Definitive, intensity modulated tomotherapy with a simultaneous integrated boost for prostate cancer patients - Long term data on toxicity and biochemical control

Comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy with the 5-field technique, helical tomotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy for localized prostate cancer

The outcomes of three methods of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for localized prostate cancer were evaluated. Between 2010 and 2018, 308 D'Amico intermediate- or high-risk patients were treated with 2.2 Gy daily fractions to a total dose of 74.8 Gy in combination with hormonal therapy. Overall, 165 patients were treated with 5-field IMRT using a sliding window technique, 66 were then treated with helical tomotherapy and 77 were treated with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). The median age of patients was 71 years. The median follow-up period was 75 months. Five-year overall survival (OS) and biochemical or clinical failure-free survival (FFS) rates were 95.5 and 91.6% in the 5-field IMRT group, 95.1 and 90.3% in the tomotherapy group and 93.0 and 88.6% in the VMAT group, respectively, with no significant differences among the three groups. The 5-year cumulative incidence of late grade ≥2 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were 7.3 and 6.2%, respectively, for all patients. Late grade ≥2 gastrointestinal toxicities were less frequent in patients undergoing VMAT (0%) than in patients undergoing 5-field IMRT (7.3%) and those undergoing tomotherapy (11%) (P = 0.025), and this finding appeared to be correlated with the better rectal DVH parameters in patients undergoing VMAT. Other toxicities did not differ significantly among the three groups, although bladder dose-volume parameters were slightly worse in the tomotherapy group than in the other groups. Despite differences in the IMRT delivery methods, X-ray energies and daily registration methods, all modalities may be used as IMRT for localized prostate cancer.

Moderate hypofractionated helical tomotherapy for older patients with localized prostate cancer: long-term outcomes of a phase I-II trial

BACKGROUND

Our previous study showed that two different regimens of moderate hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT) delivered with helical tomotherapy (HT) are well tolerated in older prostate cancer patients. We provide a longterm efficacy and toxicity after > 7 years of follow-up.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study recruited 33 patients from February 2009 to July 2011 (76 Gy/34F; Group-1); and 34 from July 2011 to February 2014 (71.6 Gy/28F; 50.4 Gy/25F for the risk of pelvic lymph nodes involvement (LNI) >15%; Group-2). The primary outcomes were biochemical failure (BF), biochemical failure and clinical disease failure (BCDF), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity.

RESULTS

The average ages of two groups were 80 and 77 years and the proportions of patients with LNI > 15% were 69.7% and 73.5%, respectively. At the final follow-up in February 2020, 27.3% and 20.6% cases experienced BF, with a median time until BF of 3.3 years. A total of 38.8% patients reached primary endpoints, in which 18 deaths were reported BCDF events (45.5% vs. 32.4%, p = 0.271). There was no significant difference in 7-year PFS (68.6% vs. 74.8%, p = 0.591), BCDF (45.5% vs. 32.4%, p = 0.271) and OS (71.9% vs. 87.5%, p = 0.376) for full set analysis and for subgroup analysis (all p > 0.05). The incidence of grade ≥ 2 late GU (6.2% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.127) and GI toxicities (9.4% vs. 15.6%, p = 0.554) was comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

In older patients with localized prostate cancer, two moderate hypofractionated regimens were all well tolerated with similar, mild late toxicities and satisfactory survival, without necessity of prophylactic pelvic node irradiation.

Expanding the Utilization of Rectal Spacer Hydrogel for Larger Prostate Glands (>80 cc): Feasibility and Dosimetric Outcomes

Purpose

The Hydrogel Spacer Prospective Randomized Pivotal Trial achieved mean rectoprostatic spacing of 12.6 mm resulting in lowering of rectal V70 from 12.4% (without spacer) to 3.3% (with spacer) in patients with glands up to 80 cm³. The value of this approach in patients with larger glands is inadequately established. This study assesses the feasibility and dosimetric outcomes of perirectal spacing in patients with prostate cancer with larger glands (>80 cm³).

Methods and Materials

Between January 2017 and December 2019, 33 patients with prostate glands >80 cm³ (mean 108.1 cm³; range, 81.1-186.6 cm³) were treated, 15 with glands >80 to 100 cm³ and 18 >100 cm³. Median follow-up was 10 months (range, 3-26). The median international prostate symptom score was 9 (range, 1-18). Hydrogel was placed under local anesthesia in all cases. Treatment modality included intensity modulated radiation therapy in 15 and proton therapy (PT) in 18 patients. Treatment targeted the prostate plus seminal vesicles in 21 patients and 12 also had elective nodal irradiation. Conventional fractionation (CF) to 78 Gy in 39 fractions was used in 16 and moderate hypofractionation (HF) to 70 Gy in 28 fractions in 17 patients.

Results

In the CF group, mean rectum (r) V75, 70, 60, 50 was 0.87%, 2.25%, 5.61%, and 10.5%, respectively. For glands >80 to 100 cm³ and >100 cm³, rV70 was 2.55% and 2%, respectively. In HF patients, mean rV65, 63, 60, and 50 was 1.67%, 2.3%, 3.4%, and 8.6%. For glands >80 to 100 cm³ and >100 cm³, rV63 was 2% and 2.56%, respectively. Overall, the mean midgland rectoprostatic hydrogel separation was 9.3 mm (range, 4.7-19.4 mm). All patients tolerated treatment well; no acute grade 2 or higher adverse gastrointestinal events were observed.

Conclusions

Hydrogel placement is feasible in prostate glands larger than 80 cm³ with favorable dosimetric outcomes.