1
|
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
|
2
|
Liu W, Loblaw A, Laidley D, Fakir H, Mendez L, Davidson M, Kassam Z, Lee TY, Ward A, Thiessen J, Bayani J, Conyngham J, Bailey L, Andrews JD, Bauman G. Imaging Biomarkers in Prostate Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy: A Review and Clinical Trial Protocol. Front Oncol 2022; 12:863848. [PMID: 35494042 PMCID: PMC9043802 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.863848] [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: 01/27/2022] [Accepted: 03/07/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Advances in imaging have changed prostate radiotherapy through improved biochemical control from focal boost and improved detection of recurrence. These advances are reviewed in the context of prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and the ARGOS/CLIMBER trial protocol. ARGOS/CLIMBER will evaluate 1) the safety and feasibility of SBRT with focal boost guided by multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and 18F-PSMA-1007 PET and 2) imaging and laboratory biomarkers for response to SBRT. To date, response to prostate SBRT is most commonly evaluated using the Phoenix Criteria for biochemical failure. The drawbacks of this approach include lack of lesion identification, a high false-positive rate, and delay in identifying treatment failure. Patients in ARGOS/CLIMBER will receive dynamic 18F-PSMA-1007 PET and mpMRI prior to SBRT for treatment planning and at 6 and 24 months after SBRT to assess response. Imaging findings will be correlated with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and biopsy results, with the goal of early, non-invasive, and accurate identification of treatment failure.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wei Liu
- Department of Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, London Health Sciences Centre and Western University, London, ON, Canada
| | - Andrew Loblaw
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Center, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - David Laidley
- Division of Nuclear Medicine, St. Joseph's Health Centre and Western University, London, ON, Canada
| | - Hatim Fakir
- Department of Oncology and Department of Medical Biophysics, London Health Sciences Centre and Western University, London, ON, Canada
| | - Lucas Mendez
- Department of Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, London Health Sciences Centre and Western University, London, ON, Canada
| | - Melanie Davidson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Center, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Zahra Kassam
- Department of Medical Imaging, St. Joseph's Health Care and Western University, London, ON, Canada
| | - Ting-Yim Lee
- Department of Medical Biophysics, Western University and Lawson Health Research Institute, London, ON, Canada
| | - Aaron Ward
- Department of Medical Biophysics, Western University and Lawson Health Research Institute, London, ON, Canada
| | - Jonathan Thiessen
- Department of Medical Biophysics, Western University and Lawson Health Research Institute, London, ON, Canada
| | - Jane Bayani
- Ontario Institute for Cancer Research and Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | | | - Laura Bailey
- Clinical Research Unit, London Regional Cancer Program, London, ON, Canada
| | - Joseph D Andrews
- Clinical Research Unit, London Regional Cancer Program, London, ON, Canada
| | - Glenn Bauman
- Department of Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, London Health Sciences Centre and Western University, London, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Koka K, Verma A, Dwarakanath BS, Papineni RVL. Technological Advancements in External Beam Radiation Therapy (EBRT): An Indispensable Tool for Cancer Treatment. Cancer Manag Res 2022; 14:1421-1429. [PMID: 35431581 PMCID: PMC9012312 DOI: 10.2147/cmar.s351744] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/30/2021] [Accepted: 03/26/2022] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Recent technological advancements have increased the efficacy of radiotherapy, leading to effective management of cancer patients with enhanced patient survival and improved quality of life. Several important developments like multileaf collimator, integration of imaging techniques like positron emission tomography (PET) and computed tomography (CT), involvement of advanced dose calculation algorithms, and delivery techniques have increased tumor dose distribution and decreased normal tissue toxicity. Three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), stereotactic radiotherapy, image-guided radiotherapy (IGT), and particle therapy have facilitated the planning procedures, accurate tumor delineation, and dose estimation for effective personalized treatment. In this review, we present the technological advancements in various types of EBRT methods and discuss their clinical utility and associated limitations. We also reveal novel approaches of using biocompatible yttrium oxide scintillator-photosensitizer complex (YSM) that can generate X-ray induced cytotoxic reactive oxygen species, facilitating X-ray activated photodynamic therapy (XPDT (external beam) and/or iXPDT (internal X-ray source)) and azido-derivatives of 2-deoxy-D-glucose (2-DG) as agents for site-specific radiation-induced DNA damage.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Bilikere S Dwarakanath
- Central Research Facility, Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research Porur, Chennai, India
| | - Rao V L Papineni
- PACT & Health LLC, Branford, CT, USA
- Department of Surgery, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Zhou J, Yang X, Chang CW, Tian S, Wang T, Lin L, Wang Y, Janopaul-Naylor JR, Patel P, Demoor JD, Bohannon D, Stanforth A, Eaton B, McDonald MW, Liu T, Patel SA. Dosimetric Uncertainties in Dominant Intraprostatic Lesion Simultaneous Boost Using Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy. Adv Radiat Oncol 2021; 7:100826. [PMID: 34805623 PMCID: PMC8581277 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2021.100826] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/15/2021] [Revised: 08/27/2021] [Accepted: 09/20/2021] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose While intensity modulated proton therapy can deliver simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) to the dominant intraprostatic lesion (DIL) with high precision, it is sensitive to anatomic changes. We investigated the dosimetric effects from these changes based on pretreatment cone-beam computed tomographic (CBCT) images and identified the most important factors using a multilayer perceptron neural network (MLPNN). Methods and Materials DILs were contoured based on coregistered multiparametric magnetic resonance images for 25 previously treated prostate cancer patients. SIB plans were created with (1) prostate clinical target volume − V70 Gy = 98%; (2) DIL − V98 Gy > 95%; and (3) all organs at risk (OARs)"?> within clinical constraints. SIB plans were applied to daily CBCT-based deformed planning computed tomography (CT)"?>. DIL − V98 Gy, bladder/rectum maximum dose (Dmax) and volume changes, femur shifts, and the distance from DIL to organs at riskOARs"?> in both planning computed tomogramsCT"?> and CBCT were calculated. Wilcoxon signed-ranks tests were used to compare the changes. MLPNNs were used to model the change in ΔDIL − V98 Gy > 10% and bladder/rectum Dmax > 80 Gy, and the relative importance factors for the model were provided. The performances of the models were evaluated with receiver operating characteristic curves. Results Comparing initial plan to the average from evaluation plans, respectively, DIL − V98 Gy was 89.3% ± 19.9% versus 86.2% ± 21.3% (P = .151); bladder Dmax 71.9 ± 0.6 Gy versus 74.5 ± 2.9 Gy (P < .001); and rectum Dmax 70.1 ± 2.4 Gy versus 74.9 ± 9.1Gy (P = .007). Bladder and rectal volumes were 99.6% ± 39.5% and 112.8% ± 27.2%, respectively, of their initial volume. The femur shift was 3.16 ± 2.52 mm. In the modeling of ΔDIL V98 Gy > 10%, DIL to rectum distance changes, DIL to bladder distance changes, and rectum volume changes ratio are the 3 most important factors. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves were 0.89, 1.00, and 0.99 for the modeling of ΔDIL − V98 Gy > 10%, and bladder and rectum Dmax > 80 Gy, respectively. Conclusions Dosimetric changes in DIL SIB with intensity modulated proton therapy can be modeled and classified based on anatomic changes on pretreatment images by an MLPNN.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jun Zhou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Xiaofeng Yang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Chih-Wei Chang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Sibo Tian
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Tonghe Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Liyong Lin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Yinan Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | | | - Pretesh Patel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - John D Demoor
- Department of Medical Physics, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Duncan Bohannon
- Department of Medical Physics, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Alex Stanforth
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Bree Eaton
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Mark W McDonald
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Tian Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Sagar Anil Patel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| |
Collapse
|