1
|
Lukez A, Handorf E, Mendenhall NP, Henderson RH, Stish BJ, Davis BJ, Hallman M, Horwitz EM, Vapiwala N, Wong JK. A pooled patient-reported outcomes analysis of moderately hypofractionated proton beam therapy and photon-based intensity modulated radiation therapy for low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Prostate 2024; 84:395-402. [PMID: 38108113 DOI: 10.1002/pros.24660] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/22/2023] [Revised: 11/14/2023] [Accepted: 12/05/2023] [Indexed: 12/19/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND We sought to characterize and compare late patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after moderately hypofractionated intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) for localized prostate cancer (PC). METHODS This multi-institutional analysis included low- or intermediate-risk group PC patients treated with moderately hypofractionated radiation to an intact prostate stratified by treatment modality: IMRT or PBT. The primary outcomes were prospectively collected patient-reported late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity assessed by International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and Expanded PC Index Composite (EPIC). Multivariable regression analysis (MVA) controlling for age, race, and risk group tested the effect of time, treatment, and their interaction. RESULTS 287 IMRT and 485 PBT patients were included. Intermediate risk group (81.2 vs. 68.2%; p < 0.001) and median age at diagnosis (70 vs. 67 years; p < 0.001) were higher in the IMRT group. On MVA, there was no significant difference between modalities. PBT IPSS did not differ from IMRT IPSS at 12 months (odds ratio [OR], 1.19; p = 0.08) or 24 months (OR, 0.99; p = 0.94). PBT EPIC overall GI function at 12 months (OR, 3.68; p = 0.085) and 24 months (OR 2.78; p = 0.26) did not differ from IMRT EPIC overall GI function. At 24 months, urinary frequency was no different between PBT and IMRT groups (OR 0.35; p = 0.096). CONCLUSIONS This multi-institutional analysis of low- or intermediate-risk PC treated with moderately hypofractionated PBT and IMRT demonstrated low rates of late patient-reported GI and GU toxicities. After covariate adjustment, late GI and GU PROs were not significantly different between PBT or IMRT cohorts.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander Lukez
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Elizabeth Handorf
- Department of Biostatistics, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Nancy P Mendenhall
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
| | - Randal H Henderson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UF Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
| | - Bradley J Stish
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Brian J Davis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Mark Hallman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Eric M Horwitz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Neha Vapiwala
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Jessica Karen Wong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Viani GA, Gouveia AG, Moraes FY, Cury FL. "Meta-analysis of elective pelvic nodal irradiation using moderate hypofractionation for high-risk prostate cancer" (MENHYP-ENI). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022; 113:1044-1053. [PMID: 35430317 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.04.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/16/2021] [Revised: 02/19/2022] [Accepted: 04/05/2022] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Despite several advances in planning and delivery of radiotherapy (RT) for prostate cancer, the role of elective pelvic nodal irradiation (EPNI) remains controversial for high-risk disease. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the outcomes of patients treated with moderate hypofractionated RT (MHF-RT) with EPNI using modern radiotherapy techniques. METHODS Eligible studies were identified on Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and proceedings of annual meetings through October 2021. We followed the PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. A meta-regression analysis was performed to assess a possible correlation between selected variables and outcomes. A p-value <0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS Eighteen studies with a total of 1745 patients, median follow-up 61 months, treated with EPNI employing MHF-RT were included. The biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) at 5-, 7- and 10-year was 90% (95% CI 88-94%), 83% (95%CI 78-91%) and 78% (95%CI 68-88%). The 5-year prostate cancer-specific survival, disease-free survival, distant metastases-free survival and overall survival were 98% (95%CI 97-99%), 88.7% (95%CI 85-93%), 91.2% (95%CI 88-92%), and 93% (95%CI 90-96%), respectively. The rates of local, pelvic, and distant recurrence were 0.38% (95%CI 0-2%), 0.13% (95%CI 0-1.5%), and 7.35% (95%CI 2-12%), respectively. The rate of late GI and GU toxicity grade ≥ 2 were 6.7% (95%CI 4-9%), and 11.3% (95%CI 7.6-15%), with heterogeneity, but with rare cases of toxicity grade 3-5. CONCLUSION EPNI with concomitant MHF-RT provides satisfactory bRFS in the long-term follow-up, with low rates of GU and GI severe toxicities and minimal pelvic and local failure.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gustavo A Viani
- Ribeirao Preto Medical School, Department of Medical Imagings, Hematology and Oncology of University of São Paulo (FMRP-USP), Ribeirao Preto, Brazil.
| | - Andre G Gouveia
- Radiation Oncology Department, Americas Centro de Oncologia Integrado, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
| | - Fabio Y Moraes
- Department of Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, Kingston General Hospital, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada
| | - Fabio L Cury
- Department of Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, McGill University Health Centre, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Lazo A, de la Torre-Luque A, Arregui G, Rivas D, Serradilla A, Gómez J, Jurado F, Núñez MI, López E. Long-Term Outcomes of Dose-Escalated Hypofractionated Radiotherapy in Localized Prostate Cancer. BIOLOGY 2022; 11:435. [PMID: 35336808 PMCID: PMC8945092 DOI: 10.3390/biology11030435] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/24/2022] [Revised: 03/02/2022] [Accepted: 03/09/2022] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
Abstract
This retrospective study aimed to provide some clinical outcomes regarding effectiveness, toxicity, and quality of life in PCa patients treated with dose-escalated moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy (HFRT). Patients received HFRT to a total dose of 66 Gy in 22 fractions (3 Gy/fraction) delivered via volume modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in 2011-2016. Treatment effectiveness was measured by the biochemical failure-free survival rate. Toxicity was assessed according to the criteria of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) and quality of life according to the criteria of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). In this regard, quality of life (QoL) was measured longitudinally, at a median of 2 and 5 years after RT. Enrolled patients had low-risk (40.2%), intermediate-risk (47.5%), and high-risk (12.3%) PCa. Median follow-up was 75 months. The biochemical failure-free survival rate was 94.2%. The incidence of acute grade 2 or higher gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity was 9.84% and 28.69%, respectively. The incidence rate of late grade 2 or higher GI and GU toxicity was 1.64% and 4.10%, respectively. Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) scores showed that the majority of patients maintained their QoL. HFRT to 66 Gy with VMAT was associated with adequate biochemical control, low toxicity and good reported GU and GI quality of life.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Antonio Lazo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, San Cecilio Clinical University Hospital, 18016 Granada, Spain;
| | - Alejandro de la Torre-Luque
- Department of Legal Medicine, Psychiatry and Pathology, CIBERSAM, Complutense University of Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain
| | | | - Daniel Rivas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, GenesisCare, 29018 Malaga, Spain;
| | - Ana Serradilla
- Department of Radiation Oncology, GenesisCare, 18004 Granada, Spain;
| | - Joaquin Gómez
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Torrecardenas Hospitalary Complex, 04009 Almeria, Spain;
| | - Francisca Jurado
- Department of Radiation Oncology, GenesisCare, 14012 Cordoba, Spain;
| | - María Isabel Núñez
- Department of Radiology and Physical Medicine, Granada University, 18012 Granada, Spain
- Biopathology and Regenerative Medicine Institute (IBIMER), Centre for Biomedical Research, Granada University, 18016 Granada, Spain
- Biosanitary Research Institute, ibs. Granada, 18012 Granada, Spain
| | - Escarlata López
- Department of Radiation Oncology, GenesisCare, 28043 Madrid, Spain;
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Staffurth JN, Haviland JS, Wilkins A, Syndikus I, Khoo V, Bloomfield D, Parker C, Logue J, Scrase C, Birtle A, Malik Z, Panades M, Eswar C, Graham J, Russell M, Ferguson C, O'Sullivan JM, Cruickshank CA, Dearnaley D, Hall E. Impact of Hypofractionated Radiotherapy on Patient-reported Outcomes in Prostate Cancer: Results up to 5 yr in the CHHiP trial (CRUK/06/016). Eur Urol Oncol 2021; 4:980-992. [PMID: 34489210 PMCID: PMC8674146 DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2021.07.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/24/2021] [Revised: 07/13/2021] [Accepted: 07/21/2021] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Moderate hypofractionation is the recommended standard of care for localised prostate cancer following the results of trials including Conventional or Hypofractionated High Dose Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer (CHHiP). Evaluation of long-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is important to confirm safety and enhance patient information. OBJECTIVE To determine whether 5-yr PROs from the CHHiP quality of life (QoL) substudy confirm 2-yr findings and assess patterns over follow-up. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A phase III randomised controlled trial recruited from 2002 to 2011. The QoL substudy completed accrual in 2009; participants were followed up to 5 yr after radiotherapy. Analyses used data snapshot taken on August 26, 2016. A total of 71 radiotherapy centres were included in the study (UK, Republic of Ireland, Switzerland, and New Zealand); all 57 UK centres participated in the QoL substudy. CHHiP recruited 3216 men with localised prostate cancer (cT1b-T3aN0M0). INTERVENTION Conventional (74 Gy/37 fractions/7.4 wk) or hypofractionated radiotherapy (60 Gy/20 fractions/4 wk or 57 Gy/19 fractions/3.8 wk) was delivered with intensity-modulated techniques. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS University of California Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index, Short Form 36 and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate, or Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite and Short Form 12 questionnaires were administered at baseline, before radiotherapy, at 10 wk, and at 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48, and 60 mo after radiotherapy. The QoL primary endpoint was overall bowel bother. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS The QoL substudy recruited 2100 patients; 1141 5-yr forms were available from 1957 patients still alive (58%). There were no statistically significant differences in 5-yr prevalence of overall "moderate or big" bowel bother: 19/349 (5.4%), 29/381 (7.6%), and 21/393 (5.3%) for 74, 60, and 57 Gy, respectively; overall urinary or sexual bother at 5 yr was similar between schedules. Bowel and urinary symptoms remained stable from 2 to 5 yr for all schedules. Some evidence of worsening overall sexual bother from baseline to 5 yr was less likely in the hypofractionated schedules compared with 74 Gy (odds ratios for increase in bother score vs 74 Gy: 0.55 [0.30-0.99], p = 0.009 for 60 Gy, and 0.52 [0.29-0.94], p = 0.004 for 57 Gy). General QoL scores were similar between schedules at 5 yr. CONCLUSIONS Longer follow-up confirms earlier findings, with similar patient-reported bowel, urinary, and sexual problems between schedules overall. The continued low incidence of moderate or high bother confirms that moderate hypofractionation should be the standard of care for intermediate-risk localised prostate cancer. PATIENT SUMMARY We looked at patient-reported outcomes up to 5 yr after treatment in a trial of different radiotherapy schedules for prostate cancer. The findings confirmed that shorter radiotherapy schedules were as safe as standard radiotherapy in terms of bowel, urinary, and sexual problems. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: Bowel, urinary, and sexual symptoms were similar between schedules up to 5 yr. The continued low incidence of moderate/high bother confirms that moderate hypofractionated radiotherapy should be considered the standard of care for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | - Vincent Khoo
- The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | | | - Chris Parker
- The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | | | | | - Alison Birtle
- Rosemere Cancer Centre, Royal Preston Hospital, Preston, UK
| | | | | | | | - John Graham
- Beacon Centre, Musgrove Park Hospital, Taunton, UK
| | | | | | | | | | - David Dearnaley
- The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Emma Hall
- The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Vapiwala N, Wong JK, Handorf E, Paly J, Grewal A, Tendulkar R, Godfrey D, Carpenter D, Mendenhall NP, Henderson RH, Stish BJ, Vargas C, Salama JK, Davis BJ, Horwitz EM. A Pooled Toxicity Analysis of Moderately Hypofractionated Proton Beam Therapy and Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy in Early-Stage Prostate Cancer Patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021; 110:1082-1089. [PMID: 33539968 PMCID: PMC9610030 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.01.043] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/04/2020] [Revised: 01/13/2021] [Accepted: 01/23/2021] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Data comparing moderately hypofractionated intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) are lacking. We aim to compare late toxicity profiles of patients with early-stage prostate cancer treated with moderately hypofractionated PBT and IMRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS This multi-institutional analysis included patients with low- or intermediate-risk biopsy-proven prostate adenocarcinoma from 7 tertiary referral centers treated from 1998 to 2018. All patients were treated with moderately hypofractionated radiation, defined as 250 to 300 cGy per daily fraction given for 4 to 6 weeks, and stratified by use of IMRT or PBT. Primary outcomes were late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. Adjusted toxicity rates were calculated using inverse probability of treatment weighting, accounting for race, National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group, age, pretreatment International Prostate Symptom Score (GU only), and anticoagulant use (GI only). RESULTS A total of 1850 patients were included: 1282 IMRT (median follow-up 80.0 months) and 568 PBT (median follow-up 43.9 months). Overall toxicity rates were low, with the majority of patients experiencing no late GU (56.6%, n = 1048) or late GI (74.4%, n = 1377) toxicity. No difference was seen in the rates of late toxicity between the groups, with late grade 3+ GU toxicity of 2.0% versus 3.9% (odds ratio [OR] 0.47; 95% confidence interval 0.17-1.28) and late grade 2+ GI toxicity of 14.6% versus 4.7% (OR 2.69; confidence interval 0.80-9.05) for the PBT and IMRT cohorts, respectively. On multivariable analysis, no factors were significantly predictive of GU toxicity, and only anticoagulant use was significantly predictive of GI toxicity (OR 1.90; P = .008). CONCLUSIONS In this large, multi-institutional analysis of 1850 patients with early-stage prostate cancer, treatment with moderately hypofractionated IMRT and PBT resulted in low rates of toxicity. No difference was seen in late GI and GU toxicity between the modalities during long-term follow-up. Both treatments are safe and well tolerated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Neha Vapiwala
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - J Karen Wong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Elizabeth Handorf
- Department of Biostatistics, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Jonathan Paly
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Amardeep Grewal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Rahul Tendulkar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - Devon Godfrey
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
| | - David Carpenter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Nancy P Mendenhall
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
| | - Randal H Henderson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UF Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, Florida
| | - Bradley J Stish
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Carlos Vargas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Joseph K Salama
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Brian J Davis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Eric M Horwitz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Palhares DMF, Pimentel LCF, Castilho MS, Costa ABD, Reisner ML, Kuhnen FQ, Pássaro A, Leite ETT, Faustino FDLC, Obst FM, Costa FNBBF, Pioner GT, Carvalho ÍTD, Silva JLFD, Morikawa LKK, Zanuncio PHDR, Hanriot RDM, Rosa AA. Hypofractionated radiotherapy recommendations for localized prostate cancer in Brasil. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2021; 67:7-18. [PMID: 34161478 DOI: 10.1590/1806-9282.67.01.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/09/2020] [Accepted: 01/06/2021] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Several prospective randomized trials have shown that hypofractionation has the same efficacy and safety as the conventional fractionation in the treatment of localized prostate cancer. There are many benefits of hypofractionation, including a more convenient schedule for the patients and better use of resources, which is especially important in low- and middle-income countries like Brasil. Based on these data, the Brazilian Society of Radiotherapy (Sociedade Brasileira de Radioterapia) organized this consensus to guide and support the use of hypofractionated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer in Brasil. METHODS The relevant literature regarding moderate hypofractionation (mHypo) and ultra-hypofractionation (uHypo) was reviewed and discussed by a group of experts from public and private centers of different parts of Brasil. Several key questions concerning clinical indications, outcomes and technological requirements for hypofractionation were discussed and voted. For each question, consensus was reached if there was an agreement of at least 75% of the panel members. RESULTS The recommendations are described in this article. CONCLUSION This initiative will assist Brazilian radiation oncologists and medical physicists to safely treat localized prostate cancer patients with hypofractionation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Elton Trigo Teixeira Leite
- Universidade de São Paulo, Hospital Vila Nova Star, Rede D'Or, Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo - São Paulo (SP), Brasil
| | | | - Fernando Mariano Obst
- Grupo Oncoclínicas, Hospital São Lucas Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul - Porto Alegre (RS), Brasil
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Arthur Accioly Rosa
- Sociedade Brasileira de Radioterapia, Grupo Oncoclínicas - São Paulo (SP), Brasil
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
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
|
8
|
Onderdonk BE, Dorn PL, Martinez C, Arif F, Cloutier D, Antic T, Golden DW, Karrison T, Pitroda SP, Szmulewitz RZ, Liauw SL. A prospective clinical and transcriptomic feasibility study of oral-only hormonal therapy with radiation for unfavorable prostate cancer in men 70 years of age and older or with comorbidity. Cancer 2021; 127:2631-2640. [PMID: 33882144 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.33556] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/11/2020] [Revised: 02/05/2021] [Accepted: 03/04/2021] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves outcomes in unfavorable-risk prostate cancer (PCa) treated with radiation therapy (RT). It was hypothesized that replacing luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists with a 5-α-reductase inhibitor (5-ARI) would improve hormonal health-related quality of life (HRQOL) without differentially suppressing androgen-responsive (AR) gene expression. METHODS Patients with localized unfavorable-risk PCa, aged ≥70 years or Charlson Comorbidity Index score ≥2 were treated with oral ADT (oADT), consisting of 4 months of bicalutamide, a 5-ARI, and RT at 78 Gy. The primary end point was Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite HRQOL at 6 months ≤30%, and improvement compared with a synchronous standard of care (SOC) cohort receiving 4 months of bicalutamide and long-term LHRH agonist with RT. RNA sequencing was performed from matched pre-/post-ADT prostate tumor biopsies in a subset of men. Differential gene and pathway expressional changes were examined using gene set enrichment. RESULTS Between 2011 and 2018, 40 and 30 men were enrolled in the oADT and SOC cohorts, respectively. Median follow-up was 40 months. Those with ≤30% decline in hormonal HRQOL at 6 months was 97% (oADT) and 93% (SOC). The average 6-month hormonal decline was 1% (oADT) versus 12% (SOC; P = .04). The 4-year freedom from biochemical failure was 88% (oADT) versus 81% (SOC; P = .48). RNA sequencing (n = 9) showed similar numbers of downregulated and upregulated genes between the treatment groups (fold-change = 2; false-discovery rate-adjusted P ≤ .05). Both treatments comparably decreased the expression of 20 genes in canonical androgen receptor signaling. CONCLUSIONS For men with PCa undergoing RT, oral versus standard ADT may improve 6-month QOL and appears to have a similar impact on androgen-responsive gene expression.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Benjamin E Onderdonk
- Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Paige L Dorn
- Rose Medical Center Radiation Oncology, Denver, Colorado
| | - Carlos Martinez
- Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Fauzia Arif
- Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Denise Cloutier
- Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Tatjana Antic
- Department of Pathology, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Daniel W Golden
- Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Theodore Karrison
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Sean P Pitroda
- Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
| | | | - Stanley L Liauw
- Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Kashihara T, Inaba K, Komiyama M, Nakayama H, Iijima K, Nishioka S, Okamoto H, Kikkawa N, Kubo Y, Shima S, Nakamura S, Takahashi A, Takahashi K, Okuma K, Murakami N, Igaki H, Nakayama Y, Fukunaga A, Matsui Y, Fujimoto H, Itami J. The use of hyperbaric oxygen to treat actinic rectal fistula after SpaceOAR use and radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a case report. BMC Urol 2020; 20:196. [PMID: 33317509 PMCID: PMC7737272 DOI: 10.1186/s12894-020-00767-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/12/2020] [Accepted: 12/03/2020] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Background In definitive radiation therapy for prostate cancer, the SpaceOAR® System, a hydrogel spacer, is widely used to decrease the irradiated dose and toxicity of rectum. On the other hand, periprostatic abscesses formation and rectal perforation are known as rare adverse effects of SpaceOAR. Nevertheless, there is a lack of reports clarifying the association between aggravation of abscesses and radiation therapy, and hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) is effective for a peri-SpaceOAR abscess and rectal perforation. Case presentation We report a case of a 78-year-old high-risk prostate cancer patient. After SpaceOAR insertion into the correct space, he started to receive external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). He developed a fever, perineal pain and frequent urination after the completion of EBRT, and the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed a peri-SpaceOAR abscess. Scheduled brachytherapy was postponed, administration of antibiotics and opioid via intravenous drip was commenced, and transperineal drainage was performed. After the alleviation of the abscess, additional EBRT instead of brachytherapy was performed with MRI-guided radiation therapy (MRgRT). On the last day of the MRgRT, perineal pain reoccurred, and MRI and colonoscopy detected the rectal perforation. He received an intravenous antibiotics drip and HBOT, and fully recovered from the rectal perforation. Conclusions Our report indicates that EBRT can lead to a severe rectum complication by causing inflammation for patients with a peri-SpaceOAR abscess. Furthermore, HBOT was effective for the peri-SpaceOAR abscess and rectal perforation associated with EBRT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tairo Kashihara
- Department of Radiation Therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tsukiji 5-1-1, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
| | - Koji Inaba
- Department of Radiation Therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tsukiji 5-1-1, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Motokiyo Komiyama
- Department of Urological Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Hiroki Nakayama
- Department of Radiation Therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tsukiji 5-1-1, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Kotaro Iijima
- Department of Radiation Therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tsukiji 5-1-1, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Shie Nishioka
- Department of Radiation Therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tsukiji 5-1-1, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Hiroyuki Okamoto
- Department of Radiation Therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tsukiji 5-1-1, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Nao Kikkawa
- Department of Radiology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Yuko Kubo
- Department of Radiology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Satoshi Shima
- Department of Radiation Therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tsukiji 5-1-1, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Satoshi Nakamura
- Department of Radiation Therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tsukiji 5-1-1, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Ayaka Takahashi
- Department of Radiation Therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tsukiji 5-1-1, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Kana Takahashi
- Department of Radiation Therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tsukiji 5-1-1, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Kae Okuma
- Department of Radiation Therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tsukiji 5-1-1, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Naoya Murakami
- Department of Radiation Therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tsukiji 5-1-1, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Hiroshi Igaki
- Department of Radiation Therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tsukiji 5-1-1, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Yuko Nakayama
- Department of Radiation Therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tsukiji 5-1-1, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Arinobu Fukunaga
- Department of Urological Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Yoshiyuki Matsui
- Department of Urological Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Hiroyuki Fujimoto
- Department of Urological Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Jun Itami
- Department of Radiation Therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tsukiji 5-1-1, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Health-Related Quality of Life and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Radiation Oncology Clinical Trials. Curr Treat Options Oncol 2020; 21:87. [PMID: 32862317 DOI: 10.1007/s11864-020-00782-4] [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] [Indexed: 01/22/2023]
Abstract
OPINION STATEMENT The importance of assessing health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is now well recognized as an essential measure when evaluating the effectiveness of new cancer therapies. Quality of life measures provide for a multi-dimensional understanding of the impact of cancer treatment on measures ranging from functional, psychological, and social aspects of a patient's health. Patient-reported outcomes provide for an assessment of physical and functional symptoms that are directly elicited from patients. Collection of PROs and HRQoL data has been shown to not only be feasible but also provide for reliable measures that correlate with established outcomes measures better than clinician-scored toxicities. The importance of HRQoL measures has been emphasized by both patients and clinicians, as well as policy makers and regulatory bodies. Given the benefits associated with measuring HRQoL and PROs in oncology clinical trials, it is increasingly important to establish methods to effectively incorporate PROs and HRQoL measures into routine clinical practice.
Collapse
|
11
|
Gao Y, Zhao B, Gao X, Qi X, Liu S, Li Y, Jia C. Quantifying intra-fractional prostate motion trajectory for establishing a new gating strategy: a preliminary study. JOURNAL OF RADIATION RESEARCH AND APPLIED SCIENCES 2020. [DOI: 10.1080/16878507.2020.1785113] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Yan Gao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Peking University First Hospital, Peking University, Beijing, China
| | - Bo Zhao
- Department of Engineering Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
- Key Laboratory of Particle & Radiation Imaging, Ministry of Education (Tsinghua University), Beijing, China
| | - Xianshu Gao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Peking University First Hospital, Peking University, Beijing, China
| | - Xin Qi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Peking University First Hospital, Peking University, Beijing, China
| | - Siwei Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Peking University First Hospital, Peking University, Beijing, China
| | - Yue Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Peking University First Hospital, Peking University, Beijing, China
| | - Chenghao Jia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Peking University First Hospital, Peking University, Beijing, China
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Ricco A, Mukhopadhyay N, Deng X, Holdford D, Skinner V, Saraiya S, Moghanaki D, Anscher MS, Chang MG. Moderately Hypofractionated Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy With Simultaneous Integrated Boost for Prostate Cancer: Five-Year Toxicity Results From a Prospective Phase I/II Trial. Front Oncol 2020; 10:1686. [PMID: 32974208 PMCID: PMC7471868 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.01686] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/18/2020] [Accepted: 07/29/2020] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND In this phase I/II trial, 5-year physician-assessed toxicity and patient reported quality of life data is reported for patients undergoing moderately hypofractionated intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer using a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) and pelvic lymph node (LN) coverage. MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients with T1-T2 localized prostate cancer were prospectively enrolled, receiving risk group based coverage of prostate ± seminal vesicles (SVs) ± pelvic lymph nodes (LNs). Low risk (LR) received 69.6 Gy/29 fractions to the prostate, while intermediate risk (IR) and high risk (HR) patients received 72 Gy/30fx to the prostate and 54Gy/30fx to the SVs. If predicted risk of LN involvement >15%, 50.4 Gy/30fx was delivered to pelvic LNs. Androgen deprivation therapy was given to IR and HR patients. RESULTS There were 55 patients enrolled and 49 patients evaluable at a median follow up of 60 months. Included were 11 (20%) LR, 23 (41.8%) IR, and 21 (38.2%) HR patients. Pelvic LN treatment was given in 25 patients (51%). Prevalence rates of late grade 2 GI toxicity at 1, 3, and 5 years was 5.8, 3.9, and 5.8%, respectively, with no permanent grade 3 events. Prevalence rates of late grade 2 GU toxicity at 1, 3, and 5 years rates were 15.4, 7.7, and 13.5%, respectively, with three grade 3 events (5.8%). The biochemical relapse free survival at 5 years was 88.3%. There were no local, regional, or distant failures, with all patients still alive at last follow up. CONCLUSION Moderate hypofractionation of localized prostate cancer utilizing a SIB technique and LN coverage produces tolerable acute/late toxicity. Given equivalent efficacy between moderate hypofractionation schedules, the optimal regimen will be determined by long-term toxicity reported from both the physician and patient perspective. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT01117935, Date of Registration: 5/6/2010.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anthony Ricco
- Massey Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, Richmond, VA, United States
| | - Nitai Mukhopadhyay
- Department of Biostatistics, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, United States
| | - Xiaoyan Deng
- Department of Biostatistics, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, United States
| | - Diane Holdford
- Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, United States
| | - Vicki Skinner
- Hunter Holmes McGuire Veterans Administration Medical Center, Richmond, VA, United States
| | - Siddharth Saraiya
- Massey Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, Richmond, VA, United States
| | - Drew Moghanaki
- Massey Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, Richmond, VA, United States
- Hunter Holmes McGuire Veterans Administration Medical Center, Richmond, VA, United States
| | - Mitchell S. Anscher
- Massey Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, Richmond, VA, United States
| | - Michael G. Chang
- Massey Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, Richmond, VA, United States
- Hunter Holmes McGuire Veterans Administration Medical Center, Richmond, VA, United States
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Desideri I, Salvestrini V, Livi L. Recent advances in de-intensification of radiotherapy in elderly cancer patients. F1000Res 2020; 9. [PMID: 32518630 PMCID: PMC7255897 DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.21151.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 04/30/2020] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Cancer in the elderly remains an evolving issue and a health challenge. Several improvements in the radiotherapy field allow the delivery of higher doses/fractions with a safe toxicity profile, permitting the reduction of radiation treatment protocols in the elderly. Regarding breast, prostate, and lung cancer, the under-representation of older patients in clinical trials limits the extension of treatment recommendations to elderly patients in routine clinical practice. Among the feasible alternatives to standard whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT) in older patients are shorter courses using higher hypofractionation (HF) and accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI). The boost continues to be used in women at high risk of local recurrence but is less widely accepted for women at lower risk and patients over 70 years of age. Regarding prostate cancer, there are no published studies with a focus on the elderly. Current management decisions are based on life expectancy and geriatric assessment. Regimens of HF and ultra-HF protocols are feasible strategies for older patients. Several prospective non-randomized studies have documented the safe delivery of ultra-HF for patients with localized prostate cancer, and multiple phase III trials and meta-analyses have confirmed that the HF regimen should be offered with similar acute toxicity regardless of patient age and comorbidity. A recent pooled analysis from two randomized trials comparing surgery to stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in older adult patients with early stage non-small cell lung cancer did show comparable outcomes between surgery and SBRT. Elderly cancer patients are significantly under-represented in all clinical trials. Thus, the inclusion of older patients in clinical studies should be strongly encouraged to strengthen the evidence base for this age group. We suggest that the creation of oncogeriatric coordination units may promote individualized care protocols, avoid overtreatment with aggressive and unrecommended therapies, and support de-escalating treatment in elderly cancer patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Isacco Desideri
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences Biochemistry, Radiotherapy Unit, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Viola Salvestrini
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences Biochemistry, Radiotherapy Unit, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Lorenzo Livi
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences Biochemistry, Radiotherapy Unit, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Avkshtol V, Ruth KJ, Ross EA, Hallman MA, Greenberg RE, Price RA, Leachman B, Uzzo RG, Ma C, Chen D, Geynisman DM, Sobczak ML, Zhang E, Wong JK, Pollack A, Horwitz EM. Ten-Year Update of a Randomized, Prospective Trial of Conventional Fractionated Versus Moderate Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer. J Clin Oncol 2020; 38:1676-1684. [PMID: 32119599 DOI: 10.1200/jco.19.01485] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The previously published single institution randomized prospective trial failed to show superiority in the 5-year biochemical and/or clinical disease failure (BCDF) rate with moderate hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (H-IMRT) versus conventionally fractionated IMRT (C-IMRT). We now present 10-year disease outcomes using updated risk groups and definitions of biochemical failure. METHODS Men with protocol-defined intermediate- and high-risk prostate adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned to receive C-IMRT (76 Gy in 38 fractions) or H-IMRT (70.2 Gy in 26 fractions). Men with high-risk disease were all prescribed 24 months of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and had lymph node irradiation. Men with intermediate risk were prescribed 4 months of ADT at the discretion of the treating physician. The primary endpoint was cumulative incidence of BCDF. We compared disease outcomes and overall mortality by treatment arm, with sensitivity analyses for National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group adjustment. RESULTS Overall, 303 assessable men were randomly assigned to C-IMRT or H-IMRT. The median follow-up was 122.9 months. Per updated NCCN risk classification, there were 28 patients (9.2%) with low-risk, 189 (62.4%) with intermediate-risk, and 86 (28.4%) with high-risk prostate cancer. The arms were equally balanced for clinicopathologic factors, except that there were more black patients in the C-IMRT arm (17.8% v 7.3%; P = .02). There was no difference in ADT use (P = .56). The 10-year cumulative incidence of BCDF was 25.9% in the C-IMRT arm and was 30.6% in the H-IMRT arm (hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.82 to 2.11). The two arms also had similar cumulative 10-year rates of biochemical failure, prostate cancer-specific mortality, and overall mortality; however, the 10-year cumulative incidence of distant metastases was higher in the H-IMRT arm (rate difference, 7.8%; 95% CI, 0.7% to 15.1%). CONCLUSION H-IMRT failed to demonstrate superiority compared with C-IMRT in long-term disease outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vladimir Avkshtol
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Karen J Ruth
- Department of Biostatistics, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Eric A Ross
- Department of Biostatistics, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Mark A Hallman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Richard E Greenberg
- Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Robert A Price
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Brooke Leachman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Robert G Uzzo
- Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Charlie Ma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - David Chen
- Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Daniel M Geynisman
- Division of Genitourinary Oncology, Department of Hematology and Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Mark L Sobczak
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Eddie Zhang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Jessica K Wong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Alan Pollack
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL
| | - Eric M Horwitz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Nossiter J, Sujenthiran A, Cowling TE, Parry MG, Charman SC, Cathcart P, Clarke NW, Payne H, van der Meulen J, Aggarwal A. Patient-Reported Functional Outcomes After Hypofractionated or Conventionally Fractionated Radiation for Prostate Cancer: A National Cohort Study in England. J Clin Oncol 2020; 38:744-752. [PMID: 31895608 PMCID: PMC7048158 DOI: 10.1200/jco.19.01538] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 11/18/2019] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The aim of the current study was to determine patient-reported functional outcomes in men with prostate cancer (PCa) undergoing moderately hypofractionated (H-RT) or conventionally fractionated radiation therapy (C-RT) in a national cohort study. PATIENDS AND METHODS All men diagnosed with PCa between April 2014 and September 2016 in the English National Health Service undergoing C-RT or H-RT were identified in the National Prostate Cancer Audit and mailed a questionnaire at least 18 months after diagnosis. We estimated differences in patient-reported urinary, bowel, sexual, and hormonal function-Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite short-form 26 domain scores on a 0 to 100 scale-and health-related quality of life-EQ-5D-5L on a 0 to 1 scale-using linear regression with adjustment for patient, tumor, and treatment-related factors in addition to GI and genitourinary baseline function, with higher scores representing better outcomes. RESULTS Of the 17,058 men in the cohort, 77% responded: 8,432 men received C-RT (64.2%) and 4,699 H-RT (35.8%). Men in the H-RT group were older (age ≥ 70 years: 67.5% v 60.9%), fewer men had locally advanced disease (56.5% v 71.3%), were less likely to receive androgen-deprivation therapy (79.5% v 87.8%), and slightly more men had pretreatment genitourinary procedures (24.2% v 21.2%). H-RT was associated with small increases in adjusted mean Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite short-form 26 sexual (3.3 points; 95% CI, 2.1 to 4.5; P < .001) and hormonal function scores (3.2 points; 95% CI, 1.8 to 4.6; P < .001). These differences failed to meet established thresholds for a clinically meaningful change. There were no statistically significant differences in urinary or bowel function and quality of life. CONCLUSION This is the first national cohort study comparing functional outcomes after H-RT and C-RT reported by patients. These real-world results further support the use of H-RT as the standard for radiation therapy in men with nonmetastatic PCa.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julie Nossiter
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
- Clinical Effectiveness Unit, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, United Kingdom
| | - Arunan Sujenthiran
- Clinical Effectiveness Unit, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, United Kingdom
| | - Thomas E. Cowling
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
| | - Matthew G. Parry
- Clinical Effectiveness Unit, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, United Kingdom
| | - Susan C. Charman
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
| | - Paul Cathcart
- Department of Urology, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Noel W. Clarke
- Department of Urology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
- Department of Urology, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, United Kingdom
| | - Heather Payne
- Department of Oncology, University College London Hospitals, London, United Kingdom
| | - Jan van der Meulen
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ajay Aggarwal
- Department of Cancer Epidemiology, Population, and Global Health, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Acute and late toxicity and preliminary outcomes report of moderately hypofractionated helical tomotherapy for localized prostate cancer: a mono-institutional analysis. Radiol Med 2019; 125:220-227. [PMID: 31641931 DOI: 10.1007/s11547-019-01095-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/09/2019] [Accepted: 10/02/2019] [Indexed: 10/25/2022]
Abstract
AIMS To assess toxicity and clinical outcomes of moderately hypofractionated helical tomotherapy (HT) for the curative treatment of localized prostate cancer (PC). METHODS From December 2012 to May 2018, 170 patients were treated with definitive intent for PC. Thirty-four percent were low risk, 30% intermediate risk (IR) and 36% high risk (HR). All patients received 70 Gy in 28 fractions to the prostate; 61.6 Gy were delivered to the seminal vesicles for IR; pelvic lymph nodes irradiation for a total dose of 50.4 Gy was added in the HR subgroup. Toxicity was assessed using CTCAE V4.0, and biochemical failure was defined following Phoenix criteria. Time-to-event data were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. RESULTS The median follow-up was 36 months (range 12-78); acute toxicity was as follows: G1 and G2 in 27.6% and 19.4% for GI; 53% and 24% for GU. No G ≥ 3 event was observed. For late toxicity, G ≥ 3 GI and GU rates were, respectively, 3% and 2.4% at 3 years and 3% and 4.8% at 4 years; no G4 occurred. A statistical correlation between acute or late G3 incidence and clinical or dosimetric parameters was not found. At the time of analysis, 2- and 3-year biochemical relapse-free survival rates were 90% and 87.5% and 2- and 3-year overall survival rates were 96.4% and 90%, respectively. The log-rank test revealed no difference between the risk groups in terms of biochemical control (p = 0.16). CONCLUSIONS Moderately hypofractionated RT with HT for localized prostate cancer reported excellent outcomes with mild acute and late toxicity incidence, with promising biochemical control rates.
Collapse
|
17
|
Hickey BE, James ML, Daly T, Soh F, Jeffery M. Hypofractionation for clinically localized prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019; 9:CD011462. [PMID: 31476800 PMCID: PMC6718288 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011462.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Using hypofractionation (fewer, larger doses of daily radiation) to treat localized prostate cancer may improve convenience and resource use. For hypofractionation to be feasible, it must be at least as effective for cancer-related outcomes and have comparable toxicity and quality of life outcomes as conventionally fractionated radiation therapy. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of hypofractionated external beam radiation therapy compared to conventionally fractionated external beam radiation therapy for men with clinically localized prostate cancer. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) and trials registries from 1946 to 15 March 2019 with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors. Searches were not limited by language or publication status. We reran all searches within three months (15th March 2019) prior to publication. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomized controlled comparisons which included men with clinically localized prostate adenocarcinoma where hypofractionated radiation therapy (external beam radiation therapy) to the prostate using hypofractionation (greater than 2 Gy per fraction) compared with conventionally fractionated radiation therapy to the prostate delivered using standard fractionation (1.8 Gy to 2 Gy per fraction). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard Cochrane methodology. Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used Review Manager 5 for data analysis and meta-analysis. We used the inverse variance method and random-effects model for data synthesis of time-to-event data with hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) reported. For dichotomous data, we used the Mantel-Haenzel method and random-effects model to present risk ratios (RR) and 95% CI. We used GRADE to assess evidence quality for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS We included 10 studies with 8278 men in our analysis comparing hypofractionation with conventional fractionation to treat prostate cancer.Primary outcomesHypofractionation may result in little or no difference in prostate cancer-specific survival [PC-SS] (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.39; studies = 8, participants = 7946; median follow-up 72 months; low-certainty evidence). For men in the intermediate-risk group undergoing conventional fractionation this corresponds to 976 per 1000 men alive after 6 years and 0 more (44 fewer to 18 more) alive per 1000 men undergoing hypofractionation.We are uncertain about the effect of hypofractionation on late radiation therapy gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.78; studies = 4, participants = 3843; very low-certainty evidence).Hypofractionation probably results in little or no difference to late radiation therapy genitourinary (GU) toxicity (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.18; studies = 4, participants = 3843; moderate-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 262 per 1000 late GU radiation therapy toxicity events with conventional fractionation and 13 more (18 fewer to 47 more) per 1000 men when undergoing hypofractionation.Secondary outcomesHypofractionation results in little or no difference in overall survival (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.07; 10 studies, 8243 participants; high-certainty evidence). For men in the intermediate-risk group undergoing conventional fractionation this corresponds to 869 per 1000 men alive after 6 years and 17 fewer (54 fewer to 17 more) participants alive per 1000 men when undergoing hypofractionation.Hypofractionation may result in little to no difference in metastasis-free survival (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.76; 5 studies, 4985 participants; low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 981 men per 1000 men metastasis-free at 6 years when undergoing conventional fractionation and 5 more (58 fewer to 19 more) metastasis-free per 1000 when undergoing hypofractionation.Hypofractionation likely results in a small, possibly unimportant reduction in biochemical recurrence-free survival based on Phoenix criteria (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.13; studies = 5, participants = 2889; median follow-up 90 months to 108 months; moderate-certainty evidence). In men of the intermediate-risk group, this corresponds to 804 biochemical-recurrence free men per 1000 participants at six years with conventional fractionation and 42 fewer (134 fewer to 37 more) recurrence-free men per 1000 participants with hypofractionationHypofractionation likely results in little to no difference to acute GU radiation therapy toxicity (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.11; 4 studies, 4174 participants at 12 to 18 weeks' follow-up; moderate-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 360 episodes of toxicity per 1000 participants with conventional fractionation and 11 more (18 fewer to 40 more) per 1000 when undergoing hypofractionation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS These findings suggest that moderate hypofractionation (up to a fraction size of 3.4 Gy) results in similar oncologic outcomes in terms of disease-specific, metastasis-free and overall survival. There appears to be little to no increase in both acute and late toxicity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brigid E Hickey
- Princess Alexandra HospitalRadiation Oncology Mater Service31 Raymond TerraceBrisbaneQueenslandAustralia4101
- The University of QueenslandSchool of MedicineBrisbaneAustralia
| | - Melissa L James
- Christchurch HospitalCanterbury Regional Cancer and Haematology ServicePrivate Bag 4710ChristchurchNew Zealand8140
| | - Tiffany Daly
- Princess Alexandra HospitalRadiation Oncology Mater Service31 Raymond TerraceBrisbaneQueenslandAustralia4101
| | - Feng‐Yi Soh
- NHS HighlandDepartment of Clinical OncologyInvernessUK
| | - Mark Jeffery
- Christchurch HospitalCanterbury Regional Cancer and Haematology ServicePrivate Bag 4710ChristchurchNew Zealand8140
| | | |
Collapse
|
18
|
[Moderate or extreme hypofractionation and localized prostate cancer: The times are changing]. Cancer Radiother 2019; 23:503-509. [PMID: 31471253 DOI: 10.1016/j.canrad.2019.07.139] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/04/2019] [Revised: 07/08/2019] [Accepted: 07/09/2019] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
There are many treatment options for localized prostate cancers, including active surveillance, brachytherapy, external beam radiotherapy, and radical prostatectomy. Quality of life remains a primary objective in the absence of superiority of one strategy over another in terms of specific survival with similar long-term biochemical control rates. Despite a significant decrease in digestive and urinary toxicities thanks to IMRT and IGRT, external radiotherapy remains a treatment that lasts approximately 2 months or 1.5 months, when combined with a brachytherapy boost. Given the specific radiosensitivity of this tumor, several randomized studies have shown that a hypofractionated scheme is not inferior in terms of biochemical control and toxicities, allowing to divide the number of fractions by a factor 2 to 8. Given that SBRT becomes a validated therapeutic option for a selected population of patients with localized prostate cancer, extreme hypofractionation is becoming a strong challenger of conventional external radiotherapy or brachytherapy.
Collapse
|
19
|
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW To summarize recent evidence concerning the use of moderately hypofractionated external beam radiotherapy, defined as 2.4-3.4 Gy per fraction, and ultrahypofractionated external beam radiotherapy (also known as stereotactic body radiotherapy [SBRT]), defined as at least 5 Gy per fraction, in men with localized prostate cancer. RECENT FINDINGS Taken together, a number of recently completed randomized trials show that moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy confers similar biochemical control compared to conventionally fractionated radiotherapy without increasing late toxicity. These effects appear to extend across all baseline clinical risk groups. Several single-arm phase II studies, as well as a recently published large-scale randomized trial comparing SBRT with conventional fractionation, show very promising biochemical control and favorable acute and late treatment-related morbidity with the use of SBRT in predominantly low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. As it is associated with similar prostate cancer control and toxicity while improving patient convenience and reducing cost, moderate hypofractionation is a preferred alternative to conventional fractionation in a majority of men with localized prostate cancer choosing radiotherapy as their primary treatment modality. To date, studies conducted largely in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer report encouraging oncologic outcomes and acceptable toxicity with SBRT. Mature results of phase III trials evaluating five-fraction SBRT regimens are eagerly awaited.
Collapse
|
20
|
Hatano K, Tohyama N, Kodama T, Okabe N, Sakai M, Konoeda K. Current status of intensity‐modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer: History, clinical results and future directions. Int J Urol 2019; 26:775-784. [DOI: 10.1111/iju.14011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/28/2019] [Accepted: 04/07/2019] [Indexed: 01/05/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Kazuo Hatano
- Division of Radiation Oncology Tokyo‐Bay Advanced Imaging & Radiation Oncology Clinic/Makuhari Chiba Japan
| | - Naoki Tohyama
- Division of Radiation Oncology Tokyo‐Bay Advanced Imaging & Radiation Oncology Clinic/Makuhari Chiba Japan
| | - Takashi Kodama
- Division of Radiation Oncology Tokyo‐Bay Advanced Imaging & Radiation Oncology Clinic/Makuhari Chiba Japan
| | - Naoyuki Okabe
- Division of Radiation Oncology Tokyo‐Bay Advanced Imaging & Radiation Oncology Clinic/Makuhari Chiba Japan
| | - Mitsuhiro Sakai
- Division of Radiation Oncology Tokyo‐Bay Advanced Imaging & Radiation Oncology Clinic/Makuhari Chiba Japan
| | - Koichi Konoeda
- Division of Radiation Oncology Tokyo‐Bay Advanced Imaging & Radiation Oncology Clinic/Makuhari Chiba Japan
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Recent advances in radiation oncology: multimodal targeting of high risk and recurrent prostate cancer. Curr Opin Oncol 2019; 30:165-171. [PMID: 29465428 DOI: 10.1097/cco.0000000000000440] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW The overview summarizes recent developments in radiation oncology for high risk and recurrent prostate cancer. RECENT FINDINGS A number of well known phase III prostate hypofractionated radiation therapy (HFxRT) trials were finally published with long-term follow-ups. These trials demonstrate patterns of equivalent tumor control with several showing worse toxicity rates. The ASCENDE-RT randomized trial demonstrated the superiority of brachytherapy boost in intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer. Important randomized trials show a clear benefit to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in both intermediate-risk prostate cancer and postprostatectomy patients with rising PSA. Finally, the first randomized trial of metastasis-directed therapy showed a delay in time to ADT and biochemical failures in oligometastatic prostate cancer. SUMMARY The use of brachytherapy boost in high-risk disease and ADT in locally recurrent cancer after prostatectomy are practice changing given the magnitude of benefit seen in the randomized trials. The benefit of metastasis-directed therapy in oligometastatic prostate cancer must be validated in a larger randomized trial. However, hypofractionated radiation therapy requires further long-term follow-up so that late toxicity risk can be accurately assessed before it becomes a standard of care in prostate cancer.
Collapse
|
22
|
Moderate Hypofractionation in Intermediate- and High-Risk, Localized Prostate Cancer: Health-Related Quality of Life From the Randomized, Phase 3 HYPRO Trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019; 103:823-833. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.11.020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/30/2018] [Revised: 11/06/2018] [Accepted: 11/11/2018] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
|
23
|
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
|
24
|
The Financial Impact of Hypofractionated Radiation for Localized Prostate Cancer in the United States. JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY 2019; 2019:8170428. [PMID: 30719039 PMCID: PMC6334370 DOI: 10.1155/2019/8170428] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/21/2018] [Revised: 11/13/2018] [Accepted: 11/27/2018] [Indexed: 01/02/2023]
Abstract
Background Until recently, dose intensified radiotherapy was the standard radiation method for localized prostate cancer. Multiple studies have demonstrated similar efficacy and tolerability with moderate hypofractionation. In recent years there has been an increasing focus placed on understanding the cost and value of cancer care. In this study we aimed to assess the economic impact of moderate hypofractionation for payers in the United States. Methods We performed a population-based analysis of the total cost of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for localized prostate cancer in the US annually. The national annual target population of patients treated with definitive EBRT was calculated using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Treatment costs for various fractionation schemes were based on billing codes and 2018 pricing by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Results We estimate that 27,146 patients with localized prostate cancer are treated with EBRT annually in the US. The cost of standard fractionation in 45 or 39 fractions is US$ 26,782 and 23,625 per patient, respectively. With moderate hypofractionation in 28 or 20 fractions, the cost is US$ 17,793 and 13,402 per patient, respectively. The use of moderate hypofractionation would lead to 25-50% annual savings US$158,315,472-US$363,213,480 in the US. Conclusions Moderate hypofractionation may have the potential to save approximately US$0.16-0.36 billion annually, likely without impacting survival or tolerability. This may lead to lower personal financial toxicity. It would be reasonable for public and private payers to consider which type of radiation is most suited to reimbursement.
Collapse
|
25
|
Pellizzon ACA. Are we ready to use hypofractionated instead of conventional radiotherapy for prostate cancer? Not yet. Int Braz J Urol 2019; 45:5-9. [PMID: 30860337 PMCID: PMC6442146 DOI: 10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2018.0734] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
|
26
|
Jereczek-Fossa BA, Maucieri A, Marvaso G, Gandini S, Fodor C, Zerini D, Riva G, Alessandro O, Surgo A, Volpe S, Fanetti G, Arculeo S, Zerella MA, Parisi S, Maisonneuve P, Vavassori A, Cattani F, Cambria R, Garibaldi C, Starzyńska A, Musi G, De Cobelli O, Ferro M, Nolè F, Ciardo D, Orecchia R. Impact of image guidance on toxicity and tumour outcome in moderately hypofractionated external-beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Med Oncol 2018; 36:9. [PMID: 30483899 DOI: 10.1007/s12032-018-1233-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/02/2018] [Accepted: 11/22/2018] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
To report toxicity and efficacy outcome of moderately hypofractionated image-guided external-beam radiotherapy in a large series of patients treated for prostate cancer (PCa). Between 10/2006 and 12/2015, 572 T1-T3N0M0 PCa patients received 70.2 Gy in 26 fractions at 2.7 Gy/fraction: 344 patients (60%) with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and 228 (40%) with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer criteria and Houston definition (nadir + 2) were used for toxicity and biochemical failure evaluation, respectively. Median age was 74 years (interquartile range 69-77). Compared with 3D-CRT, in IMRT group more high-risk patients (29% vs 18%; P = 0.002) and more high-volume target (75% vs 60%; P < 0.001) were included. Acute gastro-intestinal (GI) toxicity G > 1 were registered in 8% and in 11% IMRT and 3D-CRT patients, respectively, whereas late GI G > 1 were observed in 2% and 16% IMRT and 3D-CRT patients, respectively. Acute genito-urinary (GU) toxicity G > 1 were registered in 26% and 40% IMRT and 3D-CRT patients, respectively, whereas late GU G > 1 occurred in 5% IMRT and 15% 3D-CRT patients. Multivariate proportional hazard Cox models confirmed significantly greater risk of late toxicity with 3D-CRT compared to IMRT for GU > 1 (P = 0.004) and for GI > 1 (P < 0.001). With a median 4-year follow-up, overall survival (OS), clinical progression-free survival (cPFS) and biochemical PFS (bPFS) for the whole series were 91%, 92% and 91%, respectively. cPFS and bPFS were significantly different by risk groups. Multivariate Cox models for bPFS and cPFS showed no difference between irradiation techniques and a significant impact of risk group and initial PSA. Moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy is a viable treatment option for localized PCa with excellent tumour control and satisfactory toxicity profile. IMRT seems associated with a reduction in toxicity, whereas tumour control was equal between IMRT and 3D-CRT patients and depended mainly on the risk category.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B A Jereczek-Fossa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.,Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - A Maucieri
- Department of Radiation Oncology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - G Marvaso
- Department of Radiation Oncology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
| | - S Gandini
- Department of Experimental Oncology, European Institute of Oncology, Via Adamello 16, 20139, Milan, Italy
| | - C Fodor
- Department of Radiation Oncology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - D Zerini
- Department of Radiation Oncology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - G Riva
- Department of Radiation Oncology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.,Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - O Alessandro
- Department of Radiation Oncology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.,Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - A Surgo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - S Volpe
- Department of Radiation Oncology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.,Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - G Fanetti
- Department of Radiation Oncology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - S Arculeo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.,Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - M A Zerella
- Department of Radiation Oncology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.,Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - S Parisi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - P Maisonneuve
- Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - A Vavassori
- Department of Radiation Oncology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - F Cattani
- Unit of Medical Physics, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - R Cambria
- Unit of Medical Physics, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - C Garibaldi
- Radiation Research Unit, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - A Starzyńska
- Department of Oral Surgery, Medical University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland
| | - G Musi
- Department of Urology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - O De Cobelli
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.,Department of Urology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - M Ferro
- Department of Urology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - F Nolè
- Medical Oncology Division of Urogenital and Head and Neck Tumours, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - D Ciardo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - R Orecchia
- Scientific Directorate, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Morgan SC, Hoffman K, Loblaw DA, Buyyounouski MK, Patton C, Barocas D, Bentzen S, Chang M, Efstathiou J, Greany P, Halvorsen P, Koontz BF, Lawton C, Leyrer CM, Lin D, Ray M, Sandler H. Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: An ASTRO, ASCO, and AUA Evidence-Based Guideline. J Clin Oncol 2018; 36:JCO1801097. [PMID: 30307776 PMCID: PMC6269129 DOI: 10.1200/jco.18.01097] [Citation(s) in RCA: 106] [Impact Index Per Article: 17.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Scott C. Morgan
- Scott C. Morgan, The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa; D. Andrew Loblaw, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Karen Hoffman, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Mark K. Buyyounouski, Stanford University, Stanford; Palto Alto VA Health System, Palo Alto, CA; Caroline Patton, American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, VA; Daniel Barocas, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; Soren Bentzen, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Michael Chang, Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center and Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA; Jason Efstathiou, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston MA; Patrick Greany, Patient representative, Tallahassee, FL; Per Halvorsen, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA; Bridget F. Koontz, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Colleen Lawton, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; C. Marc Leyrer, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC; Daniel Lin, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Michael Ray, Radiology Associates of Appleton, ThedaCare Regional Cancer Center, Appleton, WI; and Howard Sandler, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Karen Hoffman
- Scott C. Morgan, The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa; D. Andrew Loblaw, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Karen Hoffman, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Mark K. Buyyounouski, Stanford University, Stanford; Palto Alto VA Health System, Palo Alto, CA; Caroline Patton, American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, VA; Daniel Barocas, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; Soren Bentzen, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Michael Chang, Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center and Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA; Jason Efstathiou, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston MA; Patrick Greany, Patient representative, Tallahassee, FL; Per Halvorsen, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA; Bridget F. Koontz, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Colleen Lawton, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; C. Marc Leyrer, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC; Daniel Lin, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Michael Ray, Radiology Associates of Appleton, ThedaCare Regional Cancer Center, Appleton, WI; and Howard Sandler, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | - D. Andrew Loblaw
- Scott C. Morgan, The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa; D. Andrew Loblaw, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Karen Hoffman, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Mark K. Buyyounouski, Stanford University, Stanford; Palto Alto VA Health System, Palo Alto, CA; Caroline Patton, American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, VA; Daniel Barocas, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; Soren Bentzen, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Michael Chang, Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center and Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA; Jason Efstathiou, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston MA; Patrick Greany, Patient representative, Tallahassee, FL; Per Halvorsen, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA; Bridget F. Koontz, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Colleen Lawton, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; C. Marc Leyrer, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC; Daniel Lin, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Michael Ray, Radiology Associates of Appleton, ThedaCare Regional Cancer Center, Appleton, WI; and Howard Sandler, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Mark K. Buyyounouski
- Scott C. Morgan, The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa; D. Andrew Loblaw, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Karen Hoffman, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Mark K. Buyyounouski, Stanford University, Stanford; Palto Alto VA Health System, Palo Alto, CA; Caroline Patton, American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, VA; Daniel Barocas, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; Soren Bentzen, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Michael Chang, Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center and Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA; Jason Efstathiou, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston MA; Patrick Greany, Patient representative, Tallahassee, FL; Per Halvorsen, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA; Bridget F. Koontz, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Colleen Lawton, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; C. Marc Leyrer, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC; Daniel Lin, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Michael Ray, Radiology Associates of Appleton, ThedaCare Regional Cancer Center, Appleton, WI; and Howard Sandler, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Caroline Patton
- Scott C. Morgan, The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa; D. Andrew Loblaw, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Karen Hoffman, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Mark K. Buyyounouski, Stanford University, Stanford; Palto Alto VA Health System, Palo Alto, CA; Caroline Patton, American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, VA; Daniel Barocas, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; Soren Bentzen, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Michael Chang, Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center and Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA; Jason Efstathiou, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston MA; Patrick Greany, Patient representative, Tallahassee, FL; Per Halvorsen, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA; Bridget F. Koontz, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Colleen Lawton, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; C. Marc Leyrer, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC; Daniel Lin, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Michael Ray, Radiology Associates of Appleton, ThedaCare Regional Cancer Center, Appleton, WI; and Howard Sandler, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Daniel Barocas
- Scott C. Morgan, The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa; D. Andrew Loblaw, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Karen Hoffman, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Mark K. Buyyounouski, Stanford University, Stanford; Palto Alto VA Health System, Palo Alto, CA; Caroline Patton, American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, VA; Daniel Barocas, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; Soren Bentzen, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Michael Chang, Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center and Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA; Jason Efstathiou, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston MA; Patrick Greany, Patient representative, Tallahassee, FL; Per Halvorsen, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA; Bridget F. Koontz, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Colleen Lawton, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; C. Marc Leyrer, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC; Daniel Lin, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Michael Ray, Radiology Associates of Appleton, ThedaCare Regional Cancer Center, Appleton, WI; and Howard Sandler, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Soren Bentzen
- Scott C. Morgan, The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa; D. Andrew Loblaw, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Karen Hoffman, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Mark K. Buyyounouski, Stanford University, Stanford; Palto Alto VA Health System, Palo Alto, CA; Caroline Patton, American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, VA; Daniel Barocas, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; Soren Bentzen, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Michael Chang, Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center and Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA; Jason Efstathiou, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston MA; Patrick Greany, Patient representative, Tallahassee, FL; Per Halvorsen, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA; Bridget F. Koontz, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Colleen Lawton, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; C. Marc Leyrer, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC; Daniel Lin, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Michael Ray, Radiology Associates of Appleton, ThedaCare Regional Cancer Center, Appleton, WI; and Howard Sandler, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Michael Chang
- Scott C. Morgan, The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa; D. Andrew Loblaw, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Karen Hoffman, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Mark K. Buyyounouski, Stanford University, Stanford; Palto Alto VA Health System, Palo Alto, CA; Caroline Patton, American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, VA; Daniel Barocas, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; Soren Bentzen, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Michael Chang, Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center and Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA; Jason Efstathiou, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston MA; Patrick Greany, Patient representative, Tallahassee, FL; Per Halvorsen, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA; Bridget F. Koontz, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Colleen Lawton, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; C. Marc Leyrer, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC; Daniel Lin, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Michael Ray, Radiology Associates of Appleton, ThedaCare Regional Cancer Center, Appleton, WI; and Howard Sandler, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Jason Efstathiou
- Scott C. Morgan, The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa; D. Andrew Loblaw, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Karen Hoffman, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Mark K. Buyyounouski, Stanford University, Stanford; Palto Alto VA Health System, Palo Alto, CA; Caroline Patton, American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, VA; Daniel Barocas, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; Soren Bentzen, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Michael Chang, Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center and Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA; Jason Efstathiou, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston MA; Patrick Greany, Patient representative, Tallahassee, FL; Per Halvorsen, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA; Bridget F. Koontz, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Colleen Lawton, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; C. Marc Leyrer, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC; Daniel Lin, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Michael Ray, Radiology Associates of Appleton, ThedaCare Regional Cancer Center, Appleton, WI; and Howard Sandler, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Patrick Greany
- Scott C. Morgan, The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa; D. Andrew Loblaw, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Karen Hoffman, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Mark K. Buyyounouski, Stanford University, Stanford; Palto Alto VA Health System, Palo Alto, CA; Caroline Patton, American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, VA; Daniel Barocas, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; Soren Bentzen, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Michael Chang, Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center and Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA; Jason Efstathiou, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston MA; Patrick Greany, Patient representative, Tallahassee, FL; Per Halvorsen, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA; Bridget F. Koontz, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Colleen Lawton, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; C. Marc Leyrer, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC; Daniel Lin, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Michael Ray, Radiology Associates of Appleton, ThedaCare Regional Cancer Center, Appleton, WI; and Howard Sandler, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Per Halvorsen
- Scott C. Morgan, The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa; D. Andrew Loblaw, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Karen Hoffman, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Mark K. Buyyounouski, Stanford University, Stanford; Palto Alto VA Health System, Palo Alto, CA; Caroline Patton, American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, VA; Daniel Barocas, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; Soren Bentzen, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Michael Chang, Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center and Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA; Jason Efstathiou, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston MA; Patrick Greany, Patient representative, Tallahassee, FL; Per Halvorsen, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA; Bridget F. Koontz, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Colleen Lawton, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; C. Marc Leyrer, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC; Daniel Lin, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Michael Ray, Radiology Associates of Appleton, ThedaCare Regional Cancer Center, Appleton, WI; and Howard Sandler, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Bridget F. Koontz
- Scott C. Morgan, The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa; D. Andrew Loblaw, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Karen Hoffman, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Mark K. Buyyounouski, Stanford University, Stanford; Palto Alto VA Health System, Palo Alto, CA; Caroline Patton, American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, VA; Daniel Barocas, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; Soren Bentzen, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Michael Chang, Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center and Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA; Jason Efstathiou, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston MA; Patrick Greany, Patient representative, Tallahassee, FL; Per Halvorsen, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA; Bridget F. Koontz, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Colleen Lawton, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; C. Marc Leyrer, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC; Daniel Lin, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Michael Ray, Radiology Associates of Appleton, ThedaCare Regional Cancer Center, Appleton, WI; and Howard Sandler, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Colleen Lawton
- Scott C. Morgan, The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa; D. Andrew Loblaw, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Karen Hoffman, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Mark K. Buyyounouski, Stanford University, Stanford; Palto Alto VA Health System, Palo Alto, CA; Caroline Patton, American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, VA; Daniel Barocas, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; Soren Bentzen, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Michael Chang, Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center and Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA; Jason Efstathiou, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston MA; Patrick Greany, Patient representative, Tallahassee, FL; Per Halvorsen, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA; Bridget F. Koontz, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Colleen Lawton, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; C. Marc Leyrer, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC; Daniel Lin, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Michael Ray, Radiology Associates of Appleton, ThedaCare Regional Cancer Center, Appleton, WI; and Howard Sandler, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | - C. Marc Leyrer
- Scott C. Morgan, The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa; D. Andrew Loblaw, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Karen Hoffman, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Mark K. Buyyounouski, Stanford University, Stanford; Palto Alto VA Health System, Palo Alto, CA; Caroline Patton, American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, VA; Daniel Barocas, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; Soren Bentzen, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Michael Chang, Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center and Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA; Jason Efstathiou, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston MA; Patrick Greany, Patient representative, Tallahassee, FL; Per Halvorsen, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA; Bridget F. Koontz, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Colleen Lawton, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; C. Marc Leyrer, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC; Daniel Lin, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Michael Ray, Radiology Associates of Appleton, ThedaCare Regional Cancer Center, Appleton, WI; and Howard Sandler, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Daniel Lin
- Scott C. Morgan, The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa; D. Andrew Loblaw, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Karen Hoffman, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Mark K. Buyyounouski, Stanford University, Stanford; Palto Alto VA Health System, Palo Alto, CA; Caroline Patton, American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, VA; Daniel Barocas, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; Soren Bentzen, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Michael Chang, Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center and Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA; Jason Efstathiou, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston MA; Patrick Greany, Patient representative, Tallahassee, FL; Per Halvorsen, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA; Bridget F. Koontz, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Colleen Lawton, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; C. Marc Leyrer, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC; Daniel Lin, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Michael Ray, Radiology Associates of Appleton, ThedaCare Regional Cancer Center, Appleton, WI; and Howard Sandler, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Michael Ray
- Scott C. Morgan, The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa; D. Andrew Loblaw, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Karen Hoffman, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Mark K. Buyyounouski, Stanford University, Stanford; Palto Alto VA Health System, Palo Alto, CA; Caroline Patton, American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, VA; Daniel Barocas, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; Soren Bentzen, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Michael Chang, Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center and Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA; Jason Efstathiou, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston MA; Patrick Greany, Patient representative, Tallahassee, FL; Per Halvorsen, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA; Bridget F. Koontz, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Colleen Lawton, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; C. Marc Leyrer, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC; Daniel Lin, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Michael Ray, Radiology Associates of Appleton, ThedaCare Regional Cancer Center, Appleton, WI; and Howard Sandler, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Howard Sandler
- Scott C. Morgan, The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa; D. Andrew Loblaw, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Karen Hoffman, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Mark K. Buyyounouski, Stanford University, Stanford; Palto Alto VA Health System, Palo Alto, CA; Caroline Patton, American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, VA; Daniel Barocas, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; Soren Bentzen, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Michael Chang, Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center and Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA; Jason Efstathiou, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston MA; Patrick Greany, Patient representative, Tallahassee, FL; Per Halvorsen, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA; Bridget F. Koontz, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Colleen Lawton, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; C. Marc Leyrer, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC; Daniel Lin, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Michael Ray, Radiology Associates of Appleton, ThedaCare Regional Cancer Center, Appleton, WI; and Howard Sandler, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Catton CN, Lukka H, Martin J. Prostate Cancer Radiotherapy: An Evolving Paradigm. J Clin Oncol 2018; 36:2909-2913. [PMID: 30138084 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2018.79.3257] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/28/2022] Open
Abstract
The Oncology Grand Rounds series is designed to place original reports published in the Journal into clinical context. A case presentation is followed by a description of diagnostic and management challenges, a review of the relevant literature, and a summary of the authors' suggested management approaches. The goal of this series is to help readers better understand how to apply the results of key studies, including those published in Journal of Clinical Oncology, to patients seen in their own clinical practice. A urologist referred a 69-year-old man for a radiotherapy opinion regarding a recently diagnosed adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Annual serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing over 7 years demonstrated a rise in PSA from 1.36 ng/mL to 5.8 ng/mL, prompting a transrectal ultrasound that revealed a heterogeneous 37-mL gland containing no visualized hypoechoic nodules. Biopsy disclosed a Gleason score 3+4 (grade group 2) adenocarcinoma of the prostate. The synoptic report stated that six of 14 cores and 17% of the tissue were involved, with the greatest core involvement being 80% at the right apex. Perineural invasion was present without lymphovascular invasion. Disease was present bilaterally at the base, midgland, and apex.His medical history was significant only for treated peptic ulcer disease and he was taking no medication. His International Prostate Symptom Score was six of 35, and he reported being sexually active with good erectile function. There was no family history of prostate cancer. He is retired. Digital rectal examination revealed moderate benign prostatic hypertrophy with no suspicious nodules. A staging computerized tomography (CT) scan of the abdomen and pelvis and a whole-body bone scan ordered by his referring urologist reported no evidence of metastatic disease. The patient had discussed surgical options with his urologist and now wished to consider radiotherapy approaches.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Charles N Catton
- Charles N. Catton, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Himu Lukka, Juravinsiki Regional Cancer Centre and McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; and Jarad Martin, Calvary Mater Hospital and University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Himu Lukka
- Charles N. Catton, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Himu Lukka, Juravinsiki Regional Cancer Centre and McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; and Jarad Martin, Calvary Mater Hospital and University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Jarad Martin
- Charles N. Catton, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Himu Lukka, Juravinsiki Regional Cancer Centre and McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; and Jarad Martin, Calvary Mater Hospital and University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Williams JP, Newhauser W. Normal tissue damage: its importance, history and challenges for the future. Br J Radiol 2018; 92:20180048. [PMID: 29616836 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20180048] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Sir Oliver Scott, a philanthropist and radiation biologist and, therefore, the epitome of a gentleman and a scholar, was an early Director of the BECC Radiobiology Research Unit at Mount Vernon. His tenure preceded that of Jack Fowler, with both contributing to basic, translational and clinical thought and application in radiation across the globe. With respect to this review, Fowler's name in particular has remained synonymous with the use of models, both animal and mathematical, that assess and quantify the biological mechanisms that underlie radiation-associated normal tissue toxicities. An understanding of these effects is critical to the optimal use of radiation therapy in the clinic; however, the role that basic sciences play in clinical practice has been undergoing considerable change in recent years, particularly in the USA, where there has been a growing emphasis on engineering and imaging to improve radiation delivery, with empirical observations of clinical outcome taking the place of models underpinned by evidence from basic science experiments. In honour of Scott and Fowler's work, we have taken this opportunity to review how our respective fields of radiation biology and radiation physics have intertwined over the years, affecting the clinical use of radiation with respect to normal tissue outcomes. We discuss the past and current achievements, with the hope of encouraging a revived interest in physics and biology as they relate to radiation oncology practice, since, like Scott and Fowler, we share the goal of improving the future outlook for cancer patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jacqueline P Williams
- Departments of Environmental Medicine and Radiation Oncology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - Wayne Newhauser
- Department of Physics and Astronomy, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Patient-reported urinary incontinence after radiotherapy for prostate cancer: Quantifying the dose–effect. Radiother Oncol 2017; 125:101-106. [DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2017.07.029] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/13/2017] [Revised: 07/27/2017] [Accepted: 07/28/2017] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
|
31
|
Datta NR, Stutz E, Rogers S, Bodis S. Conventional Versus Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Localized or Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis along with Therapeutic Implications. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2017; 99:573-589. [PMID: 29280452 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.07.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 54] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/30/2017] [Revised: 07/14/2017] [Accepted: 07/18/2017] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the therapeutic outcomes of conventional radiation therapy (CRT) and hypofractionated radiation therapy (HRT) for localized or locally advanced prostate cancer (LLPCa). METHODS AND MATERIALS A total of 599 abstracts were extracted from 5 databases and screened in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Only phase III trials randomized between CRT and HRT in LLPCa with a minimum of 5 years of follow-up data were considered. The evaluated endpoints were biochemical failure, biochemical and/or clinical failure, overall mortality, prostate cancer-specific mortality, and both acute and late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) (grade ≥2) toxicity. RESULTS Ten trials from 9 studies, with a total of 8146 patients (CRT, 3520; HRT, 4626; 1 study compared 2 HRT schedules with a common CRT regimen), were included in the evaluation. No significant differences were found in the patient characteristics between the 2 arms. However, the RT parameters differed significantly between CRT and HRT (P<.001 for all). The use of androgen deprivation therapy varied from 0% to 100% in both groups (mean ± standard deviation 43.3% ± 43.6% for CRT vs HRT; P=NS). The odds ratio, risk ratio, and risk difference (RD) between CRT and HRT for biochemical failure, biochemical and/or clinical failure, overall mortality, prostate cancer-specific mortality, acute GU toxicity, and late GU and GI toxicities were all nonsignificant. Nevertheless, the incidence of acute GI toxicity was 9.1% less with CRT (RD 0.091; odds ratio 1.687; risk ratio 1.470; P<.001 for all). On subgroup analysis, the patient groups with ≤66.8% versus >66.8% androgen deprivation therapy (RD 0.052 vs 0.136; P=.008) and <76% versus ≥76% full seminal vesicles in the clinical target volume (RD 0.034 vs 0.108; P<.001) were found to significantly influence the incidence of acute GI toxicity with HRT. CONCLUSIONS HRT provides similar therapeutic outcomes to CRT in LLPCa, except for a significantly greater risk of acute GI toxicity. HRT enables a reduction in the overall treatment time and offers patient convenience. However, the variables contributing to an increased risk of acute GI toxicity require careful consideration.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Niloy R Datta
- Center for Radiation Oncology KSA-KSB, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland.
| | - Emanuel Stutz
- Center for Radiation Oncology KSA-KSB, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland
| | - Susanne Rogers
- Center for Radiation Oncology KSA-KSB, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland
| | - Stephan Bodis
- Center for Radiation Oncology KSA-KSB, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland; Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Understanding Urinary Toxicity after Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: First Steps Forward. TUMORI JOURNAL 2017; 103:395-404. [DOI: 10.5301/tj.5000681] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 08/21/2017] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
Abstract
One of the most relevant achievements of Professor Gianni Bonadonna was the implementation of the methodology of controlled clinical trials in medical oncology. It is valid for all cancer types, oncological disciplines and clinical endpoints, both survival and toxicity. This narrative review reports on the status of the current knowledge of the radiation-induced urinary syndrome after external-beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer. In recent years, the syndrome has been the object of large-scale prospective observational trials specifically devoted to investigating the association of patient and treatment features with acute/late urinary toxicity. The first results of these trials allow initial attempts at predictive modeling, which can serve as a basis for the optimization of patient selection and treatment planning.
Collapse
|
33
|
Hsiao CP, Chen MK, Meyers KJ, Saligan LN. Symptoms predicting health-related quality of life in prostate cancer patients treated with localized radiation therapy. Fam Med Community Health 2017; 5:119-128. [PMID: 30263893 PMCID: PMC6155995 DOI: 10.15212/fmch.2017.0133] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/01/2023] Open
Abstract
Objective Patient-reported health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) measures can provide guidance for treatment decision making, symptom management, and discharge planning. HRQOL is often influenced by the distress experienced by patients from disease or treatment-related symptoms. This study aimed to identify symptoms that can predict changes in HRQOL in men undergoing external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for nonmetastatic prostate cancer (NMPC). Methods Fifty-one men with NMPC scheduled for EBRT were assessed at the baseline, at the midpoint of EBRT, and at the end of EBRT. All participants received 38–42 daily doses of EBRT (five times a week), depending on the stage of their disease. Validated questionnaires were administered to evaluate depressive symptoms, urinary and sexual functions, bowel issues, symptom-related distress, fatigue, and HRQOL. Pearson correlations, repeated-measures ANOVA, and multiple regressions examined the relationships among variables. Results Intensification of symptoms and increased symptom-related distress, with a corresponding decline in HRQOL, were observed during EBRT in men with NMPC. Changes in symptoms and symptom distress were associated with changes in HRQOL at the midpoint of EBRT (r=−0.37 to −0.6, P=0.05) and at the end of EBRT (r=−0.3 to −0.47, P=0.01) compared with the baseline. The regression model comprising age, body mass index, Gleason score, T category, androgen-deprivation therapy use, radiation dose received, symptoms (urinary/sexual/bowel problems, fatigue), and overall symptom distress explained 70% of the variance in predicting HRQOL. Urinary problems and fatigue significantly predicted the decline in HRQOL during EBRT. Conclusion Identifying specific symptoms that can influence HRQOL during EBRT for NMPC can provide feasible interventional targets to improve treatment outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chao-Pin Hsiao
- The Frances Payne Bolton School of Nursing, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Mea-Kuang Chen
- University of Arizona, 3009 E 4th St. Tucson, AZ 85716, USA
| | - Kathy J Meyers
- The Frances Payne Bolton School of Nursing, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Leorey N Saligan
- National Institute of Nursing Research, Division of Intramural Research, National Institutes of Health, 9000 Rockville Pike, Building 3, Room 5E14, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Quality of life outcomes from a dose-per-fraction escalation trial of hypofractionation in prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 2016; 118:99-104. [PMID: 26755165 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2015.12.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/23/2015] [Revised: 12/07/2015] [Accepted: 12/08/2015] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This multi-institutional phase I/II trial explored patient-assessed tolerance of increasingly hypofractionated (HPFX) radiation for low/intermediate risk prostate cancer. METHODS 347 patients enrolled from 2002 to 2010. Three increasing dose-per-fraction schedules of 64.7 Gy/22 fx, 58.08 Gy/16 fx and 51.6 Gy/12 fx were each designed to yield equivalent predicted late toxicity. Three quality of life (QoL) surveys were administered prior to treatment and annually upto 3 years. RESULTS Bowel QoL data at 3years revealed no significant difference among regimens (p=0.469). Bowel QoL for all regimens declined transiently, largely recovering by three years, with only the 22 fraction decrement reaching significance. Bladder outcomes at 3 years were comparable (p=0.343) although, for all patients combined, a significant decline was observed from the baseline (p=0.008). Spitzer quality of life data revealed similarly excellent, 3-year means (p=0.188). International erectile function data also revealed no significant differences at 3 years although all measures except intercourse satisfaction worsened post-treatment. CONCLUSIONS Three-year QoL changes for bowel, bladder and SQLI were modest and similar for 3 HPFX regimens spanning 2.94-4.3 Gy per fraction. These favorable patient-scored outcomes demonstrate the safety and tolerability of such regimens and may be leveraged to support further implementation of mild to moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy in the setting of low and intermediate-risk prostate cancer.
Collapse
|