Treatment-related toxicity in men who received Intensity-modulated versus 3D-conformal radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy: A national population-based study

Beyond the heart in hypofractionated radiotherapy and in the transition from 3D to IMRT/VMAT

Background

The knowledge of the risks induced by radiation with hypofractionation regimens has only recently been estimated together with its implementation as a management standard. However, the dose to other risk organs with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is not clear, that is why this is only a reference study of radiation doses to organs at risk in hypofractionation in our center.

Materials and methods

We completed a retrospective and observational analysis of 1398 patients treated with adjuvant hypofractionated radiotherapy from 2015 to 2018, using the clinical records and dose-volume histogram of patients treated with moderate hypofractionated adjuvant radiotherapy. To analyze the institutional experience on the dosimetry of the esophagus and liver as risk organs in the use of moderate adjuvant hypofractionated radiotherapy in breast cancer.

Results

The dosimetry of the esophagus was 3271 cGy DMax, 177 cGy DMed, 68 cGy D50%, 500 cGy DcMAX with 3D RT and 4124 cGy DMax, 1242 cGy DMed, 934.50 cGy D50%, 3213 cGy DcMAX with IMRT/VMAT and the dosimetry for the liver was for right breast cancer 466 cGy DMed, 102 cGy D50% and 8% V20, for left breast cancer 22 cGy DMed, 6.10 cGy D50% and 0.3% V20.

Conclusion

The statistically significant differences in irradiation show the lack of consensus on the optimal restrictions in hypofractionation regimens to reduce clinical sequela; consequently, the variability in the specification of each radiation oncologist is observed; standardization in our center can lead to improvement in the quality of treatments.

Treatment-related toxicity using prostate bed versus prostate bed and pelvic lymph node radiation therapy following radical prostatectomy: A national population-based study

Purpose There is debate about the effectiveness and toxicity of pelvic lymph node (PLN) irradiation in addition to prostate bed radiotherapy when used to treat disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy. We compared toxicity from radiation therapy (RT) to the prostate bed and pelvic lymph nodes (PBPLN-RT) with prostatebed only radiation therapy (PBO-RT) following radical prostatectomy. Methods and Materials Patients with prostate cancer who underwent post-prostatectomy RT between 2010 and 2016 were identified by using the National Prostate Cancer Audit (NPCA) database. Follow-up data was available up to December 31, 2018. Validated outcome measures, based on a framework of procedural and diagnostic codes, were used to capture ≥Grade 2 gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity. An adjusted competing-risks regression analysis estimated subdistribution hazard ratios (sHR). A sHR > 1 indicated a higher incidence of toxicity with PBPLN-RT than with PBO-RT. Results 5-year cumulative incidences in the PBO-RT (n = 5,087) and PBPLNRT (n = 593) groups was 18.2% and 15.9% for GI toxicity, respectively. For GU toxicity it was 19.1% and 20.7%, respectively. There was no evidence of difference in GI or GU toxicity after adjustment between PBO-RT and PBPLN-RT (GI: adjusted sHR, 0.90, 95% CI, 0.67-1.19; P = 0.45); (GU: adjusted sHR, 1.19, 95% CI, 0.99-1.44; P = 0.09). Conclusions This national population-based study found that including PLNs in the radiation field following radical prostatectomy is not associated with a significant increase in rates of ≥Grade 2 GI or GU toxicity at 5 years.

Comparative effectiveness of moderate hypofractionation with volumetric modulated arc therapy versus conventional 3D-radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy

PURPOSE

Hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer is well established for definitive treatment, but not well defined in the postoperative setting. The purpose of this analysis was to assess oncologic outcomes and toxicity in a large cohort of patients treated with conventionally fractionated three-dimensional (3D) conformal radiotherapy (CF) and hypofractionated volumetric modulated arc therapy (HF) after radical prostatectomy.

METHODS

Between 1994 and 2019, a total of 855 patients with prostate carcinoma were treated by postoperative radiotherapy using CF (total dose 65-72 Gy, single fraction 1.8-2 Gy) in 572 patients and HF (total dose 62.5-63.75 Gy, single fraction 2.5-2.55 Gy) in 283 patients. The association of treatment modality with biochemical control, overall survival (OS), and gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity was assessed using logistic and Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

There was no difference between the two modalities regarding biochemical control rates (77% versus 81%, respectively, for HF and CF at 24 months and 58% and 64% at 60 months; p = 0.20). OS estimates after 5 years: 95% versus 93% (p = 0.72). Patients undergoing HF had less frequent grade 2 or higher acute GI or GU side effects (p = 0.03 and p = 0.005, respectively). There were no differences in late GI side effects between modalities (hazard ratio 0.99). Median follow-up was 23 months for HF and 72 months for CF (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

For radiation therapy of resected prostate cancer, our analysis of this largest single-centre cohort (n = 283) treated with hypofractionation with advanced treatment techniques compared with conventional fractionation did not yield different outcomes in terms of biochemical control and toxicities. Prospective investigating of HF is merited.

Postoperative radiotherapy with intensity-modulated radiation therapy versus 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy in early breast cancer: A randomized clinical trial of KROG 15-03

PURPOSE

To investigate the safety and efficacy of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for early breast cancer compared with 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) in a prospective and randomized trial.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

From March 2015 to February 2018, 693 patients with pT1-2N0M0 early breast cancer who underwent breast-conserving surgery were enrolled and randomly assigned into IMRT and 3D-CRT. The primary endpoint was 3-year locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRRFS). The secondary endpoints were recurrence-free survival, overall survival, acute toxicity, target coverage index, irradiation dose to organs at risk, and fatigue inventory. The radiation dose for the 3D-CRT arm was 59.4 Gy in 33 fractions for 6.5 weeks. It was 57.4 Gy in 28 fractions with simultaneous integrated boost for 5.5 weeks for the IMRT arm.

RESULTS

Of 693 patients, 349 and 344 patients received 3D-CRT and IMRT, respectively. There was no significant difference in LRRFS between the two arms. Conformity index of planning target volume was significantly superior in the IMRT arm than the 3D-CRT arm (p < 0.001). The mean lung dose and V₅-V₅₀ for the ipsilateral lung were significantly lower in the IMRT arm than the 3D-CRT arm (all p < 0.05). The incidence of grade 2 or higher dermatitis was significantly lower in the IMRT arm (p = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

Compared to 3D-CRT, IMRT showed similar results in locoregional tumor control but superior results in planning target volume coverage. When IMRT is used in breast cancer, the irradiation dose to an ipsilateral lung and skin toxicity can be reduced.

Early salvage radiotherapy in patients with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: Its impact and optimal candidate

AIM

We aimed to identify the optimal candidates for early salvage radiotherapy (SRT) among patients with biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP).

METHODS

This multi-institutional retrospective study included 371 patients treated using SRT after RP. The median (range) PSA level at BCR was 0.36 (0.10-2.00) ng/mL. The association between early SRT (ie, starting PSA level < 0.50) and BCR after SRT was tested in each subgroup according to our own risk stratification.

RESULTS

The median follow-up time was 51 months. By multivariate analysis, pT3b, Gleason score ≥ 8, negative surgical margins, PSA doubling time < 6 months, and non-early SRT were associated with BCR after SRT. Patients were stratified by four risk factors other than non-early SRT: (1) low risk (0 risk factor), (2) intermediate risk (1 risk factor), and (3) high risk (≥2 risk factors). The BCR-free survival was higher in the early SRT group than the nonearly SRT group in the high-risk subgroup (P = 0.020), whereas that was similar between two groups in the low-risk and intermediate-risk subgroups (P = .79 and .18, respectively). Multivariate analysis revealed that early SRT was beneficial for the high-risk subgroup (P = .032), whereas early SRT was not associated with improved outcomes in the low-risk and intermediate-risk subgroups (P = .92 and 1.0, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggested that early SRT seemed to contribute to better biochemical control for patients with more adverse features, whereas no benefit was observed in men with no adverse features.

Impact of advanced radiotherapy techniques and dose intensification on toxicity of salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy

The safety and efficacy of dose-escalated radiotherapy with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) remain unclear in salvage radiotherapy (SRT) after radical prostatectomy. We examined the impact of these advanced radiotherapy techniques and dose intensification on the toxicity of SRT. This multi-institutional retrospective study included 421 patients who underwent SRT at the median dose of 66 Gy in 2-Gy fractions. IMRT and IGRT were used for 225 (53%) and 321 (76%) patients, respectively. At the median follow-up of 50 months, the cumulative incidence of late grade 2 or higher gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities was 4.8% and 24%, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that the non-use of either IMRT or IGRT, or both (hazard ratio [HR] 3.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.8-5.4, p < 0.001) and use of whole-pelvic radiotherapy (HR 7.6, CI 1.0-56, p = 0.048) were associated with late GI toxicity, whereas a higher dose ≥68 Gy was the only factor associated with GU toxicities (HR 3.1, CI 1.3-7.4, p = 0.012). This study suggested that the incidence of GI toxicities can be reduced by IMRT and IGRT in SRT, whereas dose intensification may increase GU toxicity even with these advanced techniques.