1
|
Guang ZLP, Kristensen G, Røder A, Brasso K. Oncological and Functional Outcomes of Whole-Gland HIFU as the Primary Treatment for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2024; 22:102101. [PMID: 38811288 DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2024.102101] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/25/2023] [Revised: 04/02/2024] [Accepted: 04/22/2024] [Indexed: 05/31/2024]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) is regarded as a promising alternative treatment option for localized prostate cancer (PCa) as it has been proposed to offer similar oncologic control to the standard of care, but with significantly reduced treatment-related side effects. This systematic literature review assesses the available evidence of whole-gland HIFU as primary treatment for localized PCa. METHODS MEDLINE (PubMed) was searched for studies investigating oncological and functional outcomes following whole-gland HIFU as primary treatment for localized PCa. Our primary outcomes for the review were biochemical disease-free survival rates (BDFS), overall and PCa-specific survival rates as well as negative biopsy rates. Our secondary outcomes were functional results and complications of the treatment. RESULTS A total of 375 articles were identified, of which 35 were included in the present review. All 35 articles were prospective or retrospective case series. Mean/median duration of follow-up across studies was 10.9 to 94 months, and 6618 patients were included in the review. The BDFS rate varied greatly across studies from 21.7% to 89.2% during follow-up. The 10-year PCa-specific survival rate following HIFU was 90%, 99%, and 100% in 3 studies. Negative biopsy rates post-HIFU ranged from 20% to 92.7% across studies. Common side effects to HIFU included urinary incontinence (grade 1: 0%-22.7%), erectile dysfunction (11.6%-77.1%), urinary tract infections (1.5%-47.9%), and bladder outlet obstruction mainly as urethral strictures (7%-41.2%). CONCLUSION Great variation in oncological and functional outcomes was seen across studies. More prospective trials are needed before whole-gland HIFU can be considered as a treatment option for localized PCa.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zhilin Liu Peter Guang
- Copenhagen Prostate Cancer Center, Department of Urology, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
| | - Gitte Kristensen
- Copenhagen Prostate Cancer Center, Department of Urology, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Andreas Røder
- Copenhagen Prostate Cancer Center, Department of Urology, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Klaus Brasso
- Copenhagen Prostate Cancer Center, Department of Urology, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Patel KR, Rydzewski NR, Schott E, Cooley-Zgela T, Ning H, Cheng J, Salerno K, Huang EP, Lindenberg L, Mena E, Choyke P, Turkbey B, Citrin DE. A Phase 1 Trial of Salvage Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Radiorecurrent Prostate Cancer After Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2024; 119:1471-1480. [PMID: 38428681 PMCID: PMC11262986 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.02.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/15/2023] [Revised: 01/16/2024] [Accepted: 02/08/2024] [Indexed: 03/03/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE NCT03253744 is a phase 1 trial with the primary objective to identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of salvage stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in patients with local prostate cancer recurrence after brachytherapy. Additional objectives included biochemical control and imaging response. METHODS AND MATERIALS This trial was initially designed to test 3 therapeutic dose levels (DLs): 40 Gy (DL1), 42.5 Gy (DL2), and 45 Gy (DL3) in 5 fractions. Intensity modulation was used to deliver the prescription dose to the magnetic resonance imaging and prostate-specific membrane antigen-based positron emission tomography imaging-defined gross tumor volume while simultaneously delivering 30 Gy to an elective volume defined by the prostate gland. This phase 1 trial followed a 3+3 design with a 3-patient expansion at the MTD. Toxicities were scored until trial completion at 2 years post-SBRT using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. Escalation was halted if 2 dose limiting toxicities occurred, defined as any persistent (>4 days) grade 3 toxicity occurring within the first 3 weeks after SBRT or any grade ≥3 genitourinary (GU) or grade 4 gastrointestinal toxicity thereafter. RESULTS Between August 2018 and January 2023, 9 patients underwent salvage SBRT and were observed for a median of 22 months (Q1-Q3, 20-43 months). No grade 3 to 5 adverse events related to study treatment were observed; thus, no dose limiting toxicities occurred during the observation period. Escalation was halted by amendment given excellent biochemical control in DL1 and DL2 in the setting of a high incidence of clinically significant late grade 2 GU toxicity. Therefore, the MTD was considered 42.5 Gy in 5 fractions (DL2). One- and 2-year biochemical progression-free survival were 100% and 86%, representing a single patient in the trial cohort with biochemical failure (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] nadir + 2.0) at 20 months posttreatment. CONCLUSIONS The MTD of salvage SBRT for the treatment of intraprostatic radiorecurrence after brachytherapy was 42.5 Gy in 5 fractions producing an 86% 2-year biochemical progression-free survival rate, with 1 poststudy failure at 20 months. The most frequent clinically significant toxicity was late grade 2 GU toxicity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Krishnan R Patel
- Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
| | - Nicholas R Rydzewski
- Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Erica Schott
- Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Theresa Cooley-Zgela
- Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Holly Ning
- Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Jason Cheng
- Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Kilian Salerno
- Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Erich P Huang
- Biometric Research Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland
| | - Liza Lindenberg
- Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Esther Mena
- Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Peter Choyke
- Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Baris Turkbey
- Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Deborah E Citrin
- Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Patel KR, van der Heide UA, Kerkmeijer LGW, Schoots IG, Turkbey B, Citrin DE, Hall WA. Target Volume Optimization for Localized Prostate Cancer. Pract Radiat Oncol 2024:S1879-8500(24)00148-6. [PMID: 39019208 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2024.06.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/13/2024] [Revised: 06/17/2024] [Accepted: 06/26/2024] [Indexed: 07/19/2024]
Abstract
Historically, the treatment of prostate cancer has required little anatomic information beyond the location of the prostate gland and adjacent seminal vesicles. Radiation therapy has classically been prescribed to the whole prostate due to the high frequency of multifocal cancer in surgical specimens and the inability to localize the precise boundaries of individual tumor foci on imaging. The development of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) using prostate-specific radiotracers has ushered in an era in which radiation oncologists are able to localize and focally dose-escalate high-risk volumes in the prostate gland. Recent phase III data have demonstrated that incorporating focal dose escalation improves biochemical control without significantly increasing toxicity. However, many questions remain regarding the optimal target volume definition and prescription strategy to implement this practice. In this review we summarize the currently available literature on image-based focal target delineation with MRI and PET. Our review includes a summary of the available data on anatomic patterns of spread to inform clinical judgement for the definition of clinical target volumes. Key knowledge gaps are identified and suggestions for novel implementation strategies are provided.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Krishnan R Patel
- Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, MD.
| | - Uulke A van der Heide
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute (NKI-AVL), Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Linda G W Kerkmeijer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Ivo G Schoots
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute (NKI-AVL), Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Baris Turkbey
- Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD
| | - Deborah E Citrin
- Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, MD
| | - William A Hall
- Froedtert and the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Roy S, MacRae R, Grimes S, Malone J, Lock M, Mehra P, Morgan SC, Malone S. Helical Tomotherapy versus Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy in High Risk Prostate Cancer: A Phase III Randomized Controlled Trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2024:S0360-3016(24)02957-2. [PMID: 39009322 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.05.032] [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: 02/26/2024] [Revised: 05/17/2024] [Accepted: 05/31/2024] [Indexed: 07/17/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND We present long-term outcomes from a phase III randomized controlled trial that compared helical tomotherapy with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) in the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS Newly diagnosed patients with high-risk PCa were randomly allocated to receive radical radiotherapy using 3D-CRT or helical tomotherapy. In both arms, patients received an initial dose of 46 Gy in 23 fractions to the prostate and pelvic lymph nodes followed by additional boost to the prostate of 32 Gy in 16 fractions. Radiotherapy was combined with 3 years of adjuvant androgen deprivation. The primary endpoint was late (>90 days since RT initiation) rectal toxicity. RESULTS Overall,123 patients were randomly assigned to either the 3D-CRT (n=60) or tomotherapy (n=63) arms. Median follow-up was 161 months. Overall, the proportion of patients with grade ≥2 late rectal toxicity was 8.3% (95% CI: 3.1 to 19.1; n=5) in the 3D-CRT arm and 11.1% (95% CI: 5.0 to 22.2; n=7) in the tomotherapy arm with no significant between-arm difference (p=0.83). There was no significant difference (p=0.17) in the proportion of patients with late grade ≥2 genitourinary toxicity:10.0% (95% CI: 4.1-21.2) in the 3D-CRT arm and 20.6% (95% CI: 11.9-33.0) in the tomotherapy arm. There was no significant difference in the hazard of biochemical progression or death between the two groups (HR for the tomotherapy arm: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.46-1.15, p=0.17). CONCLUSIONS In this phase III trial, the overall incidence of grade ≥2 rectal toxicity was low and was not significantly different between the two arms. There was non-significant evidence of improved biochemical progression-free survival in patients treated with tomotherapy. These findings should be interpreted considering the possibility of type II errors due to limited sample size and low event rates. CLINICALTRIALS GOV IDENTIFIER NCT00326638.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Soumyajit Roy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.
| | - Robert MacRae
- Department of Radiology, Radiation Oncology, and Medical Physics, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Scott Grimes
- Department of Radiology, Radiation Oncology, and Medical Physics, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Julia Malone
- The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Michael Lock
- Department of Radiation Oncology, London Regional Health Sciences Centre, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada
| | - Prateek Mehra
- Department of Radiology, Radiation Oncology, and Medical Physics, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Scott C Morgan
- Department of Radiology, Radiation Oncology, and Medical Physics, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Shawn Malone
- Department of Radiology, Radiation Oncology, and Medical Physics, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Swensen S, Liao JJ, Chen JJ, Kim K, Ma TM, Weg ES. The expanding role of radiation oncology across the prostate cancer continuum. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2024:10.1007/s00261-024-04408-3. [PMID: 38900319 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-024-04408-3] [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: 03/31/2024] [Revised: 05/23/2024] [Accepted: 05/24/2024] [Indexed: 06/21/2024]
Abstract
Radiotherapy is used in the treatment of prostate cancer in a variety of disease states with significant reliance on imaging to guide clinical decision-making and radiation delivery. In the definitive setting, the choice of radiotherapy treatment modality, dose, and fractionation for localized prostate cancer is determined by the patient's initial risk stratification and other clinical considerations. Radiation is also an option as salvage therapy in patients with locoregionally recurrent disease after prior definitive radiation or surgery. In recent years, the role of radiation has expanded for patients with metastatic disease, including prostate-directed radiotherapy in de novo low volume metastatic disease, metastasis-directed therapy for oligorecurrent disease, and palliative management of symptomatic metastases in the advanced setting. Here we review the expanding role of radiation in the treatment of prostate cancer in the definitive, locoregionally recurrent, and metastatic settings, as well as highlight the role of imaging in clinical reasoning, radiation planning, and treatment delivery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sasha Swensen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, 1959 NE Pacific St, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA
| | - Jay J Liao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, 1959 NE Pacific St, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA
| | - Jonathan J Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, 1959 NE Pacific St, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA
| | - Katherine Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, 1959 NE Pacific St, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA
| | - Ting Martin Ma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, 1959 NE Pacific St, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA
| | - Emily S Weg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, 1959 NE Pacific St, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Icht O, Schlosser S, Weinstock-Sabbah M, Rephael M, Bragilovski D, Moore A, Shochat T, Limon D, Fredman E. The role of a radiopaque peri-rectal hydrogel spacer in aiding accurate daily image-guidance for prostate stereotactic radiotherapy. Front Oncol 2024; 14:1386058. [PMID: 38957327 PMCID: PMC11217322 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1386058] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/14/2024] [Accepted: 06/06/2024] [Indexed: 07/04/2024] Open
Abstract
Introduction Precise patient positioning with image guidance (IGRT) is essential for safe prostate radiotherapy. We present the first report of utilizing a CT-visible hydrogel spacer, used to decrease rectal radiation dose, as a surrogate fiducial marker to aid in daily IGRT with cone-beam CT (CBCT) in stereotactic radiotherapy (SABR) for prostate cancer. Materials and methods Prior to CT simulation, patients underwent placement of three intraprostatic gold fiducial markers and radiopaque hydrogel spacer per standard practice. At treatment, after initial setup, a CBCT was acquired and fused to the planning CT based on 3-dimensional matching of the spacer. A second alignment was then performed based on the fiducial markers. The six directional shifts (three linear and three rotational) were recorded, and the differences compared. Results 140 individual fractions across 41 consecutive patients were evaluated. Mean/median differences between hydrogel spacer-based and fiducial-based alignment in linear (vertical, longitudinal, lateral) and rotational (rotation, pitch, roll) shifts were 0.9/0.6mm, 0.8/0.5mm, and 0.6/0.4mm, and 0.38/0, 0.62/0, and 0.35/0 degrees, respectively. No difference was observed in 9.9%, 22.9%, and 22.14% of linear shifts, and 65.7%, 65%, and 66.4% rotational shifts, respectively. Significantly smaller differences were observed in the latter 70 fractions vs. the former, and results were consistent across evaluators. Conclusions For precise daily IGRT with CBCT for prostate SABR, alignment using a radiopaque hydrogel spacer was highly comparable to intraprostatic fiducial markers. This represents the first report supporting an additional indication of IGRT for a CT-visible hydrogel spacer, to further enhance treatment accuracy and potentially obviate the need for the additional fiducial marker procedure.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Oded Icht
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Davidoff Cancer Center, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikvah, Israel
- School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel
| | - Shir Schlosser
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Davidoff Cancer Center, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikvah, Israel
- School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel
| | - Miriam Weinstock-Sabbah
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Davidoff Cancer Center, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikvah, Israel
| | - Mor Rephael
- 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
| | - Assaf Moore
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Davidoff Cancer Center, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikvah, Israel
- School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel
| | - Tzippora Shochat
- Department of Biostatistics, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikvah, Israel
| | - Dror Limon
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Davidoff Cancer Center, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikvah, Israel
- School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel
| | - Elisha Fredman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Davidoff Cancer Center, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikvah, Israel
- School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Hu C, Chen Q, Wu T, Du X, Dong Y, Peng Z, Xue W, Sunkara V, Cho YK, Dong L. The Role of Extracellular Vesicles in the Treatment of Prostate Cancer. SMALL (WEINHEIM AN DER BERGSTRASSE, GERMANY) 2024:e2311071. [PMID: 38639331 DOI: 10.1002/smll.202311071] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/29/2023] [Revised: 02/26/2024] [Indexed: 04/20/2024]
Abstract
Prostate cancer (PCa) has become a public health concern in elderly men due to an ever-increasing number of estimated cases. Unfortunately, the available treatments are unsatisfactory because of a lack of a durable response, especially in advanced disease states. Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are lipid-bilayer encircled nanoscale vesicles that carry numerous biomolecules (e.g., nucleic acids, proteins, and lipids), mediating the transfer of information. The past decade has witnessed a wide range of EV applications in both diagnostics and therapeutics. First, EV-based non-invasive liquid biopsies provide biomarkers in various clinical scenarios to guide treatment; EVs can facilitate the grading and staging of patients for appropriate treatment selection. Second, EVs play a pivotal role in pathophysiological processes via intercellular communication. Targeting key molecules involved in EV-mediated tumor progression (e.g., proliferation, angiogenesis, metastasis, immune escape, and drug resistance) is a potential approach for curbing PCa. Third, EVs are promising drug carriers. Naïve EVs from various sources and engineered EV-based drug delivery systems have paved the way for the development of new treatment modalities. This review discusses the recent advancements in the application of EV therapies and highlights EV-based functional materials as novel interventions for PCa.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cong Hu
- Department of Urology, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200127, China
| | - Qi Chen
- Department of Urology, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200127, China
| | - Tianyang Wu
- Department of Urology, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200127, China
| | - Xinxing Du
- Department of Urology, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200127, China
| | - Yanhao Dong
- Department of Urology, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200127, China
| | - Zehong Peng
- Department of Urology, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200127, China
| | - Wei Xue
- Department of Urology, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200127, China
| | - Vijaya Sunkara
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology (UNIST), Ulsan, 44919, Republic of Korea
| | - Yoon-Kyoung Cho
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology (UNIST), Ulsan, 44919, Republic of Korea
- Center for Algorithmic and Robotized Synthesis, Institute for Basic Science Ulsan, Ulsan, 44919, Republic of Korea
| | - Liang Dong
- Department of Urology, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200127, China
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Sawayanagi S, Yamashita H, Ogita M, Kawai T, Sato Y, Kume H. In Curative Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer, There Is a High Possibility That 45 Gy in Five Fractions Will Not Be Tolerated without a Hydrogel Spacer. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16:1472. [PMID: 38672553 PMCID: PMC11048095 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16081472] [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: 03/17/2024] [Revised: 04/07/2024] [Accepted: 04/10/2024] [Indexed: 04/28/2024] Open
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in the treatment of non-metastatic prostate cancer. This study was a phase 1 dose escalation trial conducted in Japan. Patients with histologically proven prostate cancer without lymph nodes or distant metastases were enrolled. The prescribed doses were 42.5, 45, or 47.5 Gy in five fractions. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was defined as grade (G) 3+ gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicity within 180 days after SBRT completion, and a 6 plus 6 design was used as the method of dose escalation. A total of 16 patients were enrolled, with 6 in the 42.5 Gy group and 10 in the 45 Gy group. No DLT was observed in the 42.5 Gy group. In the 45 Gy group, one patient experienced G3 rectal hemorrhage, and another had G4 rectal perforation, leading to the determination of 42.5 Gy as the MTD. None of the patients experienced biochemical recurrence or death during the follow-up period. We concluded that SBRT for non-metastatic prostate cancer at 42.5 Gy in five fractions could be safely performed, but a total dose of 45 Gy increased severe toxicity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Subaru Sawayanagi
- Department of Radiology, University of Tokyo Hospital, 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8655, Japan; (S.S.); (M.O.)
| | - Hideomi Yamashita
- Department of Radiology, University of Tokyo Hospital, 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8655, Japan; (S.S.); (M.O.)
| | - Mami Ogita
- Department of Radiology, University of Tokyo Hospital, 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8655, Japan; (S.S.); (M.O.)
| | - Taketo Kawai
- Department of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8655, Japan; (T.K.); (Y.S.); (H.K.)
- Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Teikyo University, 2-11-1, Kaga, Itabashi-ku, Tokyo 173-8606, Japan
| | - Yusuke Sato
- Department of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8655, Japan; (T.K.); (Y.S.); (H.K.)
- Department of Urology, Tokyo Metropolitan Tama Medical Center, 2-8-29, Musashidai, Fuchu 183-8524, Japan
| | - Haruki Kume
- Department of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8655, Japan; (T.K.); (Y.S.); (H.K.)
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Fredman E, Icht O, Moore A, Bragilovski D, Kindler J, Golan S, Limon D. SABR-Dual: a phase II/III trial of two-fraction versus five-fraction stereotactic radiotherapy for localized low- and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer. BMC Cancer 2024; 24:431. [PMID: 38589860 PMCID: PMC11000374 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-024-12165-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/06/2023] [Accepted: 03/21/2024] [Indexed: 04/10/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Dose-escalated radiotherapy is known to improve progression free survival in patients with localized prostate cancer, and recent advances have led to the standardization of ultrahypofractionated stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) delivered in just 5-fractions. Based on the known effectiveness of the accepted though invasive 2-fraction treatment method of high-dose-rate brachytherapy and given the ubiquity of prostate cancer, a further reduction in the number of treatments of external-beam SABR is possible. This study aims to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and non-inferiority of generalizable 2-fraction SABR compared to the current 5-fraction regimen. METHODS 502 patients will be enrolled on this phase II/III randomized control trial. Eligible patients will have previously untreated low- or favorable intermediate-risk adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Patients will be randomized between standard SABR of 40 Gy in 5 fractions given every-other-day and 27 Gy in 2 fractions at least two days apart but completing within seven days. MRI-based planning, radiopaque hydrogel spacer insertion, and fiducial marker placement are required, and SABR will be delivered on either a standard CT-guided linear accelerator or MR-LINAC. The primary endpoint will be freedom from disease progression, with additional secondary clinical, toxicity, and quality of life endpoints. DISCUSSION This study will be the largest prospective randomized trial, adequately powered to demonstrate non-inferiority, comparing 2-fraction SABR to standard 5-fraction SABR for localized prostate cancer. As the protocol does not obligate use of an MRI-LINAC or other adaptive technologies, results will be broadly generalizable to the wider community. TRIAL REGISTRATION This trial is registered on Clinicaltrials.gov: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06027892.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elisha Fredman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Davidoff Cancer Center, Rabin Medical Center, 39 Ze'ev Jabotinsky St, Petah Tikvah, Israel.
| | - Oded Icht
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Davidoff Cancer Center, Rabin Medical Center, 39 Ze'ev Jabotinsky St, Petah Tikvah, Israel
| | - Assaf Moore
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Davidoff Cancer Center, Rabin Medical Center, 39 Ze'ev Jabotinsky St, Petah Tikvah, Israel
| | - Dimitri Bragilovski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Davidoff Cancer Center, Rabin Medical Center, 39 Ze'ev Jabotinsky St, Petah Tikvah, Israel
| | - Jonathan Kindler
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Davidoff Cancer Center, Rabin Medical Center, 39 Ze'ev Jabotinsky St, Petah Tikvah, Israel
| | - Shay Golan
- Department of Urology, Rabin Medical Center, 39 Ze'ev Jabotinsky St, Petah Tikvah, Israel
| | - Dror Limon
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Davidoff Cancer Center, Rabin Medical Center, 39 Ze'ev Jabotinsky St, Petah Tikvah, Israel
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Onal C, Guler OC, Erbay G, Elmali A. The effect of dose-escalation radiotherapy with simultaneous-integrated-boost on the use of short-term androgen deprivation therapy in patients with intermediate risk prostate cancer. Prostate 2024. [PMID: 38528236 DOI: 10.1002/pros.24693] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/28/2023] [Revised: 03/12/2024] [Accepted: 03/12/2024] [Indexed: 03/27/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE To compare the biochemical failure (FFBF) and prostate cancer specific survival (PCSS) rates of patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer (IR-PC) who were treated with 6 months of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with 78 Gy to the prostate, those treated with ADT and focal boost (FB) of 86 Gy to intraprostatic lesion (IPL) using the simultaneous-integrated boost (SIB) technique, and those treated with SIB alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS A retrospective analysis of 320 IR-PC patients treated between January 2012 and April 2021 was performed. Patients were divided into three groups based on their treatment arm: 78 + ADT (109 patients, 34.1%), 78/86 (102 patients, 31.8%), and 78/86 + ADT. Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to determine prognostic factors for FFBF and PCSS. RESULTS Median follow-up was 8.8 years. The 8-year FFBF and PCSS rates were 88.6% and 99.0%. Patients who received ADT had significantly higher pretreatment PSA levels and clinical tumor stage. Disease progression occurred in 45 patients (7.3%) at a median of 41.9 months after definitive radiotherapy (RT). Younger age, positive core biopsy (PCB) ≥ 50%, and the absence of ADT were all independent predictors of poor FFBF in multivariate analysis, whereas patients with PCB < 50% who were also given ADT had better PCSS. Patients treated with 78/86 Gy alone had worse FFBF than those treated with 78 Gy and ADT (Hazard ratio [HR] = 3.39 [95% CI = 1.46-7.88]; p = 0.005), as well as than those treated with 78/86 Gy and ADT (HR = 3.21 [95% CI = 1.23-6.46]; p = 0.009). However, FB to IPL has no effect on PCSS in multivariable analysis. There was no significant difference between treatment groups in terms of acute and late Grade ≥2 genitourinary or gastrointestinal toxicity. CONCLUSIONS Our findings demonstrated that patients who received 78/86 alone did worse than patients who received ADT with either 78 or 78/86 Gy. However, because IR-PC patients are so diverse, additional prospective trials are needed to validate our findings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cem Onal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Baskent University Faculty of Medicine Adana Dr Turgut Noyan Research and Treatment Center, Adana, Turkey
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Baskent University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Ozan Cem Guler
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Baskent University Faculty of Medicine Adana Dr Turgut Noyan Research and Treatment Center, Adana, Turkey
| | - Gurcan Erbay
- Department of Radiology, Baskent University Faculty of Medicine Adana Dr Turgut Noyan Research and Treatment Center, Adana, Turkey
| | - Aysenur Elmali
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Baskent University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Yasar B, Suh YE, Chapman E, Nicholls L, Henderson D, Jones C, Morrison K, Wells E, Henderson J, Meehan C, Sohaib A, Taylor H, Tree A, van As N. Simultaneous Focal Boost With Stereotactic Radiation Therapy for Localized Intermediate- to High-Risk Prostate Cancer: Primary Outcomes of the SPARC Phase 2 Trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2024:S0360-3016(24)00425-5. [PMID: 38499253 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.03.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/22/2023] [Revised: 02/20/2024] [Accepted: 03/07/2024] [Indexed: 03/20/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE Dose-escalated radiation therapy is associated with better biochemical control at the expense of toxicity. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) with dose escalation to the dominant intraprostatic lesion (DIL) provides a logical approach to improve outcomes in high-risk disease while limiting toxicity. This study evaluated the toxicity and quality of life (QoL) with CyberKnife-based SBRT and simultaneous integrated boost in localized prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS Eligible participants included newly diagnosed, biopsy-proven unfavorable intermediate- to high-risk localized prostate cancer (at least 1 of the following: Gleason ≥4+3, magnetic resonance imaging(MRI)-defined T3a N0, prostate-specific antigen ≥20) with up to 2 MRI-identified DILs. Participants received 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions on alternative days with a simultaneous boost to DIL up to 47.5 Gy as allowed by organ-at-risk constraints delivered by CyberKnife. All participants received androgen deprivation therapy. The primary outcome measure was acute grade 2+ genitourinary toxicity. Acute and late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity using Radiation Therapy Oncology Group scoring, biochemical parameters, International Prostate Symptom Score, International Index of Erectile Function 5, and EQ-5D QoL outcomes were assessed. RESULTS Between 2013 and 2023, 20 participants were enrolled with a median follow-up of 30 months. The median D95 dose to DIL was 47.43 Gy. Cumulative acute grade 2+ genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity were 25% and 30%, respectively. One patient developed acute grade 3 genitourinary toxicity (5%). There is no late grade 3 genitourinary or gastrointestinal toxicity to date. International Prostate Symptom Score and urinary QoL scores recovered to baseline by 6 months. Patient-reported outcomes showed no significant change in EQ-5D QoL scores at 12 weeks and 1 year. There are no cases of biochemical relapse reported to date. CONCLUSIONS CyberKnife SBRT-delivered dose of 36.25 Gy to the prostate with a simultaneous integrated boost up to 47.5 Gy is well tolerated. Acute and late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity rates are comparable to other contemporary SBRT trials and series with focal boost.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Binnaz Yasar
- Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom.
| | - Yae-Eun Suh
- Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ewan Chapman
- St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | | | - Daniel Henderson
- University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Caroline Jones
- Leeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Kirsty Morrison
- Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Emma Wells
- Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | | | - Carole Meehan
- Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Aslam Sohaib
- Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Helen Taylor
- Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Alison Tree
- Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| | - Nicholas van As
- Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Shimomura A, Wu T, Rusu I, Kishan AU, Tree AC, Solanki AA, Liauw SL. Monitoring Intrafraction Motion of the Prostate During Radiation Therapy: Suggested Practice Points From a Focused Review. Pract Radiat Oncol 2024; 14:146-153. [PMID: 37875222 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2023.08.017] [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: 02/27/2023] [Revised: 08/30/2023] [Accepted: 08/31/2023] [Indexed: 10/26/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE External beam radiation therapy to the prostate is typically delivered after verification of prostatic position with image guidance. Prostate motion can occur during the delivery of each radiation treatment between the time of localization imaging and completion of treatment. The objective of this work is to review the literature on intrafraction motion (IFM) of the prostate during radiation therapy and offer clinical recommendations on management. METHODS AND MATERIALS A comprehensive literature review was conducted on prostate motion during prostate cancer radiation therapy. Information was organized around 3 key clinical questions, followed by an evidence-based recommendation. RESULTS IFM of the prostate during radiation therapy is typically ≤3 mm and is unlikely to compromise prostate dosimetry to a clinically meaningful degree for men treated in a relatively short treatment duration with planning target volume (PTV) margins of ≥3 to 5 mm. IFM of 5 mm or more has been observed in up to ∼10% of treatment fractions, with limited dosimetric effect related to the infrequency of occurrence and longer fractionation of therapy. IFM can be monitored in continuous or discontinuous fashion with a variety of imaging platforms. Correction of IFM may have the greatest value when tighter PTV margins are desired (such as with stereotactic body radiation therapy or intraprostatic nodule boosting), ultrahypofractionated courses, or when treatment time exceeds several minutes. CONCLUSIONS This focused review summarizes literature and provides practical recommendations regarding IFM in the treatment of prostate cancer with external beam radiation therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aoi Shimomura
- Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Tianming Wu
- Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Iris Rusu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stritch School of Medicine, Cardinal Bernardin Cancer Center, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Illinois
| | - Amar U Kishan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, California
| | - Alison C Tree
- The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, United Kingdom; Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, United Kingdom
| | - Abhishek A Solanki
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stritch School of Medicine, Cardinal Bernardin Cancer Center, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Illinois
| | - Stanley L Liauw
- Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Camden N, Blumenfeld P, Roy S, Chowdhary M, King K, Shors S, Braun R, White G, Turian J, Wang D. Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging- Guided Dose-Escalated Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Prospective Phase 2 Trial. Pract Radiat Oncol 2024; 14:e132-e140. [PMID: 37923137 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2023.10.006] [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: 05/30/2023] [Revised: 10/16/2023] [Accepted: 10/16/2023] [Indexed: 11/07/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE This trial's purpose was to determine the late toxicity associated with dose escalation to Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) III-V lesions on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with an image guided combined IMRT-stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) approach in men with localized prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS In this phase 2 trial patients with localized prostate cancer with clinical tumor stage T1-T3bN0 and at least one PIRADS III-V lesion were recruited to receive 45 Gy in 25 fractions to the prostate and seminal vesicles followed by a boost of 18 Gy in 3 fractions to the prostate with a simultaneous integrated boost 21 Gy in 3 fractions to the PI-RADS lesion(s). The primary endpoint was the cumulative incidence of late grade ≥3 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity by 18 months (National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0). RESULTS Overall, 50 patients were enrolled in this study, and 43 patients completed at least 18 months of follow-up. The cumulative incidence of grade 1, 2, and 3 late genitourinary toxicity at 18 months was 18%, 53%, and 2%. One patient was noted to have grade 3 hematuria and needed cystoscopy-guided cauterization. No acute grade 3 gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicities were observed. The cumulative incidence of grade 1, 2, and 3 late gastrointestinal toxicity at 18 months was 31%, 4%, and 0%, respectively. At a median follow-up of 43.5 months, 3 patients developed biochemical recurrence, each with distant bone metastases without local or nodal recurrence. At 3 years, freedom from biochemical failure rate was 95.3% (95% CI, 89.2%-100%). CONCLUSIONS Multiparametric MRI-guided dose escalation to PI-RADS III-V lesions using a combined image guided IMRT-SBRT approach is associated with an acceptable risk of late gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity. The results should be interpreted with caution considering their single institutional nature, small sample size, and short follow-up and should be validated in a larger study.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nathaniel Camden
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Philip Blumenfeld
- Sharett Institute of Oncology, Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel
| | - Soumyajit Roy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Mudit Chowdhary
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Lifespan Cancer Institute at Rhode Island Hospital, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
| | - Kevin King
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Stephanie Shors
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Ryan Braun
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Lifespan Cancer Institute at Rhode Island Hospital, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
| | - Greg White
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Lifespan Cancer Institute at Rhode Island Hospital, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
| | - Julius Turian
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Dian Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois.
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Yorozu A, Namiki M, Saito S, Egawa S, Yaegashi H, Konaka H, Momma T, Fukagai T, Tanaka N, Ohashi T, Takahashi H, Nakagawa Y, Kikuchi T, Mizokami A, Stone NN. Trimodality Therapy With Iodine-125 Brachytherapy, External Beam Radiation Therapy, and Short- or Long-Term Androgen Deprivation Therapy for High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer: Results of a Multicenter, Randomized Phase 3 Trial (TRIP/TRIGU0907). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2024; 118:390-401. [PMID: 37802225 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.08.046] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/20/2022] [Revised: 08/05/2023] [Accepted: 08/11/2023] [Indexed: 10/08/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE This phase 3 randomized investigation was designed to determine whether 30 months of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was superior to 6 months of ADT when combined with brachytherapy and external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for localized high-risk prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS This study was conducted at 37 hospitals on men aged 40 to 79 years, with stage T2c-3a, prostate-specific antigen >20 ng/mL, or Gleason score >7, who received 6 months of ADT combined with iodine-125 brachytherapy followed by EBRT. After stratification, patients were randomly assigned to either no further treatment (short arm) or 24 months of adjuvant ADT (long arm). According to the Phoenix definition of failure, the primary endpoint was the cumulative incidence of biochemical progression. Secondary endpoints included clinical progression, metastasis, salvage treatment, disease-specific mortality, overall survival, and grade 3+ adverse events. An intention-to-treat analysis was conducted using survival estimates determined using competing risk analyses. RESULTS Of 332 patients, 165 and 167 were randomly assigned to the short and long arms, respectively. The median follow-up period was 9.2 years. The cumulative incidence of biochemical progression at 7 years was 9.0% (95% CI, 5.5-14.5) and 8.0% (4.7-13.5) in the short and long arms, respectively (P = .65). The outcomes of secondary endpoints did not differ significantly between the arms. Incidence rates of endocrine- and radiation-related grade 3+ adverse events for the short versus long arms were 0.6 versus 1.8% (P = .62) and 1.2 versus 0.6% (P = .62), respectively. CONCLUSIONS Both treatment arms showed similar efficacy among selected populations with high-risk features. The toxicity of the trimodal therapy was acceptable. The present investigation, designed as a superiority trial, failed to demonstrate that 30-month ADT yielded better biochemical control than 6-month ADT when combined with brachytherapy and EBRT. Therefore, a noninferiority study is warranted to obtain further evidence supporting these preliminary results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Atsunori Yorozu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Hospital Organization Tokyo Medical Center, Tokyo, Japan.
| | - Mikio Namiki
- Department of Urology, Hasegawa Hospital, Toyama, Japan
| | - Shiro Saito
- Department of Urology, Ofuna Chuo Hospital, Kanagawa, Japan
| | - Shin Egawa
- Department of Urology, the Jikei University Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Hiroshi Yaegashi
- Department of Urology, Kanazawa University, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kanazawa, Japan
| | - Hiroyuki Konaka
- Department of Urology, Japanese Red Cross Society Kanazawa Hospital, Kanazawa, Japan
| | - Tetsuo Momma
- Department of Urology, National Hospital Organization Tokyo Medical Center, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Takashi Fukagai
- Department of Urology, Showa University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Nobumichi Tanaka
- Departments of Urology and Prostate Brachytherapy, Nara Medical University, Nara, Japan
| | - Toshio Ohashi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Keio University, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Hiroyuki Takahashi
- Department of Pathology, the Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Yoko Nakagawa
- Foundation for Biomedical Research and Innovation, Translational Research Informatics Center, Kobe, Japan
| | - Takashi Kikuchi
- Foundation for Biomedical Research and Innovation, Translational Research Informatics Center, Kobe, Japan
| | - Atsushi Mizokami
- Department of Urology, Kanazawa University, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kanazawa, Japan
| | - Nelson N Stone
- Department of Urology and Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Starling MTM, Thibodeau S, de Sousa CFPM, Restini FCF, Viani GA, Gouveia AG, Mendez LC, Marta GN, Moraes FY. Optimizing Clinical Implementation of Hypofractionation: Comprehensive Evidence Synthesis and Practical Guidelines for Low- and Middle-Income Settings. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16:539. [PMID: 38339290 PMCID: PMC10854666 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16030539] [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: 11/06/2023] [Revised: 01/15/2024] [Accepted: 01/16/2024] [Indexed: 02/12/2024] Open
Abstract
The global cancer burden, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), worsens existing disparities, amplified by the rising costs of advanced treatments. The shortage of radiation therapy (RT) services is a significant issue in LMICs. Extended conventional treatment regimens pose significant challenges, especially in resource-limited settings. Hypofractionated radiotherapy (HRT) and ultra-hypofractionated/stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) offer promising alternatives by shortening treatment durations. This approach optimizes the utilization of radiotherapy machines, making them more effective in meeting the growing demand for cancer care. Adopting HRT/SBRT holds significant potential, especially in LMICs. This review provides the latest clinical evidence and guideline recommendations for the application of HRT/SBRT in the treatment of breast, prostate, and lung cancers. It emphasizes the critical importance of rigorous training, technology, stringent quality assurance, and safety protocols to ensure precise and secure treatments. Additionally, it addresses practical considerations for implementing these treatments in LMICs, highlighting the need for comprehensive support and collaboration to enhance patient access to advanced cancer care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Stephane Thibodeau
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, Kingston General Hospital, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Canada
| | | | | | - Gustavo A. Viani
- Department of Medical Imagings, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, Hematology and Oncology of University of São Paulo (FMRP-USP), Ribeirão Preto 14049-900, Brazil
- Latin America Cooperative Oncology Group (LACOG), Porto Alegre 90619-900, Brazil
| | - Andre G. Gouveia
- Latin America Cooperative Oncology Group (LACOG), Porto Alegre 90619-900, Brazil
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, Juravinski Cancer Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8V 5C2, Canada
| | - Lucas C. Mendez
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON N6A 5W9, Canada
| | - Gustavo Nader Marta
- Radiation Oncology Department, Hospital Sirio Libanês, Sao Paulo 01308-050, Brazil
- Latin America Cooperative Oncology Group (LACOG), Porto Alegre 90619-900, Brazil
| | - Fabio Ynoe Moraes
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, Kingston General Hospital, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Canada
- Latin America Cooperative Oncology Group (LACOG), Porto Alegre 90619-900, Brazil
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Kamran SC, Vapiwala N. Approach to Patients with High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer: Radiation Oncology Perspective. Curr Treat Options Oncol 2024; 25:84-96. [PMID: 38167980 DOI: 10.1007/s11864-023-01163-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 12/10/2023] [Indexed: 01/05/2024]
Abstract
OPINION STATEMENT High-risk localized prostate cancer is a challenging clinical entity to treat, with heterogeneous responses to an evolving array of multidisciplinary treatment approaches. In addition, this disease state is growing in incidence due to a variety of factors, including shifting recommendations that discouraged routine prostate cancer screening. Current guidelines now incorporate an informed decision-making process for prostate cancer screening and evaluation. More work is underway to improve targeted screening for certain at-risk populations and to implement greater personalization in the use of diagnostic tools. Once diagnosed with high-risk localized disease, a multimodality treatment paradigm is warranted. Radiation-in its various forms and combinations-plays a large and continually evolving role in the management of high-risk prostate cancer, yet treatment outcomes are still suboptimal. There is a growing need to improve upon current treatment approaches, and better personalize a particular treatment recommendation based on both tumor and patient characteristics, as well as patient preference and goals of therapy. Given that treatment generally requires more than one therapy, there are notable implications on long-term quality of life, especially with respect to overlapping and cumulative side effects of local and systemic therapies, respectively. The desire for aggressive therapy to optimize cancer control outcomes must be weighed against the risk of morbidities and overtreatment and discussed with each patient so that an informed decision about treatment and care can be determined. High-level evidence to support treatment recommendations, where available, is critical for a data-driven and tailored approach to address all goals of care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sophia C Kamran
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Cancer Center, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, Cox 3, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
| | - Neha Vapiwala
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, 3400 Civic Center Boulevard, TRC 4 West, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Gejerman G, Goldstein MM, Chao M, Shore N, Lederer J, Crawford ED, Bukkapatnam R, Sylvester J, Orio PF. Barrigel Spacer Injection Technique. Pract Radiat Oncol 2024; 14:e57-e61. [PMID: 37657504 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2023.08.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/27/2023] [Revised: 08/07/2023] [Accepted: 08/09/2023] [Indexed: 09/03/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Glen Gejerman
- New Jersey Urology, VillageMD Research Institute, Saddle Brook, New Jersey.
| | - Martin M Goldstein
- New Jersey Urology, VillageMD Research Institute, Saddle Brook, New Jersey
| | - Michael Chao
- Ringwood Private Hospital, East Ringwood, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Neal Shore
- Carolina Urologic Research Center, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
| | | | | | | | | | - Peter F Orio
- Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Westley RL, Valle LF, Tree AC, Kishan AU. MRI-Guided Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: Seeing is Believing. Semin Radiat Oncol 2024; 34:45-55. [PMID: 38105093 DOI: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2023.10.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2023]
Abstract
The advent of MRI guided radiotherapy (MRIgRT) offers enormous promise in the treatment of prostate cancer. The MR-linac offers men the opportunity to receive daily MR imaging to guide and influence their radiotherapy treatment. This review focuses on the advantages that MRIgRT potentially offers as well as any potential disadvantages to MRIgRT that may have been recognized thus far. Ongoing clinical trials evaluating this novel treatment platform for the treatment of prostate cancer are also discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rosalyne L Westley
- The Royal Marsden Hospital, Sutton, England, UK; The Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, England, UK.
| | - Luca F Valle
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
| | - Alison C Tree
- The Royal Marsden Hospital, Sutton, England, UK; The Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, England, UK
| | - Amar U Kishan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Masson I, Larriviere L, Mahé MA, Azria D, Pommier P, Mesgouez-Nebout N, Giraud P, Peiffert D, Chauvet B, Dudouet P, Salem N, Noël G, Khalifa J, Latorzeff I, Guérin-Charbonnel C, Supiot S. Prospective results for 5-year survival and toxicity of moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) in (very) high-risk prostate cancer. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2024; 44:100702. [PMID: 38111609 PMCID: PMC10726239 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2023.100702] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/10/2023] [Revised: 11/09/2023] [Accepted: 11/14/2023] [Indexed: 12/20/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose High-risk (HR) prostate cancer patients usually receive high-dose radiotherapy (RT) using a two-phase sequential technique, but data on a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique are lacking. We prospectively evaluated the long-term results of urinary (GU) and digestive (GI) toxicity and survival data for high-dose RT using a SIB technique in HR and very high-risk (VHR) prostate cancer. Methods Patients were treated using an SIB technique in 34 fractions, at a dose of 54.4 Gy to the pelvis and seminal vesicles and 74.8 Gy to the prostate, combined with 36 months of androgen-depriving therapy in a prospective multicenter study. Acute and late GU and GI toxicity data were collected. Overall survival (OS), biochemical-relapse-free survival (bRFS), loco-regional-relapse-free survival (LRRFS), metastasis-free-survival (MFS) and disease-free-survival (DFS) were assessed. Results We recruited 114 patients. After a median follow-up of 62 months, very few patients experienced acute (M0-M3) (G3-4 GU = 3.7 %; G3-4 GI = 0.9 %) or late (M6-M60) severe toxicity (G3-4 GU = 5.6 %; G3-4 GI = 2.8 %). The occurrence of acute G2 + GU or GI toxicity was significantly related to the consequential late G2 + toxicity (p < 0.01 for both GU and GI). Medians of OS, bRFS, LRRFS, MFS and DFS were not reached. At 60 months, OS, bRFS, LRRFS, MFS and DFS were 88.2 % [82.1; 94.7], 86.0 % [79.4 %;93.2 %], 95.8 % [91.8 %;99.9 %], 87.2 % [80.9 %;94.0 %] and 84.1 % [77.2 %;91.6 %] respectively. Conclusion SIB RT at a dose of 54.4 Gy to the pelvis and 74.8 Gy to the prostate is feasible, leading to satisfying tumor control and reasonable toxicity in HR and VHR prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ingrid Masson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de l’Ouest René Gauducheau, Saint-Herblain, France
- Department of Radiataion oncology, Centre Eugène Marquis, Rennes, France
| | - Laurène Larriviere
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de l’Ouest René Gauducheau, Saint-Herblain, France
| | - Marc-André Mahé
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de l’Ouest René Gauducheau, Saint-Herblain, France
- Department of Radiation Oncology, François Baclesse Cancer Center, Caen, France
| | - David Azria
- Fédération Universitaire d’Oncologie Radiothérapie FOROM, ICM, Institut régional du Cancer Montpellier, Université de Montpellier, IRCM, Montpellier, France
| | - Pascal Pommier
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Léon Bérard Center, Lyon, France
| | - Nathalie Mesgouez-Nebout
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de l’Ouest Paul Papin, Angers, France
| | - Philippe Giraud
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Georges Pompidou European Hospital, Paris, France
| | - Didier Peiffert
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Lorraine Cancer Institute, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France
| | - Bruno Chauvet
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sainte Catherine Institute, Avignon, France
| | - Philippe Dudouet
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Pont de chaume Clinic, Montauban, France
| | - Naji Salem
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Paoli-Calmettes Institute, Marseille, France
| | - Georges Noël
- Department of Radiation Oncology, ICANS (Cancerology Institute of Strasbourg-Europe), Strasbourg, France
| | - Jonathan Khalifa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, IUCT Oncopole, Toulouse, France
| | - Igor Latorzeff
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Pasteur Clinic, Toulouse, France
| | - Catherine Guérin-Charbonnel
- Clinical Trial Sponsor Unit/Biometry, Institut de Cancérologie de l’Ouest René Gauducheau, Saint-Herblain, France
- Nantes Université, CNRS US2B, Nantes, France
| | - Stéphane Supiot
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de l’Ouest René Gauducheau, Saint-Herblain, France
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Jeganathan T, Salgues E, Schick U, Tissot V, Fournier G, Valéri A, Nguyen TA, Bourbonne V. Inter-Rater Variability of Prostate Lesion Segmentation on Multiparametric Prostate MRI. Biomedicines 2023; 11:3309. [PMID: 38137530 PMCID: PMC10741937 DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines11123309] [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: 11/25/2023] [Revised: 12/10/2023] [Accepted: 12/12/2023] [Indexed: 12/24/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION External radiotherapy is a major treatment for localized prostate cancer (PCa). Dose escalation to the whole prostate gland increases biochemical relapse-free survival but also acute and late toxicities. Dose escalation to the dominant index lesion (DIL) only is of growing interest. It requires a robust delineation of the DIL. In this context, we aimed to evaluate the inter-observer variability of DIL delineation. MATERIAL AND METHODS Two junior radiologists and a senior radiation oncologist delineated DILs on 64 mpMRIs of patients with histologically confirmed PCa. For each mpMRI and each reader, eight individual DIL segmentations were delineated. These delineations were blindly performed from one another and resulted from the individual analysis of the T2, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), b2000, and dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) sequences, as well as the analysis of combined sequences (T2ADC, T2ADCb2000, T2ADCDCE, and T2ADCb2000DCE). Delineation variability was assessed using the DICE coefficient, Jaccard index, Hausdorff distance measure, and mean distance to agreement. RESULTS T2, ADC, T2ADC, b2000, T2 + ADC + b2000, T2 + ADC + DCE, and T2 + ADC + b2000 + DCE sequences obtained DICE coefficients of 0.51, 0.50, 0.54, 0.52, 0.54, 0.55, 0.53, respectively, which are significantly higher than the perfusion sequence alone (0.35, p < 0.001). The analysis of other similarity metrics lead to similar results. The tumor volume and PI-RADS classification were positively correlated with the DICE scores. CONCLUSION Our study showed that the contours of prostatic lesions were more reproducible on certain sequences but confirmed the great variability of prostatic contours with a maximum DICE coefficient calculated at 0.55 (joint analysis of T2, ADC, and perfusion sequences).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thibaut Jeganathan
- Radiology Department, University Hospital, 29200 Brest, France; (T.J.); (E.S.); (V.T.)
| | - Emile Salgues
- Radiology Department, University Hospital, 29200 Brest, France; (T.J.); (E.S.); (V.T.)
| | - Ulrike Schick
- Radiation Oncology Department, University Hospital, 29200 Brest, France;
- INSERM, LaTIM UMR 1101, University of Western Brittany, 29238 Brest, France; (G.F.); (A.V.); (T.-A.N.)
| | - Valentin Tissot
- Radiology Department, University Hospital, 29200 Brest, France; (T.J.); (E.S.); (V.T.)
| | - Georges Fournier
- INSERM, LaTIM UMR 1101, University of Western Brittany, 29238 Brest, France; (G.F.); (A.V.); (T.-A.N.)
- Urology Department, University Hospital, 29200 Brest, France
| | - Antoine Valéri
- INSERM, LaTIM UMR 1101, University of Western Brittany, 29238 Brest, France; (G.F.); (A.V.); (T.-A.N.)
- Urology Department, University Hospital, 29200 Brest, France
| | - Truong-An Nguyen
- INSERM, LaTIM UMR 1101, University of Western Brittany, 29238 Brest, France; (G.F.); (A.V.); (T.-A.N.)
- Urology Department, University Hospital, 29200 Brest, France
| | - Vincent Bourbonne
- Radiation Oncology Department, University Hospital, 29200 Brest, France;
- INSERM, LaTIM UMR 1101, University of Western Brittany, 29238 Brest, France; (G.F.); (A.V.); (T.-A.N.)
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Ramot Y, Levin-Harrus T, Ezratty A, Steiner M, Ezov N, Domb AJ, Abdel-Haq M, Shohat S, Aperman L, Adler L, Dolkart O, Nyska A. Assessment of Bioprotect's Biodegradable Balloon System as a Rectal Spacer in Radiotherapy: An Animal Study on Tissue Response and Biocompatibility. Pharmaceutics 2023; 15:2744. [PMID: 38140085 PMCID: PMC10747072 DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics15122744] [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: 10/13/2023] [Revised: 11/23/2023] [Accepted: 11/28/2023] [Indexed: 12/24/2023] Open
Abstract
Prostate cancer is a significant health concern for men, emphasizing the need for effective treatment strategies. Dose-escalated external beam radiotherapy shows promise in improving outcomes but presents challenges due to radiation effects on nearby structures, such as the rectum. Innovative techniques, including rectal spacers, have emerged to mitigate these effects. This study comprehensively assessed tissue responses following the implantation of the Bioprotect biodegradable fillable balloon as a rectal spacer in a rat model. Evaluation occurred at multiple time points (4, 26, and 52 weeks) post-implantation. Results revealed localized tissue responses consistent with the expected reaction to biodegradable materials, characterized by mild to moderate fibrotic reactions and encapsulation, underscoring the safety and biocompatibility of the balloon. Importantly, no other adverse events occurred, and the animals remained healthy throughout the study. These findings support its potential clinical utility in radiotherapy treatments to enhance patient outcomes and minimize long-term implant-related complications, serving as a benchmark for future similar studies and offering valuable insights for researchers in the field. In conclusion, the findings from this study highlight the safety, biocompatibility, and potential clinical applicability of the Bioprotect biodegradable fillable balloon as a promising rectal spacer in mitigating radiation-induced complications during prostate cancer radiotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yuval Ramot
- Department of Dermatology, Hadassah Medical Center, Jerusalem 9112001, Israel;
- Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 9112001, Israel
| | - Tal Levin-Harrus
- Envigo CRS Israel Limited, Ness Ziona 7414001, Israel; (T.L.-H.); (A.E.); (M.S.); (N.E.)
| | - Adva Ezratty
- Envigo CRS Israel Limited, Ness Ziona 7414001, Israel; (T.L.-H.); (A.E.); (M.S.); (N.E.)
| | - Michal Steiner
- Envigo CRS Israel Limited, Ness Ziona 7414001, Israel; (T.L.-H.); (A.E.); (M.S.); (N.E.)
| | - Nati Ezov
- Envigo CRS Israel Limited, Ness Ziona 7414001, Israel; (T.L.-H.); (A.E.); (M.S.); (N.E.)
| | - Abraham J. Domb
- Institute for Drug Research, School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 9112001, Israel; (A.J.D.); (M.A.-H.)
| | - Muhammad Abdel-Haq
- Institute for Drug Research, School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 9112001, Israel; (A.J.D.); (M.A.-H.)
| | - Shaul Shohat
- BioProtect, Tzur Yigal 4486200, Israel; (S.S.); (L.A.); (L.A.)
| | - Liron Aperman
- BioProtect, Tzur Yigal 4486200, Israel; (S.S.); (L.A.); (L.A.)
| | - Lee Adler
- BioProtect, Tzur Yigal 4486200, Israel; (S.S.); (L.A.); (L.A.)
| | - Oleg Dolkart
- Assuta Ashdod University Hospital, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheba 8410501, Israel;
| | - Abraham Nyska
- Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6200515, Israel
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Ong WL, Cheung P, Chung H, Chu W, Detsky J, Liu S, Morton G, Szumacher E, Tseng CL, Vesprini D, Davidson M, Ravi A, McGuffin M, Zhang L, Mamedov A, Deabreu A, Kulasingham-Poon M, Loblaw A. To Boost or Not to Boost: Pooled Analyses From 2-Fraction SABR Trials for Localized Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:1153-1162. [PMID: 37419394 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.06.250] [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: 03/13/2023] [Revised: 06/07/2023] [Accepted: 06/23/2023] [Indexed: 07/09/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Focal boost to dominant intraprostatic lesion (DIL) is an approach for dose escalation in prostate radiation therapy. In this study, we aimed to report the outcomes of 2-fraction SABR ± DIL boost. METHODS AND MATERIALS We included 60 patients with low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer enrolled in 2 phase 2 trials (30 patients in each trial). In the 2STAR trial (NCT02031328), 26 Gy (equivalent dose in 2-Gy fractions = 105.4 Gy) was delivered to the prostate. In the 2SMART trial (NCT03588819), 26 Gy was delivered to the prostate, with up to 32 Gy boost to magnetic resonance imaging-defined DIL (equivalent dose in 2-Gy fractions = 156.4 Gy). The reported outcomes included prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (ie, <0.4 ng/mL) at 4 years (4yrPSARR), biochemical failure (BF), acute and late toxicities, and quality of life (QOL). RESULTS In 2SMART, median DIL D99% of 32.3 Gy was delivered. Median follow-up was 72.7 months (range, 69.1-75.) in 2STAR and 43.6 months (range, 38.7-49.5) in 2SMART. The 4yrPSARR was 57% (17/30) in 2STAR and 63% (15/24) in 2SMART (P = 0.7). The 4-year cumulative BF was 0% in 2STAR and 8.3% in 2SMART (P = 0.1). The 6-year BF in 2STAR was 3.5%. For genitourinary toxicities, there were differences in grade ≥1 urinary urgency in the acute (0% vs 47%; P < .001) and late settings (10% vs 67%; P < .001) favoring 2STAR. For urinary QOL, no difference was observed in the acute setting, but lower proportion in 2STAR had minimal clinically important changes in urinary QOL score in the late setting (21% vs 50%; P = .03). There were no significant differences in gastrointestinal and sexual toxicities and QOL in both acute and late settings between the 2 trials. CONCLUSIONS This study presents the first prospective data comparing 2-fraction prostate SABR ± DIL boost. The addition of DIL boost resulted in similar medium-term efficacy (in 4yrPSARR and BF), with impact on late urinary QOL outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wee Loon Ong
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Alfred Health Radiation Oncology, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Patrick Cheung
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Hans Chung
- 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
| | - Jay Detsky
- 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
| | - Gerard Morton
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Ewa Szumacher
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Chia-Lin Tseng
- 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
| | - Melanie Davidson
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Ananth Ravi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; MOLLI Surgical, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Merrylee McGuffin
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Liying Zhang
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Alexandre Mamedov
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Andrea Deabreu
- 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; Department of Health Policy, Measurement and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Roy S, Romero T, Michalski JM, Feng FY, Efstathiou JA, Lawton CA, Bolla M, Maingon P, de Reijke T, Joseph D, Ong WL, Sydes MR, Dearnaley DP, Tree AC, Carrier N, Nabid A, Souhami L, Incrocci L, Heemsbergen WD, Pos FJ, Zapatero A, Guerrero A, Alvarez A, San-Segundo CG, Maldonado X, Reiter RE, Rettig MB, Nickols NG, Steinberg ML, Valle LF, Ma TM, Farrell MJ, Neilsen BK, Juarez JE, Deng J, Vangala S, Avril N, Jia AY, Zaorsky NG, Sun Y, Spratt D, Kishan AU. Biochemical Recurrence Surrogacy for Clinical Outcomes After Radiotherapy for Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate. J Clin Oncol 2023; 41:5005-5014. [PMID: 37639648 PMCID: PMC10642893 DOI: 10.1200/jco.23.00617] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/20/2023] [Revised: 05/30/2023] [Accepted: 07/12/2023] [Indexed: 08/31/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The surrogacy of biochemical recurrence (BCR) for overall survival (OS) in localized prostate cancer remains controversial. Herein, we evaluate the surrogacy of BCR using different surrogacy analytic methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS Individual patient data from 11 trials evaluating radiotherapy dose escalation, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) use, and ADT prolongation were obtained. Surrogate candidacy was assessed using the Prentice criteria (including landmark analyses) and the two-stage meta-analytic approach (estimating Kendall's tau and the R2). Biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS, time from random assignment to BCR or any death) and time to BCR (TTBCR, time from random assignment to BCR or cancer-specific deaths censoring for noncancer-related deaths) were assessed. RESULTS Overall, 10,741 patients were included. Dose escalation, addition of short-term ADT, and prolongation of ADT duration significantly improved BCR (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.63 to 0.79]; HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.59]; and HR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.61], respectively). Adding short-term ADT (HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.84 to 0.99]) and prolonging ADT (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.78 to 0.94]) significantly improved OS, whereas dose escalation did not (HR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.87 to 1.11]). BCR at 48 months was associated with inferior OS in all three groups (HR, 2.46 [95% CI, 2.08 to 2.92]; HR, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.35 to 1.70]; and HR, 2.31 [95% CI, 2.04 to 2.61], respectively). However, after adjusting for BCR at 48 months, there was no significant treatment effect on OS (HR, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.96 to 1.27]; HR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.87 to 1.06] and 1.00 [95% CI, 0.90 to 1.12], respectively). The patient-level correlation (Kendall's tau) for BCRFS and OS ranged between 0.59 and 0.69, and that for TTBCR and OS ranged between 0.23 and 0.41. The R2 values for trial-level correlation of the treatment effect on BCRFS and TTBCR with that on OS were 0.563 and 0.160, respectively. CONCLUSION BCRFS and TTBCR are prognostic but failed to satisfy all surrogacy criteria. Strength of correlation was greater when noncancer-related deaths were considered events.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Soumyajit Roy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL
| | - Tahmineh Romero
- Department of Medicine Statistics Core, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Jeff M. Michalski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University, St Louis, MO
| | - Felix Y. Feng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
| | - Jason A. Efstathiou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
| | - Colleen A.F. Lawton
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI
| | - Michel Bolla
- Radiotherapy Department, University Hospital, Grenoble, France
| | - Philippe Maingon
- Department of Oncology, Hematology, and Supportive Care, Sorbonne University, Paris, France
| | - Theo de Reijke
- Department of Urology, Prostate Cancer Network in the Netherlands, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - David Joseph
- Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia
| | - Wee Loon Ong
- Alfred Health Radiation Oncology, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Matthew R. Sydes
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - David P. Dearnaley
- Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research and Department of Urology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Alison C. Tree
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
| | - Nathalie Carrier
- Clinical Research Center, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada
| | - Abdenour Nabid
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada
| | - Luis Souhami
- Department of Radiation Oncology, McGill University Health Centre, Montréal, QC, Canada
| | - Luca Incrocci
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Wilma D. Heemsbergen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Floris J. Pos
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | | | - Ana Alvarez
- Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain
| | | | | | - Robert E. Reiter
- Department of Urology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Matthew B. Rettig
- Department of Medical Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Nicholas G. Nickols
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Michael L. Steinberg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Luca F. Valle
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
| | - T. Martin Ma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
| | - Matthew J. Farrell
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Beth K. Neilsen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Jesus E. Juarez
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Jie Deng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Sitaram Vangala
- Department of Medicine Statistics Core, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Norbert Avril
- Department of Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH
| | - Angela Y. Jia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH
| | - Nicholas G. Zaorsky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH
| | - Yilun Sun
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH
- Department of Population Quantitative Health Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH
| | - Daniel Spratt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH
| | - Amar U. Kishan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Patel KR, Rydzewski NR, Schott E, Cooley-Zgela T, Ning H, Cheng J, Salerno K, Huang EP, Pinto PA, Lindenberg L, Mena E, Choyke P, Turkbey B, Citrin DE. A Phase 1 Trial of Focal Salvage Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Radiorecurrent Prostate Cancer. Pract Radiat Oncol 2023; 13:540-550. [PMID: 37442430 PMCID: PMC10782822 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2023.05.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/28/2023] [Revised: 04/24/2023] [Accepted: 05/06/2023] [Indexed: 07/15/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE NCT03253744 was a phase 1 trial to identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of image-guided, focal, salvage stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for patients with locally radiorecurrent prostate cancer. Additional objectives included biochemical control and imaging response. METHODS AND MATERIALS The trial design included 3 dose levels (DLs): 40 Gy (DL1), 42.5 Gy (DL2), and 45 Gy (DL3) in 5 fractions delivered ≥48 hours apart. The prescription dose was delivered to the magnetic resonance- and prostate-specific membrane antigen imaging-defined tumor volume. Dose escalation followed a 3+3 design with a 3-patient expansion at the MTD. Toxicities were scored until 2 years after completion of SBRT using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5.0, criteria. Escalation was halted if 2 dose-limiting toxicities occurred, defined as any persistent (>4 days) grade 3 toxicity occurring within the first 3 weeks after SBRT and any grade 3 genitourinary (GU) or grade 4 gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity thereafter. RESULTS Between August 2018 and May 2022, 8 patients underwent salvage focal SBRT, with a median follow-up of 35 months. No dose-limiting toxic effects were observed on DL1. Two patients were enrolled in DL2 and experienced grade 3 GU toxicities, prompting de-escalation and expansion (n = 6) at the MTD (DL1). The most common toxicities observed were grade ≥2 GU toxicities, with only a single grade 2 GI toxicity and no grade ≥3 GI toxicities. One patient experienced biochemical failure (prostate-specific antigen nadir + 2.0) at 33 months. CONCLUSIONS The MTD for focal salvage SBRT for isolated intraprostatic radiorecurrence was 40 Gy in 5 fractions, producing a 100% 24-month biochemical progression free survival, with 1 poststudy failure at 33 months. The most frequent clinically significant toxicity was late grade ≥2 GU toxicity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Krishnan R Patel
- Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, Maryland.
| | - Nicholas R Rydzewski
- Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Erica Schott
- Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Theresa Cooley-Zgela
- Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Holly Ning
- Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Jason Cheng
- Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Kilian Salerno
- Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Erich P Huang
- Biometric Research Branch, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Rockville, Maryland
| | - Peter A Pinto
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Liza Lindenberg
- Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Esther Mena
- Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Peter Choyke
- Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Baris Turkbey
- Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Deborah E Citrin
- Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, Maryland
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Zhong J, Kobus M, Maitre P, Datta A, Eccles C, Dubec M, McHugh D, Buckley D, Scarsbrook A, Hoskin P, Henry A, Choudhury A. MRI-guided Pelvic Radiation Therapy: A Primer for Radiologists. Radiographics 2023; 43:e230052. [PMID: 37796729 DOI: 10.1148/rg.230052] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/07/2023]
Abstract
Radiation therapy (RT) is a core pillar of oncologic treatment, and half of all patients with cancer receive this therapy as a curative or palliative treatment. The recent integration of MRI into the RT workflow has led to the advent of MRI-guided RT (MRIgRT). Using MRI rather than CT has clear advantages for guiding RT to pelvic tumors, including superior soft-tissue contrast, improved organ motion visualization, and the potential to image tumor phenotypic characteristics to identify the most aggressive or treatment-resistant areas, which can be targeted with a more focal higher radiation dose. Radiologists should be familiar with the potential uses of MRI in planning pelvic RT; the various RT techniques used, such as brachytherapy and external beam RT; and the impact of MRIgRT on treatment paradigms. Current clinical experience with and the evidence base for MRIgRT in the settings of prostate, cervical, and bladder cancer are discussed, and examples of treated cases are illustrated. In addition, the benefits of MRIgRT, such as real-time online adaptation of RT (during treatment) and interfraction and/or intrafraction adaptation to organ motion, as well as how MRIgRT can decrease toxic effects and improve oncologic outcomes, are highlighted. MRIgRT is particularly beneficial for treating mobile pelvic structures, and real-time adaptive RT for tumors can be achieved by using advanced MRI-guided linear accelerator systems to spare organs at risk. Future opportunities for development of biologically driven adapted RT with use of functional MRI sequences and radiogenomic approaches also are outlined. ©RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jim Zhong
- From the Leeds Institute of Medical Research (J.Z., A.S., A.H.) and Department of Biomedical Imaging (D.B.), University of Leeds, 6 Clarendon Way, Woodhouse, Leeds LS2 9LH, England; Leeds Cancer Centre, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, England (J.Z., A.S., A.H.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany (M.K.); Radiation Therapy Research Group (M.K., P.M., A.D., C.E., M.D., P.H., A.C.) and Division of Cancer Sciences (D.M.), University of Manchester, Manchester, England; and The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England (P.M., C.E., M.D., D.M., P.H., A.C.)
| | - Marta Kobus
- From the Leeds Institute of Medical Research (J.Z., A.S., A.H.) and Department of Biomedical Imaging (D.B.), University of Leeds, 6 Clarendon Way, Woodhouse, Leeds LS2 9LH, England; Leeds Cancer Centre, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, England (J.Z., A.S., A.H.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany (M.K.); Radiation Therapy Research Group (M.K., P.M., A.D., C.E., M.D., P.H., A.C.) and Division of Cancer Sciences (D.M.), University of Manchester, Manchester, England; and The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England (P.M., C.E., M.D., D.M., P.H., A.C.)
| | - Priyamvada Maitre
- From the Leeds Institute of Medical Research (J.Z., A.S., A.H.) and Department of Biomedical Imaging (D.B.), University of Leeds, 6 Clarendon Way, Woodhouse, Leeds LS2 9LH, England; Leeds Cancer Centre, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, England (J.Z., A.S., A.H.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany (M.K.); Radiation Therapy Research Group (M.K., P.M., A.D., C.E., M.D., P.H., A.C.) and Division of Cancer Sciences (D.M.), University of Manchester, Manchester, England; and The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England (P.M., C.E., M.D., D.M., P.H., A.C.)
| | - Anubhav Datta
- From the Leeds Institute of Medical Research (J.Z., A.S., A.H.) and Department of Biomedical Imaging (D.B.), University of Leeds, 6 Clarendon Way, Woodhouse, Leeds LS2 9LH, England; Leeds Cancer Centre, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, England (J.Z., A.S., A.H.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany (M.K.); Radiation Therapy Research Group (M.K., P.M., A.D., C.E., M.D., P.H., A.C.) and Division of Cancer Sciences (D.M.), University of Manchester, Manchester, England; and The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England (P.M., C.E., M.D., D.M., P.H., A.C.)
| | - Cynthia Eccles
- From the Leeds Institute of Medical Research (J.Z., A.S., A.H.) and Department of Biomedical Imaging (D.B.), University of Leeds, 6 Clarendon Way, Woodhouse, Leeds LS2 9LH, England; Leeds Cancer Centre, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, England (J.Z., A.S., A.H.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany (M.K.); Radiation Therapy Research Group (M.K., P.M., A.D., C.E., M.D., P.H., A.C.) and Division of Cancer Sciences (D.M.), University of Manchester, Manchester, England; and The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England (P.M., C.E., M.D., D.M., P.H., A.C.)
| | - Michael Dubec
- From the Leeds Institute of Medical Research (J.Z., A.S., A.H.) and Department of Biomedical Imaging (D.B.), University of Leeds, 6 Clarendon Way, Woodhouse, Leeds LS2 9LH, England; Leeds Cancer Centre, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, England (J.Z., A.S., A.H.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany (M.K.); Radiation Therapy Research Group (M.K., P.M., A.D., C.E., M.D., P.H., A.C.) and Division of Cancer Sciences (D.M.), University of Manchester, Manchester, England; and The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England (P.M., C.E., M.D., D.M., P.H., A.C.)
| | - Damien McHugh
- From the Leeds Institute of Medical Research (J.Z., A.S., A.H.) and Department of Biomedical Imaging (D.B.), University of Leeds, 6 Clarendon Way, Woodhouse, Leeds LS2 9LH, England; Leeds Cancer Centre, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, England (J.Z., A.S., A.H.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany (M.K.); Radiation Therapy Research Group (M.K., P.M., A.D., C.E., M.D., P.H., A.C.) and Division of Cancer Sciences (D.M.), University of Manchester, Manchester, England; and The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England (P.M., C.E., M.D., D.M., P.H., A.C.)
| | - David Buckley
- From the Leeds Institute of Medical Research (J.Z., A.S., A.H.) and Department of Biomedical Imaging (D.B.), University of Leeds, 6 Clarendon Way, Woodhouse, Leeds LS2 9LH, England; Leeds Cancer Centre, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, England (J.Z., A.S., A.H.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany (M.K.); Radiation Therapy Research Group (M.K., P.M., A.D., C.E., M.D., P.H., A.C.) and Division of Cancer Sciences (D.M.), University of Manchester, Manchester, England; and The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England (P.M., C.E., M.D., D.M., P.H., A.C.)
| | - Andrew Scarsbrook
- From the Leeds Institute of Medical Research (J.Z., A.S., A.H.) and Department of Biomedical Imaging (D.B.), University of Leeds, 6 Clarendon Way, Woodhouse, Leeds LS2 9LH, England; Leeds Cancer Centre, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, England (J.Z., A.S., A.H.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany (M.K.); Radiation Therapy Research Group (M.K., P.M., A.D., C.E., M.D., P.H., A.C.) and Division of Cancer Sciences (D.M.), University of Manchester, Manchester, England; and The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England (P.M., C.E., M.D., D.M., P.H., A.C.)
| | - Peter Hoskin
- From the Leeds Institute of Medical Research (J.Z., A.S., A.H.) and Department of Biomedical Imaging (D.B.), University of Leeds, 6 Clarendon Way, Woodhouse, Leeds LS2 9LH, England; Leeds Cancer Centre, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, England (J.Z., A.S., A.H.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany (M.K.); Radiation Therapy Research Group (M.K., P.M., A.D., C.E., M.D., P.H., A.C.) and Division of Cancer Sciences (D.M.), University of Manchester, Manchester, England; and The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England (P.M., C.E., M.D., D.M., P.H., A.C.)
| | - Ann Henry
- From the Leeds Institute of Medical Research (J.Z., A.S., A.H.) and Department of Biomedical Imaging (D.B.), University of Leeds, 6 Clarendon Way, Woodhouse, Leeds LS2 9LH, England; Leeds Cancer Centre, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, England (J.Z., A.S., A.H.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany (M.K.); Radiation Therapy Research Group (M.K., P.M., A.D., C.E., M.D., P.H., A.C.) and Division of Cancer Sciences (D.M.), University of Manchester, Manchester, England; and The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England (P.M., C.E., M.D., D.M., P.H., A.C.)
| | - Ananya Choudhury
- From the Leeds Institute of Medical Research (J.Z., A.S., A.H.) and Department of Biomedical Imaging (D.B.), University of Leeds, 6 Clarendon Way, Woodhouse, Leeds LS2 9LH, England; Leeds Cancer Centre, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, England (J.Z., A.S., A.H.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany (M.K.); Radiation Therapy Research Group (M.K., P.M., A.D., C.E., M.D., P.H., A.C.) and Division of Cancer Sciences (D.M.), University of Manchester, Manchester, England; and The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England (P.M., C.E., M.D., D.M., P.H., A.C.)
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Herr DJ, Elliott DA, Duchesne G, Stensland KD, Caram ME, Chapman C, Burns JA, Hollenbeck BK, Sparks JB, Shin C, Zaslavsky A, Tsodikov A, Skolarus TA. Outcomes after definitive radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer in a national health care delivery system. Cancer 2023; 129:3326-3333. [PMID: 37389814 PMCID: PMC10528965 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.34916] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/10/2023] [Revised: 05/10/2023] [Accepted: 05/18/2023] [Indexed: 07/01/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Accurate information regarding real-world outcomes after contemporary radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer is important for shared decision-making. Clinically relevant end points at 10 years among men treated within a national health care delivery system were examined. METHODS National administrative, cancer registry, and electronic health record data were used for patients undergoing definitive radiation therapy with or without concurrent androgen deprivation therapy within the Veterans Health Administration from 2005 to 2015. National Death Index data were used through 2019 for overall and prostate cancer-specific survival and identified date of incident metastatic prostate cancer using a validated natural language processing algorithm. Metastasis-free, prostate cancer-specific, and overall survival using Kaplan-Meier methods were estimated. RESULTS Among 41,735 men treated with definitive radiation therapy, the median age at diagnosis was 65 years and median follow-up was 8.7 years. Most had intermediate (42%) and high-risk (33%) disease, with 40% receiving androgen deprivation therapy as part of initial therapy. Unadjusted 10-year metastasis-free survival was 96%, 92%, and 80% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk disease. Similarly, unadjusted 10-year prostate cancer-specific survival was 98%, 97%, and 90% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk disease. The unadjusted overall survival was lower across increasing disease risk categories at 77%, 71%, and 62% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk disease (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS These data provide population-based 10-year benchmarks for clinically relevant end points, including metastasis-free survival, among patients with localized prostate cancer undergoing radiation therapy using contemporary techniques. The survival rates for high-risk disease in particular suggest that outcomes have recently improved.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel J. Herr
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - David A. Elliott
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI
| | | | | | - Megan E.V. Caram
- HSR&D Center for Clinical Management Research, Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | | | - Jennifer A. Burns
- HSR&D Center for Clinical Management Research, Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI
| | | | - Jordan B. Sparks
- HSR&D Center for Clinical Management Research, Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Chris Shin
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | | | | | - Ted A. Skolarus
- HSR&D Center for Clinical Management Research, Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI
- Section of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Zhao Y, Haworth A, Rowshanfarzad P, Ebert MA. Focal Boost in Prostate Cancer Radiotherapy: A Review of Planning Studies and Clinical Trials. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:4888. [PMID: 37835581 PMCID: PMC10572027 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15194888] [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: 08/17/2023] [Revised: 09/28/2023] [Accepted: 10/05/2023] [Indexed: 10/15/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Focal boost radiotherapy was developed to deliver elevated doses to functional sub-volumes within a target. Such a technique was hypothesized to improve treatment outcomes without increasing toxicity in prostate cancer treatment. PURPOSE To summarize and evaluate the efficacy and variability of focal boost radiotherapy by reviewing focal boost planning studies and clinical trials that have been published in the last ten years. METHODS Published reports of focal boost radiotherapy, that specifically incorporate dose escalation to intra-prostatic lesions (IPLs), were reviewed and summarized. Correlations between acute/late ≥G2 genitourinary (GU) or gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity and clinical factors were determined by a meta-analysis. RESULTS By reviewing and summarizing 34 planning studies and 35 trials, a significant dose escalation to the GTV and thus higher tumor control of focal boost radiotherapy were reported consistently by all reviewed studies. Reviewed trials reported a not significant difference in toxicity between focal boost and conventional radiotherapy. Acute ≥G2 GU and late ≥G2 GI toxicities were reported the most and least prevalent, respectively, and a negative correlation was found between the rate of toxicity and proportion of low-risk or intermediate-risk patients in the cohort. CONCLUSION Focal boost prostate cancer radiotherapy has the potential to be a new standard of care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yutong Zhao
- School of Physics, Mathematics and Computing, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia; (P.R.); (M.A.E.)
| | - Annette Haworth
- Institute of Medical Physics, School of Physics, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2050, Australia;
| | - Pejman Rowshanfarzad
- School of Physics, Mathematics and Computing, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia; (P.R.); (M.A.E.)
- Centre for Advanced Technologies in Cancer Research (CATCR), Perth, WA 6000, Australia
| | - Martin A. Ebert
- School of Physics, Mathematics and Computing, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia; (P.R.); (M.A.E.)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, WA 6009, Australia
- 5D Clinics, Claremont, WA 6010, Australia
- School of Medicine and Population Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison WI 53706, USA
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Benitez CM, Steinberg ML, Cao M, Qi XS, Lamb JM, Kishan AU, Valle LF. MRI-Guided Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: The Next Frontier in Ultrahypofractionation. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:4657. [PMID: 37760626 PMCID: PMC10526919 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15184657] [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: 07/30/2023] [Revised: 09/06/2023] [Accepted: 09/18/2023] [Indexed: 09/29/2023] Open
Abstract
Technological advances in MRI-guided radiation therapy (MRIgRT) have improved real-time visualization of the prostate and its surrounding structures over CT-guided radiation therapy. Seminal studies have demonstrated safe dose escalation achieved through ultrahypofractionation with MRIgRT due to planning target volume (PTV) margin reduction and treatment gating. On-table adaptation with MRI-based technologies can also incorporate real-time changes in target shape and volume and can reduce high doses of radiation to sensitive surrounding structures that may move into the treatment field. Ongoing clinical trials seek to refine ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy treatments for prostate cancer using MRIgRT. Though these studies have the potential to demonstrate improved biochemical control and reduced side effects, limitations concerning patient treatment times and operational workflows may preclude wide adoption of this technology outside of centers of excellence. In this review, we discuss the advantages and limitations of MRIgRT for prostate cancer, as well as clinical trials testing the efficacy and toxicity of ultrafractionation in patients with localized or post-prostatectomy recurrent prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Luca F. Valle
- Department of Radiation Oncology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095-6951, USA (X.S.Q.)
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Lee TH, Pyo H, Yoo GS, Lee HM, Jeon SS, Seo SI, Jeong BC, Jeon HG, Sung HH, Kang M, Song W, Chung JH, Bae BK, Park W. Prostate-specific antigen kinetics in hypofractionated radiation therapy alone for intermediate- and high-risk localized prostate cancer. Prostate Int 2023; 11:173-179. [PMID: 37745907 PMCID: PMC10513905 DOI: 10.1016/j.prnil.2023.07.002] [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: 06/19/2023] [Revised: 07/12/2023] [Accepted: 07/16/2023] [Indexed: 09/26/2023] Open
Abstract
Background This study aimed to evaluate the treatment outcomes and define the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics as potential prognostic factors in patients with intermediate- or high-risk localized prostate cancer (PCa) who underwent moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy. Methods The study retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 149 patients with intermediate- or high-risk localized PCa who underwent definitive radiation therapy (70 Gy in 28 fractions) without androgen deprivation therapy. Clinical outcomes were analyzed based on risk stratification (favorable-intermediate, unfavorable-intermediate, and high-risk). The biochemical failure rate (BFR) and clinical failure rate (CFR) were stratified based on the PSA nadir and the time to the PSA nadir to identify the prognostic effect of PSA kinetics. Acute and late genitourinary and gastrointestinal adverse events were analyzed. Results Significant differences were observed in the BFR and CFR according to risk stratification. No recurrence was observed in the favorable intermediate-risk group. The 7-year BFR and CFR for the unfavorable intermediate-risk and high-risk groups were 19.2% and 9.8%, and 31.1% and 25.3%, respectively. Patients with a PSA nadir >0.33 ng/mL or a time to the PSA nadir <36 months had a significantly greater BFR and CFR. The crude rate of grade 3 late adverse events was 3.4% (genitourinary: 0.7%; gastrointestinal: 2.7%). No grade 4-5 adverse event was reported. Conclusion A significant difference in clinical outcomes was observed according to risk stratification. The PSA nadir and time to the PSA nadir were strongly associated with the BFR and CFR. Therefore, PSA kinetics during follow-up are important for predicting prognosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tae Hoon Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Hongryull Pyo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Gyu Sang Yoo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Hyun Moo Lee
- Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Seong Soo Jeon
- Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Seong Il Seo
- Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Byong Chang Jeong
- Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Hwang Gyun Jeon
- Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Hyun Hwan Sung
- Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Minyong Kang
- Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Wan Song
- Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Jae Hoon Chung
- Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Bong Kyung Bae
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kyungpook National University Chilgok Hospital, Daegu, Korea
| | - Won Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
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
|
31
|
Arumugam S, Young T, Do V, Chlap P, Tawfik C, Udovitch M, Wong K, Sidhom M. Assessment of intrafraction motion and its dosimetric impact on prostate radiotherapy using an in-house developed position monitoring system. Front Oncol 2023; 13:1082391. [PMID: 37519787 PMCID: PMC10375704 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1082391] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/28/2022] [Accepted: 06/27/2023] [Indexed: 08/01/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose To implement an in-house developed position monitoring software, SeedTracker, for conventional fractionation prostate radiotherapy, and study the effect on dosimetric impact and intrafraction motion. Methods Thirty definitive prostate radiotherapy patients with implanted fiducial markers were included in the study. All patients were treated with VMAT technique and plans were generated using the Pinnacle planning system using the 6MV beam model for Elekta linear accelerator. The target dose of 60 Gy in 20 fractions was prescribed for 29 of 30 patients, and one patient was treated with the target dose of 78 Gy in 39 fractions. The SeedTracker position monitoring system, which uses the x-ray images acquired during treatment delivery in the Elekta linear accelerator and associated XVI system, was used for online prostate position monitoring. The position tolerance for online verification was progressively reduced from 5 mm, 4 mm, and to 3 mm in 10 patient cohorts to effectively manage the treatment interruptions resulting from intrafraction motion in routine clinical practice. The delivered dose to target volumes and organs at risk in each of the treatment fractions was assessed by incorporating the observed target positions into the original treatment plan. Results In 27 of 30 patients, at least one gating event was observed, with a total of 177 occurrences of position deviation detected in 146 of 619 treatment fractions. In 5 mm, 4 mm, and 3 mm position tolerance cohorts, the position deviations were observed in 13%, 24%, and 33% of treatment fractions, respectively. Overall, the mean (range) deviation of -0.4 (-7.2 to 5.3) mm, -0.9 (-6.1 to 15.6) mm, and -1.7 (-7.0 to 6.1) mm was observed in Left-Right, Anterior-Posterior, and Superior-Inferior directions, respectively. The prostate CTV D99 would have been reduced by a maximum value of 1.3 Gy compared to the planned dose if position deviations were uncorrected, but with corrections, it was 0.3 Gy. Similarly, PTV D98 would have been reduced by a maximum value of 7.6 Gy uncorrected, with this difference reduced to 2.2 Gy with correction. The V60 to the rectum increased by a maximum of 1.0% uncorrected, which was reduced to 0.5%. Conclusion Online target position monitoring for conventional fractionation prostate radiotherapy was successfully implemented on a standard Linear accelerator using an in-house developed position monitoring software, with an improvement in resultant dose to prostate target volume.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sankar Arumugam
- Department of Medical Physics, Liverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centres and Ingham Institute, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- South Western Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Tony Young
- Department of Medical Physics, Liverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centres and Ingham Institute, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Institute of Medical Physics, School of Physics, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Viet Do
- South Western Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Liverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centres, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Phillip Chlap
- Department of Medical Physics, Liverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centres and Ingham Institute, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- South Western Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Christine Tawfik
- Department of Radiation Therapy, Liverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centres, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Mark Udovitch
- Department of Radiation Therapy, Liverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centres, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Karen Wong
- South Western Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Liverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centres, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Mark Sidhom
- South Western Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Liverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centres, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Feng SQ, Brouwer CL, Korevaar EW, Vapiwala N, Kang-Hsin Wang K, Deville C, Langendijk JA, Both S, Aluwini S. Dose evaluation of inter- and intra-fraction prostate motion in extremely hypofractionated intensity-modulated proton therapy for prostate cancer. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol 2023; 27:100474. [PMID: 37560512 PMCID: PMC10407426 DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2023.100474] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/26/2023] [Revised: 07/11/2023] [Accepted: 07/12/2023] [Indexed: 08/11/2023] Open
Abstract
Inter- and intra-fractional prostate motion can deteriorate the dose distribution in extremely hypofractionated intensity-modulated proton therapy. We used verification CTs and prostate motion data calculated from 1024 intra-fractional prostate motion records to develop a voxel-wise based 4-dimensional method, which had a time resolution of 1 s, to assess the dose impact of prostate motion. An example of 100 fractional simulations revealed that motion had minimal impact on planning dose, the accumulated dose in 95 % of the scenarios fulfilled the clinical goals for target coverage (D95 > 37.5 Gy). This method can serve as a complementary measure in clinical setting to guarantee plan quality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sen-Quan Feng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Charlotte L. Brouwer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Erik W. Korevaar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Neha Vapiwala
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Ken Kang-Hsin Wang
- Biomedical Imaging and Radiation Technology Laboratory (BIRTLab), Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA
| | - Curtiland Deville
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Johannes A. Langendijk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Stefan Both
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Shafak Aluwini
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Oh J, Tyldesley S, Pai H, McKenzie M, Halperin R, Duncan G, Morton G, Keyes M, Hamm J, Morris WJ. An Updated Analysis of the Survival Endpoints of ASCENDE-RT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 115:1061-1070. [PMID: 36528488 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.11.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/11/2022] [Revised: 10/20/2022] [Accepted: 11/01/2022] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Using the primary endpoint of time to biochemical progression (TTP), Androgen Suppression Combined with Elective Nodal and Dose Escalated Radiation Therapy (ASCENDE-RT) randomized National Comprehensive Cancer Network patients with intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer to low-dose-rate brachytherapy boost (LDR-PB) or dose-escalated external beam boost (DE-EBRT). Randomization to the LDR-PB arm resulted in a 2-fold reduction in biochemical progression compared with the DE-EBRT group at a median follow-up of 6.5 years (P < .001). Herein, the primary endpoint and secondary survival endpoints of the ASCENDE-RT trial are updated at a 10-year median follow-up. METHODS Patients were randomly assigned to either the LDR-PB or the DE-EBRT arm (1:1). All patients received 1 year of androgen deprivation therapy and 46 Gy in 23 fractions of pelvic RT. Patients in the DE-EBRT arm received an additional 32 Gy in 16 fractions, and those in the LDR-PB arm received an 125I implant prescribed to a minimum peripheral dose of 115 Gy. Two hundred patients were randomized to the DE-EBRT arm and 198 to the LDR-PB arm. RESULTS The 10-year Kaplan-Meier TTP estimate was 85% ± 5% for LDR-PB compared with 67% ± 7% for DE-EBRT (log rank P < .001). Ten-year time to distant metastasis (DM) was 88% ± 5% for the LDR-PB arm and 86% ± 6% for the DE-EBRT arm (P = .56). There were 117 (29%) deaths. Ten-year overall survival (OS) estimates were 80% ± 6% for the LDR-PB arm and 75% ± 7% for the DE-EBRT arm (P = .51). There were 30 (8%) patients who died of prostate cancer: 12 (6%) in the LDR-PB arm, including 2 treatment-related deaths, and 18 (9%) in the DE-EBRT arm. CONCLUSIONS Men randomized to the LDR-PB boost arm of the ASCENDE-RT trial continue to experience a large advantage in TTP compared with those randomized to the DE-EBRT arm. ASCENDE-RT was not powered to detect differences in its secondary survival endpoints (OS, DM, and time to prostate cancer-specific death) and none are apparent.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Justin Oh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, BC Cancer - Vancouver, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Scott Tyldesley
- Department of Radiation Oncology, BC Cancer - Vancouver, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
| | - Howard Pai
- Department of Radiation Oncology, BC Cancer - Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Michael McKenzie
- Department of Radiation Oncology, BC Cancer - Vancouver, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Ross Halperin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, BC Cancer - Kelowna, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Graeme Duncan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, BC Cancer - Vancouver, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Gerard Morton
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Mira Keyes
- Department of Radiation Oncology, BC Cancer - Vancouver, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Jeremy Hamm
- Department of Population Oncology, BC Cancer Agency, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - W James Morris
- Department of Radiation Oncology, BC Cancer - Vancouver, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Kim S, Kong JH, Lee Y, Lee JY, Kang TW, Kong TH, Kim MH, You SH. Dose-escalated radiotherapy for clinically localized and locally advanced prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023; 3:CD012817. [PMID: 36884035 PMCID: PMC9994460 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd012817.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/09/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer include radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, brachytherapy, active surveillance, hormonal therapy, and watchful waiting. For external beam radiation therapy, oncological outcomes may be expected to improve as the dose of radiotherapy (RT) increases. However, radiation-mediated side effects on surrounding critical organs may also increase. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of dose-escalated RT in comparison with conventional dose RT for curative treatment of clinically localized and locally advanced prostate cancer. SEARCH METHODS We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases including trial registries and other sources of grey literature, up until 20 July 2022. We applied no restrictions on publication language or status. SELECTION CRITERIA We included parallel-arm randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of definitive RT in men with clinically localized and locally advanced prostate adenocarcinoma. RT was dose-escalated RT (equivalent dose in 2 Gy [EQD2] ≥ 74 Gy, lesser than 2.5 Gy per fraction) versus conventional RT (EQD2 < 74 Gy, 1.8 Gy or 2.0 Gy per fraction). Two review authors independently classified studies for inclusion or exclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently abstracted data from the included studies. We performed statistical analyses by using a random-effects model and interpreted them according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used GRADE guidance to rate the certainty of the evidence of RCTs. MAIN RESULTS We included nine studies with 5437 men in an analysis comparing dose-escalated RT versus conventional dose RT for the treatment of prostate cancer. The mean participant age ranged from 67 to 71 years. Almost all men had localized prostate cancer (cT1-3N0M0). Primary outcomes Dose-escalated RT probably results in little to no difference in time to death from prostate cancer (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.04; I2 = 0%; 8 studies; 5231 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Assuming a risk of death from prostate cancer of 4 per 1000 at 10 years in the conventional dose RT group, this corresponds to 1 fewer men per 1000 (1 fewer to 0 more) dying of prostate cancer in the dose-escalated RT group. Dose-escalated RT probably results in little to no difference in severe RT toxicity of grade 3 or higher late gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.25; I2 = 0%; 8 studies; 4992 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); 23 more men per 1000 (10 more to 40 more) in the dose-escalated RT group assuming severe late GI toxicity as 32 per 1000 in the conventional dose RT group. Dose-escalated RT probably results in little to no difference in severe late genitourinary (GU) toxicity (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.63; I2 = 0%; 8 studies; 4962 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); 9 more men per 1000 (2 fewer to 23 more) in the dose-escalated RT group assuming severe late GU toxicity as 37 per 1000 in the conventional dose RT group. Secondary outcomes Dose-escalated RT probably results in little to no difference in time to death from any cause (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; I2 = 0%; 9 studies; 5437 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Assuming a risk of death from any cause of 101 per 1000 at 10 years in the conventional dose RT group, this corresponds to 2 fewer men per 1000 (11 fewer to 9 more) in the dose-escalated RT group dying of any cause. Dose-escalated RT probably results in little to no difference in time to distant metastasis (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.22; I2 = 45%; 7 studies; 3499 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Assuming a risk of distant metastasis of 29 per 1000 in the conventional dose RT group at 10 years, this corresponds to 5 fewer men per 1000 (12 fewer to 6 more) in the dose-escalated RT group developing distant metastases. Dose-escalated RT may increase overall late GI toxicity (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.55; I2 = 85%; 7 studies; 4328 participants; low-certainty evidence); 92 more men per 1000 (14 more to 188 more) in the dose-escalated RT group assuming overall late GI toxicity as 342 per 1000 in the conventional dose RT group. However, dose-escalated RT may result in little to no difference in overall late GU toxicity (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.29; I2 = 51%; 7 studies; 4298 participants; low-certainty evidence); 34 more men per 1000 (9 fewer to 82 more) in the dose-escalated RT group assuming overall late GU toxicity as 283 per 1000 in the conventional dose RT group. Based on long-term follow-up (up to 36 months), dose-escalated RT may result or probably results in little to no difference in the quality of life using 36-Item Short Form Survey; physical health (MD -3.9, 95% CI -12.78 to 4.98; 1 study; 300 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and mental health (MD -3.6, 95% CI -83.85 to 76.65; 1 study; 300 participants; low-certainty evidence), respectively. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Compared to conventional dose RT, dose-escalated RT probably results in little to no difference in time to death from prostate cancer, time to death from any cause, time to distant metastasis, and RT toxicities (except overall late GI toxicity). While dose-escalated RT may increase overall late GI toxicity, it may result, or probably results, in little to no difference in physical and mental quality of life, respectively.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sunghyun Kim
- Department of Radation Oncology, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Korea, South
| | - Jee Hyun Kong
- Department of Hematology-Oncology, Division of Internal Medicine, Wonju Severance Christian Hospital, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Korea, South
- Center of Evidence Based Medicine, Institute of Convergence Science, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea, South
| | - YoHan Lee
- Department of Radation Oncology, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Korea, South
| | - Jun Young Lee
- Center of Evidence Based Medicine, Institute of Convergence Science, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea, South
- Department of Nephrology, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Korea, South
| | - Tae Wook Kang
- Department of Urology, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Korea, South
| | - Tae Hoon Kong
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology Head and neck surgery, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Korea, South
| | - Myung Ha Kim
- Yonsei Wonju Medical Library, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Korea, South
| | - Sei Hwan You
- Department of Radation Oncology, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Korea, South
- Center of Evidence Based Medicine, Institute of Convergence Science, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea, South
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Sanmamed N, Joseph L, Crook J, Craig T, Warde P, Tomasso AD, Chung P, Berlin A, Bayley A, Saibishkumar EP, Glicksman R, Raman S, Catton C, Helou J. Long-term oncologic outcomes of low dose-rate brachytherapy compared to hypofractionated external beam radiotherapy for intermediate -risk prostate cancer. Brachytherapy 2023; 22:188-194. [PMID: 36549968 DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2022.09.159] [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: 05/13/2022] [Revised: 09/15/2022] [Accepted: 09/23/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To compare the long-term oncologic outcomes of intermediate risk (IR) prostate cancer (PCa) patients treated with low dose-rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT) or moderate hypofractionated external beam radiotherapy (HF-EBRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS Patients diagnosed with IR PCa and treated with LDR-BT or HF-EBRT between January 2005 and December 2013 were included. Brachytherapy treatment involved a transperineal implant of iodine-125 to a dose of 145 Gy to the PTV, while HF-EBRT was delivered using intensity modulated radiotherapy with 60 Gy in 20 fractions. The Phoenix ''nadir +2'' threshold was used to define biochemical relapse (BR). The cumulative incidence function (CIF) of BR and metastases was reported for each group and compared using the Gray's test to account for the competing risk of death. The Kaplan-Meier (KM) method was used to estimate overall survival (OS) and prostate cancer specific survival (PCSS). Univariate (UVA) and multivariable (MVA) analysis of the CIF of BR and metastases were performed. A 2-tailed p-value ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS Overall, 122 and 124 patients were treated with LDR-BT and HF-EBRT respectively. Median follow-up was 95 months [interquartile range (IQR): 79-118] in the LDR-BT group and 96 months (IQR: 63-123) in the HF-EBRT group. BR was observed in 5 patients treated with LDR-BT and 34 treated with HF-EBRT. At 60 and 90 months, the CIF of BR was 0.9% and 3.5% in the LDR-BT group vs. 16.6% and 23.7% in the HF-EBRT (p < 0.001). The CIF of metastases at 90 and 108 months, was 0% and 1.6% vs. 3.4% and 9.1% in the LDR-BT and HF-EBRT groups (p = 0.003), respectively. At the last follow-up, 3 patients treated with HF-EBRT died from their cancer [PCSS of 97.5% at 8 years and none died in the LDR-BT group (p = 0.09). On UVA and MVA risk group and treatment modality were independently associated with CIF of BR. On UVA HF-EBRT and ISUP grade group 3 were associated with metastases. CONCLUSION LDR-BT was associated with higher biochemical and metastases control in our cohort when compared to moderately HF-EBRT. In the absence of a randomized trial, LDR-BT when feasible should be offered to patients with a life expectancy of >8 years.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Noelia Sanmamed
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Clinico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain; Investigation institute, Clinico San Carlos Hospital, Madrid, Spain
| | - Lisa Joseph
- Department of Clinical Oncology, St James University Hospital, Leeds, UK
| | - Juanita Crook
- BC Cancer and University of British Columbia, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Tim Craig
- Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Canada
| | - Padraig Warde
- Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Anne Di Tomasso
- Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Canada
| | - Peter Chung
- Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Alejandro Berlin
- Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada; TECHNA Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Andrew Bayley
- Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
| | | | - Rachel Glicksman
- Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Srinivas Raman
- Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Charles Catton
- Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Joelle Helou
- Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Ma CMC, Shan G, Hu W, Price RA, Chen L. A new target localization method for image-guided radiation therapy of prostate cancer. Phys Med 2023; 107:102550. [PMID: 36870203 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2023.102550] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/18/2022] [Revised: 01/24/2023] [Accepted: 02/18/2023] [Indexed: 03/06/2023] Open
Abstract
In imaged-guided radiation therapy (IGRT), target localization is usually done with rigid-body registration based on anatomy matching. Problems arise when the target volume can only be matched partially due to inter-fractional organ motion and deformation, resulting in deteriorated target coverage and critical structure sparing. A new target localization method is investigated in which the treatment target volume is aligned with the prescription isodose surface. Our study included 15 prostate patients previously treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Patient setup and target localization were performed using a CT-on-rails system before and after the IMRT treatment. IMRT plans were generated on the original simulation CTs (15) and the same MUs and leaf sequences were used to compute the dose distributions on post-treatment CTs (98) with the isocenter adjustments based on either anatomical structure matching or prescription isodose surface alignment. When patients were aligned with the traditional anatomy matching method, the dose to 95% of the CTV, D95, received 74.0 - 77.6 Gy and the minimum CTV dose, Dmin, was 61.9 - 71.6 Gy, respectively, in the cumulative dose distributions. The rectal dose-volume constraints were violated in 35.7% of the treatment fractions. When patients were aligned using the new localization method, the dose to 95% of the CTV, D95, received 74.0 - 78.2 Gy and the minimum CTV dose, Dmin, was 68.4 - 71.6 Gy, respectively, in the cumulative dose distributions. The rectal dose-volume constraints were violated in 17.3% of the treatment fractions. Traditional IGRT target localization based on anatomy matching is effective for population-based PTV margins but not ideal for those patients with large inter-fractional prostate rotation/deformation due to large rectal and bladder volume variation. The new method using the prescription isodose surface to align the target volume could improve the target coverage and rectal sparing for these patients, which can be implemented clinically to improve target dose delivery accuracy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- C M Charlie Ma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
| | - Guoping Shan
- Department of Radiation Physics, Zhejiang Key Lab of Radiation Oncology, Hangzhou, China
| | - Wei Hu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Taizhou Central Hospital, Zhejiang, China
| | - Robert A Price
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Lili Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Mäkelä P, Wright C, Anttinen M, Boström PJ, Blanco Sequeiros R. Safety and efficacy of MRI-guided transurethral ultrasound ablation for radiorecurrent prostate cancer in the presence of gold fiducial markers. Acta Radiol 2023; 64:1228-1237. [PMID: 35748746 DOI: 10.1177/02841851221108292] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Safety and efficacy of ultrasound prostate ablation for radiorecurrent prostate cancer (PCa) in the presence of gold fiducial markers has not been previously reported. PURPOSE To evaluate safety, functional, and early-stage oncological outcomes for patients with gold fiducial markers undergoing salvage magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided transurethral ultrasound ablation (sTULSA) for radiorecurrent PCa. MATERIAL AND METHODS Data were acquired from an ethics-approved, single-center phase-1 study. Eight patients with 18 total gold fiducial markers inside the planned treatment volume were identified. MRI controls were performed at three and 12 months, followed by PSMA-PET-CT imaging and biopsies at 12 months. A control cohort of 13 patients who underwent sTULSA without markers were also identified for safety profile comparison. Adverse events were reported using the Clavien-Dindo classification, and questionnaires including EPIC-26, IPSS, and IIEF-5 were collected. RESULTS Of 18 markers, 2 (11%) were directly responsible for poor ultrasound penetration. However, there were no local recurrences at 12 months. PSA, prostate volume, and non-perfused volume all decreased over time. At 12 months, 11/18 (61%) of fiducial markers had disappeared via sloughing. The adverse event profile was similar between both patient cohorts, and when controlled for ablation type, no statistical difference in functional outcomes between the two cohorts was observed. CONCLUSION Patients with radiorecurrent PCa with intraprostatic gold fiducial markers can be successfully treated with TULSA. The early-stage efficacy of sTULSA for patients with intraprostatic gold markers is encouraging and the safety profile is unaffected by marker presence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pietari Mäkelä
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, 60652Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
| | - Cameron Wright
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, 60652Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
- Department of Urology, 60652Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
| | - Mikael Anttinen
- Department of Urology, 60652Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
| | - Peter J Boström
- Department of Urology, 60652Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
| | | |
Collapse
|
38
|
Cuzick J. The importance of long-term follow up of participants in clinical trials. Br J Cancer 2023; 128:432-438. [PMID: 36456713 PMCID: PMC9938165 DOI: 10.1038/s41416-022-02038-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/20/2022] [Revised: 10/13/2022] [Accepted: 10/18/2022] [Indexed: 12/05/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Jack Cuzick
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Dee EC, Taunk NK, Chino FL, Deville C, McClelland S, Muralidhar V, McBride SN, Gillespie EF, Yamoah K, Nguyen PL, Mahal BA, Winkfield KM, Vapiwala N, Santos PMG. Shorter Radiation Regimens and Treatment Noncompletion Among Patients With Breast and Prostate Cancer in the United States: An Analysis of Racial Disparities in Access and Quality. JCO Oncol Pract 2023; 19:e197-e212. [PMID: 36399692 PMCID: PMC9970278 DOI: 10.1200/op.22.00383] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/31/2022] [Revised: 09/14/2022] [Accepted: 09/30/2022] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Compared with conventional external-beam radiation therapy (cEBRT) for patients with breast cancer (BC) and prostate cancer (PC), shorter radiation regimens may be associated with lower treatment noncompletion rates. We assess disparities in receipt of shorter radiation regimens and treatment noncompletion for BC and PC. PATIENTS AND METHODS The 2004-2017 National Cancer Database was queried for adjuvant cEBRT or hypofractionated EBRT (hEBRT) for nonmetastatic BC; and definitive cEBRT, moderate hypofractionation (mEBRT), or stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for localized PC. Multivariable logistic regression identified factors associated with treatment noncompletion and receipt of shorter regimens. FINDINGS We identified 170,386 men with PC (median age [interquartile range], 70 [64-75] years; Black, 17.5%; White, 82.5%) and 306,846 women with BC (61 [52-69] years; Black, 12.3%; White, 87.7%). Among patients who received cEBRT for PC, Black men had higher treatment noncompletion rates compared with White (14.1% v 13.0%; odds ratio [95% CI] 1.07 [1.03 to 1.12]; P < .001). In contrast, treatment noncompletion was not disparate with SBRT (Black 1.6% v White 1.3%; 1.20 [0.72 to 2.00], P = .49) or mEBRT (Black 9.0% v White 7.1%; 1.05 [0.72 to 1.54], P = .79). From 2004 to 2017, SBRT (0.07% to 11.8%; 1.32 [1.31 to 1.33]) and mEBRT (0.35% to 9.1%; 1.27 [1.25 to 1.28]) increased (both P < .001); however, Black men were consistently less likely to receive SBRT (7.4% v White, 8.3%; 0.84 [0.79 to 0.89], P < .001). Among women with BC, there were no racial differences in treatment noncompletion; however, hEBRT was associated with lower treatment noncompletion rates (1.0% v cEBRT 2.3%; 0.39 [0.35 to 0.44], P < .001). Although hEBRT for BC increased (0.8% to 35.6%) between 2004 and 2017, Black women were less likely to receive hEBRT (10.4% v 15.3%; 0.78 [0.75 to 0.81], P < .001). INTERPRETATION Black patients were consistently less likely to receive hypofractionated radiation for PC or BC, despite evidence suggesting that shorter regimens may lower rates of treatment noncompletion with similar oncologic outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Neil K. Taunk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Fumiko L. Chino
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
- Affordability Working Group, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Curtiland Deville
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
| | - Shearwood McClelland
- Departments of Radiation Oncology and Neurological Surgery, University Hospitals, Cleveland Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH
| | - Vinayak Muralidhar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana Farber Cancer Institute/Brigham & Women's Hospital, Boston, MA
| | - Sean N. McBride
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Erin F. Gillespie
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Kosj Yamoah
- Cancer Epidemiology Program, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL
| | - Paul L. Nguyen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana Farber Cancer Institute/Brigham & Women's Hospital, Boston, MA
| | - Brandon A. Mahal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL
| | - Karen M. Winkfield
- Meharry-Vanderbilt Alliance, Nashville, TN
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN
- Department of Medicine, Meharry Medical College; Nashville, TN
| | - Neha Vapiwala
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
| | | |
Collapse
|
40
|
Kon M, Okamoto H, Nakamura S, Iijima K, Chiba T, Takemori M, Nakayama H, Nakaichi T, Mikasa S, Fujii K, Urago Y, Ishikawa M, Sofue T, Katsuta S, Inaba K, Igaki H, Aso T. Planning study: prone versus supine position for stereotactic body radiotherapy in prostate by CyberKnife. JOURNAL OF RADIATION RESEARCH 2023; 64:186-194. [PMID: 36316958 PMCID: PMC9855311 DOI: 10.1093/jrr/rrac065] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/11/2022] [Revised: 05/30/2022] [Indexed: 06/16/2023]
Abstract
This study aimed to clarify the differences in radiotherapy dose characteristics and delivery efficiency between the supine and prone positions in patients with prostate cancer using the CyberKnife. The planning computed tomography (CT) and delineations of the prone position were obtained by rotating the supine CT images with delineations of 180° using image processing software. The optimization parameters for planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OARs) were based on the prone position. The optimization parameters determined for the prone position were applied to the supine position for optimization and dose calculation. The dosimetric characteristics of the PTV and OARs, and delivery efficiency were compared between the two different patient positions. The plans in the prone position resulted in better PTV conformity index (nCI), rectum V90%, V80%, V75%, V50% and bladder V50%. A significant difference was observed in treatment time and depth along the central axis (dCAX) between the two plans. The mean treatment time per fraction and dCAX for the supine and prone positions were 20.9 ± 1.7 min versus 19.8 ± 1.3 min (P = 0.019) and 151.1 ± 33.6 mm versus 233.2 ± 8.8 mm (P < 0.001), respectively. In this study the prone position was found to improve dosimetric characteristics and delivery efficiency compared with the supine position during prostate cancer treatment with the CyberKnife.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mitsuhiro Kon
- Radiation Safety and Quality Assurance Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku Tokyo, 104-0045, Japan
- Department of Radiological Technology, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku Tokyo, 104-0045, Japan
| | - Hiroyuki Okamoto
- Corresponding author. Radiation Safety and Quality Assurance Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0045, Japan 104-0045, Tokyo, Japan. Tel: +81(3)3542-2511; Fax: +81(3)3545-3567;
| | - Satoshi Nakamura
- Radiation Safety and Quality Assurance Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku Tokyo, 104-0045, Japan
| | - Kotaro Iijima
- Radiation Safety and Quality Assurance Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku Tokyo, 104-0045, Japan
| | - Takahito Chiba
- Radiation Safety and Quality Assurance Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku Tokyo, 104-0045, Japan
| | - Mihiro Takemori
- Radiation Safety and Quality Assurance Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku Tokyo, 104-0045, Japan
| | - Hiroki Nakayama
- Radiation Safety and Quality Assurance Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku Tokyo, 104-0045, Japan
| | - Tetsu Nakaichi
- Radiation Safety and Quality Assurance Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku Tokyo, 104-0045, Japan
| | - Shohei Mikasa
- Radiation Safety and Quality Assurance Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku Tokyo, 104-0045, Japan
| | - Kyohei Fujii
- Radiation Safety and Quality Assurance Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku Tokyo, 104-0045, Japan
| | - Yuka Urago
- Radiation Safety and Quality Assurance Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku Tokyo, 104-0045, Japan
| | - Masayori Ishikawa
- Faculty of Health Sciences, Hokkaido University, North12, West5, Kita-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido 060-0812, Japan
| | - Toshimitsu Sofue
- Department of Radiological Technology, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku Tokyo, 104-0045, Japan
| | - Shoichi Katsuta
- Department of Radiological Technology, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku Tokyo, 104-0045, Japan
| | - Koji Inaba
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku Tokyo, 104-0045, Japan
| | - Hiroshi Igaki
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku Tokyo, 104-0045, Japan
| | - Tomohiko Aso
- Department of Radiological Technology, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku Tokyo, 104-0045, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
Ahmad Khalil D, Wulff J, Jazmati D, Geismar D, Bäumer C, Kramer PH, Steinmeier T, Schleithoff SS, Tschirdewahn S, Hadaschik B, Timmermann B. Is an Endorectal Balloon Beneficial for Rectal Sparing after Spacer Implantation in Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with Hypofractionated Intensity-Modulated Proton Beam Therapy? A Dosimetric and Radiobiological Comparison Study. Curr Oncol 2023; 30:758-768. [PMID: 36661707 PMCID: PMC9857887 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol30010058] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/08/2022] [Revised: 12/21/2022] [Accepted: 12/29/2022] [Indexed: 01/09/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The aim of this study is to examine the dosimetric influence of endorectal balloons (ERB) on rectal sparing in prostate cancer patients with implanted hydrogel rectum spacers treated with dose-escalated or hypofractionated intensity-modulated proton beam therapy (IMPT). METHODS Ten patients with localized prostate cancer included in the ProRegPros study and treated at our center were investigated. All patients underwent placement of hydrogel rectum spacers before planning. Two planning CTs (with and without 120 cm3 fluid-filled ERB) were applied for each patient. Dose prescription was set according to the h strategy, with 72 Gray (Gy)/2.4 Gy/5× weekly to prostate + 1 cm of the seminal vesicle, and 60 Gy/2 Gy/5× weekly to prostate + 2 cm of the seminal vesicle. Planning with two laterally opposed IMPT beams was performed in both CTs. Rectal dosimetry values including dose-volume statistics and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) were compared for both plans (non-ERB plans vs. ERB plans). RESULTS For ERB plans compared with non-ERB, the reductions were 8.51 ± 5.25 Gy (RBE) (p = 0.000) and 15.76 ± 11.11 Gy (p = 0.001) for the mean and the median rectal doses, respectively. No significant reductions in rectal volumes were found after high dose levels. The use of ERB resulted in significant reduction in rectal volume after receiving 50 Gy (RBE), 40 Gy (RBE), 30 Gy (RBE), 20 Gy (RBE), and 10 Gy (RBE) with p values of 0.034, 0.008, 0.003, 0.001, and 0.001, respectively. No differences between ERB and non-ERB plans for the anterior rectum were observed. ERB reduced posterior rectal volumes in patients who received 30 Gy (RBE), 20 Gy (RBE), or 10 Gy (RBE), with p values of 0.019, 0.003, and 0.001, respectively. According to the NTCP models, no significant reductions were observed in mean or median rectal toxicity (late rectal bleeding ≥ 2, necrosis or stenosis, and late rectal toxicity ≥ 3) when using the ERB. CONCLUSION ERB reduced rectal volumes exposed to intermediate or low dose levels. However, no significant reduction in rectal volume was observed in patients receiving high or intermediate doses. There was no benefit and also no disadvantage associated with the use of ERB for late rectal toxicity, according to available NTCP models.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dalia Ahmad Khalil
- Department of Particle Therapy, University Hospital Essen, West German Proton Therapy Centre Essen (WPE), West German Cancer Center (WTZ), 45147 Essen, Germany
| | - Jörg Wulff
- Faculty of Physics, TU Dortmund University, 44227 Dortmund, Germany
| | - Danny Jazmati
- Department of Particle Therapy, University Hospital Essen, West German Proton Therapy Centre Essen (WPE), West German Cancer Center (WTZ), 45147 Essen, Germany
| | - Dirk Geismar
- Faculty of Physics, TU Dortmund University, 44227 Dortmund, Germany
| | - Christian Bäumer
- Department of Particle Therapy, University Hospital Essen, West German Proton Therapy Centre Essen (WPE), West German Cancer Center (WTZ), 45147 Essen, Germany
| | | | - Theresa Steinmeier
- Department of Particle Therapy, University Hospital Essen, West German Proton Therapy Centre Essen (WPE), West German Cancer Center (WTZ), 45147 Essen, Germany
| | | | - Stephan Tschirdewahn
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany
| | - Boris Hadaschik
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany
| | - Beate Timmermann
- Department of Particle Therapy, University Hospital Essen, West German Proton Therapy Centre Essen (WPE), West German Cancer Center (WTZ), 45147 Essen, Germany
- Faculty of Physics, TU Dortmund University, 44227 Dortmund, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), 45147 Essen, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Sanmamed N, Adleman J, Berlin A, Borg J, Lao B, Weersink R, Simeonov A, Rink A, Beiki-Ardakani A, Menard C, Chung P, Helou J. Acute toxicity and health-related quality of life outcomes of localized prostate cancer patients treated with magnetic resonance imaging-guided high-dose-rate brachytherapy: A prospective phase II trial. Brachytherapy 2023; 22:58-65. [PMID: 36414526 DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2022.08.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/20/2022] [Revised: 08/18/2022] [Accepted: 08/28/2022] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To report acute toxicity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes of a phase II clinical trial of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided prostate high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) combined with external beam radiotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS Patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) were eligible. Treatment consisted of a single 15 Gy MRI-guided HDR-BT followed by external beam radiotherapy (37.5-46 Gy depending on their risk category). Dosimetry, toxicity and HRQoL outcomes were collected prospectively at baseline, 1 and 3 months using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Version 4.0 and the expanded PCa index composite, respectively. General linear mixed modeling was conducted to assess the changes in expanded PCa index composite domain scores over time. A minimally important difference was defined as a deterioration of HRQoL scores at 3 months compared to baseline ≥ 0.5 standard deviation. A p value ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS Sixty-one patients were included. Acute grade (G)2 urinary toxicity was observed in 18 (30%) patients while 1 (2%) patient had G3 toxicity, and none had G4 toxicity. Two patients had an acute urinary retention. G2 gastrointestinal toxicity was reported by 5 (8%) patients with no G3-4. Compared to baseline, urinary HRQoL scores significantly declined at 1 month (p < 0.001) but recovered at 3 months (p > 0.05). Bowel (p < 0.001) and sexual (p < 0.001) domain scores showed a significant decline over the 3-month follow-up period. At 3 months, 44%, 49% and 57% of patients reported a minimally important difference respectively in the urinary bowel and sexual domains. CONCLUSION MRI-guided HDR-BT boost is a safe and well tolerated treatment of intermediate- and high-risk PCa in the acute setting. A longer follow-up and a comparison to ultrasound-based HDR-BT are needed to assess the potential benefit of MRI-guided prostate HDR-BT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Noelia Sanmamed
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Clinico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain; Investigation institute, Clinico San Carlos Hospital, Madrid, Spain
| | - Jenna Adleman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Lakeridge Health, Oshawa, ON, Canada
| | - Alejandro Berlin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; TECHNA Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Jette Borg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Bernadeth Lao
- Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Robert Weersink
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Anna Simeonov
- Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Alex Rink
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Akbar Beiki-Ardakani
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Cynthia Menard
- TECHNA Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM), Montreal, Canada
| | - Peter Chung
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Joelle Helou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Lakeridge Health, Oshawa, ON, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Rectal retractor in prostate radiotherapy: pros and cons. Radiat Oncol 2022; 17:204. [PMID: 36494732 PMCID: PMC9737745 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-022-02176-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/07/2022] [Accepted: 12/05/2022] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Dose escalation in prostate radiotherapy (RT) have led to improved biochemical controls and reduced the risk of distant metastases. Over the past three decades, despite technological advancements in RT planning and delivery, the rectum is a dose-limiting structure in prostate RT owing to the close anatomical proximity of the anterior rectal wall (ARW) to the prostate gland. RT-induced rectal toxicities remain a clinical challenge, limiting the prescribed dose during prostate RT. To address the spatial proximity challenge by physically increasing the distance between the posterior aspect of the prostate and the ARW, several physical devices such as endorectal balloons (ERBs), rectal hydrogel spacers, and rectal retractor (RR) have been developed. Previously, various aspects of ERBs and rectal hydrogel spacers have extensively been discussed. Over recent years, given the interest in the application of RR in prostate external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), this editorial will discuss opportunities and challenges of using RR during prostate EBRT and provide information regarding which aspects of this device need attention.
Collapse
|
44
|
Magnetic Resonance Imaging–guided Focal Boost to Intraprostatic Lesions Using External Beam Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur Urol Oncol 2022. [DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2022.10.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
|
45
|
Hjälm-Eriksson M, Ullén A, Nilsson S, Johansson H, Nilsson J, Castellanos E, Brandberg Y. High levels of health-related quality of life five years after curative treatment of prostate cancer with HDR-brachytherapy and external beam radiation. Acta Oncol 2022; 61:1179-1185. [PMID: 36062835 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2022.2115314] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE The aim of this cross-sectional study was to investigate long-term health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in men with prostate cancer treated 2002-2008 with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) combined with high dose-rate brachytherapy (HDRBT), Cohort A, and to compare these data with age-adjusted normative data. In addition, differences in HRQoL following adjustments of the brachytherapy technique in 2001 were investigated by comparing Cohort A with men treated at the same clinic from 1998-2000, Cohort B. METHODS AND MATERIAL Cohort A: 1495 men treated with EBRT 2 Gy to 50 Gy and 2 fractions of 10 Gy HDRBT at a single centre, 2002-2008, still alive at five years. As part of routine follow-up, the patients responded to the EORTC QLQ-C30 and PR-25 questionnaires. Cohort B: HRQoL data was retrieved from an earlier study from the original article. RESULTS In Cohort A, 1046 (70%) men completed the questionnaires at five years, median age 66 years. In general, HRQoL mean scores were high and similar to Swedish age-matched normative data. Concerning disease-specific HRQoL, low levels of bowel and urinary problems were reported, in contrast to a substantial effect on sexual functioning. 'No' or 'A little' problems with faecal incontinence and urinary incontinence were reported by 98% and 93% of patients, respectively. The corresponding figure for sexual functioning was 39%. A difference in the frequency of nocturia in favour of Cohort A was the only statistically significant difference between Cohort A and B found in general and disease-specific HRQOL (p = 0.03), despite modifications in the brachytherapy procedure introduced in 2001. CONCLUSION Long-term general HRQoL was rated high and comparable to an aged-matched reference population five years after treatment with combined radiotherapy. Disease-specific HRQoL was still affected, foremost in the sexual domain.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marie Hjälm-Eriksson
- Department of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.,Department of Surgery, Capio S:t Göran's Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Anders Ullén
- Department of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.,Department of Pelvic cancer, Genitourinary oncology and urology unit, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Sten Nilsson
- Department of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Hemming Johansson
- Department of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Josef Nilsson
- Department of Medical Radiation Physics and Nuclear Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Enrique Castellanos
- Department of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.,Department of Pelvic cancer, Genitourinary oncology and urology unit, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Yvonne Brandberg
- Department of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.,Department of Pelvic cancer, Genitourinary oncology and urology unit, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Laughlin BS, Silva AC, Vora SA, Keole SR, Wong WW, Schild MH, Schild SE. Long-term outcomes of prostate intensity-modulated radiation therapy incorporating a simultaneous intra-prostatic MRI-directed boost. Front Oncol 2022; 12:921465. [PMID: 36033460 PMCID: PMC9399820 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.921465] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/15/2022] [Accepted: 07/18/2022] [Indexed: 12/03/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose/objectives This retrospective study demonstrates the long-term outcomes of treating prostate cancer using intensity modulated (IMRT) with incorporation of MRI-directed boost. Materials/methods From February 2009 to February 2013, 78 men received image-guided IMRT delivering 77.4 Gy in 44 fractions with simultaneously integrated boost to 81–83 Gy to an MRI-identified lesion. Patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk prostate cancer were recommended to receive 6 and 24–36 months of adjuvant hormonal therapy, respectively. Results Median follow-up was 113 months (11–147). There were 18 low-risk, 43 intermediate-risk, and 17 high-risk patients per NCCN risk stratification included in this study. Adjuvant hormonal therapy was utilized in 32 patients (41%). The 10-year biochemical control rate for all patients was 77%. The 10-year biochemical control rates for low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk diseases were 94%, 81%, and 88%, respectively (p = 0.35). The 10-year rates of local control, distant control, and survival were 99%, 88%, and 66%, respectively. Of 25 patients who died, only four (5%) died of prostate cancer. On univariate analysis, T-category and pretreatment PSA level were associated with distant failure rate (p = 0.02). There was no grade =3 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities that persisted at the last follow-up. Conclusions This study demonstrated the long-term efficacy of using MRI to define an intra-prostatic lesion for SIB to 81–83Gy while treating the entire prostate gland to 77.4 Gy with IMRT. Our study confirms that modern MRI can be used to locally intensify dose to prostate tumors providing high long-term disease control while maintaining favorable long-term toxicity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brady S. Laughlin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, United States
| | - Alvin C. Silva
- Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, United States
| | - Sujay A. Vora
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, United States
| | - Sameer R. Keole
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, United States
| | - William W. Wong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, United States
| | | | - Steven E. Schild
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, United States
- *Correspondence: Steven E. Schild,
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
Bravi CA, Heidenreich A, Fossati N, Gandaglia G, Suardi N, Mazzone E, Stabile A, Cucchiara V, Osmonov D, Juenemann K, Karnes RJ, Kretschmer A, Buchner A, Stief C, Hiester A, Albers P, Devos G, Joniau S, Van Poppel H, Grubmüller B, Shariat S, Tilki D, Graefen M, Gill IS, Mottrie A, Karakiewicz PI, Montorsi F, Briganti A, Pfister D. Combining PSA and PET features to select candidates for salvage lymph node dissection in recurrent prostate cancer. BJUI COMPASS 2022; 4:123-129. [PMID: 36569505 PMCID: PMC9766859 DOI: 10.1002/bco2.182] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/07/2022] [Revised: 06/16/2022] [Accepted: 06/25/2022] [Indexed: 12/27/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the relationship between pre-operative PSA value, 68Ga-prostate-specific-membrane-antigen (PSMA) PET performance and oncologic outcomes after salvage lymph node dissection (sLND) for biochemical recurrent prostate cancer (PCa). Patients and methods The study included 164 patients diagnosed with ≤2 pelvic lymph-node recurrence(s) of PCa documented on 68Ga-PSMA PET scan and treated with pelvic ± retroperitoneal sLND at 11 high-volume centres between 2012 and 2019. Pathologic findings were correlated to PSA values at time of sLND, categorized in early (<0.5 ng/ml), low (0.5-0.99 ng/ml), moderate (1-1.5 ng/ml) and high (>1.5 ng/ml). Clinical recurrence (CR)-free survival after sLND was calculated using multivariable analyses and plotted over pre-operative PSA value. Results Median [interquartile range (IQR)] PSA at sLND was 1.1 (0.6, 2.0) ng/ml, and 131 (80%) patients had one positive spot at PET scan. All patients received pelvic sLND, whereas 91 (55%) men received also retroperitoneal dissection. Median (IQR) number of node removed was 15 (6, 28). The rate of positive pathology increased as a function of pre-operative PSA value, with highest rates for patients with pre-operative PSA > 1.5 ng/ml (pelvic-only sLNDs: 84%; pelvic + retroperitoneal sLNDs: 90%). After sLND, PSA ≤ 0.3 ng/ml was detected in 67 (41%) men. On multivariable analyses, pre-operative PSA was associated with PSA response (p < 0.0001). There were 51 CRs after sLND. After adjusting for confounders, we found a significant, non-linear relationship between PSA level at sLND and the 12-month CR-free survival (p < 0.0001), with the highest probability of freedom from CR for patients who received sLND at PSA level ≥1 ng/ml. Conclusions In case of PET-detected nodal recurrences amenable to sLND, salvage surgery was associated with the highest short-term oncologic outcomes when performed in men with PSA ≥ 1 ng/ml. Awaiting confirmatory data from prospective trials, these findings may help physicians to optimize the timing for 68Ga-PSMA PET in biochemical recurrent PCa.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carlo A. Bravi
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URIIRCCS Ospedale San RaffaeleMilanItaly,Department of UrologyOLV Ziekenhuis AalstAalstBelgium,ORSI AcademyGhentBelgium
| | | | - Nicola Fossati
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URIIRCCS Ospedale San RaffaeleMilanItaly
| | - Giorgio Gandaglia
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URIIRCCS Ospedale San RaffaeleMilanItaly
| | - Nazareno Suardi
- Department of Urology, Policlinico San Martino HospitalUniversity of GenovaGenoaItaly
| | - Elio Mazzone
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URIIRCCS Ospedale San RaffaeleMilanItaly
| | - Armando Stabile
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URIIRCCS Ospedale San RaffaeleMilanItaly
| | - Vito Cucchiara
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URIIRCCS Ospedale San RaffaeleMilanItaly
| | - Daniar Osmonov
- Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, Campus KielUniversity Hospital Schleswig HolsteinKielGermany
| | - Klaus‐Peter Juenemann
- Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, Campus KielUniversity Hospital Schleswig HolsteinKielGermany
| | | | | | | | - Christian Stief
- Department of UrologyLudwig‐Maximilians‐UniversityMunichGermany
| | | | - Peter Albers
- Department of Urology, Medical FacultyHeinrich‐Heine‐UniversityDüsseldorfGermany
| | - Gaëtan Devos
- Department of UrologyUniversity Hospitals LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
| | - Steven Joniau
- Department of UrologyUniversity Hospitals LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
| | | | | | - Shahrokh Shariat
- Department of UrologyMedical University of ViennaViennaAustria,Institute for Urology and Reproductive HealthSechenov UniversityMoscowRussia
| | - Derya Tilki
- Department of UrologyUniversity Hospital Hamburg‐EppendorfHamburgGermany,Martini‐Klinik Prostate Cancer CenterUniversity Hospital Hamburg‐EppendorfHamburgGermany
| | - Markus Graefen
- Department of UrologyUniversity Hospital Hamburg‐EppendorfHamburgGermany,Martini‐Klinik Prostate Cancer CenterUniversity Hospital Hamburg‐EppendorfHamburgGermany
| | - Inderbir S. Gill
- USC Institute of UrologyUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesCaliforniaUSA
| | - Alexander Mottrie
- Department of UrologyOLV Ziekenhuis AalstAalstBelgium,ORSI AcademyGhentBelgium
| | - Pierre I. Karakiewicz
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes UnitUniversity of Montreal Health CentreMontrealQuebecCanada
| | - Francesco Montorsi
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URIIRCCS Ospedale San RaffaeleMilanItaly
| | - Alberto Briganti
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URIIRCCS Ospedale San RaffaeleMilanItaly
| | - David Pfister
- Department of UrologyUniversity of CologneCologneGermany
| |
Collapse
|
48
|
Lu YC, Huang CY, Cheng CH, Huang KH, Lu YC, Chow PM, Chang YK, Pu YS, Chen CH, Lu SL, Lan KH, Jaw FS, Chen PL, Hong JH. Propensity score matching analysis comparing radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy in locally advanced prostate cancer. Sci Rep 2022; 12:12480. [PMID: 35864293 PMCID: PMC9304348 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-16700-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/22/2021] [Accepted: 07/14/2022] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
To compare clinical outcomes between the use of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy (RT) with long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in locally advanced prostate cancer (PC), 315 patients with locally advanced PC (clinical T-stage 3/4) were considered for analysis retrospectively. Propensity score-matching at a 1:1 ratio was performed. The median follow-up period was 59.2 months (IQR 39.8–87.4). There were 117 (37.1%) patients in the RP group and 198 (62.9%) patients in the RT group. RT patients were older and had higher PSA at diagnosis, higher Gleason score grade group and more advanced T-stage (all p < 0.001). After propensity score-matching, there were 68 patients in each group. Among locally advanced PC patients, treatment with RP had a higher risk of biochemical recurrence compared to the RT group. In multivariate Cox regression analysis, treatment with RT plus ADT significantly decreased the risk of biochemical failure (HR 0.162, p < 0.001), but there was no significant difference in local recurrence, distant metastasis and overall survival (p = 0.470, p = 0.268 and p = 0.509, respectively). This information supported a clinical benefit in BCR control for patients undergoing RT plus long-term ADT compared to RP.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yu-Cheng Lu
- Department of Urology, National Taiwan University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Chao-Yuan Huang
- Department of Urology, National Taiwan University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Chia-Hsien Cheng
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, National Taiwan University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Kuo-How Huang
- Department of Urology, National Taiwan University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Yu-Chuan Lu
- Institute of Biomedical Engineering, National Taiwan University, No. 1, Changde St., Zhongzheng Dist., Taipei City, 10048, Taiwan.,Department of Urology, National Taiwan University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Po-Ming Chow
- Department of Urology, National Taiwan University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Yi-Kai Chang
- Department of Urology, National Taiwan University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Yeong-Shiau Pu
- Department of Urology, National Taiwan University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Chung-Hsin Chen
- Department of Urology, National Taiwan University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Shao-Lun Lu
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, National Taiwan University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Keng-Hsueh Lan
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, National Taiwan University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Fu-Shan Jaw
- Institute of Biomedical Engineering, National Taiwan University, No. 1, Changde St., Zhongzheng Dist., Taipei City, 10048, Taiwan
| | - Pei-Ling Chen
- Department of Urology, National Taiwan University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Jian-Hua Hong
- Institute of Biomedical Engineering, National Taiwan University, No. 1, Changde St., Zhongzheng Dist., Taipei City, 10048, Taiwan. .,Department of Urology, National Taiwan University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
| |
Collapse
|
49
|
Baude J, Caubet M, Defer B, Teyssier CR, Lagneau E, Créhange G, Lescut N. Combining androgen deprivation and radiation therapy in the treatment of localised prostate cancer: summary of level 1 evidence and current gaps in knowledge. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2022; 37:1-11. [PMID: 36039172 PMCID: PMC9418036 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2022.07.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/20/2022] [Revised: 07/17/2022] [Accepted: 07/18/2022] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Jérémy Baude
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Centre Georges François Leclerc, 1 rue du professeur Marion, 21000 Dijon, France
- Corresponding author.
| | - Matthieu Caubet
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de Bourgogne, 18 Cr Général de Gaulle, 21000 Dijon, France
| | - Blanche Defer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de Bourgogne, 18 Cr Général de Gaulle, 21000 Dijon, France
| | - Charles Régis Teyssier
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de Bourgogne, 18 Cr Général de Gaulle, 21000 Dijon, France
| | - Edouard Lagneau
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de Bourgogne, 18 Cr Général de Gaulle, 21000 Dijon, France
| | - Gilles Créhange
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut Curie, 26 rue d’Ulm, 75005 Paris, France
| | - Nicolas Lescut
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de Bourgogne, 18 Cr Général de Gaulle, 21000 Dijon, France
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
Kishan AU, Wang X, Sun Y, Romero T, Michalski JM, Ma TM, Feng FY, Sandler HM, Bolla M, Maingon P, De Reijke T, Neven A, Steigler A, Denham JW, Joseph D, Nabid A, Carrier N, Souhami L, Sydes MR, Dearnaley DP, Syndikus I, Tree AC, Incrocci L, Heemsbergen WD, Pos FJ, Zapatero A, Efstathiou JA, Guerrero A, Alvarez A, San-Segundo CG, Maldonado X, Xiang M, Rettig MB, Reiter RE, Zaorsky NG, Ong WL, Dess RT, Steinberg ML, Nickols NG, Roy S, Garcia JA, Spratt DE. High-dose Radiotherapy or Androgen Deprivation Therapy (HEAT) as Treatment Intensification for Localized Prostate Cancer: An Individual Patient-data Network Meta-analysis from the MARCAP Consortium. Eur Urol 2022; 82:106-114. [PMID: 35469702 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.04.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/27/2022] [Revised: 03/22/2022] [Accepted: 04/04/2022] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The relative benefits of radiotherapy (RT) dose escalation and the addition of short-term or long-term androgen deprivation therapy (STADT or LTADT) in the treatment of prostate cancer are unknown. OBJECTIVE To perform a network meta-analysis (NMA) of relevant randomized trials to compare the relative benefits of RT dose escalation ± STADT or LTADT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS An NMA of individual patient data from 13 multicenter randomized trials was carried out for a total of 11862 patients. Patients received one of the six permutations of low-dose RT (64 to <74 Gy) ± STADT or LTADT, high-dose RT (≥74 Gy), or high-dose RT ± STADT or LTADT. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSES Metastasis-free survival (MFS) was the primary endpoint. Frequentist and Bayesian NMAs were performed to rank the various treatment strategies by MFS and biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Median follow-up was 8.8 yr (interquartile range 5.7-11.5). The greatest relative improvement in outcomes was seen for addition of LTADT, irrespective of RT dose, followed by addition of STADT, irrespective of RT dose. RT dose escalation did not improve MFS either in the absence of ADT (hazard ratio [HR] 0.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80-1.18) or with STADT (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.8-1.23) or LTADT (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.65-1.37). According to P-score ranking and rankogram analysis, high-dose RT + LTADT was the optimal treatment strategy for both BCRFS and longer-term outcomes. CONCLUSIONS Conventionally escalated RT up to 79.2 Gy, alone or in the presence of ADT, does not improve MFS, while addition of STADT or LTADT to RT alone, regardless of RT dose, consistently improves MFS. RT dose escalation does provide a high probability of improving BCRFS and, provided it can be delivered without compromising quality of life, may represent the optimal treatment strategy when used in conjunction with ADT. PATIENT SUMMARY Using a higher radiotherapy dose when treating prostate cancer does not reduce the chance of developing metastases or death, but it does reduce the chance of having a rise in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) signifying recurrence of cancer. Androgen deprivation therapy improves all outcomes. A safe increase in radiotherapy dose in conjunction with androgen deprivation therapy may be the optimal treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amar U Kishan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Department of Urology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
| | - Xiaoyan Wang
- Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Yilun Sun
- Department of Population Quantitative Health Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Tahmineh Romero
- Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Jeff M Michalski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Ting Martin Ma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Felix Y Feng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Howard M Sandler
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Michel Bolla
- Radiotherapy Department, University Hospital, Grenoble, France
| | - Philippe Maingon
- Department of Oncology, Hematology, and Supportive Care, Sorbonne University, Paris, France
| | - Theo De Reijke
- Department of Urology, Prostate Cancer Network in the Netherlands, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Anouk Neven
- Statistics Department, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium; Competence Center for Methodology and Statistics, Luxembourg Institute of Health, Strassen, Luxembourg
| | - Allison Steigler
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia
| | - James W Denham
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia
| | - David Joseph
- Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia
| | - Abdenour Nabid
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada
| | - Nathalie Carrier
- Clinical Research Center, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada
| | - Luis Souhami
- Department of Radiation Oncology, McGill University Health Centre, Montréal, QC, Canada
| | - Matt R Sydes
- Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, University College London, London, UK
| | | | | | | | - Luca Incrocci
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Wilma D Heemsbergen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Floris J Pos
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | - Jason A Efstathiou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | | | - Ana Alvarez
- Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain
| | | | | | - Michael Xiang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Matthew B Rettig
- Department of Medical Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Robert E Reiter
- Department of Urology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Nicholas G Zaorsky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Wee Loon Ong
- Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Robert T Dess
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Michael L Steinberg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Nicholas G Nickols
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Soumyajit Roy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rush University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Jorge A Garcia
- Division of Oncology, Seidman Cancer Center, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Daniel E Spratt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA
| |
Collapse
|