Long-term results of intensity-modulated radiotherapy with three dose-fractionation regimens for localized prostate cancer

Photon vs proton hypofractionation in prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

High-level evidence on hypofractionated proton therapy (PT) for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) patients is currently missing. The aim of this study is to provide a systematic literature review to compare the toxicity and effectiveness of curative radiotherapy with photon therapy (XRT) or PT in PCa.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched up to April 2022. Men with a diagnosis of PCa who underwent curative hypofractionated RT treatment (PT or XRT) were included. Risk of grade (G) ≥ 2 acute and late genitourinary (GU) OR gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity were the primary outcomes of interest. Secondary outcomes were five-year biochemical relapse-free survival (b-RFS), clinical relapse-free, distant metastasis-free, and prostate cancer-specific survival. Heterogeneity between study-specific estimates was assessed using Chi-square statistics and measured with the I2 index (heterogeneity measure across studies).

RESULTS

A total of 230 studies matched inclusion criteria and, due to overlapped populations, 160 were included in the present analysis. Significant lower rates of G ≥ 2 acute GI incidence (2 % vs 7 %) and improved 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival (95 % vs 91 %) were observed in the PT arm compared to XRT. PT benefits in 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival were maintained for the moderate hypofractionated arm (p-value 0.0122) and among patients in intermediate and low-risk classes (p-values < 0.0001 and 0.0368, respectively). No statistically relevant differences were found for the other considered outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The present study supports that PT is safe and effective for localized PCa treatment, however, more data from RCTs are needed to draw solid evidence in this setting and further effort must be made to identify the patient subgroups that could benefit the most from PT.

Effectiveness of robust optimization against geometric uncertainties in TomoHelical planning for prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Geometrical uncertainties in patients can severely affect the quality of radiotherapy.

PURPOSE

We evaluated the dosimetric efficacy of robust optimization for helical intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) planning in the presence of patient setup uncertainty and anatomical changes.

METHODS

Two helical IMRT plans for 10 patients with localized prostate cancer were created using either minimax robust optimization (robust plan) or a conventional planning target volume (PTV) margin approach (PTV plan). Plan robustness was evaluated by creating perturbed dose plans with setup uncertainty from isocenter shifts and anatomical changes due to organ variation. The magnitudes of the geometrical uncertainties were based on the patient setup uncertainty considered during robust optimization, which was identical to the PTV margin. The homogeneity index, and target coverage (TC, defined as the V100% of the clinical target volume), and organs at risk (OAR; rectum and bladder) doses were analyzed for all nominal and perturbed plans. A statistical t-test was performed to evaluate the differences between the robust and PTV plans.

RESULTS

Comparison of the nominal plans showed that the robust plans had lower OAR doses and a worse homogeneity index and TC than the PTV plans. The evaluations of robustness that considered setup errors more than the PTV margin demonstrated that the worst-case perturbed scenarios for robust plans had significantly higher TC while maintaining lower OAR doses. However, when anatomical changes were considered, improvement in TC from robust optimization was not observed in the worst-case perturbed plans.

CONCLUSIONS

For helical IMRT planning in localized prostate cancer, robust optimization provides benefits over PTV margin-based planning, including better OAR sparing, and increased robustness against systematic patient-setup errors.

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

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

Retrospective comparison of rectal toxicity between carbon-ion radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy based on treatment plan, normal tissue complication probability model, and clinical outcomes in prostate cancer

This retrospective study assessed the treatment planning data and clinical outcomes for 152 prostate cancer patients: 76 consecutive patients treated by carbon-ion radiation therapy and 76 consequtive patients treated by moderate hypo-fractionated intensity-modulated photon radiation therapy. These two modalities were compared using linear quadratic model equivalent doses in 2 Gy per fraction for rectal or rectal wall dose-volume histogram, 3.6 Gy per fraction-converted rectal dose-volume histogram, normal tissue complication probability model, and actual clinical outcomes. Carbon-ion radiation therapy was predicted to have a lower probability of rectal adverse events than intensity-modulated photon radiation therapy based on dose-volume histograms and normal tissue complication probability model. There was no difference in the clinical outcome of rectal adverse events between the two modalities compared in this study.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy using a hydrogel spacer for localized prostate cancer: A dosimetric comparison between tomotherapy with the newly-developed tumor-tracking system and cyberknife

Purpose

With a new tumor‐tracking system (Synchrony®) for tomotherapy (Radixact®), the internal and set‐up margins can be tightened, like cyberknife (CyberKnife®), in the planning of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer. Recently, the usefulness of placing a hydrogel spacer between the prostate and rectum has been established in prostate radiotherapy. We evaluated the characteristics of tomotherapy plans with the tumor‐tracking system and compared them with cyberknife SBRT plans for localized prostate cancer using a hydrogel spacer.

Methods

In 20 patients, two plans were created and compared using tomotherapy and cyberknife. All patients underwent hydrogel spacer injection behind the prostate before simulation CT and MRI for fusion. For all plans, 36.25 Gy in 7.25‐Gy fractions for a minimum coverage dose of 95% of planning target volume (PTV) (D95%) was prescribed. The D99% of PTV and D0.1 ml of the PTV, urethra, bladder, and rectum were intended to be > 90%, 110–130%, 100–110%, <110%, and <100%, respectively, of the prescribed doses.

Results

All plans using tomotherapy and cyberknife achieved the intended dose constraints. The cyberknife plans yielded better median PTV‐V110% (volume of PTV covered by 110% isodose line, 54.8%), maintaining lower median D0.1 ml of the urethra (37.5 Gy) and V80% of the bladder (11.0 ml) compared to the tomotherapy plans (39.0%; p < 0.0001, 38.2 Gy; p < 0.0001, and 18.3 ml; p < 0.0001, respectively). The tomotherapy plans were superior to the cyberknife plans for the rectum (V80% = 0.4 vs. 1.0 ml, p < 0.001; D1ml = 26.4 vs. 29.0 Gy, p = 0.013).

Conclusions

Our results suggested that tomotherapy with the tumor‐tracking system has reasonable potential for SBRT for localized prostate cancer using a hydrogel spacer.

Changes in sexual function and serum testosterone levels in patients with prostate cancer after image-guided proton therapy

Since sexual function and testosterone levels after image-guided proton therapy (IGPT) have not yet been examined in detail, we prospectively evaluated changes before and after IGPT. Among patients treated with IGPT with or without combined androgen blockade (CAB) therapy between February 2013 and September 2014, patients who agreed to participate in the study and were followed up for >3 years after IGPT were evaluated. Serum testosterone levels were regularly measured together with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels before and after IGPT. The Erection Hardness Score (EHS) and the sexual domain summary, function subscale and bother subscale of the sexual domain in the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) were assessed. There were 38 low-risk, 46 intermediate-risk and 43 high- or very-high-risk patients (NCCN classification). Although serum testosterone levels in low-risk patients did not decrease after IGPT, reductions were observed in the average EHS and the sexual domain summary score of the EPIC. In intermediate-, high- and very-high-risk patients, testosterone and PSA levels both increased following the termination of CAB after IGPT, and the average EHS increased. The sexual domain summary score gradually increased, but not above minimally important differences. In intermediate-risk patients, the function subscale increased from 4.4 to 14.8 (P < 0.05) 12 months after IGPT and reached a plateau after 60 months. The results of the present study would suggest the potential of IGPT, and further prospective studies to directly compare IGPT with other modalities are warranted.

Radiotherapy for Clinically Localized T3b or T4 Very-High-Risk Prostate Cancer-Role of Dose Escalation Using High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy Boost or High Dose Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy

Simple Summary

Recently, high-risk prostate cancer was subdivided to a very-high-risk group considered to have the worst prognosis, including clinical stage T3b–T4, primary Gleason pattern 5, or more than four biopsy cores with Gleason score 8–10. Among these, T3b–T4 stage is a special interest in radiotherapy because of their wider target volume outside the prostate. We examined this subgroup and found that dose escalation in radiotherapy both with brachytherapy or intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) improved biochemical free survival rate but not in prostate cancer specific survival rate and overall survival rate.

Abstract

To examine the efficacy of dose escalating radiotherapy into patients with cT3b or T4 localized prostate cancer, we compared Group A (86 conventional dose external beam radiotherapy: EBRT group, treated with 70–72 Gy) and group B (39 high dose EBRT group (HDEBRT group, 74–80 Gy) and 124 high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR) + EBRT (HDR boost)) using multi-institutional retrospective data. The actuarial 5-year biochemical disease-free survival (bDFS) rate, prostate cancer specific survival rate (PSS), and overall survival rate (OS) were 75.8%, 96.8%, and 93.5%. Group B showed superior 5-year bDFS rate (81.2%) as compared to the group A (66.5%) (p < 0.0001) with a hazard ratio of 0.397. Equivocal 5-year PSS (98.3% and 94.8% in group B and group A) and OS (both 93.7%) were found between those groups. Accumulated late grade ≥ 2 toxicities in gastrointestinal and genitourinary tracts were similar among those three groups. Therefore, both HDEBRT and HDR boost could be good options for improving the bDFS rate in cT3–T4 localized prostate cancer without affecting PSS and OS.

Impact of advanced radiotherapy techniques and dose intensification on toxicity of salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy

The safety and efficacy of dose-escalated radiotherapy with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) remain unclear in salvage radiotherapy (SRT) after radical prostatectomy. We examined the impact of these advanced radiotherapy techniques and dose intensification on the toxicity of SRT. This multi-institutional retrospective study included 421 patients who underwent SRT at the median dose of 66 Gy in 2-Gy fractions. IMRT and IGRT were used for 225 (53%) and 321 (76%) patients, respectively. At the median follow-up of 50 months, the cumulative incidence of late grade 2 or higher gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities was 4.8% and 24%, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that the non-use of either IMRT or IGRT, or both (hazard ratio [HR] 3.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.8-5.4, p < 0.001) and use of whole-pelvic radiotherapy (HR 7.6, CI 1.0-56, p = 0.048) were associated with late GI toxicity, whereas a higher dose ≥68 Gy was the only factor associated with GU toxicities (HR 3.1, CI 1.3-7.4, p = 0.012). This study suggested that the incidence of GI toxicities can be reduced by IMRT and IGRT in SRT, whereas dose intensification may increase GU toxicity even with these advanced techniques.

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.