1
|
Glicksman RM, Loblaw A, Morton G, Vesprini D, Szumacher E, Chung HT, Chu W, Liu SK, Tseng CL, Davidson M, Deabreu A, Mamedov A, Zhang L, Cheung P. Elective pelvic nodal irradiation in the setting of ultrahypofractionated versus moderately hypofractionated and conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: Outcomes from 3 prospective clinical trials. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2024; 49:100843. [PMID: 39318680 PMCID: PMC11419892 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2024.100843] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/21/2024] [Revised: 08/11/2024] [Accepted: 08/15/2024] [Indexed: 09/26/2024] Open
Abstract
Background and purpose Data is needed regarding the use of ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy (UHRT) in the context of prostate cancer elective nodal irradiation (ENI), and how this compares to conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT) ENI with CFRT or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (MHRT) to the prostate. Materials and methods Between 2011-2019, 3 prospective clinical trials of unfavourable intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer receiving CFRT (78 Gy in 39 fractions to prostate; 46 Gy in 23 fractions to pelvis), MHRT (68 Gy in 25 fractions to prostate; 48 Gy to pelvis), or UHRT (35-40 Gy in 5 fractions to prostate +/- boost to 50 Gy to intraprostatic lesion; 25 Gy to pelvis) were conducted. Primary endpoints included biochemical failure (Phoenix definition), and acute and late toxicities (CTCAE v3.0/4.0). Results Two-hundred-forty patients were enrolled: 90 (37.5 %) had CFRT, 90 (37.5 %) MHRT, and 60 (25 %) UHRT. Median follow-up time was 71.6 months (IQR 53.6-94.8). Cumulative incidence of biochemical failure (95 % CI) at 5-years was 11.7 % (3.5-19.8 %) for CFRT, 6.5 % (0.8-12.2 %) MHRT, and 1.8 % (0-5.2 %) UHRT, which was not significantly different between treatments (p = 0.38). Acute grade ≥ 2 genitourinary toxicity was significantly worse for UHRT versus CFRT and MHRT, but not for acute grade ≥ 3 genitourinary, or acute gastrointestinal toxicities. UHRT was not associated with worse late toxicities. Conclusion ENI with UHRT resulted in similar oncologic outcomes to CFRT ENI with prostate CFRT/MHRT, with worse acute grade ≥ 2 GU toxicity but no differences in late toxicity. Randomized phase 3 trials of ENI using UHRT techniques are much anticipated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rachel M. Glicksman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
- Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
| | - Andrew Loblaw
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Gerard Morton
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada
| | - Danny Vesprini
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada
| | - Ewa Szumacher
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada
| | - Hans T. Chung
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada
| | - William Chu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada
| | - Stanley K. Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada
| | - Chia-Lin Tseng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada
| | - Melanie Davidson
- Department of Medical Physics, Kelowna General Hospital, BC Cancer, Kelowna, Canada
| | - Andrea Deabreu
- Clinical Trials and Epidemiology Program, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada
| | - Alexandre Mamedov
- Clinical Trials and Epidemiology Program, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada
| | - Liying Zhang
- Clinical Trials and Epidemiology Program, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada
| | - Patrick Cheung
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Corrao G, Marvaso G, Mastroleo F, Biffi A, Pellegrini G, Minari S, Vincini MG, Zaffaroni M, Zerini D, Volpe S, Gaito S, Mazzola GC, Bergamaschi L, Cattani F, Petralia G, Musi G, Ceci F, De Cobelli O, Orecchia R, Alterio D, Jereczek-Fossa BA. Photon vs proton hypofractionation in prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiother Oncol 2024; 195:110264. [PMID: 38561122 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110264] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/14/2023] [Revised: 03/21/2024] [Accepted: 03/24/2024] [Indexed: 04/04/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND High-level evidence on hypofractionated proton therapy (PT) for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) patients is currently missing. The aim of this study is to provide a systematic literature review to compare the toxicity and effectiveness of curative radiotherapy with photon therapy (XRT) or PT in PCa. METHODS PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched up to April 2022. Men with a diagnosis of PCa who underwent curative hypofractionated RT treatment (PT or XRT) were included. Risk of grade (G) ≥ 2 acute and late genitourinary (GU) OR gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity were the primary outcomes of interest. Secondary outcomes were five-year biochemical relapse-free survival (b-RFS), clinical relapse-free, distant metastasis-free, and prostate cancer-specific survival. Heterogeneity between study-specific estimates was assessed using Chi-square statistics and measured with the I2 index (heterogeneity measure across studies). RESULTS A total of 230 studies matched inclusion criteria and, due to overlapped populations, 160 were included in the present analysis. Significant lower rates of G ≥ 2 acute GI incidence (2 % vs 7 %) and improved 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival (95 % vs 91 %) were observed in the PT arm compared to XRT. PT benefits in 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival were maintained for the moderate hypofractionated arm (p-value 0.0122) and among patients in intermediate and low-risk classes (p-values < 0.0001 and 0.0368, respectively). No statistically relevant differences were found for the other considered outcomes. CONCLUSION The present study supports that PT is safe and effective for localized PCa treatment, however, more data from RCTs are needed to draw solid evidence in this setting and further effort must be made to identify the patient subgroups that could benefit the most from PT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Giulia Corrao
- Division of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy; Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Giulia Marvaso
- Division of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy; Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Federico Mastroleo
- Division of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy; Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Annalisa Biffi
- National Centre of Healthcare Research and Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy; Unit of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Public Health, Department of Statistics and Quantitative Methods, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
| | - Giacomo Pellegrini
- National Centre of Healthcare Research and Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy; Unit of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Public Health, Department of Statistics and Quantitative Methods, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
| | - Samuele Minari
- National Centre of Healthcare Research and Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
| | - Maria Giulia Vincini
- Division of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
| | - Mattia Zaffaroni
- Division of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
| | - Dario Zerini
- Division of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Stefania Volpe
- Division of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy; Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Simona Gaito
- Proton Clinical Outcomes Unit, The Christie NHS Proton Beam Therapy Centre, Manchester, UK; Division of Clinical Cancer Science, School of Medical Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | | | - Luca Bergamaschi
- Division of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Federica Cattani
- Unit of Medical Physics, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Petralia
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy; Division of Radiology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Gennaro Musi
- Division of Urology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Francesco Ceci
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy; Division of Nuclear Medicine and Theranostics, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Ottavio De Cobelli
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy; Division of Urology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Roberto Orecchia
- Scientific Directorate, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Daniela Alterio
- Division of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Barbara Alicja Jereczek-Fossa
- Division of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy; Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Gonsalves D, Ocanto A, Meilan E, Gomez A, Dominguez J, Torres L, Pascual CF, Teja M, Linde MM, Guijarro M, Rivas D, Begara J, González JA, Andreescu J, Holgado E, Alcaraz D, López E, Dzhugashvli M, Lopez-Campos F, Alongi F, Couñago F. Feasibility and Acute Toxicity of Hypo-Fractionated Radiotherapy on 0.35T MR-LINAC: The First Prospective Study in Spain. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16:1685. [PMID: 38730637 PMCID: PMC11083553 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16091685] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/23/2024] [Revised: 04/10/2024] [Accepted: 04/24/2024] [Indexed: 05/13/2024] Open
Abstract
This observational, descriptive, longitudinal, and prospective basket-type study (Registry #5289) prospectively evaluated the feasibility and acute toxicity of hypo-fractionated radiotherapy on the first 0.35T MR-LINAC in Spain. A total of 37 patients were included between August and December 2023, primarily with prostate tumors (59.46%), followed by pancreatic tumors (32.44%). Treatment regimens typically involved extreme hypo-fractionated radiotherapy, with precise dose delivery verified through quality assurance measures. Acute toxicity assessment at treatment completion revealed manageable cystitis, with one case persisting at the three-month follow-up. Gastrointestinal toxicity was minimal. For pancreatic tumors, daily adaptation of organ-at-risk (OAR) and gross tumor volume (GTV) was practiced, with median doses to OAR within acceptable limits. Three patients experienced gastrointestinal toxicity, mainly nausea. Overall, the study demonstrates the feasibility and safety of extreme hypo-fractionated radiotherapy on a 0.35T MR-LINAC, especially for challenging anatomical sites like prostate and pancreatic tumors. These findings support the feasibility of MR-LINAC-based radiotherapy in delivering precise treatments with minimal toxicity, highlighting its potential for optimizing cancer treatment strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniela Gonsalves
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario San Francisco de Asís, GenesisCare, 28002 Madrid, Spain; (A.O.); (L.T.); (C.F.P.); (M.T.); (M.M.L.); (M.G.); (F.C.)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario Vithas La Milagrosa, GenesisCare, 28010 Madrid, Spain; (E.M.); (A.G.); (M.D.); (F.L.-C.)
- Facultad de Medicina Salud y Deporte, Universidad Europea de Madrid, 28670 Madrid, Spain
| | - Abrahams Ocanto
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario San Francisco de Asís, GenesisCare, 28002 Madrid, Spain; (A.O.); (L.T.); (C.F.P.); (M.T.); (M.M.L.); (M.G.); (F.C.)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario Vithas La Milagrosa, GenesisCare, 28010 Madrid, Spain; (E.M.); (A.G.); (M.D.); (F.L.-C.)
| | - Eduardo Meilan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario Vithas La Milagrosa, GenesisCare, 28010 Madrid, Spain; (E.M.); (A.G.); (M.D.); (F.L.-C.)
| | - Alberto Gomez
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario Vithas La Milagrosa, GenesisCare, 28010 Madrid, Spain; (E.M.); (A.G.); (M.D.); (F.L.-C.)
| | - Jesus Dominguez
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario Vithas La Milagrosa, GenesisCare, 28010 Madrid, Spain; (E.M.); (A.G.); (M.D.); (F.L.-C.)
| | - Lisselott Torres
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario San Francisco de Asís, GenesisCare, 28002 Madrid, Spain; (A.O.); (L.T.); (C.F.P.); (M.T.); (M.M.L.); (M.G.); (F.C.)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario Vithas La Milagrosa, GenesisCare, 28010 Madrid, Spain; (E.M.); (A.G.); (M.D.); (F.L.-C.)
| | - Castalia Fernández Pascual
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario San Francisco de Asís, GenesisCare, 28002 Madrid, Spain; (A.O.); (L.T.); (C.F.P.); (M.T.); (M.M.L.); (M.G.); (F.C.)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario Vithas La Milagrosa, GenesisCare, 28010 Madrid, Spain; (E.M.); (A.G.); (M.D.); (F.L.-C.)
| | - Macarena Teja
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario San Francisco de Asís, GenesisCare, 28002 Madrid, Spain; (A.O.); (L.T.); (C.F.P.); (M.T.); (M.M.L.); (M.G.); (F.C.)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario Vithas La Milagrosa, GenesisCare, 28010 Madrid, Spain; (E.M.); (A.G.); (M.D.); (F.L.-C.)
| | - Miguel Montijano Linde
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario San Francisco de Asís, GenesisCare, 28002 Madrid, Spain; (A.O.); (L.T.); (C.F.P.); (M.T.); (M.M.L.); (M.G.); (F.C.)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario Vithas La Milagrosa, GenesisCare, 28010 Madrid, Spain; (E.M.); (A.G.); (M.D.); (F.L.-C.)
| | - Marcos Guijarro
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario San Francisco de Asís, GenesisCare, 28002 Madrid, Spain; (A.O.); (L.T.); (C.F.P.); (M.T.); (M.M.L.); (M.G.); (F.C.)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario Vithas La Milagrosa, GenesisCare, 28010 Madrid, Spain; (E.M.); (A.G.); (M.D.); (F.L.-C.)
| | - Daniel Rivas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, GenesisCare Málaga, 29018 Madrid, Spain; (D.R.); (J.B.); (E.L.)
| | - Jose Begara
- Department of Radiation Oncology, GenesisCare Málaga, 29018 Madrid, Spain; (D.R.); (J.B.); (E.L.)
| | | | - Jon Andreescu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, GenesisCare Cordoba, 14012 Madrid, Spain;
| | - Esther Holgado
- Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario San Francisco de Asís, GenesisCare, 28002 Madrid, Spain; (E.H.); (D.A.)
| | - Diego Alcaraz
- Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario San Francisco de Asís, GenesisCare, 28002 Madrid, Spain; (E.H.); (D.A.)
| | - Escarlata López
- Department of Radiation Oncology, GenesisCare Málaga, 29018 Madrid, Spain; (D.R.); (J.B.); (E.L.)
| | - Maia Dzhugashvli
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario Vithas La Milagrosa, GenesisCare, 28010 Madrid, Spain; (E.M.); (A.G.); (M.D.); (F.L.-C.)
| | - Fernando Lopez-Campos
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario Vithas La Milagrosa, GenesisCare, 28010 Madrid, Spain; (E.M.); (A.G.); (M.D.); (F.L.-C.)
| | - Filippo Alongi
- Advanced Radiation Oncology Department, Cancer Care Center, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, 37024 Verona, Italy;
- Radiation Oncology School, University of Brescia, 25121 Brescia, Italy
| | - Felipe Couñago
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario San Francisco de Asís, GenesisCare, 28002 Madrid, Spain; (A.O.); (L.T.); (C.F.P.); (M.T.); (M.M.L.); (M.G.); (F.C.)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario Vithas La Milagrosa, GenesisCare, 28010 Madrid, Spain; (E.M.); (A.G.); (M.D.); (F.L.-C.)
- Facultad de Medicina Salud y Deporte, Universidad Europea de Madrid, 28670 Madrid, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Mohamad O, Zamboglou C, Zilli T, Murthy V, Aebersold DM, Loblaw A, Guckenberger M, Shelan M. Safety of Ultrahypofractionated Pelvic Nodal Irradiation in the Definitive Management of Prostate Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2024; 118:998-1010. [PMID: 37863241 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.09.053] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/31/2023] [Revised: 09/15/2023] [Accepted: 09/29/2023] [Indexed: 10/22/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the evidence for ultrahypofractionated pelvic nodal irradiation in patients with prostate cancer, with a focus on reported acute and late toxicities. METHODS AND MATERIALS A comprehensive search was conducted in 5 electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov) from inception until March 23, 2023. Eligible publications included patients with intermediate- and high-risk and node-positive prostate cancer who underwent elective or therapeutic ultrahypofractionated pelvic nodal irradiation. Primary outcomes included the presence of grade ≥2 rates of acute and late gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity based on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events or Radiation Therapy Oncology Group scales. Quality assessment was performed using National Institutes of Health tools for noncontrolled beforeand after (single arm) clinical trials, as well as single-arm observational studies. Because all outcomes were categorical variables, proportion was calculated to estimate the effect size and compare the outcomes after the intervention. RESULTS We identified 16 publications that reported the use of ultrahypofractionated radiation therapy to treat the pelvis in prostate cancer. Seven publications met our criteria and were included in the meta-analysis, including 417 patients. The median total dose to the pelvic lymph nodes was 25 Gy (range, 25-28.5 Gy), with a median of 5 fractions. The prostate received a median dose of 40 Gy (range, 35-47.5 Gy). All studies used androgen deprivation therapy for a median duration of 18 months. The median follow-up period was 3 years (range, 0.5-5.6 years). The rates of acute grade ≥2 gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity were 8% (95% CI, 1%-15%) and 29% (95% CI, 18%-41%), respectively. For late grade ≥2 gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity, the rates were 13% (95% CI, 5%-21%) and 29% (95% CI, 17%-42%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS Ultrahypofractionated pelvic nodal irradiation appears to be a safe approach in terms of acute and late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Osama Mohamad
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Constantinos Zamboglou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical Center - Uwniversity of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany; German Oncology Center, European University Cyprus, Limassol, Cyprus
| | - Thomas Zilli
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, EOC, Bellinzona, Switzerland; Faculty of Biomedical Sciences, Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano, Switzerland; Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Vedang Murthy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, ACTREC, Tata Memorial Centre and Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Mumbai, India
| | - Daniel M Aebersold
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland
| | - Andrew Loblaw
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Matthias Guckenberger
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zürich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Mohamed Shelan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Gomez-Iturriaga A, Büchser D, Lopez-Campos F, Maldonado X. Enhancing Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) integration in prostate cancer: Insights for Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) and brachytherapy modalities. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2024; 45:100733. [PMID: 38322544 PMCID: PMC10844661 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2024.100733] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/15/2023] [Revised: 01/17/2024] [Accepted: 01/21/2024] [Indexed: 02/08/2024] Open
Abstract
The utilization of Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) in conjunction with Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) and Brachytherapy (BT) boost in prostate cancer treatment is a subject of ongoing debate and evolving clinical practice. While contemporary trends lean towards underutilizing ADT with these modalities, existing evidence suggests that its omission may lead to potentially inferior oncologic outcomes. Recommendations for ADT use should be patient-centric, considering individual risk profiles and comorbidities, with a focus on achieving optimal oncologic outcomes while minimizing potential side effects. Ongoing clinical trials, such as PACE-C, SPA, SHIP 0804, and SHIP 36B, are anticipated to provide valuable insights into the optimal use and duration of ADT in both SBRT and BT settings. Until new evidence emerges, it is recommended to initiate ADT for unfavorable intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy, with a minimum duration of 6 months for unfavorable intermediate-risk patients and at least 12 months for those with high-risk characteristics. The decision to incorporate ADT into these radiation therapy modalities should be individualized, acknowledging the unique needs of each patient and emphasizing a tailored approach to achieve the best possible oncologic outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A. Gomez-Iturriaga
- Hospital Universitario Cruces/ Biobizkaia Health Research Institute, Radiation Oncology, Barakaldo, Spain
- Department of Surgery and Radiology and Physical Medicine, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, Spain
| | - D. Büchser
- Hospital Universitario Cruces/ Biobizkaia Health Research Institute, Radiation Oncology, Barakaldo, Spain
- Department of Surgery and Radiology and Physical Medicine, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, Spain
| | - F. Lopez-Campos
- Hospital Universitario Ramon y Cajal, Radiation Oncology, Madrid, Spain
| | - X. Maldonado
- Hospital Vall d́Hebron, Radiation Oncology, Barcelona, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Gao L, Wei R, Qin S, Tian Y, Xia W, Song Y, Wang S, Fang H, Tang Y, Jing H, Liu Y, Tang Y, Qi S, Chen B, Li Y, Xing N, Lu N. Adaptive ultra-hypofractionated whole-pelvic radiotherapy in high-risk and very high-risk prostate cancer on 1.5-Tesla MR-Linac: Estimated delivered dose and early toxicity results. Chronic Dis Transl Med 2024; 10:51-61. [PMID: 38450305 PMCID: PMC10914013 DOI: 10.1002/cdt3.114] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/09/2023] [Revised: 12/17/2023] [Accepted: 12/25/2023] [Indexed: 03/08/2024] Open
Abstract
Background Magnetic resonance (MR)-guided ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy with whole-pelvic irradiation (UHF-WPRT) is a novel approach to radiotherapy for patients with high-risk (HR) and very high-risk (VHR) prostate cancer (PCa). However, the inherent complexity of adaptive UHF-WPRT might inevitably result in longer on-couch time. We aimed to estimate the delivered dose, study the feasibility and safety of adaptive UHF-WPRT on a 1.5-Tesla MR-Linac. Methods Ten patients with clinical stage T3a-4N0-1M0-1c PCa, who consecutively received UHF-WPRT, were enrolled prospectively. The contours of the target and organ-at-risks on the position verification-MR (PV-MR), beam-on 3D-MR(Bn-MR), and post-MR (after radiotherapy delivery) were derived from the pre-MR data by deformable image registration. The physician then manually adjusted them, and dose recalculation was performed accordingly. GraphPad Prism 9 (GraphPad Prism Software Inc.) was utilized for conducting statistical analyses. Results In total, we collected 188 MR scans (50 pre-MR, 50 PV-MR, 44 Bn-MR, and 44 post-MR scans). With median 59 min, the mean prostate clinical target volume (CTV)-V100% was 98.59% ± 2.74%, and the mean pelvic CTVp-V100% relative percentages of all scans was 99.60% ± 1.18%. The median V29 Gy change in the rectal wall was -2% (-18% to 20%). With a median follow-up of 9 months, no patient had acute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grade 2 or more severe genitourinary (GU) or gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities (0%). Conclusion UHF-RT to the prostate and the whole pelvis with concomitant boost to positive nodes using an Adapt-To-Shape (ATS) workflow was technically feasible for patients with HR and VHR PCa, presenting only mild GU and GI toxicities. The estimated target dose during the beam-on phase was clinically acceptable based on the 3D-MR-based dosimetry analysis. Clinical trial registration Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2000033382.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Linrui Gao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer HospitalChinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical CollegeBeijingChina
| | - Ran Wei
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer HospitalChinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical CollegeBeijingChina
| | - Shirui Qin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer HospitalChinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical CollegeBeijingChina
| | - Yuan Tian
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer HospitalChinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical CollegeBeijingChina
| | - Wenlong Xia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer HospitalChinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical CollegeBeijingChina
| | - Yongwen Song
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer HospitalChinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical CollegeBeijingChina
| | - Shulian Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer HospitalChinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical CollegeBeijingChina
| | - Hui Fang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer HospitalChinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical CollegeBeijingChina
| | - Yu Tang
- GCP Center/Clinical Research Center, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer HospitalChinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical CollegeBeijingChina
| | - Hao Jing
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer HospitalChinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical CollegeBeijingChina
| | - Yueping Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer HospitalChinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical CollegeBeijingChina
| | - Yuan Tang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer HospitalChinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical CollegeBeijingChina
| | - Shunan Qi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer HospitalChinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical CollegeBeijingChina
| | - Bo Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer HospitalChinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical CollegeBeijingChina
| | - Yexiong Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer HospitalChinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical CollegeBeijingChina
| | - Nianzeng Xing
- Department of Urology, State Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer HospitalChinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical CollegeBeijingChina
| | - Ningning Lu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer HospitalChinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical CollegeBeijingChina
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Morgan SC, Hu C, Dess RT. A New Pos-SIB-ility for Prostate and Pelvic Nodal Radiation Therapy in High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2024; 118:63-65. [PMID: 38049229 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.08.060] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/18/2023] [Accepted: 08/25/2023] [Indexed: 12/06/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Scott C Morgan
- Division of Radiation Oncology, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Department of Oncology, Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Chen Hu
- Department of Oncology, Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Robert T Dess
- Department of Oncology, Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Tang T, Rodrigues G, Warner A, Bauman G. Long-Term Outcomes Following Fairly Brief Androgen Suppression and Stereotactic Radiation Therapy in High-Risk Prostate Cancer: Update From the FASTR/FASTR-2 Trials. Pract Radiat Oncol 2024; 14:e48-e56. [PMID: 37791942 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2023.08.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/03/2023] [Revised: 08/07/2023] [Accepted: 08/22/2023] [Indexed: 10/05/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE There is limited data on the long-term outcomes of ultrahypofractionated radiation therapy in high-risk prostate cancer. The FASTR and FASTR-2 trials were designed to assess the tolerability of stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) in this context. Herein, the long-term results are reported. METHODS AND MATERIALS Eligible patients had localized high-risk prostate cancer and were either ≥70 years old, had a score of ≥3 on the Vulnerable Elderly Scale, or declined standard therapy. Nineteen patients from a single institution were enrolled on FASTR between 2011 and 2015. They received 40 Gy to the prostate and 25 Gy to the pelvic lymph nodes in 5 weekly fractions, with 12 months of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Thirty patients from the same institution were enrolled on FASTR-2 between 2015 and 2017. They received 35 Gy to the prostate alone in 5 weekly fractions, with 18 months of ADT. Updated toxicity and outcomes were assessed retrospectively. Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated for biochemical failure-free survival, freedom from distant metastases, prostate cancer-specific survival, and overall survival. RESULTS Forty-four patients were eligible for analysis, 16 from FASTR and 28 from FASTR-2. Thirty-four patients (77%) were >70 years old. High-risk features included Gleason score ≥8 (n = 20, 46%), T3-T4 disease (n = 12, 27%), and baseline prostate-specific antigen > 20 (n = 22, 50%). Median follow-up was 6.4 years. The 5-year cumulative incidence of late grade ≥3 genitourinary/gastrointestinal toxicity was 32% in FASTR and 11% in FASTR-2. At 5 years, the combined rates of biochemical failure-free survival, freedom from distant metastases, prostate cancer-specific survival, and overall survival were 72%, 90%, 92%, and 83%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS SABR can be safely delivered in high-risk prostate cancer by optimizing technical delivery, particularly with adherence to strict dose constraints for organs at risk. The clinical outcomes in FASTR and FASTR-2 were largely comparable to more standard fractionation schemes plus ADT, but further modifications may improve disease control. Larger randomized trials are necessary to better understand the efficacy and tolerability of this approach.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Terence Tang
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, Western University and London Regional Cancer Program, London, Ontario, Canada
| | - George Rodrigues
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, Western University and London Regional Cancer Program, London, Ontario, Canada
| | - Andrew Warner
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, Western University and London Regional Cancer Program, London, Ontario, Canada
| | - Glenn Bauman
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, Western University and London Regional Cancer Program, London, Ontario, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Houlihan OA, Redmond K, Fairmichael C, Lyons CA, McGarry CK, Mitchell D, Cole A, O'Connor J, McMahon S, Irvine D, Hyland W, Hanna M, Prise KM, Hounsell AR, O'Sullivan JM, Jain S. A Randomized Feasibility Trial of Stereotactic Prostate Radiation Therapy With or Without Elective Nodal Irradiation in High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer (SPORT Trial). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:594-609. [PMID: 36893820 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.02.054] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/17/2022] [Revised: 02/06/2023] [Accepted: 02/25/2023] [Indexed: 03/11/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE The aim of this study was to establish the feasibility of a randomized clinical trial comparing SABR with prostate-only (P-SABR) or with prostate plus pelvic lymph nodes (PPN-SABR) in patients with unfavorable intermediate- or high-risk localized prostate cancer and to explore potential toxicity biomarkers. METHODS AND MATERIALS Thirty adult men with at least 1 of the following features were randomized 1:1 to P-SABR or PPN-SABR: clinical magnetic resonance imaging stage T3a N0 M0, Gleason score ≥7 (4+3), and prostate-specific antigen >20 ng/mL. P-SABR patients received 36.25 Gy/5 fractions/29 days, and PPN-SABR patients received 25 Gy/5 fractions to pelvic nodes, with the final cohort receiving a boost to the dominant intraprostatic lesion of 45 to 50 Gy. Phosphorylated gamma-H2AX (γH2AX) foci numbers, citrulline levels, and circulating lymphocyte counts were quantified. Acute toxicity information (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.03) was collected weekly at each treatment and at 6 weeks and 3 months. Physician-reported late Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) toxicity was recorded from 90 days to 36 months postcompletion of SABR. Patient-reported quality of life (Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite and International Prostate Symptom Score) scores were recorded with each toxicity time point. RESULTS The target recruitment was achieved, and treatment was successfully delivered in all patients. A total of 0% and 6.7% (P-SABR) and 6.7% and 20.0% (PPN-SABR) experienced acute grade ≥2 gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity, respectively. At 3 years, 6.7% and 6.7% (P-SABR) and 13.3% and 33.3% (PPN-SABR) had experienced late grade ≥2 GI and GU toxicity, respectively. One patient (PPN-SABR) had late grade 3 GU toxicity (cystitis and hematuria). No other grade ≥3 toxicity was observed. In addition, 33.3% and 60% (P-SABR) and 64.3% and 92.9% (PPN-SABR) experienced a minimally clinically important change in late Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite bowel and urinary summary scores, respectively. γH2AX foci numbers at 1 hour after the first fraction were significantly higher in the PPN-SABR arm compared with the P-SABR arm (P = .04). Patients with late grade ≥1 GI toxicity had significantly greater falls in circulating lymphocytes (12 weeks post-radiation therapy, P = .01) and a trend toward higher γH2AX foci numbers (P = .09) than patients with no late toxicity. Patients with late grade ≥1 bowel toxicity and late diarrhea experienced greater falls in citrulline levels (P = .05). CONCLUSIONS A randomized trial comparing P-SABR with PPN-SABR is feasible with acceptable toxicity. Correlations of γH2AX foci, lymphocyte counts, and citrulline levels with irradiated volume and toxicity suggest potential as predictive biomarkers. This study has informed a multicenter, randomized, phase 3 clinical trial in the United Kingdom.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Orla A Houlihan
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Northern Ireland Cancer Centre, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, Northern Ireland; Patrick G. Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland.
| | - Kelly Redmond
- Patrick G. Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland
| | - Ciaran Fairmichael
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Northern Ireland Cancer Centre, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, Northern Ireland; Patrick G. Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland
| | - Ciara A Lyons
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Northern Ireland Cancer Centre, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, Northern Ireland; Patrick G. Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland
| | - Conor K McGarry
- Department of Radiotherapy Medical Physics, Northern Ireland Cancer Centre, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, Northern Ireland
| | - Darren Mitchell
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Northern Ireland Cancer Centre, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, Northern Ireland
| | - Aidan Cole
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Northern Ireland Cancer Centre, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, Northern Ireland
| | - John O'Connor
- Patrick G. Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland
| | - Stephen McMahon
- Patrick G. Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland
| | - Denise Irvine
- Department of Radiotherapy Medical Physics, Northern Ireland Cancer Centre, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, Northern Ireland
| | - Wendy Hyland
- Department of Radiotherapy Medical Physics, Northern Ireland Cancer Centre, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, Northern Ireland
| | - Michael Hanna
- Northern Ireland Cancer Trials Network, Belfast City Hospital, Belfast, Northern Ireland
| | - Kevin M Prise
- Patrick G. Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland
| | - Alan R Hounsell
- Department of Radiotherapy Medical Physics, Northern Ireland Cancer Centre, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, Northern Ireland
| | - Joe M O'Sullivan
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Northern Ireland Cancer Centre, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, Northern Ireland
| | - Suneil Jain
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Northern Ireland Cancer Centre, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, Northern Ireland; Patrick G. Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Vesprini D, Pathmanathan A, Murthy V. Elective Nodal Irradiation: Old Game, New SPORT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:610-612. [PMID: 37739608 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.07.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/22/2023] [Accepted: 07/02/2023] [Indexed: 09/24/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Danny Vesprini
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
| | - Angela Pathmanathan
- Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| | - Vedang Murthy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital and Advanced Centre for Treatment Research and Education in Cancer (ACTREC), Homi Bhabha National Institute, (HBNI), Mumbai, India
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Wang F, Yao J, Chen J, Zeng H, Wang X. A pilot study of stereotactic body radiotherapy combined with pelvic radiotherapy and GTVp boost based on multiparameter magnetic resonance image in patients with high-risk prostate cancer. Medicine (Baltimore) 2023; 102:e35260. [PMID: 37773877 PMCID: PMC10545171 DOI: 10.1097/md.0000000000035260] [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: 05/25/2023] [Accepted: 08/25/2023] [Indexed: 10/01/2023] Open
Abstract
This pilot study aimed to explore the preliminary effects and safety of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) combined with preventive pelvic radiotherapy and primary gross tumor volumes (GTVp) boost in patients with high-risk prostate cancer based on multiparameter magnetic resonance image (mpMRI). Tumors were contoured as GTVp based on mpMRI. The prostate and proximal seminal vesicles were considered as the clinical target volume1. The pelvic lymphatic drainage area constituted clinical target volume 2. Radiation doses were 40Gy or 45Gy/5fractions to planning target volume of primary tumor, 37.5Gy/5f to prostate, seminal vesicle, and positive pelvic lymph nodes, and 25Gy/5f to pelvic synchronously. The treatment was delivered 3 times per week. Volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy were used to complete SBRT. The genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities were evaluated. Quality of life data was also captured. A total of 15 patients were enrolled in this study with a median age of 78 (56-87) from 2017 to 2020. All patients received SBRT. At 3 months after radiotherapy, the proportion of PSA < 0.006 ng/mL was 66.7% (10/15). The 2-year biochemical relapse-free survival was 93.3%. The incidence of grade 1 acute GU side effects was 80% (12/15); the incidence of acute grade 1 GI toxicity was 66.7% (10/15); and no grade 2 or higher acute GU and GI side effects was observed. Two patients presented with temporary late grade 2 GI toxicity. International Prostatic System Score increased rapidly after a transient increase at 1 week (P = .001). There were no significant differences in EORTC quality of life scores in all domains except global health status. In this pilot study, it was revealed that SBRT combined with preventive pelvic radiotherapy and GTVp boost based on mpMRI image was effective and well tolerated for patients with high-risk prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fang Wang
- Department of Abdominal Oncology, Cancer Center, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Jin Yao
- Department of Radiology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Junru Chen
- Department of Urology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Hao Zeng
- Department of Urology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Xin Wang
- Department of Abdominal Oncology, Cancer Center, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Center, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Two-fraction stereotactic ablative radiotherapy with simultaneous boost to MRI-defined dominant intra-prostatic lesion - Results from the 2SMART phase 2 trial. Radiother Oncol 2023; 181:109503. [PMID: 36754232 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109503] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/22/2022] [Revised: 01/24/2023] [Accepted: 01/25/2023] [Indexed: 02/09/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE This is the first report of the 2SMART Phase II trial evaluating the safety of two-fraction stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) with focal boost to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) defined dominant intra-prostatic lesion (DIL) for localised prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS Men with low or intermediate risk prostate cancer were eligible for the study. The gross tumour volume (GTV) was MRI-defined DIL, and the clinical target volume (CTV) was entire prostate gland. The planning target volume (PTV) was a 2 mm expansion anteroposterior and lateral, and 2.5 mm superoinferior. The prescribed dose was 32 Gy to GTV, and 26 Gy to CTV. Primary endpoint was minimal clinically important change (MCIC) in quality of life (QOL) within 3-months of SABR, assessed using the EPIC-26 questionnaire. Secondary endpoints were acute and late toxicities (assessed using CTCAEv4), PSA nadir, and biochemical failure (based on Phoenix criteria). RESULTS Thirty men were enrolled in the study - 2 (7%) had low-risk and 28 (93%) had intermediate risk prostate cancer. The median follow-up was 44 months (range:39-49 months). The median PSA nadir was 0.25 ng/mL, with median time to nadir of 37 months. One patient (3%) had biochemical failure at 44 months post-treatment. Ten (33%), six (20%), and three (10%) men had acute MCIC in urinary, bowel, and sexual QOL domains respectively. No acute or late grade ≥ 3 urinary or bowel toxicities were observed. CONCLUSION This novel protocol of two-fraction prostate SABR with MRI-defined DIL boost is a safe approach for dose-escalation, with minimal impact on acute QOL and no grade ≥ 3 toxicities.
Collapse
|
13
|
Recent Key Studies in Cancers of the Uterine Corpus and Cervix: New Updates in Immunotherapy, the Microbiome, Bone Density, Quantifying Lymphovascular Invasion, and Hypofractionated Pelvic Radiation Therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 115:269-275. [PMID: 36621226 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.07.1833] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/22/2022] [Accepted: 07/24/2022] [Indexed: 01/07/2023]
|
14
|
Lee JW, Chung MJ. Prostate only radiotherapy using external beam radiotherapy: A clinician's perspective. World J Clin Cases 2022; 10:10428-10434. [PMID: 36312490 PMCID: PMC9602254 DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i29.10428] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/06/2022] [Revised: 08/12/2022] [Accepted: 08/30/2022] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Prostate-only radiotherapy (PORT) is widely used as the definitive treatment for localized prostate cancer. Prostate cancer has an α/β ratio; therefore, radiotherapy (RT) with a large fraction size is biologically effective for tumor control. The current external beam RT technique for PORT has been improved from three-dimensional conformal RT to intensity-modulated, stereotactic body, and image-guided RTs. These methods are associated with reduced radiation exposure to normal tissues, decreasing urinary and bowel toxicity. Several trials have shown improved local control with dose escalation through the aforementioned methods, and the efficacy and safety of intensity-modulated and stereotactic body RTs have been proven. However, the management of RT in patients with prostate cancer has not been fully elucidated. As a clinician, there are several concerns regarding the RT volume and dose considering the patient's age and comorbidities. Therefore, this review aimed to discuss the radiobiological basis and external beam technical advancements in PORT for localized prostate cancer from a clinician's perspective.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeong Won Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Daegu Catholic University School of Medicine, Daegu 42472, South Korea
| | - Mi Joo Chung
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hanyang University Hanmaeum Changwon Hospital, Changwon 51139, South Korea
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Poon DMC, Yuan J, Yang B, Wong OL, Chiu ST, Chiu G, Cheung KY, Yu SK, Yung RWH. A Prospective Study of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) with Concomitant Whole-Pelvic Radiotherapy (WPRT) for High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer Patients Using 1.5 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Guidance: The Preliminary Clinical Outcome. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14143484. [PMID: 35884553 PMCID: PMC9321843 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14143484] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/11/2022] [Revised: 07/15/2022] [Accepted: 07/16/2022] [Indexed: 12/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Conventionally fractionated whole-pelvic nodal radiotherapy (WPRT) improves clinical outcome compared to prostate-only RT in high-risk prostate cancer (HR-PC). MR-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy (MRgSBRT) with concomitant WPRT represents a novel radiotherapy (RT) paradigm for HR-PC, potentially improving online image guidance and clinical outcomes. This study aims to report the preliminary clinical experiences and treatment outcome of 1.5 Tesla adaptive MRgSBRT with concomitant WPRT in HR-PC patients. Materials and methods: Forty-two consecutive HR-PC patients (72.5 ± 6.8 years) were prospectively enrolled, treated by online adaptive MRgSBRT (8 Gy(prostate)/5 Gy(WPRT) × 5 fractions) combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and followed up (median: 251 days, range: 20−609 days). Clinical outcomes were measured by gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Scale v. 5.0, patient-reported quality of life (QoL) with EPIC (Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite) questionnaire, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) responses. Results: All MRgSBRT fractions achieved planning objectives and dose specifications of the targets and organs at risk, and they were successfully delivered. The maximum cumulative acute GI/GU grade 1 and 2 toxicity rates were 19.0%/81.0% and 2.4%/7.1%, respectively. The subacute (>30 days) GI/GU grade 1 and 2 toxicity rates were 21.4%/64.3% and 2.4%/2.4%, respectively. No grade 3 toxicities were reported. QoL showed insignificant changes in urinary, bowel, sexual, and hormonal domain scores during the follow-up period. All patients had early post-MRgSBRT biochemical responses, while biochemical recurrence (PSA nadir + 2 ng/mL) occurred in one patient at month 18. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first prospective study that showed the clinical outcomes of MRgSBRT with concomitant WPRT in HR-PC patients. The early results suggested favorable treatment-related toxicities and encouraging patient-reported QoLs, but long-term follow-up is needed to confirm our early results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Darren M C Poon
- Comprehensive Oncology Centre, Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital, Happy Valley, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - Jing Yuan
- Research Department, Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital, Happy Valley, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - Bin Yang
- Medical Physics Department, Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital, Happy Valley, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - Oi-Lei Wong
- Research Department, Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital, Happy Valley, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - Sin-Ting Chiu
- Department of Radiotherapy, Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital, Happy Valley, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - George Chiu
- Department of Radiotherapy, Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital, Happy Valley, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - Kin-Yin Cheung
- Medical Physics Department, Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital, Happy Valley, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - Siu-Ki Yu
- Medical Physics Department, Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital, Happy Valley, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - Raymond W H Yung
- Research Department, Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital, Happy Valley, Hong Kong SAR, China
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Correa RJM, Loblaw A. Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy: Hitting Harder, Faster, and Smarter in High-Risk Prostate Cancer. Front Oncol 2022; 12:889132. [PMID: 35875062 PMCID: PMC9301671 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.889132] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/03/2022] [Accepted: 05/31/2022] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is a technologically sophisticated form of radiotherapy that holds significant potential to effectively treat high-risk prostate cancer (HRPC). Prostate SBRT has been the subject of intense investigation in the context of low- and intermediate-risk disease, but less so for HRPC. However, emerging data are demonstrating its potential to safely and efficiently delivery curative doses of radiotherapy, both to the prostate and elective lymph nodes. SBRT theoretically hits harder through radiobiological dose escalation facilitated by ultra-hypofractionation (UHRT), faster with only five treatment fractions, and smarter by using targeted, focal dose escalation to maximally ablate the dominant intraprostatic lesion (while maximally protecting normal tissues). To achieve this, advanced imaging modalities like magnetic resonance imaging and prostate specific membrane antigen positron emmission tomography (PSMA-PET) are leveraged in combination with cutting-edge radiotherapy planning and delivery technology. In this focused narrative review, we discuss key evidence and upcoming clinical trials evaluating SBRT for HRPC with a focus on dose escalation, elective nodal irradiation, and focal boost.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rohann J. M. Correa
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, Western University and London Health Sciences Centre, London, Canada
| | - Andrew Loblaw
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
- Department of Health Policy, Measurement and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
- *Correspondence: Andrew Loblaw,
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Murthy V, Adsul K, Maitre P, Singhla A, Singh P, Panigrahi G, Raveendran V, Phurailatpam R. Acute and late toxicity of prostate-only or pelvic SBRT in prostate cancer: A Comparative Study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022; 114:275-282. [PMID: 35724773 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.05.050] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/15/2022] [Revised: 05/13/2022] [Accepted: 05/28/2022] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To compare the urinary and gastrointestinal toxicity with or without the inclusion of pelvic nodal regions in patients treated with extreme hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer. METHODS Patients treated with definitive SBRT for non-metastatic adenocarcinoma prostate were identified from prospectively maintained institutional database, and details of radiotherapy volume, dose, acute and late adverse effects were analyzed. Symptoms of acute (within 90 days of completing SBRT) and late gastrointestinal and urinary toxicities were graded using CTCAE version 5.0. Each symptom was scored according to the worst reported grading during treatment and follow-up period. Cumulative toxicity rates between prostate-only SBRT (PO-SBRT) and whole pelvic SBRT (WP-SBRT) were compared using chi-square test. RESULTS Total 220 patients were analyzed (PO-SBRT=118, WP-SBRT=102), with a median follow-up of 28 months (IQR 14-40). Most patients had locally advanced disease (PO-SBRT 60% high risk and 40% intermediate risk, WP-SBRT 79% node positive and 21% high risk). Median SBRT dose was 36.25Gy (IQR 35-36.25) to the prostate (EQD2=90.6Gy, a/b=1.5Gy) and simultaneous integrated 25Gy to the pelvis (EQD2=46.3Gy) in five fractions on alternate days. No grade 3-4 acute toxicities were observed except one grade 3 urinary obstruction (PO-SBRT). WP-SBRT was associated with significantly higher acute grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicity (29.4% vs 14.7%, p=0.008) and late grade 2 urinary toxicity (45.6% vs 25.0%, p=0.003). Both the groups had low incidence of late grade 3 toxicities (urinary 2.5%, gastrointestinal 1%). CONCLUSION WP-SBRT was associated with significantly higher acute gastrointestinal and late urinary toxicity as compared to PO-SBRT, though overall incidence of severe toxicity was low.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Vysakh Raveendran
- Department of Medical Physics, Tata Memorial Hospital and Advanced Centre for Treatment Research and Education in Cancer (ACTREC), Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Mumbai, India
| | - Reena Phurailatpam
- Department of Medical Physics, Tata Memorial Hospital and Advanced Centre for Treatment Research and Education in Cancer (ACTREC), Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Mumbai, India
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Leung E, Gladwish AP, Davidson M, Taggar A, Velker V, Barnes E, Mendez L, Donovan E, Gien LT, Covens A, Vicus D, Kupets R, MacKay H, Han K, Cheung P, Zhang L, Loblaw A, D’Souza DP. Quality-of-Life Outcomes and Toxic Effects Among Patients With Cancers of the Uterus Treated With Stereotactic Pelvic Adjuvant Radiation Therapy: The SPARTACUS Phase 1/2 Nonrandomized Controlled Trial. JAMA Oncol 2022; 8:1-9. [PMID: 35420695 PMCID: PMC9011178 DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.0362] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Adjuvant radiation plays an important role in reducing locoregional recurrence in patients with uterine cancer. Although hypofractionated radiotherapy may benefit health care systems and the global community while decreasing treatment burden for patients traveling for daily radiotherapy, it has not been studied prospectively nor in randomized trials for treatment of uterine cancers, and the associated toxic effects and patient quality of life are unknown. OBJECTIVE To evaluate acute genitourinary and bowel toxic effects and patient-reported outcomes following stereotactic hypofractionated adjuvant radiation to the pelvis for treatment of uterine cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The Stereotactic Pelvic Adjuvant Radiation Therapy in Cancers of the Uterus (SPARTACUS) phase 1/2 nonrandomized controlled trial of patients accrued between May 2019 and August 2021 was conducted as a multicenter trial at 2 cancer centers in Ontario, Canada. In total, 61 patients with uterine cancer stages I through III after surgery entered the study. INTERVENTIONS Stereotactic adjuvant pelvic radiation to a dose of 30 Gy in 5 fractions administered every other day or once weekly. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Assessments of toxic effects and patient-reported quality of life (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaires C30 and endometrial EN24) were collected at baseline, fractions 3 and 5, and at 6 weeks and 3 months of follow-up. Descriptive analysis was conducted, calculating means, SDs, medians, IQRs, and ranges for continuous variables and proportions for categorical variables. Univariate generalized linear mixed models were generated for repeated measurements on the quality-of-life scales. RESULTS A total of 61 patients were enrolled (median age, 66 years; range, 51-88 years). Tumor histologic results included 39 endometrioid adenocarcinoma, 15 serous or clear cell, 3 carcinosarcoma, and 4 dedifferentiated. Sixteen patients received sequential chemotherapy, and 9 received additional vault brachytherapy. Median follow-up was 9 months (IQR, 3-15 months). Of 61 patients, worst acute gastrointestinal tract toxic effects of grade 1 were observed in 33 patients (54%) and of grade 2 in 8 patients (13%). For genitourinary worst toxic effects, grade 1 was observed in 25 patients (41%) and grade 2 in 2 patients (3%). One patient (1.6%) had an acute grade 3 gastrointestinal tract toxic effect of diarrhea at fraction 5 that resolved at follow-up. Only patient-reported diarrhea scores were both clinically (scores ≥10) and statistically significantly worse at fraction 5 (mean [SD] score, 35.76 [26.34]) compared with baseline (mean [SD] score, 6.56 [13.36]; P < .001), but this symptom improved at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Results of this phase 1/2 nonrandomized controlled trial suggest that stereotactic hypofractionated radiation was well tolerated at short-term follow-up for treatment of uterine cancer. Longer follow-up and future randomized studies are needed to further evaluate this treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04866394.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eric Leung
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Adam P. Gladwish
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Royal Victoria Hospital, University of Toronto, Barrie, Ontario, Canada
| | - Melanie Davidson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Amandeep Taggar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Vikram Velker
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, London Health Sciences Centre, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
| | - Elizabeth Barnes
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Lucas Mendez
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, London Health Sciences Centre, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
| | - Elysia Donovan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Lilian T. Gien
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Allan Covens
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Danielle Vicus
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Rachel Kupets
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Helen MacKay
- Divison of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Kathy Han
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Patrick Cheung
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Liying Zhang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Andrew Loblaw
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - David P. D’Souza
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, London Health Sciences Centre, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Spohn SKB, Adebahr S, Huber M, Jenkner C, Wiehle R, Nagavci B, Schmucker C, Carl EG, Chen RC, Weber WA, Mix M, Rühle A, Sprave T, Nicolay NH, Gratzke C, Benndorf M, Wiegel T, Weis J, Baltas D, Grosu AL, Zamboglou C. Feasibility, pitfalls and results of a structured concept-development phase for a randomized controlled phase III trial on radiotherapy in primary prostate cancer patients. BMC Cancer 2022; 22:337. [PMID: 35351058 PMCID: PMC8960686 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-022-09434-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/23/2021] [Accepted: 03/09/2022] [Indexed: 11/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective Failure rate in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is > 50%, includes safety-problems, underpowered statistics, lack of efficacy, lack of funding or insufficient patient recruitment and is even more pronounced in oncology trials. We present results of a structured concept-development phase (CDP) for a phase III RCT on personalized radiotherapy (RT) in primary prostate cancer (PCa) patients implementing prostate specific membrane antigen targeting positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET). Materials and methods The 1 yr process of the CDP contained five main working packages: (i) literature search and scoping review, (ii) involvement of individual patients, patients’ representatives and patients’ self-help groups addressing the patients’ willingness to participate in the preparation process and the conduct of RCTs as well as the patient informed consent (PIC), (iii) involvement of national and international experts and expert panels (iv) a phase II pilot study investigating the safety of implementation of PSMA-PET for focal dose escalation RT and (v) in-silico RT planning studies assessing feasibility of envisaged dose regimens and effects of urethral sparing in focal dose escalation. Results (i) Systematic literature searches confirmed the high clinical relevance for more evidence on advanced RT approaches, in particular stereotactic body RT, in high-risk PCa patients. (ii) Involvement of patients, patient representatives and randomly selected males relevantly changed the PIC and initiated a patient empowerment project for training of bladder preparation. (iii) Discussion with national and international experts led to adaptions of inclusion and exclusion criteria. (iv) Fifty patients were treated in the pilot trial and in- and exclusion criteria as well as enrollment calculations were adapted accordingly. Parallel conduction of the pilot trial revealed pitfalls on practicability and broadened the horizon for translational projects. (v) In-silico planning studies confirmed feasibility of envisaged dose prescription. Despite large prostate- and boost-volumes of up to 66% of the prostate, adherence to stringent anorectal dose constraints was feasible. Urethral sparing increased the therapeutic ratio. Conclusion The dynamic framework of interdisciplinary working programs in CDPs enhances robustness of RCT protocols and may be associated with decreased failure rates. Structured recommendations are warranted to further define the process of such CDPs in radiation oncology trials. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09434-2.
Collapse
|
20
|
Phuong C, Chan JW, Ni L, Wall P, Mohamad O, Wong AC, Hsu IC, Chang AJ. Safety of accelerated hypofractionated whole pelvis radiation therapy prior to high dose rate brachytherapy or stereotactic body radiation therapy prostate boost. Radiat Oncol 2022; 17:12. [PMID: 35057827 PMCID: PMC8772149 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-021-01976-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/23/2021] [Accepted: 12/23/2021] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
21
|
Hannan R, Salamekh S, Desai NB, Garant A, Folkert MR, Costa DN, Mannala S, Ahn C, Mohamad O, Laine A, Kim DWN, Dickinson T, Raj GV, Shah RB, Wang J, Jia X, Choy H, Roehrborn CG, Lotan Y, Timmerman RD. SAbR for High-Risk Prostate Cancer-A Prospective Multilevel MRI-Based Dose Escalation Trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021; 113:290-301. [PMID: 34774676 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.10.137] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/04/2021] [Revised: 09/15/2021] [Accepted: 10/18/2021] [Indexed: 12/27/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Radiation dose intensification improves outcome in men with high-risk prostate cancer (HR-PCa). A prospective trial was conducted to determine safety, feasibility, and maximal tolerated dose of multilevel magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based 5-fraction SAbR in patients with HR-PCa. METHODS AND MATERIALS This phase I clinical trial enrolled patients with HR-PCa with grade group ≥4, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≥20 ng/mL, or radiographic ≥T3, and well-defined prostatic lesions on multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) into 4 dose-escalation cohorts. The initial cohort received 47.5 Gy to the prostate, 50 Gy to mpMRI-defined intraprostatic lesion(s), and 22.5 Gy to pelvic lymph nodes in 5 fractions. Radiation doses were escalated for pelvic nodes to 25 Gy and mpMRI lesion(s) to 52.5 Gy and then 55 Gy. Escalation was performed sequentially according to rule-based trial design with 7 to 15 patients per cohort and a 90-day observation period. All men received peri-rectal hydrogel spacer, intraprostatic fiducial placement, and 2 years of androgen deprivation. The primary endpoint was maximal tolerated dose according to a 90-day acute dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) rate <33%. DLT was defined as National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events ≥grade 3 treatment-related toxicity. Secondary outcomes included acute and delayed gastrointestinal (GI)/genitourinary (GU) toxicity graded with Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events. RESULTS Fifty-five of the 62 enrolled patients were included in the analysis. Dose was escalated through all 4 cohorts without observing any DLTs. Median overall follow-up was 18 months, with a median follow-up of 42, 24, 12, and 7.5 months for cohorts 1 to 4 respectively. Acute and late grade 2 GU toxicities were 25% and 20%, while GI were 13% and 7%, respectively. Late grade 3 GU and GI toxicities were 2% and 0%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS SAbR dose for HR-PCa was safely escalated with multilevel dose painting of 47.5 Gy to prostate, 55 Gy to mpMRI-defined intraprostatic lesions, and 25 Gy to pelvic nodal region in 5 fractions. Longer and ongoing follow-up will be required to assess late toxicity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Chul Ahn
- Population and Data Science, Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Texas at Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - Osama Mohamad
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, California
| | - Aaron Laine
- The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Fort Worth, Texas
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Xun Jia
- Departments of Radiation Oncology
| | - Hak Choy
- Departments of Radiation Oncology
| | | | | | - Robert D Timmerman
- Departments of Radiation Oncology; Neurosurgery, Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Texas at Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Musunuru HB, Cheung P, Vesprini D, Liu SK, Chu W, Chung HT, Morton G, Deabreu A, Davidson M, Ravi A, Helou J, Ho L, Zhang L, Loblaw A. Gantry-Based 5-Fraction Elective Nodal Irradiation in Unfavorable-Risk Prostate Cancer: Outcomes From 2 Prospective Studies Comparing SABR Boost With MR Dose-Painted HDR Brachytherapy Boost. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021; 112:735-743. [PMID: 34637882 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.10.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/04/2021] [Revised: 09/29/2021] [Accepted: 10/05/2021] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and Cancer Care Ontario recommend brachytherapy boost for patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk prostate cancer. SABR is an emerging technique for prostate cancer, but its use in high-risk disease is limited. Efficacy, toxic effects, and quality of life (QoL) were compared in patients treated on 2 prospective protocols that used SABR boost or magnetic resonance-guided high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) boost with 6 to 18 months of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). METHODS AND MATERIALS In SATURN study (study 1), patients received 40 Gy to the prostate and 25 Gy to the pelvis in 5 weekly fractions. In SPARE (study 2), patients received HDR-BT (15 Gy × 1) to the prostate and ≤22.5 Gy to the magnetic resonance imaging nodule, followed by 25 Gy in 5 weekly fractions to the pelvis. All patients received between 6 and 18 months of ADT. RESULTS Thirty patients (7% unfavorable intermediate risk and 93% high risk, per National Comprehensive Cancer Network [NCCN] criteria) completed study 1, and 31 patients (3% favorable intermediate risk, 47% unfavorable intermediate risk, and 50% high risk) completed treatment as per study 2. The median follow-up times were 72 and 62 months, respectively. In study 2, 6 patients had biochemical failure, and all 6 developed metastatic disease. Actuarial 5-year biochemical failure was 0% for study 1 and 18.2% for study 2 (P = .005). There was no significant difference in the worst acute or late gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicity. Grade 3 late genitourinary toxicity was noted in 3% of the patients in study 2 (HDR-BT boost). There was either no significant difference or minimal clinically important change in QoL. CONCLUSIONS In the context of 5-fraction pelvic radiation therapy and ADT, there did not appear to be a significant difference in toxicity or QoL between SABR and HDR-BT boost. Although efficacy favored the SABR boost cohort, this should be viewed in the context of limitations and biases associated with comparing 2 sequential phase 2 studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hima Bindu Musunuru
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
| | - Patrick Cheung
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario
| | - Danny Vesprini
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario
| | - Stanley K Liu
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario
| | - William Chu
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario
| | - Hans T Chung
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario
| | - Gerard Morton
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario
| | - Andrea Deabreu
- Clinical Trials and Epidemiology Program, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario
| | - Melanie Davidson
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario
| | - Ananth Ravi
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario
| | - Joelle Helou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario; Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario
| | - Ling Ho
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario
| | - Liying Zhang
- Clinical Trials and Epidemiology Program, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario
| | - Andrew Loblaw
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Toronto, Ontario.
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
The Journey of Radiotherapy Dose Escalation in High Risk Prostate Cancer; Conventional Dose Escalation to Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) Boost Treatments. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2021; 20:e25-e38. [PMID: 34740548 DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2021.09.004] [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: 01/29/2021] [Revised: 07/08/2021] [Accepted: 09/27/2021] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
High risk prostate cancer (HR-PrCa) is a subset of localized PrCa with significant potential for morbidity and mortality associated with disease recurrence and metastasis. Radiotherapy combined with Androgen Deprivation Therapy has been the standard of care for many years in HR-PrCa. In recent years, dose escalation, hypo-fractionation and high precision delivery with immobilization and image-guidance have substantially changed the face of modern PrCa radiotherapy, improving treatment convenience and outcomes. Ultra-hypo-fractionated radiotherapy delivered with high precision in the form of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) combines delivery of high biologically equivalent dose radiotherapy with the convenience of a shorter treatment schedule, as well as the promise of similar efficacy and reduced toxicity compared to conventional radiotherapy. However, rigorous investigation of SBRT in HR-PrCa remains limited. Here, we review the changes in HR-PrCa radiotherapy through dose escalation, hypo- and ultra-hypo-fractionated radiotherapy boost treatments, and the radiobiological basis of these treatments. We focus on completed and on-going trials in this disease utilizing SBRT as a sole radiation modality or as boost therapy following pelvic radiation.
Collapse
|
24
|
Glicksman RM, Liu SK, Cheung P, Vesprini D, Chu W, Chung HT, Morton G, Deabreu A, Davidson M, Ravi A, Musunuru HB, Helou J, Ho L, Zhang L, Loblaw A. Elective nodal ultra hypofractionated radiation for prostate cancer: Safety and efficacy from four prospective clinical trials. Radiother Oncol 2021; 163:159-164. [PMID: 34487764 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.08.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/19/2021] [Revised: 08/19/2021] [Accepted: 08/25/2021] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE The role of elective nodal irradiation (ENI) in localized prostate cancer (PCa) is controversial. With increasing use of SBRT to the prostate, data is needed regarding the safety and efficacy of ENI using ultra-hypofractionated radiation (UHRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS Between 2013-2020, 4 prospective clinical trials of intermediate or high-risk PCa receiving dose-escalated RT to the prostate (via HDR brachytherapy or SBRT boost) and ENI using UHRT (25 Gy in 5 weekly fractions) were conducted. Primary endpoints included acute genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities (CTCAE v3.0/4.0), and secondary endpoints included late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities, patient-reported quality of life (EPIC) and biochemical failure (Phoenix definition). RESULTS One-hundred sixty-five patients were enrolled, of whom 98 (59%) had high-risk disease. ADT was used in 141 (85%). Median follow-up was 38 months (IQR 10-63). The worst acute genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities respectively were 48% and 7.5% for grade 2, and 2.7% and 0% for grade 3. Cumulative incidence of late grade 2+ genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities at 36 months were 58% and 11.3% and for late grade 3+ toxicities were 1% and 0%, respectively. No grade 4+ acute or late toxicities were observed. Bowel and sexual toxicity significantly worsened up to 1-year compared to baseline. Over time, urinary (p < 0.0001), bowel (p = 0.0018) and sexual (p < 0.0001) scores significantly improved. The 3-year biochemical recurrence-free survival was 98%. CONCLUSION ENI using UHRT is associated with low incidence of grade 3+ toxicity, while grade 1-2 acute genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity is common. Randomized phase 3 trials are needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Stanley K Liu
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Patrick Cheung
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Danny Vesprini
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - William Chu
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Hans T Chung
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Gerard Morton
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Andrea Deabreu
- Clinical Trials and Epidemiology Program, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Canada
| | - Melanie Davidson
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Ananth Ravi
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
| | | | - Joelle Helou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada; Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Canada
| | - Ling Ho
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Liying Zhang
- Clinical Trials and Epidemiology Program, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Canada
| | - Andrew Loblaw
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Graff P, Crehange G. [Ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer: Results, limits and prospects]. Cancer Radiother 2021; 25:684-691. [PMID: 34274223 DOI: 10.1016/j.canrad.2021.06.028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/17/2021] [Accepted: 06/21/2021] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Abstract
Still an emerging approach a few years ago, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has ranked as a valid option for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Inherent properties of prostatic adenocarcinoma (low α/β) make it the perfect candidate. We propose a critical review of the literature trying to put results into perspective to identify their strengths, limits and axes of development. Technically sophisticated, the stereotactic irradiation of the prostate is well tolerated. Despite the fact that median follow-up of published data is still limited, ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy seems very efficient for the treatment of low and intermediate risk prostate cancers. Data seem satisfying for high-risk cancers as well. New developments are being studied with a main interest in treatment intensification for unfavorable intermediate risk and high-risk cancers. Advantage is taken of the sharp dose gradient of stereotactic radiotherapy to offer safe reirradiation to patients with local recurrence in a previously irradiated area.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- P Graff
- Département d'oncologie radiothérapie, Institut Curie, 26, rue d'Ulm, 75005 Paris, France.
| | - G Crehange
- Département d'oncologie radiothérapie, Institut Curie, 26, rue d'Ulm, 75005 Paris, France
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Glicksman RM, Davidson M, Wong A, Binda S, Reinhart R, Loblaw A. Moving Unfavorable Small-Bowel Anatomy Away From the Prostate to Optimize Radiation Therapy Plans With the GU-Lok. Pract Radiat Oncol 2021; 11:510-514. [PMID: 34237473 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2021.06.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/17/2021] [Revised: 05/06/2021] [Accepted: 06/27/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Patients with localized prostate cancer comprise a large volume of treatments in radiation therapy centers. Occasionally, individual patient anatomy makes the safe delivery of an effective dose of radiation therapy challenging. We describe 2 cases of patients with a small bowel deep in the pelvis within the planning target volume with subsequent suboptimal radiation therapy treatment plans. We explore how we used the GU-Lok, a prostate immobilization device, to move the small bowel away from the prostate, and tighten target volume margins to help facilitate safe and effective treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rachel M Glicksman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Melanie Davidson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Medical Physics, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centres, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Andrew Wong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Shawn Binda
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Rebecca Reinhart
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Andrew Loblaw
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Slevin F, Thompson CM, Speight R, Murray LJ, Lilley J, Henry AM. Ultra hypofractionated extended nodal irradiation using volumetric modulated arc therapy for oligorecurrent pelvic nodal prostate cancer. Med Dosim 2021; 46:411-418. [PMID: 34148727 DOI: 10.1016/j.meddos.2021.05.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/01/2021] [Revised: 04/22/2021] [Accepted: 05/12/2021] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Abstract
Prostate cancer (PCa) may recur after primary treatment but no standard of care exists for patients with pelvic nodal relapse. Based on obervational data, Extended Nodal Irradiation (ENI) might be associated with fewer treatment failures than Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy (SABR) to the involved node(s) alone. Ultra hypofractionated ENI is yet to be evaluated in this setting, but it could provide a therapeutic advantage if PCa has a low α/β ratio in addition to patient convenience/resource benefits. This volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning study developed a class solution for 5-fraction Extended Nodal Irradiation (ENI) plus a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) to involved node(s). Ten patients with oligorecurrent nodal disease after radical prostatectomy/post-operative prostate bed radiotherapy were selected. Three plans were produced for each dataset to deliver 25 Gy in 5 fractions ENI plus SIBs of 40, 35 and 30 Gy. The biologically effective dose (BED) formula was used to determine the remaining dose in 5 fractions that could be delivered to re-irradiated segments of organs at risk (OARs). Tumour control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) were calculated using the LQ-Poisson Marsden and Lyman-Kutcher-Burman models respectively. Six patients had an OAR positioned within planning target volume node (PTVn), which resulted in reduced target coverage to PTV node in six, five and four instances for 40, 35 and 30 Gy SIB plans respectively. In these instances, only 30 Gy SIB plans had a median PTV coverage >90% (inter-quartile range 90-95). No OAR constraint was exceeded for 30 Gy SIB plans, including where segments of OARs were re-irradiated. Gross tumour volume node (GTVn) median TCP was 95.7% (94.4-96), 90.7% (87.1-91.2) and 78.6% (75.8-81.1) for 40, 35 and 30 Gy SIB plans respectively, where an α/β ratio of 1.5 was assumed. SacralPlex median NTCP was 43.2% (0.7-61.2), 12.1% (0.6-29.7) and 2.5% (0.5-5.1) for 40, 35 and 30 Gy SIB plans respectively. NTCP for Bowel_Small was <0.3% and zero for other OARs for all three plan types. Ultra hypofractionated ENI planning for pelvic nodal relapsed PCa appears feasible with encouraging estimates of nodal TCP and low estimates of NTCP, especially where a low α/β ratio is assumed and a 30 Gy SIB is delivered. This solution should be further evaluated within a clinical trial and compared against SABR to involved node(s) alone.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Finbar Slevin
- Leeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK; University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK.
| | | | - Richard Speight
- Leeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK
| | - Louise J Murray
- Leeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK; University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK
| | - John Lilley
- Leeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK
| | - Ann M Henry
- Leeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK; University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Musunuru HB, Cheung P, Vesprini D, Liu SK, Chu W, Chung HT, Morton G, Deabreu A, Davidson M, Ravi A, Helou J, Ho L, Zhang L, Loblaw A. Stereotactic pelvic radiotherapy with HDR boost for dose escalation in intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer (SPARE): Efficacy, toxicity and quality of life. Radiother Oncol 2021; 161:40-46. [PMID: 34089752 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.05.024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/10/2021] [Revised: 05/24/2021] [Accepted: 05/26/2021] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The ASCO/CCO guidelines recommend brachytherapy (BT) boost for eligible intermediate- (IR) or high-risk (HR) prostate cancer (PCa) patients. We present efficacy, toxicity and quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes in patients treated on a prospective protocol of MRI dose-painted high-dose-rate BT boost (HDR-BT) followed by 5-fraction pelvic radiotherapy (RT) and 6-18 months of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). METHODS In this phase I/II study, IR or HR PCa patients received HDR-BT 15 Gy × 1 to prostate and up to 22.5 Gy to MRI nodule, followed by 25 Gy in 5, weekly fractions to pelvis. Toxicity was assessed using CTCAEv3.0, and QoL was captured using EPIC questionnaire. Biochemical failure (BF; nadir + 2.0), and proportion of patients with PSA < 0.4 ng/ml at 4-years (4yPSARR) were evaluated. A minimally clinically important change (MCIC) was recorded if QoL score decreased >0.5 standard deviation of baseline scores. RESULTS Thirty-one patients (NCCN 3.2% favorable IR, 48.4% unfavorable IR and 48.4% HR) completed treatment with a median follow-up of 61 months. Median D90 to MR nodule was 19.0 Gy and median prostate V100% was 96.5%. The actuarial 5-year BF rate was 18.2%, and the 4yPSARR was 71%. One patient died of PCa. Acute grade 2 and 3 toxicities: GU: 50%, 7%, and GI: 3%, none, respectively. Late grade 2 and 3 toxicities were: GU: 23%, 3%, and GI: 7%, none, respectively. Proportion of patients with MCIC was 7.7% for urinary domain and 32.0% for bowel domain. CONCLUSIONS This novel treatment protocol incorporating MRI dose-painted HDR-BT boost and 5-fraction pelvic RT with ADT is well tolerated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Patrick Cheung
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Danny Vesprini
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Stanley K Liu
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - William Chu
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Hans T Chung
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Gerard Morton
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Andrea Deabreu
- Clinical Trials and Epidemiology Program, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Canada
| | - Melanie Davidson
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Ananth Ravi
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Joelle Helou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada; Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Canada
| | - Ling Ho
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Liying Zhang
- Clinical Trials and Epidemiology Program, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Canada
| | - Andrew Loblaw
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Safety and Efficacy of Ultra-hypofractionation in Node-positive Prostate Cancer. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2021; 33:172-180. [DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2020.10.019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/24/2020] [Revised: 09/06/2020] [Accepted: 10/23/2020] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
|
30
|
Foerster R, Zwahlen DR, Buchali A, Tang H, Schroeder C, Windisch P, Vu E, Akbaba S, Bostel T, Sprave T, Zamboglou C, Zilli T, Stelmes JJ, Telkhade T, Murthy V. Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for High-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:cancers13040759. [PMID: 33673077 PMCID: PMC7918664 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13040759] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/07/2020] [Revised: 02/04/2021] [Accepted: 02/09/2021] [Indexed: 12/30/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Radiotherapy (RT) is an established, potentially curative treatment option for all risk constellations of localized prostate cancer (PCA). Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and dose-escalated RT can further improve outcome in high-risk (HR) PCA. In recent years, shorter RT schedules based on hypofractionated RT have shown equal outcome. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is a highly conformal RT technique enabling ultra-hypofractionation which has been shown to be safe and efficient in patients with low- and intermediate-risk PCA. There is a paucity of data on the role of SBRT in HR PCA. In particular, the need for pelvic elective nodal irradiation (ENI) needs to be addressed. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to analyze the available data on observed toxicities, ADT prescription practice, and oncological outcome to shed more light on the value of SBRT in HR PCA. METHODS We searched the PubMed and Embase electronic databases for the terms "prostate cancer" AND "stereotactic" AND "radiotherapy" in June 2020. We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. RESULTS After a rigorous selection process, we identified 18 individual studies meeting all selection criteria for further analyses. Five additional studies were included because their content was judged as relevant. Three trials have reported on prostate SBRT including pelvic nodes; 2 with ENI and 1 with positive pelvic nodes only. The remaining studies investigated SBRT of the prostate only. Grade 2+ acute genitourinary (GU) toxicity was between 12% and 46.7% in the studies investigating pelvic nodes irradiation and ranged from 0% to 89% in the prostate only studies. Grade 2+ chronic GU toxicity was between 7% and 60% vs. 2% and 56.7%. Acute gastrointestinal (GI) grade 2+ toxicity was between 0% to 4% and 0% to 18% for studies with and without pelvic nodes irradiation, respectively. Chronic GI grade 2+ toxicity rates were between 4% and 50.1% vs. 0% and 40%. SBRT of prostate and positive pelvic nodes only showed similar toxicity rates as SBRT for the prostate only. Among the trials that reported on ADT use, the majority of HR PCA patients underwent ADT for at least 2 months; mostly neoadjuvant and concurrent. Biochemical control rates ranged from 82% to 100% after 2 years and 56% to 100% after 3 years. Only a few studies reported longer follow-up data. CONCLUSION At this point, SBRT with or without pelvic ENI cannot be considered the standard of care in HR PCA, due to missing level 1 evidence. Treatment may be offered to selected patients at specialized centers with access to high-precision RT. While concomitant ADT is the current standard of care, the necessary duration of ADT in combination with SBRT remains unclear. Ideally, all eligible patients should be enrolled in clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert Foerster
- Institute for Radiation Oncology, Cantonal Hospital Winterthur (KSW), 8401 Winterthur, Switzerland; (D.R.Z.); (H.T.); (C.S.); (P.W.)
- Medical Faculty, University of Zurich (UZH), 8091 Zurich, Switzerland
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +41-52-266-31-40
| | - Daniel Rudolf Zwahlen
- Institute for Radiation Oncology, Cantonal Hospital Winterthur (KSW), 8401 Winterthur, Switzerland; (D.R.Z.); (H.T.); (C.S.); (P.W.)
- Medical Faculty, University of Zurich (UZH), 8091 Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Andre Buchali
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ruppiner Kliniken GmbH, Brandenburg Medical School (MHB), 16816 Neuruppin, Germany;
| | - Hongjian Tang
- Institute for Radiation Oncology, Cantonal Hospital Winterthur (KSW), 8401 Winterthur, Switzerland; (D.R.Z.); (H.T.); (C.S.); (P.W.)
| | - Christina Schroeder
- Institute for Radiation Oncology, Cantonal Hospital Winterthur (KSW), 8401 Winterthur, Switzerland; (D.R.Z.); (H.T.); (C.S.); (P.W.)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ruppiner Kliniken GmbH, Brandenburg Medical School (MHB), 16816 Neuruppin, Germany;
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI), ETH Domain, 5232 Villingen, Switzerland
| | - Paul Windisch
- Institute for Radiation Oncology, Cantonal Hospital Winterthur (KSW), 8401 Winterthur, Switzerland; (D.R.Z.); (H.T.); (C.S.); (P.W.)
| | - Erwin Vu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cantonal Hospital St. Gallen (KSSG), 9007 St. Gallen, Switzerland;
| | - Sati Akbaba
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Mainz, 55131 Mainz, Germany; (S.A.); (T.B.)
| | - Tilman Bostel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Mainz, 55131 Mainz, Germany; (S.A.); (T.B.)
| | - Tanja Sprave
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Freiburg, 79106 Freiburg, Germany; (T.S.); (C.Z.)
| | - Constantinos Zamboglou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Freiburg, 79106 Freiburg, Germany; (T.S.); (C.Z.)
| | - Thomas Zilli
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Geneva (HUG), 1205 Geneva, Switzerland;
| | - Jean-Jacques Stelmes
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Oncological Institute of Southern Switzerland (IOSI), Cantonal Hospitals (EOC), 6500 Bellinzona, Switzerland;
| | - Tejshri Telkhade
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital and Advanced Centre for Treatment Research and Education in Cancer (ACTREC), Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Mumbai 400012, India; (T.T.); (V.M.)
| | - Vedang Murthy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital and Advanced Centre for Treatment Research and Education in Cancer (ACTREC), Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Mumbai 400012, India; (T.T.); (V.M.)
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Ricco A, Barbera G, Lanciano R, Feng J, Hanlon A, Lozano A, Good M, Arrigo S, Lamond J, Yang J. Favorable Biochemical Freedom From Recurrence With Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Intermediate and High-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Single Institutional Experience With Long-Term Follow-Up. Front Oncol 2020; 10:1505. [PMID: 33102201 PMCID: PMC7545336 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.01505] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/20/2020] [Accepted: 07/14/2020] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose/Objective(s): The current study reports long-term overall survival (OS) and biochemical freedom from recurrence (BFFR) after stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for men with intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer in a single community hospital setting with early adoption. Materials/Methods: Ninety-seven consecutive men with intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer treated with SBRT between 2007 and 2015 were retrospectively studied. Categorical variables for analysis included National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group, race, Gleason grade group, T stage, use of androgen deprivation therapy, and planning target volume dose. Continuous variables for analysis included pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA), percent cores positive, age at diagnosis, PSA nadir, prostate volume, percent prostate that received 40 Gy, and minimum dose to 0.03 cc of prostate (Dmin). BFFR was assessed using the Phoenix nadir +2 definition. OS and BFFR were estimated using Kaplan-Meier (KM) methodology with comparisons accomplished using log-rank statistics. Multivariable analysis (MVA) was accomplished with a backwards selection Cox proportional-hazards model with statistical significance taken at the p < 0.05 level. Results: Median FU is 78.4 months. Five- and ten-year OS KM estimates are 90.9 and 73.2%, respectively, with 19 deaths recorded. MVA reveals pretreatment PSA (p = 0.032), percent prostate 40 Gy (p = 0.003), and race (p = 0.031) were predictive of OS. Five- and nine-year BFFR KM estimates are 92.1 and 87.5%, respectively, with 10 biochemical failures recorded. MVA revealed PSA nadir (p < 0.001) was the only factor predictive of BFFR. Specifically, for every one-unit increase in PSA nadir, there was a 4.2-fold increased odds of biochemical failure (HR = 4.248). No significant differences in BFFR were found between favorable intermediate, unfavorable intermediate, and high-risk prostate cancer (p = 0.054) with 7-year KM estimates of 96.6, 81.0, and 85.7%, respectively. Conclusions: Favorable OS and BFFR can be expected after SBRT for intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer with non-significant differences seen for BFFR between favorable intermediate, unfavorable intermediate, and high-risk groups. Our 5-year BFFR compares favorably with the HYPO-RT-PC trial of 84%. PSA nadir was predictive of biochemical failure. This study is ultimately limited by the small absolute number of high-risk patients included.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anthony Ricco
- Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, Richmond, VA, United States
| | - Gabrielle Barbera
- College of Medicine, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Rachelle Lanciano
- Radiation Oncology, Crozer-Keystone Health System, Springfield, PA, United States
- Philadelphia CyberKnife Center, Havertown, PA, United States
| | - Jing Feng
- Philadelphia CyberKnife Center, Havertown, PA, United States
| | - Alexandra Hanlon
- Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, United States
| | - Alicia Lozano
- Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, United States
| | - Michael Good
- Philadelphia CyberKnife Center, Havertown, PA, United States
| | - Stephen Arrigo
- Radiation Oncology, Crozer-Keystone Health System, Springfield, PA, United States
- Philadelphia CyberKnife Center, Havertown, PA, United States
| | - John Lamond
- Radiation Oncology, Crozer-Keystone Health System, Springfield, PA, United States
- Philadelphia CyberKnife Center, Havertown, PA, United States
| | - Jun Yang
- Philadelphia CyberKnife Center, Havertown, PA, United States
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Faria S, Ruo R, Perna M, Cury F, Duclos M, Sarshoghi A, Souhami L. Long-Term Results of Moderate Hypofractionation to Prostate and Pelvic Nodes Plus Androgen Suppression in High-Risk Prostate Cancer. Pract Radiat Oncol 2020; 10:e514-e520. [PMID: 32738465 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2020.06.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/27/2020] [Revised: 05/06/2020] [Accepted: 06/22/2020] [Indexed: 01/24/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Moderate hypofractionated radiation therapy (HypoRT) is an attractive alternative to conventionally fractionated radiation therapy for prostate cancer. However, most studies using HypoRT only included the prostate as the target volume. We report long-term outcomes of patients with high-risk prostate cancer treated with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and HypoRT to the prostate and nodal areas with a simultaneous integrated boost technique. METHODS AND MATERIALS Patients with localized, high-risk prostate cancer entered a prospective phase I/II study with a HypoRT regimen of 60 Gy/20 fractions (4 weeks) to the prostate volume while the nodal areas received 44 Gy in the same 20 fractions delivered with intensity modulated radiation therapy with a simultaneous integrated boost technique. ADT started 2 to 3 months before HypoRT. Toxicity was prospectively assessed according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3. Outcomes rates were calculated by the actuarial method of Kaplan-Meier from the date of last radiation treatment until date of event. RESULTS We report on the first 105 patients treated between October 2010 and February 2014. Median follow-up was 74 months, with 97% of patients followed for more than 36 months. Median ADT duration was 18 months. The worst grade 2 or higher late gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicity was seen in 7% and 9%, respectively. There was no grade 4 or 5 toxicity. At the last follow-up, the rates of grade ≥2 gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicity were 2% and 3%, respectively, with no residual grade ≥3 toxicity. The 5- and 7-year actuarial overall survival and relapse free survival were 91% and 85% and 87% and 81%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS The longest follow-up report of moderate HypoRT (plus ADT) to the prostate and pelvic nodes shows that this approach is feasible, well tolerated, and effective. It is convenient for patients and the health system. A larger randomized trial using this approach is warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sergio Faria
- Department of Radiation Oncology, McGill University, Quebec, Canada.
| | - Russel Ruo
- Department of Medical Physics, McGill University, Quebec, Canada
| | - Marianna Perna
- Department of Radiation Oncology, McGill University, Quebec, Canada
| | - Fabio Cury
- Department of Radiation Oncology, McGill University, Quebec, Canada
| | - Marie Duclos
- Department of Radiation Oncology, McGill University, Quebec, Canada
| | - Arash Sarshoghi
- Student of Health Sciences, Collège Jean de Brébeuf, Montreal, Canada
| | - Luis Souhami
- Department of Radiation Oncology, McGill University, Quebec, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Heterogenous Dose-escalated Prostate Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for All Risk Prostate Cancer: Quality of Life and Clinical Outcomes of an Institutional Pilot Study. Am J Clin Oncol 2020; 43:469-476. [PMID: 32349020 DOI: 10.1097/coc.0000000000000693] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Previous prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy studies delivered uniform doses of 35 to 40 Gy/5 fx. Attempts at uniform dose escalation to 50 Gy caused high rates of gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. We hypothesize that heterogeneous dose escalation to regions nonadjacent to sensitive structures (urethra, rectum, and bladder) is safe and efficacious. MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients were enrolled on a prospective pilot study. The primary endpoint was treatment-related GI and genitourinary (GU) toxicity. The secondary endpoints included quality of life (QOL) assessed by the EPIC-26 questionnaire and biochemical control. The target volume received 36.25 Gy/5 fx. The target >3 mm from sensitive was dose escalated to 50 Gy/5 fx. RESULTS Thirty-five patients were enrolled. Three patients had low, 14 intermediate, and 18 high-risk disease. The mean initial prostate specific antigen was 15.1 ng/mL. Androgen deprivation therapy was given to 19 patients. Median follow-up was 46 months. Urinary irritation/obstructive and urinary bother scores declined by minimal clinically important difference threshold from baseline at 6 weeks, but subsequently recovered by 4 months. No differences in QOL scores were observed for urinary incontinence, bowel domain, bloody stools, or sexual domain. One patient developed acute grade 4 GU toxicity and acute grade 4 GI toxicity. The incidence of late high grade toxicity was 1/35 for GU toxicity and 2/35 for GI toxicity. Freedom from biochemical failure at 3 years was 88.0%. CONCLUSIONS Heterogeneous dose-escalated prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy is feasible with low rates of acute and late toxicities and favorable QOL outcomes in patients with predominantly intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer.
Collapse
|
34
|
Murthy V, Mallick I, Gavarraju A, Sinha S, Krishnatry R, Telkhade T, Moses A, Kannan S, Prakash G, Pal M, Menon S, Popat P, Rangarajan V, Agarwal A, Kulkarni S, Bakshi G. Study protocol of a randomised controlled trial of prostate radiotherapy in high-risk and node-positive disease comparing moderate and extreme hypofractionation (PRIME TRIAL). BMJ Open 2020; 10:e034623. [PMID: 32114475 PMCID: PMC7050316 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034623] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/04/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION There has been an interest in studying the efficacy of extreme hypofractionation in low and intermediate risk prostate cancer utilising the low alpha/beta ratio of prostate. Its role in high-risk and node-positive prostate cancer, however, is unknown. We hypothesise that a five-fraction schedule of extreme hypofractionation will be non-inferior to a moderately hypofractionated regimen over 5 weeks in efficacy and will have acceptable toxicity and quality of life while reducing the cost implications during treatment. METHODS AND ANALYSIS This is an ongoing, non-inferiority, multicentre, randomised trial (NCT03561961) of two schedules for National Cancer Control Network high-risk and/or node-positive non-metastatic carcinoma of the prostate. The standard arm will be a schedule of 68 Gy/25# over 5 weeks while the test arm will be extremely hypofractionated radiotherapy with stereotactic body radiation therapy to 36.25 Gy/5# (7 to 10 days). The block randomisation will be stratified by nodal status (N0/N+), hormonal therapy (luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone therapy/orchiectomy) and centre. All patients will receive daily image-guided radiotherapy.The primary end point is 4-year biochemical failure free survival (BFFS). The power calculations assume 4-year BFFS of 80% in the moderate hypofractionation arm. With a 5% one-sided significance and 80% power, a total of 434 patients will be randomised to both arms equally (217 in each arm). The secondary end points include overall survival, prostate cancer specific survival, acute and late toxicities, quality of life and out-of-pocket expenditure. DISCUSSION The trial aims to establish a therapeutically efficacious and cost-efficient modality for high-risk and node-positive prostate cancer with an acceptable toxicity profile. Presently, this is the only trial evaluating and answering such a question in this cohort. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION The trial has been approved by IEC-III of Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER Registered with CTRI/2018/05/014054 (http://ctri.nic.in) on 24 May 2018.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vedang Murthy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India
| | - Indranil Mallick
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Medical Centre, Kolkata, India
| | | | - Shwetabh Sinha
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India
| | - Rahul Krishnatry
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India
| | - Tejshri Telkhade
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India
| | - Arunsingh Moses
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Medical Centre, Kolkata, India
| | - Sadhna Kannan
- Clinical Research Secretariat, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India
| | - Gagan Prakash
- Division of Uro-Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India
| | - Mahendra Pal
- Division of Uro-Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India
| | - Santosh Menon
- Department of Pathology, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India
| | - Palak Popat
- Department of Radiology, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India
| | - Venkatesh Rangarajan
- Department of Nuclear Imaging and Bio imaging, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India
| | - Archi Agarwal
- Department of Nuclear Imaging and Bio imaging, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India
| | - Sheetal Kulkarni
- Clinical Research Secretariat, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India
| | - Ganesh Bakshi
- Division of Uro-Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
[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
|
36
|
Hwang ME, Mayeda M, Liz M, Goode-Marshall B, Gonzalez L, Elliston CD, Spina CS, Padilla OA, Wenske S, Deutsch I. Stereotactic body radiotherapy with periprostatic hydrogel spacer for localized prostate cancer: toxicity profile and early oncologic outcomes. Radiat Oncol 2019; 14:136. [PMID: 31375119 PMCID: PMC6679492 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-019-1346-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/24/2019] [Accepted: 07/24/2019] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Multiple phase I-II clinical trials have reported on the efficacy and safety of prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for the treatment of prostate cancer. However, few have reported outcomes for prostate SBRT using periprostatic hydrogel spacer (SpaceOAR; Augmenix). Herein, we report safety and efficacy outcomes from our institutional prostate SBRT experience with SpaceOAR placement. Methods Fifty men with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated at a single institution with linear accelerator-based SBRT to 3625 cGy in 5 fractions, with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) were included. All patients underwent SpaceOAR and fiducial marker placement followed by pre-treatment MRI. Toxicity assessments were conducted at least weekly while on treatment, 1 month after treatment, and every follow-up visit thereafter. Post-treatment PSA measurements were obtained 4 months after SBRT, followed by every 3–6 months thereafter. Acute toxicity was documented per RTOG criteria. Results Median follow up time was 20 (range 4–44) months. Median PSA at time of diagnosis was 7.4 (2.7–19.5) ng/ml. Eighteen men received 6 months of ADT for unfavorable intermediate risk disease. No PSA failures were recorded. Median PSA was 0.9 ng/mL at 20 months; 0.08 and 1.32 ng/mL in men who did and did not receive ADT, respectively. Mean prostate-rectum separation achieved with SpaceOAR was 9.6 ± 4 mm at the prostate midgland. No grade ≥ 3 GU or GI toxicity was recorded. During treatment, 30% of men developed new grade 2 GU toxicity (urgency or dysuria). These symptoms were present in 30% of men at 1 month and in 12% of men at 1 year post-treatment. During treatment, GI toxicity was limited to grade 1 symptoms (16%), although 4% of men developed grade 2 symptoms during the first 4 weeks after SBRT. All GI symptoms were resolving by the 1 month post-treatment assessment and no acute or late rectal toxicity was reported > 1 month after treatment. Conclusions Periprostatic hydrogel placement followed by prostate SBRT resulted in minimal GI toxicity, and favorable early oncologic outcomes. These results indicate that SBRT with periprostatic spacer is a well-tolerated, safe, and convenient treatment option for localized prostate cancer. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13014-019-1346-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mark E Hwang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, 10032, USA
| | - Mark Mayeda
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, 10032, USA
| | - Maria Liz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, 10032, USA
| | - Brenda Goode-Marshall
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, 10032, USA
| | - Lissette Gonzalez
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, 10032, USA
| | - Carl D Elliston
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, 10032, USA
| | - Catherine S Spina
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, 10032, USA
| | - Oscar A Padilla
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, 10032, USA
| | - Sven Wenske
- Department of Urology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, 10032, USA
| | - Israel Deutsch
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, 10032, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Callan L, Bauman G, Chen J, Lock M, Sexton T, D'Souza D, Rodrigues G. A Phase I/II Trial of Fairly Brief Androgen Suppression and Stereotactic Radiation Therapy for High-Risk Prostate Cancer (FASTR-2): Preliminary Results and Toxicity Analysis. Adv Radiat Oncol 2019; 4:668-673. [PMID: 31681864 PMCID: PMC6817718 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2019.07.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/15/2019] [Revised: 06/10/2019] [Accepted: 07/09/2019] [Indexed: 12/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose FASTR was designed to provide a compact treatment course for high-risk prostate cancer patients but was discontinued because of excess toxicity. We present the results of FASTR-2, which used a lower dose to the prostate (35 Gy vs 40 Gy), smaller posterior PTV margin (4 mm vs 5 mm) and omitted nodal radiation to lower the volumes of rectum receiving high and intermediate doses compared with FASTR. Gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities at baseline, 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year and biochemical control rates are presented. Methods and Materials Eligibility included high-risk prostate cancer (cT3/4, prostate-specific antigen >20 or Gleason Score ≥8), age ≥70 or refused standard treatment, and no evidence of metastatic disease. Patients received 18 months of androgen deprivation therapy starting 2 months before radiation. Clinical target volume was defined as prostate plus proximal 1-cm seminal vesicles. PTV was a nonuniform expansion around clinical target volume (4 mm posteriorly, 5 mm in all other directions). Volumetric arc therapy was used for treatment delivery (35 Gy delivered in 5 weekly fractions of 7 Gy each), and cone beam computed tomography with soft tissue matching (no fiducial placement) was used for daily image guidance. Toxicity was assessed at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year according to Common Toxicity Criteria. Results In the study, 30 patients were enrolled in FASTR-2 between 2015 and 2017. Two patients were withdrawn owing to ineligibility after enrollment. One patient (3.7%) reported grade 2 GI toxicity at 6 weeks. There was no reported grade ≥2 GI toxicity at 6 months or 1 year. There were no reported episodes of rectal bleeding. Four patients (14.8%), 5 patients (17.9%), and 5 patients (21.7%) reported grade 2 GU toxicity at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year, respectively. There were no reported cases of grade ≥3 GU toxicity. The most common toxicities were nocturia and urinary frequency or urgency. Conclusions FASTR-2 was more tolerable than FASTR, with no grade ≥3 toxicities reported, in keeping with expectations based on our previous FASTR analysis. Long-term follow-up is necessary to ensure disease control and toxicity outcomes are comparable to conventional high-risk treatment paradigms.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laura Callan
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, London Health Sciences Centre and Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
| | - Glenn Bauman
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, London Health Sciences Centre and Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jeff Chen
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, London Health Sciences Centre and Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
| | - Michael Lock
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, London Health Sciences Centre and Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
| | - Tracy Sexton
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, London Health Sciences Centre and Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
| | - David D'Souza
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, London Health Sciences Centre and Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
| | - George Rodrigues
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, London Health Sciences Centre and Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Jackson WC, Silva J, Hartman HE, Dess RT, Kishan AU, Beeler WH, Gharzai LA, Jaworski EM, Mehra R, Hearn JWD, Morgan TM, Salami SS, Cooperberg MR, Mahal BA, Soni PD, Kaffenberger S, Nguyen PL, Desai N, Feng FY, Zumsteg ZS, Spratt DE. Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Over 6,000 Patients Treated On Prospective Studies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019; 104:778-789. [PMID: 30959121 PMCID: PMC6770993 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.03.051] [Citation(s) in RCA: 239] [Impact Index Per Article: 47.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/18/2018] [Revised: 02/27/2019] [Accepted: 03/31/2019] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Utilization of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for treatment of localized prostate cancer is increasing. Guidelines and payers variably support the use of prostate SBRT. We therefore sought to systematically analyze biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS), physician-reported toxicity, and patient-reported outcomes after prostate SBRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS A systematic search leveraging Medline via PubMed and EMBASE for original articles published between January 1990 and January 2018 was performed. This was supplemented by abstracts with sufficient extractable data from January 2013 to March 2018. All prospective series assessing curative-intent prostate SBRT for localized prostate cancer reporting bRFS, physician-reported toxicity, and patient-reported quality of life with a minimum of 1-year follow-up were included. The study was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Meta-analyses were performed with random-effect modeling. Extent of heterogeneity between studies was determined by the I2 and Cochran's Q tests. Meta-regression was performed using Hartung-Knapp methods. RESULTS Thirty-eight unique prospective series were identified comprising 6116 patients. Median follow-up was 39 months across all patients (range, 12-115 months). Ninety-two percent, 78%, and 38% of studies included low, intermediate, and high-risk patients. Overall, 5- and 7-year bRFS rates were 95.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.3%-97.5%) and 93.7% (95% CI, 91.4%-95.5%), respectively. Estimated late grade ≥3 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity rates were 2.0% (95% CI, 1.4%-2.8%) and 1.1% (95% CI, 0.6%-2.0%), respectively. By 2 years post-SBRT, Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite urinary and bowel domain scores returned to baseline. Increasing dose of SBRT was associated with improved biochemical control (P = .018) but worse late grade ≥3 GU toxicity (P = .014). CONCLUSIONS Prostate SBRT has substantial prospective evidence supporting its use, with favorable tumor control, patient-reported quality of life, and levels of toxicity demonstrated. SBRT has sufficient evidence to be supported as a standard treatment option for localized prostate cancer while ongoing trials assess its potential superiority.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- William C Jackson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Jessica Silva
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Holly E Hartman
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Robert T Dess
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Amar U Kishan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, California
| | - Whitney H Beeler
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Laila A Gharzai
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | | | - Rohit Mehra
- Department of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Jason W D Hearn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Todd M Morgan
- Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Simpa S Salami
- Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | | | - Brandon A Mahal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Payal D Soni
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | | | - Paul L Nguyen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Neil Desai
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas
| | - Felix Y Feng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, California
| | - Zachary S Zumsteg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California
| | - Daniel E Spratt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Murthy V, Sinha S, Kannan S, Datta D, Das R, Bakshi G, Prakash G, Krishnatry R. Safety of Prostate Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy after Transurethral Resection of Prostate (TURP): A Propensity Score Matched Pair Analysis. Pract Radiat Oncol 2019; 9:347-353. [PMID: 30978467 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2019.04.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/23/2019] [Revised: 04/01/2019] [Accepted: 04/02/2019] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To determine the genitourinary (GU) toxicity outcomes in prostate cancer patients treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) who have undergone a prior transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) and compare it to a similar non-TURP cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS Fifty prostate cancer patients who had undergone a single TURP, had a good baseline urinary function, and had been subsequently treated with SBRT were chosen from a prospectively maintained database. These were propensity score matched to a similar non-TURP cohort treated during the same period. Matching was done for diabetes mellitus and volume of radiation therapy. Acute GU and late GU toxicity were scored using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) criteria. Stricture and incontinence were scored using Common Terminology for Common Adverse Events version 4.0. RESULTS Median follow-up for the entire cohort was 26 months (non-TURP vs TURP, 30 months vs 22 months, P = .34). The median duration between TURP and start of SBRT was 10 months. There was no significant difference between non-TURP versus TURP cohort in terms of RTOG acute GU toxicities grade ≥2 (8% vs 6%, P = .45), RTOG late GU toxicities grade ≥2 (8% vs 12%, P = .10), stricture rates (4% vs 6%, P = .64), and incontinence rates (0% vs 4%, P = .15). The median duration of time to late toxicity was 16 months vs 10 months (P = .12) in non-TURP and TURP cohort, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Although modestly increased as compared with non-TURP patients, GU toxicities remains low with SBRT in post-TURP patients. SBRT can be safely performed in carefully selected post-TURP prostate cancer patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vedang Murthy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Parel, Mumbai, India.
| | - Shwetabh Sinha
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Parel, Mumbai, India
| | - Sadhana Kannan
- Department of Biostatistics, Advanced Centre for Treatment, Research and Education in Cancer (ACTREC), Homi Bhabha National Institute, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, India
| | - Debanjali Datta
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Parel, Mumbai, India
| | - Rabi Das
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Parel, Mumbai, India
| | - Ganesh Bakshi
- Division of Urology, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Parel, Mumbai, India
| | - Gagan Prakash
- Division of Urology, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Parel, Mumbai, India
| | - Rahul Krishnatry
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Parel, Mumbai, India
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Pinitpatcharalert A, Happersett L, Kollmeier M, McBride S, Gorovets D, Tyagi N, Varghese M, Zelefsky MJ. Early Tolerance Outcomes of Stereotactic Hypofractionated Accelerated Radiation Therapy Concomitant with Pelvic Node Irradiation in High-risk Prostate Cancer. Adv Radiat Oncol 2019; 4:337-344. [PMID: 31011679 PMCID: PMC6460324 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2018.12.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/14/2018] [Accepted: 12/11/2018] [Indexed: 02/01/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose This study aimed to evaluate the toxicity of prostate and pelvic lymph node stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for high-risk prostate cancer. Methods and Materials Twenty-three patients with high-risk or lymph node-positive prostate cancer were treated with SBRT that delivered 37.5 to 40 Gy in 5 fractions to the prostate and seminal vesicles, with concomitant treatment of the pelvic nodes to 25 Gy. In general, patients received neoadjuvant, concurrent, and adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy for a duration of 18 months. Toxicities were evaluated with the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3.0. The median follow-up was 19 months (range, 3-48 months). Results Acute grade 1 gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities were noted in 2 patients (9.1%). No patient experienced acute grade ≥2 GI toxicity. Acute genitourinary (GU) grade 1, 2, and 3 toxicities were observed in 7 patients (31.8%), 8 patients (36.4%), and 1 patient (4.5%), respectively. Late grade 2 GI and GU toxicities were observed in 2 patients (9.1%) and 6 patients (27.3%), respectively. No late grade ≥3 GI toxicity was noted. Late grade ≥3 GU (hemorrhagic cystitis) was noted in 1 patient (4.5%), which responded to laser fulguration. Conclusions SBRT with pelvic lymph node radiation therapy was feasible and well tolerated. The incidence of grade ≥3 GU and GI toxicities was uncommon. Continued follow-up will be required to determine the long-term safety and efficacy of this approach for high-risk patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Laura Happersett
- Departments of Radiation Oncology and Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Marisa Kollmeier
- Departments of Radiation Oncology and Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Sean McBride
- Departments of Radiation Oncology and Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Daniel Gorovets
- Departments of Radiation Oncology and Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Neelam Tyagi
- Departments of Radiation Oncology and Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Melissa Varghese
- Departments of Radiation Oncology and Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Michael J Zelefsky
- Departments of Radiation Oncology and Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
Kothari G, Loblaw A, Tree AC, van As NJ, Moghanaki D, Lo SS, Ost P, Siva S. Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Primary Prostate Cancer. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2018; 17:1533033818789633. [PMID: 30064301 PMCID: PMC6069023 DOI: 10.1177/1533033818789633] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/23/2018] [Revised: 06/07/2018] [Accepted: 06/14/2018] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Prostate cancer is the most common non-cutaneous cancer in males. There are a number of options for patients with localized early stage disease, including active surveillance for low-risk disease, surgery, brachytherapy, and external beam radiotherapy. Increasingly, external beam radiotherapy, in the form of dose-escalated and moderately hypofractionated regimens, is being utilized in prostate cancer, with randomized evidence to support their use. Stereotactic body radiotherapy, which is a form of extreme hypofractionation, delivered with high precision and conformality typically over 1 to 5 fractions, offers a more contemporary approach with several advantages including being non-invasive, cost-effective, convenient for patients, and potentially improving patient access. In fact, one study has estimated that if half of the patients currently eligible for conventional fractionated radiotherapy in the United States were treated instead with stereotactic body radiotherapy, this would result in a total cost savings of US$250 million per year. There is also a strong radiobiological rationale to support its use, with prostate cancer believed to have a low α/β ratio and therefore being preferentially sensitive to larger fraction sizes. To date, there are no published randomized trials reporting on the comparative efficacy of stereotactic body radiotherapy compared to alternative treatment modalities, although multiple randomized trials are currently accruing. Yet, early results from the randomized phase III study of HYPOfractionated RadioTherapy of intermediate risk localized Prostate Cancer (HYPO-RT-PC) trial, as well as multiple single-arm phase I/II trials, indicate low rates of late adverse effects with this approach. In patients with low- to intermediate-risk disease, excellent biochemical relapse-free survival outcomes have been reported, albeit with relatively short median follow-up times. These promising early results, coupled with the enormous potential cost savings and implications for resource availability, suggest that stereotactic body radiotherapy will take center stage in the treatment of prostate cancer in the years to come.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gargi Kothari
- Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Andrew Loblaw
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Center, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Alison C. Tree
- Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | | | - Drew Moghanaki
- Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA
| | - Simon S. Lo
- University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Piet Ost
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Shankar Siva
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| |
Collapse
|