Are We Now Able to Define Guidelines for Moderate Hypofractionation in Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy?

Image-guided moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: a multicentric retrospective study (IPOPROMISE)

BACKGROUND

Moderate hypofractionated radiotherapy is a treatment option for the cure of localized prostate cancer (PCa) patients based on the results of randomized prospective trials, but there is a clinical concern about the relatively short length of follow-up, and real-world results on outcome and toxicity based on cutting-edge techniques are lacking. The objective of this study is to present the long-term results of a large multicentric series.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 1325 PCa patients treated with daily volumetric image-guided hypofractionated radiotherapy between 2007 and 2020 in 16 Centers. For survival endpoints, we used Kaplan-Meier survival curves and fitted univariate and multivariable Cox's proportional hazards regression models to study the association between the clinical variables and each survival type.

RESULTS

At the end of the follow-up, 11 patients died from PCa. The 15-year values of cancer-specific survival (CSS) and biochemical relapse-free survival (b-RFS) were 98.5% (95%CI 97.3-99.6%) and 85.5% (95%CI 81.9-89.4%), respectively. The multivariate analysis showed that baseline PSA, Gleason score, and the use of androgen deprivation therapy were significant variables for all the outcomes. Acute gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities of grade ≥ 2 were 7.0% and 16.98%, respectively. The 15-year late grade ≥ 2 GI and GU toxicities were 5% (95%CI 4-6%) and 6% (95%CI 4-8%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Real-world long-term results of this multicentric study on cutting-edge techniques for the cure of localized PCa demonstrated an excellent biochemical-free survival rate of 85.5% at 15 years, and very low rates of ≥ G3 late GU and GI toxicity (1.6% and 0.9% respectively), strengthening the results of the available published trials.

Hypofractionated Radiotherapy in Localized, Low-Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: Current and Future Prospectives

At the time of diagnosis, the vast majority of prostate carcinoma patients have a clinically localized form of the disease, with most of them presenting with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer. In this setting, various curative-intent alternatives are available, including surgery, external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy. Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that moderate hypofractionated radiotherapy can be considered as a valid alternative strategy for localized prostate cancer. High-dose-rate brachytherapy can be administered according to different schedules. Proton beam radiotherapy represents a promising strategy, but further studies are needed to make it more affordable and accessible. At the moment, new technologies such as MRI-guided radiotherapy remain in early stages, but their potential abilities are very promising.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Practical considerations for prostate hypofractionation in the developing world

External beam radiotherapy is an effective curative treatment option for localized prostate cancer, the most common cancer in men worldwide. However, conventionally fractionated courses of curative external beam radiotherapy are usually 8-9 weeks long, resulting in a substantial burden to patients and the health-care system. This problem is exacerbated in low-income and middle-income countries where health-care resources might be scarce and patient funds limited. Trials have shown a clinical equipoise between hypofractionated schedules of radiotherapy and conventionally fractionated treatments, with the advantage of drastically shortening treatment durations with the use of hypofractionation. The hypofractionated schedules are supported by modern consensus guidelines for implementation in clinical practice. Furthermore, several economic evaluations have shown improved cost effectiveness of hypofractionated therapy compared with conventional schedules. However, these techniques demand complex infrastructure and advanced personnel training. Thus, a number of practical considerations must be borne in mind when implementing hypofractionation in low-income and middle-income countries, but the potential gain in the treatment of this patient population is substantial.

Moderately Hypofractionated Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy With Simultaneous Integrated Boost for Prostate Cancer: Five-Year Toxicity Results From a Prospective Phase I/II Trial

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.

Stereotactic radiotherapy for prostate bed recurrence after prostatectomy, a multicentric series

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety and effectiveness of stereotactic salvage radiotherapy (SSRT) in RT-naïve patients affected by macroscopic prostate bed recurrence.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients treated for prostate bed macroscopic recurrence in three different Italian institutes were reviewed. Patients were treated with SSRT, with a total dose of 30-40 Gy in five fractions, the mean pre-SSRT PSA level was 2.3 ng/mL. Two different PSA thresholds were defined and biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS) was reported, in order to better express outcome: BCRFS1 (a PSA level increase of >10% compared to the pre-SSRT value) and BCRFS2 (a PSA level increase of >0.2 ng/mL for patients with a PSA nadir of <0.2 ng/mL or two consecutive PSA level increases of >25% compared to nadir in patients with a PSA nadir of <0.2 ng/mL).

RESULTS

In all, 90 patients were treated, with a mean (range) follow-up of 21.2 (2-64) months, and 17 of these patients (19%) had concomitant androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) during SSRT. Complete biochemical response, defined as a PSA nadir of <0.2 ng/mL, was obtained in 39 of the 90 patients (43.3%). Considering BCRFS1, 25 patients (27.8%) had BCR, with an actuarial median BCRFS1 time of 36.4 months. For BCRFS2, BCR was reported in 32 patients (35.5%), with an actuarial median BCRFS2 time of 24.3 months. There was no Grade >2 toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

SSRT was found to yield significant biochemical control and allowed ADT delay despite adverse features.

Moderate hypofractionated radiotherapy vs conventional fractionated radiotherapy in localized prostate cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis from Phase III randomized trials

Purpose

To determine the efficacy and late toxicities of moderate (2.5–4 Gy) hypofractionated radiotherapy (H-RT) in localized prostate cancer, a meta-analysis of published randomized clinical trials comparing moderate H-RT with conventional fractionated RT (C-RT) was performed.

Materials and methods

Systematic search on published randomized clinical trials in English according to Cochrane review guidelines in databases of Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, web of science, and Wiley Online Library was carried out. Outcomes of interests were biochemical and clinical disease failure (BCDF), biochemical failure (BF), overall survival (OS), and late toxicities.

Results

Seven of the 365 studies fulfilled inclusion criteria with 8,156 participants. Compared with C-RT, moderate H-RT showed a lower BF rate (risk ratio [RR] =0.80, 95% CI: 0.68–0.95, P=0.009), while did not improve OS (RR =0.68, 95% CI: 0.78–1.02, P=0.10). There was no significant difference in BCDF rates between H-RT and C-RT (RR =0.92, 95% CI: 0.82–1.02, P=0.12). The H-RT was deeply grouped into dose-escalated H-RT (with a higher biologically effective dose [BED_1.5] than C-RT) and no dose-escalated H-RT; dose-escalated H-RT significantly decreased BCDF rate compared with C-RT (RR =0.84, 95% CI: 0.73–0.96, P=0.01). Regarding late toxicities, there is no significant difference in late gastrointestinal (GI; RR =0.97, 95% CI: 0.71–1.33, P=0.85) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities (RR =1.04, 95% CI: 0.87–1.24, P=0.69). When subgrouped into dose-escalated H-RT (with a higher BED₅ compared with C-RT) and no dose-escalated H-RT, dose-escalated H-RT increased GI toxicity (RR =1.62, 95% CI: 1.26–2.09, P=0.0002) and GU toxicity (RR =1.28, 95% CI: 1.05–1.55, P=0.01), while no dose-escalated H-RT significantly lowered GI toxicity (RR =0.81, 95% CI: 0.70–0.94, P=0.005) and placed no influence on GU toxicity (RR =1.02, 95% CI: 0.88–1.20, P=0.77).

Conclusion

This meta-analysis provides reliable evidence that moderate H-RT decreases BF rate, while does not improve OS. Compared with C-RT, H-RT with an increase in BED_1.5 improved BCDF rates significantly, and accordingly, an increase in BED₅ will result in elevated late GI and GU toxicities.