Late toxicities of prostate cancer radiotherapy with and without hydrogel SpaceAOR insertion

In Curative Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer, There Is a High Possibility That 45 Gy in Five Fractions Will Not Be Tolerated without a Hydrogel Spacer

The purpose of this study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in the treatment of non-metastatic prostate cancer. This study was a phase 1 dose escalation trial conducted in Japan. Patients with histologically proven prostate cancer without lymph nodes or distant metastases were enrolled. The prescribed doses were 42.5, 45, or 47.5 Gy in five fractions. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was defined as grade (G) 3+ gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicity within 180 days after SBRT completion, and a 6 plus 6 design was used as the method of dose escalation. A total of 16 patients were enrolled, with 6 in the 42.5 Gy group and 10 in the 45 Gy group. No DLT was observed in the 42.5 Gy group. In the 45 Gy group, one patient experienced G3 rectal hemorrhage, and another had G4 rectal perforation, leading to the determination of 42.5 Gy as the MTD. None of the patients experienced biochemical recurrence or death during the follow-up period. We concluded that SBRT for non-metastatic prostate cancer at 42.5 Gy in five fractions could be safely performed, but a total dose of 45 Gy increased severe toxicity.

An optimal method of hydrogel spacer insertion for stereotactic body radiation therapy of prostate cancer

PURPOSE

This study aimed to explore an ideal method for hydrogel spacer insertion by analyzing the efficacy and safety of our originally developed apex expansion method.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Overall, 100 patients with low- and intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy were included. A hydrogel spacer was inserted in 64 and 36 patients using the conventional and apex expansion methods, respectively. For dosimetry, we trisected the rectum into the upper rectum, middle rectum, and lower rectum on the sagittal section of magnetic resonance imaging. We compared the dose to each part of the rectum between the two methods using dose-volume histograms. Genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity assessments were conducted until 3 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

The whole rectal dose in the apex expansion method group was lower than that in the conventional method group, which was significant in all dose regions (V5-V35). Similarly, in the apex expansion method group, the dose to the middle rectum was lower in the low- to high-dose region (V10-V35), and the dose to the lower rectum was lower in the middle- to high-dose region (V15-35). No Grade ≥ 3 toxicity or procedure-related complications were observed. Additionally, Grade 2 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities during the treatment showed no significant differences between the two methods.

CONCLUSION

The apex expansion method may be safe and effective in achieving a more efficient rectal dose reduction by expanding the anterior perirectal space in the prostatic apex area.

Increasing rectum-prostate distance using a hydrogel spacer to reduce radiation exposure during proton beam therapy for prostate cancer

SpaceOAR, a polyethylene-glycol hydrogel, reduces rectal radiation exposure during radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Previously, our group reported the modified technique of hydrogel insertion, which achieves greater separated distance at prostate-apex. This study aimed to investigate the impact of separated distance at prostate-apex and our modifier technique, on radiation exposure reduction during proton beam therapy (PBT). We included 330 patients undergoing PBT with the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of 63 Gray (Gy) for localized prostate cancer, and categorized them into groups 0 (no spacer, n = 141), 1 (separated distance of spacer at the prostate-apex level < 7.5 mm, n = 81), and 2 (distance ≥ 7.5 mm, n = 108). The rectal volumes to receive 30-60 Gy (RBE), was estimated and described as Rectal V30-60 (ml) in 10 Gy increments. The Rectal V30-60 (ml) was significantly lower in group 2 than in group 1, and in group 1 than in group 0. After propensity score matching, the multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the most significant factor to reduce radiation exposure was our modified technique of hydrogel insertion. Therefore, using a hydrogel spacer to expand the prostate-rectum distance not only at prostate-mid to prostate-base level but also at the prostate-apex level can reduce the radiation exposure in PBT for prostate cancer.

A dosimetric analysis of rectal hydrogel spacer use in patients with recurrent prostate cancer undergoing salvage high-dose-rate brachytherapy

PURPOSE

We hypothesize rectal hydrogel spacer (RHS) improves rectal dosimetry in patients undergoing salvage high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) for intact, recurrent prostate cancer (PC).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A prospectively collected institutional database was queried for recurrent PC patients treated with salvage HDR-BT from September 2015 to November 2021. Patients were offered RHS beginning June 2019. Dosimetric variables were compared between RHS and no-RHS groups for the average of two fractions using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Primary outcomes were rectal volume receiving 75% of prescription dose (V75%) and prostate volume receiving 100% of prescription dose (V100%). Generalized estimating equation (GEE) model was used to evaluate the association between other planning variables and rectal V75%.

RESULTS

Forty-one PC patients received salvage HDR-BT, of whom 20 had RHS. All patients received 2400cGy in 2 fractions. Median RHS volume was 6.2cm3 (Standard deviation [SD]: ± 3.5cm3). Median follow-up was 4 months and 17 months in the RHS and no-RHS groups, respectively. Median rectal V75% with and without RHS were 0.0cm3 (IQR: 0.0-0.0cm3) and 0.06cm3 (IQR: 0.0-0.14cm3), respectively (p<0.001). Median prostate V100% with and without RHS were 98.55% (IQR: 97.86-99.22%) and 97.78% (IQR: 97.50-98.18%), respectively (p = 0.007). RHS, rectum, and prostate volumes did not significantly affect rectal V75% per GEE modeling. There was 10% G1-2 and 5% G3 rectal toxicity in RHS group. There was 9.5% G1-2 and no G3+ rectal toxicities in the no-RHS group.

CONCLUSIONS

Absolute improvement in rectal V75% and prostate V100% was significant with RHS in PC patients undergoing salvage HDR-BT, but clinical benefit is marginal.

Outcomes of dose-escalated IMRT and ADT in Octogenarians with prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

We evaluated long-term outcomes for octogenarians with localised prostate cancer treated using dose-escalated image-guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) at our institution.

METHODS

The charts of octogenarians treated for localised prostate cancer were retrospectively reviewed. Overall survival (OS), prostate cancer-specific survival (PCaSS), toxicity rates and changes from baseline were collected.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 97 months. Of 107 eligible patients, 27.1% had intermediate-risk and 72.9% had high-risk localised prostate cancer. Median dose was 78Gy, and 97.2% received ADT. OS was 91.4% and 67.2% at 5 and 10 years. PCaSS was 98.0% and 88.7% at 5 and 10 years. In all, 39 (36.4%) of patients died, with the cause of death known in 30: in 26.7% of these patients, prostate cancer was the cause of death. Grade ≥ 2 late GI and GU toxicity was 0.9% and 24.3% respectively. In all, 11.2% and 22.4% of patients reported worsening of GI or GU function from baseline, and 13.1% and 21.5% reported improvement in GI and GU function compared to baseline.

CONCLUSION

Selected octogenarian patients with localised prostate cancer appear to benefit from radiation therapy and ADT. Despite excellent long-term PCaSS, 26.7% of patients died of prostate cancer. Rates of GI and GU toxicity were acceptable, and deterioration of urinary and bowel function compared to baseline was just as common as improvement in function from baseline.

Comprehensive review of the use of hydrogel spacers prior to radiation therapy for prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

To provide a comprehensive narrative review of the published data on the impact of hydrogel spacers on rectal dosimetry and toxicity and to outline the practicalities of inserting hydrogel spacers.

RESULTS

A growing body of evidence suggests that the administration of hydrogel spacers is safe and is associated with limited peri-operative morbidity. The impact on rectal dosimetry has been clearly established and use of hydrogel spacers is associated with reduced rectal morbidity. These results have been corroborated by several Phase II and III clinical trials and subsequent meta-analysis. There are several areas for future research, including the role of hydrogel spacers in prostate stereotactic beam radiotherapy and post-radiotherapy local recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Hydrogel spacers provide a low-morbidity method to potential reduce rectal toxicity after radiation therapy in men with prostate cancer. Data outlining sexual function and oncological outcomes are limited to date. Future studies, currently being conducted, may provide further clarification of the role of hydrogel spacers in prostate cancer management.

Hyaluronic acid spacer in prostate cancer radiotherapy: dosimetric effects, spacer stability and long-term toxicity and PRO in a phase II study

BACKGROUND

Perirectal spacers may be beneficial to reduce rectal side effects from radiotherapy (RT). Here, we present the impact of a hyaluronic acid (HA) perirectal spacer on rectal dose as well as spacer stability, long-term gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity and patient-reported outcome (PRO).

METHODS

In this phase II study 81 patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer received transrectal injections with HA before external beam RT (78 Gy in 39 fractions). The HA spacer was evaluated with MRI four times; before (MR0) and after HA-injection (MR1), at the middle (MR2) and at the end (MR3) of RT. GI and GU toxicity was assessed by physician for up to five years according to the RTOG scale. PROs were collected using the Swedish National Prostate Cancer Registry and Prostate cancer symptom scale questionnaires.

RESULTS

There was a significant reduction in rectal V70% (54.6 Gy) and V90% (70.2 Gy) between MR0 and MR1, as well as between MR0 to MR2 and MR3. From MR1 to MR2/MR3, HA thickness decreased with 28%/32% and CTV-rectum space with 19%/17% in the middle level. The cumulative late grade ≥ 2 GI toxicity at 5 years was 5% and the proportion of PRO moderate or severe overall bowel problems at 5 years follow-up was 12%. Cumulative late grade ≥ 2 GU toxicity at 5 years was 12% and moderate or severe overall urinary problems at 5 years were 10%.

CONCLUSION

We show that the HA spacer reduced rectal dose and long-term toxicity.

Dose-escalated radiotherapy to 82 Gy for prostate cancer following insertion of a peri-rectal hydrogel spacer: 3-year outcomes from a phase II trial

Background

Dose-escalation to above 80 Gy during external beam radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer leads to improved oncological outcomes but also substantially increased rectal toxicity. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of escalating the dose to 82 Gy following insertion of a peri-rectal hydrogel spacer (HS) prior to radiotherapy.

Methods

This was a single arm, open-label, prospective study of men with localised prostate cancer who were prescribed a course of intensity modulated radiotherapy escalated to 82 Gy in 2 Gy fractions following insertion of the SpaceOAR™ HS (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA). Patients were prescribed a standard course of 78 Gy in 2 Gy fractions where rectal dose constraints could not be met for the 82 Gy plan. The co-primary endpoints were the rate of grade 3 gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) adverse events (CTCAE, v4), and patient-reported quality of life (QoL) (EORTC QLQ-C30 and PR25 modules), up to 37.5 months post-treatment.

Results

Seventy patients received treatment on the study, with 64 (91.4%) receiving an 82 Gy treatment course. The median follow-up time post-treatment was 37.4 months. The rate of radiotherapy-related grade 3 GI and GU adverse events was 0% and 2.9%, respectively. There were 2 (2.9%) grade 3 adverse events related to insertion of the HS. Only small and transient declines in QoL were observed; there was no clinically or statistically significant decline in QoL beyond 13.5 months and up to 37.5 months post-treatment, compared to baseline. No late RTOG-defined grade ≥ 2 GI toxicity was observed, with no GI toxicity observed in any patient at 37.5 months post-treatment. Nine (12.9%) patients met criteria for biochemical failure within the follow-up period.

Conclusions

Dose-escalation to 82 Gy, facilitated by use of a hydrogel spacer, is safe and feasible, with minimal toxicity up to 37.5 months post-treatment when compared to rates of rectal toxicity in previous dose-escalation trials up to 80 Gy. Trials with longer follow-up of oncological and functional outcomes are required to robustly demonstrate a sustained widening of the therapeutic window.

Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12621000056897, 22/01/2021. Retrospectively registered.

Hydrogels for localized chemotherapy of liver cancer: a possible strategy for improved and safe liver cancer treatment

The systemic drug has historically been preferred for the treatment of the majority of pathological conditions, particularly liver cancer. Indeed, this mode of treatment is associated with adverse reactions, toxicity, off-target accumulation, and rapid hepatic and renal clearance. Numerous efforts have been made to design systemic therapeutic carriers to improve retention while decreasing side effects and clearance. Following systemic medication, local administration of therapeutic agents allows for higher 'effective' doses with fewer side effects, kidney accumulation, and clearance. Hydrogels are highly biocompatible and can be used for both imaging and therapy. Hydrogel-based drug delivery approach has fewer side effects than traditional chemotherapy and can deliver drugs to tumors for a longer time. The chemical and physical flexibility of hydrogels can be used to achieve disease-induced in situ accumulation as well as subsequent drug release and hydrogel-programmed degradation. Moreover, they can act as a biocompatible depot for localized chemotherapy when stimuli-responsive carriers are administrated. Herein, we summarize the design strategies of various hydrogels used for localized chemotherapy of liver cancer and their delivery routes, as well as recent research on smart hydrogels.

Injection of hydrogel spacer increased maximal intrafractional prostate motion in anterior and superior directions during volumetric modulated arc therapy-stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer

Background

The aim of this study was to clarify the association between intrafractional prostate shift and hydrogel spacer.

Methods

Thirty-eight patients who received definitive volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT)-stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer with prostate motion monitoring in our institution in 2018–2019 were retrospectively evaluated. In order to move the rectum away from the prostate, hydrogel spacer (SpaceOAR system, Boston Scientific, Marlborough, the United States) injection was proposed to the patients as an option in case of meeting the indication of use. We monitored intrafractional prostate motion by using a 4-dimensional (4D) transperineal ultrasound device: the Clarity 4D ultrasound system (Elekta AB). The deviation of the prostate was monitored in each direction: superior-inferior, left–right, and anterior–posterior. We also calculated the vector length. The maximum intrafractional displacement (MID) per fraction for each direction was detected and mean of MIDs was calculated per patient. The MIDs in the non-spacer group and the spacer group were compared using the unpaired t-test.

Results

We reviewed 33 fractions in eight patients as the spacer group and 148 fractions in 30 patients as the non-spacer group. The superior MID was 0.47 ± 0.07 (mean ± SE) mm versus 0.97 ± 0.24 mm (P = 0.014), the inferior MID was 1.07 ± 0.11 mm versus 1.03 ± 0.25 mm (P = 0.88), the left MID was 0.74 ± 0.08 mm versus 0.87 ± 0.27 mm (P = 0.55), the right MID was 0.67 ± 0.08 mm versus 0.92 ± 0.21 mm (P = 0.17), the anterior MID was 0.45 ± 0.06 mm versus 1.16 ± 0.35 mm (P = 0.0023), and the posterior MID was 1.57 ± 0.17 mm versus 1.37 ± 0.22 mm (P = 0.56) in the non-spacer group and the spacer group, respectively. The max of VL was 2.24 ± 0.19 mm versus 2.89 ± 0.62 mm (P = 0.19), respectively.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that maximum intrafractional prostate motion during VMAT-SBRT was larger in patients with hydrogel spacer injection in the superior and anterior directions. Since this difference seemed not to disturb the dosimetric advantage of the hydrogel spacer, we do not recommend routine avoidance of the hydrogel spacer use.

Rectal spacers in patients with prostate cancer undergoing radiotherapy: A survey of UK uro-oncologists

AIM

To understand the awareness and use of rectal spacers for prostate cancer patients undergoing radical radiotherapy in the United Kingdom.

METHODS

An expert-devised online questionnaire was completed by members of the British Uro-oncology Group (BUG).

RESULTS

Sixty-three specialists completed the survey (50% of BUG members at that point in time). Only 37% had used rectal spacers, mostly for private patients or those with pre-existing bowel conditions. However, many (68%) would like to use these devices in future. More than 70% of the uro-oncologists felt that bowel toxicity was underreported, but 60% believed that the use of radiotherapy without bowel toxicity was achievable with the use of rectal spacers.

CONCLUSIONS

The current use of rectal spacers by UK uro-oncologists for patients with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer receiving radiotherapy is low and largely restricted by resourcing issues.

SpaceOAR Hydrogel Spacer for Reducing Radiation Toxicity During Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer. A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association between SpaceOAR and radiation dosing, toxicity and quality-of-life vs no spacer across all radiotherapy modalities for prostate cancer.

METHODS

A systematic search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase was performed from database inception through May 2020. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full papers. Data extraction was performed, and quality assessed by 1 reviewer and checked by a second, using a third reviewer as required. The synthesis was narrative.

RESULTS

19 studies (3,622 patients) were included (only 1 randomized controlled trial, in image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IG-IMRT), 18 comparatives non-randomized controlled trials in external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT), brachytherapy, and combinations thereof). No hypofractionation studies were found. Regardless of radiotherapy type, SpaceOAR significantly reduced rectal radiation dose (eg, V40 average difference -6.1% in high dose-rate brachytherapy plus IG-IMRT to -9.1% in IG-IMRT) and reduced gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicities (eg, late gastrointestinal toxicity 1% vs 6% (P = .01), late genitourinary toxicity of 15% vs 32% (P < .001) in stereotactic body radiotherapy). Improvements were observed in most Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite quality-of-life domains (eg, bowel function score decrease at 3 and 6 months: Average change of zero vs -6.25 and -3.57 respectively in low dose-rate brachytherapy plus EBRT).

CONCLUSION

The randomized controlled trial in IG-IMRT demonstrated that SpaceOAR reduces rectal radiation dose and late gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicities, with urinary, bowel, and sexual quality-of-life improvement. These advantages were verified in observational studies in various radiotherapy types. Further research is required in hypofractionation.

A Ten-year-long Update on Radiation Proctitis Among Prostate Cancer Patients Treated With Curative External Beam Radiotherapy

This comprehensive synopsis summarizes the most relevant information obtained from a systematic analysis of studies of the last decade on radiation proctitis, one of the most feared radioinduced side effects among prostate cancer patients treated with curative external beam radiotherapy. The present review provides a useful support to radiation oncologists for limiting the onset or improving the treatment of radiation proctitis. This work shows that the past decade was a harbinger of significant new evidence in technological advances and technical tricks to avoid radiation proctitis, in addition to dosimetric perspectives and goals, understanding of pathogenesis, diagnostic work-up and treatment. We believe that a well-rounded knowledge of such an issue is fundamental for its appropriate management.

Dosimetric and clinical outcomes of SpaceOAR in men undergoing external beam radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer: A systematic review

SpaceOAR, an absorbable polyethylene glycol hydrogel, increases the space between the prostate and rectum to reduce the radiation received by the rectum during prostate cancer radiation therapy. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate controlled studies on the dosimetric and clinical outcomes of SpaceOAR in men undergoing external beam radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer. Eight studies were included in the review. All of the studies showed SpaceOAR to reduce the radiation dose volume to the rectum over numerous dosimetry levels. Of the four studies that assessed toxicity, one reported SpaceOAR to significantly decrease acute Grade 1 diarrhoea and two reported SpaceOAR to significantly decrease late Grade 1 and Grade ≥2 rectal toxicities. Two studies assessed cumulative incidence of toxicity at 3 years in which one reported SpaceOAR to significantly decrease urinary incontinence and Grade ≥1 and Grade ≥2 rectal toxicities, and the other reported SpaceOAR to significantly decrease Grade 1 diarrhoea and Grade 2 proctitis. Moreover, one study reported that fewer SpaceOAR patients experienced 10-point declines in bowel quality of life at 3 years, but another study reported no significant difference in 10-point declines in bowel quality of life between the SpaceOAR and control groups at 5 years. With the current research available, SpaceOAR may be beneficial to those who did not meet the standard rectal dose-volume criteria, have higher risk factors of developing rectal toxicities post-radiation, or wish to decrease the length and costs of radiotherapy by increasing the dose of radiation per fraction.

Stimuli-Responsive Hydrogels for Cancer Treatment: The Role of pH, Light, Ionic Strength and Magnetic Field

Cancer remains as the second leading cause of death, worldwide. Despite the enormous important advances observed in the last decades, advanced stages of the disease remain incurable. The severe side effects associated to systemic high doses of chemotherapy and the development of drug resistance impairs a safe and efficiency anticancer therapy. Therefore, new formulations are continuously under research and development to improve anticancer drugs therapeutic index through localized delivery at tumor sites. Among a wide range of possibilities, hydrogels have recently gained special attention due to their potential to allow in situ sustained and controlled anticancer drug release. In particular, stimuli-responsive hydrogels which are able to change their physical state from liquid to gel accordingly to external factors such as temperature, pH, light, ionic strength, and magnetic field, among others. Some of these formulations presented promising results for the localized control and treatment of cancer. The present work aims to discuss the main properties and application of stimuli-responsive hydrogels in cancer treatment and summarize the most important advances observed in the last decades focusing on the use of pH-, light-, ionic strength-, and magnetic-responsive hydrogels.

Association of the Placement of a Perirectal Hydrogel Spacer With the Clinical Outcomes of Men Receiving Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

Perirectal spacers are intended to lower the risk of rectal toxic effects associated with prostate radiotherapy. A quantitative synthesis of typical clinical results with specific perirectal spacers is limited.

Objective

To evaluate the association between perirectal hydrogel spacer placement and clinical outcomes of men receiving radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

Data Sources

A systematic search was performed of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase for articles published through September 2019.

Study Selection

Studies comparing men who received a hydrogel spacer vs men who did not receive a spacer (controls) prior to prostate radiotherapy.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Via random-effects meta-analysis, group comparisons were reported using the weighted mean difference for continuous measures and the risk ratio for binary measures.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Procedural results, the percentage volume of rectum receiving at least 70 Gy radiation (v70), early (≤3 months) and late (>3 months) rectal toxic effects, and early and late changes in bowel-related quality of life on the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (minimal clinically important difference, 4 points).

Results

The review included 7 studies (1 randomized clinical trial and 6 cohort studies) involving 1011 men (486 who received a hydrogel spacer and 525 controls), with a median duration of patient follow-up of 26 months (range, 3-63 months). The success rate of hydrogel spacer placement was 97.0% (95% CI, 94.4%-98.8% [5 studies]), and the weighted mean perirectal separation distance was 11.2 mm (95% CI, 10.1-12.3 mm [5 studies]). Procedural complications were mild and transient, occurring in 0% to 10% of patients within the studies. The hydrogel spacer group received 66% less v70 rectal irradiation compared with controls (3.5% vs 10.4%; mean difference, -6.5%; 95% CI, -10.5% to -2.5%; P = .001 [6 studies]). The risk of grade 2 or higher rectal toxic effects was comparable between groups in early follow-up (4.5% in hydrogel spacer group vs 4.1% in control group; risk ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.52-1.28; P = .38 [6 studies]) but was 77% lower in the hydrogel spacer group in late follow-up (1.5% vs 5.7%; risk ratio, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.06-0.99; P = .05 [4 studies]). Changes in bowel-related quality of life were comparable between groups in early follow-up (mean difference, 0.2; 95% CI, -3.1 to 3.4; P = .92 [2 studies]) but were greater in the hydrogel spacer group in late follow-up (mean difference, 5.4; 95% CI, 2.8-8.0; P < .001 [2 studies]).

Conclusions and Relevance

For men receiving prostate radiotherapy, injection of a hydrogel spacer was safe, provided prostate-rectum separation sufficient to reduce v70 rectal irradiation, and was associated with fewer rectal toxic effects and higher bowel-related quality of life in late follow-up.

PSMA-PET guided dose-escalated volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) for newly diagnosed lymph node positive prostate cancer: Efficacy and toxicity outcomes at two years

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES

There are no published reports of prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) guided dose-escalated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (DE-IMRT) in newly diagnosed lymph node (LN) positive prostate cancer. We report early toxicity and efficacy outcomes with this approach.

MATERIALS/METHODS

Patients with newly diagnosed high-risk prostate cancer were staged using PSMA PET, computed tomography (CT) and bone scans. Patients with LN positive-only metastases were offered curative therapy using 3 months androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) followed by DE-IMRT (using volumetric arc therapy), and 3 years adjuvant ADT. All patients had fiducial marker insertion, with privately insured patients having spacer hydrogel insertion. PET and prostate magnetic resonance imaging were fused with the planning CT. We aimed to deliver 81 Gy in 45 fractions (Fx) to the prostate and PET-positive LNs, and 60 Gy in 45Fx to bilateral elective pelvic LNs.

RESULTS

In all, 46 patients were treated, with 83% Gleason 8-10, 67% T3/T4, median number of LNs 2 (range 1-6), and median PET-positive LN volume 1.14 cc (range 0.15-4.14). LNs were outside of standard contouring guidelines in 37% of patients. The mean PET-positive LN clinical target volume dose ranged from 73.3 to 85.9 Gy (median 83.6 Gy). With 24 months median follow-up, two year failure-free survival was 100%, and 2 year overall survival 95.7%. Acute grade 1 and 2 GI toxicity occurred in 48 and 11% of patients, and GU toxicity in 72 and 24%. Late grade 1, 2 and 3 GI toxicity occurred in 13, 2 and 0%, and GU toxicity 28, 13 and 4%. No toxicity was attributable to the high dose LN boost.

CONCLUSIONS

PSMA PET-guided DE-IMRT up to 81 Gy to the prostate and involved LNs, and long term ADT, is a promising approach for newly diagnosed LN positive prostate cancer. LN contouring guidelines require re-evaluation in the era of PSMA PET imaging.