Radiotherapy for locally advanced prostate Cancer: dogmas and dilemmas

Early closure of phase II prospective study on acute and late tolerance of hypofractionated radiotherapy in low-risk prostate cancer patients

AIM

To assess acute and late toxicity of hypofractionated radiotherapy, its efficacy and impact on quality of life in patients with low-risk prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Since August 2006 to October 2007, 15 prostate cancer patients with favorable clinical features, aged 54-74 years (mean 67 years) entered the study. Tumor stage in the majority (73%) of patients was T2a, the mean pretreatment PSA value was 7.2 ng/ml (range 5-10.9 ng/ml). The study group was treated 3 times a week with 4 Gy per fraction to the total dose of 60 Gy within 5 weeks. 3D conformal treatment planning was used with no fiducial markers. Acute and late toxicity was evaluated using modified EORTC/RTOG/LENT scoring systems. Patients regularly filled the EORTC QLQ-PR25 questionnaires.

RESULTS

All patients completed radiotherapy according to the plan. During radiotherapy, 26% of patients had grade 1-2 rectal symptoms. The incidence of acute urinary toxicity score was 26%, 60%, and 14% for grade 0-1, 2 and 3, respectively. One year after RT, the incidence of grade 2 GI toxicity was 27%, which was the reason for an early closure of the accrual. Grade 2 late urinary toxicity was noted in 20% of patients. The mean PSA level was 0.61 ng/ml after 24 months and 0.47 ng/ml after 36 months (range: 0.06-1.54 ng/ml).

CONCLUSIONS

Low number of patients does not allow to determine the influence of hypofractionation on unsatisfactory tolerance of this regimen. Suboptimal (from the present day's perspective) target localization (no fiducial markers) could potentially explain higher than expected late GI reactions in our series.

Radiobiological comparison of two radiotherapy treatment techniques for high-risk prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

To make a radiobiological comparison, for high risk prostate cancer (T3a, PSA > 20 ng/ml or Gleason > 7) of two radiotherapy treatment techniques. One technique consists of a treatment in three phases of the pelvic nodes, vesicles and prostate using a conventional fractionation scheme of 2 Gy/fraction (SIMRT). The other technique consists of a treatment in two phases that gives simultaneously different dose levels in each phase, 2 Gy/fraction, 2.25 Gy/fraction and 2.5 Gy/fraction to the pelvic nodes, vesicles and prostate, respectively (SIBIMRT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The equivalent dose at fractionation of 2 Gy (EQD2), calculated using the linear quadratic model with α/β prostate = 1.5 Gy, was the same for both treatment strategies. For comparison the parameters employed were D95, mean dose and Tumour Control Probabilities for prostate PTV and D15, D25, D35, D50, mean dose and Normal Tissue Complication Probabilities for the rectum and bladder, with physical doses converted to EQD2. Parameters were obtained for α/β prostate = 1.5, 3 and 10 Gy and for α/β oar = 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8.

RESULTS

For prostate PTV, both treatment strategies are equivalent for α/β prostate = 1.5 Gy but for higher α/β prostate, EQD2 and TCP, decrease for the SIBIMRT technique. For the rectum and bladder when α/β oar ≤ 2 Gy, EQD2 and NTCP are lower for the SIMRT technique or equal in both techniques. For α/β oar ≥ 2-3 Gy, EQD2 and NTCP increase for the SIMRT treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

A comparison between two radiotherapy techniques is presented. The SIBIMRT technique reduces EQD2 and NTCP for α/β oar from 2 to 8 Gy.

Comparison of dose volume histograms for supine and prone position in patients irradiated for prostate cancer-A preliminary study

AIM

To compare DVHs for OARs in two different positions - prone and supine - for prostate cancer patients irradiated with a Tomotherapy unit.

BACKGROUND

In the era of dose escalation, the choice of optimal patient immobilization plays an essential role in radiotherapy of prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study included 24 patients who were allocated to 3 risk groups based on D'Amico criteria; 12 patients represented a low or intermediate and 12 a high risk group. FOR EACH PATIENT TWO TREATMENT PLANS WERE PERFORMED: one in the supine and one in the prone position. PTV included the prostate, seminal vesicles and lymph nodes for the high risk group and the prostate and seminal vesicles for the intermediate or low risk groups. DVHs for the two positions were compared according to parameters: Dmean, D70, D50 and D20 for the bladder and rectum and Dmean, D10 for the intestine. The position accuracy was verified using daily MVCT.

RESULTS

Prone position was associated with lower doses in OARs, especially in the rectum. Despite the fact that in the entire group the differences between tested parameters were not large, the Dmean and D10 for the intestine were statistically significant. In the case of irradiation only to the prostate and seminal vesicles, the prone position allowed for substantial reduction of all tested DVH parameters in the bladder and rectum, except D20 for bladder. Moreover, the Dmean and D50 parameter differences for the bladder were statistically significant. No significant differences between positions reproducibility were demonstrated.

CONCLUSION

In patients irradiated to prostate and seminal vesicles, the prone position may support sparing of the rectum and bladder. The reproducibility of position arrangement in both positions is comparable.