IMPT versus VMAT for Pelvic Nodal Irradiation in Prostate Cancer: A Dosimetric Comparison

Proton versus photon therapy for high-risk prostate cancer with dose escalation of dominant intraprostatic lesions: a preliminary planning study

Background and purpose

This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of safe-dose escalation to dominant intraprostatic lesions (DILs) and assess the clinical impact using dose-volume (DV) and biological metrics in photon and proton therapy. Biological parameters defined as late grade ≥ 2 gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) derived from planned (D P) and accumulated dose (D A) were utilized.

Materials and methods

In total, 10 patients with high-risk prostate cancer with multiparametric MRI-defined DILs were investigated. Each patient had two plans with a focal boost to the DILs using intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Plans were optimized to obtain DIL coverage while respecting the mandatory organ-at-risk constraints. For the planning evaluation, DV metrics, tumor control probability (TCP) for the DILs and whole prostate excluding the DILs (prostate-DILs), and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for the rectum and bladder were calculated. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for analyzing TCP and NTCP data.

Results

IMPT achieved a higher Dmean for the DILs compared to VMAT (IMPT: 68.1 GyRBE vs. VMAT: 66.6 Gy, p < 0.05). Intermediate-high rectal and bladder doses were lower for IMPT (p < 0.05), while the high-dose region (V60 Gy) remained comparable. IMPT-TCP for prostate-DIL were higher compared to VMAT (IMPT: 86%; α/β = 3, 94.3%; α/β = 1.5 vs. VMAT: 84.7%; α/β = 3, 93.9%; α/β = 1.5, p < 0.05). Likewise, IMPT obtained a moderately higher DIL TCP (IMPT: 97%; α/β = 3, 99.3%; α/β = 1.5 vs. VMAT: 95.9%; α/β = 3, 98.9%; α/β = 1.5, p < 0.05). Rectal D A-NTCP displayed the highest GI toxicity risk at 5.6%, and IMPT has a lower GI toxicity risk compared to VMAT-predicted Quantec-NTCP (p < 0.05). Bladder D P-NTCP projected a higher GU toxicity than D A-NTCP, with VMAT having the highest risk (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Dose escalation using IMPT is able to achieve a high TCP for the DILs, with the lowest rectal and bladder DV doses at the intermediate-high-dose range. The reduction in physical dose was translated into a lower NTCP (p < 0.05) for the bladder, although rectal toxicity remained equivalent.

Bone marrow sparing in prostate cancer patients treated with Post-operative pelvic nodal radiotherapy - A proton versus photon comparison

PURPOSE

Extending salvage radiotherapy to treat the pelvic lymph nodes (PLNRT) improves oncologic outcomes in prostate cancer (PCa). However, a larger treatment volume increases the extent of bone marrow (BM) exposure, which is associated with hematologic toxicity (HT). Given the potential long-term impact of BM dose in PCa, clinical studies on BM sparing (BMS) are warranted. Herein, we dosimetrically compared photon and proton plans for BMS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Treatment plans of 20 post-operative PCa patients treated with volumetric-modulated arc photon therapy (VMAT) PLNRT were retrospectively identified. Contours were added for the whole pelvis BM (WPBM) and BM sub-volumes: lumbar-sacral (LSBM), iliac (ILBM), and lower pelvis (LPBM). Three additional plans were created: VMAT_BMS, intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT), and IMPT_BMS. Normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) for grade >3 hematologic toxicity (HT3+) were calculated for the WPBM volumes.

RESULTS

Compared to the original VMAT plan, mean doses to all BM sub-volumes were statistically significantly lower for VMAT_BMS, IMPT, and IMPT_BMS resulting in average NTCP percentages of 20.5 ± 5.9, 10.7 ± 4.2, 6.1 ± 2.0, and 2.5 ± 0.6, respectively. IMPT_BMS had significantly lower low dose metrics (V300cGy-V2000cGy) for WPBM and sub-volumes except for LPBM V2000cGy compared to VMAT_BMS and ILBM V20Gy compared to IMPT. In most cases, V4000cGy and V5000cGy within ILBM and LSBM were significantly higher for IMPT plans compared to VMAT plans.

CONCLUSIONS

BMS plans are achievable with VMAT and IMPT without compromising target coverage or OARs constraints. IMPT plans were overall better at reducing mean and NTCP for HT3+ as well as low dose volumes to BM. However, IMPT had larger high dose volumes within LSBM and ILBM. Further studies are warranted to evaluate the clinical implications of these findings.

Late Toxicity of Moderately Hypofractionated Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy Treating the Prostate and Pelvic Lymph Nodes for High-Risk Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

To evaluate late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity of moderately hypofractionated intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) targeting the prostate and pelvic lymph nodes.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A target accrual of 56 patients with high-risk or unfavorable intermediate risk prostate cancer were enrolled into a prospective study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02874014) of moderately hypofractionated IMPT. IMPT with pencil beam scanning was used to deliver 6750 and 4500 cGy relative biological effectiveness in 25 daily fractions simultaneously to the prostate and pelvic lymph nodes, respectively. All received androgen deprivation therapy. Late GI and GU toxicity was prospectively assessed using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0, at baseline, weekly during radiation therapy, 3-month postradiation therapy, and then every 6 months. Actuarial rates of late GI and GU toxicity were estimated using Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Median age was 75.5 years. Fifty-four patients were available for late toxicity evaluation. Median follow-up was 43.9 months (range, 16-66). The actuarial rate of late grade ≥2 GI toxicity at both 2 and 3 years was 7.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2%-14.2%). The actuarial rate of late grade 3 GI toxicity at both 2 and 3 years was 1.9% (95% CI, 0%-5.4%). One patient experienced grade 3 GI toxicity with proctitis. The actuarial rate of late grade ≥2 GU toxicity was 20.5% (95% CI, 8.9%-30.6%) at 2 years, and 29.2 % (95% CI, 15.5%-40.7%) at 3 years. None had grade 3 GU toxicity. The presence of baseline GU symptoms was associated with a higher likelihood of experiencing late grade 2 GU toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

A moderately hypofractionated IMPT targeting the prostate and regional pelvic lymph nodes was generally well tolerated. Patients with pre-existing GU symptoms had a higher rate of late grade 2 GU toxicity. A phase 3 study is needed to assess any therapeutic gain of IMPT, in comparison with photon-based radiation therapy.

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.

Assessment of IMPT versus VMAT plans using different uncertainty scenarios for prostate cancer

Background

To assess the impact of systematic setup and range uncertainties for robustly optimized (RO) intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans in patients with localized prostate cancer.

Methods

Twenty-six localized prostate patients previously treated with VMAT (CTV to PTV expansion of 3-5 mm) were re-planned with RO-IMPT with 3 mm and 5 mm geometrical uncertainties coupled with 3% range uncertainties. Robust evaluations (RE) accounting for the geometrical uncertainties of 3 and 5 mm were evaluated for the IMPT and VMAT plans. Clinical target volume (CTV), anorectum, and bladder dose metrics were analyzed between the nominal plans and their uncertainty perturbations.

Results

With geometric uncertainties of 5 mm and accounting for potential inter-fractional perturbations, RO-IMPT provided statistically significant (p < 0.05) sparing at intermediate doses (V_4000cGy) to the anorectum and bladder and high dose sparring (V_8000cGy) to the bladder compared to VMAT. Decreasing the RO and RE parameters to 3 mm improved IMPT sparing over VMAT at all OAR dose levels investigated while maintaining equivalent coverage to the CTV.

Conclusions

For localized prostate treatments, if geometric uncertainties can be maintained at or below 3 mm, RO-IMPT provides clear dosimetric advantages in anorectum and bladder sparing compared to VMAT. This advantage remains even under uncertainty scenarios. As geometric uncertainties increase to 5 mm, RO-IMPT still provides dosimetric advantages, but to a smaller magnitude.

Comparison of Estimated Late Toxicities between IMPT and IMRT Based on Multivariable NTCP Models for High-Risk Prostate Cancers Treated with Pelvic Nodal Radiation

Purpose

To compare the late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary toxicities (GU) estimated using multivariable normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models, between pencil-beam scanning proton beam therapy (PBT) and helical tomotherapy (HT) in patients of high-risk prostate cancers requiring pelvic nodal irradiation (PNI) using moderately hypofractionated regimen.

Materials and Methods

Twelve consecutive patients treated with PBT at our center were replanned with HT using the same planning goals. Six late GI and GU toxicity domains (stool frequency, rectal bleeding, fecal incontinence, dysuria, urinary incontinence, and hematuria) were estimated based on the published multivariable NTCP models. The ΔNTCP (difference in absolute NTCP between HT and PBT plans) for each of the toxicity domains was calculated. A one-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to analyze distribution of data, and either a paired t test or a Wilcoxon matched-pair signed rank test was used to test statistical significance.

Results

Proton beam therapy and HT plans achieved adequate target coverage. Proton beam therapy plans led to significantly better sparing of bladder, rectum, and bowel bag especially in the intermediate range of 15 to 40 Gy, whereas doses to penile bulb and femoral heads were higher with PBT plans. The average ΔNTCP for grade (G)2 rectal bleeding, fecal incontinence, stool frequency, dysuria, urinary incontinence, and G1 hematuria was 12.17%, 1.67%, 2%, 5.83%, 2.42%, and 3.91%, respectively, favoring PBT plans. The average cumulative ΔNTCP for GI and GU toxicities (ΣΔNTCP) was 16.58% and 11.41%, respectively, favoring PBT. Using a model-based selection threshold of any G2 ΔNTCP >10%, 67% (8 patients) would be eligible for PBT.

Conclusion

Proton beam therapy plans led to superior sparing of organs at risk compared with HT, which translated to lower NTCP for late moderate GI and GU toxicities in patients of prostate cancer treated with PNI. For two-thirds of our patients, the difference in estimated absolute NTCP values between PBT and HT crossed the accepted threshold for minimal clinically important difference.

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.

Proton Therapy of Prostate and Pelvic Lymph Nodes for High Risk Prostate Cancer: Acute Toxicity

Purpose

To assess acute gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) targeting the prostate/seminal vesicles and pelvic lymph nodes for prostate cancer.

Materials and Methods

A prospective study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02874014), evaluating moderately hypofractionated IMPT for high-risk or unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer, accrued a target sample size of 56 patients. The prostate/seminal vesicles and pelvic lymph nodes were treated simultaneously with 6750 and 4500 centigray radiobiologic equivalent (cGyRBE), respectively, in 25 daily fractions. All received androgen-deprivation therapy. Acute GI and GU toxicities were prospectively assessed from 7 GI and 9 GU categories of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4), at baseline, weekly during radiotherapy, and 3-month after radiotherapy. Fisher exact tests were used for comparisons of categorical data.

Results

Median age was 75 years. Median follow-up was 25 months. Fifty-five patients were available for acute toxicity assessment. Sixty-two percent and 2%, respectively, experienced acute grade 1 and 2 GI toxicity. Grade 2 GI toxicity was proctitis. Sixty-five percent and 35%, respectively, had acute grade 1 and 2 GU toxicity. The 3 most frequent grade 2 GU toxicities were urinary frequency, urgency, and obstructive symptoms. None had acute grade ≥ 3 GI or GU toxicity. The presence of baseline GI and GU symptoms was associated with a greater likelihood of experiencing acute GI and GU toxicity, respectively. Of 45 patients with baseline GU symptoms, 44% experienced acute grade 2 GU toxicity, compared with only 10% among 10 with no baseline GU symptoms (P = 0.07). Although acute grade 1 and 2 GI and GU toxicities were common during radiotherapy, most resolved at 3 months after radiotherapy.

Conclusion

A moderately hypofractionated IMPT targeting the prostate/seminal vesicles and regional pelvic lymph nodes was well tolerated with no acute grade ≥ 3 GI or GU toxicity. Patients with baseline GU symptoms had a higher rate of acute grade 2 GU toxicity.

Elective nodal radiotherapy in prostate cancer

In patients with prostate cancer who have a high risk of pelvic nodal disease, the use of elective whole pelvis radiotherapy is still controversial. Two large, randomised, controlled trials (RTOG 9413 and GETUG-01) did not show a benefit of elective whole pelvis radiotherapy over prostate-only radiotherapy. In 2020, the POP-RT trial established the role of elective whole pelvis radiotherapy in patients who have more than a 35% risk of lymph node invasion (known as the Roach formula). POP-RT stressed the importance of patient selection. In patients with cN1 (clinically node positive) disease or pN1 (pathologically node positive) disease, the addition of whole pelvis radiotherapy to androgen deprivation therapy significantly improved survival compared with androgen deprivation therapy alone, as shown in large, retrospective studies. This patient population might increase in the future because use of the more sensitive prostate-specific membrane antigen PET-CT will become the standard staging procedure. Additionally, the SPORTT trial suggested a benefit of whole pelvis radiotherapy in biochemical recurrence-free survival in the salvage setting. A correct definition of the upper field border, which should include the bifurcation of the abdominal aorta, is key in the use of pelvic radiotherapy. As a result of using modern radiotherapy technology, severe late urinary and intestinal toxic effects are rare and do not seem to increase compared with prostate-only radiotherapy.

Dosimetric Comparison of Helical Tomotherapy, Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy, and Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy for Angiosarcoma of the Scalp

Objective:

We compared radiotherapy plans among helical tomotherapy (HT), volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for angiosarcoma of the scalp (AS).

Methods:

We conducted a planning study for 19 patients with AS. The clinical target volume (CTV) 1 and CTV2 were defined as the gross tumor volume with a specific margin and total scalp, respectively. For HT and VMAT, the planning target volume (PTV) 1 and PTV2 were defined as CTV1 and CTV2 with 0.5-cm margins, respectively. For IMPT, robust optimization was used instead of a CTV-PTV margin (i.e. CTV robust). The targets of the HT and VMAT plans were the PTV, whereas the IMPT plans targeted the CTV robust. In total, 70 Gy and 56 Gy were prescribed as the D95% (i.e. dose to 95% volume) of PTV1 (or CTV1 robust) and PTV2 (or CTV2 robust), respectively, using the simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique. Other constraint goals were also defined for the target and organs at risk (OAR).

Results:

All dose constraint parameters for the target and OAR met the goals within the acceptable ranges for the 3 techniques. The coverage of the targets replaced by D95% and D98% were almost equivalent among the 3 techniques. The homogeneity index of PTV1 or CTV1 robust was equivalent among the 3 techniques, whereas that of PTV2 or CTV2 robust was significantly higher in the IMPT plans than in the other plans. IMPT reduced the Dmean of the brain and hippocampus by 49% to 95%, and the Dmax of the spinal cord, brainstem, and optic pathway by 70% to 92% compared with the other techniques.

Conclusion:

The 3 techniques with SIB methods provided sufficient coverage and satisfactory homogeneity for the targets, but IMPT achieved the best OAR sparing.

Comparing bowel and urinary domains of patient-reported quality of life at the end of and 3 months post radiotherapy between intensity-modulated radiotherapy and proton beam therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To prospectively assess acute differences in patient-reported outcomes in bowel and urinary domains between intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) for prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Bowel function (BF), urinary irritative/obstructive symptoms (UO), and urinary incontinence (UI) domains of EPIC-26 were collected in patients with T1-T2 prostate cancer receiving IMRT or PBT at a tertiary cancer center (2015-2018). Mean changes in domain scores were analyzed from pretreatment to the end of and 3 months post-radiotherapy for each modality. A clinically meaningful change was defined as a score change >50% of the baseline standard deviation.

RESULTS

A total of 157 patients receiving IMRT and 105 receiving PBT were included. There were no baseline differences in domain scores between cohorts. At the end of radiotherapy, there was significant and clinically meaningful worsening of BF and UO scores for patients receiving either modality. In the BF domain, the IMRT cohort experienced greater decrement (-13.0 vs -6.7, P < .01), and had a higher proportion of patients with clinically meaningful reduction (58.4% vs 39.5%, P = .01), compared to PBT. At 3 months post-radiotherapy, the IMRT group had significant and clinically meaningful worsening of BF (-9.3, P < .001), whereas the change in BF score of the PBT cohort was no longer significant or clinically meaningful (-1.2, P = .25). There were no significant or clinically meaningful changes in UO or UI 3 months post-radiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

PBT had less acute decrement in BF than IMRT following radiotherapy. There was no difference between the two modalities in UO and UI.