Once-weekly versus every-other-day stereotactic body radiotherapy in patients with prostate cancer (PATRIOT): A phase 2 randomized trial

Stereotactic Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: 10-Year Outcomes From Three Prospective Trials

PURPOSE

SABR is growingly accepted for the treatment of localized prostate cancer with recent randomized trials showing noninferiority compared with conventional or moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy. The natural history of prostate cancer necessitates extended surveillance for recurrence; however, there are a few prospective studies reporting long-term outcomes.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This study included patients with low- and intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer from 3 Canadian clinical trials enrolled from 2006 to 2013. All patients received SABR to the prostate consisting of 35 to 40 Gy in 5 fractions over 11 to 29 days. Prostate specific antigen, distant metastasis, and vital status were prospectively recorded. The occurrence of a second malignancy after treatment was assessed by a chart review and classified using modified Cahan's criteria.

RESULTS

Two hundred sixty-seven patients were included. Median follow-up was 10.3 years (interquartile range, 7.8-12.7). Ten-year biochemical failure (95% confidence interval) was 7.7% (3.9%-11.5%); 10-year overall survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, and freedom from metastasis were 84.1% (79.3%-89.1%), 99.2% (98.1%-100%), and 98.8% (97.5%-100%), respectively. Twenty-seven of 267 (10.1%) patients experienced a second malignancy (SM), with 6/27 patients (22.2%) classified as having a SM likely (n = 3) or possibly (n = 3) related to prior radiation therapy. Ten-year freedom from SM was 89.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

SABR shows excellent long-term disease control for low- and intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer. Patients treated for prostate cancer have a moderate risk of SM, consistent with background rates for the population.

Will personalized ultrafractionated stereotactic adaptive radiotherapy (PULSAR) or split-course SBRT based on systemic therapy (3S) be future directions in the Field of SBRT?

The combined use of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and immunotherapy is a promising new development. However, the optimal modality for combining SBRT with immunotherapy needs further study. Timmerman and colleagues reported that the time split between radiotherapy and α-PD-L1 therapy can affect the therapeutic effect and introduced a new SBRT paradigm-personalized ultrafractionated stereotactic adaptive radiation therapy (PULSAR). Split-course SBRT based on systemic therapy (3S), which is a concept similar to PULSAR, was introduced. We focus on the underlying mechanisms and advantages of PULSAR or 3S. Notably, the partial results of two relevant clinical trials initiated by our clinical research center are reported here. Moreover, some directions that warrant further investigation are emphasized.

PULSAR Effect: Revealing potential synergies in combined radiation therapy and immunotherapy via differential equations

PULSAR (personalized ultrafractionated stereotactic adaptive radiotherapy) is a form of radiotherapy method where a patient is given a large dose or "pulse" of radiation a couple of weeks apart rather than daily small doses. The tumor response is then monitored to determine when the subsequent pulse should be given. Pre-clinical trials have shown better tumor response in mice that received immunotherapy along with pulses spaced 10 days apart. However, this was not the case when the pulses were 1 or 4 days apart. Therefore, a synergistic effect between immunotherapy and PULSAR is observed when the pulses are spaced out by a certain number of days. In our study, we aimed to develop a mathematical model that can capture the synergistic effect by considering a time-dependent weight function that takes into account the spacing between pulses. We determined feasible parameters by fitting murine tumor volume data of six treatment groups via simulated annealing algorithm. Applying these parameters to the model we simulated 4000 trials with varying sequencing of pulses. These simulations indicated that if pulses were spaced apart by at least 9 days the tumor volume was about 200 mm3 to 250 mm3 smaller when treated with PULSAR combined with immunotherapy. We successfully demonstrate that our model is simple to implement and can generate tumor volume data that is consistent with the pre-clinical trial data. Our model has the potential to aid in the development of clinical trials of PULSAR therapy.

Exploratory Evaluation of Personalized Ultrafractionated Stereotactic Adaptive Radiation Therapy (PULSAR) With Central Nervous System-Active Drugs in Brain Metastases Treatment

PURPOSE

Brain metastases (BMs) affect an increasing number of cancer patients and are typically managed with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). Our institution advocates the use of Personalized Ultrafractionated Stereotactic Adaptive Radiation Therapy (PULSAR), where radiation is delivered in high-dose pulses at extended intervals allowing for treatment adaptation and easy concurrent systemic therapy integration. We explore the integration of PULSAR with central nervous system (CNS)-active drugs (CNS-aDs).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This study involved a retrospective evaluation of patients treated with PULSAR using Gamma Knife from 2018 to 2024. We collected demographic, clinical, and specific treatment details, as well as outcomes such as local failure (LF) and toxicity rates. Cumulative incidence analysis for LF and toxicity, considering death a competing risk, and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis for overall survival (OS) were conducted.

RESULTS

Analysis included 109 lesions treated with PULSAR, predominantly in patients with lung and breast cancer. The median follow-up was 1.72. The median OS was not reached. The 1- and 2-year LF rates were 5% and 8.9%, respectively, and 3.4% and 5.5% with concurrent CNS-aDs (cCNS-aDs). BMs >2 cm had LF rates of 9.4% at 2 years. No LFs were observed in BMs >2 cm treated with the combined PULSAR+CNS-aDs approach at 2.5 years. Univariate analysis indicated CNS-aD and radioresponsive histologies were associated with decreased LF rates. The 2-year grade 3+ toxicity rate for PULSAR was 8.7%, with no increase in toxicity with cCNS-aDs.

CONCLUSIONS

The integration of PULSAR with CNS-aDs appears to offer excellent local control for larger BMs with limited toxicity. These promising results merit further prospective investigation to validate the findings and potentially establish new treatment protocols.

CT-Guided Online Adaptive Radiotherapy Delivered via Personalized Ultrafractionated Stereotactic Adaptive Radiotherapy (PULSAR) for a Bulky Thoracic and Abdominal Mass in Oligometastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

In the context of oligometastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), local treatment with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) may improve oncologic outcomes. However, the location and size can often pose a technical challenge in standard SBRT delivery, and the dose is potentially limited by nearby organs at risk (OARs). Online adaptive radiotherapy (oART) improves radiation delivery by personalizing high-dose fractions to account for daily stochastic variations in patient anatomy or setup. The oART process aims to maximize tumor control and enhances precision by tailoring to a more accurate representation of a patient in near-real time. The proceeding re-optimization can mitigate the uncertainty inherent in the traditional radiation delivery workflow and precludes the need for larger margins that account for anatomical variations and setup errors. Here, we describe a case of oligometastatic RCC with a bulky (>300 cm3) pleural-based left lower lobe mass extending into the upper abdomen treated via personalized ultrafractionated stereotactic adaptive radiotherapy (PULSAR). Three fractions were delivered four weeks apart allowing for tumor shrinkage of these bulky lesions, and oART permitted on-table adaptation of the plan without traditional re-simulation and re-planning required during off-line adaptive radiotherapy. The plan was designed for the Ethos linear accelerator (Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA). The prescription dose was 36 Gray (Gy) in three fractions, and the adapted plan was selected in each treatment over the scheduled plan due to better target coverage and reversal of OAR dose violations. The adapted plan met all OAR dose constraints, and it achieved higher target coverage in the first two PULSAR fractions compared to the scheduled plan. In the third fraction, the cumulative point dose was approaching the maximum heart tolerance, and target coverage was accordingly compromised based on clinical judgment. There was evidence of tumor regression throughout the course of treatment, and the patient did not develop any significant radiation-related toxicities. Follow-up imaging has demonstrated the overall stable size of her lesion without any evidence of disease progression. Our case reflects the benefit of adaptive SBRT delivery to a bulky mass near multiple OARs in the setting of oligometastatic RCC. The adapted plan allowed for prioritization of critical structures on a fraction-by-fraction basis while preserving the therapeutic intent of SBRT. Further integration of advanced imaging techniques, optimal disease-specific systemic immunotherapies or targeted therapies, and refinement of patient selection will be crucial in identifying which patients would most benefit from an adaptive approach.

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.

Late Toxicity of Prostate Ultrahypofractionated Radiation Therapy Compared With Moderate Hypofractionation in a Randomized Trial

PURPOSE

We report late toxicity, quality of life (QOL), and urinary symptom score with prostate cancer radiation therapy in a randomized trial comparing moderate hypofractionation and ultrahypofrationation.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients with intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer were randomized to either Arm 1 (70 Gy/28 fractions) or Arm 2 (36.25 Gy/5 weekly fractions). Late toxicity was evaluated using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/Subjective, Objective, Management, Analytical scales. QOL was assessed with the Expanded Prostate Inventory Composite-26 Short Form and urinary function with the International Prostate Symptom Score.

RESULTS

Eighty participants were randomized. Two from Arm 1 withdrew, leaving 36 patients in Arm 1 and 42 in Arm 2. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics, except for worse International Prostate Symptom Score in Arm 2. No difference was observed in freedom from grade 3 or worse toxicity between treatments (P = .921), with only a single grade 3 event in each arm. There was no significant difference in freedom from grade 2 or worse toxicity (P = .280). No difference was observed in freedom from grade 2 or worse genitorurinary toxicity, with cumulative probabilities of 69.0% and 87.0% at 5 years for Arms 1 and 2, respectively (0.132). No difference was observed in freedom from grade 2 or worse gastrointestinal toxicity, with cumulative probabilities of 74.0% in Arm 1 and 80.0% in Arm 2 (P = .430). There were no significant differences in Expanded Prostate Inventory Composite-26 Short Form QOL between arms.

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrahypofrationation, delivered weekly, is well tolerated with no significant differences in freedom from late toxicity compared with moderate hypofractionation.

An AI-based approach for modeling the synergy between radiotherapy and immunotherapy

Personalized, ultra-fractionated stereotactic adaptive radiotherapy (PULSAR) is designed to administer tumoricidal doses in a pulsed mode with extended intervals, spanning weeks or months. This approach leverages longer intervals to adapt the treatment plan based on tumor changes and enhance immune-modulated effects. In this investigation, we seek to elucidate the potential synergy between combined PULSAR and PD-L1 blockade immunotherapy using experimental data from a Lewis Lung Carcinoma (LLC) syngeneic murine cancer model. Employing a long short-term memory (LSTM) recurrent neural network (RNN) model, we simulated the treatment response by treating irradiation and anti-PD-L1 as external stimuli occurring in a temporal sequence. Our findings demonstrate that: (1) The model can simulate tumor growth by integrating various parameters such as timing and dose, and (2) The model provides mechanistic interpretations of a "causal relationship" in combined treatment, offering a completely novel perspective. The model can be utilized for in-silico modeling, facilitating exploration of innovative treatment combinations to optimize therapeutic outcomes. Advanced modeling techniques, coupled with additional efforts in biomarker identification, may deepen our understanding of the biological mechanisms underlying the combined treatment.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SIB-VMAT technique) to dominant intraprostatic lesion (DIL) for localized prostate cancer: a dose-escalation trial (DESTROY-4)

PURPOSE

DESTROY-4 (DOSE-ESCALATION STUDY OF STEREOTACTIC BODY RADIATION THERAPY) was a Phase I trial aimed to evaluate the safety and the feasibility of escalating doses of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) on MRI-defined Dominant Intraprostatic Lesion (DIL) in low- and intermediate-risk pCa patients using a simultaneous integrated boost-volumetric arc therapy (SIB-VMAT) technique.

METHODS

Eligible patients included those with low- and intermediate-risk prostate carcinoma (NCCN risk classes) and an International Prostatic Symptoms Score (IPSS) ≤ 15. No restriction about DIL and prostate volumes was set. Pretreatment preparation required an enema and the placement of intraprostatic gold fiducials. SBRT was delivered in five consecutive daily fractions. For the first three patients, the DIL radiation dose was set at 8 Gy per fraction up to a total dose of 40 Gy (PTV1) and was gradually increased in succeeding cohorts to total doses of 42.5 Gy, 45.0 Gy, 47.5 Gy, and finally, 50.0 Gy, while keeping the prescription of 35 Gy/7 Gy per fraction for the entire prostate gland. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was defined as grade 3 or worse gastrointestinal (GI) or genitourinary (GU) toxicity occurring within 90 days of follow-up (Common Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events scale 4.0). Patients completed quality-of-life questionnaires at defined intervals.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients with a median age of 75 (range, 58-89) years were enrolled. The median follow-up was 26.3 months (8.9-84 months). 66.7% of patients were classified as intermediate-risk groups, while the others were low-risk groups, according to the NCCN guidelines. Enrolled patients were treated as follows: 8 patients (40 Gy), 5 patients (42.5 Gy), 4 patients (45 Gy), 4 patients (47.5 Gy), and 3 patients (50 Gy). No severe acute toxicities were observed. G1 and G2 acute GU toxicities occurred in 4 (16%) and 3 patients (12.5%), respectively. Two patients (8.3%) and 3 patients (12.5%) experienced G1 and G2 GI toxicities, respectively. Since no DLTs were observed, 50 Gy in five fractions was considered the MTD. The median nadir PSA was 0.20 ng/mL. A slight improvement in QoL values was registered after the treatment.

CONCLUSION

This trial confirms the feasibility and safety of a total SIB-VMAT dose of 35 Gy on the whole gland and 50 Gy on DIL in 5 fractions daily administered in a well-selected low- and intermediate-risk prostate carcinoma population. A phase II study is ongoing to confirm the tolerability of the schedule and assess the efficacy.

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy: A Radiosurgery Society Guide to the Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer Illustrated by Challenging Cases

Traditionally, external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for localized prostate cancer (PCa) involved lengthy courses with low daily doses. However, advancements in radiation delivery and a better understanding of prostate radiobiology have enabled the development of shorter courses of EBRT. Ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy, administering doses greater than 5 Gy per fraction, is now considered a standard of care regimen for localized PCa, particularly for intermediate-risk disease. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), a specific type of ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy employing advanced planning, imaging, and treatment technology to deliver in five or fewer fractions, is gaining prominence as a cost-effective, convenient, and safe alternative to longer radiotherapy courses. It is crucial to address practical considerations related to patient selection, fractionation scheme, target delineation, and planning objectives. This is especially important in challenging clinical situations where clear evidence for guidance may be lacking. The Radiosurgery Society endorses this case-based guide with the aim of providing a practical framework for delivering SBRT to the intact prostate, exemplified by two case studies. The article will explore common SBRT dose/fractionation schemes and dose constraints for organs-at-risk. Additionally, it will review existing evidence and expert opinions on topics such as SBRT dose escalation, the use of rectal spacers, the role of androgen deprivation therapy in the context of SBRT, SBRT in special patient populations (e.g., high-risk disease, large prostate, high baseline urinary symptom burdens, and inflammatory bowel disease), as well as new imaging-guidance techniques like Magnetic Resonance Imaging for SBRT delivery.

Every-Other-Day Versus Once-a-Week Urethra-Sparing Prostate Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy: 5-Year Results of a Randomized Phase 2 Trial

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to present the 5-year results from a prospective, multicenter, phase 2 randomized trial of every-other-day (EOD) versus once-a-week (QW) urethra-sparing stereotactic body radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Between 2012 and 2015, 170 patients with cT1c-3aN0M0 prostate cancer from 9 European institutions were randomized to 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions (6.5 Gy/fraction to the urethra) delivered either EOD (arm A, n = 84) or QW (arm B, n = 86). The median follow-up was 78 months (interquartile range, 66-89 months) and 77 months (interquartile range, 66-82 months) for arms A and B, respectively.

RESULTS

Among the 165 patients treated and retained for the final analysis (arm A, n = 82; arm B, n = 83), acute toxicity (National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.03 scale) was mild or absent, with no differences between arms. The 5-year grade 2 or greater genitourinary toxicity-free survival was 75.9% and 76.1% for arms A and B, respectively (P = .945), whereas the 5-year grade 2 or greater gastrointestinal toxicity-free survival was 89% and 92% for arms A and B, respectively (P = .596). No changes in European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-PR25 scores were observed in both arms for genitourinary, gastrointestinal, and sexual domains at 5-year follow-up compared with baseline. At the last follow-up, biochemical failure was observed in 14 patients in the EOD arm and in 7 patients in the QW arm, with a 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival rate of 92.2% and 93% for arms A and B, respectively (P = .13).

CONCLUSIONS

Stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer with a 10% dose reduction to urethra was associated with a minimal effect on urinary function and quality of life regardless of an EOD or QW fractionation schedule. Biochemical control so far has been encouraging and much alike in both study arms, although longer follow-up is probably needed to assess the true value of overall treatment time on disease outcome.

Potential of ChatGPT in facilitating research in radiation oncology?

PURPOSE

To evaluate the potential of the artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot ChatGPT in supporting young clinical scientists with scientific tasks in radio oncological research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seven scientific tasks were to be completed in 3 h by 8 radiation oncologists with different scientific experience working at a university hospital: creation of a scientific synopsis, creation of a research question and corresponding clinical trial hypotheses, writing of the first paragraph of a manuscript introduction, clinical trial sample size calculation, and clinical data analyses (multivariate analysis, boxplot and survival curve). No participant had prior experience with an AI chatbot. All participants were instructed in ChatGPT v3.5 and its use was provided for all tasks. Answers were scored independently by two blinded experts. The subjective value of ChatGPT was rated by each participant. Data were analyzed with regression-, t-test and Spearman correlation (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

Participants completed tasks 1-3 with an average score of 50% and 4-7 with 56%. Scientific experience, number of original publications and of first/last authorships showed a positive correlation with overall scoring (p = 0.01-0.04). Participants with little to moderate scientific experience scored ChatGPT to be more helpful in solving tasks 4-7 compared to more experienced participants (p = 0.04), with simultaneously presenting lower scorings (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

ChatGPT did not compensate for differences in scientific experience of young clinical scientists, with less experienced researchers believing false AI-generated scientific results.

From once-weekly to semi-weekly whole prostate gland stereotactic radiotherapy with focal boosting: Primary endpoint analysis of the multicenter phase II hypo-FLAME 2.0 trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The hypo-FLAME trial showed that once-weekly (QW) focal boosted prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is associated with acceptable acute genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. Currently, we investigated the safety of reducing the overall treatment time (OTT) of focal boosted prostate SBRT from 29 to 15 days.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer were treated with SBRT delivering 35 Gy in 5 fractions to the whole prostate gland with an iso-toxic boost up to 50 Gy to the intraprostatic lesion(s) in a semi-weekly (BIW) schedule. The primary endpoint was radiation-induced acute toxicity (CTCAE v5.0). Changes in quality of life (QoL) were examined in terms of proportions achieving a minimal clinically important change (MCIC). Finally, acute toxicity and QoL scores of the BIW schedule were compared with the results of the prior QW hypo-FLAME schedule (n = 100).

RESULTS

Between August 2020 and February 2022, 124 patients were enrolled and treated BIW. No grade ≥3 GU or GI toxicity was observed. The 90-days cumulative incidence of grade 2 GU and GI toxicity rates were 47.5% and 7.4%, respectively. Patients treated QW scored significant less grade 2 GU toxicity (34.0%, p = 0.01). No significant differences in acute GI toxicity were observed. Furthermore, patients treated QW had a superior acute bowel and urinary QoL.

CONCLUSION

Semi-weekly prostate SBRT with iso-toxic focal boosting is associated with acceptable acute GU and GI toxicity. Based on the comparison between the QW and BIW schedule, patients should be counselled regarding the short-term advantages of a more protracted schedule. Registration number ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04045717.

Robotic stereotactic body radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: final analysis of the German HYPOSTAT trial

PURPOSE

We report results of the first German prospective multicenter single-arm phase II trial (ARO 2013-06; NCT02635256) of hypofractionated robotic stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for patients with localized prostate cancer (HYPOSTAT).

METHODS

Patients eligible for the HYPOSTAT study had localized prostate cancer (cT1‑3 cN0 cM0), Gleason score ≤ 7, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤ 15 ng/ml, prostate volume ≤ 80 cm³, and an International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) ≤ 12. Initially, inclusion was limited to patients ≥ 75 years or patients 70-74 years with additional risk factors. The trial protocol was later amended to allow for enrolment of patients aged ≥ 60 years. The treatment consisted of 35 Gy delivered in 5 fractions to the prostate and for intermediate- or high-risk patients, also to the proximal seminal vesicles using the CyberKnife system (Accuray Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA). Primary endpoint was the rate of treatment-related gastrointestinal or genitourinary grade ≥ 2 toxicity based on the RTOG scale 12-15 months after treatment. Secondary endpoints were acute toxicity, late toxicity, urinary function, quality of life, and PSA response.

RESULTS

From July 2016 through December 2018, 85 eligible patients were enrolled and received treatment, of whom 83 could be evaluated regarding the primary endpoint. Patients mostly had intermediate-risk disease with a median PSA value of 7.97 ng/ml and Gleason score of 7a and 7b in 43.5% and 25.9% of patients, respectively. At the final follow-up 12-15 months after treatment, no patient suffered from treatment-related gastrointestinal or genitourinary grade ≥ 2 toxicity. Acute toxicity was mostly mild, with three grade 3 events, and the cumulative rate of grade ≥ 2 genitourinary toxicity was 8.4% (95% CI 4.1-16.4%). There were no major changes in urinary function or quality of life. The median PSA value dropped to 1.18 ng/ml 12-15 months after treatment. There was one patient who developed distant metastases.

CONCLUSION

Robotic SBRT with 35 Gy in 5 fractions was associated with a favorable short-term toxicity profile. Recruitment for the HYPOSTAT‑2 trial (ARO-2018‑4; NCT03795337), which further analyses the late toxicity of this regimen with a planned sample size of 500 patients, is ongoing.

The Evolving Interplay of SBRT and the Immune System, along with Future Directions in the Field

Simple Summary

We provide this commentary of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), and describe our evolving understanding of this treatment approach, its effects on the immune system, and the ability to stimulate immune cells to further recognize and attack cancer. The aim of this work is to describe our current knowledge of how SBRT effects the environment within the tumor and the immune cells present, whether timing the combination of this treatment with that of immunotherapy may have an impact on the body’s own immune response, and what the latest approaches in the field are in regards to this radiation treatment modality. Among these latest and exciting developments is Personalized Ultrafractionated Stereotactic Adaptive Radiation Therapy, known as PULSAR. This latest approach is described in detail herein, and may represent a leading novel method for adapting radiation treatments to treatment-induced tumor changes over time and stimulating the body’s immune response against tumor cells.

Abstract

In this commentary, we describe the potential of highly ablative doses utilizing Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) in single or few fractions to enhance immune-responsiveness, how timing of this approach in combination with immune-checkpoint inhibitors may augment treatment-effect, and whether Personalized Ultrafractionated Stereotactic Adaptive Radiation Therapy (PULSAR) is an avenue for future advancement in the continued endeavor to foster a systemic effect of therapy beyond the radiation treatment field. The ablative potential of SBRT may support an increase in tumor-antigen presentation, enhancement of immune-stimulatory components, and an improvement in tumor-microenvironment immune cell infiltration. Furthermore, the latest advancement of ablative radiation delivery is PULSAR-based therapy, whereby ablative doses are delivered in pulses of treatment that may be several weeks apart, combined with adaptive treatment to tumor changes across time. The benefits of this novel approach include the ability to optimize direct tumor control by assessment of tumor size and location via dedicated imaging acquired prior to each delivered pulse, and further potentiation of immune recognition through combination with concurrent immune-checkpoint blockade.

How Low Can You Go? The Radiobiology of Hypofractionation

Hypofractionated radical radiotherapy is now an accepted standard of care for tumour sites such as prostate and breast cancer. Much research effort is being directed towards more profoundly hypofractionated (ultrahypofractionated) schedules, with some reaching UK standard of care (e.g. adjuvant breast). Hypofractionation exerts varying influences on each of the major clinical end points of radiotherapy studies: acute toxicity, late toxicity and local control. This review will discuss these effects from the viewpoint of the traditional 5 Rs of radiobiology, before considering non-canonical radiobiological effects that may be relevant to ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy. The principles outlined here may assist the reader in their interpretation of the wealth of clinical data presented in the tumour site-specific articles in this special issue.

Acute Toxicity of Ultrahypofractionation Compared to Moderate Hypofractionation in Prostate Cancer Treatment - a Randomized Trial

PURPOSE

To report on the early toxicities and quality of life (QOL) of localized prostate cancer radiotherapy in a randomized trial comparing moderate hypofractionation (MHF) to ultrahypofractionation (UHF) MATERIALS AND METHODS: Intermediate to high risk localized prostate cancer patients were randomized to radiotherapy with MHF (70 Gy in 28 daily fractions) or UHF (36.25 Gy in 5 weekly fractions). Early toxicities (CTCAE and RTOG/SOMA scales) and patient reported QOL (EPIC questionnaire) were analysed when all patients had a minimum of 6 months follow-up.

RESULTS

Eighty participants were randomized but two withdrew from radiotherapy.  Analysis was done on 78 patients.  The two arms were balanced in key patient and disease characteristics except for a statistically worse baseline urinary function in the UHF arm (IPSS > 7: 68% vs 36% p = 0.004). There are no statistically significant differences between the two arms in Grade 3 or Grade 2 toxicities: ≥ Grade 3 - MHF 8%, UHF 2% (p=0.235); ≥ Grade 2 MHF 36%, UHF 24% (p=0.235). There are also no significant differences in percentages of patients with a "minimal important change" of QOL in the Incontinence (MHF 36%, UHF 33% p =0.746), Irritative/Obstructive (MHF 56%, UHF 74% p=0.074) or Bowel domains (MHF 58%, UHF 52% p=0.508) on the EPIC questionnaire.

CONCLUSIONS

UHF radiotherapy for prostate cancer is well tolerated and there were no significant differences in toxicities and quality of life changes between UHF and MHF up to six months after treatment in the current trial.

Highly hypofractionated schedules for localized prostate cancer: Recommendations of the GETUG radiation oncology group

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) has become treatment option for localized prostate cancer but the evidence base remains incomplete. Several clinical studies, both prospective and retrospective, have been published. However, treatment techniques, target volumes and dose constraints lack consistency between studies. Based on the current available literature, the French Genito-Urinary Group (GETUG) suggests that.

Treatment Interruptions During Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer

Background

During the course of radiation treatment for prostate cancer, patients may have unintentional interruptions in their treatment course due to a wide variety of factors. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) decreases the number of treatments compared to conventionally fractionated radiation; hence, it has the potential to decrease treatment delays and non-completion. This study sought to determine the incidence of treatment delay and characterize the etiology and length in a large cohort of men treated with SBRT for their prostate cancer.

Methods

One thousand three hundred and thirty-six patients treated with SBRT from 2008 to 2021 at the Georgetown University Hospital for prostate cancer were included in this retrospective study. A treatment delay was defined as a patient requiring longer than 14 days to complete 5 fractions of SBRT. Non-completion was defined as patients treated with less than 5 fractions. In the patients who experienced delays, chart review was performed to characterize the length and etiology of each delay. Multivariate analysis was performed via binary logistic regression modeling on PSPP.

Results

All individuals in the cohort eventually completed the planned 5-fraction regimen. Thirty-three patients experienced a treatment delay. Median length of time to complete treatment was 11 days (range 5–155 days). In patients who experienced a delay, nearly half (45.5%) experienced only a one-day delay. The most common reason for a delay was a technical issue (48.5%), including the machine maintenance, fiducial misalignment, or inadequate pretreatment bowel preparation. Other reasons included unplanned breaks due to acute side effects (21.2%), logistical issues (18.2%), non-treatment related health issues (9.1%), and inclement weather (3.0%). There were no significant sociodemographic, oncologic, or treatment variables that predicted treatment interruption on multivariate analysis.

Conclusions

The incidence of treatment interruptions in patients undergoing SBRT for their prostate cancer was low. Most treatment delays were short.

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer: Preliminary results of toxicity

To the Editor, Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in men in Morocco after lung cancer. External radiotherapy (RTE) is a curative therapeutic option for localized prostate cancer, However the conventional RTE remains a long treatment (7- 8 weeks, 5 days a week) which is demanding for patients and make difficult to manage the waiting lists. The development of imaging and irradiation techniques over the last decades has allowed a high precision in the delivery of the dose to the target organ and a better protection of the organs at risk (OAR), which has encouraged the hypo fractionated irradiation of localized prostate cancer, especially after the results of radiobiology studies that suggested a low report a/b for the prostate.

Intrafractional stability of MR-guided online adaptive SBRT for prostate cancer

Background

MR-guided online adaptive stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer aims to reduce toxicity by full compensation of interfractional uncertainties. However, the process of online adaptation currently takes approximately 45 min during which intrafractional movements remain unaccounted for. This study aims to analyze the dosimetric benefit of online adaptation and to evaluate its robustness over the duration of one treatment fraction.

Methods

Baseline MR-scans at a MR-linear accelerator were acquired for ten healthy male volunteers for generation of mock-prostate SBRT plans with a dose prescription of 5 × 7.25 Gy. On a separate day, online MR-guided adaptation (ViewRay^® MRIdian) was performed, and thereafter MR images were acquired every 15 min for 1 h to assess the stability of the adapted plan.

Results

A dosimetric benefit of online MR-guided adaptive re-planning was observed in 90% of volunteers. The median D₉₅CTV- and D₉₅PTV-coverage was improved from 34.8 to 35.5 Gy and from 30.7 to 34.6 Gy, respectively. Improved target coverage was not associated with higher dose to the organs at risk, most importantly the rectum (median D_1ccrectum baseline plan vs. adapted plan 33.3 Gy vs. 32.3 Gy). The benefit of online adaptation remained stable over 45 min for all volunteers. However, at 60 min, CTV-coverage was below a threshold of 32.5 Gy in 30% of volunteers (30.6 Gy, 32.0 Gy, 32.3 Gy).

Conclusion

The dosimetric benefit of MR-guided online adaptation for prostate SBRT was robust over 45 min in all volunteers. However, intrafractional uncertainties became dosimetrically relevant at 60 min and we therefore recommend verification imaging before delivery of MR-guided online adapted SBRT.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13014-021-01916-0.

Extreme Hypofractionation with SBRT in Localized Prostate Cancer

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.

Personalized Ultrafractionated Stereotactic Adaptive Radiotherapy (PULSAR) in Preclinical Models Enhances Single-Agent Immune Checkpoint Blockade

PURPOSE

Harnessing the immune-stimulatory effects of radiation by combining it with immunotherapy is a promising new treatment strategy. However, more studies characterizing immunotherapy and radiation dose scheduling for the optimal therapeutic effect is essential for designing clinical trials.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A new ablative radiation dosing scheme, personalized ultrafractionated stereotactic adaptive radiation therapy (PULSAR), was tested in combination with α-PD-L1 therapy in immune-activated and resistant syngeneic immunocompetent mouse models of cancer. Specifically, tumor growth curves comparing immunotherapy and radiation therapy dose sequencing were evaluated in immunologically cold and hot tumor models. The response relative to cytotoxic killer T cells was evaluated using an α-CD8 depleting antibody, and immunologic memory was tested by tumor rechallenge of cured mice.

RESULTS

We report that both radiation and immunotherapy sequencing, as well as radiation therapy fraction spacing, affect the combination treatment response. Better tumor control was achieved by giving α-PD-L1 therapy during or after radiation, and spacing fractions 10 days apart (PULSAR) achieved better tumor control than traditional daily fractions. We showed that CD8+ depleting antibody abrogated tumor control in the PULSAR combination treatment, and certain treatment schedules induced immunologic memory.

CONCLUSIONS

These results illustrate that radiation therapy dosing and scheduling affect tumor control, in combination with checkpoint blockade therapies. PULSAR-style radiation dosing is more complementary in combination with single-agent immunotherapy than traditional daily fractions in this preclinical model. Preclinical investigation could prove helpful in designing clinical trials investigating combination therapy.

Future Directions in the Use of SAbR for the Treatment of Oligometastatic Cancers

The role of local therapy as a sole therapy or part of a combined approach in treating metastatic cancer continues to evolve. The most obvious requirements for prudent implementation of local therapies like stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SAbR) to become mainstream in treating oligometastases are (1) Clear guidance as to what particular patients might benefit, and (2) Confirmation of improvements in outcome after such treatments via clinical trials. These future directional requirements are non-negotiable. However, innovation and research offer many more opportunities to understand and improve therapy. Identifying candidates and personalizing their therapy can be afforded via proteomic, genomic and epigenomic characterization techniques. Such molecular profiling along with liquid biopsy opportunities will both help select best therapies and facilitate ongoing monitoring of response. Technologies both to find targets and help deliver less-toxic therapy continue to improve and will be available in the marketplace. These technologies include molecular-based imaging (eg, PET-PSMA), FLASH ultra-high dose rate platforms, Grid therapy, PULSAR adaptive dosing, and MRI/PET guided linear accelerators. Importantly, a treatment approach beyond oligometastastic could evolve including a rationale for using SAbR in the oligoprogressive, oligononresponsive, oligobulky and oligolethal settings as well as expansion beyond oligo- toward even plurimetastastic disease. In any case, lessons learned and experiences required by the implementation of using SAbR in oligometastatic cancer will be revisited.

Automatic localization of the prostatic urethra for image guided radiation therapy

•

Prostatic urethra can be used for image guided radiation for prostate cancer.

•

Computer “finds” the urethra by digital subtraction of scans with / without contrast.

•

Urethra segmentation used to setup the patient and position prostate as in simulation.

•

A catheter with continuous aerated gel flow is used to detect the urethra under US.

Treatment of prostate cancer with radiation therapy (RT) requires image guided RT (IGRT) to focus the radiation on the target volumes while minimizing doses to organs at risk. Here we describe a urinary catheter that allows imaging of the prostatic urethra and uses it for automatic localization of the prostate for IGRT. The catheter has a contrast lumen that can be empty or full with contrast. Computerized tomography is performed twice, with contrast lumen empty and full, allowing urethral autosegmentation using digital subtraction. Under ultrasound, continuous urethral visualization is possible by pumping aerated gel in- and out of the contrast lumen.

Maintaining consistent bladder filling during external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer

•

Radiation for prostate cancer is preferably provided with a full urinary bladder.

•

There are discrepancies how well current methods achieve consistent bladder filling.

•

A urinary catheter with a check-valve controlled by a float is under development.

Radiation therapy for patients with prostate cancer is preferably provided with a full urinary bladder. Full bladder can potentially move the small intestine out of the radiation treatment regions, and results in decreased small bowel radiation dose and gastrointestinal toxicity. Maintaining consistent bladder filling during computerized tomography simulation scan used for treatment planning and at daily radiation treatments is challenging. Here we present an in-development urinary catheter with a floating balloon that drains the bladder only when urine reaches to a prespecified level, and review current methods used in clinic to ensure consistent bladder filling. These includes bladder filling protocols, ultrasound scanning and biofeedback techniques.

Dose accumulation for personalized stereotactic MR-guided adaptive radiation therapy in prostate cancer

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Adaptive MR-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) is an innovative approach for delivering stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in prostate cancer (PC). Despite the increased clinical use of SBRT for PC, there is limited data on the relation between the actual delivered dose and toxicity. We aimed to identify dose parameters based on the total accumulated delivered bladder dose (DOSE_ACC^TX). Furthermore, for future personalization, we studied whether prospective accumulation of the first 3 of 5 fractions (DOSE_ACC^3FR) could be used as a representative of DOSE_ACC^TX.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We deployed a recently validated deformable image registration-based dose accumulation strategy to reconstruct DOSE_ACC^TX and DOSE_ACC^3FR in 101 PC patients treated with stereotactic MRgRT. IPSS scores at baseline, end of MRgRT, at 6 and 12 weeks after treatment were analyzed to identify a clinically relevant increase of acute urinary symptoms. A receiver operator characteristic curve analysis was used to investigate the correlation of an increase in IPSS and bladder DOSE_ACC^TX (range V₅-V_{36.25 Gy,} D_1cc, D_5cc) and DOSE_ACC^3FR (range V₆-V_{21.8 Gy,} D_1cc, D_5cc) parameters.

RESULTS

A clinically relevant increase in IPSS in the three months following MRgRT was observed in 25 patients. The V_20Gy-32Gy from DOSE_ACC^TX and V_15Gy-18Gy from DOSE_ACC^3FR showed good correlation with IPSS increase with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging from 0.71 to 0.75. In contrast, baseline dosimetry showed a poor correlation with AUC values between 0.53 and 0.62.

CONCLUSION

DOSE_ACC^TX was superior to baseline dosimetry in predicting acute urinary symptoms. Because DOSE_ACC^3FR also showed good correlation, this can potentially be used to optimize MRgRT for the remaining fractions.

A single institutional experience with central lung stereotactic body radiation therapy demonstrating encouraging results with increased inter-fraction time

Background

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is an effective treatment modality for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, there are concerns regarding potential toxicity for centrally located tumors.

Methods

This retrospective study considered patients with SBRT for central lung NSCLC (defined as a tumor within 2 cm of any mediastinal critical structure). The institutional protocol was that patients with central tumors received SBRT less frequently than daily—generally once or twice weekly.

Results

A total of 115 patients with 148 lesions were treated with SBRT to a median 45 [5–60] Gy in 4 [1–5] fractions over a median 5.3 [0–18] days. Many patients treated with this method presented with advanced disease: 58 treatments involved nodal targets, and 42 had stage 3 disease. 52% of patients had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and only 49% had a biopsy, often due to concerns regarding other medical comorbidities. Rates of prior chemotherapy, thoracic surgery, and thoracic radiotherapy were 32%, 21%, and 49%, respectively. Via the Kaplan-Meier method, 2-year overall survival was 65%, and 2-year local control was 77%. Two-year local-progression free survival was 53%, and 2-year progression-survival was 48%. Treatments for stage 3 disease had an impressive 82% 2-year local control that was comparable to early stage treatments. Patients with stage 3 disease had a 2-year overall survival of 59%, which trended towards decreased overall survival compared to early stage patients. There were 13 grade 1 (9%) and 14 grade 2 (9%) toxicities. There were no reported grade ≥3 acute or late toxicities and only 3 cases of pneumonitis.

Conclusions

Our series demonstrates encouraging local control with low rates of toxicity for central lung SBRT, including many stage 3 patients. This may be the result of the relatively large inter-fraction interval. This interval may allow for greater tumor effects (such as reoxygenation) and improved tolerance from normal tissues.

Ablative Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer: Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy and High Dose Rate Brachytherapy

Simple Summary

Radiation therapy is a standard of care treatment option for men with localized prostate cancer. Over the years, various radiation delivery modalities have contributed to the increased precision of radiation, employing radiobiological insights to shorten the overall treatment time with hypofractionation, while improving oncological control without increasing toxicities. Here, we discuss and compare two ablative radiation modalities, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDRBT), in terms of oncological control, dose/fractionation and toxicities in men with localized prostate cancer. This review will highlight the levels of evidence available to support either modality as a monotherapy, will summarize safety and efficacy, help clinicians gain a deeper understanding of the safety and efficacy profiles of these two modalities, and highlight ongoing research efforts to address many unanswered questions regarding ablative prostate radiation.

Abstract

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common noncutaneous solid organ malignancy among men worldwide. Radiation therapy is a standard of care treatment option that has historically been delivered in the form of small daily doses of radiation over the span of multiple weeks. PCa appears to have a unique sensitivity to higher doses of radiation per fraction, rendering it susceptible to abbreviated forms of treatment. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDRBT) are both modern radiation modalities that allow the precise delivery of ablative doses of radiation to the prostate while maximally sparing sensitive surrounding normal structures. In this review, we highlight the evidence regarding the radiobiology, oncological outcomes, toxicity and dose/fractionation schemes of SBRT and HDRBT monotherapy in men with low-and intermediate-risk PCa.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer - 5-year efficacy results

BACKGROUND

The use of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) as the primary treatment modality in clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa) is emerging. The aim of the study was to analyze the long-term results of PCa patients treated with SBRT.

METHODS

This non-selected, real-life patient cohort included 213 patients with localized PCa treated with a robotic SBRT device during 2012-2015.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 64 months (range, 10-85 months), and all risk-groups were represented as 47 (22.1%), 56 (26.3%) and 110 (51.6%) patients were classified into D'Amico risk stratification of low, intermediate and high-risk groups, respectively. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was administered to 64.3% of the patients. At cut-off, the biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) was 100, 87.5 and 80.0% for patients at low, intermediate and high-risk (p = 0.004), and 92.5, 84.2 and 66.7% for patients with Gleason score ≤ 6, 7 and ≥ 8, respectively (p = 0.001). The actuarial 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were 97.9, 96.4 and 88.6% in the low, intermediate and high-risk groups, respectively, and at the cut-off, the disease-specific survival (DSS) rate of the whole cohort was high (99.1%), as only two high-risk patients died due to PCa.

CONCLUSION

Our present results of SBRT delivered with CyberKnife produced excellent long-term bRFS, OS and DSS outcomes among patients with localized PCa. We conclude that SBRT provides an efficient and convenient treatment option for patients with localized PCa, irrespective of the risk-group.

Translating the Immunobiology of SBRT to Novel Therapeutic Combinations for Advanced Prostate Cancer

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is an increasingly used radiation modality for the treatment of both localized and metastatic prostate cancer. Substantial data suggests that prostate cancer may be more sensitive to higher doses of radiation per fraction due to its low α/β ratio. This increased sensitivity raises important questions as to how SBRT should be combined with systemic therapy for clinically significant prostate cancer, including whether androgen deprivation therapy retains its beneficial effects when combined with SBRT. Furthermore, pre-clinical and clinical data suggest pronounced immunomodulatory effects of SBRT, including observed improvements in T cell priming and trafficking. These data support investigational strategies combining SBRT with immunotherapy. Here we aim to review the data for the use of SBRT in both the local and metastatic disease settings as well as ongoing translational and clinical research examining combinations with ADT, immunotherapy and other targeted agents.

Once-a-week or every-other-day urethra-sparing prostate cancer stereotactic body radiotherapy, a randomized phase II trial: 18 months follow-up results

Background

To present the 18 months results from a prospective multicenter phase II randomized trial of short vs protracted urethra‐sparing stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for localized prostate cancer (PCa).

Methods

Between 2012 and 2015, a total of 170 PCa patients were randomized to 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions (6.5 Gy × 5 to the urethra) delivered either every other day (EOD, arm A, n = 84) or once a week (QW, arm B, n = 86). Genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity (CTCAE v4.0 scale), IPSS, and QoL scores were assessed at baseline, at the 5th fraction (5fx), 12th weeks (12W), and every 6 months after SBRT. The primary endpoint was biochemical control at 18 months and grade ≥ 3 toxicity (including grade ≥ 2 for urinary obstruction/retention) during the first 3 months.

Results

Among the 165 patients analyzed, the toxicity stopping rule was never activated during the acute phase. Maximum acute grade 2 GU toxicity rates at 5fx were 17% and 19% for arms A and B, respectively, with only 2 cases of grade 2 GI toxicity at 5fx in arm A. At month 18, grade ≥ 2 GU and GI toxicity decreased below 5% and 2% for both arms. No changes in EORTC QLQ‐PR25 scores for GU, GI, and sexual domains were observed in both arms between baseline and month 18. Four biochemical failures were observed, 2 in each arm, rejecting the null hypothesis of an unfavorable response rate ≤ 85% in favor of an acceptable ≥ 95% rate.

Conclusions

At 18 months, urethra‐sparing SBRT showed a low toxicity profile, with minimal impact on QoL and favorable biochemical control rates, regardless of overall treatment time (EOD vs QW).

Study protocol of a randomised controlled trial of prostate radiotherapy in high-risk and node-positive disease comparing moderate and extreme hypofractionation (PRIME TRIAL)

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.

Ultra-hypofractionated radiation therapy for unfavourable intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer is safe and effective: 5-year outcomes of a phase II trial

OBJECTIVES

To report toxicity (primary endpoint) and biochemical disease-free survival (BDFS) outcomes of a phase II trial evaluating ultra-hypofractionated radiation therapy (UHRT), focusing on patients with unfavourable intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer (PCa).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From 2012 to 2017, 154 patients (92 with unfavourable intermediate-risk or high-risk PCa) were treated with helical TomoTherapy delivering 43.8-45.2 Gy in eight fractions over 3 weeks. Of these, 73% received hormonotherapy (51% neoadjuvant).

RESULTS

The median (range) follow-up was 48 (19-84) months. For the whole series, crude BDFS and 5-year BDFS rates were 97.4% and 94.3%, respectively. The corresponding figures for unfavourable intermediate-risk and high-risk PCa were 96.7% and 90%, respectively. The crude metastasis-free survival rate was 98% for the unfavourable intermediate-risk and high-risk group. For the whole series, the 5-year cumulative urinary/intestinal grade 2+ late toxicity was 17.8/7.4%. No grade 4-5 toxicity was observed. One patient experienced late grade 3 toxicity (urinary).

CONCLUSION

This eight-fraction UHRT regimen can be safely delivered to patients with unfavourable intermediate-risk/high-risk PCa. Its relapse rates are similar to those reported for the combination of external beam radiotherapy plus brachytherapy, however, the observed toxicity profile is milder. The disease survival rates compare favourably with historical controls in some other forms of radiotherapy, with similar side effects. Since the low rate of biochemical/metastasis relapse is encouraging, further research to confirm these results is justified.

Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy for Intermediate- or High-Risk Prostate Cancer

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is a relatively novel form of high precision radiotherapy. For low- and intermediate risk patients, ultrahypofractionation (UHF - more than 5 Gy per day) has been compared to conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy in two large randomized studies. A third smaller randomized study examined the question of the optimal frequency of treatments. The results of these studies will be reviewed. SABR for high risk prostate cancer has been shown to be feasible and is well tolerated with careful planning and setup techniques. However, there is currently insufficient data supporting its use for high-risk patients to offer SABR outside of a clinical trial. SABR costs less to the radiotherapydepartments and, the patient, as well as increasing system capacity. Therefore, it has the potential to be widely adopted in the next few years.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy with optional focal lesion ablative microboost in prostate cancer: Topical review and multicenter consensus

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer (PCa) is gaining interest by the recent publication of the first phase III trials on prostate SBRT and the promising results of many other phase II trials. Before long term results became available, the major concern for implementing SBRT in PCa in daily clinical practice was the potential risk of late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. A number of recently published trials, including late outcome and toxicity data, contributed to the growing evidence for implementation of SBRT for PCa in daily clinical practice. However, there exists substantial variability in delivering SBRT for PCa. The aim of this topical review is to present a number of prospective trials and retrospective analyses of SBRT in the treatment of PCa. We focus on the treatment strategies and techniques used in these trials. In addition, recent literature on a simultaneous integrated boost to the tumor lesion, which could create an additional value in the SBRT treatment of PCa, was described. Furthermore, we discuss the multicenter consensus of the FLAME consortium on SBRT for PCa with a focal boost to the macroscopic intraprostatic tumor nodule(s).

A Phase I/II Study of Stereotactic Hypofractionated Once-weekly Radiation Therapy (SHORT) for Prostate Cancer

AIMS

Stereotactic radiation therapy has been investigated predominantly in patients with low-intermediate-risk disease. We conducted a clinical trial of stereotactic hypofractionated radiation therapy delivered in once-weekly fractions on patients with all-risk non-metastatic disease to test feasibility, acute toxicities and patient-reported outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this phase I/II study, 30 patients with prostatic adenocarcinoma, any Gleason score, T1-4N0 and prostate-specific antigen ≤60 ng/ml were treated with volumetric intensity modulated arc radiation therapy to a dose of 35 Gy in five fractions delivered once weekly. Patients with high-risk disease also received elective nodal irradiation to a dose of 25 Gy in five fractions simultaneously. Androgen deprivation was offered to intermediate- and high-risk patients. The primary outcome was acute toxicity. Secondary outcome measures included biochemical control and late toxicity. Patient-reported outcomes were measured using the International Prostate Symptom Score and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (QLQ).

RESULTS

All 30 patients completed treatment per-protocol. Most patients had T3 (60%) and Gleason 7 (50%) tumours. The median prostate-specific antigen was 17 ng/ml. High-risk disease was present in 20 patients (66.7%). There was a low incidence of acute toxicities (grade 2 + urinary 3.3%, grade 2 rectal 0%). Within the EORTC QLQ framework, only the urinary symptom score showed a clinically meaningful worsening from a mean of 20/100 at baseline to 34/100 at the end of treatment (P < 0.001), but reduced to 24/100 at 6 months (P = 0.08). With a median follow-up of 41.5 months, two patients each reported grade 2 late urinary and rectal toxicity. The 3- and 4-year biochemical control rates were 96.7 and 87.9%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In a cohort of mainly high-risk cancers, stereotactic once-weekly radiation therapy was easy to implement and well tolerated, with a low incidence of acute and late toxicity and excellent biochemical control.

A Prospective Single-Arm Phase 2 Study of Stereotactic Magnetic Resonance Guided Adaptive Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Early Toxicity Results

PURPOSE

Use of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is increasing in patients with localized prostate cancer, but concerns about early and late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity exist after moderately or extremely hypofractionated radiation therapy schemes. Magnetic resonance guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) was clinically introduced in 2014. MrgRT allows for SBRT delivery with smaller uncertainty margins and permits daily adaptive planning. A phase 2 study in patients with localized prostate cancer was performed to study early GI and GU toxicity after SBRT using MRgRT.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

One hundred one patients with clinical stage T1-3bN0M0 prostate cancer were enrolled in this prospective phase 2 study. All but 4 patients had intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer, and 82.2% received adjuvant hormonal treatment. MRgRT was delivered in 5 fractions of 7.25 Gy to the target volume using daily plan adaptation with simultaneous relative sparing of the urethra to a dose of 6.5 Gy per fraction. Early toxicity was studied using both clinician- (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group) and patient-reported outcome measurements (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30, Quality of Life Questionnaire PR25, and International Prostate Symptom Scoring).

RESULTS

The maximum cumulative grade ≥2 early GU and GI toxicity measured by any symptom at any study time point was 23.8% and 5.0%, respectively. No early grade 3 GI toxicity was observed. Early grade 3 GU toxicity was 0% and 5.9% according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group and scoring systems, respectively, as a result of different grading of radiation cystitis. The low incidence of early GI toxicity was confirmed by patient-reported outcome data. GU grade ≥2 toxicity peaked to 19.8% at the end of MRgRT, followed by a return to the baseline average score at 3-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

This prospective study of MRgRT in patients with localized prostate cancer observed a low incidence of early GI and GU toxicity, both in clinician- and patient-reported outcome measurements.

Hypofractionated Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: When and for Whom?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize recent evidence concerning the use of moderately hypofractionated external beam radiotherapy, defined as 2.4-3.4 Gy per fraction, and ultrahypofractionated external beam radiotherapy (also known as stereotactic body radiotherapy [SBRT]), defined as at least 5 Gy per fraction, in men with localized prostate cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

Taken together, a number of recently completed randomized trials show that moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy confers similar biochemical control compared to conventionally fractionated radiotherapy without increasing late toxicity. These effects appear to extend across all baseline clinical risk groups. Several single-arm phase II studies, as well as a recently published large-scale randomized trial comparing SBRT with conventional fractionation, show very promising biochemical control and favorable acute and late treatment-related morbidity with the use of SBRT in predominantly low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. As it is associated with similar prostate cancer control and toxicity while improving patient convenience and reducing cost, moderate hypofractionation is a preferred alternative to conventional fractionation in a majority of men with localized prostate cancer choosing radiotherapy as their primary treatment modality. To date, studies conducted largely in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer report encouraging oncologic outcomes and acceptable toxicity with SBRT. Mature results of phase III trials evaluating five-fraction SBRT regimens are eagerly awaited.

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Over 6,000 Patients Treated On Prospective Studies

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.

Two versus five stereotactic ablative radiotherapy treatments for localized prostate cancer: A quality of life analysis of two prospective clinical trials

PURPOSE

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is appealing for prostate cancer (PCa) due to low α/β, and increasing the dose per fraction could improve the therapeutic index and lead to a better quality of life (QOL). Here we report the outcomes of a QOL comparison between two phase II clinical trials: two vs. five fraction prostate SABR.

METHODS

Patients had low or intermediate risk PCa. The doses prescribed were 26 Gy/2 and 40 Gy/5. Expanded prostate cancer index composite was collected. Urinary, bowel and sexual domains were analyzed. Minimal clinically important change (MCIC) was defined as >0.5 standard deviation.

RESULTS

30 and 152 patients were treated with 2-fraction and 5-fraction SABR. Median follow-up was 55 and 62 months. Five-year biochemical failure rate was 3.3% and 4.6%. The 2-fraction cohort had a significantly better mean QOL over time in the bowel domain (p = 0.0004), without a significant difference in the urinary or sexual domains. The 2-fraction cohort had a significantly lower rate of bowel MCIC (17.8% vs 42.3%, p = 0.01), but there was no difference in urinary (24.1% vs 35.7%) or sexual (15.3% vs 29.2%) MCIC. For MCIC x2 (moderate QOL change), the 2-fraction trial had significantly lower MCIC rates in both the bowel (7.1% vs 24%, p = 0.04) and sexual (0 vs 17.6%, p = 0.01) domains.

CONCLUSIONS

2-Fraction SABR is feasible to deliver and well tolerated, with significant signals of improved bowel and sexual QOL. A randomized trial of two vs. five fractions for prostate SABR is needed to confirm the promising findings of this study.

Twice- vs. thrice-weekly moderate hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: does overall treatment time matter?

PURPOSE

To evaluate the influence of overall treatment time (OTT) in disease control, acute, and long-term side effects with moderate hypofractionated external beam radiotherapy (RT) for prostate cancer (PCa) delivered either twice- or thrice-a-week.

METHODS

157 patients with localized PCa were treated consecutively with 56 Gy in 4 Gy/fraction delivered either twice (86 patients, from 2003 to 2010, group-1) or thrice a week (71 patients, from 2010 to 2017, group-2) using IMRT or VMAT techniques. Gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities were scored according to the CTCAE v3.0 grading scale. Median follow-up was 110 and 56 months for groups 1 and 2, respectively.

RESULTS

At 6 weeks, patients treated thrice-a-week experienced higher acute ≥ grade-2 GU toxicity compared to those treated twice a week (25.4% vs 5.8%, p = 0.001) even though none presented ≥ grade-3 GU or GI toxicity in the thrice-a-week group. The 5-year ≥ grade-2 late GU toxicity-free survival was higher in group-1 (95.9 ± 2.3%) than in group-2 (81.5 ± 4.9%, p = 0.003), while no differences in ≥ grade-2 late GI toxicity-free survival were observed between both groups (97.5 ± 1.7% vs. 97 ± 2.1% for groups 1 and 2, respectively). The 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) was not different for patients treated twice compared to those treated thrice-a-week (80.6 ± 4.5% vs. 85.3 ± 4.8%, respectively, p = 0.441), as much as for patients treated in > 5 weeks vs. those treated in ≤ 5 weeks (81.3 ± 4.4% vs. 84.4 ± 5.1%, respectively, p = 0.584).

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective hypothesis-generating analysis, less vs. more than 5 weeks OTT may increase acute and late GU toxicities without significantly improving bRFS in patients treated to high effective doses (> 80 Gy) with moderate hypofractionated RT. Prospective trials evaluating the impact of OTT on hypofractionated schedules for PCa are warranted.