Efficacy of a rectal spacer with prostate SABR-first UK experience

A Novel Polymer-Encapsulated Multi-Imaging Modality Fiducial Marker with Positive Signal Contrast for Image-Guided Radiation Therapy

BACKGROUND

Current fiducial markers (FMs) in external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for prostate cancer (PCa) cannot be positively visualized on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and create dose perturbation and significant imaging artifacts on computed tomography (CT) and MRI. We report our initial experience with clinical imaging of a novel multimodality FM, NOVA.

METHODS

We tested Gold Anchor [G-FM], BiomarC [carbon, C-FM], and NOVA FMs in phantoms imaged with kilovoltage (kV) X-rays, transrectal ultrasound (TRUS), CT, and MRI. Artifacts of the FMs on CT were quantified by the relative streak artifacts level (rSAL) metric. Proton dose perturbations (PDPs) were measured with Gafchromic EBT3 film, with FMs oriented either perpendicular to or parallel with the beam axis. We also tested the performance of NOVA-FMs in a patient.

RESULTS

NOVA-FMs were positively visualized on all 4 imaging modalities tested. The rSAL on CT was 0.750 ± 0.335 for 2-mm reconstructed slices. In F-tests, PDP was associated with marker type and depth of measurement (p < 10-6); at 5-mm depth, PDP was significantly greater for the G-FM (12.9%, p = 10-6) and C-FM (6.0%, p = 0.011) than NOVA (4.5%). EBRT planning with MRI/CT image co-registration and daily alignments using NOVA-FMs in a patient was feasible and reproducible.

CONCLUSIONS

NOVA-FMs were positively visible and produced less PDP than G-FMs or C-FMs. NOVA-FMs facilitated MRI/CT fusion and identification of regions of interest.

Simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) to dominant intra-prostatic lesions during extreme hypofractionation for prostate cancer: the impact of rectal spacers

Purpose

Boosting dominant intra-prostatic lesions (DILs) has the potential to increase the therapeutic ratio in prostate cancer radiotherapy. In this study, employing 5-fraction stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) to deliver 40 Gy to the prostate clinical target volume (CTV) while boosting the DIL up to 50 Gy was evaluated for patients before and after rectal spacer insertion.

Materials and methods

24 Computed Tomography (CT) scans of 12 prostate cancer patients with unfavourable intermediate or high risk prostate cancer were employed in this study. At least two treatment plans were generated for each patient to compare pre- and post-spacer insertion plans. Plans were evaluated for target coverage, organs-at-risk doses, and the achievable boost dose level.

Results

The CTV coverage was significantly better in plans with a spacer, V40Gy 98.4% versus 97.0% (p = 0.012). Using spacers significantly reduced rectal dose in all 12 patients in this study. It was possible to boost DIL to 50 Gy to without violating dose constraints in 6 of 12 patients and to 47.5 Gy in 3 patients post-spacer insertion. For 3 patients (25%) it was not possible to boost DIL above 45 Gy even with a spacer in situ. Without a spacer, for 6 patient (50%) clinically acceptable plan were only achieved when the DIL dose was lowered to 45 Gy. In five of these 6 patients the dose limiting structure was the urethra (urethra planning risk volume V45Gy [cc] ≤ 0.1 cc constraint).

Conclusions

Clinically acceptable plans for 5 fraction SABR, 40 Gy to the prostate CTV, with a SIB to DIL (45–50 Gy) were achieved. The boost dose achieved was DIL location dependent and primarily affected by DIL’s proximity to the urethra. Compared to plans before spacer insertion, higher DIL dose were achieved with spacer in situ for 25% of the patients. Moreover, significant reduction in rectal dose and better target coverage were also achieved for all patients with spacers in situ.

SpaceOAR hydrogel spacer injection prior to stereotactic body radiation therapy for men with localized prostate cancer: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Conventionally fractionated radiotherapy is a common treatment for men with localized prostate cancer. A growing consensus suggests that stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is similarly effective but less costly and more convenient for patients. The SpaceOAR hydrogel rectal spacer placed between the prostate and rectum reduces radiation-induced rectal injury in patients receiving conventionally fractionated radiotherapy, but spacer efficacy with SBRT is unclear. The purpose of this research was to assess the clinical utility of the hydrogel rectal spacer in men receiving SBRT for prostate cancer.

METHODS

We performed systematic searches of Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies in men who received the SpaceOAR hydrogel spacer prior to SBRT (≥5.0 Gy fractions) for treatment of localized prostate center. Rectal irradiation results were compared to controls without spacer implant; all other outcomes were reported descriptively owing to lack of comparative data incuding perirectal separation distance, rectal irradiation on a dosimetric curve, gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, and freedom from biochemical failure. GI toxicity was reported as the risk of a grade 2 or 3+ bowel complication in early (≤3 months) and late (>3 months) follow-up.

RESULTS

In 11 studies with 780 patients, SBRT protocols ranged from 7 to 10 Gy per fraction with total dose ranging from 19 to 45 Gy. Perirectal distance achieved with the rectal spacer ranged from 9.6 to 14.5 mm (median 10.8 mm). Compared to controls receiving no spacer, SpaceOAR placement reduced the radiation delivered to the rectum by 29% to 56% across a dosimetric profile curve. In early follow-up, grade 2 GI complications were reported in 7.0% of patients and no early grade 3+ GI complications were reported. In late follow-up, the corresponding rates were 2.3% for grade 2 and 0.3% for grade 3 GI toxicity. Over 16 months median follow-up, freedom from biochemical failure ranged from 96.4% to 100% (pooled mean 97.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

SpaceOAR hydrogel spacer placed between the prostate and rectum prior to SBRT is a promising preventative strategy that increases the distance between the prostate and rectum, reduces rectal radiation exposure, and may lower the risk of clinically important GI complications.

Proton vs. photon radiotherapy for MR-guided dose escalation of intraprostatic lesions

BACKGROUND

Dose escalation has been associated with improved biochemical control for prostate cancer. Focusing the high dose on the MRI-defined intraprostatic lesions (IL) could spare the surrounding organs at risk and hence allow further escalation. We compare treatment efficacy between state-of-the-art focally-boosted proton and photon-based radiotherapy, and investigate possible predictive guidelines regarding individualized treatment prescriptions.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Ten prostate cancer patients with well-defined ILs were selected. Multiparametric MRI was used to delineate ILs, which were transferred to the planning CT via image registration. Pencil beam scanning proton therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy treatment plans, were created for each patient. Each modality featured 6 plans: (1) moderately hypofractionated dose: 70 Gy to the prostate in 28 fractions, (2)-(6) plan 1 plus additional simultaneous-integrated-boost to ILs to 75.6, 81.2, 86.6, 98 and 112 Gy in 28 fractions. Equivalent dose to 2 Gy-per-fraction (EqD2) was used to calculate tumor control (TCP) and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) for ILs and organs-at-risk.

RESULTS

For both modalities, the maximum necessary dose to achieve TCP > 99% was 98 Gy for very high-risk ILs. For lower risk ILs lower doses were sufficient. NTCP was <25% and 35% for protons and photons at the maximum dose escalation, respectively. For the cases and beam characteristics considered, proton therapy was dosimetrically superior when IL was >4 cc or located <2.5 mm from the rectum.

CONCLUSION

This work demonstrated the potential role for proton therapy in the setting of prostate focal dose escalation. We propose that anatomical characteristic could be used as criteria to identify patients who would benefit from proton treatment.

Extreme Hypofractionation with SBRT in Localized Prostate Cancer

Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among men around the world. Radiotherapy is a standard of care treatment option for men with localized prostate cancer. Over the years, radiation delivery modalities have contributed to increased precision of treatment, employing radiobiological insights to shorten the overall treatment time, improving the control of the disease without increasing toxicities. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) represents an extreme form of hypofractionated radiotherapy in which treatment is usually delivered in 1–5 fractions. This review assesses the main efficacy and toxicity data of SBRT in non-metastatic prostate cancer and discusses the potential to implement this scheme in routine clinical practice.

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.

Phase II study of stereotactic body radiotherapy with hydrogel spacer for prostate cancer: acute toxicity and propensity score-matched comparison

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of a hydrogel spacer in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) has not been clarified. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of SBRT in combination with a hydrogel spacer for prostate cancer.

METHODS

This is a prospective single-center, single-arm phase II study. Prostate cancer patients without lymph node or distant metastasis were eligible. All patients received a hydrogel spacer insertion, followed by SBRT of 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions with volumetric modulated arc therapy. The primary endpoint was physician-assessed acute gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity within 3 months. The secondary endpoints were physician-assessed acute genitourinary (GU) toxicity, patient-reported outcomes evaluated by the EPIC and FACT-P questionnaires, and dosimetric comparison. We used propensity score-matched analyses to compare patients with the hydrogel spacer with those without the spacer. The historical data of the control without a hydrogel spacer was obtained from our hospital's electronic records.

RESULTS

Forty patients were enrolled between February 2017 and July 2018. A hydrogel spacer significantly reduced the dose to the rectum. Grade 2 acute GI and GU toxicity occurred in seven (18%) and 17 (44%) patients. The EPIC bowel and urinary summary score declined from the baseline to the first month (P < 0.01, < 0.01), yet it was still significantly lower in the third month (P < 0.01, P = 0.04). For propensity score-matched analyses, no significant differences in acute GI and GU toxicity were observed between the two groups. The EPIC bowel summary score was significantly better in the spacer group at 1 month (82.2 in the spacer group and 68.5 in the control group).

CONCLUSIONS

SBRT with a hydrogel spacer had the dosimetric benefits of reducing the rectal doses. The use of the hydrogel spacer did not reduce physician-assessed acute toxicity, but it improved patient-reported acute bowel toxicity.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Trial registration: UMIN-CTR, UMIN000026213. Registered 19 February 2017, https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000029385 .

Fiducial markers visibility and artefacts in prostate cancer radiotherapy multi-modality imaging

BACKGROUND

In this study, a novel pelvic phantom was developed and used to assess the visibility and presence of artefacts from different types of commercial fiducial markers (FMs) on multi-modality imaging relevant to prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The phantom was designed with 3D printed hollow cubes in the centre. These cubes were filled with gel to mimic the prostate gland and two parallel PVC rods were used to mimic bones in the pelvic region. Each cube was filled with gelatine and three unique FMs were positioned with a clinically-relevant spatial distribution. The FMs investigated were; Gold Marker (GM) CIVCO, GM RiverPoint, GM Gold Anchor (GA) line and ball shape, and polymer marker (PM) from CIVCO. The phantom was scanned using several imaging modalities typically used to image prostate cancer patients; MRI, CT, CBCT, planar kV-pair, ExacTrac, 6MV, 2.5MV and integrated EPID imaging. The visibility of the markers and any observed artefacts in the phantom were compared to in-vivo scans of prostate cancer patients with FMs.

RESULTS

All GMs were visible in volumetric scans, however, they also had the most visible artefacts on CT and CBCT scans, with the magnitude of artefacts increasing with FM size. PM FMs had the least visible artefacts in volumetric scans but they were not visible on portal images and had poor visibility on lateral kV images. The smallest diameter GMs (GA) were the most difficult GMs to identify on lateral kV images.

CONCLUSION

The choice between different FMs is also dependent on the adopted IGRT strategy. PM was found to be superior to investigated gold markers in the most commonly used modalities in the management of prostate cancer; CT, CBCT and MRI imaging.

Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Hydrogel Rectal Spacer in Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy

PURPOSE

A hydrogel rectal spacer (HRS) is a medical device that is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to increase the separation between the prostate and rectum. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of HRS use for reduction in radiation therapy (RT) toxicities in patients with prostate cancer (PC) undergoing external beam RT (EBRT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A multistate Markov model was constructed from the U.S. payer perspective to examine the cost-effectiveness of HRS in men with localized PC receiving EBRT (EBRT alone vs EBRT + HRS). The subgroups analyzed included site of HRS placement (hospital outpatient, physician office, ambulatory surgery center) and proportion of patients with good baseline erectile function (EF). Data on EF, gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicities incidence, and potential risks associated with HRS implantation were obtained from a recently published randomized clinical trial. Health utilities and costs were derived from the literature and the 2018 Physician Fee Schedule and were discounted 3% annually. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs were modeled for a 5-year period from receipt of RT. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and value-based threshold analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

The per-patient 5-year incremental cost for spacers administered in a hospital outpatient setting was $3578, and the incremental effectiveness was 0.0371 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $96,440/QALY for patients with PC undergoing HRS insertion in a hospital and $39,286/QALY for patients undergoing HRS insertion in an ambulatory facility. For men with good baseline EF, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $35,548/QALY and $9627/QALY in hospital outpatient and ambulatory facility settings, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, HRS is cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000. These results contain substantial uncertainty, suggesting more evidence is needed to refine future decision-making.

Rectal radiation dose-reduction techniques in prostate cancer: a focus on the rectal spacer

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men. External beam radiotherapy by a variety of methods is a standard treatment option with excellent disease control. However, acute and late rectal side effects remain a limiting concern in intensification of therapy in higher-risk patients and in efforts to reduce treatment burden in others. A number of techniques have emerged that allow for high-radiation dose delivery to the prostate with reduced risk of rectal toxicity, including image-guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy, endorectal balloons and various forms of rectal spacers. Image-guided radiation therapy, either intensity-modulated radiation therapy or stereotactic ablative radiation therapy, in conjunction with a rectal spacer, is an efficacious means to reduce acute and long-term rectal toxicity.

The role of radioprotective spacers in clinical practice: a review

The delivery of high dose radiotherapy to tumors is often limited by the proximity of the surrounding radiosensitive normal tissues, even using modern techniques such as intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Previous studies have reported that placement of a spacer can effectively displace normal tissues. So that they are some distance away from the lesion, thus allowing for the safe delivery of high-dose radiation. The application of radioprotective spacers was first reported 30 years ago regarding radiotherapy of tongue and abdominal cancers; more recently, they are increasingly being used in prostate cancer. This review focuses on the published data concerning the features of different types of spacers and their application in various tumor sites. Placement-related complications and the cost-effectiveness of the spacers are also discussed. With the increasing use of high-precision radiotherapy in clinical practice, especially the paradigm-changing stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), more robust studies are warranted to further establish the role of radioprotective spacers through materials development and novel placement techniques.