Proton Beam Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: Results from a Prospective Quality-of-Life Trial

A Single-Institution Prospective Study To Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Real- Time Image-Gated Spot-Scanning Proton Therapy (RGPT) for Prostate Cancer

Purpose

In real-time image-gated spot-scanning proton therapy (RGPT), the dose distribution is distorted by gold fiducial markers placed in the prostate. Distortion can be suppressed by using small markers and more than 2 fields, but additional fields may increase the dose to organs at risk. Therefore, we conducted a prospective study to evaluate the safety and short-term clinical outcome of RGPT for prostate cancer.

Methods and Materials

Based on the previously reported frequency of early adverse events (AE) and the noninferiority margin of 10%, the required number of cases was calculated to be 43 using the one-sample binomial test by the Southwest Oncology Group statistical tools with the one-sided significance level of 2.5% and the power 80%. Patients with localized prostate cancer were enrolled and 3 to 4 pure gold fiducial markers of 1.5-mm diameter were inserted in the prostate. The prescribed dose was 70 Gy(relative biologic effectiveness) in 30 fractions, and treatment was performed with 3 fields from the left, right, and the back, or 4 fields from either side of slightly anterior and posterior oblique fields. The primary endpoint was the frequency of early AE (≥grade 2) and the secondary endpoint was the biochemical relapse-free survival rate and the frequency of late AE.

Results

Forty-five cases were enrolled between 2015 and 2017, and all patients completed the treatment protocol. The median follow-up period was 63.0 months. The frequency of early AE (≥grade 2) was observed in 4 cases (8.9%), therefore the noninferiority was verified. The overall 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival rate was 88.9%. As late AE, grade 2 rectal bleeding was observed in 8 cases (17.8%).

Conclusions

The RGPT for prostate cancer with 1.5-mm markers and 3- or 4- fields was as safe as conventional proton therapy in early AE, and its efficacy was comparable with previous studies.

Initial Quality of Life and Toxicity Analysis of a Randomized Phase 3 Study of Moderately Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy With or Without Androgen Suppression for Intermediate-Risk Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate: PCG GU003

Purpose

Our objective was to report the quality of life (QoL) analysis and toxicity in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in Proton Collaborative Group (PCG) GU003.

Methods and Materials

Between 2012 and 2019, patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer were enrolled. Patients were randomized to receive moderately hypofractionated proton beam therapy (PBT) to 70 Gy relative biologic effectiveness in 28 fractions to the prostate with or without 6 months of ADT. Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite, Short-Form 12, and the American Urological Association Symptom Index instruments were given at baseline and 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after PBT. Toxicities were assessed according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4).

Results

One hundred ten patients were randomized to PBT either with 6 months of ADT (n = 55) or without ADT (n = 55). The median follow-up was 32.4 months (range, 5.5-84.6). On average, 101 out of 110 (92%) patients filled out baseline QoL and patient-reported outcome surveys. The compliance was 84%, 82%, 64%, and 42% at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively. Baseline median American Urological Association Symptom Index was comparable between arms (6 [11%] ADT vs 5 [9%] no ADT, P = .359). Acute and late grade 2+ genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity were similar between arms. The ADT arm experienced a QoL decline of mean scores in the sexual (-16.1, P < .001) and hormonal (-6.3, P < .001) domains, with the largest time-specific hormonal differences at 3 (-13.8, P < .001) and 6 (-11.2, P < .001) months. The hormonal QoL domain returned to baseline 6 months after therapy. There was a trend to baseline in sexual function 6 months after completion of ADT.

Conclusions

After 6 months of ADT, sexual and hormonal domains returned to baseline 6 months after completion of treatment for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

A Phase II prospective study of hypofractionated proton therapy of prostate and pelvic lymph nodes: Acute effects on patient-reported quality of life

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to report acute changes in patient-reported quality of life (PRQOL) using the 26-item Expanded Prostate Index Composite (EPIC-26) questionnaire in a prospective study using hypofractionated intensity-modulated proton beam therapy (H-IMPT) targeting the prostate and the pelvic lymph nodes for high-risk or unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

METHODS

Fifty-five patients were enrolled. H-IMPT consisted of 45 GyE to the pelvic lymph nodes and 67.5 GyE to the prostate and seminal vesicles in 25 fractions. PRQOL was assessed with the urinary incontinence (UI), urinary irritative/obstructive symptoms (UO), and bowel function (BF) domains of EPIC-26 questionnaire. Mean changes in domain scores were analyzed from pretreatment to the end of treatment and 3 months posttreatment. A clinically meaningful change (or minimum important change) was defined as a score change > 50% of the baseline standard deviation.

RESULTS

The mean scores of UO, UI, and BF at baseline were 84.6, 91.1, and 95.3, respectively. At the end of treatment, there were statistically significant and clinically meaningful declines in UO and BF scores (-13.5 and -2.3, respectively), while the decline in UI score was statistically significant but not clinically meaningful (-13.7). A clinically meaningful decline in UO, UI, and BF scores occurred in 53.5%, 22.7%, and 73.2% of the patients, respectively. At 3 months posttreatment, all three mean scores showed an improvement, with fewer patients having a clinically meaningful decline in UO, UI, and BF scores (18.4%, 20.5%, and 45.0%, respectively). There was no significant reduction in the mean UO and UI scores compared to baseline, although the mean BF score remained lower than baseline and the difference was clinically meaningful.

CONCLUSIONS

UO, UI, and BF scores of PRQOL declined at the end of H-IMPT. UO and UI scores showed improvement at 3 months posttreatment and were similar to the baseline scores. However, BF score remained lower at 3 months posttreatment with a clinically meaningful decline.

Proton therapy for prostate cancer: current state and future perspectives

OBJECTIVE

Localized prostate cancer can be treated with several radiotherapeutic approaches. Proton therapy (PT) can precisely target tumors, thus sparing normal tissues and reducing side-effects without sacrificing cancer control. However, PT is a costly treatment compared with conventional photon radiotherapy, which may undermine its overall efficacy. In this review, we summarize current data on the dosimetric rationale, clinical benefits, and cost of PT for prostate cancer.

METHODS

An extensive literature review of PT for prostate cancer was performed with emphasis on studies investigating dosimetric advantage, clinical outcomes, cost-effective strategies, and novel technology trends.

RESULTS

PT is safe, and its efficacy is comparable to that of standard photon-based therapy or brachytherapy. Data on gastrointestinal, genitourinary, and sexual function toxicity profiles are conflicting; however, PT is associated with a low risk of second cancer and has no effects on testosterone levels. Regarding cost-effectiveness, PT is suboptimal, although evolving trends in radiation delivery and construction of PT centers may help reduce the cost.

CONCLUSION

PT has several advantages over conventional photon radiotherapy, and novel approaches may increase its efficacy and safety. Large prospective randomized trials comparing photon therapy with proton-based treatments are ongoing and may provide data on the differences in efficacy, toxicity profile, and quality of life between proton- and photon-based treatments for prostate cancer in the modern era.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

PT provides excellent physical advantages and has a superior dose profile compared with X-ray radiotherapy. Further evidence from clinical trials and research studies will clarify the role of PT in the treatment of prostate cancer, and facilitate the implementation of PT in a more accessible, affordable, efficient, and safe way.

Overall Survival After Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer With Proton Beam Therapy, External-Beam Photon Therapy, or Brachytherapy

With limited high-level evidence, we carried out a comparative effectiveness study for the effect of proton beam therapy (PBT) on overall survival compared to external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and brachytherapy (BT) among patients with localized prostate cancer using a national database. PBT was associated with a significant overall survival benefit compared to EBRT and had a similar performance as BT.

Quality of life in prostate cancer patients receiving particle radiotherapy: A review of the literature

Proton and carbon ion radiotherapy for the treatment of prostate cancer is associated with a lower incidence of adverse events than conventional radiotherapy. There are few reports on the quality of life of patients treated with particle therapy, and limited patient-reported outcomes. Analysis of quality of life is important for patients treated with radiotherapy alone or in combination with hormonal therapy, and long-term results, dose fractionation and costs need to be included in the analysis. This information might help both clinical decision-making and selection of appropriate treatments according to the individual needs of patients. This study reviews the literature on the quality of life and outcomes of patients treated with particle therapy, and discusses future directions.

Four-Year Outcomes From a Prospective Phase II Clinical Trial of Moderately Hypofractionated Proton Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy represents an effective treatment for localized prostate cancer (PC). Although large randomized trials have reported the efficacy of photon-based hypofractionated therapy, hypofractionated proton therapy (HFPT) has not been extensively studied. This study was performed to determine the clinical and patient-reported outcomes for patients with PC treated with HFPT.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Between 2010 and 2017, 184 men were enrolled on a trial of 70 Gy in 28 fractions of HFPT for low- to intermediate-risk PC. Acute and late toxicity was evaluated using National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. Patient-reported outcomes were measured by International Prostate Symptom Score, International Index of Erectile Function Questionnaire, and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite scores.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 49.2 months. Enrolled patients had low-risk (n = 18), favorable intermediate-risk (n = 78), and unfavorable intermediate-risk (n = 88) PC. Four-year rates of biochemical-clinical failure-free survival were 93.5% (95% confidence interval, 89%-98%), 94.4% (89%-100%), 92.5% (86%-100%), and 93.8% (88%-100%) in the overall group and the low-risk, favorable intermediate-risk, and unfavorable intermediate-risk cohorts, respectively (log-rank P > .4). The incidence of acute grade 2 or higher gastrointestinal (GI) and urologic toxicities were 3.8% and 12.5%, respectively. The 4-year incidence of late grade 2 or higher urologic and GI toxicity was 7.6% (4%-13%) and 13.6% (9%-20%), respectively. One late grade 3 GI toxicity was reported. All late toxicities were transient. Patient-reported International Prostate Symptom, International Index of Erectile Function, and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite scores had no significant long-term changes after completion of HFPT (Supplementary Table 1, available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.05.069).

CONCLUSIONS

HFPT is associated with low rates of toxicity and does not appear to negatively affect 4-year patient reported urinary and bowel health. Further comparative analyses are warranted to better understand differences between proton and photon HFRT.

Long-term outcomes following proton therapy for prostate cancer in young men with a focus on sexual health

BACKGROUND

We investigated long-term outcomes for men ≤60 years old treated with proton therapy (PT).

METHODS

Of 254 men ≤60 years old were treated with proton therapy alone for prostate cancer. Risk stratification included 56% with low-, 42% with intermediate- and 2% with high-risk disease. Patients received 76-82 Gy at 2 Gy/fraction or 70-72.5 Gy at 2.5 Gy/fraction. Before treatment and every 6-12 months for 5 years, patients were evaluated by a physician, answered health-related quality of life surveys, including the EPIC, IIEF and IPSS, and had PSA evaluated.

RESULTS

Median follow-up for the cohort was 7.1 years; 7-year biochemical-free survival was 97.8%. Eight men (one high-risk; five intermediate-risk and two low-risk) experienced biochemical progression, including one who died of disease 9 years after treatment. Potency (erections firm enough for sexual intercourse) was 90% at baseline and declined to 72% at the first-year follow-up, but declined to only 67% at 5 years. Only 2% of patients developed urinary incontinence requiring pads. The bowel habits mean score declined from a baseline of 96 to 88 at 1 year, which improved over the following years to 93 at 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Young men with prostate cancer continue to have excellent results with respect to 7-year biochemical control and 5-year erectile function, without clinically significant urinary incontinence 5 years after proton therapy. Comparative effectiveness studies of proton therapy with surgery and IMRT are needed.

Quality of Life and Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Proton Radiation Therapy: A Systematic Review

Background

As costs of cancer care rise, the importance of documenting value in oncology increases. Proton beam radiotherapy (PBT) has the potential to reduce toxicities in cancer patients, but is relatively expensive and unproven. Evaluating quality of life (QOL) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is essential to establishing PBT's "value" in oncologic therapy. The goal of this systematic review was to assess QOL and PROs in patients treated with PBT.

Methods

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-guided systematic searches were conducted. The PubMed search engine was the primary data source, along with publications found from references of selected articles, and articles known to the authors published through 2017. Seventeen original investigations were found to have sufficient focus and relevance to be incorporated into the systematic review.

Results

Studies of skull base (n = 1), brain (n = 1), head/neck (n = 1), lung (n = 1), breast (n = 2), prostate (n = 8), and pediatric (n = 3) malignancies treated with PBT that met eligibility criteria were included. QOL did not deteriorate during PBT for skull base and after PBT for brain tumors, respectively. PROs were higher for PBT than photon-based radiotherapy for both head/neck and lung cancer. Patient-reported breast cosmesis was appropriate after PBT and comparable to photon modalities. PBT in various settings of prostate cancer displayed an expected post-therapy decline; one study showed improved PROs (rectal urgency, bowel frequency) for PBT, and two others showed PROs/QOL comparable with other modalities. Pediatric studies demonstrated improvements in QOL during therapy, with additional increases thereafter.

Conclusions

Based on limited data, PBT provides favorable QOL/PRO profiles for select brain, head/neck, lung, and pediatric cancers; measures for prostate and breast cancers were more modest. These results have implications for cost-effective cancer care and prudently designed QOL evaluation in ongoing trials, which are discussed. Future data could substantially change the conclusions of this review.

Continued Benefit to Rectal Separation for Prostate Radiation Therapy: Final Results of a Phase III Trial

PURPOSE

SpaceOAR, a Food and Drug Administration-approved hydrogel intended to create a rectal-prostate space, was evaluated in a single-blind phase III trial of image guided intensity modulated radiation therapy. A total of 222 men were randomized 2:1 to the spacer or control group and received 79.2 Gy in 1.8-Gy fractions to the prostate with or without the seminal vesicles. The present study reports the final results with a median follow-up period of 3 years.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Cumulative (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0) toxicity was evaluated using the log-rank test. Quality of life (QOL) was examined using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), and the mean changes from baseline in the EPIC domains were tested using repeated measures models. The proportions of men with minimally important differences (MIDs) in each domain were tested using repeated measures logistic models with prespecified thresholds.

RESULTS

The 3-year incidence of grade ≥1 (9.2% vs 2.0%; P=.028) and grade ≥2 (5.7% vs 0%; P=.012) rectal toxicity favored the spacer arm. Grade ≥1 urinary incontinence was also lower in the spacer arm (15% vs 4%; P=.046), with no difference in grade ≥2 urinary toxicity (7% vs 7%; P=0.7). From 6 months onward, bowel QOL consistently favored the spacer group (P=.002), with the difference at 3 years (5.8 points; P<.05) meeting the threshold for a MID. The control group had a 3.9-point greater decline in urinary QOL compared with the spacer group at 3 years (P<.05), but the difference did not meet the MID threshold. At 3 years, more men in the control group than in the spacer group had experienced a MID decline in bowel QOL (41% vs 14%; P=.002) and urinary QOL (30% vs 17%; P=.04). Furthermore, the control group were also more likely to have experienced large declines (twice the MID) in bowel QOL (21% vs 5%; P=.02) and urinary QOL (23% vs 8%; P=.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The benefit of a hydrogel spacer in reducing the rectal dose, toxicity, and QOL declines after image guided intensity modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer was maintained or increased with a longer follow-up period, providing stronger evidence for the benefit of hydrogel spacer use in prostate radiation therapy.