Hospital, Tsuyama, Okayama, Japan
| | - Takashi Daimon
- Department of Biostatistics, Hyogo College of Medicine, Nishinomiya, Hyogo, Japan
| | - Sunao Tokumaru
- Department of Radiology, Hyogo Ion Beam Medical Center, Tatsuno, Hyogo, Japan
| | - Nobukazu Fuwa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ise Red Cross Hospital, Ise, Mie, Japan
| | - Masato Hareyama
- Proton Therapy Center, Sapporo Teishinkai Hospital, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan
| | - Tomoaki Okimoto
- Department of Radiology, Hyogo Ion Beam Medical Center, Tatsuno, Hyogo, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Takakusagi Y, Oike T, Kano K, Anno W, Tsuchida K, Mizoguchi N, Serizawa I, Yoshida D, Katoh H, Kamada T. Prostate-specific antigen dynamics after neoadjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy and carbon ion radiotherapy for prostate cancer. PLoS One 2020; 15:e0241636. [PMID: 33156884 PMCID: PMC7647067 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241636] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/18/2020] [Accepted: 10/16/2020] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Background This study aimed to explain the dynamics of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels in patients with prostate cancer who were treated with carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT) and neoadjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). Methods Eighty-five patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer who received CIRT and neoadjuvant ADT from December 2015 to December 2017 were analyzed in the present study. The total dose of CIRT was set at 51.6 Gy (relative biological effectiveness) delivered in 12 fractions over 3 weeks. The PSA bounce was defined as a ≥0.4 ng/ml increase of PSA levels from the nadir, followed by any decrease. PSA failure was defined using the Phoenix criteria. Results The median patient age was 68 (range, 48–81) years. The median follow-up duration was 33 (range, 20–48) months. The clinical T stage was T1c, T2a, and T2b in 27, 44, and 14 patients, respectively. The Gleason score was 6 in 3 patients and 7 in 82 patients. The median pretreatment PSA level was 7.37 (range, 3.33–19.0) ng/ml. All patients received neoadjuvant ADT for a median of 6 (range, 2–117) months. PSA bounces were observed in 39 patients (45.9%), occurring a median of 12 (range, 6–30) months after CIRT. PSA failure was observed in eight patients (9.4%), occurring a median of 21 (range, 15–33) months after CIRT. The 3-year PSA failure-free survival rate was 88.5%. No clinical recurrence was observed during the follow-up period. Younger age and lower T stage were significant predictors of PSA bounce. Younger age was a significant predictor of PSA failure. Conclusions In this study, we identified the significant predictors of the occurrence of PSA bounce and failure. Further follow-up is needed to reveal the clinical significance of PSA dynamics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yosuke Takakusagi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kanagawa Cancer Center, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan
| | - Takahiro Oike
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Maebashi, Gunma, Japan
| | - Kio Kano
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kanagawa Cancer Center, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan
| | - Wataru Anno
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kanagawa Cancer Center, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan
| | - Keisuke Tsuchida
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kanagawa Cancer Center, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan
| | - Nobutaka Mizoguchi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kanagawa Cancer Center, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan
| | - Itsuko Serizawa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kanagawa Cancer Center, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan
| | - Daisaku Yoshida
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kanagawa Cancer Center, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan
| | - Hiroyuki Katoh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kanagawa Cancer Center, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan
| | - Tadashi Kamada
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kanagawa Cancer Center, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Pedersen J, Liang X, Casares-Magaz O, Bryant C, Mendenhall N, Li Z, Muren LP. Multivariate normal tissue complication probability models for rectal and bladder morbidity in prostate cancer patients treated with proton therapy. Radiother Oncol 2020; 153:279-288. [PMID: 33096166 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.10.025] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/20/2020] [Revised: 10/14/2020] [Accepted: 10/15/2020] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models applied for model-based patient selection to proton therapy (PT) have usually been derived using dose/volume histogram (DVH) parameters from photon-based radiotherapy. This study aimed to derive PT-specific multivariate NTCP models that also accounted for the spatial dose distribution (rectum only) as well as non-dose/volume related factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS The study included rectum and bladder DVHs, 2D rectal dose maps and relevant patient/treatment characteristics from 1151 prostate cancer cases treated with PT. Prospectively scored Grade 2 late rectal bleeding (CTCAE v3.0, also procedural interventions separately) (n = 156 (15%)) and Grade 3+ GU morbidity (n = 51 (4%)) were entered into a multivariate logistic regression analysis. Model evaluation included assessment of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS Anticoagulant use was a dominant predictor, chosen in four of the six rectum models and in the bladder model. Age was a dominant predictor in all procedural only rectum models while prostate volume, bladder D5% and V75Gy were predictors in the bladder model. The selection frequency of the dose/volume predictors varied widely, where the percentage of the anterior rectum surface receiving >=75 Gy was the most robust. AUC values ranged from 0.58 to 0.70 across all models, with no clear difference between the DVH- and spatial-based models for the rectum. CONCLUSION Anticoagulant use and age were the most prominent predictors in the NTCP models. V75Gy of the rectal wall and the bladder was a predictor in the DVH-based models of the rectum and bladder respectively.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jesper Pedersen
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital/Aarhus University, Denmark.
| | - Xiaoying Liang
- University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, USA
| | - Oscar Casares-Magaz
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital/Aarhus University, Denmark
| | - Curtis Bryant
- University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, USA
| | - Nancy Mendenhall
- University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, USA
| | - Zuofeng Li
- University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, USA
| | - Ludvig P Muren
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital/Aarhus University, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Bai M, Gergelis KR, Sir M, Whitaker TJ, Routman DM, Stish BJ, Davis BJ, Pisansky TM, Choo R. Comparing bowel and urinary domains of patient-reported quality of life at the end of and 3 months post radiotherapy between intensity-modulated radiotherapy and proton beam therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Cancer Med 2020; 9:7925-7934. [PMID: 32931662 PMCID: PMC7643652 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.3414] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/28/2020] [Revised: 08/04/2020] [Accepted: 08/06/2020] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To prospectively assess acute differences in patient-reported outcomes in bowel and urinary domains between intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) for prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS Bowel function (BF), urinary irritative/obstructive symptoms (UO), and urinary incontinence (UI) domains of EPIC-26 were collected in patients with T1-T2 prostate cancer receiving IMRT or PBT at a tertiary cancer center (2015-2018). Mean changes in domain scores were analyzed from pretreatment to the end of and 3 months post-radiotherapy for each modality. A clinically meaningful change was defined as a score change >50% of the baseline standard deviation. RESULTS A total of 157 patients receiving IMRT and 105 receiving PBT were included. There were no baseline differences in domain scores between cohorts. At the end of radiotherapy, there was significant and clinically meaningful worsening of BF and UO scores for patients receiving either modality. In the BF domain, the IMRT cohort experienced greater decrement (-13.0 vs -6.7, P < .01), and had a higher proportion of patients with clinically meaningful reduction (58.4% vs 39.5%, P = .01), compared to PBT. At 3 months post-radiotherapy, the IMRT group had significant and clinically meaningful worsening of BF (-9.3, P < .001), whereas the change in BF score of the PBT cohort was no longer significant or clinically meaningful (-1.2, P = .25). There were no significant or clinically meaningful changes in UO or UI 3 months post-radiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS PBT had less acute decrement in BF than IMRT following radiotherapy. There was no difference between the two modalities in UO and UI.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Miao Bai
- Department of Operations and Information Management, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA
| | | | - Mustafa Sir
- Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Thomas J Whitaker
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - David M Routman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Bradley J Stish
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Brian J Davis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | | | - Richard Choo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Overall Survival After Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer With Proton Beam Therapy, External-Beam Photon Therapy, or Brachytherapy. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2020; 19:255-266.e7. [PMID: 32972877 PMCID: PMC7914293 DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2020.08.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/27/2020] [Revised: 08/19/2020] [Accepted: 08/22/2020] [Indexed: 01/22/2023]
Abstract
With limited high-level evidence, we carried out a comparative effectiveness study for the effect of proton beam therapy (PBT) on overall survival compared to external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and brachytherapy (BT) among patients with localized prostate cancer using a national database. PBT was associated with a significant overall survival benefit compared to EBRT and had a similar performance as BT.
Collapse
|
37
|
Matsukawa K, Arimura T, Orita M, Kondo H, Chuman I, Ogino T, Taira Y, Kudo T, Takamura N. Health-related quality of life in Japanese patients with prostate cancer following proton beam therapy: an institutional cohort study. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2020; 50:519-527. [PMID: 32129447 PMCID: PMC7202140 DOI: 10.1093/jjco/hyaa027] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/20/2019] [Revised: 01/27/2020] [Accepted: 02/05/2020] [Indexed: 02/02/2023] Open
Abstract
Objective Many treatment options have guaranteed long-term survival in patients with localized prostate cancer and health-related quality of life has become a greater concern for those patients. The purpose of this study was to reveal the health-related quality of life after proton beam therapy and to clarify the differences from other treatment modalities for prostate cancer. Methods Between January 2011 and April 2016, 583 patients were enrolled in the study and health-related quality of life outcomes using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite questionnaire were evaluated and compared with previous research targeted at Japanese patients. Results We found a significant decrease in the least square mean scores for urinary and bowel domains excluding the incontinence subscale after proton beam therapy (P < 0.0001) and recovery at a year following treatment. The scores for sexual function in patients without androgen deprivation therapy decreased each year after proton beam therapy (P < 0.0001). The scores for hormones in patients without androgen deprivation therapy remained high and those of patients with androgen deprivation therapy were lower before treatment but were comparable to those of non-androgen deprivation therapy patients at 2 years post-treatment. We found that the impact of radiotherapy including proton beam therapy on urinary condition and sexual function was lower than that of surgery. Conclusions For the first time in Japan, we investigated health-related quality of life using Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite questionnaires in patients with prostate cancer after proton beam therapy and compared it with other treatment modalities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kyoko Matsukawa
- Department of Global Health, Medicine and Welfare, Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Atomic Bomb Disease Institute, Nagasaki, Japan.,Medipolis Proton Therapy and Research Center, Ibusuki, Japan
| | - Takeshi Arimura
- Medipolis Proton Therapy and Research Center, Ibusuki, Japan
| | - Makiko Orita
- Department of Global Health, Medicine and Welfare, Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Atomic Bomb Disease Institute, Nagasaki, Japan
| | - Hisayoshi Kondo
- Department of Global Health, Medicine and Welfare, Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Atomic Bomb Disease Institute, Nagasaki, Japan
| | - Ikuko Chuman
- Medipolis Proton Therapy and Research Center, Ibusuki, Japan
| | - Takashi Ogino
- Medipolis Proton Therapy and Research Center, Ibusuki, Japan
| | - Yasuyuki Taira
- Department of Global Health, Medicine and Welfare, Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Atomic Bomb Disease Institute, Nagasaki, Japan
| | - Takashi Kudo
- Department of Radioisotope Medicine, Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Atomic Bomb Disease Institute, Nagasaki, Japan
| | - Noboru Takamura
- Department of Global Health, Medicine and Welfare, Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Atomic Bomb Disease Institute, Nagasaki, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Chilukuri S, Sundar SC, Panda PK. The toxicity data from POP-RT: Proving the “Obvious” and challenging the “Norm”. Radiother Oncol 2020; 147:247. [DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.03.043] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/17/2020] [Accepted: 03/12/2020] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
|
39
|
Murthy V, Maitre P. Reply to Srinivas Chilukuri et al: The toxicity data from POP-RT: Proving the "Obvious" and challenging the "Norm". Radiother Oncol 2020; 147:248. [PMID: 32312604 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.03.041] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/12/2020] [Accepted: 03/30/2020] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Vedang Murthy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital and Advanced Centre for Treatment Research and Education in Cancer (ACTREC), Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Mumbai, India.
| | - Priyamvada Maitre
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital and Advanced Centre for Treatment Research and Education in Cancer (ACTREC), Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Mumbai, India
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Cross-modality applicability of rectal normal tissue complication probability models from photon- to proton-based radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 2020; 142:253-260. [DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2019.09.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/08/2019] [Revised: 09/20/2019] [Accepted: 09/21/2019] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
|
41
|
Johansson S, Isacsson U, Sandin F, Turesson I. High efficacy of hypofractionated proton therapy with 4 fractions of 5 Gy as a boost to 50 Gy photon therapy for localized prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 2019; 141:164-173. [DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2019.06.036] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/28/2018] [Revised: 06/27/2019] [Accepted: 06/27/2019] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
|
42
|
Kawamura H, Kubo N, Sato H, Miyasaka Y, Matsui H, Ito K, Suzuki K, Ohno T. Quality of life in prostate cancer patients receiving particle radiotherapy: A review of the literature. Int J Urol 2019; 27:24-29. [PMID: 31512285 DOI: 10.1111/iju.14102] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/17/2019] [Accepted: 08/18/2019] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
Proton and carbon ion radiotherapy for the treatment of prostate cancer is associated with a lower incidence of adverse events than conventional radiotherapy. There are few reports on the quality of life of patients treated with particle therapy, and limited patient-reported outcomes. Analysis of quality of life is important for patients treated with radiotherapy alone or in combination with hormonal therapy, and long-term results, dose fractionation and costs need to be included in the analysis. This information might help both clinical decision-making and selection of appropriate treatments according to the individual needs of patients. This study reviews the literature on the quality of life and outcomes of patients treated with particle therapy, and discusses future directions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hidemasa Kawamura
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Maebashi, Gunma, Japan.,Gunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center, Maebashi, Gunma, Japan
| | - Nobuteru Kubo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Maebashi, Gunma, Japan.,Gunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center, Maebashi, Gunma, Japan
| | - Hiro Sato
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Maebashi, Gunma, Japan.,Gunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center, Maebashi, Gunma, Japan
| | - Yuhei Miyasaka
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Maebashi, Gunma, Japan
| | - Hiroshi Matsui
- Gunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center, Maebashi, Gunma, Japan.,Department of Urology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Maebashi, Gunma, Japan
| | - Kazuto Ito
- Department of Urology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Maebashi, Gunma, Japan
| | - Kazuhiro Suzuki
- Gunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center, Maebashi, Gunma, Japan.,Department of Urology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Maebashi, Gunma, Japan
| | - Tatsuya Ohno
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Maebashi, Gunma, Japan.,Gunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center, Maebashi, Gunma, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Kubeš J, Vondráček V, Andrlik M, Navrátil M, Sláviková S, Vítek P, Rosina J, Abrahámová J, Prausová J, Grebenyuk A, Dědečková K. Extreme hypofractionated proton radiotherapy for prostate cancer using pencil beam scanning: Dosimetry, acute toxicity and preliminary results. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2019; 63:829-835. [PMID: 31486267 DOI: 10.1111/1754-9485.12947] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/22/2019] [Accepted: 07/29/2019] [Indexed: 12/01/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Extreme hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer is a common modality in photon therapy. Pencil beam scanning (PBS) in similar fractionation allows better dose distribution and makes proton therapy more available for such patients. The purpose of this study is the feasibility of extreme proton hypofractionated radiotherapy and publication of early clinical results. METHODS Two hundred patients with early-stage prostate cancer were treated with IMPT (intensity-modulated proton therapy), extreme hypofractionated schedule (36.25 GyE in five fractions) between February 2013 and December 2015. Mean age of the patients was 64.3 years, and the mean value of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) before treatment was 6.83 μg/L (0.6-17.3 μg/L). Ninety-three patients (46.5%) were in the low-risk group. One hundred and seven patients (53.5%) were in the intermediate-risk group. Twenty-nine patients (14.5%) had neoadjuvant hormonal therapy, and no patients had adjuvant hormonal therapy. Acute toxicity, late toxicity and short-term results were evaluated. RESULTS All patients finished radiotherapy without interruptions. The median follow-up time was 36 months. The mean treatment time was 9.5 days (median 9 days). Acute toxicity according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v 4.0 was (gastrointestinal toxicity) GI (grade) G1-17%, G2-3.5%; (genitourinary toxicity) GU G1-40%, G2-19%; and no G3 toxicity was observed. Late toxicity was GI G1-19%, G2-5.5%; GU G1-17%, G2-4%; and no G3 toxicity was observed. PSA relapse was observed in one patient (1.08%) in the low-risk group (pelvic lymph node involvement was detected) and in seven patients (6.5%) in the intermediate-risk group (three lymph node metastases, two lymph node and bone metastases, two PSA relapses). No patient died of prostate cancer, and three patients died from other reasons. No local recurrence of cancer in the prostate was observed. CONCLUSIONS Proton beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer is feasible with a low rate of acute toxicity and promising late toxicity and effectivity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jiří Kubeš
- Proton Therapy Center Czech, Prague, Czech Republic.,Department of Oncology, 1st Faculty of Medicine, General University Hospital, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.,Department of Oncology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.,Department of Health Care Disciplines and Population Protection, Faculty of Biomedical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Kladno, Czech Republic
| | - Vladimir Vondráček
- Proton Therapy Center Czech, Prague, Czech Republic.,Department of Health Care Disciplines and Population Protection, Faculty of Biomedical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Kladno, Czech Republic
| | - Michal Andrlik
- Proton Therapy Center Czech, Prague, Czech Republic.,Department of Health Care Disciplines and Population Protection, Faculty of Biomedical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Kladno, Czech Republic
| | - Matěj Navrátil
- Proton Therapy Center Czech, Prague, Czech Republic.,Department of Health Care Disciplines and Population Protection, Faculty of Biomedical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Kladno, Czech Republic
| | - Silvia Sláviková
- Proton Therapy Center Czech, Prague, Czech Republic.,Department of Oncology, 1st Faculty of Medicine, General University Hospital, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Pavel Vítek
- Proton Therapy Center Czech, Prague, Czech Republic.,Department of Oncology, 1st Faculty of Medicine, General University Hospital, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.,Department of Oncology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Jozef Rosina
- Department of Health Care Disciplines and Population Protection, Faculty of Biomedical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Kladno, Czech Republic.,Department of Medical Biophysics and Informatics, 3rd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Jitka Abrahámová
- Proton Therapy Center Czech, Prague, Czech Republic.,Institute of Radiation Oncology, Bulovka Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Jana Prausová
- Department of Oncology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Alexander Grebenyuk
- Department of Health Protection and Disaster Medicine, Pavlov First Saint Petersburg State Medical University, Saint Petersburg, Russia
| | - Kateřina Dědečková
- Proton Therapy Center Czech, Prague, Czech Republic.,Department of Oncology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Ishikawa H, Tsuji H, Murayama S, Sugimoto M, Shinohara N, Maruyama S, Murakami M, Shirato H, Sakurai H. Particle therapy for prostate cancer: The past, present and future. Int J Urol 2019; 26:971-979. [PMID: 31284326 PMCID: PMC6852578 DOI: 10.1111/iju.14041] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/18/2019] [Accepted: 05/21/2019] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
Abstract
Although prostate cancer control using radiotherapy is dose‐dependent, dose–volume effects on late toxicities in organs at risk, such as the rectum and bladder, have been observed. Both protons and carbon ions offer advantageous physical properties for radiotherapy, and create favorable dose distributions using fewer portals compared with photon‐based radiotherapy. Thus, particle beam therapy using protons and carbon ions theoretically seems suitable for dose escalation and reduced risk of toxicity. However, it is difficult to evaluate the superiority of particle beam radiotherapy over photon beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer, as no clinical trials have directly compared the outcomes between the two types of therapy due to the limited number of facilities using particle beam therapy. The Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology organized a joint effort among research groups to establish standardized treatment policies and indications for particle beam therapy according to disease, and multicenter prospective studies have been planned for several common cancers. Clinical trials of proton beam therapy for intermediate‐risk prostate cancer and carbon‐ion therapy for high‐risk prostate cancer have already begun. As particle beam therapy for prostate cancer is covered by the Japanese national health insurance system as of April 2018, and the number of facilities practicing particle beam therapy has increased recently, the number of prostate cancer patients treated with particle beam therapy in Japan is expected to increase drastically. Here, we review the results from studies of particle beam therapy for prostate cancer and discuss future developments in this field.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hitoshi Ishikawa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan
| | - Hiroshi Tsuji
- Hospital of the National Institute of Radiological Sciences, National Institutes for Quantum and Radiological Science and Technology, Chiba, Japan
| | - Shigeyuki Murayama
- Division of Proton Therapy, Shizuoka Cancer Center Hospital, Shizuoka, Japan
| | - Mikio Sugimoto
- Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Kagawa University, Takamatsu, Kagawa, Japan
| | - Nobuo Shinohara
- Department of Urology, Hokkaido University Graduate School of Medicine, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan
| | - Satoru Maruyama
- Department of Urology, Hokkaido University Graduate School of Medicine, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan
| | - Motohiro Murakami
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan
| | - Hiroki Shirato
- Global Station for Quantum Medical Science and Engineering, Global Institution for Collaborative Research and Education, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan
| | - Hideyuki Sakurai
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Carrier F, Liao Y, Mendenhall N, Guerrieri P, Todor D, Ahmad A, Dominello M, Joiner MC, Burmeister J. Three Discipline Collaborative Radiation Therapy (3DCRT) Special Debate: I would treat prostate cancer with proton therapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2019; 20:7-14. [PMID: 31166085 PMCID: PMC6612688 DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12621] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/03/2019] [Revised: 05/03/2019] [Accepted: 05/03/2019] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- France Carrier
- Department of Radiation OncologyUniversity of MarylandBaltimoreMDUSA
| | - Yixiang Liao
- Department of Radiation OncologyRush University Medical CenterChicagoILUSA
| | | | | | - Dorin Todor
- Department of Radiation OncologyVirginia Commonwealth UniversityRichmondVAUSA
| | - Anis Ahmad
- Department of Radiation OncologyUniversity of Miami, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miller School of MedicineMiamiFLUSA
| | - Michael Dominello
- Department of OncologyWayne State University School of MedicineDetroitMIUSA
| | - Michael C. Joiner
- Department of OncologyWayne State University School of MedicineDetroitMIUSA
| | - Jay Burmeister
- Department of OncologyWayne State University School of MedicineDetroitMIUSA
- Gershenson Radiation Oncology CenterBarbara Ann Karmanos Cancer InstituteDetroitMIUSA
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Dutz A, Agolli L, Baumann M, Troost EGC, Krause M, Hölscher T, Löck S. Early and late side effects, dosimetric parameters and quality of life after proton beam therapy and IMRT for prostate cancer: a matched-pair analysis. Acta Oncol 2019; 58:916-925. [PMID: 30882264 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2019.1581373] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
Purpose: To compare early and late toxicities, dosimetric parameters and quality of life (QoL) between conventionally fractionated proton beam therapy (PBT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in prostate cancer (PCA) patients. Methods: Eighty-eight patients with localized PCA treated between 2013 and 2017 with either definitive PBT (31) or IMRT (57) were matched using propensity score matching on PCA risk group, transurethral resection of the prostate, prostate volume, diabetes mellitus and administration of anticoagulants resulting in 29 matched pairs. Early and late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) and QoL based on EORTC-QLQ-C30/PR25 questionnaires were collected prospectively until 12 months after radiotherapy (RT). Associations between toxicities and dose-volume parameters in corresponding organs at risk (OARs) were modeled by logistic regression. Results: There were no significant differences in GI and GU toxicities between both treatment groups except for late urinary urgency, which was significantly lower after PBT (IMRT: 25.0%, PBT: 0%, p = .047). Late GU toxicities and obstruction grade ≥2 were significantly associated with the relative volume of the anterior bladder wall receiving 70 Gy and the entire bladder receiving 60 Gy, respectively. The majority of patients in both groups reported high functioning and low symptom scores for the QoL questionnaires before and after RT. No or little changes were observed for most items between baseline and 3 or 12 months after RT, respectively. Global health status increased more at 12 months after IMRT (p = .040) compared to PBT, while the change of constipation was significantly better at 3 months after PBT compared to IMRT (p = .034). Conclusions: Overall, IMRT and PBT were well tolerated. Despite the superiority of PBT in early constipation and IMRT in late global health status compared to baseline, overall QoL and the risks of early and late GU and GI toxicities were similar for conventionally fractionated IMRT and PBT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Almut Dutz
- OncoRay – National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
- Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology – OncoRay, Dresden, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Linda Agolli
- OncoRay – National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| | - Michael Baumann
- OncoRay – National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
- Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology – OncoRay, Dresden, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, Germany: German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz Association/Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany
| | - Esther G. C. Troost
- OncoRay – National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
- Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology – OncoRay, Dresden, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, Germany: German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz Association/Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany
| | - Mechthild Krause
- OncoRay – National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
- Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology – OncoRay, Dresden, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, Germany: German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz Association/Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany
| | - Tobias Hölscher
- OncoRay – National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| | - Steffen Löck
- OncoRay – National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
Patient-Reported Sexual Survivorship Following High-Dose Image-Guided Proton Therapy for Prostate Cancer. Radiother Oncol 2019; 134:204-210. [PMID: 31005217 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2019.01.029] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/05/2018] [Revised: 01/17/2019] [Accepted: 01/22/2019] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To help guide individualized treatment, we sought to identify baseline predictive factors that impact long-term erectile function following high-dose image-guided radiotherapy (HD-IGRT). METHODS Potent men with localized prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy alone were enrolled in an institutional review board-approved prospective cohort study. Men received HD-IGRT as primary treatment of prostate cancer. Patient-reported inventories were used to assess erectile function at baseline, 6 months, 2 years, and 5 years after treatment. Long-term potency rates were compared to validated models, and baseline factors were used to create a novel, internally validated nomogram for predicting long-term function. RESULTS 1,159 men were treated with HD-IGRT. Among 676 men who were potent at baseline and did not receive hormone therapy, the potency rates at 6 months, 2 years, and 5 years were 81%, 68%, and 61%. Recursive partitioning categorized patients into 3 groups based on two factors: baseline response to EPIC Q57 (ability to have an erection) and pre-existing heart disease. At 5 years, the most favorable group reported "very good" on Q57 and had an 80% potency rate (n = 137; p = 0.83); the intermediate group reported "good" on Q57 and had no baseline cardiac disease with a 62% potency rate (n = 145; p = 0.86); and the remaining poor risk group had a 37% potency rate (n = 117; p = 0.19). CONCLUSIONS Patient-reported pretreatment sexual function and comorbidities enables stratification and prediction of erectile function. EPIC subset questions with baseline comorbidities may potentially serve as a quick and practical clinical tool for predicting sexual survivorship.
Collapse
|
48
|
Hoshina RM, Matsuura T, Umegaki K, Shimizu S. A Literature Review of Proton Beam Therapy for Prostate Cancer in Japan. J Clin Med 2019; 8:jcm8010048. [PMID: 30621278 PMCID: PMC6352078 DOI: 10.3390/jcm8010048] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/03/2018] [Revised: 12/23/2018] [Accepted: 12/28/2018] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Aim: Patients of proton beam therapy (PBT) for prostate cancer had been continuously growing in number due to its promising characteristics of high dose distribution in the tumor target and a sharp distal fall-off. Considering the large number of proton beam facilities in Japan, the further increase of patients undergoing this treatment is due to the emendations by Japanese National Health Insurance (NHI) and the development of medical equipment and technology, it is necessary to know what kind of research and advancements has been done on proton therapy for prostate cancer in the country. For these reasons, this literature review was conducted. The aim of this review is to identify and discuss research studies of proton beam therapy for prostate cancer in Japan. These include observational, interventional, and secondary data analysis of published articles. Method: A literature review on published works related to proton beam therapy for prostate cancer in Japan was conducted using articles that were gathered in the PubMed database of June 2018. We went through abstracts and manuscripts written in English with the keywords ‘proton beam therapy’, ‘prostate cancer’, and ‘Japan’. Results: A total of 23 articles were included. Fourteen articles were observational studies, most of which focused on the adverse effects of Proton Beam Therapy (PBT). Seven articles were interventional studies related on treatment planning, equipment parts, as well as target positioning. Two were secondary data analysis. The included studies were published in 13 different journals by different institutions using various equipment. Conclusion: Despite the favorable results of proton beam therapy, future research should include more patients and longer follow-up schedules to clarify the definitive role of PBT, yet, up to recent retrospective studies, included in this paper, concluded that PBT can be a suitable treatment option for localized prostate cancer. In addition, interventional studies were conducted by several institutions to further embellish proton therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rika Maglente Hoshina
- Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, University of Santo Tomas, España, Manila 1002, Philippines.
| | - Taeko Matsuura
- Proton Beam Therapy Center, Hokkaido University Hospital, Sapporo 060-8648, Japan.
- Global Station for Quantum Medical Science and Engineering, Global Institution for Collaborative Research and Education, Hokkaido University, Sapporo 060-8638, Japan.
- Division of Quantum Science and Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Hokkaido University, Sapporo 060-8628, Japan.
| | - Kikuo Umegaki
- Proton Beam Therapy Center, Hokkaido University Hospital, Sapporo 060-8648, Japan.
- Global Station for Quantum Medical Science and Engineering, Global Institution for Collaborative Research and Education, Hokkaido University, Sapporo 060-8638, Japan.
- Division of Quantum Science and Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Hokkaido University, Sapporo 060-8628, Japan.
| | - Shinichi Shimizu
- Proton Beam Therapy Center, Hokkaido University Hospital, Sapporo 060-8648, Japan.
- Global Station for Quantum Medical Science and Engineering, Global Institution for Collaborative Research and Education, Hokkaido University, Sapporo 060-8638, Japan.
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Graduate School of Medicine, Hokkaido University, Sapporo 060-8638, Japan.
| |
Collapse
|
49
|
Matta R, Chapple CR, Fisch M, Heidenreich A, Herschorn S, Kodama RT, Koontz BF, Murphy DG, Nguyen PL, Nam RK. Pelvic Complications After Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy and Their Management: An International Collaborative Narrative Review. Eur Urol 2018; 75:464-476. [PMID: 30573316 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.12.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 52] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/22/2018] [Accepted: 12/04/2018] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
CONTEXT Radiotherapy used for treating localized prostate cancer is effective at prolonging cancer-specific and overall survival. Still, acute and late pelvic toxicities are a concern, with gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) sequelae being most common as well as other pelvic complications. OBJECTIVE To present a critical review of the literature regarding the incidence and risk factors of pelvic toxicity following primary radiotherapy for prostate cancer and to provide a narrative review regarding its management. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION A collaborative narrative review of the literature from 2010 to present was conducted. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Regardless of the modality used, the incidence of acute high-grade pelvic toxicity is low following conventionally fractionated external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). After moderate hypofractionation, the crude cumulative incidences for late grade 3 or higher (G3+) GI and GU complications are as high as 6% and 7%, respectively. After extreme hypofractionation, the 5-yr incidences of G2+ GU and GI toxicities are 3-9% and 0-4%, respectively. Following brachytherapy monotherapy, crude rates of late G3+ GU toxicity range from 6% to 8%, while late GI toxicity is rare. With combination therapy (EBRT and brachytherapy), the cumulative incidence of late GU toxicity is high, between 18% and 31%; however, the prevalence is lower at 4-14%. Whole pelvic radiotherapy remains a controversial treatment option as there is increased G3+ GI toxicity compared with prostate-only treatment, with no overall survival benefit. Proton beam therapy appears to have similar toxicity to photon therapies currently in use. With respect to specific complications, urinary obstruction and urethral stricture are the most common severe urinary toxicities. Rectal and urinary bleeding can be recurrent long-term toxicities. The risk of hip fracture is also increased following prostate radiotherapy. The literature is mixed on the risk of in-field secondary pelvic malignancies following prostate radiotherapy. Urinary and GI fistulas are rare complications. Management of these toxicities may require invasive treatment and reconstructive surgery for refractory and severe symptoms. CONCLUSIONS There has been progress in the delivery of radiotherapy, enabling the administration of higher doses with minimal tradeoff in terms of slightly increased or equal toxicity. There is a need to focus future improvements in radiotherapy on sparing critical structures to reduce GU and GI morbidities. While complications such as fistulae, bone toxicity, and secondary malignancy are rare, there is a need for higher-quality studies assessing these outcomes and their management. PATIENT SUMMARY In this report, we review the literature regarding pelvic complications following modern primary prostate cancer radiotherapy and their management. Modern radiotherapy technologies have enabled the administration of higher doses with minimal increases in toxicity. Overall, high-grade long-term toxicity following prostate radiotherapy is uncommon. Management of late high-grade pelvic toxicities can be challenging, with patients often requiring invasive therapies for refractory cases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rano Matta
- Division of Urology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Institute for Health Policy, Management & Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | | | - Margit Fisch
- Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Axel Heidenreich
- Department of Urology, Uro-Oncology, Robot-Assisted and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Sender Herschorn
- Division of Urology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Ronald T Kodama
- Division of Urology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Bridget F Koontz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke Prostate and Urologic Cancers Center, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Declan G Murphy
- Division of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Paul L Nguyen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Robert K Nam
- Division of Urology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Institute for Health Policy, Management & Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
Hu M, Jiang L, Cui X, Zhang J, Yu J. Proton beam therapy for cancer in the era of precision medicine. J Hematol Oncol 2018; 11:136. [PMID: 30541578 PMCID: PMC6290507 DOI: 10.1186/s13045-018-0683-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 47] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/01/2018] [Accepted: 11/28/2018] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Precision radiotherapy, which accurately delivers the dose on a tumor and confers little or no irradiation to the surrounding normal tissue and organs, results in maximum tumor control and decreases the toxicity to the utmost extent. Proton beam therapy (PBT) provides superior dose distributions and has a dosimetric advantage over photon beam therapy. Initially, the clinical practice and study of proton beam therapy focused on ocular tumor, skull base, paraspinal tumors (chondrosarcoma and chordoma), and unresectable sarcomas, which responded poorly when treated with photon radiotherapy. Then, it is widely regarded as an ideal mode for reirradiation and pediatrics due to reducing unwanted side effects by lessening the dose to normal tissue. During the past decade, the application of PBT has been rapidly increasing worldwide and gradually expanding for the treatment of various malignancies. However, to date, the role of PBT in clinical settings is still controversial, and there are considerable challenges in its application. We systematically review the latest advances of PBT and the challenges for patient treatment in the era of precision medicine.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Man Hu
- Shandong Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, Jinan, China
- Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China
- Departments of Radiation Oncology and Shandong Province Key Laboratory of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Jinan, China
| | - Liyang Jiang
- Shandong Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, Jinan, China
- Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China
- Departments of Radiation Oncology and Shandong Province Key Laboratory of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Jinan, China
| | - Xiangli Cui
- Province Key Laboratory of Medical Physics and Technology, Center of Medical Physics and Technology, Hefei Institutes of Physical Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hefei, Anhui, China
| | - Jianguang Zhang
- Departments of Radiation Oncology, Zibo Wanjie Cancer Hospital, Zibo, Shandong, China
| | - Jinming Yu
- Shandong Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, Jinan, China.
- Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China.
- Departments of Radiation Oncology and Shandong Province Key Laboratory of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Jinan, China.
| |
Collapse
|