A Pooled Toxicity Analysis of Moderately Hypofractionated Proton Beam Therapy and Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy in Early-Stage Prostate Cancer Patients

Significant Effect of Carbon-Ion Radiation Therapy Combined With Androgen Deprivation on Biochemical Recurrence Rates in High-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients: A Two-Center Controlled Trial Compare With X-Ray External Beam Radiation Therapy

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of carbon-ion radiation therapy (CIRT) and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) on the prognosis of patients with prostate cancer.

METHODS

The effects of initial prostate-specific antigen (iPSA), clinical Tumor (cT) stage, radiotherapy method, and other clinical factors on the prognosis of 577 patients with radiotherapy were analyzed.

RESULTS

Cox regression analysis showed that CIRT (RR: 0.49, p = 0.0215), cT stage ≥ 3 (RR: 2.72, p = 0.0003), and iPSA ≥ 16 ng/mL (RR: 1.74, p = 0.0347) were independent predictors of biochemical recurrence (BCR). After propensity score matching (PSM), CIRT (RR: 0.42, p = 0.0147), cT stage ≥ 3 (RR: 2.55, p = 0.0092), and iPSA ≥ 16 ng/mL (RR: 2.12, p = 0.0366) were still the predictors of univariate analysis. In multivariate analysis, CIRT (RR: 0.42, p = 0.015) and cT stage≥ 3 (RR:2.21, p = 0.0332) were independent predictors of BCR. Among them, we used iPSA and cT stages to establish a new radiotherapy selection model based on BCR risk. Patients who met more than one factor (score ≥ 1) and underwent CIRT had significantly better BCR progression-free survival (PFS) than those who received EBRT (p ≤ 0.01). This was also confirmed by Kaplan-Meier analysis after PSM.

CONCLUSION

CIRT patients exhibited lower 5-year BCR rates compared to the EBRT group. Patients with a risk score of our model ≥ 1 undergoing CIRT were more likely to experience BCR benefits compared to those receiving EBRT.

Setting the Stage: Feasibility and Baseline Characteristics in the PARTIQoL Trial Comparing Proton Therapy Versus Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Men with localized prostate cancer may receive either photon-based intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or proton beam therapy (PBT). The PARTIQoL trial (NCT01617161) demonstrates the feasibility of performing a large, multicenter phase 3 randomized trial comparing IMRT with PBT for localized prostate cancer. Here, we report baseline features of patients enrolled on this trial and present strategies to improve feasibility of other similar trials.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer were randomly assigned to either PBT or IMRT with stratification by institution, age, use of rectal spacer, and fractionation schedule (conventional fractionation: 79.2 Gy in 44 fractions vs moderate hypofractionation: 70.0 Gy in 28 fractions). The primary endpoint is a change from baseline bowel health using the Expanded Prostate Index Composite score 24 months after radiation therapy. Secondary objectives include treatment-related differences in urinary and erectile functions, adverse events, and efficacy endpoints.

RESULTS

Between July 2012 and November 2021, 450 patients were successfully accrued. Patients were randomly assigned to either PBT (N = 226) or to IMRT (N = 224); 13 were ineligible or withdrew before treatment. The median age of 437 analyzed patients was 68 years (range, 46-89 years). A total of 41% of patients had low-risk and 59% had intermediate-risk disease. In total, 49% of patients were treated with conventional fractionation and 51% with moderately hypofractionation. 48% of patients used a rectal spacer. For patients receiving PBT, pencil beam scanning was used in 48%. PBT and IMRT arms were balanced for baseline variables.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite significant challenges, the PARTIQoL trial demonstrated that, with targeted recruitment approaches, multicenter collaboration, payer engagement, and protocol updates to incorporate contemporary techniques, it is feasible to perform a large phase 3 randomized clinical trial to assess whether PBT improves outcomes. We will separately report primary results and continue to monitor participants for longer follow-up and secondary endpoints.

Photon vs proton hypofractionation in prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

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.

Updated Analysis of Comparative Toxicity of Proton and Photon Radiation for Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Previous comparative effectiveness studies have not demonstrated a benefit of proton beam therapy (PBT) compared with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer. An updated comparison of GI and genitourinary (GU) toxicity is needed.

METHODS

We investigated the SEER-Medicare linked database, identifying patients with localized prostate cancer diagnosed from 2010 to 2017. Procedure and diagnosis codes indicative of treatment-related toxicity were identified. As a sensitivity analysis, we also identified toxicity based only on procedure codes. Patients who underwent IMRT and PBT were matched 2:1 on the basis of clinical and sociodemographic characteristics. We then compared GI and GU toxicity at 6, 12, and 24 months after treatment.

RESULTS

The final sample included 772 PBT patients matched to 1,544 IMRT patients. The frequency of GI toxicity for IMRT versus PBT was 3.5% versus 2.5% at 6 months (P = .18), 9.5% versus 10.2% at 12 months (P = .18), and 20.5% versus 23.4% at 24 months (P = .11). The frequency of only procedure codes indicative of GI toxicity for IMRT versus PBT was too low to be reported and not significantly different. The frequency of GU toxicity for IMRT versus PBT was 6.8% versus 5.7% (P = .30), 14.3% versus 12.2% (P = .13), and 28.2% versus 25.8% (P = .21) at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively. When looking only at procedure codes, the frequency of GU toxicity for IMRT was 1.0% at 6 months, whereas it was too infrequent to report for PBT (P = .64). GU toxicity for IMRT versus PBT was 3.3% versus 2.1% (P = .10), and 8.7% versus 6.7% (P = .10) at 12 and 24 months, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In this observational study, there were no statistically significant differences between PBT and IMRT in terms of GI or GU toxicity.

A pooled patient-reported outcomes analysis of moderately hypofractionated proton beam therapy and photon-based intensity modulated radiation therapy for low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

We sought to characterize and compare late patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after moderately hypofractionated intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) for localized prostate cancer (PC).

METHODS

This multi-institutional analysis included low- or intermediate-risk group PC patients treated with moderately hypofractionated radiation to an intact prostate stratified by treatment modality: IMRT or PBT. The primary outcomes were prospectively collected patient-reported late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity assessed by International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and Expanded PC Index Composite (EPIC). Multivariable regression analysis (MVA) controlling for age, race, and risk group tested the effect of time, treatment, and their interaction.

RESULTS

287 IMRT and 485 PBT patients were included. Intermediate risk group (81.2 vs. 68.2%; p < 0.001) and median age at diagnosis (70 vs. 67 years; p < 0.001) were higher in the IMRT group. On MVA, there was no significant difference between modalities. PBT IPSS did not differ from IMRT IPSS at 12 months (odds ratio [OR], 1.19; p = 0.08) or 24 months (OR, 0.99; p = 0.94). PBT EPIC overall GI function at 12 months (OR, 3.68; p = 0.085) and 24 months (OR 2.78; p = 0.26) did not differ from IMRT EPIC overall GI function. At 24 months, urinary frequency was no different between PBT and IMRT groups (OR 0.35; p = 0.096).

CONCLUSIONS

This multi-institutional analysis of low- or intermediate-risk PC treated with moderately hypofractionated PBT and IMRT demonstrated low rates of late patient-reported GI and GU toxicities. After covariate adjustment, late GI and GU PROs were not significantly different between PBT or IMRT cohorts.

Dosimetric Comparison Study of Proton Therapy Using Line Scanning versus Passive Scattering and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

The proton irradiation modality has transitioned from passive scattering (PS) to pencil beam scanning. Nevertheless, the documented outcomes predominantly rely on PS.

METHODS

Thirty patients diagnosed with prostate cancer were selected to assess treatment planning across line scanning (LS), PS, and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Dose constraints encompassed clinical target volume (CTV) D98 ≥ 73.0 Gy (RBE), rectal wall V65 < 17% and V40 < 35%, and bladder wall V65 < 25% and V40 < 50%. The CTV, rectal wall, and bladder wall dose volumes were calculated and evaluated using the Freidman test.

RESULTS

The LS technique adhered to all dose limitations. For the rectal and bladder walls, 10 (33.3%) and 21 (70.0%) patients in the PS method and 5 (16.7%) and 1 (3.3%) patients in VMAT, respectively, failed to meet the stipulated requirements. The wide ranges of the rectal and bladder wall volumes (V10-70) were lower with LS than with PS and VMAT. LS outperformed VMAT across all dose-volume rectal and bladder wall indices.

CONCLUSION

The LS method demonstrated a reduction in rectal and bladder doses relative to PS and VMAT, thereby suggesting the potential for mitigating toxicities.

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

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

Case-Matched Outcomes of Proton Beam and Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer

Purpose

Although both intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) offer effective long-term disease control for localized prostate cancer (PCa), there are limited data directly comparing the 2 modalities.

Methods

The data from 334 patients treated with conventionally fractionated (79.2 GyRBE in 44 fractions) PBT or IMRT were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity score matching was used to balance factors associated with biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS). Age, race, and comorbidities (not BFFS associates) remained imbalanced after matching. Univariable and covariate-adjusted multivariable (MVA) Cox regression models were used to determine if modality affected BFFS.

Results

Of 334 patients, 176 (52.7%) were included in the matched cohort with exact matching to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group. With a median follow-up time of 9.0 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 7.8-10.2 years), long-term BFFS was similar between the IMRT and PBT matched arms with 8-year estimates of 85% (95% CI: 76%-91%) and 91% (95% CI: 82%-96%, P = .39), respectively. On MVA, modality was not significantly associated with BFFS in both the unmatched (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.35-1.63, P = .47) and matched (HR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.33-2.33, P = .78) cohorts. Prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) and overall survival (OS) were also similar (P > .05). However, in an unmatched analysis, the PBT arm had significantly fewer incidences of secondary cancers within the irradiated field (0.6%, 95% CI: 0.0%-3.1% versus 4.5%, 95% CI: 1.8%-9.0%, P = .028).

Conclusions

Both PBT and IMRT offer excellent long-term disease control for PCa, with no significant differences between the 2 modalities in BFFS, PCSS, and OS in matched patients. In the unmatched cohort, fewer incidences of secondary malignancy were noted in the PBT group; however, owing to overall low incidence of secondary cancer and imbalanced patient characteristics between the 2 groups, these data are strictly hypothesis generating and require further investigation.

Does particle radiation have superior radiobiological advantages for prostate cancer cells? A systematic review of in vitro studies

BACKGROUND

Charged particle beams from protons to carbon ions provide many significant physical benefits in radiation therapy. However, preclinical studies of charged particle therapy for prostate cancer are extremely limited. The aim of this study was to comprehensively investigate the biological effects of charged particles on prostate cancer from the perspective of in vitro studies.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review by searching EMBASE (OVID), Medline (OVID), and Web of Science databases to identify the publications assessing the radiobiological effects of charged particle irradiation on prostate cancer cells. The data of relative biological effectiveness (RBE), surviving fraction (SF), standard enhancement ratio (SER) and oxygen enhancement ratio (OER) were extracted.

RESULTS

We found 12 studies met the eligible criteria. The relative biological effectiveness values of proton and carbon ion irradiation ranged from 0.94 to 1.52, and 1.67 to 3.7, respectively. Surviving fraction of 2 Gy were 0.17 ± 0.12, 0.55 ± 0.20 and 0.53 ± 0.16 in carbon ion, proton, and photon irradiation, respectively. PNKP inhibitor and gold nanoparticles were favorable sensitizing agents, while it was presented poorer performance in GANT61. The oxygen enhancement ratio values of photon and carbon ion irradiation were 2.32 ± 0.04, and 1.77 ± 0.13, respectively. Charged particle irradiation induced more G0-/G1- or G2-/M-phase arrest, more expression of γ-H2AX, more apoptosis, and lower motility and/or migration ability than photon irradiation.

CONCLUSIONS

Both carbon ion and proton irradiation have advantages over photon irradiation in radiobiological effects on prostate cancer cell lines. Carbon ion irradiation seems to have further advantages over proton irradiation.

Particle Therapy: Clinical Applications and Biological Effects

Particle therapy is a developing area of radiotherapy, mostly involving the use of protons, neutrons and carbon ions for cancer treatment. The reduction of side effects on healthy tissues in the peritumoral area is an important advantage of particle therapy. In this review, we analyze state-of-the-art particle therapy, as compared to conventional photon therapy, to identify clinical benefits and specify the mechanisms of action on tumor cells. Systematization of published data on particle therapy confirms its successful application in a wide range of cancers and reveals a variety of biological effects which manifest at the molecular level and produce the particle therapy-specific molecular signatures. Given the rapid progress in the field, the use of particle therapy holds great promise for the near future.

Effect of Race and Ethnicity on Risk of Radiotherapy Toxicity and Implications for Radiogenomics

AIMS

Patient factors affect the risk of radiotherapy toxicity, but many are poorly defined. Studies have shown that race affects cancer incidence, survival, drug response, molecular pathways and epigenetics. Effects on radiosensitivity and radiotherapy toxicity are not well studied. The aim of the present study was to identify the effects of race and ethnicity on the risk of radiotherapy toxicity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review was carried out of PubMed, Ovid Medline and Ovid Embase with no year limit. PRISMA 2020 guidelines were followed. Two independent assessors reviewed papers.

RESULTS

Of 607 papers screened, 46 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Papers were published between 1996 and 2021 and involved 30-28,354 individuals (median 433). Most involved patients with prostate (33%), breast (26%) and lung (9%) cancer. Both early and late toxicities were studied. Some studies reported a higher risk of toxicity in White men with prostate cancer compared with other races and ethnicities. For breast cancer patients, some reported an increased risk of toxicity in White women compared with other race and ethnic groups. In general, it was difficult to draw conclusions due to insufficient reporting and analysis of race and ethnicity in published literature.

CONCLUSIONS

Reporting of race and ethnicity in radiotherapy studies must be harmonised and improved and frameworks are needed to improve the quality of reporting. Further research is needed to understand how ancestral heritage might affect radiosensitivity and risk of radiotherapy toxicity.

Impact of radiotherapy on the immune landscape in oesophageal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

In the contemporary era of cancer immunotherapy, an abundance of clinical and translational studies have reported radiotherapy (RT) and immunotherapies as a viable option for immunomodulation of many cancer subtypes, with many related clinical trials ongoing. In locally advanced disease, chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy followed by surgical excision of the tumour remain the principal treatment strategy in oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC), however, the use of the host immune system to improve anti-tumour immunity is rapidly garnering increased support in the curative setting.

AIM

To immunophenotype OAC patients’ immune checkpoint (IC) expression with and without radiation and evaluate the effects of checkpoint blockade on cell viability.

METHODS

In the contemporary era of cancer immunotherapy, an abundance of studies have demonstrated that combination RT and IC inhibitors (ICIs) are effective in the immunomodulation of many cancer subtypes, with many related clinical trials ongoing. Although surgical excision and elimination of tumour cells by chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy remains the gold standard approach in OAC, the propagation of anti-tumour immune responses is rapidly garnering increased support in the curative setting. The aim of this body of work was to immunophenotype OAC patients’ IC expression with and without radiation and to establish the impact of checkpoint blockade on cell viability. This study was a hybrid combination of in vitro and ex vivo models. Quantification of serum immune proteins was performed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Flow cytometry staining was performed to evaluate IC expression for in vitro OAC cell lines and ex vivo OAC biopsies. Cell viability in the presence of radiation with and without IC blockade was assessed by a cell counting kit-8 assay.

RESULTS

We identified that conventional dosing and hypofractionated approaches resulted in increased IC expression (PD-1, PD-L1, TIM3, TIGIT) in vitro and ex vivo in OAC. There were two distinct subcohorts with one demonstrating significant upregulation of ICs and the contrary in the other cohort. Increasing IC expression post RT was associated with a more aggressive tumour phenotype and adverse features of tumour biology. The use of anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 immunotherapies in combination with radiation resulted in a significant and synergistic reduction in viability of both radiosensitive and radioresistant OAC cells in vitro. Interleukin-21 (IL-21) and IL-31 significantly increased, with a concomitant reduction in IL-23 as a consequence of 4 Gray radiation. Similarly, radiation induced an anti-angiogenic tumour milieu with reduced expression of vascular endothelial growth factor-A, basic fibroblast growth factor, Flt-1 and placental growth factor.

CONCLUSION

The findings of the current study demonstrate synergistic potential for the use of ICIs and ionising radiation to potentiate established anti-tumour responses in the neoadjuvant setting and is of particular interest in those with advanced disease, adverse features of tumour biology and poor treatment responses to conventional therapies.

Acute toxicity and patient-reported symptom score after conventional versus moderately hypofractionated proton therapy for prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

To confirm the feasibility of hypofractionated proton beam therapy (PBT), we compared the acute adverse event rates and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) in prostate cancer patients treated with hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated (2.0 Gy relative biological effectiveness (RBE)/fraction) PBT.

METHODS

We reviewed 289 patients with prostate cancer, of whom 73, 100, and 116 patients were treated with 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 Gy (RBE)/fraction, respectively. The endpoints were acute genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities and the IPSS, evaluated up to 6 months after PBT initiation.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found in acute toxicity rates or the IPSS among the fractionation schedules. Diabetes mellitus, age, and androgen deprivation therapy were not identified as factors associated with the IPSS.

CONCLUSION

There were no significant differences in adverse events or quality of life among the three fractionation schedules early after PBT.

The Role of Hypofractionation in Proton Therapy

Hypofractionated radiotherapy is an attractive approach for minimizing patient burden and treatment cost. Technological advancements in external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) delivery and image guidance have resulted in improved targeting and conformality of the absorbed dose to the disease and a reduction in dose to healthy tissue. These advances in EBRT have led to an increasing adoption and interest in hypofractionation. Furthermore, for many treatment sites, proton beam therapy (PBT) provides an improved absorbed dose distribution compared to X-ray (photon) EBRT. In the past 10 years there has been a notable increase in reported clinical data involving hypofractionation with PBT, reflecting the interest in this treatment approach. This review will discuss the reported clinical data and radiobiology of hypofractionated PBT. Over 50 published manuscripts reporting clinical results involving hypofractionation and PBT were included in this review, ~90% of which were published since 2010. The most common treatment regions reported were prostate, lung and liver, making over 70% of the reported results. Many of the reported clinical data indicate that hypofractionated PBT can be well tolerated, however future clinical trials are still needed to determine the optimal fractionation regime.

Five- and seven-year outcomes for image-guided moderately accelerated hypofractionated proton therapy for prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

To report 5- and 7-year outcomes after image-guided moderately accelerated hypofractionated proton therapy (AHPT) for prostate cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We reviewed the first 582 prostate cancer patients enrolled on prospective outcomes tracking trial and treated with double-scattered moderately AHPT between 2008 and 2015. 269 patients had low-risk (LR) and 313 had intermediate-risk (IR) disease, including 149 with favorable intermediate-risk (FIR) and 164 with unfavorable intermediate-risk (UIR) disease. LR patients received a median 70.0GyRBE (2.5GyRBE/fraction) and IR patients received a median of 72.5 GyRBE. Seventeen patients (UIR, n = 12) received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for a median of 6 months. Toxicities were graded per the CTCAE, v4.0, and patient-reported quality-of-life data were reviewed.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 8.0 years (0.9-12.2). The 5- and 7-year rates of freedom from biochemical progression (FFBP) overall and in the LR and IR subsets, respectively, were 96.8/95.2%, 98.8/98.8%, and 95.0/91.9%. For the FIR and UIR subsets, they were 97.2/95.2% and 93.1/88.8%. Actuarial 5- and 7-year rates of late CTCAE, v4.0, grade 2 gastrointestinal (GI), grade 3 GI, and grade 3 genitourinary (GU) toxicities were 9.9%/11.2%, 1.4/1.4% and 1.3/2.1%, respectively. No grade ≥4 GI or GU toxicities occurred. The mean (standard deviation, SD) IPSS and EPIC Composite bowel function and bother scores were 7 (SD = 5), 97 (SD = 7), and 94 (SD = 6), respectively at baseline, 7 (SD = 5), 92 (SD = 13), and 92 (SD = 9) at the 5-year follow-up, and 7 (SD = 5), 93 (SD = 12), and 92 (SD = 10) at the 7-year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Image-guided AHPT 5- and 7-year outcomes show high efficacy, minimal physician-assessed toxicity, and excellent patient-reported outcomes in this cohort.

Long-term Clinical Outcomes in Favorable Risk Prostate Cancer Patients Receiving Proton Beam Therapy

Purpose

Long-term data regarding the disease control outcomes of proton beam therapy (PBT) for patients with favorable risk intact prostate cancer (PC) are limited. Herein, we report our institution's long-term disease control outcomes in PC patients with clinically localized disease who received PBT as primary treatment.

Methods

One hundred sixty-six favorable risk PC patients who received definitive PBT to the prostate gland at our institution from 2010 to 2012 were retrospectively assessed. The outcomes studied were biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS), biochemical failure, local failure, regional failure, distant failure, PC-specific survival, and overall survival. Patterns of failure were also analyzed. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to estimate independent predictors of BFFS.

Results

The median length of follow-up was 8.3 years (range, 1.2–10.5 years). The majority of patients had low-risk disease (58%, n = 96), with a median age of 64 years at the onset of treatment. Of 166 treated men, 13 (7.8%), 8 (4.8%), 2 (1.2%) patient(s) experienced biochemical failure, local failure, regional failure, respectively. Regional failure was seen in an obturator lymph node in 1 patient and the external iliac lymph nodes in the other. None of the patients experienced distant failure. There were 5 (3.0%) deaths, none of which were due to PC. The 5- and 8-year BFFS rate were 97% and 92%, respectively. None of the clinical disease characteristics or treatment-related factors assessed were associated with BFFS on multivariate Cox proportional hazards modeling (all P > .05).

Conclusion

Disease control rates reported in our assessment of PBT were similar to those reported in previous clinically localized intact PC analyses, which used intensity-modulated radiotherapy, three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, or radical prostatectomy as definitive therapy. In addition, BFFS rates were similar, if not improved, to previous PBT studies.

Current State of Personalized Genitourinary Cancer Radiotherapy in the Era of Precision Medicine

Radiation therapy plays a crucial role for the management of genitourinary malignancies, with technological advancements that have led to improvements in outcomes and decrease in treatment toxicities. However, better risk-stratification and identification of patients for appropriate treatments is necessary. Recent advancements in imaging and novel genomic techniques can provide additional individualized tumor and patient information to further inform and guide treatment decisions for genitourinary cancer patients. In addition, the development and use of targeted molecular therapies based on tumor biology can result in individualized treatment recommendations. In this review, we discuss the advances in precision oncology techniques along with current applications for personalized genitourinary cancer management. We also highlight the opportunities and challenges when applying precision medicine principles to the field of radiation oncology. The identification, development and validation of biomarkers has the potential to personalize radiation therapy for genitourinary malignancies so that we may improve treatment outcomes, decrease radiation-specific toxicities, and lead to better long-term quality of life for GU cancer survivors.