Rectal spacer hydrogel in 1.5T MR-guided and daily adapted SBRT for prostate cancer: dosimetric analysis and preliminary patient-reported outcomes

One-year clinical outcomes of MR-guided stereotactic body radiation therapy with rectal spacer for patients with localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

This prospective study aimed to investigate adaptive magnetic resonance (MR)-guided stereotactic body radiation therapy (MRgSBRT) with rectal spacer for localized prostate cancer (PC) and report 1-year clinical outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-four consecutive patients with low- to high-risk localized PC that underwent 5-fraction adaptive MRgSBRT with rectal spacer were enrolled. The dosimetric comparison was performed on a risk- and age-matched cohort treated with MRgSBRT but without a spacer at a similar timepoint. Clinician-reported outcomes were based on Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Patient-reported outcomes were based on the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) questionnaire at baseline, acute (1-3 months), subacute (4-12 months), and late (> 12 months) phases.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 390 days (range 28-823) and the median age was 70 years (range 58-82). One patient experienced rectal bleeding soon after spacer insertion that subsided before MRgSBRT. The median distance between the midline of the prostate midgland and the rectum after spacer insertion measured 7.8 mm (range 2.6-15.3), and the median length of the spacer was 45.9 mm (range 16.8-62.9) based on T2-weighted MR imaging. The use of spacer resulted in significant improvements in target coverage (V100% > 95% = 98.6% [range 93.4-99.8] for spacer vs. 97.8% [range 69.6-99.7] for non-spacer) and rectal sparing (V95% < 3 cc = 0.7 cc [range 0-4.6] for spacer vs. 4.9 cc [range 0-12.5] for non-spacer). Nine patients (26.5%) experienced grade 1 gastrointestinal toxicities, and no grade ≥ 2 toxicities were observed. During the 1-year follow-up period, EPIC scores for the bowel domain remained stable and were the highest among all other domains.

CONCLUSIONS

MRgSBRT with rectal spacer for localized PC showed exceptional tolerability with minimal gastrointestinal toxicities and satisfactory patient-reported outcomes. Improvements in dosimetry, rectal sparing, and target coverage were achieved with a rectal spacer. Randomized trials are warranted for further validation.

Impact of technological advances in treatment planning, image guidance, and treatment delivery on target margin design for prostate cancer radiotherapy: an updated review

Recent innovations in image guidance, treatment delivery, and adaptive radiotherapy (RT) have created a new paradigm for planning target volume (PTV) margin design for patients with prostate cancer. We performed a review of the recent literature on PTV margin selection and design for intact prostate RT, excluding post-operative RT, brachytherapy, and proton therapy. Our review describes the increased focus on prostate and seminal vesicles as heterogenous deforming structures with further emergence of intra-prostatic GTV boost and concurrent pelvic lymph node treatment. To capture recent innovations, we highlight the evolution in cone beam CT guidance, and increasing use of MRI for improved target delineation and image registration and supporting online adaptive RT. Moreover, we summarize new and evolving image-guidance treatment platforms as well as recent reports of novel immobilization strategies and motion tracking. Our report also captures recent implementations of artificial intelligence to support image guidance and adaptive RT. To characterize the clinical impact of PTV margin changes via model-based risk estimates and clinical trials, we highlight recent high impact reports. Our report focusses on topics in the context of PTV margins but also showcase studies attempting to move beyond the PTV margin recipes with robust optimization and probabilistic planning approaches. Although guidelines exist for target margins conventional using CT-based image guidance, further validation is required to understand the optimal margins for online adaptation either alone or combined with real-time motion compensation to minimize systematic and random uncertainties in the treatment of patients with prostate cancer.

Simulating an intra-fraction adaptive workflow to enable PTV margin reduction in MRIgART volumetric modulated arc therapy for prostate SBRT

Purpose

This study simulates a novel prostate SBRT intra-fraction re-optimization workflow in MRIgART to account for prostate intra-fraction motion and evaluates the dosimetric benefit of reducing PTV margins.

Materials and methods

VMAT prostate SBRT treatment plans were created for 10 patients using two different PTV margins, one with a 5 mm margin except 3 mm posteriorly (standard) and another using uniform 2 mm margins (reduced). All plans were prescribed to 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions and adapted onto each daily MRI dataset. An intra-fraction adaptive workflow was simulated for the reduced margin group by synchronizing the radiation delivery with target position from cine MRI imaging. Intra-fraction delivered dose was reconstructed and prostate DVH metrics were evaluated under three conditions for the reduced margin plans: Without motion compensation (no-adapt), with a single adapt prior to treatment (ATP), and lastly for intra-fraction re-optimization during delivery (intra). Bladder and rectum DVH metrics were compared between the standard and reduced margin plans.

Results

As expected, rectum V18 Gy was reduced by 4.4 ± 3.9%, D1cc was reduced by 12.2 ± 6.8% (3.4 ± 2.3 Gy), while bladder reductions were 7.8 ± 5.6% for V18 Gy, and 9.6 ± 7.3% (3.4 ± 2.5 Gy) for D1cc for the reduced margin reference plans compared to the standard PTV margin. For the intrafraction replanning approach, average intra-fraction optimization times were 40.0 ± 2.9 seconds, less than the time to deliver one of the four VMAT arcs (104.4 ± 9.3 seconds) used for treatment delivery. When accounting for intra-fraction motion, prostate V36.25 Gy was on average 96.5 ± 4.0%, 99.1 ± 1.3%, and 99.6 ± 0.4 for the non-adapt, ATP, and intra-adapt groups, respectively. The minimum dose received by the prostate was less than 95% of the prescription dose in 84%, 36%, and 10% of fractions, for the non-adapt, ATP, and intra-adapt groups, respectively.

Conclusions

Intra-fraction re-optimization improves prostate coverage, specifically the minimum dose to the prostate, and enables PTV margin reduction and subsequent OAR sparing. Fast re-optimizations enable uninterrupted treatment delivery.

Clinical Outcomes of Prostate SBRT Using Non-adaptive MR-Guided Radiotherapy

OBJECTIVES

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is widely used for localized prostate cancer and implementation of MR-guided radiotherapy has the advantage of tighter margins and improved sparing of organs at risk. Here we evaluate outcomes and time required to treat using non-adaptive MR-guided SBRT (MRgSBRT) for localized prostate cancer at our institution.

METHODS

From 9/2019 to 11/2021 we conducted a retrospective review of 80 consecutive patients who were treated with MRgSBRT to the prostate. Patients included low (LR) (5%), favorable intermediate (FIR) (40%), unfavorable intermediate (UIR) (49%), and high risk (HR) (6%). Short-term androgen deprivation therapy was used in 32% of patients. Target volumes included prostate gland and proximal seminal vesicles with an isotropic 3 mm margin. Treatment was prescribed to 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions every other day with urethral sparing. Hydrogel spacer was used in 18% of patients. Time on the linac was recorded as beam on time (BOT) plus total treatment time (TTT) including gating. Analyzed outcomes included PSA response and patient reported outcomes scored by the American Urological Association (AUA) questionnaire and toxicity per CTCAE v5. General linear regression model was used to analyze factors affecting PSA and AUA in longitudinal follow up, and chi-square test was used to assess factors affecting toxicity.

RESULTS

Median follow up was 19.3 months (3.8 - 36.6). Median BOT was 4.6 min (2.6 - 7.2) with a median TTT of 11 min (7.6 - 15.8). Pre-treatment vs post-RT median PSA was 6.36 (2.20 - 19.6) vs 0.85 (0.19 - 3.6), respectively (P < 0.001). PSA decrease differed significantly when patients were stratified by risk category, favoring LR/FIR vs UIF/HR group (P = 0.019). Four (5%) patients experienced a biochemical failure (BCF), with a median time to BCF of 20.4 months (7.9 - 34.5). Median biochemical failure free survival (BCFFS) was not reached, with 2-yr and 4-yr BCFFS of 97.1% and 72.1%, respectively. Patients with LR/FIR disease had 100% 2-yr and 4-yr BCFFS, whereas patients with UIF/HR had 95% and 41% 2-yr and 4-yr BCFFS (P = 0.05). Mean pre-treatment AUA was 7.3 (1 - 25) vs 11.3 (1 - 26) at first follow-up; however, AUA normalized to baseline over time. Urethral Dmax ≥35 Gy trended to lower AUA score at all follow-ups (P = 0.07). Forty-one (51%) patients reported grade 1-2 genitourinary toxicities at the 1 month follow up. Grade 3 toxicity (proctitis) was noted in 1 patient. There was no decrease in any grade rectal toxicity with use of hydrogel spacer (3 vs 6, P = 0.2). No grade ≥4 toxicities was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

MRgSBRT has the potential for treatment adaptation but this comes at the cost of increased resource utilization. Our experience with non-adaptive MRgSBRT of the prostate highlights its short treatment times as well as efficacy with good PSA control and low toxicity profile.

Evaluation of Unity 1.5 T MR-linac plan quality in patients with prostate cancer

The Unity magnetic resonance (MR) linear accelerator (MRL) with MR-guided adaptive radiotherapy (MRgART) is capable of online MRgART where images are acquired on the treatment day and the radiation treatment plan is immediately replanned and performed. We evaluated the MRgART plan quality and plan reproducibility of the Unity MRL in patients with prostate cancer. There were five low- or moderate-risk and five high-risk patients who received 36.25 Gy or 40 Gy, respectively in five fractions. All patients underwent simulation magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and five online adaptive MRI. We created plans for 5, 7, 9, 16, and 20 beams and for 60, 100, and 150 segments. We evaluated the target and organ doses for different number of beams and segments, respectively. Variation in dose constraint between the simulation plan and online adaptive plan was measured for each patient to assess plan reproducibility. The plan quality improved with the increasing number of beams. However, the proportion of significantly improved dose constraints decreased as the number of beams increased. For some dose parameters, there were statistically significant differences between 60 and 100 segments, and 100 and 150 segments. The plan of five beams exhibited limited reproducibility. The number of segments had minimal impact on plan reproducibility, but 60 segments sometimes failed to meet dose constraints for online adaptive plan. The optimization and delivery time increased with the number of beams and segments. We do not recommend using five or fewer beams for a reproducible and high-quality plan in the Unity MRL. In addition, many number of segments and beams may help meet dose constraints during online adaptive plan. Treatment with the Unity MRL should be performed with the appropriate number of beams and segments to achieve a good balance among plan quality, delivery time, and optimization time.

Clinical impact of spacer placement surgery with expanded polytetrafluoroethylene sheet for particle therapy

BACKGROUND

Spacer placement surgery is useful in particle therapy (PT) for patients with abdominopelvic malignant tumors located adjacent to the gastrointestinal tract. This study aimed to assess the safety, efficacy, and long-term outcomes of spacer placement surgery using an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) spacer.

METHODS

This study included 131 patients who underwent ePTFE spacer placement surgery and subsequent PT between September 2006 and June 2019. The overall survival (OS) and local control (LC) rates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier method. Spacer-related complications were classified according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 5.0).

RESULTS

The median follow-up period after spacer placement surgery was 36.8 months. The 3-year estimated OS and LC rates were 60.5% and 76.5%, respectively. A total of 130 patients (99.2%) were able to complete PT. Spacer-related complications of ≥ grade 3 were observed in four patients (3.1%) in the acute phase and 13 patients (9.9%) in the late phase. Ten patients (7.6%) required removal of the ePTFE spacer.

CONCLUSIONS

Spacer placement surgery using an ePTFE spacer for abdominopelvic malignant tumors is technically feasible and acceptable for subsequent PT. However, severe spacer-related late complications were observed in some patients. Since long-term placement of a non-absorbable ePTFE spacer is associated with risks for morbidity and infection, careful long-term follow-up and prompt therapeutic intervention are essential when complications associated with the ePTFE spacer occur.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

retrospectively registered.

Acute toxicity comparison of magnetic resonance-guided adaptive versus fiducial or computed tomography-guided non-adaptive prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is gaining wider adoption for prostate cancer management but there remain significant toxicity risks when delivering prostate SBRT with standard techniques. Magnetic resonance-guided daily adaptive SBRT (MRg-A-SBRT) offers technological advantages in precision of radiation dose delivery, but the toxicity profile associated with MRg-A-SBRT compared to more standardly used fiducial or computed tomography-guided non-adaptive prostate SBRT (CT-SBRT) remains unknown.

METHODS

A meta-analysis to compare acute toxicity rates associated with MRg-A-SBRT and CT-SBRT for prostate cancer was performed in compliance with PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE (PubMed) and Google Scholar were searched for prospective studies of prostate SBRT that were published between January 1, 2018 and August 31, 2022. Random effects and fixed effects models were used to estimate pooled toxicity rates, and meta-regression was performed to compare toxicity between MRg-A-SBRT and CT-SBRT study groups.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine prospective studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria and included a total of 2547 patients. The pooled estimates for acute grade 2 or higher (G2+) genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity for MRg-A-SBRT were 16% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10%-24%) and 4% (95% CI, 2%-7%) and for CT-SBRT they were 28% (95% CI, 23%-33%) and 9% (95% CI, 6%-12%), respectively. On meta-regression, the odds ratios for acute G2+ GU and GI toxicities comparing MRg-A-SBRT and CT-SBRT were 0.56 (95% CI, 0.33-0.97, p = .04) and 0.40 (95% CI, 0.17-0.96, p = .04), respectively.

CONCLUSION

MRg-A-SBRT is associated with a significantly reduced risk of acute G2+ GU or GI toxicity compared to CT-SBRT. Longer follow-up will be needed to evaluate late toxicity and disease control outcomes.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Magnetic resonance imaging-guided daily adaptive prostate stereotactic radiation (MRg-A-SBRT) is a treatment that may allow for delivery of prostate radiation more precisely than other radiotherapy techniques, but it is unknown whether this reduces side effects compared to standardly used computed tomography-guided SBRT (CT-SBRT). In this systematic review and meta-analysis combining data from 29 clinical trials including 2547 patients, it was found that the risk of short-term urinary side effects was reduced by 44% and the risk of short-term bowel side effects was reduced by 60% with MRg-A-SBRT compared to CT-SBRT.

Linac-based versus MR-guided SBRT for localized prostate cancer: a comparative evaluation of acute tolerability

AIM

This study aims to compare acute toxicity of prostate cancer (PCa) stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) delivered by MR-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) with 1.5-T MR-linac or by volumetric modulated arc (VMAT) with conventional linac.

METHODS

Patients with low-to-favorable intermediate risk class PCa were treated with exclusive SBRT (35 Gy in five fractions). Patients treated with MRgRT were enrolled in an Ethical Committee (EC) approved trial (Prot. n° 23,748), while patients treated with conventional linac were enrolled in an EC approved phase II trial (n° SBRT PROG112CESC). The primary end-point was the acute toxicity. Patients were included in the analysis if they had at least 6 months of follow-up for the primary end-point evaluation. Toxicity assessment was performed according to CTCAE v5.0 scale. International Prostatic Symptoms Score (IPSS) was also performed.

RESULTS

A total of 135 patients were included in the analysis. Seventy-two (53.3%) were treated with MR-linac and 63 (46.7%) with conventional linac. The median initial PSA before RT was 6.1 ng/ml (range 0.49-19). Globally, acute G1, G2, and G3 toxicity occurred in 39 (28.8%), 20 (14.5%), and 5 (3.7%) patients. At the univariate analysis, acute G1 toxicity did not differ between MR-linac and conventional linac (26.4% versus 31.8%), as well as G2 toxicity (12.5% versus 17.5%; p = 0.52). Acute G2 gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity occurred in 7% and 12.5% of cases in MR-linac and conventional linac group, respectively (p = 0.06), while acute G2 genitourinary toxicity occurred in 11% and 12.8% in MR-linac and conventional linac, respectively (p = 0.82). The median IPSS before and after SBRT was 3 (1-16) and 5 (1-18). Acute G3 toxicity occurred in two cases in the MR-linac and three cases in the conventional linac group (p = n.s.).

CONCLUSION

Prostate SBRT with 1.5-T MR-linac is feasible and safe. Compared to conventional linac, MRgRT might to potentially reduce the overall G1 acute toxicity at 6 months, and seems to show a trend toward a lower incidence of grade 2 GI toxicity. A longer follow-up is necessary to assess the late efficacy and toxicity.

Dose Distribution of High Dose-Rate and Low Dose-Rate Prostate Brachytherapy at Different Intervals-Impact of a Hydrogel Spacer and Prostate Volume

The study aimed to compare the dose distribution in permanent low-dose-rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT) and high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT), specifically focusing on the impact of a spacer and prostate volume. The relative dose distribution of 102 LDR-BT patients (prescription dose 145 Gy) at different intervals was compared with the dose distribution of 105 HDR-BT patients (232 HDR-BT fractions with prescription doses of 9 Gy, n = 151, or 11.5 Gy, n = 81). A hydrogel spacer (10 mL) was only injected before HDR-BT. For the analysis of dose coverage outside the prostate, a 5 mm margin was added to the prostate volume (PV+). Prostate V100 and D90 of HDR-BT and LDR-BT at different intervals were comparable. HDR-BT was characterized by a considerably more homogenous dose distribution and lower doses to the urethra. The minimum dose in 90% of PV+ was higher for larger prostates. As a consequence of the hydrogel spacer in HDR-BT patients, the intraoperative dose at the rectum was considerably lower, especially in smaller prostates. However, prostate volume dose coverage was not improved. The dosimetric results well explain clinical differences between these techniques reported in the literature review, specifically comparable tumor control, higher acute urinary toxicity rates in LDR-BT in comparison to HDR-BT, decreased rectal toxicity after spacer placement, and improved tumor control after HDR-BT in larger prostate volumes.

Quality evaluation of guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of radiation enteritis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically evaluate the guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of radioactive enteritis, compare their differences and reasons and provide some reference for updating them.

METHODS

This study used guidelines related to radiation enteritis by searching a database. Four independent reviewers used the AGREE II evaluation tool to evaluate the quality of the included guidelines, collate their main recommendations, and analyze the highest evidence supporting the main recommendations.

RESULTS

Six diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines for radiation enteritis were included in this study, one of which, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines, had an overall score of over 60%, which is worthy of clinical recommendation. In the diagnosis and treatment of radioactive rectal injury, the recommendations for hemorrhagic endoscopic treatment are mature and mainly include (I) argon plasma coagulation; (II) formalin treatment; (III) bipolar electrocoagulation; (IV) heater probe; (V) radiofrequency ablation; and (VI) cryoablation.

CONCLUSION

The methodological quality of radioactive enteritis guidelines is unequal; even in the same guidelines, different domains have a large difference. For radioactive rectal damage diagnosis, a type of endoscopic treatment recommendation is more mature, but the overall diagnosis and treatment of radioactive enteritis still lacks high-quality research evidence.

1.5T MR-Guided Daily-Adaptive SBRT for Prostate Cancer: Preliminary Report of Toxicity and Quality of Life of the First 100 Patients

Purpose: The present study reports the preliminary outcomes in terms of adverse events and quality of life in the first 100 patients treated with 1.5T MR-guided daily-adaptive stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Methods: From October 2019 to December 2020, 100 patients, enrolled in a prospective study, received MR-guided SBRT for prostate cancer. Rectal spacer insertion was optional and administered in 37 patients. In total, 32 patients received androgen deprivation therapy in accordance with international guidelines. A prospective collection of data regarding toxicity and quality of life was performed. Results: The median age was 71 years (range, 52-84). The median total dose delivered was 35 Gy (35-36.25 Gy) in five sessions, either on alternate days (n = 25) or consecutive days (n = 75). For acute toxicity, we recorded: seven cases of acute G2 urinary pain and four cases of G2 gastrointestinal events. The median follow-up was 12 months (3-20), recording three late G2 urinary events and one G3 case, consisting of a patient who required a TURP 8 months after the treatment. For gastrointestinal toxicity, we observed 3 G ≥ 2 GI events, including one patient who received argon laser therapy for radiation-induced proctitis. Up to the last follow-up, all patients are alive and with no evidence of biochemical relapse, except for an M1 low-volume patient in distant progression two months after radiotherapy. QoL evaluation reported a substantial resolution of any discomfort within the second follow-up after radiotherapy, with the only exception being sexual items. Notably, after one year, global health items were improved compared to the baseline assessment. Conclusions: This study reports very promising outcomes in terms of adverse events and QoL, supporting the role of 1.5T MR-guided SBRT for prostate cancer. To date, this series is one of the first and largest available in the literature. Long-term results are warranted.

Implementation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Radiation Therapy in Routine Care: Opportunities and Challenges in the United States

Purpose

Magnetic resonance image (MRI)-guided radiation therapy with the 1.5 Tesla magnetic resonance linear accelerator (MR-Linac) is a rapidly evolving and emerging treatment. The MR-Linac literature mainly focused on clinical and technological factors in technology implementation, but it is relatively silent on health care system-related factors. Consequently, there is a lack of understanding of opportunities and barriers in implementing the MR-Linac from a health care system perspective. This study addresses this gap with a case study of the US health care system.

Methods and Materials

An exploratory, qualitative research design was used. Data collection consisted of 23 semistructured interviews ranging from clinical experts at the radiation therapy and radiology department to insurance commissioners in 7 US hospitals. Analysis of opportunities and barriers was guided by the Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread and Sustainability framework for new medical technologies in health care organizations.

Results

Opportunities included high-precision MR-guidance during radiation therapy with potential continued technical advances and better patient outcomes. MR-Linac also offers opportunities for research, professional, and economic development. Barriers included the lack of empirical evidence of clinical effectiveness, technological complexity, and large staffing and structural investments. Furthermore, the presence of patients with disadvantaged socioeconomic background, and the lack of appropriate reimbursement as well as regulatory conditions can hinder technology implementation.

Conclusions

Our study confirms the current literature on implementing the MR-Linac, but also reveals additional challenges for the US health care system. Alongside the well-known clinical and technical factors, also professional, socioeconomic, market, and governing influences affect technology implementation. These findings highlight new connections to facilitate technology uptake and provide a richer start to understanding its long-term effect.

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.

Rectal Radiation Dose and Clinical Outcomes in Prostate Cancer Patients Treated With Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy With and Without Hydrogel

Background

Patients with prostate cancer treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) may experience gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. The hydrogel may mitigate this toxicity by reducing the rectal radiation dose. The purpose of this study is to compare rectal radiation dose and GI toxicity in patients receiving prostate SBRT with and without hydrogel.

Methods

Consecutive patients treated with SBRT between February 2017 and January 2020 with and without hydrogel were retrospectively identified. Baseline characteristics including prostate volume, rectal diameter, body mass index (BMI), age, pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA), Gleason score, T-stage, and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) usage were compared. Dosimetric outcomes (V40Gy, V36Gy, V32Gy, V38Gy, and V20Gy), rates of acute (≤90 days) and late (>90 days) GI toxicity, and PSA outcomes were evaluated for patients with and without hydrogel.

Results

A total of 92 patients were identified (51 hydrogel and 41 non-hydrogel). There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics. Rectal V38(cc) was significantly less in the hydrogel group (mean 0.44 vs. mean 1.41 cc, p = 0.0002), and the proportion of patients with V38(cc) < 2 cc was greater in the hydrogel group (92% vs. 72%, p = 0.01). Rectal dose was significantly lower for all institutional dose constraints in the hydrogel group (p < 0.001). The hydrogel group experienced significantly less acute overall GI toxicity (16% hydrogel vs. 28% non-hydrogel, p = 0.006), while the difference in late GI toxicity trended lower with hydrogel but was not statistically significant (4% hydrogel vs. 10% non-hydrogel, p = 0.219). At a median follow-up of 14.8 months, there were no biochemical recurrences in either group.

Conclusion

Hydrogel reduces rectal radiation dose in patients receiving prostate SBRT and is associated with a decreased rate of acute GI toxicity.

Biological effective dose in analysis of rectal dose in prostate cancer patients who underwent a combination therapy of VMAT and LDR with hydrogel spacer insertion

This study aimed to evaluate rectal dose reduction in prostate cancer patients who underwent a combination of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and low‐dose‐rate (LDR) brachytherapy with insertion of hydrogel spacer (SpaceOAR). For this study, 35 patients receiving hydrogel spacer and 30 patients receiving no spacer were retrospectively enrolled. Patient was treated to doses of 45 Gy to the primary tumor site and nodal regions over 25 fractions using VMAT and 100 Gy to the prostate using prostate seed implant (PSI). In VMAT plans of patients with no spacer, mean doses of rectal wall were 43.6, 42.4, 40.1, and 28.8 Gy to the volume of 0.5, 1, 2, and 5 cm³, respectively. In patients with SpaceOAR, average rectal wall doses decreased to 39.0, 36.9, 33.5, and 23.9 Gy to the volume of 0.5, 1, 2, and 5 cm³, respectively (p < 0.01). In PSI plans, rectal wall doses were on average 78.5, 60.9, 41.8, and 14.8 Gy to the volume of 0.5, 1, 2, and 5 cm³, respectively, in patients without spacer. In contrast, the doses decreased to 34.5, 28.4, 20.6 (p < 0.01), and 8.5 Gy (p < 0.05) to rectal wall volume of 0.5, 1, 2, and 5 cm³, respectively, in patient with SpaceOAR. To demonstrate rectal sum dose sparing, dose‐biological effective dose (BED) calculation was accomplished in those patients who showed >60% overlap of rectal volumetric doses between VMAT and PSI. In patients with SpaceOAR, average BED_sum was decreased up to 34%, which was 90.1, 78.9, 65.9, and 40.8 Gy to rectal volume of 0.5, 1, 2, and 5 cm³, respectively, in comparison to 137.4, 116.7, 93.0, and 50.2 Gy to the volume of 0.5, 1, 2, and 5 cm³, respectively, in those with no spacer. Our result suggested a significant reduction of rectal doses in those patients who underwent a combination of VMAT and LDR with hydrogel spacer placement.

Dosimetric comparison of MR-guided adaptive IMRT versus 3DOF-VMAT for prostate stereotactic radiotherapy

•

Prostate SBRT are treated using MR-guided adaptive IMRT (A-IMRT) and VMAT based on translation correction (3DOF-VMAT) at our institution.

•

Comparison of reference and delivered dose between adaptive-IMRT and 3DOF-VMAT to assess the effect of interfractional motion.

•

Despite large interfractional changes, prostate received clinically acceptable dose with a margin of 5 mm through either A-IMRT or 3DOF-VMAT.

•

A-IMRT was more superior than 3DOF-VMAT in sparing the rectum in the high dose region; no difference between the two systems was observed for bladder.

Introduction

Methods & Materials

Results

Conclusions

A narrative review of MRI acquisition for MR-guided-radiotherapy in prostate cancer

Magnetic resonance guided radiotherapy (MRgRT), enabled by the clinical introduction of the integrated MRI and linear accelerator (MR-LINAC), is a novel technique for prostate cancer (PCa) treatment, promising to further improve clinical outcome and reduce toxicity. The role of prostate MRI has been greatly expanded from the traditional PCa diagnosis to also PCa screening, treatment and surveillance. Diagnostic prostate MRI has been relatively familiar in the community, particularly with the development of Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS). But, on the other hand, the use of MRI in the emerging clinical practice of PCa MRgRT, which is substantially different from that in PCa diagnosis, has been so far sparsely presented in the medical literature. This review attempts to give a comprehensive overview of MRI acquisition techniques currently used in the clinical workflows of PCa MRgRT, from treatment planning to online treatment guidance, in order to promote MRI practice and research for PCa MRgRT. In particular, the major differences in the MRI acquisition of PCa MRgRT from that of diagnostic prostate MRI are demonstrated and explained. Limitations in the current MRI acquisition for PCa MRgRT are analyzed. The future developments of MRI in the PCa MRgRT are also discussed.

Feasibility of Same-Day Prostate Fiducial Markers, Perirectal Hydrogel Spacer Placement, and Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Simulation for External Beam Radiation Therapy for Low-Risk and Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

The use of prostate fiducial markers and perirectal hydrogel spacers can reduce the acute and late toxic effects associated with prostate radiation therapy. These procedures are usually performed days to weeks before simulation during a separate clinic visit to ensure resolution of procedure-related inflammation. The purpose of this study was to assess whether same-day intraprostatic fiducial marker placement, perirectal hydrogel injection, and computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) simulation were feasible without adversely affecting hydrogel volume, perirectal spacing, or rectal dose. If feasible, performing these procedures on the same day as simulation would expedite the start of radiation therapy, improve patient convenience, and reduce costs.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Twenty-one patients with clinically localized prostate cancer who were enrolled on a prospective clinical trial (NCT01617161) underwent same-day marker placement, hydrogel injection, and CT and MRI simulation, then underwent T2 MRI verification scans 3 to 4 weeks later. The MRI scans were fused to the CT planning scans by clinical target volumes (CTVs) to generate comparison treatment plans (70 Gy in 28 fractions). Hydrogel volume and symmetry, perirectal spacing, CTV dose, and organ-at-risk dose were evaluated.

RESULTS

Verification scans occurred a mean of 24.9 ± 4.6 days after simulation and 9.3 ± 4.9 days after treatment start. Prostate volume did not change between scans (median, 67.3 ± 22.1 cm³ vs 64.1 ± 21.8 cm³; P = .64). The median hydrogel change between simulation and verification was ^-1.8% ± 4.5% (P = .27). No significant differences in perirectal spacing (midgland: 1.33 ± 0.45 cm vs 1.3 ± 0.7 cm; 1 cm superior: 1.25 ± 0.95 cm vs 1.43 ± 0.91 cm; 1 cm inferior: 1.16 ± 0.28 cm vs 1.41 ± 0.49 cm) were identified. No significant differences in rectal V66 (median 2.3 ± 2.18% vs 2.3 ± 2.28%; P = .99), V35 (median 14.79 ± 7.61 vs 14.67 ± 8.4; P = .73), or D1cc (65.7 ± 9.2 Gy vs 68.2 ± 9.0 Gy; P = .80) were found. All plans met CTV and organ-at-risk constraints.

CONCLUSION

Same-day placement of intraprostatic fiducial markers, perirectal hydrogel, and simulation scans was feasible and did not significantly affect hydrogel volume, position, CTV coverage, or rectal dose.

Patient positioning and immobilization procedures for hybrid MR-Linac systems

Hybrid magnetic resonance (MR)-guided linear accelerators represent a new horizon in the field of radiation oncology. By harnessing the favorable combination of on-board MR-imaging with the possibility to daily recalculate the treatment plan based on real-time anatomy, the accuracy in target and organs-at-risk identification is expected to be improved, with the aim to provide the best tailored treatment. To date, two main MR-linac hybrid machines are available, Elekta Unity and Viewray MRIdian. Of note, compared to conventional linacs, these devices raise practical issues due to the positioning phase for the need to include the coil in the immobilization procedure and in order to perform the best reproducible positioning, also in light of the potentially longer treatment time. Given the relative novelty of this technology, there are few literature data regarding the procedures and the workflows for patient positioning and immobilization for MR-guided daily adaptive radiotherapy. In the present narrative review, we resume the currently available literature and provide an overview of the positioning and setup procedures for all the anatomical districts for hybrid MR-linac systems.

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.

Non-Adaptive MR-Guided Radiotherapy for Prostate SBRT: Less Time, Equal Results

BACKGROUND

The use of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is widely utilized for treatment of localized prostate cancer. Magnetic-resonance-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) was introduced in 2014 and has recently been implemented in SBRT for prostate cancer as it provides an opportunity for smaller margins and adaptive daily planning. Currently, the only publications of MRgRT for prostate SBRT describe European clinical experiences which utilized adaptive planning. However, adaptive planning adds significantly to the time required for daily treatment.

OBJECTIVES

Since prostate SBRT has demonstrated acceptable toxicity for several years, we did not consider daily adaptation critical to the process of prostate SBRT. After Institutional Review Board approval, we analyzed and now report our experience using MRgRT without adaptation.

METHODS

Between 25 September 2019 and 21 December 2020, 35 consecutive patients were treated with MRgRT prostate SBRT at our center. Patients treated with MRgRT included favorable intermediate risk (43%) and unfavorable intermediate risk (54%), and only one patient had low-risk prostate cancer. Nine patients (25%) received adjuvant leuprolide for a median of 4.5 months (range 4-6 m). Our clinical pathway allows for a maximum prostate gland volume of 60 cc; median prostate volume of this cohort was 35.0 cc (range 17-58.4 cc). Median pre-treatment PSA was 6.30 (range 2.55-16.77). Each patient was treated with 36.25 Gy delivered in five fractions over 2 weeks with urethral sparing to a maximal dose of 35 Gy. Target volumes included the prostate gland and proximal seminal vesicles with a 3 mm margin.

RESULTS

Median follow-up as of 26 May 2021 was 11.97 months (range 4.37-19.80). First follow-up data are available for all patients, with a median of 1.10 month from completion of treatment (0.63-3.40). The median PSA at first visit was 2.75 (range 0.02-9.00) with a median AUA symptom score of 9 (range 1-24). Second follow-up data are available for 34 patients at a median of 4.45 months (range 2.57-8.90). At second follow-up, the median PSA was 1.60 (range 0.02-5.40) with a median AUA symptom score of 6 (range 1-33). Seventeen patients had third follow-up data with a median of 9.77 months (range 4.70-12.33) after SBRT. The median PSA was 1.13 (range 0.02-4.73) with an AUA score of 9 (2-22) at the third follow-up. We observed a statistically significant decrease in PSA between pre-treatment and at first follow-up (p < 0.005). The most common toxicity was grade 2 urethritis, managed in all cases by tamsulosin. One patient developed grade 2 tenesmus relieved by topical steroids. No cases of grade ≥ 3 toxicity were seen in our patient population.

CONCLUSIONS

By avoiding the extra time required for plan adaptation, MRgRT without daily adaptation allows for successful prostate SBRT with manageable toxicity. We continue to reserve our limited adaptive treatment slots for preoperative pancreatic and ultra-central lung SBRT patients, which require time-intensive respiratory gating and adaptive planning.

Impact of hydrogel peri-rectal spacer insertion on seminal vesicles intrafraction motion during 1.5 T-MRI-guided adaptive stereotactic body radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

MR-guided daily-adaptive radiotherapy is improving the accuracy in the planning and delivery phases of the treatment. Rectal hydrogel-spacer may help in mitigating organ motion, but few data are currently available.

METHODS

We aimed to assess any potential impact of the device on seminal vesicles motion by measuring translational and rotational shifts between the pre- and post-treatment MRI scans of a total of 50 fractions in the first 10 patients who underwent MR-guided prostate SBRT (35 Gy/5 fx). Of them, five patients received the hydrogel-spacer. The comparative analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney U-test.

RESULTS

Median rotational shifts were: in anteroposterior 0° (range, 0.097°/0.112°; SD = 0.05°) vs 0° (-0.162/0.04°; SD = 0.07°) in the no-spacer subgroup (p = 0.36); lateral shifts were 0° (-0.1°/0.54°; SD = 0.28°) vs -0.85° in the no-spacer cohort (-1.56°/0.124°; SD = 0.054°; p = 0.22). Cranio-caudal shifts were 0° (-0.121°/0.029°; SD = 0.06°) in the spacer-cohort vs 0° (-0.066°/0.087°; SD = 0.69°; p = 0.53). Median translational shifts were: in anteroposterior 0.9 mm (-0.014 mm/0.031 mm; SD = 0.036 mm) in the spacer-group vs 0.030 mm (-0.14 mm/0.03 mm; SD = 0.032 mm; p = 0.8); latero-lateral shifts were -0.042 mm (-0.047 mm/0.07 mm; SD = 0.054 mm), vs -0.023 mm (-0.027 mm/-0.01 mm; SD = 0.023 mm) in the no-spacer group (p = 0.94). In cranio-caudal, statistically significant shifts were reported: 0.082 mm (0.06 mm/0.15 mm; SD = 0.04 mm) vs 0.06 mm (-0.06/0.08 mm; SD = 0.09 mm) in the no-spacer cohort (p = 0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

A favorable impact of the hydrogel-spacer on seminal vesicles motion was observed only in cranio-caudal translational shifts, although being not clinically significant. Further studies are required to fully investigate the potential contribution of this device on vesicles motion.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

MR-guided daily adaptive radiotherapy may represent a game changer for prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy, given the possibility to better visualize soft-tissues anatomy and to daily recalculate the treatment plan based on real-time conditions. The use of devices like rectal ballon or rectal gel spacers has gained interest in the last years for the possibility to better spare the rectum during prostate radiotherapy. This is one of the first experiences exploring the role of rectal spacer on seminal vesicles intrafraction motion during MR-guided SBRT for prostate cancer.

Mitigation on bowel loops daily variations by 1.5-T MR-guided daily-adaptive SBRT for abdomino-pelvic lymph-nodal oligometastases

PURPOSE

We report preliminary dosimetric data concerning the use of 1.5-T MR-guided daily-adaptive radiotherapy for abdomino-pelvic lymph-nodal oligometastases. We aimed to assess the impact of this technology on mitigating daily variations for both target coverage and organs-at-risk (OARs) sparing.

METHODS

A total of 150 sessions for 30 oligometastases in 23 patients were analyzed. All patients were treated with MR-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for a total dose of 35 Gy in five fractions. For each fraction, a quantitative analysis was performed for PTV volume, V35Gy and D_mean. Similarly, for OARs, we assessed daily variations of volume, D_mean, D_max. Any potential statistically significant change between baseline planning and daily-adaptive sessions was assessed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, assuming a p value < 0.05 as significant.

RESULTS

Average baseline PTV, bowel, bladder, and single intestinal loop volumes were respectively 8.9 cc (range 0.7-41.2 cc), 1176 cc (119-3654 cc), 95 cc (39.7-202.9 cc), 18.3 cc (9.1-37.7 cc). No significant volume variations were detected for PTV (p = 0.21) bowel (p = 0.36), bladder (p = 0.47), except for single intestinal loops, which resulted smaller (p = 0.026). Average baseline V35Gy and D_mean for PTV were respectively 85.6% (72-98.8%) and 35.6 Gy (34.6-36.1 Gy). We recorded a slightly positive trend in favor of daily-adaptive strategy vs baseline planning for improved target coverage, although not reaching statistical significance (p = 0.11 and p = 0.18 for PTV-V35Gy and PTV-D_mean). Concerning OARs, a significant difference was observed in favor of daily-adapted treatments in terms of single intestinal loop D_max [23.05 Gy (13.2-26.9 Gy) at baseline vs 20.5 Gy (12.1-24 Gy); p value = 0.0377] and D_mean [14.4 Gy (6.5-18 Gy) at baseline vs 13.0 Gy (6.7-17.6 Gy); p value = 0.0003]. Specifically for bladder, the average D_max was 18.6 Gy (0.4-34.3 Gy) at baseline vs 18.3 Gy (0.7-34.3 Gy) for a p value = 0.28; the average D_mean was 7.0 Gy (0.2-16.6 Gy) at baseline vs 6.98 Gy (0.2-16.4 Gy) for a p value = 0.66. Concerning the bowel, no differences in terms of D_mean [4.78 Gy (1.3-10.9 Gy) vs 5.6 Gy (1.4-10.5 Gy); p value = 0.23] were observed between after daily-adapted sessions. A statistically significant difference was observed for bowel D_max [26.4 Gy (7.7-34 Gy) vs 25.8 Gy (7.8-33.1 Gy); p value = 0.0086].

CONCLUSIONS

Daily-adaptive MR-guided SBRT reported a significantly improved single intestinal loop sparing for lymph-nodal oligometastases. Also, bowel D_max was significantly reduced with daily-adaptive strategy. A minor advantage was also reported in terms of PTV coverage, although not statistically significant.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer in men with underlying inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND

Historically, IBD has been thought to increase the underlying risk of radiation related toxicity in the treatment of prostate cancer. In the modern era, contemporary radiation planning and delivery may mitigate radiation-related toxicity in this theoretically high-risk cohort. This is the first manuscript to report clinical outcomes for men diagnosed with prostate cancer and underlying IBD curatively treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT).

METHODS

A large institutional database of patients (n = 4245) treated with SBRT for adenocarcinoma of the prostate was interrogated to identify patients who were diagnosed with underlying IBD prior to treatment. All patients were treated with SBRT over five treatment fractions using a robotic radiosurgical platform and fiducial tracking. Baseline IBD characteristics including IBD subtype, pre-SBRT IBD medications, and EPIC bowel questionnaires were reviewed for the IBD cohort. Acute and late toxicity was evaluated using the CTCAE version 5.0.

RESULTS

A total of 31 patients were identified who had underlying IBD prior to SBRT for the curative treatment of prostate cancer. The majority (n = 18) were diagnosed with ulcerative colitis and were being treated with local steroid suppositories for IBD. No biochemical relapses were observed in the IBD cohort with early follow up. High-grade acute and late toxicities were rare (n = 1, grade 3 proctitis) with a median time to any GI toxicity of 22 months. Hemorrhoidal flare was the most common low-grade toxicity observed (n = 3).

CONCLUSION

To date, this is one of the largest groups of patients with IBD treated safely and effectively with radiation for prostate cancer and the only review of patients treated with SBRT. Caution is warranted when delivering therapeutic radiation to patients with IBD, however modern radiation techniques appear to have mitigated the risk of GI side effects.

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 .

MR-Guided Hypofractionated Radiotherapy: Current Emerging Data and Promising Perspectives for Localized Prostate Cancer

Simple Summary

The biological features of prostate cancer as a tumor with a low alpha beta ratio have led clinicians to consider the use of higher doses per fraction, thus gaining an advantage both in terms of clinical outcomes and of logistic opportunities. To date, moderate hypofractionated schedules are supported by several international clinical guidelines. The subsequent step was represented by the adoption of extreme hypofractionated schedules, for which recent literature data report non-inferiority results for the five-fractions regimens. In this scenario, the recent introduction of MR-guided daily adaptive radiotherapy is a potential paradigm shift, given the ability to increase the resolution of the pelvis anatomy and to take into account of the daily variations in shape and size of the nearby healthy structures.

Abstract

In this review we summarize the currently available evidence about the role of hybrid machines for MR-guided radiotherapy for prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy. Given the novelty of this technology, to date few data are accessible, but they all report very promising results in terms of tolerability and preliminary clinical outcomes. Most of the studies highlight the favorable impact of on-board magnetic resonance imaging as a means to improve target and organs at risk identification with a consequent advantage in terms of dosimetric results, which is expected to relate to a more favorable toxicity pattern. Still, the longer treatment time per session may potentially affect the patient’s compliance to the treatment, although first quality of life assessment studies have reported substantial tolerability and no major impact on quality of life. Finally, in this review we hypothesize some future scenarios of further investigation, based on the possibility to explore the superior anatomy visualization and the role of daily adapted treatments provided by hybrid MR-Linacs.