1
|
Hudson JM, Loblaw A, McGuffin M, Chung HT, Tseng CL, Helou J, Cheung P, Szumacher E, Liu S, Zhang L, Deabreu A, Mamedov A, Morton G. Prostate high dose-rate brachytherapy as monotherapy for low and intermediate-risk prostate cancer: Efficacy results from a randomized phase II clinical trial of one fraction of 19 Gy or two fractions of 13.5 Gy: A 9-year update. Radiother Oncol 2024; 198:110381. [PMID: 38879130 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110381] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/04/2024] [Revised: 06/05/2024] [Accepted: 06/08/2024] [Indexed: 06/25/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE High dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy as a monotherapy is an accepted treatment for localized prostate cancer, but the optimal dose and fractionation schedule remain unknown. We report on the efficacy of a randomized Phase II trial comparing HDR monotherapy delivered as 27 Gy in 2 fractions vs. 19 Gy in 1 fraction with a median follow-up of 9 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS Enrolled patients had low or intermediate-risk disease, <60 cc prostate volume and no androgen deprivation use. Patients were randomized to 27 Gy in 2 fractions delivered one week apart vs a single fraction of 19 Gy. RESULTS 170 patients were randomized: median age 65 years, median follow-up 107 months and median baseline PSA 6.35 ng/ml. NCCN risk categories comprised low (19 %), favourable (51 %), and unfavourable intermediate risk (30 %). The median PSA at 8 years was 0.08 ng/ml in the 2-fraction arm vs. 0.89 ng/ml in the single-fraction arm. The cumulative incidence of local failure at 8 years was 11.2 % in the 2-fraction arm vs. 35.9 % in the single-fraction arm (p < 0.001). The incidence of distant failure at 8 years was 3.8 % in the 2-fraction arm and 2.5 % in the single-fraction arm (p = 0.6). CONCLUSIONS HDR monotherapy delivered in two fractions of 13.5 Gy demonstrated a persistent cancer control rate at 8 years and was well-tolerated. Single-fraction monotherapy yielded poor oncologic control and is not recommended. These findings contribute to the ongoing discourse on optimal HDR monotherapy strategies for low and intermediate-risk prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John M Hudson
- Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Andrew Loblaw
- Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Canada
| | | | - Hans T Chung
- Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Chia-Lin Tseng
- Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Joelle Helou
- Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Patrick Cheung
- Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Ewa Szumacher
- Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Stanley Liu
- Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Liying Zhang
- Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Andrea Deabreu
- Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Canada
| | | | - Gerard Morton
- Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Fredman E, Moore A, Icht O, Tschernichovsky R, Shemesh D, Bragilovski D, Kindler J, Golan S, Shochet T, Limon D. Acute Toxicity and Early Prostate Specific Antigen Response After Two-Fraction Stereotactic Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer Using Peri-Rectal Spacing - Initial Report of the SABR-Dual Trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2024:S0360-3016(24)02947-X. [PMID: 39002849 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.06.038] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/18/2024] [Revised: 06/21/2024] [Accepted: 06/29/2024] [Indexed: 07/15/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE SABR-Dual is a phase-III trial with an initial phase-I safety cohort, of 2-fraction stereotactic radiotherapy (SABR) with optional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based focal boost, using peri-rectal spacing, for localized prostate cancer. This represents the initial report from the phase-I non-randomized cohort. METHODS AND MATERIALS Subjects had favorable intermediate risk (FIR) or low risk prostate adenocarcinoma, and gland volume <80 cc. All underwent radiopaque hydrogel spacer and fiducial marker placement before simulation (computed tomography and 3-tesla T2 MRI). The clinical target volume included the entire prostate, and in FIR patients, 1-2 cm of seminal vesicle. A 2-mm expansion was applied for planning target volume (PTV), and a dose of 27 Gy was prescribed to the PTV-prostate, 23 Gy to the PTV-seminal vesicle, with an optional 30 Gy simultaneous boost to an MRI-defined dominant lesion. Primary endpoint was 3-month patient-reported changes in quality of life based on the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26, International Prostate Symptom Score, and Sexual Health Inventory for Men questionnaires. Secondary endpoints were 6-month quality of life, acute toxicity (using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0) and early Prostate specific antigen (PSA) response. RESULTS Among the 20 patients in the phase-I cohort, 95% had FIR disease, and 50% received a simultaneous boost. At median follow-up of 8 months, a 3-month minimally clinically important change occurred in 1/20 (5%), 6/20 (30%), 2/20 (10%), 4/20 (20%), and 5/20 (25%) in urinary incontinence, urinary obstructive, bowel, sexual, and hormonal domains. There was a mean increase of 1 ± 5.4 in International Prostate Symptom Score and decrease of 1.8 ± 6.5 in Sexual Health Inventory for Men scores. Rates of grade 2 urinary and bowel toxicity were 10% and 0%, respectively, with no grade ≥3 toxicities. Mean PSA decrease at last follow-up was 70.4% ± 17.7%. CONCLUSION This generalizable protocol of 2-fraction prostate SABR using peri-rectal spacing is a safe approach for ultra-hypofractionated dose-escalation, with minimal acute toxicity. Longer-term outcomes and direct comparison with standard 5-fraction SABR are being studied in the phase-III randomized portion of SABR-Dual.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elisha Fredman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Davidoff Cancer Center, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikvah, Israel.
| | - Assaf Moore
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Davidoff Cancer Center, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikvah, Israel; Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Oded Icht
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Davidoff Cancer Center, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikvah, Israel
| | - Roi Tschernichovsky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Davidoff Cancer Center, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikvah, Israel; Department of Molecular Cell Biology, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel
| | - Danielle Shemesh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Davidoff Cancer Center, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikvah, Israel
| | - Dimitri Bragilovski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Davidoff Cancer Center, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikvah, Israel
| | - Jonathan Kindler
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Davidoff Cancer Center, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikvah, Israel
| | - Shay Golan
- Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel; Department of Urology, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikvah, Israel
| | - Tzippora Shochet
- Department of Biostatistics, Beilinson Hospital, Petah Tikvah, Israel
| | - Dror Limon
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Davidoff Cancer Center, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikvah, Israel
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Panizza D, Faccenda V, Arcangeli S, De Ponti E. Treatment Optimization in Linac-Based SBRT for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Single-Arc versus Dual-Arc Plan Comparison. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 16:13. [PMID: 38201441 PMCID: PMC10778084 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16010013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/17/2023] [Revised: 12/12/2023] [Accepted: 12/15/2023] [Indexed: 01/12/2024] Open
Abstract
This study aimed to comprehensively present data on treatment optimization in linac-based SBRT for localized prostate cancer at a single institution. Moreover, the dosimetric quality and treatment efficiency of single-arc (SA) versus dual-arc (DA) VMAT planning and delivery approaches were compared. Re-optimization was performed on twenty low-to-intermediate-risk- (36.25 Gy in 5 fractions) and twenty high-risk (42.7 Gy in 7 fractions) prostate plans initially administered with the DA FFF-VMAT technique in 2021. An SA approach was adopted, incorporating new optimization parameters based on increased planning and clinical experience. Analysis included target coverage, organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing, treatment delivery time, and the pre-treatment verification's gamma analysis-passing ratio. The SA optimization technique has consistently produced superior plans. Rectum and bladder mean doses were significantly reduced, and comparable target coverage and homogeneity were achieved in order to maintain a urethra protection strategy. The mean SA treatment delivery time was reduced by 22%; the mean monitor units increased due to higher plan complexity; and dose measurements demonstrated optimal agreement with calculations. The substantial reduction in treatment delivery time decreased the probability of prostate motion beyond the applied margins, suggesting potential decrease in treatment-related toxicity and improved target coverage in prostate SBRT. Further investigations are warranted to assess the long-term clinical outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Denis Panizza
- Medical Physics Department, Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, 20900 Monza, Italy; (V.F.); (E.D.P.)
- School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan Bicocca, 20126 Milan, Italy;
| | - Valeria Faccenda
- Medical Physics Department, Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, 20900 Monza, Italy; (V.F.); (E.D.P.)
| | - Stefano Arcangeli
- School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan Bicocca, 20126 Milan, Italy;
- Radiation Oncology Department, Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, 20900 Monza, Italy
| | - Elena De Ponti
- Medical Physics Department, Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, 20900 Monza, Italy; (V.F.); (E.D.P.)
- School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan Bicocca, 20126 Milan, Italy;
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Ong WL, Loblaw A. The march toward single-fraction stereotactic body radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer-Quo Vadimus? World J Urol 2023; 41:3485-3491. [PMID: 37921936 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-023-04663-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/05/2023] [Accepted: 10/01/2023] [Indexed: 11/05/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is an emerging treatment option for localized prostate cancer. There is increasing interest to reduce the number of fractions for prostate SBRT. METHODS We provide a narrative review and summary of prospective trials of different fractionation schedules for prostate SBRT, focusing on efficacy, toxicities, and quality of life outcomes. RESULTS There are two randomized phase 3 trials comparing standard external beam radiotherapy with ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy. HYPO-RT-PC compared 78 Gy in 39 fractions vs 42.7 Gy in 7 fractions (3D-CRT or IMRT) showing non-inferiority in 5-year biochemical recurrence-free survival and equivalent tolerability. PACE-B trial compared 78 Gy in 39-fraction or 62 Gy in 20-fraction vs 36.25 Gy in 5-fraction prostate SBRT, with no significant differences in toxicity outcomes at 2 years. Five-year efficacy data for PACE-B are expected in 2024. Five-fraction prostate SBRT is currently the most common and well-established fractionation schedule with multiple prospective phase 2 trials published to date. There is more limited data on 1-4 fraction prostate SBRT. All fractionation schedules had acceptable toxicity outcomes. Experience from a high-dose-rate brachytherapy randomized trial showed inferior efficacy with single-fraction compared to two-fraction brachytherapy. Hence, caution should be applied in adopting single-fraction prostate SBRT. CONCLUSION Two-fraction SBRT is likely the shortest fractionation schedule that maintains the therapeutic ratio. Several randomized trials currently recruiting will likely provide us with more definite answers about whether two-fraction prostate SBRT should become a standard-of-care option. Enrollment of eligible patients into these trials should be encouraged.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wee Loon Ong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Rm T2-161, 2075 Bayview Ave, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada
- Alfred Health Radiation Oncology, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Andrew Loblaw
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Rm T2-161, 2075 Bayview Ave, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada.
- Institute of Health Policy, Measurement and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Pardo-Montero J, González-Crespo I, Gómez-Caamaño A, Gago-Arias A. Radiobiological Meta-Analysis of the Response of Prostate Cancer to Different Fractionations: Evaluation of the Linear-Quadratic Response at Large Doses and the Effect of Risk and ADT. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:3659. [PMID: 37509320 PMCID: PMC10377316 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15143659] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/22/2023] [Revised: 07/04/2023] [Accepted: 07/12/2023] [Indexed: 07/30/2023] Open
Abstract
The purpose of this work was to investigate the response of prostate cancer to different radiotherapy schedules, including hypofractionation, to evaluate potential departures from the linear-quadratic (LQ) response, to obtain the best-fitting parameters for low-(LR), intermediate-(IR), and high-risk (HR) prostate cancer and to investigate the effect of ADT on the radiobiological response. We constructed a dataset of the dose-response containing 87 entries/16,536 patients (35/5181 LR, 32/8146 IR, 20/3209 HR), with doses per fraction ranging from 1.8 to 10 Gy. These data were fit to tumour control probability models based on the LQ model, linear-quadratic-linear (LQL) model, and a modification of the LQ (LQmod) model accounting for increasing radiosensitivity at large doses. Fits were performed with the maximum likelihood expectation methodology, and the Akaike information criterion (AIC) was used to compare the models. The AIC showed that the LQ model was superior to the LQL and LQmod models for all risks, except for IR, where the LQL model outperformed the other models. The analysis showed a low α/β for all risks: 2.0 Gy for LR (95% confidence interval: 1.7-2.3), 3.4 Gy for IR (3.0-4.0), and 2.8 Gy for HR (1.4-4.2). The best fits did not show proliferation for LR and showed moderate proliferation for IR/HR. The addition of ADT was consistent with a suppression of proliferation. In conclusion, the LQ model described the response of prostate cancer better than the alternative models. Only for IR, the LQL model outperformed the LQ model, pointing out a possible saturation of radiation damage with increasing dose. This study confirmed a low α/β for all risks.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Juan Pardo-Montero
- Group of Medical Physics and Biomathematics, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago (IDIS), 15706 Santiago de Compostela, Spain
- Department of Medical Physics, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Santiago de Compostela, 15706 Santiago de Compostela, Spain
| | - Isabel González-Crespo
- Group of Medical Physics and Biomathematics, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago (IDIS), 15706 Santiago de Compostela, Spain
- Department of Applied Mathematics, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, 15705 Santiago de Compostela, Spain
| | - Antonio Gómez-Caamaño
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Santiago de Compostela, 15706 Santiago de Compostela, Spain
| | - Araceli Gago-Arias
- Group of Medical Physics and Biomathematics, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago (IDIS), 15706 Santiago de Compostela, Spain
- Department of Medical Physics, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Santiago de Compostela, 15706 Santiago de Compostela, Spain
- Institute of Physics, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago de Chile 7820436, Chile
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Faccenda V, Panizza D, Daniotti MC, Pellegrini R, Trivellato S, Caricato P, Lucchini R, De Ponti E, Arcangeli S. Dosimetric Impact of Intrafraction Prostate Motion and Interfraction Anatomical Changes in Dose-Escalated Linac-Based SBRT. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:cancers15041153. [PMID: 36831496 PMCID: PMC9954235 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15041153] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/20/2022] [Revised: 01/23/2023] [Accepted: 02/09/2023] [Indexed: 02/16/2023] Open
Abstract
The dosimetric impact of intrafraction prostate motion and interfraction anatomical changes and the effect of beam gating and motion correction were investigated in dose-escalated linac-based SBRT. Fifty-six gated fractions were delivered using a novel electromagnetic tracking device with a 2 mm threshold. Real-time prostate motion data were incorporated into the patient's original plan with an isocenter shift method. Delivered dose distributions were obtained by recalculating these motion-encoded plans on deformed CTs reflecting the patient's CBCT daily anatomy. Non-gated treatments were simulated using the prostate motion data assuming that no treatment interruptions have occurred. The mean relative dose differences between delivered and planned treatments were -3.0% [-18.5-2.8] for CTV D99% and -2.6% [-17.8-1.0] for PTV D95%. The median cumulative CTV coverage with 93% of the prescribed dose was satisfactory. Urethra sparing was slightly degraded, with the maximum dose increased by only 1.0% on average, and a mean reduction in the rectum and bladder doses was seen in almost all dose metrics. Intrafraction prostate motion marginally contributed in gated treatments, while in non-gated treatments, further deteriorations in the minimum target coverage and bladder dose metrics would have occurred on average. The implemented motion management strategy and the strict patient preparation regimen, along with other treatment optimization strategies, ensured no significant degradations of dose metrics in delivered treatments.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Valeria Faccenda
- Medical Physics Department, Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, 20900 Monza, Italy
| | - Denis Panizza
- Medical Physics Department, Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, 20900 Monza, Italy
- School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan Bicocca, 20126 Milan, Italy
| | - Martina Camilla Daniotti
- Medical Physics Department, Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, 20900 Monza, Italy
- Department of Physics, University of Milan, 20133 Milan, Italy
| | | | - Sara Trivellato
- Medical Physics Department, Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, 20900 Monza, Italy
| | - Paolo Caricato
- Medical Physics Department, Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, 20900 Monza, Italy
| | - Raffaella Lucchini
- School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan Bicocca, 20126 Milan, Italy
| | - Elena De Ponti
- Medical Physics Department, Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, 20900 Monza, Italy
- School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan Bicocca, 20126 Milan, Italy
| | - Stefano Arcangeli
- School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan Bicocca, 20126 Milan, Italy
- Radiation Oncology Department, Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, 20900 Monza, Italy
- Correspondence:
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Leung E, Gladwish AP, Davidson M, Taggar A, Velker V, Barnes E, Mendez L, Donovan E, Gien LT, Covens A, Vicus D, Kupets R, MacKay H, Han K, Cheung P, Zhang L, Loblaw A, D’Souza DP. Quality-of-Life Outcomes and Toxic Effects Among Patients With Cancers of the Uterus Treated With Stereotactic Pelvic Adjuvant Radiation Therapy: The SPARTACUS Phase 1/2 Nonrandomized Controlled Trial. JAMA Oncol 2022; 8:1-9. [PMID: 35420695 PMCID: PMC9011178 DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.0362] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Adjuvant radiation plays an important role in reducing locoregional recurrence in patients with uterine cancer. Although hypofractionated radiotherapy may benefit health care systems and the global community while decreasing treatment burden for patients traveling for daily radiotherapy, it has not been studied prospectively nor in randomized trials for treatment of uterine cancers, and the associated toxic effects and patient quality of life are unknown. OBJECTIVE To evaluate acute genitourinary and bowel toxic effects and patient-reported outcomes following stereotactic hypofractionated adjuvant radiation to the pelvis for treatment of uterine cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The Stereotactic Pelvic Adjuvant Radiation Therapy in Cancers of the Uterus (SPARTACUS) phase 1/2 nonrandomized controlled trial of patients accrued between May 2019 and August 2021 was conducted as a multicenter trial at 2 cancer centers in Ontario, Canada. In total, 61 patients with uterine cancer stages I through III after surgery entered the study. INTERVENTIONS Stereotactic adjuvant pelvic radiation to a dose of 30 Gy in 5 fractions administered every other day or once weekly. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Assessments of toxic effects and patient-reported quality of life (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaires C30 and endometrial EN24) were collected at baseline, fractions 3 and 5, and at 6 weeks and 3 months of follow-up. Descriptive analysis was conducted, calculating means, SDs, medians, IQRs, and ranges for continuous variables and proportions for categorical variables. Univariate generalized linear mixed models were generated for repeated measurements on the quality-of-life scales. RESULTS A total of 61 patients were enrolled (median age, 66 years; range, 51-88 years). Tumor histologic results included 39 endometrioid adenocarcinoma, 15 serous or clear cell, 3 carcinosarcoma, and 4 dedifferentiated. Sixteen patients received sequential chemotherapy, and 9 received additional vault brachytherapy. Median follow-up was 9 months (IQR, 3-15 months). Of 61 patients, worst acute gastrointestinal tract toxic effects of grade 1 were observed in 33 patients (54%) and of grade 2 in 8 patients (13%). For genitourinary worst toxic effects, grade 1 was observed in 25 patients (41%) and grade 2 in 2 patients (3%). One patient (1.6%) had an acute grade 3 gastrointestinal tract toxic effect of diarrhea at fraction 5 that resolved at follow-up. Only patient-reported diarrhea scores were both clinically (scores ≥10) and statistically significantly worse at fraction 5 (mean [SD] score, 35.76 [26.34]) compared with baseline (mean [SD] score, 6.56 [13.36]; P < .001), but this symptom improved at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Results of this phase 1/2 nonrandomized controlled trial suggest that stereotactic hypofractionated radiation was well tolerated at short-term follow-up for treatment of uterine cancer. Longer follow-up and future randomized studies are needed to further evaluate this treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04866394.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eric Leung
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Adam P. Gladwish
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Royal Victoria Hospital, University of Toronto, Barrie, Ontario, Canada
| | - Melanie Davidson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Amandeep Taggar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Vikram Velker
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, London Health Sciences Centre, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
| | - Elizabeth Barnes
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Lucas Mendez
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, London Health Sciences Centre, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
| | - Elysia Donovan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Lilian T. Gien
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Allan Covens
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Danielle Vicus
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Rachel Kupets
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Helen MacKay
- Divison of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Kathy Han
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Patrick Cheung
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Liying Zhang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Andrew Loblaw
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - David P. D’Souza
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, London Health Sciences Centre, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Kissel M, Créhange G, Graff P. Stereotactic Radiation Therapy versus Brachytherapy: Relative Strengths of Two Highly Efficient Options for the Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:2226. [PMID: 35565355 PMCID: PMC9105931 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14092226] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/28/2022] [Revised: 04/18/2022] [Accepted: 04/20/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has become a valid option for the treatment of low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. In randomized trials, it was found not inferior to conventionally fractionated external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). It also compares favorably to brachytherapy (BT) even if level 1 evidence is lacking. However, BT remains a strong competitor, especially for young patients, as series with 10-15 years of median follow-up have proven its efficacy over time. SBRT will thus have to confirm its effectiveness over the long-term as well. SBRT has the advantage over BT of less acute urinary toxicity and, more hypothetically, less sexual impairment. Data are limited regarding SBRT for high-risk disease while BT, as a boost after EBRT, has demonstrated superiority against EBRT alone in randomized trials. However, patients should be informed of significant urinary toxicity. SBRT is under investigation in strategies of treatment intensification such as combination of EBRT plus SBRT boost or focal dose escalation to the tumor site within the prostate. Our goal was to examine respective levels of evidence of SBRT and BT for the treatment of localized prostate cancer in terms of oncologic outcomes, toxicity and quality of life, and to discuss strategies of treatment intensification.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Pierre Graff
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut Curie, 26 Rue d’Ulm, 75005 Paris, France; (M.K.); (G.C.)
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Chen L, Gannavarapu BS, Desai NB, Folkert MR, Dohopolski M, Gao A, Ahn C, Cadeddu J, Bagrodia A, Woldu S, Raj GV, Roehrborn C, Lotan Y, Timmerman RD, Garant A, Hannan R. Dose-Intensified Stereotactic Ablative Radiation for Localized Prostate Cancer. Front Oncol 2022; 12:779182. [PMID: 35265519 PMCID: PMC8899031 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.779182] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/18/2021] [Accepted: 01/26/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose Stereotactic ablative radiation (SAbR) has been increasingly used in prostate cancer (PCa) given its convenience and cost efficacy. Optimal doses remain poorly defined with limited prospective comparative trials and long-term safety/efficacy data at higher dose levels. We analyzed toxicity and outcomes for SAbR in men with localized PCa at escalated 45 Gy in 5 fractions. Methods and Materials This study retrospectively analyzed men from 2015 to 2019 with PCa who received linear-accelerator-based SAbR to 45 Gy in 5 fractions, along with perirectal hydrogel spacer, fiducial placement, and MRI-based planning. Disease control outcomes were calculated from end of treatment. Minimally important difference (MID) assessing patient-reported quality of life was defined as greater than a one-half standard deviation increase in American Urological Association (AUA) symptom score after SAbR. Results Two-hundred and forty-nine (249) low-, intermediate-, and high-risk PCa patients with median follow-up of 14.9 months for clinical toxicity were included. Acute urinary grade II toxicity occurred in 20.4% of patients. Acute grade II GI toxicity occurred in 7.3% of patients. For follow-up > 2 years (n = 69), late GU and GI grade ≥III toxicity occurred in 5.8% and 1.5% of patients, respectively. MID was evident in 31.8%, 23.4%, 35.8%, 37.0%, 33.3%, and 26.7% of patients at 3, 6, 12, 24, 36, and 48 months, respectively. The median follow-up for biochemical recurrence was 22.6 months with biochemical failure-free survival of 100% at 1 year (n = 226) and 98.7% for years 2 (n = 113) and 3 (n = 54). Conclusions SAbR for PCa at 45 Gy in 5 fractions shows an encouraging safety profile. Prospective studies with longer follow-up are warranted to establish this dose regimen as standard of care for PCa.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lily Chen
- School of Medicine, The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Edinburg, TX, United States
| | - Bhavani S Gannavarapu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, United States
| | - Neil B Desai
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, United States
| | - Michael R Folkert
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, United States
| | - Michael Dohopolski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, United States
| | - Ang Gao
- Department of Population and Data Sciences, University of Texas (UT) Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, United States
| | - Chul Ahn
- Department of Population and Data Sciences, University of Texas (UT) Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, United States
| | - Jeffrey Cadeddu
- Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, United States
| | - Aditya Bagrodia
- Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, United States
| | - Solomon Woldu
- Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, United States
| | - Ganesh V Raj
- Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, United States
| | - Claus Roehrborn
- Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, United States
| | - Yair Lotan
- Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, United States
| | - Robert D Timmerman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, United States
| | - Aurelie Garant
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, United States
| | - Raquibul Hannan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, United States
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Principles of Radiotherapy. Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2022. [DOI: 10.1016/b978-0-12-822960-6.00070-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
|
11
|
Glicksman RM, Kishan AU, Katz AJ, Mantz CA, Collins SP, Fuller DB, Steinberg ML, Shabsovich D, Zhang L, Loblaw A. Four-year Prostate-specific Antigen Response Rate as a Predictive Measure in Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer Treated With Ablative Therapies: The SPRAT Analysis. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2021; 34:36-41. [PMID: 34836735 DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2021.11.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/08/2021] [Revised: 08/31/2021] [Accepted: 11/04/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
AIMS There is a lack of early predictive measures of outcome for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa) treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). The aim of the present study was to explore 4-year prostate-specific antigen response rate (4yPSARR) as an early predictive measure. MATERIALS AND METHODS Individual patient data from six institutions for patients with intermediate-risk PCa treated with SBRT between 2006 and 2016 with a 4-year (42-54 months) PSA available were analysed. Cumulative incidences of biochemical failure and metastasis were calculated using Nelson-Aalen estimates and overall survival was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Biochemical failure-free survival was analysed according to 4yPSARR, with groups dichotomised based on PSA <0.4 ng/ml or ≥0.4 ng/ml and compared using the Log-rank test. A multivariable competing risk analysis was carried out to predict for biochemical failure and the development of metastases. RESULTS Six hundred and thirty-seven patients were included, including 424 (67%) with favourable and 213 (33%) with unfavourable intermediate-risk disease. The median follow-up was 6.2 years (interquartile range 4.9-7.9). The cumulative incidence of biochemical failure and metastasis was 7 and 0.6%, respectively; overall survival at 6 years was 97%. The cumulative incidence of biochemical failure at 6 years if 4yPSARR <0.4 ng/ml was 1.7% compared with 27% if 4yPSARR ≥0.4 ng/ml (P < 0.0001). On multivariable competing risk analysis, 4yPSARR was a statistically significant predictor of biochemical failure-free survival (subdistribution hazard ratio 15.3, 95% confidence interval 7.5-31.3, P < 0.001) and metastasis-free survival (subdistribution hazard ratio 31.2, 95% confidence interval 3.1-311.6, P = 0.003). CONCLUSION 4yPSARR is an encouraging early predictor of outcome in patients with intermediate-risk PCa treated with SBRT. Validation in prospective trials is warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R M Glicksman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - A U Kishan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - A J Katz
- St. Francis Hospital, Roslyn, New York, USA
| | - C A Mantz
- 21st Century Oncology, Fort Myers, Florida, USA
| | - S P Collins
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
| | - D B Fuller
- Division of Genesis Healthcare Partners Inc, Cyberknife Centres of San Diego Inc, San Diego, California, USA
| | - M L Steinberg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - D Shabsovich
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - L Zhang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - A Loblaw
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Musunuru HB, Cheung P, Vesprini D, Liu SK, Chu W, Chung HT, Morton G, Deabreu A, Davidson M, Ravi A, Helou J, Ho L, Zhang L, Loblaw A. Gantry-Based 5-Fraction Elective Nodal Irradiation in Unfavorable-Risk Prostate Cancer: Outcomes From 2 Prospective Studies Comparing SABR Boost With MR Dose-Painted HDR Brachytherapy Boost. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021; 112:735-743. [PMID: 34637882 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.10.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/04/2021] [Revised: 09/29/2021] [Accepted: 10/05/2021] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and Cancer Care Ontario recommend brachytherapy boost for patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk prostate cancer. SABR is an emerging technique for prostate cancer, but its use in high-risk disease is limited. Efficacy, toxic effects, and quality of life (QoL) were compared in patients treated on 2 prospective protocols that used SABR boost or magnetic resonance-guided high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) boost with 6 to 18 months of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). METHODS AND MATERIALS In SATURN study (study 1), patients received 40 Gy to the prostate and 25 Gy to the pelvis in 5 weekly fractions. In SPARE (study 2), patients received HDR-BT (15 Gy × 1) to the prostate and ≤22.5 Gy to the magnetic resonance imaging nodule, followed by 25 Gy in 5 weekly fractions to the pelvis. All patients received between 6 and 18 months of ADT. RESULTS Thirty patients (7% unfavorable intermediate risk and 93% high risk, per National Comprehensive Cancer Network [NCCN] criteria) completed study 1, and 31 patients (3% favorable intermediate risk, 47% unfavorable intermediate risk, and 50% high risk) completed treatment as per study 2. The median follow-up times were 72 and 62 months, respectively. In study 2, 6 patients had biochemical failure, and all 6 developed metastatic disease. Actuarial 5-year biochemical failure was 0% for study 1 and 18.2% for study 2 (P = .005). There was no significant difference in the worst acute or late gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicity. Grade 3 late genitourinary toxicity was noted in 3% of the patients in study 2 (HDR-BT boost). There was either no significant difference or minimal clinically important change in QoL. CONCLUSIONS In the context of 5-fraction pelvic radiation therapy and ADT, there did not appear to be a significant difference in toxicity or QoL between SABR and HDR-BT boost. Although efficacy favored the SABR boost cohort, this should be viewed in the context of limitations and biases associated with comparing 2 sequential phase 2 studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hima Bindu Musunuru
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
| | - Patrick Cheung
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario
| | - Danny Vesprini
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario
| | - Stanley K Liu
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario
| | - William Chu
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario
| | - Hans T Chung
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario
| | - Gerard Morton
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario
| | - Andrea Deabreu
- Clinical Trials and Epidemiology Program, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario
| | - Melanie Davidson
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario
| | - Ananth Ravi
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario
| | - Joelle Helou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario; Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario
| | - Ling Ho
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario
| | - Liying Zhang
- Clinical Trials and Epidemiology Program, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario
| | - Andrew Loblaw
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Toronto, Ontario.
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Lee EKC, Leung RWK, Luk HSL, Wo BBW. Early toxicities of ultrahypofractionated stereotactic body radiotherapy for intermediate risk localized prostate cancer using cone-beam computed tomography and real-time three-dimensional transperineal ultrasound monitoring. Radiat Oncol J 2021; 39:239-245. [PMID: 34610663 PMCID: PMC8497869 DOI: 10.3857/roj.2020.00969] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/19/2020] [Accepted: 06/17/2021] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose Image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) is central to the safe and effective delivery of ultrahypofractionated (UF) stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for localized prostate cancer. We aim to study the safety of performing UF-SBRT using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and real-time transperineal ultrasound (TPUS) monitoring. Materials and Methods We retrospectively review the medical records of 26 patients who had received UF-SBRT for intermediate risk localized prostate cancer in our institution. All patients were treated with SBRT 35–40 Gy to the clinical target volume in 5 fractions over 2–5 weeks. CBCT was used to correct for interfraction displacement while intrafraction displacement of the prostate gland was monitored using TPUS. The primary endpoints were incidence of acute toxicities and patient reported urinary toxicities in terms of the International Prostate Symptom Score: before (IPSS1), at the completion of (IPSS2), and at 3–6 months (IPSS3) after SBRT. Results All men were followed up for at least 3 months after SBRT. Patients experienced transient worsening of their urinary symptoms at the end of SBRT but they usually recovered in 3–6 months afterwards. The median IPSS1, IPSS2, and IPSS3 were 12, 12.5, and 8, respectively. One patient developed grade 3 rectal bleeding which was related to underlying hemorrhoid. No other grade 3–4 acute toxicity was observed. Conclusion It appears safe to deliver UF-SBRT without fiducial marker for prostate cancer patients using CBCT and non-invasive hybrid imaging modalities for positioning and tracking. Longer follow-up is necessary to monitor the treatment efficacy and long-term toxicities.
Collapse
|
14
|
Bennie LA, Feng J, Emmerson C, Hyland WB, Matchett KB, McCarthy HO, Coulter JA. Formulating RALA/Au nanocomplexes to enhance nanoparticle internalisation efficiency, sensitising prostate tumour models to radiation treatment. J Nanobiotechnology 2021; 19:279. [PMID: 34538237 PMCID: PMC8451112 DOI: 10.1186/s12951-021-01019-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/20/2021] [Accepted: 08/30/2021] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Gold nanoparticles (AuNP) are effective radiosensitisers, however, successful clinical translation has been impeded by short systemic circulation times and poor internalisation efficiency. This work examines the potential of RALA, a short amphipathic peptide, to enhance the uptake efficiency of negatively charged AuNPs in tumour cells, detailing the subsequent impact of AuNP internalisation on tumour cell radiation sensitivity. RESULTS RALA/Au nanoparticles were formed by optimising the ratio of RALA to citrate capped AuNPs, with assembly occurring through electrostatic interactions. Physical nanoparticle characteristics were determined by UV-vis spectroscopy and dynamic light scattering. Nano-complexes successfully formed at w:w ratios > 20:1 (20 µg RALA:1 µg AuNP) yielding positively charged nanoparticles, sized < 110 nm with PDI values < 0.52. ICP-MS demonstrated that RALA enhanced AuNP internalisation by more than threefold in both PC-3 and DU145 prostate cancer cell models, without causing significant toxicity. Importantly, all RALA-AuNP formulations significantly increased prostate cancer cell radiosensitivity. This effect was greatest using the 25:1 RALA-AuNP formulation, producing a dose enhancement effect (DEF) of 1.54 in PC3 cells. Using clinical radiation energies (6 MV) RALA-AuNP also significantly augmented radiation sensitivity. Mechanistic studies support RALA-AuNP nuclear accumulation resulting in increased DNA damage yields. CONCLUSIONS This is the first study to demonstrate meaningful radiosensitisation using low microgram AuNP treatment concentrations. This effect was achieved using RALA, providing functional evidence to support our previous imaging study indicating RALA-AuNP nuclear accumulation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lindsey A Bennie
- School of Pharmacy, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, BT9 7BL, Northern Ireland, UK
| | - Jie Feng
- School of Pharmacy, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, BT9 7BL, Northern Ireland, UK
| | - Christopher Emmerson
- School of Pharmacy, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, BT9 7BL, Northern Ireland, UK
| | - Wendy B Hyland
- Western Health & Social Care Trust, North West Cancer Centre, Altnagelvin Hospital, Derry/Londonderry, BT47 6SB, Northern Ireland, UK
| | - Kyle B Matchett
- Northern Ireland Centre for Stratified Medicine, C-TRIC, Altnagelvin Hospital Campus, Derry/Londonderry, BT47 6SB, Northern Ireland, UK
| | - Helen O McCarthy
- School of Pharmacy, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, BT9 7BL, Northern Ireland, UK
- School of Chemical Sciences, Dublin City University, Dublin 9, Ireland
| | - Jonathan A Coulter
- School of Pharmacy, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, BT9 7BL, Northern Ireland, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Prospective validation of stringent dose constraints for prostatic stereotactic radiation monotherapy: results of a single-arm phase II toxicity-oriented trial. Strahlenther Onkol 2021; 197:1001-1009. [PMID: 34424351 DOI: 10.1007/s00066-021-01832-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/08/2021] [Accepted: 07/18/2021] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE There are no safety-focused trials on stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for localized prostate cancer. This prospective 3‑year phase II trial used binomial law to validate the safety and efficacy of SBRT with stringent organ at risk dose constraints that nevertheless permitted high planning target volume doses. METHODS All consecutive ≥ 70-year-old patients with localized prostate adenocarcinoma who underwent SBRT between 2014 and 2018 at the National Radiotherapy Center in Luxembourg were included. Patients with low Cancer of Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) scores (0-2) and intermediate scores (3-5) received 36.25 Gy. High-risk (6-10) patients received 37.5 Gy. Radiation was delivered in 5 fractions over 9 days with Cyberknife-M6™ (Accuray, Sunnyvale, CA, USA). Primary study outcome was Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4 (CTCAEv4) genitourinary and rectal toxicity scores at last follow-up. Based on binomial law, SRBT was considered safe in this cohort of 110 patients if there were ≤ 2 severe toxicity (CTCAEv4 grade ≥ 3) cases. Secondary outcomes were biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS) and patient quality of life (QOL), as determined by the IPPS and the Urinary Incontinence QOL questionnaire. RESULTS The first 110 patients who were accrued in a total cohort of 150 patients were included in this study and had a median follow-up of 36 months. Acute grade ≥ 3 toxicity never occurred. One transient late grade 3 case was observed. Thus, our SBRT program had an estimated severe toxicity rate of < 5% and was safe at the p < 0.05 level. Overall bPFS was 90%. QOL did not change relative to baseline. CONCLUSION The trial validated our SBRT regimen since it was both safe and effective.
Collapse
|
16
|
Graff P, Crehange G. [Ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer: Results, limits and prospects]. Cancer Radiother 2021; 25:684-691. [PMID: 34274223 DOI: 10.1016/j.canrad.2021.06.028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/17/2021] [Accepted: 06/21/2021] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Abstract
Still an emerging approach a few years ago, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has ranked as a valid option for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Inherent properties of prostatic adenocarcinoma (low α/β) make it the perfect candidate. We propose a critical review of the literature trying to put results into perspective to identify their strengths, limits and axes of development. Technically sophisticated, the stereotactic irradiation of the prostate is well tolerated. Despite the fact that median follow-up of published data is still limited, ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy seems very efficient for the treatment of low and intermediate risk prostate cancers. Data seem satisfying for high-risk cancers as well. New developments are being studied with a main interest in treatment intensification for unfavorable intermediate risk and high-risk cancers. Advantage is taken of the sharp dose gradient of stereotactic radiotherapy to offer safe reirradiation to patients with local recurrence in a previously irradiated area.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- P Graff
- Département d'oncologie radiothérapie, Institut Curie, 26, rue d'Ulm, 75005 Paris, France.
| | - G Crehange
- Département d'oncologie radiothérapie, Institut Curie, 26, rue d'Ulm, 75005 Paris, France
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Musunuru HB, Cheung P, Vesprini D, Liu SK, Chu W, Chung HT, Morton G, Deabreu A, Davidson M, Ravi A, Helou J, Ho L, Zhang L, Loblaw A. Stereotactic pelvic radiotherapy with HDR boost for dose escalation in intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer (SPARE): Efficacy, toxicity and quality of life. Radiother Oncol 2021; 161:40-46. [PMID: 34089752 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.05.024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/10/2021] [Revised: 05/24/2021] [Accepted: 05/26/2021] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The ASCO/CCO guidelines recommend brachytherapy (BT) boost for eligible intermediate- (IR) or high-risk (HR) prostate cancer (PCa) patients. We present efficacy, toxicity and quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes in patients treated on a prospective protocol of MRI dose-painted high-dose-rate BT boost (HDR-BT) followed by 5-fraction pelvic radiotherapy (RT) and 6-18 months of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). METHODS In this phase I/II study, IR or HR PCa patients received HDR-BT 15 Gy × 1 to prostate and up to 22.5 Gy to MRI nodule, followed by 25 Gy in 5, weekly fractions to pelvis. Toxicity was assessed using CTCAEv3.0, and QoL was captured using EPIC questionnaire. Biochemical failure (BF; nadir + 2.0), and proportion of patients with PSA < 0.4 ng/ml at 4-years (4yPSARR) were evaluated. A minimally clinically important change (MCIC) was recorded if QoL score decreased >0.5 standard deviation of baseline scores. RESULTS Thirty-one patients (NCCN 3.2% favorable IR, 48.4% unfavorable IR and 48.4% HR) completed treatment with a median follow-up of 61 months. Median D90 to MR nodule was 19.0 Gy and median prostate V100% was 96.5%. The actuarial 5-year BF rate was 18.2%, and the 4yPSARR was 71%. One patient died of PCa. Acute grade 2 and 3 toxicities: GU: 50%, 7%, and GI: 3%, none, respectively. Late grade 2 and 3 toxicities were: GU: 23%, 3%, and GI: 7%, none, respectively. Proportion of patients with MCIC was 7.7% for urinary domain and 32.0% for bowel domain. CONCLUSIONS This novel treatment protocol incorporating MRI dose-painted HDR-BT boost and 5-fraction pelvic RT with ADT is well tolerated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Patrick Cheung
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Danny Vesprini
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Stanley K Liu
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - William Chu
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Hans T Chung
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Gerard Morton
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Andrea Deabreu
- Clinical Trials and Epidemiology Program, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Canada
| | - Melanie Davidson
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Ananth Ravi
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Joelle Helou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada; Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Canada
| | - Ling Ho
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Liying Zhang
- Clinical Trials and Epidemiology Program, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Canada
| | - Andrew Loblaw
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Greco C, Pares O, Pimentel N, Louro V, Santiago I, Vieira S, Stroom J, Mateus D, Soares A, Marques J, Freitas E, Coelho G, Seixas M, Lopez-Beltran A, Fuks Z. Safety and Efficacy of Virtual Prostatectomy With Single-Dose Radiotherapy in Patients With Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: Results From the PROSINT Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol 2021; 7:700-708. [PMID: 33704378 DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.0039] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/21/2023]
Abstract
Importance Ultra-high single-dose radiotherapy (SDRT) represents a potential alternative to curative extreme hypofractionated stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in organ-confined prostate cancer. Objective To compare toxic effect profiles, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) responses, and quality-of-life end points of SDRT vs extreme hypofractionated SBRT. Design, Setting, and Participants The PROSINT single-institution phase 2 randomized clinical trial accrued, between September 2015 and January 2017, 30 participants with intermediate-risk prostate cancer to receive SDRT or extreme hypofractionated SBRT. Androgen deprivation therapy was not permitted. Data were analyzed from March to May 2020. Interventions Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive 5 × 9 Gy SBRT (control arm) or 24 Gy SDRT (test arm). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point was toxic effects; the secondary end points were PSA response, PSA relapse-free survival, and patient-reported quality of life measured with the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC)-26 questionnaires. Results A total of 30 men were randomized; median (interquartile range) age was 66.3 (61.2-69.9) and 73.6 (64.7-75.9) years for the SBRT and SDRT arms, respectively. Time to appearance and duration of acute and late toxic effects were similar in the 2 trial arms. Cumulative late actuarial urinary toxic effects did not differ for grade 1 (hazard ratio [HR], 0.41; 90% CI, 0.13-1.27) and grade 2 or greater (HR, 1.07; 90% CI, 0.21-5.57). Actuarial grade 1 late gastrointestinal (GI) toxic effects were comparable (HR, 0.37; 90% CI, 0.07-1.94) and there were no grade 2 or greater late GI toxic effects. Declines in PSA level to less than 0.5 ng/mL occurred by 36 months in both study arms. No PSA relapses occurred in favorable intermediate-risk disease, while in the unfavorable category, the actuarial 4-year PSA relapse-free survival values were 75.0% vs 64.0% (HR, 0.76; 90% CI, 0.17-3.31) for SBRT vs SDRT, respectively. The EPIC-26 median summary scores for the genitourinary and GI domains dropped transiently at 1 month and returned to pretreatment scores by 3 months in both arms. The IPSS-derived transient late urinary flare symptoms occurred at 9 to 18 months in 20% (90% CI, 3%-37%) of patients receiving SDRT. Conclusions and Relevance In this randomized clinical trial among patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer, SDRT was safe and associated with low toxicity, and the tumor control and quality-of-life end points closely match the SBRT arm outcomes. Further studies are encouraged to explore indications for SDRT in the cure of prostate cancer. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02570919.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carlo Greco
- The Champalimaud Centre for the Unknown, Lisbon, Portugal
| | - Oriol Pares
- The Champalimaud Centre for the Unknown, Lisbon, Portugal
| | - Nuno Pimentel
- The Champalimaud Centre for the Unknown, Lisbon, Portugal
| | - Vasco Louro
- The Champalimaud Centre for the Unknown, Lisbon, Portugal
| | - Inês Santiago
- The Champalimaud Centre for the Unknown, Lisbon, Portugal
| | - Sandra Vieira
- The Champalimaud Centre for the Unknown, Lisbon, Portugal
| | - Joep Stroom
- The Champalimaud Centre for the Unknown, Lisbon, Portugal
| | - Dalila Mateus
- The Champalimaud Centre for the Unknown, Lisbon, Portugal
| | - Ana Soares
- The Champalimaud Centre for the Unknown, Lisbon, Portugal
| | - João Marques
- The Champalimaud Centre for the Unknown, Lisbon, Portugal
| | - Elda Freitas
- The Champalimaud Centre for the Unknown, Lisbon, Portugal
| | - Graça Coelho
- The Champalimaud Centre for the Unknown, Lisbon, Portugal
| | - Manuela Seixas
- The Champalimaud Centre for the Unknown, Lisbon, Portugal
| | | | - Zvi Fuks
- The Champalimaud Centre for the Unknown, Lisbon, Portugal.,Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Zelefsky MJ, Goldman DA, Hopkins M, Pinitpatcharalert A, McBride S, Gorovets D, Ehdaie B, Fine SW, Reuter VE, Tyagi N, Happersett L, Teyateeti A, Zhang Z, Kollmeier MA. Predictors for post-treatment biopsy outcomes after prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 2021; 159:33-38. [PMID: 33587971 PMCID: PMC10187562 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.02.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/27/2020] [Revised: 02/01/2021] [Accepted: 02/05/2021] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To investigate predictors associated with post-treatment biopsy outcomes after stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS 257 patients treated with prostate SBRT to dose levels of 32.5 Gy to >40 Gy in 5-6 fractions underwent a post-treatment biopsy performed approximately two years after treatment to evaluate local control status. 73 had% intermediate-risk disease (n = 187) and the remaining 17% (n = 43) and 10% (n = 27) had low-risk and high-risk disease, respectively. RESULTS The incidence of positive, negative, and treatment-effect post-treatment biopsies were 15.6%, 57.6%, and 26.8%, respectively. The incidence of a positive biopsy according to dose was 37.5% (n = 9/24), 21.4% (n = 6/28), 19.4% (n = 6/31), and 10.9% (n = 19/174) for 32.5 Gy, 35 Gy, 37.5 Gy, and >40 Gy, respectively. In a multivariable model, patients treated with SBRT doses of <40 Gy and those with unfavorable-intermediate-risk or high-risk disease had higher likelihood of a positive post-treatment biopsy. A positive post-SBRT biopsy was associated with a significantly higher likelihood of subsequent PSA relapse at five years (Positive biopsy: 57%, 95% CI: 29-77% compared to negative biopsy: 7%, 95% CI: 3-14%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION Based on two-year post-SBRT biopsies, excellent tumor control was achieved when dose levels of 40 Gy or higher were used. Standard SBRT dose levels of 35-37.5 Gy were associated with a higher likelihood of a positive post-treatment biopsy. Two-year positive post-treatment biopsies pre-dated the development of PSA failure in the majority of patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael J Zelefsky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA.
| | - Debra A Goldman
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | - Margaret Hopkins
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | | | - Sean McBride
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | - Daniel Gorovets
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Department of Urology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | - Samson W Fine
- Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | - Victor E Reuter
- Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | - Neelam Tyagi
- Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | - Laura Happersett
- Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | - Achiraya Teyateeti
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA; Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiology, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Zhigang Zhang
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA.
| | - Marisa A Kollmeier
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Blacksburg SR, Fuller DB, Haas JA. Editorial: The Evolving Landscape of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for the Management of Prostate Cancer. Front Oncol 2021; 10:627686. [PMID: 33384965 PMCID: PMC7770153 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.627686] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/10/2020] [Accepted: 11/16/2020] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Seth R Blacksburg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Long Island Hospital, Mineola, NY, United States
| | - Donald B Fuller
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Genesis Healthcare Partners, San Diego, CA, United States
| | - Jonathan A Haas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Long Island Hospital, Mineola, NY, United States
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Ablative Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer: Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy and High Dose Rate Brachytherapy. Cancers (Basel) 2020; 12:cancers12123606. [PMID: 33276562 PMCID: PMC7761604 DOI: 10.3390/cancers12123606] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/05/2020] [Revised: 11/29/2020] [Accepted: 11/30/2020] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
22
|
Levin-Epstein RG, Jiang NY, Wang X, Upadhyaya SK, Collins SP, Suy S, Aghdam N, Mantz C, Katz AJ, Miszczyk L, Napieralska A, Namysl-Kaletka A, Prionas N, Bagshaw H, Buyyounouski MK, Cao M, Agazaryan N, Dang A, Yuan Y, Kupelian PA, Zaorsky NG, Spratt DE, Mohamad O, Feng FY, Mahal BA, Boutros PC, Kishan AU, Juarez J, Shabsovich D, Jiang T, Kahlon S, Patel A, Patel J, Nickols NG, Steinberg ML, Fuller DB, Kishan AU. Dose-response with stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer: A multi-institutional analysis of prostate-specific antigen kinetics and biochemical control. Radiother Oncol 2020; 154:207-213. [PMID: 33035622 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.09.053] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/20/2020] [Revised: 09/22/2020] [Accepted: 09/25/2020] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE The optimal dose for prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is still unknown. This study evaluated the dose-response relationships for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) decay and biochemical recurrence (BCR) among 4 SBRT dose regimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS In 1908 men with low-risk (50.0%), favorable intermediate-risk (30.9%), and unfavorable intermediate-risk (19.1%) prostate cancer treated with prostate SBRT across 8 institutions from 2003 to 2018, we examined 4 regimens (35 Gy/5 fractions [35/5, n = 265, 13.4%], 36.25 Gy/5 fractions [36.25/5, n = 711, 37.3%], 40 Gy/5 fractions [40/5, n = 684, 35.8%], and 38 Gy/4 fractions [38/4, n = 257, 13.5%]). Between dose groups, we compared PSA decay slope, nadir PSA (nPSA), achievement of nPSA ≤0.2 and ≤0.5 ng/mL, and BCR-free survival (BCRFS). RESULTS Median follow-up was 72.3 months. Median nPSA was 0.01 ng/mL for 38/4, and 0.17-0.20 ng/mL for 5-fraction regimens (p < 0.0001). The 38/4 cohort demonstrated the steepest PSA decay slope and greater odds of nPSA ≤0.2 ng/mL (both p < 0.0001 vs. all other regimens). BCR occurred in 6.25%, 6.75%, 3.95%, and 8.95% of men treated with 35/5, 36.25/5, 40/5, and 38/4, respectively (p = 0.12), with the highest BCRFS after 40/5 (vs. 35/5 hazard ratio [HR] 0.49, p = 0.026; vs. 36.25/5 HR 0.42, p = 0.0005; vs. 38/4 HR 0.55, p = 0.037) including the entirety of follow-up, but not for 5-year BCRFS (≥93% for all regimens, p ≥ 0.21). CONCLUSION Dose-escalation was associated with greater prostate ablation and PSA decay. Dose-escalation to 40/5, but not beyond, was associated with improved BCRFS. Biochemical control remains excellent, and prospective studies will provide clarity on the benefit of dose-escalation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Naomi Y Jiang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, USA
| | - Xiaoyan Wang
- UCLA Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, USA
| | - Shrinivasa K Upadhyaya
- Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, University of California, Davis, USA
| | - Sean P Collins
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, USA
| | - Simeng Suy
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, USA
| | - Nima Aghdam
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, USA
| | | | - Alan J Katz
- FROS Radiation Oncology and CyberKnife Center, Flushing, USA
| | - Leszek Miszczyk
- Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology Gliwice Branch, Poland
| | - Aleksandra Napieralska
- Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology Gliwice Branch, Poland
| | | | - Nicholas Prionas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University Medical Center, USA
| | - Hilary Bagshaw
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University Medical Center, USA
| | | | - Minsong Cao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, USA
| | - Nzhde Agazaryan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, USA
| | - Audrey Dang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tulane Medical Center, New Orleans, USA
| | - Ye Yuan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, USA
| | - Patrick A Kupelian
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, USA
| | - Nicholas G Zaorsky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Penn State Cancer Institute, Hershey, USA
| | - Daniel E Spratt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA
| | - Osama Mohamad
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, USA
| | - Felix Y Feng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, USA
| | | | - Paul C Boutros
- Department of Human Genetics, University of California, Los Angeles, USA; Department of Urology, University of California, Los Angeles, USA
| | - Arun U Kishan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, USA
| | - Jesus Juarez
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, USA
| | - David Shabsovich
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, USA
| | - Tommy Jiang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, USA
| | - Sartajdeep Kahlon
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, USA
| | - Ankur Patel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, USA
| | - Jay Patel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, USA
| | - Nicholas G Nickols
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology, West Los Angeles Veterans Health Administration, USA
| | - Michael L Steinberg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, USA
| | | | - Amar U Kishan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, USA; Department of Urology, University of California, Los Angeles, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Ricco A, Barbera G, Lanciano R, Feng J, Hanlon A, Lozano A, Good M, Arrigo S, Lamond J, Yang J. Favorable Biochemical Freedom From Recurrence With Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Intermediate and High-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Single Institutional Experience With Long-Term Follow-Up. Front Oncol 2020; 10:1505. [PMID: 33102201 PMCID: PMC7545336 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.01505] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/20/2020] [Accepted: 07/14/2020] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose/Objective(s): The current study reports long-term overall survival (OS) and biochemical freedom from recurrence (BFFR) after stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for men with intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer in a single community hospital setting with early adoption. Materials/Methods: Ninety-seven consecutive men with intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer treated with SBRT between 2007 and 2015 were retrospectively studied. Categorical variables for analysis included National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group, race, Gleason grade group, T stage, use of androgen deprivation therapy, and planning target volume dose. Continuous variables for analysis included pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA), percent cores positive, age at diagnosis, PSA nadir, prostate volume, percent prostate that received 40 Gy, and minimum dose to 0.03 cc of prostate (Dmin). BFFR was assessed using the Phoenix nadir +2 definition. OS and BFFR were estimated using Kaplan-Meier (KM) methodology with comparisons accomplished using log-rank statistics. Multivariable analysis (MVA) was accomplished with a backwards selection Cox proportional-hazards model with statistical significance taken at the p < 0.05 level. Results: Median FU is 78.4 months. Five- and ten-year OS KM estimates are 90.9 and 73.2%, respectively, with 19 deaths recorded. MVA reveals pretreatment PSA (p = 0.032), percent prostate 40 Gy (p = 0.003), and race (p = 0.031) were predictive of OS. Five- and nine-year BFFR KM estimates are 92.1 and 87.5%, respectively, with 10 biochemical failures recorded. MVA revealed PSA nadir (p < 0.001) was the only factor predictive of BFFR. Specifically, for every one-unit increase in PSA nadir, there was a 4.2-fold increased odds of biochemical failure (HR = 4.248). No significant differences in BFFR were found between favorable intermediate, unfavorable intermediate, and high-risk prostate cancer (p = 0.054) with 7-year KM estimates of 96.6, 81.0, and 85.7%, respectively. Conclusions: Favorable OS and BFFR can be expected after SBRT for intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer with non-significant differences seen for BFFR between favorable intermediate, unfavorable intermediate, and high-risk groups. Our 5-year BFFR compares favorably with the HYPO-RT-PC trial of 84%. PSA nadir was predictive of biochemical failure. This study is ultimately limited by the small absolute number of high-risk patients included.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anthony Ricco
- Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, Richmond, VA, United States
| | - Gabrielle Barbera
- College of Medicine, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Rachelle Lanciano
- Radiation Oncology, Crozer-Keystone Health System, Springfield, PA, United States
- Philadelphia CyberKnife Center, Havertown, PA, United States
| | - Jing Feng
- Philadelphia CyberKnife Center, Havertown, PA, United States
| | - Alexandra Hanlon
- Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, United States
| | - Alicia Lozano
- Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, United States
| | - Michael Good
- Philadelphia CyberKnife Center, Havertown, PA, United States
| | - Stephen Arrigo
- Radiation Oncology, Crozer-Keystone Health System, Springfield, PA, United States
- Philadelphia CyberKnife Center, Havertown, PA, United States
| | - John Lamond
- Radiation Oncology, Crozer-Keystone Health System, Springfield, PA, United States
- Philadelphia CyberKnife Center, Havertown, PA, United States
| | - Jun Yang
- Philadelphia CyberKnife Center, Havertown, PA, United States
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Royce TJ, Mavroidis P, Wang K, Falchook AD, Sheets NC, Fuller DB, Collins SP, El Naqa I, Song DY, Ding GX, Nahum AE, Jackson A, Grimm J, Yorke E, Chen RC. Tumor Control Probability Modeling and Systematic Review of the Literature of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020; 110:227-236. [PMID: 32900561 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.08.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/31/2020] [Accepted: 08/02/2020] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Dose escalation improves localized prostate cancer disease control, and moderately hypofractionated external beam radiation is noninferior to conventional fractionation. The evolving treatment approach of ultrahypofractionation with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) allows possible further biological dose escalation (biologically equivalent dose [BED]) and shortened treatment time. METHODS AND MATERIALS The American Association of Physicists in Medicine Working Group on Biological Effects of Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy/SBRT included a subgroup to study the prostate tumor control probability (TCP) with SBRT. We performed a systematic review of the available literature and created a dose-response TCP model for the endpoint of freedom from biochemical relapse. Results were stratified by prostate cancer risk group. RESULTS Twenty-five published cohorts were identified for inclusion, with a total of 4821 patients (2235 with low-risk, 1894 with intermediate-risk, and 446 with high-risk disease, when reported) treated with a variety of dose/fractionation schemes, permitting dose-response modeling. Five studies had a median follow-up of more than 5 years. Dosing regimens ranged from 32 to 50 Gy in 4 to 5 fractions, with total BED (α/β = 1.5 Gy) between 183.1 and 383.3 Gy. At 5 years, we found that in patients with low-intermediate risk disease, an equivalent doses of 2 Gy per fraction (EQD2) of 71 Gy (31.7 Gy in 5 fractions) achieved a TCP of 90% and an EQD2 of 90 Gy (36.1 Gy in 5 fractions) achieved a TCP of 95%. In patients with high-risk disease, an EQD2 of 97 Gy (37.6 Gy in 5 fractions) can achieve a TCP of 90% and an EQD2 of 102 Gy (38.7 Gy in 5 fractions) can achieve a TCP of 95%. CONCLUSIONS We found significant variation in the published literature on target delineation, margins used, dose/fractionation, and treatment schedule. Despite this variation, TCP was excellent. Most prescription doses range from 35 to 40 Gy, delivered in 4 to 5 fractions. The literature did not provide detailed dose-volume data, and our dosimetric analysis was constrained to prescription doses. There are many areas in need of continued research as SBRT continues to evolve as a treatment modality for prostate cancer, including the durability of local control with longer follow-up across risk groups, the efficacy and safety of SBRT as a boost to intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and the impact of incorporating novel imaging techniques into treatment planning.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Trevor J Royce
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
| | - Panayiotis Mavroidis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Kyle Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | | | - Nathan C Sheets
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Donald B Fuller
- Division of Genesis Healthcare Partners Inc, Genesis CyberKnife, San Diego, California
| | - Sean P Collins
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
| | - Issam El Naqa
- Machine Learning Department, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida
| | - Daniel Y Song
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - George X Ding
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Alan E Nahum
- Department of Physics, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom and Henley-on-Thames, United Kingdom
| | - Andrew Jackson
- Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, New York
| | - Jimm Grimm
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Geisinger Health System, Danville, Pennsylvania; Department of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Ellen Yorke
- Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, New York
| | - Ronald C Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Kansas, Kansas City, Kansas
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Accelerating prostate stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy: Efficacy and toxicity of a randomized phase II study of 11 versus 29 days overall treatment time (PATRIOT). Radiother Oncol 2020; 149:8-13. [DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.04.039] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/05/2020] [Revised: 04/16/2020] [Accepted: 04/20/2020] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
|
26
|
Levin-Epstein R, Cook RR, Wong JK, Stock RG, Jeffrey Demanes D, Collins SP, Aghdam N, Suy S, Mantz C, Katz AJ, Nickols NG, Miszczyk L, Napieralska A, Namysl-Kaletka A, Prionas ND, Bagshaw H, Buyyounouski MK, Cao M, Mahal BA, Shabsovich D, Dang A, Yuan Y, Rettig MB, Chang AJ, Jackson WC, Spratt DE, Lehrer EJ, Zaorsky NG, Kupelian PA, Steinberg ML, Horwitz EM, Jiang NY, Kishan AU. Prostate-specific antigen kinetics and biochemical control following stereotactic body radiation therapy, high dose rate brachytherapy, and low dose rate brachytherapy: A multi-institutional analysis of 3502 patients. Radiother Oncol 2020; 151:26-32. [PMID: 32663537 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.07.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/13/2020] [Revised: 07/02/2020] [Accepted: 07/06/2020] [Indexed: 01/27/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), low dose rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT) and high dose rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) are ablative-intent radiotherapy options for prostate cancer (PCa). These vary considerably in dose delivery, which may impact post-treatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) patterns and biochemical control. We compared PSA kinetics between SBRT, HDR-BT, and LDR-BT, and assessed their relationships to biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS). METHODS AND MATERIALS Retrospective PSA data were analyzed for 3502 men with low-risk (n = 2223; 63.5%), favorable intermediate-risk (n = 869; 24.8%), and unfavorable intermediate-risk (n = 410; 11.7%) PCa treated with SBRT (n = 1716; 49.0%), HDR-BT (n = 512; 14.6%), or LDR-BT (n = 1274; 36.4%) without upfront androgen deprivation therapy at 10 institutions from 1990 to 2017. We compared nadir PSA (nPSA), time to nPSA, achievement of nPSA <0.2 ng/mL and <0.5 ng/mL, rates of nPSA <0.4 ng/mL at 4 years, and BCRFS. RESULTS Median follow-up was 72 months. Median nPSA and nPSA <0.2 ng/mL were stratified by risk group (interaction p ≤ 0.001). Median nPSA and time to nPSA were 0.2 ng/mL at 44 months after SBRT, 0.1-0.2 ng/mL at 37 months after HDR-BT, and 0.01-0.2 ng/mL at 51 months after LDR-BT (mean log nPSA p ≤ 0.009 for LDR-BT vs. SBRT or HDR-BT for low/favorable intermediate-risk). There were no differences in nPSA <0.4 ng/mL at 4 years (p ≥ 0.51). BCRFS was similar for all three modalities (p ≥ 0.27). Continued PSA decay beyond 4 years was predictive of durable biochemical control. CONCLUSION LDR-BT led to lower nPSAs with longer continued decay compared to SBRT and HDR-BT, but no differences in BCRFS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rebecca Levin-Epstein
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
| | - Ryan R Cook
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
| | - J Karen Wong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, United States
| | - Richard G Stock
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, United States
| | - D Jeffrey Demanes
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States; California Endocurietherapy Cancer Center, Oakland, United States
| | - Sean P Collins
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, United States
| | - Nima Aghdam
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, United States
| | - Simeng Suy
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, United States
| | | | - Alan J Katz
- FROS Radiation Oncology and Cyberknife Center, Flushing, United States
| | - Nicholas G Nickols
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States; Department of Radiation Oncology, West Los Angeles Veterans Health Administration, Los Angeles, United States
| | - Leszek Miszczyk
- Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology Gliwice Branch, Gliwice, Poland
| | - Aleksandra Napieralska
- Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology Gliwice Branch, Gliwice, Poland
| | - Agnieszka Namysl-Kaletka
- Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology Gliwice Branch, Gliwice, Poland
| | - Nicholas D Prionas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, United States
| | - Hilary Bagshaw
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, United States
| | - Mark K Buyyounouski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, United States
| | - Minsong Cao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
| | - Brandon A Mahal
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, United States
| | - David Shabsovich
- David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, United States
| | - Audrey Dang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tulane Medical Center, New Orleans, United States
| | - Ye Yuan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
| | - Matthew B Rettig
- Department of Medical Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States; Department of Medical Oncology, West Los Angeles Veterans Health Administration, Los Angeles, United States
| | - Albert J Chang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
| | - William C Jackson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
| | - Daniel E Spratt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
| | - Eric J Lehrer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, United States
| | - Nicholas G Zaorsky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Penn State Cancer Institute, Hershey, United States
| | - Patrick A Kupelian
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
| | - Michael L Steinberg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
| | - Eric M Horwitz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, United States
| | - Naomi Y Jiang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
| | - Amar U Kishan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States.
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Fuller DB, Naitoh J, Shirazi R, Crabtree T, Mardirossian G. Prostate SBRT: Comparison the Efficacy and Toxicity of Two Different Dose Fractionation Schedules. Front Oncol 2020; 10:936. [PMID: 32670876 PMCID: PMC7331284 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.00936] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/28/2020] [Accepted: 05/12/2020] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: CyberKnife SBRT is capable of producing dosimetry comparable to that created by HDR brachytherapy. Our original CyberKnife prostate SBRT schedule of 3,800 cGy/4 fractions (“high dose”) was based upon favorable published prostate HDR brachytherapy experience. Subsequently, our trial was modified to allow a lower dose of 3,400 cGy/5 fractions (“moderate dose”) in selected cases. Methods: Two hundred eighty-nine low and intermediate-risk patients were treated to either high dose (178 pts) or moderate dose (111 pts). The dose selection was individualized; high dose more commonly used in younger, intermediate-risk patients, and moderate dose more commonly used in older, low-risk patients. Results: Median PSA reached 5-year nadir levels of 0.034 ng/mL in the high dose, vs. 0.1 ng/mL in the moderate dose groups, respectively (p = 0.044 by year 4), with 62 vs. 44% reaching an ablation PSA nadir (<0.1 ng/mL) by year 5, respectively. Five year biochemical relapse free survival rates measured 98.3% for moderate dose and 94.3% for high dose groups, respectively (p = 0.1946). Five-year actuarial grade 2 genitourinary (GU) toxicity rates measured 11.6 vs. 8.7% for high dose vs. moderate dose groups, respectively, with a far lower incidence of grade ≥3 GU and grade ≥2 GI toxicity rates in both groups. Conclusions: Both regimens are efficacious in their respective, selected groups. Both arms have low grade ≥3 GU toxicity and ≥grade 2 GI toxicity. In favor of the original high dose regimen, it has longer follow-up, produces a lower PSA nadir value and is more likely to eventually produce an ablation PSA nadir (<0.1 ng/mL). In favor of the lower dose regimen, it also produces a low PSA nadir, and does so with a slightly lower grade 2 GU toxicity rate. As a lower PSA nadir could be the initial predictor a lower clinical relapse rate far beyond 5 years, even if no difference is apparent within that time frame, a practical strategy could be to more strongly consider the high dose regimen in those with the greatest potential longevity, while for those with a more limited longevity, particularly if they have minimal negative prognostic factors, the moderate dose regimen could be more attractive.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - John Naitoh
- Genesis Healthcare Partners, San Diego, CA, United States
| | - Reza Shirazi
- Genesis Healthcare Partners, San Diego, CA, United States
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
28
|
Dosimetric predictors of toxicity and quality of life following prostate stereotactic ablative radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 2020; 144:135-140. [DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2019.11.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/02/2019] [Revised: 11/13/2019] [Accepted: 11/14/2019] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
|
29
|
Ultrahypofractionation Should be a Standard of Care Option for Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2020; 32:170-174. [DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2019.11.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/20/2019] [Accepted: 11/12/2019] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
|
30
|
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
31
|
Alayed Y, Davidson M, Liu S, Chu W, Tseng E, Cheung P, Vesprini D, Cheung H, Morton G, Musunuru HB, Ravi A, Korol R, Deabreu A, Ho L, Commisso K, Bhounr Z, D'Alimonte L, Mittmann N, Dragomir A, Zhang L, Loblaw A. Evaluating the Tolerability of a Simultaneous Focal Boost to the Gross Tumor in Prostate SABR: A Toxicity and Quality-of-Life Comparison of Two Prospective Trials. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020; 107:136-142. [PMID: 31987962 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.12.044] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/17/2019] [Revised: 12/14/2019] [Accepted: 12/18/2019] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Dose-escalated stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) to the whole prostate may be associated with better outcomes but has a risk of increased toxicity. An alternative approach is to focally boost the dominant intraprostatic lesion (DIL) seen on magnetic resonance imaging. We report the toxicity and quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes of 2 phase 2 trials of prostate and pelvic SABR, with or without a simultaneous DIL boost. METHODS AND MATERIALS The first trial treated patients with high-risk prostate cancer to a dose of 40 Gy to the prostate and 25 Gy to the pelvis in 5 fractions. The second trial treated patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer to a dose of 35 Gy to the prostate, 25 Gy to the pelvis, and a DIL boost up to 50 Gy in 5 fractions. Acute toxicities, late toxicities, and QOL were assessed. RESULTS Thirty patients were enrolled in each trial. In the focal boost cohort, the median DIL D90% was 48.3 Gy. There was no significant difference in acute grade ≥2 gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicity between the 2 trials or in cumulative worst late gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicity up to 24 months. There was no significant difference in QOL domain scores or minimally clinical important change between the 2 trials. CONCLUSIONS Prostate and pelvic SABR with a simultaneous DIL boost was feasible. Acute grade ≥2 toxicity, late toxicity, and QOL seemed to be comparable to a cohort that did not receive a focal boost. Further follow-up will be required to assess long-term outcomes, and randomized data are required to confirm these findings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yasir Alayed
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Division of Radiation Oncology, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
| | - Melanie Davidson
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Stanley Liu
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - William Chu
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Eric Tseng
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Patrick Cheung
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Danny Vesprini
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Hans Cheung
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Gerard Morton
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - H B Musunuru
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Anath Ravi
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Renee Korol
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Andrea Deabreu
- Clinical Trials and Epidemiology Program, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Ling Ho
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Kristina Commisso
- Clinical Trials and Epidemiology Program, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Zeeba Bhounr
- Clinical Trials and Epidemiology Program, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Laura D'Alimonte
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Nicole Mittmann
- Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Alice Dragomir
- Department of Surgery, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Liang Zhang
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Andrew Loblaw
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
de Muinck Keizer DM, Kontaxis C, Kerkmeijer LGW, van der Voort van Zyp JRN, van den Berg CAT, Raaymakers BW, Lagendijk JJW, de Boer JCJ. Dosimetric impact of soft-tissue based intrafraction motion from 3D cine-MR in prostate SBRT. Phys Med Biol 2020; 65:025012. [PMID: 31842008 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ab6241] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
Abstract
To investigate the dosimetric impact of intrafraction translation and rotation motion of the prostate, as extracted from daily acquired post-treatment 3D cine-MR based on soft-tissue contrast, in extremely hypofractionated (SBRT) prostate patients. Accurate dose reconstruction is performed by using a prostate intrafraction motion trace which is obtained with a soft-tissue based rigid registration method on 3D cine-MR dynamics with a temporal resolution of 11 s. The recorded motion of each time-point was applied to the planning CT, resulting in the respective dynamic volume used for dose calculation. For each treatment fraction, the treatment delivery record was generated by proportionally splitting the plan into 11 s intervals based on the delivered monitor units. For each fraction the doses of all partial plan/dynamic volume combinations were calculated and were summed to lead to the motion-affected fraction dose. Finally, for each patient the five fraction doses were summed, yielding the total treatment dose. Both daily and total doses were compared to the original reference dose of the respective patient to assess the impact of the intrafraction motion. Depending on the underlying motion of the prostate, different types of motion-affected dose distributions were observed. The planning target volumes (PTVs) ensured CTV_30 (seminal vesicles) D99% coverage for all patients, CTV_35 (prostate corpus) coverage for 97% of the patients and GTV_50 (local boost) for 83% of the patients when compared against the strict planning target D99% value. The dosimetric impact due to prostate intrafraction motion in extremely hypofractionated treatments was determined. The presented study is an essential step towards establishing the actual delivered dose to the patient during radiotherapy fractions.
Collapse
|
33
|
Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Boost for Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Phase 1 Dose-Escalation Study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019; 104:1066-1073. [PMID: 31002941 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.04.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/19/2019] [Revised: 04/04/2019] [Accepted: 04/08/2019] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE High-dose-rate brachytherapy boost plus external beam radiation therapy is an established option for intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa). Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) boost can potentially mimic high-dose-rate boost and could be a viable alternative. Here we report the long-term outcomes of a phase 1 dose-escalation trial of single-fraction SBRT boost. METHODS AND MATERIALS Patients had intermediate-risk PCa and were accrued to 3 different SBRT single-fraction dose-level cohorts (10 Gy, 12.5 Gy, and 15 Gy). All received supplemental radiation therapy afterwards (37.5 Gy in 15 fractions). Three gold fiducials were implanted for image guidance. Patients were simulated and treated with a foley catheter and intrarectal balloon. A T2 magnetic resonance imaging scan was used for contouring, and a cine magnetic resonance imaging scan was used to calculate patient-specific internal target volume margins. Toxicity and quality-of-life data were collected using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0 and the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite. RESULTS 30 patients were accrued, 10 in each cohort. Median follow-up was 72 months. 60% had unfavorable intermediate-risk PCa. Two patients in the 15 Gy cohort developed late grade ≥3 gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity, with 1 patient suffering from a grade-4 rectal fistula after a rectal ulcer was biopsied repeatedly. Two patients had biochemical failure. Median PSA nadir was 0.4 ng/mL with 10 Gy, 0.09 ng/mL with 12.5 Gy and 0.07 ng/mL with 15 Gy. Median PSA at 4 years as well as proportion achieving a nadir <0.2 ng/mL improved significantly with higher doses. There was no significant change in quality of life from baseline in any of the domains, and the minimal clinically important change was not statistically different between the 3 cohorts. CONCLUSIONS Other than a grade 4 toxicity, which may in part be due to repeated biopsies of a rectal ulcer, single-fraction SBRT boost was feasible and well tolerated. Larger studies are warranted to better document the outcomes of such an approach.
Collapse
|
34
|
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
35
|
Jackson WC, Silva J, Hartman HE, Dess RT, Kishan AU, Beeler WH, Gharzai LA, Jaworski EM, Mehra R, Hearn JWD, Morgan TM, Salami SS, Cooperberg MR, Mahal BA, Soni PD, Kaffenberger S, Nguyen PL, Desai N, Feng FY, Zumsteg ZS, Spratt DE. Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Over 6,000 Patients Treated On Prospective Studies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019; 104:778-789. [PMID: 30959121 PMCID: PMC6770993 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.03.051] [Citation(s) in RCA: 239] [Impact Index Per Article: 47.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/18/2018] [Revised: 02/27/2019] [Accepted: 03/31/2019] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Utilization of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for treatment of localized prostate cancer is increasing. Guidelines and payers variably support the use of prostate SBRT. We therefore sought to systematically analyze biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS), physician-reported toxicity, and patient-reported outcomes after prostate SBRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS A systematic search leveraging Medline via PubMed and EMBASE for original articles published between January 1990 and January 2018 was performed. This was supplemented by abstracts with sufficient extractable data from January 2013 to March 2018. All prospective series assessing curative-intent prostate SBRT for localized prostate cancer reporting bRFS, physician-reported toxicity, and patient-reported quality of life with a minimum of 1-year follow-up were included. The study was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Meta-analyses were performed with random-effect modeling. Extent of heterogeneity between studies was determined by the I2 and Cochran's Q tests. Meta-regression was performed using Hartung-Knapp methods. RESULTS Thirty-eight unique prospective series were identified comprising 6116 patients. Median follow-up was 39 months across all patients (range, 12-115 months). Ninety-two percent, 78%, and 38% of studies included low, intermediate, and high-risk patients. Overall, 5- and 7-year bRFS rates were 95.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.3%-97.5%) and 93.7% (95% CI, 91.4%-95.5%), respectively. Estimated late grade ≥3 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity rates were 2.0% (95% CI, 1.4%-2.8%) and 1.1% (95% CI, 0.6%-2.0%), respectively. By 2 years post-SBRT, Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite urinary and bowel domain scores returned to baseline. Increasing dose of SBRT was associated with improved biochemical control (P = .018) but worse late grade ≥3 GU toxicity (P = .014). CONCLUSIONS Prostate SBRT has substantial prospective evidence supporting its use, with favorable tumor control, patient-reported quality of life, and levels of toxicity demonstrated. SBRT has sufficient evidence to be supported as a standard treatment option for localized prostate cancer while ongoing trials assess its potential superiority.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- William C Jackson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Jessica Silva
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Holly E Hartman
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Robert T Dess
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Amar U Kishan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, California
| | - Whitney H Beeler
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Laila A Gharzai
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | | | - Rohit Mehra
- Department of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Jason W D Hearn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Todd M Morgan
- Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Simpa S Salami
- Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | | | - Brandon A Mahal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Payal D Soni
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | | | - Paul L Nguyen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Neil Desai
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas
| | - Felix Y Feng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, California
| | - Zachary S Zumsteg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California
| | - Daniel E Spratt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Jiang NY, Dang AT, Yuan Y, Chu FI, Shabsovich D, King CR, Collins SP, Aghdam N, Suy S, Mantz CA, Miszczyk L, Napieralska A, Namysl-Kaletka A, Bagshaw H, Prionas N, Buyyounouski MK, Jackson WC, Spratt DE, Nickols NG, Steinberg ML, Kupelian PA, Kishan AU. Multi-Institutional Analysis of Prostate-Specific Antigen Kinetics After Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019; 105:628-636. [PMID: 31276777 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.06.2539] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/04/2019] [Revised: 05/17/2019] [Accepted: 06/17/2019] [Indexed: 10/26/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Understanding prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics after radiation therapy plays a large role in the management of patients with prostate cancer (PCa). This is particularly true in establishing expectations regarding PSA nadir (nPSA) and PSA bounces, which can be disconcerting. As increasingly more patients are being treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for low- and intermediate-risk PCa, it is imperative to understand the PSA response to SBRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS PSA data from 5 institutions were retrospectively analyzed for patients with localized PCa treated definitively with SBRT alone from 2004 to 2016. Patients received 35 to 40 Gy in 5 fractions, per institutional standards. Patients who had less than 12 months of PSA data or received androgen deprivation therapy were excluded from this study. Linear and logistic multivariable analysis were performed to identify predictors of nPSA, bounce, and biochemical recurrence, and joint latent class models were developed to identify significant predictors of time to biochemical failure. RESULTS A total of 1062 patients were included in this study. Median follow-up was 66 months (interquartile range [IQR], 36.4-89.9 months). Biochemical failure per the Phoenix criteria occurred in 4% of patients. Median nPSA was 0.2 ng/mL, median time to nPSA was 40 months, 84% of patients had an nPSA ≤0.5 ng/mL, and 54% of patients had an nPSA ≤0.2 ng/mL. On multivariable analysis, nPSA was a significant predictor of biochemical failure. Benign PSA bounce was noted in 26% of patients. The median magnitude of PSA bounce was 0.52 ng/mL (IQR, 0.3-1.0 ng/mL). Median time to PSA bounce was 18.1 months (IQR, 12.0-31.1 months). On multivariable analysis, age and radiation dose were significantly associated with a lower incidence of bounce. Joint latent class models modeling found that nPSA and radiation dose were significantly associated with longer time to biochemical failure. CONCLUSIONS In this multi-institutional cohort of patients with long-term follow-up, we found that SBRT led to low nPSAs. In turn, lower nPSAs are associated with reduced incidence of, and longer time to, biochemical failure. Benign PSA bounces occurred in a quarter of patients, as late as several years after treatment. Further studies are needed to directly compare the PSA response of patients who receive SBRT versus other treatment modalities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Naomi Y Jiang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Audrey T Dang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Ye Yuan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Fang-I Chu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - David Shabsovich
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Christopher R King
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Sean P Collins
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC
| | - Nima Aghdam
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC
| | - Simeng Suy
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC
| | | | - Leszek Miszczyk
- Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology Gliwice Branch, Gliwice, Poland
| | - Aleksandra Napieralska
- Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology Gliwice Branch, Gliwice, Poland
| | - Agnieszka Namysl-Kaletka
- Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology Gliwice Branch, Gliwice, Poland
| | - Hilary Bagshaw
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California
| | - Nicolas Prionas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California
| | - Mark K Buyyounouski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California
| | - William C Jackson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Daniel E Spratt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Nicholas G Nickols
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Michael L Steinberg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Patrick A Kupelian
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Amar U Kishan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Wolf J, Nicholls J, Hunter P, Nguyen DT, Keall P, Martin J. Dosimetric impact of intrafraction rotations in stereotactic prostate radiotherapy: A subset analysis of the TROG 15.01 SPARK trial. Radiother Oncol 2019; 136:143-147. [DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2019.04.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/11/2019] [Revised: 03/26/2019] [Accepted: 04/07/2019] [Indexed: 12/26/2022]
|
38
|
Two versus five stereotactic ablative radiotherapy treatments for localized prostate cancer: A quality of life analysis of two prospective clinical trials. Radiother Oncol 2019; 140:105-109. [PMID: 31265940 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2019.06.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/29/2019] [Revised: 06/11/2019] [Accepted: 06/12/2019] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
39
|
Roy S, Loblaw A, Cheung P, Chu W, Chung HT, Vesprini D, Ong A, Chowdhury A, Panjwani D, Pang G, Korol R, Davidson M, Ravi A, McCurdy B, Helou J, Zhang L, Mamedov A, Deabreu A, Quon HC. Prostate-specific Antigen Bounce After Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: A Pooled Analysis of Four Prospective Trials. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2019; 31:621-629. [PMID: 31126725 DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2019.05.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/06/2018] [Revised: 03/05/2019] [Accepted: 04/01/2019] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
AIMS We conducted a pooled analysis of four prospective stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) trials of low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer to evaluate the incidence of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) bounce and its correlation with the time-dose-fraction schedule. The correlation between bounce with PSA response at 4 years (nadir PSA < 0.4 ng/ml) and biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS) was also explored. MATERIALS AND METHODS The study included four treatment groups: 35 Gy/five fractions once per week (QW) (TG-1; n = 84); 40 Gy/five fractions QW (TG-2; n = 100); 40 Gy/five fractions every other day (TG-3; n = 73); and 26 Gy/two fractions QW (TG-4; n = 30). PSA bounce was defined as a rise in PSA by 0.2 ng/ml (nadir + 0.2) or 2 ng/ml (nadir + 2.0) above nadir followed by a decrease back to nadir. Patients with fewer than three follow-up PSA tests were excluded from the pooled analysis. RESULTS In total, 287 patients were included, with a median follow-up of 5.0 years. The pooled 5-year cumulative incidence of bounce by nadir + 2.0 was 8%. The 2-year cumulative incidences of PSA bounce by nadir + 0.2 were 28.9, 21, 19.6 and 16.7% (P = 0.12) and by nadir + 2.0 were 7.2, 8, 2.7 and 6.7% (P = 0.32) for TG-1 to TG-4, respectively. Multivariable analysis revealed that for nadir + 2.0, pre-treatment PSA (odds ratio 0.49; 95% confidence interval 0.26-0.97) correlated with PSA bounce. Although PSA bounce by nadir + 0.2 (odds ratio 0.10; 95% confidence interval 0.04-0.24) and nadir + 2.0 (odds ratio 0.29; 95% confidence interval 0.09-0.93) was associated with a lower probability of PSA response at 4 years, there was no association between bounce by nadir + 0.2 (hazard ratio 0.36; 95% confidence interval 0.08-1.74) or nadir + 2 (hazard ratio 1.77; 95% confidence interval 0.28-11.07) with BFFS. CONCLUSION The incidence of PSA bounce was independent of time-dose-fraction schedule for prostate SBRT. One in 13 patients experienced a bounce high enough to be misinterpreted as biochemical failure, and clinicians should avoid early salvage interventions in these patients. There was no association between PSA bounce and BFFS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S Roy
- Tom Baker Cancer Center, Department of Oncology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
| | - A Loblaw
- Odette Cancer Center, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - P Cheung
- Odette Cancer Center, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - W Chu
- Odette Cancer Center, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - H T Chung
- Odette Cancer Center, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - D Vesprini
- Odette Cancer Center, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - A Ong
- CancerCare Manitoba, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
| | - A Chowdhury
- CancerCare Manitoba, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
| | | | - G Pang
- Odette Cancer Center, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - R Korol
- Odette Cancer Center, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - M Davidson
- Odette Cancer Center, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - A Ravi
- Odette Cancer Center, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - B McCurdy
- CancerCare Manitoba, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
| | - J Helou
- Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - L Zhang
- Odette Cancer Center, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - A Mamedov
- Odette Cancer Center, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - A Deabreu
- Odette Cancer Center, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - H C Quon
- Tom Baker Cancer Center, Department of Oncology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Alayed Y, Cheung P, Chu W, Chung H, Davidson M, Ravi A, Helou J, Zhang L, Mamedov A, Commisso A, Commisso K, Loblaw A. Two StereoTactic ablative radiotherapy treatments for localized prostate cancer (2STAR): Results from a prospective clinical trial. Radiother Oncol 2019; 135:86-90. [PMID: 31015175 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2019.03.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 36] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/18/2019] [Revised: 02/28/2019] [Accepted: 03/04/2019] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Ultrahypofractionation is appealing for prostate cancer (PCa) due to low α/β, and increasing the dose per fraction could improve the therapeutic index. Here we report the outcomes of a phase II prostate SABR trial using two fractions. METHODS Patients had low or intermediate risk prostate cancer. Three gold fiducials were implanted for image guidance. The clinical target volume (CTV) included the prostate only, and the planning target volume (PTV) was a 3 mm expansion enabled through the use of a rectal immobilization device. The dose prescribed was 26 Gy in 2 weekly fractions (EQD2 110 Gy1.4). The primary endpoint was quality of life using EPIC, and minimal clinically important change (MCIC) was defined as an EPIC QOL decrease >0.5 SD. RESULTS 30 patients were accrued with a median follow-up of 49.3 months. 10% had low-risk, 33% had favourable intermediate-risk and 57% had unfavourable intermediate-risk PCa. Five patients received a short course of ADT. Median nPSA was 0.2 ng/ml. One patient had BF and is being observed. 56.6% of patients had a 4yPSARR. Six (20.7%) patients had a MCIC in the urinary domain, 6 (21.4%) had a MCIC in the bowel domain, and 3 (20%) had a MCIC in the sexual domain. CONCLUSIONS Two-fraction SABR in prostate cancer is safe and feasible, with a minimal change in QOL and a low rate of late grade 3-4 toxicity. The PSA kinetics and biochemical control rates are encouraging given that the majority had unfavourable intermediate-risk disease, although longer follow-up is required.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yasir Alayed
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada; Division of Radiation Oncology, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
| | - Patrick Cheung
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - William Chu
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Hans Chung
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Melanie Davidson
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Ananth Ravi
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Joelle Helou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Canada
| | - Liying Zhang
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada
| | - Alexandre Mamedov
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada
| | - Angela Commisso
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada
| | | | - Andrew Loblaw
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada; Department of Health Policy, Measurement and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
Kishan AU, Dang A, Katz AJ, Mantz CA, Collins SP, Aghdam N, Chu FI, Kaplan ID, Appelbaum L, Fuller DB, Meier RM, Loblaw DA, Cheung P, Pham HT, Shaverdian N, Jiang N, Yuan Y, Bagshaw H, Prionas N, Buyyounouski MK, Spratt DE, Linson PW, Hong RL, Nickols NG, Steinberg ML, Kupelian PA, King CR. Long-term Outcomes of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Low-Risk and Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer. JAMA Netw Open 2019; 2:e188006. [PMID: 30735235 PMCID: PMC6484596 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.8006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 216] [Impact Index Per Article: 43.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/29/2018] [Accepted: 12/13/2018] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Importance Stereotactic body radiotherapy harnesses improvements in technology to allow the completion of a course of external beam radiotherapy treatment for prostate cancer in the span of 4 to 5 treatment sessions. Although mounting short-term data support this approach, long-term outcomes have been sparsely reported. Objective To assess long-term outcomes after stereotactic body radiotherapy for low-risk and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study analyzed individual patient data from 2142 men enrolled in 10 single-institution phase 2 trials and 2 multi-institutional phase 2 trials of stereotactic body radiotherapy for low-risk and intermediate-risk prostate cancer between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2012. Statistical analysis was performed based on follow-up from January 1, 2013, to May 1, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures The cumulative incidence of biochemical recurrence was estimated using a competing risk framework. Physician-scored genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxic event outcomes were defined per each individual study, generally by Radiation Therapy Oncology Group or Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events scoring systems. After central review, cumulative incidences of late grade 3 or higher toxic events were estimated using a Kaplan-Meier method. Results A total of 2142 men (mean [SD] age, 67.9 [9.5] years) were eligible for analysis, of whom 1185 (55.3%) had low-risk disease, 692 (32.3%) had favorable intermediate-risk disease, and 265 (12.4%) had unfavorable intermediate-risk disease. The median follow-up period was 6.9 years (interquartile range, 4.9-8.1 years). Seven-year cumulative rates of biochemical recurrence were 4.5% (95% CI, 3.2%-5.8%) for low-risk disease, 8.6% (95% CI, 6.2%-11.0%) for favorable intermediate-risk disease, 14.9% (95% CI, 9.5%-20.2%) for unfavorable intermediate-risk disease, and 10.2% (95% CI, 8.0%-12.5%) for all intermediate-risk disease. The crude incidence of acute grade 3 or higher genitourinary toxic events was 0.60% (n = 13) and of gastrointestinal toxic events was 0.09% (n = 2), and the 7-year cumulative incidence of late grade 3 or higher genitourinary toxic events was 2.4% (95% CI, 1.8%-3.2%) and of late grade 3 or higher gastrointestinal toxic events was 0.4% (95% CI, 0.2%-0.8%). Conclusions and Relevance In this study, stereotactic body radiotherapy for low-risk and intermediate-risk disease was associated with low rates of severe toxic events and high rates of biochemical control. These data suggest that stereotactic body radiotherapy is an appropriate definitive treatment modality for low-risk and intermediate-risk prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amar U. Kishan
- Department of Urology, University of California, Los Angeles
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles
| | - Audrey Dang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles
| | - Alan J. Katz
- Flushing Radiation Oncology Services, Flushing, New York
| | | | - Sean P. Collins
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
| | - Nima Aghdam
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC
| | - Fang-I Chu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles
| | - Irving D. Kaplan
- Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Limor Appelbaum
- Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Donald B. Fuller
- Division of Genesis Healthcare Partners Inc, CyberKnife Centers of San Diego Inc, San Diego, California
| | | | - D. Andrew Loblaw
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Patrick Cheung
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Huong T. Pham
- Section of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington
| | - Narek Shaverdian
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles
- Now with Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Naomi Jiang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles
| | - Ye Yuan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles
| | - Hilary Bagshaw
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Nicolas Prionas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Mark K. Buyyounouski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Daniel E. Spratt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
42
|
Alayed Y, Cheung P, Vesprini D, Liu S, Chu W, Chung H, Musunuru HB, Davidson M, Ravi A, Ho L, Deabreu A, D'Alimonte L, Bhounr Z, Zhang L, Commisso K, Loblaw A. SABR in High-Risk Prostate Cancer: Outcomes From 2 Prospective Clinical Trials With and Without Elective Nodal Irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2018; 104:36-41. [PMID: 30445172 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.11.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/11/2018] [Revised: 11/01/2018] [Accepted: 11/06/2018] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE There is limited data on stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) in high-risk prostate cancer (PCa), especially regarding the role of elective nodal irradiation (ENI). This study compares 2 prospective phase 2 trials using SABR in high-risk PCa, with and without ENI. METHODS AND MATERIALS Patients had high-risk PCa. Those in trial 1 received 40 Gy in 5 fractions to the prostate and 30 Gy in 5 fractions to the seminal vesicles. Patients in trial 2 received 40 Gy in 5 fractions to the prostate and 25 Gy in 5 fractions to the pelvis and seminal vesicles. National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events toxicities were collected. Biochemical failure (BF) was defined as nadir + 2, and the 4-year prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate (4yPSARR) was <0.4 ng/mL. RESULTS Sixty patients were included (trial 1, n = 30; trial 2, n = 30). Median follow-up was 5.6 years and 4.0 years. The median nadir PSA was 0.02 ng/mL for both trials. Six patients had BF, all from trial 1. The BF rate was 14.6% at 5 years in trial 1 and 0% in trial 2. Sixty-three percent of patients in trial 1 and 93% in trial 2 had a 4yPSARR. Two patients died in trial 1, 1 from metastatic disease. One patient in trial 2 died of other causes. No other patients developed metastatic disease, and 1 patient in trial 1 had castrate resistant PCa. Overall survival at 5 years was 93.2% and 96.7% (P = .86). There was significantly worse late gastrointestinal and sexual toxicity in trial 1, but there was no difference in late genitourinary toxicity. CONCLUSIONS SABR in high-risk PCa yields biochemical control rates that may be comparable to that of other radiation therapy modalities. ENI using SABR is feasible and may lead to a significant improvement in biochemical control and in 4yPSARR, without an increase in late gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicity. Longer follow-up would provide a better assessment of biochemical control. Well-conducted phase 3 trials are needed to fully establish the role of SABR and ENI in high-risk PCa.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yasir Alayed
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; Division of Radiation Oncology, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
| | - Patrick Cheung
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Danny Vesprini
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Stanley Liu
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - William Chu
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Hans Chung
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Hima Bindu Musunuru
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Melanie Davidson
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Ananth Ravi
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Ling Ho
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Andrea Deabreu
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada
| | - Laura D'Alimonte
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Zeeba Bhounr
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada
| | - Liying Zhang
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada
| | - Kristina Commisso
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada
| | - Andrew Loblaw
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; Department of Health Policy, Measurement and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Barillot I, Antoni D, Bellec J, Biau J, Giraud P, Jenny C, Lacornerie T, Lisbona A, Marchesi V, Mornex F, Supiot S, Thureau S, Noel G. Bases référentielles de la radiothérapie en conditions stéréotaxiques pour les tumeurs ou métastases bronchopulmonaires, hépatiques, prostatiques, des voies aérodigestives supérieures, cérébrales et osseuses. Cancer Radiother 2018; 22:660-681. [DOI: 10.1016/j.canrad.2018.08.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/19/2018] [Revised: 07/26/2018] [Accepted: 08/01/2018] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
|
44
|
Herrera FG, Valerio M, Berthold D, Tawadros T, Meuwly JY, Vallet V, Baumgartner P, Thierry AC, De Bari B, Jichlinski P, Kandalaft L, Coukos G, Harari A, Bourhis J. 50-Gy Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy to the Dominant Intraprostatic Nodule: Results From a Phase 1a/b Trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2018; 103:320-334. [PMID: 30267761 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.09.023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/21/2018] [Revised: 09/03/2018] [Accepted: 09/17/2018] [Indexed: 10/28/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Although localized prostate cancer (PCa) is multifocal, the dominant intraprostatic nodule (DIN) is responsible for disease progression after radiation therapy. PCa expresses antigens that could be recognized by the immune system. We therefore hypothesized that stereotactic dose escalation to the DIN is safe, may increase local control, and may initiate tumor-specific immune responses. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with localized PCa were treated with stereotactic extreme hypofractionated doses of 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions to the whole prostate while simultaneously escalating doses to the magnetic resonance image-visible DIN (45 Gy, 47.5 Gy, and 50 Gy in 5 fractions). The phase 1a part was designed to determine the recommended phase 1b dose in a "3 + 3" cohort-based, dose-escalation design. The primary endpoint was dose-limiting toxicities defined as ≥grade 3 gastrointestinal (GI) or genitourinary (GU) toxicity (or both) by National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4) up to 90 days after the first radiation fraction. The secondary endpoints were prostate-specific antigen kinetics, quality of life (QoL), and blood immunologic responses. RESULTS Nine patients were treated in phase 1a. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed at either level, and therefore the maximum tolerated dose was not reached. Further characterization of tolerability, efficacy, and immunologic outcomes was conducted in the subsequent 11 patients irradiated at the highest dose level (50 Gy) in the phase 1b expansion cohort. Toxicity was 45% and 25% for grades 1 and 2 GU, and 20% and 5% for grades 1 and 2 GI, respectively. No grade 3 or worse toxicity was reported. The average (±standard error of the mean) of the QoL assessments at baseline and at 3-month posttreatment were 0.8 (±0.8) and 3.5 (±1.5) for the bowel (mean difference, 2.7; 95% confidence interval, 0.1-5), and 6.4 (±0.8) and 7.27 (±0.9) for the International Prostate Symptom Score (mean difference, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.3-1.9), respectively. A subset of patients developed antigen-specific immune responses against prostate-specific membrane antigen (n = 2), prostatic acid phosphatase (n = 1), prostate stem cell antigen (n = 4), and prostate-specific antigen (n = 2). CONCLUSIONS Irradiation of the whole prostate with 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions and dose escalation to 50 Gy to the DIN was tolerable and determined as the recommended phase 1b dose. This treatment has promising antitumor activity, which will be confirmed by the ongoing phase 2 part. Preliminary QoL analysis showed minimal impact in GU, GI, and sexual domains. Stereotactic irradiation induced antigen-specific immune responses in a subset of patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fernanda G Herrera
- Department of Oncology, Radiation Oncology Service, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland; Department of Oncology, Immune Monitoring Core Facility, Center of Experimental Therapeutics, Ludwig Cancer Research Center, Lausanne, Switzerland.
| | - Massimo Valerio
- Department of Oncology, Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Dominik Berthold
- Department of Oncology, Medical Oncology Service, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Thomas Tawadros
- Department of Oncology, Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Jean-Yves Meuwly
- Department of Radiology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Veronique Vallet
- Department of Oncology, Radiation Oncology Service, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Petra Baumgartner
- Department of Oncology, Immune Monitoring Core Facility, Center of Experimental Therapeutics, Ludwig Cancer Research Center, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Anne-Christine Thierry
- Department of Oncology, Immune Monitoring Core Facility, Center of Experimental Therapeutics, Ludwig Cancer Research Center, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Berardino De Bari
- Department of Oncology, Radiation Oncology Service, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Patrice Jichlinski
- Department of Oncology, Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Lana Kandalaft
- Department of Oncology, Immune Monitoring Core Facility, Center of Experimental Therapeutics, Ludwig Cancer Research Center, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - George Coukos
- Department of Oncology, Medical Oncology Service, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland; Department of Oncology, Immune Monitoring Core Facility, Center of Experimental Therapeutics, Ludwig Cancer Research Center, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Alexandre Harari
- Department of Oncology, Immune Monitoring Core Facility, Center of Experimental Therapeutics, Ludwig Cancer Research Center, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Jean Bourhis
- Department of Oncology, Radiation Oncology Service, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Catton CN, Lukka H, Martin J. Prostate Cancer Radiotherapy: An Evolving Paradigm. J Clin Oncol 2018; 36:2909-2913. [PMID: 30138084 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2018.79.3257] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/28/2022] Open
Abstract
The Oncology Grand Rounds series is designed to place original reports published in the Journal into clinical context. A case presentation is followed by a description of diagnostic and management challenges, a review of the relevant literature, and a summary of the authors' suggested management approaches. The goal of this series is to help readers better understand how to apply the results of key studies, including those published in Journal of Clinical Oncology, to patients seen in their own clinical practice. A urologist referred a 69-year-old man for a radiotherapy opinion regarding a recently diagnosed adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Annual serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing over 7 years demonstrated a rise in PSA from 1.36 ng/mL to 5.8 ng/mL, prompting a transrectal ultrasound that revealed a heterogeneous 37-mL gland containing no visualized hypoechoic nodules. Biopsy disclosed a Gleason score 3+4 (grade group 2) adenocarcinoma of the prostate. The synoptic report stated that six of 14 cores and 17% of the tissue were involved, with the greatest core involvement being 80% at the right apex. Perineural invasion was present without lymphovascular invasion. Disease was present bilaterally at the base, midgland, and apex.His medical history was significant only for treated peptic ulcer disease and he was taking no medication. His International Prostate Symptom Score was six of 35, and he reported being sexually active with good erectile function. There was no family history of prostate cancer. He is retired. Digital rectal examination revealed moderate benign prostatic hypertrophy with no suspicious nodules. A staging computerized tomography (CT) scan of the abdomen and pelvis and a whole-body bone scan ordered by his referring urologist reported no evidence of metastatic disease. The patient had discussed surgical options with his urologist and now wished to consider radiotherapy approaches.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Charles N Catton
- Charles N. Catton, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Himu Lukka, Juravinsiki Regional Cancer Centre and McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; and Jarad Martin, Calvary Mater Hospital and University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Himu Lukka
- Charles N. Catton, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Himu Lukka, Juravinsiki Regional Cancer Centre and McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; and Jarad Martin, Calvary Mater Hospital and University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Jarad Martin
- Charles N. Catton, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Himu Lukka, Juravinsiki Regional Cancer Centre and McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; and Jarad Martin, Calvary Mater Hospital and University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Loblaw A, Liu S, Cheung P. Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy in patients with prostate cancer. Transl Androl Urol 2018; 7:330-340. [PMID: 30050794 PMCID: PMC6043737 DOI: 10.21037/tau.2018.01.18] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/22/2017] [Accepted: 01/24/2018] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Prostate is the most common non-cutaneous cancer diagnosed among men in North America. Fortunately most prostate cancers are screen detected and non-metastatic on diagnosis. Treatment options for men with localized prostate cancer include surgery ± postoperative radiation or radiation ± androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Brachytherapy ± external beam radiation treatment (EBRT) appears to have superior long-term disease control over EBRT alone likely because of higher biologic effective dose delivered. Stereotactic ablative body radiation (SABR) is a novel, non-invasive, high-precision EBRT technique that allows safe delivery of biologic doses similar to brachytherapy with similar or lower side effects [measured using toxicity or quality of life (QOL) scales]. Efficacy for SABR appears to be similar to brachytherapy including positive biopsy rates 2-3 years post treatment, biochemical failure (BF) rates out to 10-year and incidence of metastases. SABR dose escalation reduces biopsy positivity and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) nadirs but increases genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity-no effect on BF has been realized yet. The overall treatment time (OTT) varies in many protocols. Phase 2 randomized data shows that QOL is better in the acute setting with a weekly course of treatment compared to an every other day treatment regimen with no difference in late setting. Follow-up data are immature and likely underpowered to determine efficacy differences. SABR is cheaper and uses less resource than any other radiation technique. Given the healthcare resource challenges (including financial resources), SABR would be a welcomed addition if studies show non-inferiority to other radiation techniques. For patients with de novo or metastatic disease on relapse, there is much enthusiasm regarding the use of SABR in the setting of oligometastatic prostate cancer. SABR appears to be feasible to deliver, well tolerated and may delay the next line of therapy. However, until adequately powered randomized studies confirm a benefit, such an approach cannot be considered standard of care treatment at this time. Enrollment of eligible prostate cancer patients onto SABR clinical trials should be encouraged.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew Loblaw
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Measurement and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Institute for Health Care Policy, Measurement and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Stanley Liu
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Measurement and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Patrick Cheung
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Measurement and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
Kothari G, Loblaw A, Tree AC, van As NJ, Moghanaki D, Lo SS, Ost P, Siva S. Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Primary Prostate Cancer. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2018; 17:1533033818789633. [PMID: 30064301 PMCID: PMC6069023 DOI: 10.1177/1533033818789633] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/23/2018] [Revised: 06/07/2018] [Accepted: 06/14/2018] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Prostate cancer is the most common non-cutaneous cancer in males. There are a number of options for patients with localized early stage disease, including active surveillance for low-risk disease, surgery, brachytherapy, and external beam radiotherapy. Increasingly, external beam radiotherapy, in the form of dose-escalated and moderately hypofractionated regimens, is being utilized in prostate cancer, with randomized evidence to support their use. Stereotactic body radiotherapy, which is a form of extreme hypofractionation, delivered with high precision and conformality typically over 1 to 5 fractions, offers a more contemporary approach with several advantages including being non-invasive, cost-effective, convenient for patients, and potentially improving patient access. In fact, one study has estimated that if half of the patients currently eligible for conventional fractionated radiotherapy in the United States were treated instead with stereotactic body radiotherapy, this would result in a total cost savings of US$250 million per year. There is also a strong radiobiological rationale to support its use, with prostate cancer believed to have a low α/β ratio and therefore being preferentially sensitive to larger fraction sizes. To date, there are no published randomized trials reporting on the comparative efficacy of stereotactic body radiotherapy compared to alternative treatment modalities, although multiple randomized trials are currently accruing. Yet, early results from the randomized phase III study of HYPOfractionated RadioTherapy of intermediate risk localized Prostate Cancer (HYPO-RT-PC) trial, as well as multiple single-arm phase I/II trials, indicate low rates of late adverse effects with this approach. In patients with low- to intermediate-risk disease, excellent biochemical relapse-free survival outcomes have been reported, albeit with relatively short median follow-up times. These promising early results, coupled with the enormous potential cost savings and implications for resource availability, suggest that stereotactic body radiotherapy will take center stage in the treatment of prostate cancer in the years to come.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gargi Kothari
- Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Andrew Loblaw
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Center, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Alison C. Tree
- Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | | | - Drew Moghanaki
- Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA
| | - Simon S. Lo
- University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Piet Ost
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Shankar Siva
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| |
Collapse
|