1
|
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; 14:522-540. [PMID: 39019208 PMCID: PMC11531394 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2024.06.006] [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: 03/13/2024] [Revised: 06/17/2024] [Accepted: 06/26/2024] [Indexed: 07/19/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE To provide a comprehensive review of the means by which to optimize target volume definition for the purposes of treatment planning for patients with intact prostate cancer with a specific emphasis on focal boost volume definition. METHODS Here we conduct a narrative review of the available literature summarizing the current state of knowledge on optimizing target volume definition for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. RESULTS Historically, the treatment of prostate cancer included a uniform prescription dose administered to the entire prostate with or without coverage of all or part of the seminal vesicles. 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 3 data has demonstrated that incorporating focal dose escalation to high-risk subvolumes of the prostate improves biochemical control without significantly increasing toxicity. Still, several fundamental questions remain regarding the optimal target volume definition and prescription strategy to implement this technique. Given the remaining uncertainty, a knowledge of the pathological correlates of radiographic findings and the anatomic patterns of tumor spread may help inform clinical judgement for the definition of clinical target volumes. CONCLUSION Advanced imaging has the ability to improve outcomes for patients with prostate cancer in multiple ways, including by enabling focal dose escalation to high-risk subvolumes. However, many questions remain regarding the optimal target volume definition and prescription strategy to implement this practice, and key knowledge gaps remain. A detailed understanding of the pathological correlates of radiographic findings and the patterns of local tumor spread may help inform clinical judgement for target volume definition given the current state of uncertainty.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Krishnan R Patel
- Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
| | - 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, Maryland
| | - Deborah E Citrin
- Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - William A Hall
- Froedtert and the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Corrao G, Marvaso G, Mastroleo F, Biffi A, Pellegrini G, Minari S, Vincini MG, Zaffaroni M, Zerini D, Volpe S, Gaito S, Mazzola GC, Bergamaschi L, Cattani F, Petralia G, Musi G, Ceci F, De Cobelli O, Orecchia R, Alterio D, Jereczek-Fossa BA. Photon vs proton hypofractionation in prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiother Oncol 2024; 195:110264. [PMID: 38561122 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110264] [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: 12/14/2023] [Revised: 03/21/2024] [Accepted: 03/24/2024] [Indexed: 04/04/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Giulia Corrao
- Division of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy; Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Giulia Marvaso
- Division of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy; Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Federico Mastroleo
- Division of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy; Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Annalisa Biffi
- National Centre of Healthcare Research and Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy; Unit of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Public Health, Department of Statistics and Quantitative Methods, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
| | - Giacomo Pellegrini
- National Centre of Healthcare Research and Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy; Unit of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Public Health, Department of Statistics and Quantitative Methods, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
| | - Samuele Minari
- National Centre of Healthcare Research and Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
| | - Maria Giulia Vincini
- Division of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
| | - Mattia Zaffaroni
- Division of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
| | - Dario Zerini
- Division of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Stefania Volpe
- Division of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy; Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Simona Gaito
- Proton Clinical Outcomes Unit, The Christie NHS Proton Beam Therapy Centre, Manchester, UK; Division of Clinical Cancer Science, School of Medical Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | | | - Luca Bergamaschi
- Division of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Federica Cattani
- Unit of Medical Physics, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Petralia
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy; Division of Radiology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Gennaro Musi
- Division of Urology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Francesco Ceci
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy; Division of Nuclear Medicine and Theranostics, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Ottavio De Cobelli
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy; Division of Urology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Roberto Orecchia
- Scientific Directorate, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Daniela Alterio
- Division of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Barbara Alicja Jereczek-Fossa
- Division of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy; Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Fairweather D, Taylor RM, Simões R. Choosing the right questions - A systematic review of patient reported outcome measures used in radiotherapy and proton beam therapy. Radiother Oncol 2024; 191:110071. [PMID: 38142933 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.110071] [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: 10/04/2023] [Revised: 12/01/2023] [Accepted: 12/16/2023] [Indexed: 12/26/2023]
Abstract
The implementation of PROMs into clinical practice has been shown to improve quality of care. This systematic review aims to identify which PROMs are suitable for implementation within routine clinical practice in a radiotherapy or PBT service.The bibliographic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and EMCARE were searched. Articles published between 1st January 2008 to 1st June 2023, that reported PROMs being utilised as an outcome measure were included. Inclusion criteria also included being written in English, involving human patients, aged 16 and above, receiving external beam radiotherapy or PBT for six defined tumour sites. PROMs identified within the included articles were subjected to quality assessment using the COSMIN reporting guidelines. Results are reported as per PRISMA guidelines. A total of 268 studies were identified in the search, of which 52 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The use of 39 different PROMs was reported. The PROMs identified were mostly tumour or site-specific quality of life (n = 23) measures but also included generic cancer (n = 3), health-related quality-of-life (n = 6), and symptom specific (n = 7) measures.None of the PROMs identified received a high GRADE score for good content. There were 13 PROMs that received a moderate GRADE score. The remaining PROMs either had limited evidence of development and validation within the patient cohorts investigated, or lacked relevance or comprehensiveness needed for routine PROMs collection in a radiotherapy or PBT service.This review highlights that there are a wide variety of PROMs being utilised within radiotherapy research, but most lack specificity to radiotherapy side-effects. There is a risk that by using non-specific PROMs in clinical practice, patients might not receive the supportive care that they need.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Danielle Fairweather
- Cancer Division, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
| | - Rachel M Taylor
- Centre for Nurse, Midwife and Allied Health Profession Led Research (CNMAR), University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Department of Targeted Intervention, University College London, London, UK
| | - Rita Simões
- Cancer Division, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; The Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK; Radiotherapy Trials Quality Assurance (RTTQA) group, Mount Vernon Hospital, Northwood, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Le Guevelou J, Bosetti DG, Castronovo F, Angrisani A, de Crevoisier R, Zilli T. State of the art and future challenges of urethra-sparing stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a systematic review of literature. World J Urol 2023; 41:3287-3299. [PMID: 37668718 PMCID: PMC10632210 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-023-04579-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/07/2023] [Accepted: 08/11/2023] [Indexed: 09/06/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Doses delivered to the urethra have been associated with an increased risk to develop long-term urinary toxicity in patients undergoing stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer (PCa). Aim of the present systematic review is to report on the role of urethra-sparing SBRT (US-SBRT) techniques for prostate cancer, with a focus on outcome and urinary toxicity. METHOD A systematic review of the literature was performed on the PubMed database on May 2023. Based on the urethra-sparing technique, 13 studies were selected for the analysis and classified in the two following categories: "urethra-steering" SBRT (restriction of hotspots to the urethra) and "urethra dose-reduction" SBRT (dose reduction to urethra below the prescribed dose). RESULTS By limiting the urethra Dmax to 90GyEQD2 (α/β = 3 Gy) with urethra-steering SBRT techniques, late genitourinary (GU) grade 2 toxicity remains mild, ranging between 12.1% and 14%. With dose-reduction strategies decreasing the urethral dose below 70 GyEQD2, the risk of late GU toxicity was further reduced (< 8% at 5 years), while maintaining biochemical relapse-free survival rates up to 93% at 5 years. CONCLUSION US-SBRT techniques limiting maximum doses to urethra below a 90GyEQD2 (α/β = 3 Gy) threshold result in a low rate of acute and late grade ≥ 2 GU toxicity. A better understanding of clinical factors and anatomical substructures involved in the development of GU toxicity, as well as the development and use of adapted dose constraints, is expected to further reduce the long-term GU toxicity of prostate cancer patients treated with SBRT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Davide Giovanni Bosetti
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland (IOSI), EOC, Via Ospedale, 6500, Bellinzona, Switzerland
| | - Francesco Castronovo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland (IOSI), EOC, Via Ospedale, 6500, Bellinzona, Switzerland
| | - Antonio Angrisani
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland (IOSI), EOC, Via Ospedale, 6500, Bellinzona, Switzerland
| | | | - Thomas Zilli
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland (IOSI), EOC, Via Ospedale, 6500, Bellinzona, Switzerland.
- Facoltà Di Scienze Biomediche, Università Della Svizzera Italiana (USI), Lugano, Switzerland.
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
| |
Collapse
|