1
|
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
|
2
|
Nakai Y, Tanaka N, Asakawa I, Ohnishi K, Miyake M, Yamaki K, Torimoto K, Fujimoto K. Efficacy of a hydrogel spacer for improving quality of life in patients with prostate cancer undergoing low-dose-rate brachytherapy alone or in combination with intensity-modulated radiotherapy: An observational study using propensity score matching. Prostate 2024. [PMID: 38734992 DOI: 10.1002/pros.24744] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/06/2024] [Revised: 04/22/2024] [Accepted: 05/03/2024] [Indexed: 05/13/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND It is unclear whether a hydrogel spacer can improve quality of life (QOL) in patients undergoing low-dose-rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT) alone or in combination with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). METHODS We enrolled patients with prostate cancer who underwent LDR-BT alone with (n = 186) or without (n = 348) a hydrogel spacer, or underwent LDR-BT in combination with IMRT with (n = 70) or without (n = 217) a hydrogel spacer. QOL was evaluated using Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) questionnaires at baseline and 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after implantation. The groups were compared using propensity score matching analysis. RESULTS Among patients who underwent LDR-BT alone, there were no differences regarding changes in urinary, bowel, sexual, or hormonal domain scores between the spacer and no-spacer groups; however, the dose at the bowel was significantly lower in the spacer group than in the no-spacer group. Among patients who underwent LDR-BT in combination with IMRT, there were no differences regarding changes in urinary, sexual, or hormonal domain scores between the spacer and no-spacer groups. However, the changes in the bowel domain score were significantly lower in the spacer group than in the no-spacer group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS A hydrogel spacer may not improve impaired urinary, bowel, or sexual QOL in patients undergoing LDR-BT alone. However, in patients undergoing LDR-BT in combination with IMRT, a hydrogel spacer can improve impaired bowel QOL but not sexual or urinary QOL.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yasushi Nakai
- Department of Urology, Nara Medical University, Nara, Kashihara, Japan
- Department of Prostate Brachytherapy, Nara Medical University, Nara, Kashihara, Japan
| | - Nobumichi Tanaka
- Department of Urology, Nara Medical University, Nara, Kashihara, Japan
- Department of Prostate Brachytherapy, Nara Medical University, Nara, Kashihara, Japan
| | - Isao Asakawa
- Department of Prostate Brachytherapy, Nara Medical University, Nara, Kashihara, Japan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Nara Medical University, Nara, Kashihara, Japan
| | - Kenta Ohnishi
- Department of Urology, Nara Medical University, Nara, Kashihara, Japan
| | - Makito Miyake
- Department of Urology, Nara Medical University, Nara, Kashihara, Japan
| | - Kaori Yamaki
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Nara Medical University, Nara, Kashihara, Japan
| | - Kazumasa Torimoto
- Department of Urology, Nara Medical University, Nara, Kashihara, Japan
| | - Kiyohide Fujimoto
- Department of Urology, Nara Medical University, Nara, Kashihara, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Ong WL, Evans M, Papa N, Williams S, Millar J. Population-based patient-reported quality of life outcomes following low-dose-rate versus high-dose-rate brachytherapy monotherapy for low-intermediate risk prostate cancer. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2023; 67:789-795. [PMID: 37828817 DOI: 10.1111/1754-9485.13596] [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: 11/12/2022] [Accepted: 09/28/2023] [Indexed: 10/14/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION To evaluate patient reported quality of life outcomes (QoL) following low-dose-rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT) and high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) monotherapy for prostate cancer at a population-based setting. METHODS The study comprised men with low-intermediate risk prostate cancer in the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry Victoria (PCOR-Vic), who were treated with LDR-BT or HDR-BT monotherapy between 2015 and 2020 and completed the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26) questionnaire 12-month post-treatment. Men who had ADT were excluded (n = 12). Differences in substantial symptoms (i.e. 'moderate' or 'big' problem on a 5-point Likert scale) between LDR-BT and HDR-BT arms were evaluated using Pearson's chi-squared test. Multivariable linear regressions were used to estimate differences in EPIC-26 urinary, bowel and sexual functional domain scores between LDR-BT and HDR-BT arms. RESULTS Overall, 198 men were included in this study, of which 167 (84%) had LDR-BT and 31 (16%) had HDR-BT. 9 (4.6%), 10 (5.1%) and 56 (28%) reported substantial symptoms for overall urinary, bowel and sexual function at 12-month post-treatment, with no significant difference between LDR-BT and HDR-BT arms. The adjusted mean differences in urinary incontinence, urinary obstructive, bowel and sexual function domain scores between LDR-BT and HDT-BT were: -3.53 (-8.21 to 1.14), -1.27 (-6.88 to 4.35), -0.01 (-5.63 to 5.63) and -8.68 (-21.44 to 4.07) respectively - these were not statistically significant and did not meet the minimal clinically important difference. CONCLUSION This is the first Australian population-based study comparing QoL in men who had LDR-BT and HDR-BT, with no statistically or clinically significant differences in QoL observed at 12-month post-treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wee Loon Ong
- Alfred Health Radiation Oncology, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Melanie Evans
- Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Nathan Papa
- Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Scott Williams
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Jeremy Millar
- Alfred Health Radiation Oncology, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Novikov SN, Novikov RV, Merezhko YO, Gotovchikova MY, Ilin ND, Melnik YS, Kanaev SV. A comparison between high dose rate brachytherapy and stereotactic body radiotherapy boost after elective pelvic irradiation for high and very high-risk prostate cancer. Radiat Oncol J 2022; 40:200-207. [PMID: 36200309 PMCID: PMC9535414 DOI: 10.3857/roj.2022.00339] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/14/2022] [Accepted: 09/13/2022] [Indexed: 11/03/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose: To compare biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS) and toxicity outcomes of high dose rate brachytherapy (HDRB) and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) boost after elective nodal irradiation for high/very high-risk prostate cancer.Materials and Methods: a retrospective analysis was performed in 149 male. In 98 patients, the boost to the prostate was delivered by HDRB as 2 fractions of 10 Gy (EQD2 for α/β = 1.5; 66 Gy) or 1 fraction of 15 Gy (EQD2 for α/β = 1.5; 71 Gy). In 51 male, SBRT was used for the boost delivery (3 fractions of 7 Gy; EQD2Gy for α/β = 1.5; 51 Gy) because brachytherapy equipment was out of order.Results: In 98 patients that received HDRB boost, 3- and 5-year BRFS were 74.6% and 66.8%. Late grade-II genitourinary toxicity was detected in 27, grade-III in 1 case. Grade-II (maximum) rectal toxicity was diagnosed in nine patients. For 51 male patients that received SBRT boost, 3- and 5-year BRFS was 76.5% and 67.7%. Late grade-II (maximum) genitourinary toxicity was detected in five cases, late grade-II rectal toxicity in four cases. Other three patients developed late grade-III–IV rectal toxicity that required diverting colostomy. SBRT boost was associated with higher maximum dose to 2 cm3 of anterior rectal wall (D2cm³rectum) compared to HDRB: 92% versus 55% of dose to prostate. Severe rectal toxicity was negligible at EQD2 D2cm³rectum <85 Gy and EQD2 D5cm³ rectum <75 Gy.Conclusion: Our results indicate similar 3- and 5-year BRFS in patients with high/very high-risk prostate cancer who received HDRB or SBRT boost, but SBRT boost is associated with higher rate of severe late rectal toxicity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sergey Nikolaevich Novikov
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Nuclear Medicine, N.N. Petrov National Medical Research Center of Oncology, St Petersburg, Russia
- Correspondence: Sergey Nikolaevich Novikov Department of Radiation Oncology and Nuclear Medicine, N.N. Petrov National Medical Research Center of Oncology, Leningradskaya, 68, St Petersburg, 197758, Russia. Tel: +79500437996 Fax +78125968609 E-mail:
| | - Roman Vladimirovich Novikov
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Nuclear Medicine, N.N. Petrov National Medical Research Center of Oncology, St Petersburg, Russia
| | - Yurii Olegovich Merezhko
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Nuclear Medicine, N.N. Petrov National Medical Research Center of Oncology, St Petersburg, Russia
| | - Mariya Yurevna Gotovchikova
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Nuclear Medicine, N.N. Petrov National Medical Research Center of Oncology, St Petersburg, Russia
| | - Nikolai Dmitrievich Ilin
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Nuclear Medicine, N.N. Petrov National Medical Research Center of Oncology, St Petersburg, Russia
| | - Yulia Sergeevna Melnik
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Nuclear Medicine, N.N. Petrov National Medical Research Center of Oncology, St Petersburg, Russia
| | - Sergey Vasilevich Kanaev
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Nuclear Medicine, N.N. Petrov National Medical Research Center of Oncology, St Petersburg, Russia
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Balázs K, Kocsis ZS, Ágoston P, Jorgo K, Gesztesi L, Farkas G, Székely G, Takácsi-Nagy Z, Polgár C, Sáfrány G, Jurányi Z, Lumniczky K. Prostate Cancer Survivors Present Long-Term, Residual Systemic Immune Alterations. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14133058. [PMID: 35804830 PMCID: PMC9264868 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14133058] [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: 05/04/2022] [Revised: 06/10/2022] [Accepted: 06/16/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary The development of cancer is very often accompanied by systemic immune alterations which can be further aggravated by major anti-cancer therapies. However, there is very little known about how long these alterations persist in patients successfully cured of cancer. The aim of our work was to investigate how cancer and radiotherapy as major anti-cancer treatment modalities impact the immune system long after the successful treatment of a tumor. We investigated prostate cancer patients treated with a special form of radiotherapy (low-dose rate brachytherapy) often used for the treatment of prostate cancer and followed a wide range of immune parameters at regular intervals up to 3 years after the start of the treatment. Our results showed that some immune alterations did not recover after the treatment of the disease, on the contrary, they persisted, and in some cases got even worse. Further studies are needed to explain the causes and the potential long-term consequences of these alterations. Abstract Background: The development of cancer and anti-tumor therapies can lead to systemic immune alterations but little is known about how long immune dysfunction persists in cancer survivors. Methods: We followed changes in the cellular immune parameters of prostate cancer patients with good prognostic criteria treated with low dose rate brachytherapy before and up to 3 years after the initiation of therapy. Results: Patients before therapy had a reduced CD4+ T cell pool and increased regulatory T cell fraction and these alterations persisted or got amplified during the 36-month follow-up. A significant decrease in the total NK cell number and a redistribution of the circulating NK cells in favor of a less functional anergic subpopulation was seen in patients before therapy but tumor regression led to the regeneration of the NK cell pool and functional integrity. The fraction of lymphoid DCs was increased in patients both before therapy and throughout the whole follow-up. Increased PDGF-AA, BB, CCL5 and CXCL5 levels were measured in patients before treatment but protein levels rapidly normalized. Conclusions: while NK cell dysfunction recovered, long-term, residual alterations persisted in the adaptive and partly in the innate immune system.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katalin Balázs
- National Public Health Center, Unit of Radiation Medicine, Department of Radiobiology and Radiohygiene, 1221 Budapest, Hungary; (K.B.); (G.S.)
- Doctoral School of Pathological Sciences, Semmelweis University, 1085 Budapest, Hungary
| | - Zsuzsa S. Kocsis
- Department of Radiobiology and Diagnostic Onco-Cytogenetics and The National Tumorbiology Laboratory, Centre of Radiotherapy, National Institute of Oncology, 1122 Budapest, Hungary; (Z.S.K.); (G.F.); (G.S.); (Z.J.)
| | - Péter Ágoston
- Centre of Radiotherapy and The National Tumorbiology Laboratory, National Institute of Oncology, 1122 Budapest, Hungary; (P.Á.); (K.J.); (L.G.); (Z.T.-N.); (C.P.)
- Department of Oncology, Semmelweis University, 1122 Budapest, Hungary
| | - Kliton Jorgo
- Centre of Radiotherapy and The National Tumorbiology Laboratory, National Institute of Oncology, 1122 Budapest, Hungary; (P.Á.); (K.J.); (L.G.); (Z.T.-N.); (C.P.)
- Department of Oncology, Semmelweis University, 1122 Budapest, Hungary
| | - László Gesztesi
- Centre of Radiotherapy and The National Tumorbiology Laboratory, National Institute of Oncology, 1122 Budapest, Hungary; (P.Á.); (K.J.); (L.G.); (Z.T.-N.); (C.P.)
| | - Gyöngyi Farkas
- Department of Radiobiology and Diagnostic Onco-Cytogenetics and The National Tumorbiology Laboratory, Centre of Radiotherapy, National Institute of Oncology, 1122 Budapest, Hungary; (Z.S.K.); (G.F.); (G.S.); (Z.J.)
| | - Gábor Székely
- Department of Radiobiology and Diagnostic Onco-Cytogenetics and The National Tumorbiology Laboratory, Centre of Radiotherapy, National Institute of Oncology, 1122 Budapest, Hungary; (Z.S.K.); (G.F.); (G.S.); (Z.J.)
| | - Zoltán Takácsi-Nagy
- Centre of Radiotherapy and The National Tumorbiology Laboratory, National Institute of Oncology, 1122 Budapest, Hungary; (P.Á.); (K.J.); (L.G.); (Z.T.-N.); (C.P.)
- Department of Oncology, Semmelweis University, 1122 Budapest, Hungary
| | - Csaba Polgár
- Centre of Radiotherapy and The National Tumorbiology Laboratory, National Institute of Oncology, 1122 Budapest, Hungary; (P.Á.); (K.J.); (L.G.); (Z.T.-N.); (C.P.)
- Department of Oncology, Semmelweis University, 1122 Budapest, Hungary
| | - Géza Sáfrány
- National Public Health Center, Unit of Radiation Medicine, Department of Radiobiology and Radiohygiene, 1221 Budapest, Hungary; (K.B.); (G.S.)
| | - Zsolt Jurányi
- Department of Radiobiology and Diagnostic Onco-Cytogenetics and The National Tumorbiology Laboratory, Centre of Radiotherapy, National Institute of Oncology, 1122 Budapest, Hungary; (Z.S.K.); (G.F.); (G.S.); (Z.J.)
| | - Katalin Lumniczky
- National Public Health Center, Unit of Radiation Medicine, Department of Radiobiology and Radiohygiene, 1221 Budapest, Hungary; (K.B.); (G.S.)
- Correspondence: or ; Tel.: +36-1-4822011
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Kissel M, Créhange G, Graff P. Stereotactic Radiation Therapy versus Brachytherapy: Relative Strengths of Two Highly Efficient Options for the Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:2226. [PMID: 35565355 PMCID: PMC9105931 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14092226] [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: 02/28/2022] [Revised: 04/18/2022] [Accepted: 04/20/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has become a valid option for the treatment of low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. In randomized trials, it was found not inferior to conventionally fractionated external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). It also compares favorably to brachytherapy (BT) even if level 1 evidence is lacking. However, BT remains a strong competitor, especially for young patients, as series with 10-15 years of median follow-up have proven its efficacy over time. SBRT will thus have to confirm its effectiveness over the long-term as well. SBRT has the advantage over BT of less acute urinary toxicity and, more hypothetically, less sexual impairment. Data are limited regarding SBRT for high-risk disease while BT, as a boost after EBRT, has demonstrated superiority against EBRT alone in randomized trials. However, patients should be informed of significant urinary toxicity. SBRT is under investigation in strategies of treatment intensification such as combination of EBRT plus SBRT boost or focal dose escalation to the tumor site within the prostate. Our goal was to examine respective levels of evidence of SBRT and BT for the treatment of localized prostate cancer in terms of oncologic outcomes, toxicity and quality of life, and to discuss strategies of treatment intensification.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Pierre Graff
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut Curie, 26 Rue d’Ulm, 75005 Paris, France; (M.K.); (G.C.)
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Yamazaki H, Masui K, Suzuki G, Aibe N, Shimizu D, Kimoto T, Yamada K, Ueno A, Matsugasumi T, Yamada Y, Shiraishi T, Fujihara A, Yoshida K, Nakamura S. Comparison of toxicities between ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy versus brachytherapy with or without external beam radiotherapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Sci Rep 2022; 12:5055. [PMID: 35322160 PMCID: PMC8942991 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-09120-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/02/2021] [Accepted: 03/17/2022] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
Abstract
To compare gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities in patients with localized prostate cancer treated with ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy (UHF) or brachytherapy [BT; low dose rate, LDR or high dose rate (HDR) with or without external beam radiotherapy (EBRT)]. We compared 253 UHF and 1664 BT ± EBRT groups. The main outcomes were the incidence and severity of acute and late GU and GI toxicities. The secondary endpoint was biochemical control rate. Cumulative late actuarial GU toxicity did not differ for grade ≥ 2 (8.6% at 5-years in UHF and 13.3% in BT ± EBRT, hazard ratio [HR], 0.7066; 95% CI, 0.4093–1.22, p = 0.2127). Actuarial grade ≥ 2 late GI toxicity was higher in UHF (5.8% at 5-years, HR: 3.619; 95% CI, 1.774–7.383, p < 0.001) than in BT ± EBRT (1.1%). In detailed subgroup analyses, the high-dose UHF group (H-UHF) using BED ≥ 226 Gy1.5, showed higher GI toxicity profiles than the other subgroups (HDR + EBRT, LDR + EBRT, and LDR monotherapy, and L-UHF BED < 226 Gy1.5) with equivalent GU toxicity to other modalities. With a median follow-up period of 32 months and 75 months, the actuarial biochemical control rates were equivalent between the UHF and BT ± EBRT groups. UHF showed equivalent efficacy, higher GI and equivalent GU accumulated toxicity to BT ± EBRT, and the toxicity of UHF was largely dependent on the UHF schedule.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hideya Yamazaki
- Department of Radiology, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, 465 Kajiicho Kawaramachi Hirokoji, Kamigyo-ku, Kyoto, 602-8566, Japan.
| | - Koji Masui
- Department of Radiology, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, 465 Kajiicho Kawaramachi Hirokoji, Kamigyo-ku, Kyoto, 602-8566, Japan
| | - Gen Suzuki
- Department of Radiology, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, 465 Kajiicho Kawaramachi Hirokoji, Kamigyo-ku, Kyoto, 602-8566, Japan
| | - Norihiro Aibe
- Department of Radiology, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, 465 Kajiicho Kawaramachi Hirokoji, Kamigyo-ku, Kyoto, 602-8566, Japan
| | - Daisuke Shimizu
- Department of Radiology, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, 465 Kajiicho Kawaramachi Hirokoji, Kamigyo-ku, Kyoto, 602-8566, Japan
| | - Takuya Kimoto
- Department of Radiology, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, 465 Kajiicho Kawaramachi Hirokoji, Kamigyo-ku, Kyoto, 602-8566, Japan
| | - Kei Yamada
- Department of Radiology, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, 465 Kajiicho Kawaramachi Hirokoji, Kamigyo-ku, Kyoto, 602-8566, Japan
| | - Akihisa Ueno
- Urology, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, 465 Kajiicho Kawaramachi Hirokoji, Kamigyo-ku, Kyoto, 602-8566, Japan
| | - Toru Matsugasumi
- Urology, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, 465 Kajiicho Kawaramachi Hirokoji, Kamigyo-ku, Kyoto, 602-8566, Japan
| | - Yasuhiro Yamada
- Urology, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, 465 Kajiicho Kawaramachi Hirokoji, Kamigyo-ku, Kyoto, 602-8566, Japan
| | - Takumi Shiraishi
- Urology, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, 465 Kajiicho Kawaramachi Hirokoji, Kamigyo-ku, Kyoto, 602-8566, Japan
| | - Atsuko Fujihara
- Urology, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, 465 Kajiicho Kawaramachi Hirokoji, Kamigyo-ku, Kyoto, 602-8566, Japan
| | - Ken Yoshida
- Department of Radiology, Kansai Medical University, Hirakata, 573-1010, Japan
| | - Satoaki Nakamura
- Department of Radiology, Kansai Medical University, Hirakata, 573-1010, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Liu Y, Li J, Cheng X, Zhang X. Bibliometric Analysis of the Top-Cited Publications and Research Trends for Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy. Front Oncol 2021; 11:795568. [PMID: 34926312 PMCID: PMC8677697 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.795568] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/15/2021] [Accepted: 11/15/2021] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective This study aims to analyze the 100 most cited papers and research trends on stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Methods We used Web of Science to identify the 100 most frequently cited papers on SBRT on September 29, 2021 and extracted the following data: publication year, source title, country/region, organization, total citations, and average number of citations per year. The research type and research domain were classified independently by the authors. Then we carried out a bibliometric analysis to determine the trends in research on SBRT. Results These 100 papers were cited a total of 26,540 times, and the median number of citations was 190 (range, 138-1688). “Stereotactic body radiation therapy for inoperable early stage lung cancer” by Timmerman et al. had the highest number of total citations (1688 times). International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics published the largest number of papers (37 papers), followed by Journal of Clinical Oncology (13 papers). The USA contributed the most papers (67 papers), followed by Canada (18 papers). Primary lung cancer (33 papers, 10,683 citations) and oligometastases (30 papers, 7,147 citations) were the most cited research areas. Conclusions To the best of our knowledge, this is the first bibliometric analysis of the most frequently cited papers on SBRT. Our results provide insight into the historical development of SBRT and important advances in its application to cancer treatment. Early-stage non–small-cell lung cancer and oligometastases were the most cited research areas in the top 100 publications on SBRT, and SBRT combined with immunotherapy was a hot topic in the past few years. This study is helpful for researchers to identify the most influential papers and current research hotspots on SBRT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yanhao Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Affiliated Qingdao Central Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, China
| | - Jinying Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Affiliated Qingdao Central Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, China
| | - Xu Cheng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Affiliated Qingdao Central Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, China
| | - Xiaotao Zhang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Affiliated Qingdao Central Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, China
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Extreme Hypofractionation with SBRT in Localized Prostate Cancer. Curr Oncol 2021; 28:2933-2949. [PMID: 34436023 PMCID: PMC8395496 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol28040257] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/07/2021] [Revised: 07/24/2021] [Accepted: 07/27/2021] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among men around the world. Radiotherapy is a standard of care treatment option for men with localized prostate cancer. Over the years, radiation delivery modalities have contributed to increased precision of treatment, employing radiobiological insights to shorten the overall treatment time, improving the control of the disease without increasing toxicities. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) represents an extreme form of hypofractionated radiotherapy in which treatment is usually delivered in 1–5 fractions. This review assesses the main efficacy and toxicity data of SBRT in non-metastatic prostate cancer and discusses the potential to implement this scheme in routine clinical practice.
Collapse
|
10
|
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
|