Phase II Feasibility Study of High-Dose Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer Using Proton Boost Therapy: First Clinical Trial of Proton Beam Therapy for Prostate Cancer in Japan

Particle therapy for prostate cancer: The past, present and future

Although prostate cancer control using radiotherapy is dose‐dependent, dose–volume effects on late toxicities in organs at risk, such as the rectum and bladder, have been observed. Both protons and carbon ions offer advantageous physical properties for radiotherapy, and create favorable dose distributions using fewer portals compared with photon‐based radiotherapy. Thus, particle beam therapy using protons and carbon ions theoretically seems suitable for dose escalation and reduced risk of toxicity. However, it is difficult to evaluate the superiority of particle beam radiotherapy over photon beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer, as no clinical trials have directly compared the outcomes between the two types of therapy due to the limited number of facilities using particle beam therapy. The Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology organized a joint effort among research groups to establish standardized treatment policies and indications for particle beam therapy according to disease, and multicenter prospective studies have been planned for several common cancers. Clinical trials of proton beam therapy for intermediate‐risk prostate cancer and carbon‐ion therapy for high‐risk prostate cancer have already begun. As particle beam therapy for prostate cancer is covered by the Japanese national health insurance system as of April 2018, and the number of facilities practicing particle beam therapy has increased recently, the number of prostate cancer patients treated with particle beam therapy in Japan is expected to increase drastically. Here, we review the results from studies of particle beam therapy for prostate cancer and discuss future developments in this field.

A Literature Review of Proton Beam Therapy for Prostate Cancer in Japan

Aim: Patients of proton beam therapy (PBT) for prostate cancer had been continuously growing in number due to its promising characteristics of high dose distribution in the tumor target and a sharp distal fall-off. Considering the large number of proton beam facilities in Japan, the further increase of patients undergoing this treatment is due to the emendations by Japanese National Health Insurance (NHI) and the development of medical equipment and technology, it is necessary to know what kind of research and advancements has been done on proton therapy for prostate cancer in the country. For these reasons, this literature review was conducted. The aim of this review is to identify and discuss research studies of proton beam therapy for prostate cancer in Japan. These include observational, interventional, and secondary data analysis of published articles. Method: A literature review on published works related to proton beam therapy for prostate cancer in Japan was conducted using articles that were gathered in the PubMed database of June 2018. We went through abstracts and manuscripts written in English with the keywords ‘proton beam therapy’, ‘prostate cancer’, and ‘Japan’. Results: A total of 23 articles were included. Fourteen articles were observational studies, most of which focused on the adverse effects of Proton Beam Therapy (PBT). Seven articles were interventional studies related on treatment planning, equipment parts, as well as target positioning. Two were secondary data analysis. The included studies were published in 13 different journals by different institutions using various equipment. Conclusion: Despite the favorable results of proton beam therapy, future research should include more patients and longer follow-up schedules to clarify the definitive role of PBT, yet, up to recent retrospective studies, included in this paper, concluded that PBT can be a suitable treatment option for localized prostate cancer. In addition, interventional studies were conducted by several institutions to further embellish proton therapy.

Proton therapy for early stage prostate cancer: is there a case?

Proton-beam therapy (PBT) for prostate cancer has been in used for several decades, with its technique evolving significantly over this period. A growing number of centers now routinely utilize pencil-beam scanning as an advanced technique of PBT. Interest and controversy concerning its use have recently come under scrutiny. While the past decade has produced an assemblage of evidence suggesting that PBT is safe and effective for early stage prostate cancer, it is still unknown whether the theoretical dosimetric advantages of PBT translate into meaningful clinical improvements over routine intensity-modulated radiation therapy, which is commonly used for these patients. Outcomes from early trials using whole courses of PBT have shown mixed results when compared with routine intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Therefore, randomized trials comparing these two techniques should be undertaken, as this would help in defining the role of PBT for this patient group. This article aims to describe the basics of PBT, review the reasons for the growing interest in PBT, review the evidence for PBT, review the controversy surrounding PBT, and inquire about PBT's future in the treatment of prostate cancer, with attention to its physical properties, comparative clinical and cost-effectiveness, and advances in its delivery.

Proton Beam Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: Results from a Prospective Quality-of-Life Trial

Purpose

To report prostate cancer outcomes, toxicity, and quality of life (QOL) in men treated with proton beam therapy (PBT).

Patients and Methods

Patients were enrolled in a prospective trial. All participants received 75.6 to 78 Gy (RBE). Up to 6 months of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist therapy was allowed. The Phoenix definition defined biochemical failure. Modified Radiation Therapy Oncology Group criteria defined toxicity. Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite questionnaires objectified QOL. Clinically significant QOL decrement was defined as ≥0.5 × baseline standard deviation.

Results

In total, 423 men were analyzed. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk classification was used (low 43%; intermediate 56%; high 1%). At the 5.2-year median follow-up, overall and disease-specific survival rates were 99.8% and 100%, respectively. Cumulative biochemical failure rate was 5.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.0%-8.3%); acute grade 2 genitourinary (GU) toxicity was 46.3%; acute grade 2 gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity was 5.0% (95% CI = 3.1%-7.3%). There was no acute grade ≥3 GI or GU toxicity. Cumulative late grade 2 GU and GI toxicity was 15.9% (95% CI = 13%-20%) and 9.7% (95% CI = 6.5%-12%), respectively. There were 2 grade 3 late GI toxicities (rectal bleeding) and no late grade ≥3 GU toxicity. The 4-year mean Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite urinary, bowel, sexual, and hormonal summary scores (range; standard deviation) were 89.7 (43.8-100; 11), 91.3 (41.1-94.6; 10), 57.8 (0.0-96.2; 27.1), and 92.2 (25-95.5; 10.5), respectively. Compared with baseline, there was no clinically significant decrement in urinary, sexual, or hormonal QOL after treatment completion. A modest (<10 points), yet clinically significant, decrement in bowel QOL was appreciated throughout follow-up.

Conclusion

Contemporary PBT resulted in excellent biochemical control, minimal risk of higher-grade toxicity, and modest QOL decrement. Further investigation comparing PBT with alternative prostate cancer treatment strategies are warranted.

The comparative oncologic effectiveness of available management strategies for clinically localized prostate cancer

The primary goal of modern prostate cancer treatment paradigms is to optimize the balance of predicted benefits associated with prostate cancer treatment against the predicted harms of therapy. However, given the limitations in the existing evidence as well as the significant tradeoffs posed by each treatment, there remain myriad challenges associated with individualized prostate cancer treatment decision-making. In this review, we summarize the existing comparative effectiveness evidence of treatments for localized prostate cancer with an emphasis on oncologic control. While we focus on the major treatment categories of radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, and observation, we also provide a review of emerging therapies such as cryotherapy and high-intensity frequency ultrasound (HIFU).

Proton beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer-is the hype (and the cost) justified?

Although in use for over 40 years, proton beam therapy for prostate cancer has only recently come under public scrutiny, due to its increased cost compared to other forms of treatment. While the last decade has seen a rapid accumulation of evidence to suggest that proton beam therapy is both safe and effective in this disease site, a rigorous comparison to other radiotherapy techniques has not yet been completed. In this review, we provide an in-depth look at the evidence both supporting and questioning proton beam therapy's future role in the treatment of prostate cancer, with emphasis on its history, physical properties, comparative clinical and cost effectiveness, advances in its delivery and future promise.

Quality of life and toxicity from passively scattered and spot-scanning proton beam therapy for localized prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To report quality of life (QOL)/toxicity in men treated with proton beam therapy for localized prostate cancer and to compare outcomes between passively scattered proton therapy (PSPT) and spot-scanning proton therapy (SSPT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Men with localized prostate cancer enrolled on a prospective QOL protocol with a minimum of 2 years' follow-up were reviewed. Comparative groups were defined by technique (PSPT vs SSPT). Patients completed Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite questionnaires at baseline and every 3-6 months after proton beam therapy. Clinically meaningful differences in QOL were defined as ≥0.5 × baseline standard deviation. The cumulative incidence of modified Radiation Therapy Oncology Group grade ≥2 gastrointestinal (GI) or genitourinary (GU) toxicity and argon plasma coagulation were determined by the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

A total of 226 men received PSPT, and 65 received SSPT. Both PSPT and SSPT resulted in statistically significant changes in sexual, urinary, and bowel Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite summary scores. Only bowel summary, function, and bother resulted in clinically meaningful decrements beyond treatment completion. The decrement in bowel QOL persisted through 24-month follow-up. Cumulative grade ≥2 GU and GI toxicity at 24 months were 13.4% and 9.6%, respectively. There was 1 grade 3 GI toxicity (PSPT group) and no other grade ≥3 GI or GU toxicity. Argon plasma coagulation application was infrequent (PSPT 4.4% vs SSPT 1.5%; P=.21). No statistically significant differences were appreciated between PSPT and SSPT regarding toxicity or QOL.

CONCLUSION

Both PSPT and SSPT confer low rates of grade ≥2 GI or GU toxicity, with preservation of meaningful sexual and urinary QOL at 24 months. A modest, yet clinically meaningful, decrement in bowel QOL was seen throughout follow-up. No toxicity or QOL differences between PSPT and SSPT were identified. Long-term comparative results in a larger patient cohort are warranted.

Clinical evidence of particle beam therapy (proton)

Proton beam therapy (PBT) makes it possible to deliver a high concentration of radiation to a tumor using its Bragg peak, and it is simple to utilize as its radiobiological characteristics are identical to those of photon beams. PBT has now been used for half a century, and more than 60,000 patients worldwide are reported to have been treated with proton beams. The most significant change to PBT occurred in the 1990s, when the Loma Linda University Medical Center became the first hospital in the world to operate a medically dedicated proton therapy facility. Following its success, similar medically dedicated facilities have been constructed. Internationally, results have demonstrated the therapeutic superiority of PBT over alternative treatment options for several disease sites. Further advances in PBT are expected from both clinical and technological perspectives.

Review of clinical experience with ion beam radiotherapy

The article describes both the early development of oncology as a core discipline at the University of Heidelberg Hospital and the first steps towards ion beam treatment, from the pilot project carried out in co-operation with the Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung Darmstadt to the initial start-up of clinical service at the Heidelberg Heavy Ion Centre (HIT). We present an overview, based on data published in the literature, of the available clinical evidence relating the use of ion beam therapy to treat major indications in active particle centres. A rationale for the use of particle therapy in each of these indications is given. In view of the limited availability of data, we discuss the necessity to conduct clinical trials. We also look forward towards the next activities to be undertaken at the HIT.

Particle radiation therapy using proton and heavier ion beams

Particle beams like protons and heavier ions offer improved dose distributions compared with photon (also called x-ray) beams and thus enable dose escalation within the tumor while sparing normal tissues. Although protons have a biologic effectiveness comparable to photons, ions, because they are heavier than protons, provide a higher biologic effectiveness. Recent technologic developments in the fields of accelerator engineering, treatment planning, beam delivery, and tumor visualization have stimulated the process of transferring particle radiation therapy (RT) from physics laboratories to the clinic. This review describes the physical, biologic, and technologic aspects of particle beam therapy. Clinical trials investigating proton and carbon ion RT will be summarized and discussed in the context of their relevance to recent concepts of treatment with RT.