Conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Proton and Carbon Ion Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) are promising methods for prostate cancer, however, the consensus of an increasing number of studies has not been reached. We aimed to provide systematic evidence for evaluating the efficacy and safety of CIRT and PBT for prostate cancer by comparing photon radiotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched for studies focusing on CIRT and PBT for prostate cancer in four online databases until July 2021. Two independent reviewers assessed the quality of included studies and used the GRADE approach to rate the quality of evidence. R 4.0.2 software was used to conduct the meta-analysis. A meta-regression test was performed based on the study design and tumor stage of each study.

RESULTS

A total of 33 studies including 13 CIRT- and 20 PBT-related publications, involving 54,101, participants were included. The quality of the included studies was found to be either low or moderate quality. Random model single-arm meta-analysis showed that both the CIRT and PBT have favorable efficacy and safety, with similar 5-year overall survival (OS) (94 vs 92%), the incidence of grade 2 or greater acute genitourinary (AGU) toxicity (5 vs 13%), late genitourinary (LGU) toxicity (4 vs 5%), acute gastrointestinal (AGI) toxicity (1 vs 1%), and late gastrointestinal (LGI) toxicity (2 vs 4%). However, compared with CIRT and PBT, photon radiotherapy was associated with lower 5-year OS (72-73%) and a higher incidence of grade 2 or greater AGU (28-29%), LGU (13-14%), AGI (14-19%), and LGI toxicity (8-10%). The meta-analysis showed the 3-, 4-, and 5-year local control rate (LCR) of CIRT for prostate cancer was 98, 97, and 99%; the 3-, 4-, 5-, and 8-year biochemical relapse-free rate (BRF) was 92, 91, 89, and 79%. GRADE assessment results indicated that the certainty of the evidence was very low. Meta-regression results did not show a significant relationship based on the variables studied (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Currently available evidence demonstrated that the efficacy and safety of CIRT and PBT for prostate cancer were similar, and they may significantly improve the OS, LCR, and reduce the incidence of GU and GI toxicity compared with photon radiotherapy. However, the quantity and quality of the available evidence are insufficient. More high-quality controlled studies are needed in the future.

Preliminary result of carbon-ion radiotherapy using the spot scanning method for prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Carbon-ion radiotherapy (CIRT) for prostate cancer was initiated at Kanagawa Cancer Center in 2015. The present study analyzed the preliminary clinical outcomes of CIRT for prostate cancer.

METHODS

The clinical outcomes of 253 patients with prostate cancer who were treated with CIRT delivered using the spot scanning method between December 2015 and December 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. The irradiation dose was set at 51.6 Gy (relative biological effectiveness) delivered in 12 fractions over 3 weeks. Biochemical relapse was defined using the Phoenix definition. Toxicities were assessed according to CTCAE version 4.0.

RESULTS

The median patient age was 70 (47-86) years. The median follow-up duration was 35.3 (4.1-52.9) months. According to the D'Amico classification system, 8, 88, and 157 patients were classified as having low, intermediate, and high risks, respectively. Androgen deprivation therapy was administered in 244 patients. The biochemical relapse-free rate in the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups at 3 years was 87.5, 88.0, and 97.5%, respectively (P = 0.036). Grade 2 acute urinary toxicity was observed in 12 (4.7%) patients. Grade 2 acute rectal toxicity was not observed. Grade 2 late urinary toxicity and grade 2 late rectal toxicity were observed in 17 (6.7%) and 3 patients (1.2%), respectively. Previous transurethral resection of the prostate was significantly associated with late grade 2 toxicity in univariate analysis. The predictive factor for late rectal toxicity was not detected.

CONCLUSION

The present study demonstrated that CIRT using the spot scanning method for prostate cancer produces favorable outcomes.

Impact on Late Toxicity of using Transabdominal Ultrasound for Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy

An analysis of the effects of using the B-mode ultrasound Acquisition and Targeting (BAT) system for positioning of prostate cancer patients receiving external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) on late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity is provided. The records of 49 consecutive patients treated using the BAT were reviewed; additionally, a comparison (No-BAT) group treated in a similar manner was identified, consisting of 49 patients treated immediately prior to this BAT group. There were no other fundamental differences between the two groups. The daily BAT movements were charted and late toxicity was scored for all patients using established toxicity scales. The results demonstrated similar GU toxicity rates between the two groups, but slightly lower rates of GI toxicity in the BAT group vs. the No-BAT group. However, regression analyses revealed that no factors, including BAT use, were significantly correlated with late GI or GU toxicity. Further efforts, perhaps better undertaken in a multi-institutional setting, are needed to determine whether BAT use can significantly reduce late GI toxicity.

The Effectiveness of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy versus Three-Dimensional Radiation Therapy in Prostate Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of the Literatures

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) can deliver higher doses with less damage of healthy tissues compared with three-dimensional radiation therapy (3DCRT). However, for the scenarios with better clinical outcomes for IMRT than 3DCRT in prostate cancer, the results remain ambiguous. We performed a meta-analysis to assess whether IMRT can provide better clinical outcomes in comparison with 3DCRT in patients diagnosed with prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a meta-analysis of 23 studies (n = 9556) comparing the clinical outcomes, including gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, genitourinary (GU) toxicity, biochemical controland overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

IMRT was significantly associated with decreased 2-4 grade acute GI toxicity [risk ratio (RR) = 0.59 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.44, 0.78)], late GI toxicity [RR = 0.54, 95%CI (0.38, 0.78)], late rectal bleeding [RR = 0.48, 95%CI (0.27, 0.85)], and achieved better biochemical control[RR = 1.17, 95%CI (1.08, 1.27)] in comparison with 3DCRT. IMRT and 3DCRT remain the same in regard of grade 2-4 acute rectal toxicity [RR = 1.03, 95%CI (0.45, 2.36)], late GU toxicity [RR = 1.03, 95%CI (0.82, 1.30)] and overall survival [RR = 1.07, 95%CI (0.96, 1.19)], while IMRT slightly increased the morbidity of grade 2-4 acute GU toxicity [RR = 1.08, 95%CI (1.00, 1.17)].

CONCLUSIONS

Although some bias cannot be ignored, IMRT appears to be a better choice for the treatment of prostate cancer when compared with 3DCRT.

Radiopharmaceuticals for bone metastasis therapy and beyond: a voyage from the past to the present and a look to the future

Bone cancer can be divided into primary and secondary (metastatic) bone cancer. Osteosarcoma is the most common type of primary bone cancer, but still is a rare cancer. The development of bone metastases is a common event for the cancer patient and the main cause of treatment failure and death, being chronic pain syndrome the most important complication. There are currently several therapeutic modalities for the treatment of metastatic bone disease, including radiation therapy. Treatment with radionuclides (β- and α-particle emitters and Auger electron cascades) is a safe and effective tool of medicine. There is a great deal of interest in diphosphonic acids in nuclear medicine as ligands for radiometals in bone-seeking diagnostic and therapeutic agents. Several radiopharmaceuticals have been designed with the phosphonates as ligands. A recent approach to develop an effective radiopharmaceutical for therapy of bone cancer was the design of a water-soluble polymer that would exploit the disrupted vasculature in tumors according to the enhanced permeability and retention effect. To enhance the effect of radionuclide therapy on the cancer cells, new strategies have recently been investigated, such as the combined radionuclide and chemotherapy, high-dose radionuclide therapy, and repeated radionuclide therapy.

Late toxicity after conformal and intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer: impact of previous surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia

OBJECTIVES

To retrospectively compare late toxicity of conventional-dose three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) and high-dose intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer.

METHODS

A total of 340 patients with T1-3 prostate cancer were treated with 3D-CRT (n = 228) and IMRT (n = 112). The median follow-up time was 5.9 years and 3.0 years, respectively. The prescription dose was 70 Gy for 3D-CRT and 78 Gy for IMRT. Late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities were graded according to the Fox Chase modification of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group and Late Effects Normal Tissue Task Force criteria.

RESULTS

There was no difference between 3D-CRT and IMRT in the incidence of GI and GU toxicity at 3 years. On multivariate analysis, transurethral resection of prostate/open transvesical prostatectomy (TURP/TVPE) for benign prostatic hyperplasia, carried out before radiotherapy, significantly increased the risk of Grade >or=2 GU toxicity (risk ratio 1.88). Among patients who experienced TURP/TVPE, the 5-year actuarial likelihood of Grade 2-3 urinary incontinence was 23%, compared with 9% for those without prostate surgery (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Tolerance of 3D-CRT and IMRT was similar, despite the use of high radiation dose with IMRT. Previous TURP/TVPE increased the risk of GU toxicity.

Tomotherapy for prostate adenocarcinoma: A report on acute toxicity

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

To analyze the impact of Tomotherapy (TOMO) intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) on acute gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity in prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The records of 55 consecutively treated TOMO patients were reviewed. Additionally a well-matched group of 43 patients treated with LINAC-based step and shoot IMRT (LINAC) was identified. Acute toxicity was scored according to Radiation Therapy Oncology Group acute toxicity criterion.

RESULTS

The grade 2-3 acute GU toxicity rates for the TOMO vs. LINAC groups were 51% vs. 28% (p=0.001). Acute grade 2 GI toxicity was 25% vs. 40% (p=0.024), with no grade 3 GI toxicity in either group. In univariate analysis, androgen deprivation, prostate volume, pre-treatment urinary toxicity, and prostate dose homogeneity correlated with acute GI and GU toxicity. With multivariate analysis use of Tomotherapy, median bladder dose and bladder dose homogeneity remained significantly correlated with GU toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

Acute GI toxicity for prostate cancer is improved with Tomotherapy at a cost of increased acute GU toxicity possibly due to differences in bladder and prostate dose distribution.

Chronic genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity of prostate cancer patients undergoing pelvic radiotherapy with intensity-modulated versus 4-field technique

PURPOSE

To compare chronic GU and GI toxicity of pelvic radiotherapy delivered using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) versus conventional 4-field technique.

METHODS

The records of consecutive prostate cancer patients receiving RT at a single institution with a minimum follow-up of 120 days were reviewed; 48 of these patients received a prostate boost preceded by pelvic radiotherapy (PRT), 14 with IMRT (IM-PRT), and 34 with 4-field (4F-PRT). Dosimetric endpoints for the bladder, rectum, composite, and target for the PRT plans were compared using the 2-tailed t test. Late RTOG GU and GI toxicity were compared using the chi test. Ordered logit regression analyses were performed using all major patient, disease, and treatment factors as covariates.

RESULTS

IM-PRT demonstrated superior bladder and rectum dosimetric endpoints over 4F-PRT for the PRT portion of the treatment and for the composite treatment at the expense of higher target inhomogeneity in the PRT portion of the treatment plan. Late GU toxicity was significantly lower in the IM-PRT group (P < 0.001), whereas late GI toxicity was similar in both groups (P = 0.44). When considering a similar follow-up interval in both groups, however, the difference in GU toxicity only reached a trend (P = 0.10). The regression analyses showed that no factor, including IMRT, reached significance in predicting GU or GI toxicity.

CONCLUSION

Use of pelvic IMRT for prostate cancer patients was not associated with reduction of late GI toxicity but was associated with a small reduction of late GU toxicity. This reduction of late GU toxicity warrants further exploration in consortium studies.

Influence of intensity-modulated radiotherapy on acute genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity in the treatment of localized prostate cancer

The objective of this investigation is to compare acute genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity results of radiotherapy to localized fields delivered using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) versus conventional radiotherapy (ConvRT). The records of 481 consecutive prostate cancer patients receiving RT to localized fields at a single institution were reviewed; 108 received IMRT and 373 received ConvRT. Acute GU and GI toxicity, as defined by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grading system, were compared using the chi-square test. Ordered logit regression analyses were performed using all major disease and treatment factors as covariates. Acute GU grade 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 toxicity rates were 23%, 40%, 34%, 3%, and 0%, respectively, in the IMRT cohort and 31%, 37%, 30%, 1%, and 1%, respectively, in the ConvRT cohort -- these rates were not significantly different (p=0.118). Acute GI grade 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 toxicity rates were 42%, 37%, 22%, 0%, and 0%, respectively, in the IMRT cohort and 33%, 32%, 35%, 0%, and 0%, respectively, in the ConvRT cohort--this lower toxicity in the IMRT group was significant (p=0.013). The regression analyses showed that only IMRT use (p=0.046) predicted reduction in acute GI toxicity but no factors correlated with acute GU toxicity rate. In conclusion, in our retrospective single-institution analysis, IMRT was not associated with reduction of acute GU toxicity but was associated with a reduction of acute GI toxicity over ConvRT in the treatment of prostate cancer to localized fields.

Quantification des mouvements prostatiques lors de l'irradiation prostatique

Decrease treatment uncertainties is one of the most important challenge in radiation oncology. Numerous techniques are available to quantify prostate motion and visualise prostate location day after day before each irradiation: CT-scan, cone-beam-CT-Scan, ultrason, prostatic markers... The knowledge of prostate motion is necessary to define the minimal margin around the target volume needed to avoid mispositioning during treatment session. Different kind of prostate movement have been studied and are reported in the present work: namely, those having a large amplitude extending through out the whole treatment period on one hand; and those with a shorter amplitude happening during treatment session one the other hand. The long lasting movement are mostly anterior-posterior (3 mm standard deviation), secondary in cranial-caudal (1-2 mm standard deviation) and lateral directions (0.5-1 mm standard deviation). They are mostly due to the rectal state of filling and mildly due to bladder filling or inferior limbs position. On the other hand, the shorter movement that occurs during the treatment session is mostly variation of position around a steady point represented by the apex. Ones again, the rectal filling state is the principle cause. This way, during the 20 minutes of a treatment session, including the positioning of the patient, a movement of less than 3 mm could be expected when the rectum is empty. Ideally, real time imaging tools should allow an accurate localisation of the prostate and the adaptation of the dosimetry before each treatment session in a time envelope not exceeding 20 minutes.

Comparison of late gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity of prostate cancer patients undergoing intensity-modulated versus conventional radiotherapy using localized fields

To compare late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity of radiotherapy (RT) to localized fields for prostate cancer delivered using intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) versus conventional RT (ConvRT). The records of 461 patients were reviewed; 355 patients received IMRT and 106 received ConvRT. Late GU and GI toxicity were compared. Late GU toxicity rates were not significantly different (P=0.166); however, late GI toxicity rates were lower with IMRT (P=0.001). Regression analyses demonstrated that only IMRT use (P=0.006) predicted reduction in late GI toxicity but no factors correlated with late GU toxicity. IMRT did not influence late GU toxicity but was associated with a reduction of late GI toxicity over ConvRT.

Intensity-modulated versus conventional pelvic radiotherapy for prostate cancer: Analysis of acute toxicity

OBJECTIVES

To provide a single-institution analysis of the influence of pelvic intensity-modulated radiotherapy (RT) on acute genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity.

METHODS

The records of 610 consecutive patients with prostate cancer receiving RT were reviewed. Of these 610 patients, 49 had received a prostate boost preceded by pelvic RT (PRT), 15 intensity-modulated PRT (IM-PRT), and 34 four-field PRT (4F-PRT). The dosimetric endpoints for the bladder, rectum, and target for the PRT plans were compared using the paired t test; similar dosimetric analyses were done for the composite plans. Acute GU and GI toxicity were compared using the chi-square test. Ordered logit regression analyses were performed using all major treatment factors as covariates.

RESULTS

The bladder and rectum dosimetric endpoints were improved for IM-PRT compared with 4F-PRT for the PRT portion of the treatment plan (P = 0.06 and P = 0.03, respectively) and for the composite treatment plan (P = 0.04 and P = 0.01, respectively), at the expense of greater target inhomogeneity in the PRT portion of the treatment plan (P < 0.01). GU toxicity was significantly lower in the IM-PRT group (P < 0.001), and GI toxicity was similar in both groups (P = 0.637). The regression analyses showed that intensity-modulated RT for the pelvic portion of treatment was the only factor significantly predicting for GU toxicity (P = 0.05); no major treatment factor reached significance in predicting GI toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with 4F-PRT, the use of IM-PRT improved dosimetric outcomes, was not associated with a reduction in acute GI toxicity, and was associated with a reduction in acute GU toxicity in the treatment of prostate cancer.

Effective local control of prostate cancer by intratumoral injection of (166)Ho-chitosan complex (DW-166HC) in rats

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the therapeutic effect and morphological alterations resulting from (166)Ho-chitosan complex (DW-166HC) in an animal model of prostate cancer.

METHODS

First, in a subcutaneous tumor model, 80 rats were randomly divided into four groups (n=20 in each group), and intratumoral injections of 0.05 ml (normal saline in group 1,( 165)Ho-chitosan complex solution in group 2, DW-166HC solution (10 mCi) in group 3, and DW-166HC solution (20 mCi) in group 4) were performed when the tumor measured approximately 1 cm along its long axis in each group. Further, in an orthotopic tumor model, 40 rats were similarly randomly divided into four groups (n=10 in each group), and intraprostatic injections of 0.05 ml [PBS in group 1,( 165)Ho-chitosan complex solution in group 2, DW-166HC solution (0.5 mCi) in group 3 and DW-166HC solution (1 mCi) in group 4] were performed at 1 week after implantation of the AIT cell line in the ventral prostate.

RESULTS

In the subcutaneous tumor model, mean tumor weights of groups 3 and 4 were significantly lower than those of groups 1 and 2 at 2 and 4 weeks post injection (p<0.05). At 2 and 4 weeks after injection in the orthotopic tumor model, the mean weights of the prostate, including tumor, in groups 3 and 4 were also significantly lower than those in groups 1 and 2 (p<0.05). No adverse injury was seen in adjacent organs at histopathologic examination.

CONCLUSION

Intratumoral injection of the beta-emitting radionuclide (166)Ho as a form of complex solution with chitosan appears to be a promising alternative therapeutic modality for the local control of prostate cancer.

Prostate gland motion assessed with cine-magnetic resonance imaging (cine-MRI)

PURPOSE

To quantify prostate motion during a radiation therapy treatment using cine-magnetic resonance imaging (cine-MRI) for time frames comparable to that expected in an image-guided radiation therapy treatment session (20-30 min).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Six patients undergoing radiation therapy for prostate cancer were imaged on 3 days, over the course of therapy (Weeks 1, 3, and 5). Four hundred images were acquired during the 1-h MRI session in 3 sagittal planes through the prostate at 6-s intervals. Eleven anatomic points of interest (POIs) have been used to characterize prostate/bony pelvis/abdominal wall displacement. Motion traces and standard deviation for each of the 11 POIs have been determined. The probability of displacement over time has also been calculated.

RESULTS

Patients were divided into 2 groups according to rectal filling status: full vs. empty rectum. The displacement of POIs (standard deviation) ranged from 0.98 to 1.72 mm for the full-rectum group and from 0.68 to 1.04 mm for the empty-rectum group. The low standard deviations in position (2 mm or less) would suggest that these excursions have a low frequency of occurrence. The most sensitive prostate POI to rectal wall motion was the mid-posterior with a standard deviation of 1.72 mm in the full-rectum group vs. 0.79 mm in the empty-rectum group (p = 0.0001). This POI has a 10% probability of moving more than 3 mm in a time frame of approximately 1 min if the rectum is full vs. approximately 20 min if the rectum is empty.

CONCLUSION

Motion of the prostate and seminal vesicles during a time frame similar to a standard treatment session is reduced compared to that reported in interfraction studies. The most significant predictor for intrafraction prostate motion is the status of rectal filling. A prostate displacement of <3 mm (90%) can be expected for the 20 min after the moment of initial imaging for patients with an empty rectum. This is not the case for patients presenting with full rectum. The determination of appropriate intrafraction margins in radiation therapy to accommodate the time-dependent uncertainty in positional targeting is a topic of ongoing investigations for the on-line image guidance model.

Analysis of acute toxicity with use of transabdominal ultrasonography for prostate positioning during intensity-modulated radiotherapy

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the effects of the B-mode ultrasound acquisition and targeting (BAT) system for positioning of patients with prostate cancer receiving intensity-modulated radiotherapy on acute gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity.

METHODS

The records of 50 consecutive patients treated using the BAT system were reviewed. Additionally, a comparison (no-BAT) group (ie, a group without a BAT study) treated in a similar manner was identified. The no-BAT group consisted of 49 patients treated immediately before the BAT group. For the two groups, the target definitions and dose prescriptions were identical, the treatment plan acceptance criteria were identical, and intensity-modulated radiotherapy was used for all patients. The daily BAT movements were charted in each of the three principal directions. Acute toxicity was scored for all patients according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group GI and GU acute toxicity scales.

RESULTS

The GU toxicity rates for the BAT versus no-BAT groups were grade 0 in 20% versus 14%; grade 1 in 38% versus 47%; grade 2 in 38% versus 39%; and grade 3 in 4% versus 0%, respectively (P = 0.284). The corresponding GI toxicity rates were grade 0 in 42% versus 27%; grade 1 in 28% versus 29%; and grade 2 in 30% versus 45% (P = 0.040). The incidence of GU and GI toxicity did not correlate with the directions or size of the BAT moves. Regression analysis revealed that for acute GI toxicity, the only variable reaching statistical significance was BAT use; no variable, including BAT use, reached statistical significance for acute GU toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the BAT system did not change the rate of acute GU toxicity but did reduce the rate of acute GI toxicity.

Biological effective dose for comparison and combination of external beam and low-dose rate interstitial brachytherapy prostate cancer treatment plans

We report a methodology for comparing and combining dose information from external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and interstitial brachytherapy (IB) components of prostate cancer treatment using the biological effective dose (BED). On a prototype early-stage prostate cancer patient treated with EBRT and low-dose rate I-125 brachytherapy, a 3-dimensional dose distribution was calculated for each of the EBRT and IB portions of treatment. For each component of treatment, the BED was calculated on a point-by-point basis to produce a BED distribution. These individual BED distributions could then be summed for combined therapies. BED dose-volume histograms (DVHs) of the prostate, urethra, rectum, and bladder were produced and compared for various combinations of EBRT and IB. Transformation to BED enabled computation of the relative contribution of each modality to the prostate dose, as the relative weighting of EBRT and IB was varied. The BED-DVHs of the prostate and urethra demonstrated dramatically increased inhomogeneity with the introduction of even a small component of IB. However, increasing the IB portion relative to the EBRT component resulted in lower dose to the surrounding normal structures, as evidenced by the BED-DVHs of the bladder and rectum. Conformal EBRT and low-dose rate IB conventional dose distributions were successfully transformed to the common "language" of BED distributions for comparison and for merging prostate cancer radiation treatment plans. The results of this analysis can assist physicians in quantitatively determining the best combination and weighting of radiation treatment modalities for individual patients.

High dose rate brachytherapy in the treatment of prostate cancer

The optimal treatment of patients with localized prostate cancer remains controversial. Significant clinical data are available, however, demonstrating that patients treated with radiation therapy (RT) have a significantly better outcome as the dose to the gland is increased. What remains debatable, however, is how to best deliver these higher doses of RT without significantly increasing normal tissue toxicities. Conformal high dose rate brachytherapy (C-HDR BT) represents an alternative means of precise dose delivery that offers similar tumoricidal effects as three-dimensional (3D) conformal external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or permanent interstitial prostate seed implants with potential additional advantages. Since C-HDR BT consists of temporarily placing afterloading needles or catheters directly into the prostate gland under real-time ultrasound guidance, a steep dose gradient between the prostate and adjacent normal tissues can be generated that is minimally affected by organ motion and edema or treatment setup uncertainties. The ability to control the amount of time the single HDR radioactive source "dwells" at each position along the length of each brachytherapy catheter further enhances the conformity of the dose. In addition, recent radiobiological data on prostate cancer treatment suggest that C-HDR BT should produce tumor control and late normal tissue side effects that are at least as good as achieved with conventional fractionation, with the additional possibility that acute side effects might be reduced. Published data from several groups performing C-HDR BT as boosts in patients with locally advanced disease have supported these assumptions. Combined with the physical advantages discussed above, C-HDR BT should provide similar tumor control as 3D conformal EBRT with the added advantages of reduced treatment times, less acute toxicity, and no additional technological requirements to account and correct for treatment setup uncertainties and organ motion. Due to the success of C-HDR BT as boost treatment in locally advanced disease, this form of radiation treatment has recently been applied to low-risk prostate cancer patients as an alternative brachytherapy technique to permanent interstitial seed implantation. Advantages in this setting include an improved ability to define and deliver the prescribed dose, a significantly shortened treatment schedule compared to 3D conformal EBRT, and the fact that patients are not radioactive after implantation.

Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer

Prostate cancer is among the most common solid malignancies. A number of treatment alternatives exist for localized prostate cancer, including observation, prostatectomy, brachytherapy, and external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT). External-beam radiation therapy has changed dramatically during the past several years. Older techniques paved the way for 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (CRT), which in turn facilitated the introduction of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). The prostate has served as a model disease site for the implementation of IMRT. As indicated by a growing body of experience, IMRT for prostate cancer represents a major technologic and clinical advance for radiation therapy. In this article, a review is provided of the evolution of EBRT leading to IMRT, the unique features making the prostate an ideal disease site for employing IMRT, the details of the clinical implementation of prostate IMRT and supporting technologic advancements, and the currently reported clinical outcomes of IMRT in prostate cancer. In addition, future directions of prostate IMRT, both technologic and clinical, are discussed.

Impact of hormone therapy when combined with external beam radiotherapy for early-stage, intermediate-, or high-risk prostate cancer

The purpose of this investigation was to explore the potential benefit of hormone therapy in addition to external beam radiotherapy for patients with early-stage (T1-2), intermediate-(prostate-specific antigen [PSA] > 10 or Gleason score >or= 7) or high-risk (PSA > 10 and Gleason score >or= 7) prostate cancer. The charts of 412 patients with early-stage intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer treated with external beam radiotherapy with or without a 4-month total androgen blockade were reviewed. The groups were balanced with respect to age, pretreatment PSA, and stage, but differed with respect to Gleason score and radiation dose. Biochemical failure rates, as defined by the ASTRO consensus panel, were compared between those receiving and those not receiving hormones. With a median follow-up of 2.0 years, the biochemical failure rate was 12.1 versus 23.1% (p = 0.02) in favor of those receiving hormones. This difference was seen for the subgroups followed for more than 6 months (12.5 vs. 25.0%), more than 9 months (14.5 vs. 26.3%), and more than 12 months (17.3 vs. 27.0%). Thus, biochemical failure decreased with the administration of hormone therapy in this group of patients with early stage, intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer. This finding requires validation by ongoing randomized trials.

Preliminary observations on biochemical relapse-free survival rates after short-course intensity-modulated radiotherapy (70 Gy at 2.5 Gy/fraction) for localized prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To compare the preliminary biochemical relapse-free survival rates between short-course intensity-modulated radiotherapy (SCIM-RT) delivering 70 Gy in 28 fractions and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) delivering 78 Gy in 39 fractions.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Between January 1998 and December 1999, 166 patients were treated with SCIM-RT and 116 with 3D-CRT. The SCIM-RT cases were treated to 70 Gy (2.5 Gy/fraction) using 5 intensity-modulated fields using a dynamic multileaf collimator. The BAT transabdominal ultrasound system was used for localization of the prostate gland in all SCIM-RT cases. The 116 3D-CRT cases were treated to 78.0 Gy (2.0 Gy/fraction). The study sample therefore comprised 282 cases; 70 Gy in 28 fractions is equivalent to 78 Gy in 39 fractions for late-reacting tissues, according to the linear-quadratic model. The median follow-up for all cases was 25 months (range 3-42). The median follow-up was 21 months for the SCIM-RT cases (range 3-31) and 32 months for the 3D-CRT cases (range 3-42). The follow-up period was shorter for the SCIM-RT cases, because SCIM-RT was started only in October 1998. Biochemical relapse was defined as 3 consecutive rising prostate-specific antigen levels after reaching a nadir. The analysis was then repeated with a more stringent definition of biochemical control: reaching and maintaining a prostate-specific antigen level of < or =0.5 ng/mL. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group toxicity scores were used to assess complications.

RESULTS

For the 282 patients, the biochemical relapse-free survival rate at 30 months was 91% (95% confidence interval 88-95%). The biochemical relapse-free survival rate at 30 months for 3D-CRT vs. SCIM-RT was 88% (95% confidence interval 82-94%) vs. 94% (95% confidence interval 91-98%), respectively. The difference was not statistically significant between the two treatment arms (p = 0.084). The multivariate time-to-failure analysis using the Cox proportional hazards model for clinical parameters showed the pretreatment prostate-specific antigen level (p <0.001) and biopsy Gleason score (p <0.001) to be the only independent predictors of biochemical relapse. Clinical T stage (p = 0.66), age (p = 0.15), race (p = 0.25), and neoadjuvant androgen deprivation (p = 0.66) were not independent predictors of biochemical failure. SCIM-RT showed only a trend toward a better outcome on multivariate analysis (p = 0.058). Late rectal toxicity was limited; the actuarial combined Grade 2 and 3 late rectal toxicity rate at 30 months was 5% for SCIM-RT vs. 12% for 3D-CRT (p = 0.24). Grade 3 late rectal toxicity (rectal bleeding requiring cauterization) occurred in a total of 10 patients. The actuarial Grade 3 late rectal toxicity rate at 30 months was 2% for the SCIM-RT cases and 8% for the 3D-CRT cases (p = 0.059). Late urinary toxicity was rare in both groups.

CONCLUSION

With the currently available follow-up period (< or =30 months), the hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy schedule of 70.0 Gy delivered at 2.5 Gy/fraction had a comparable biochemical relapse profile with the prior 3D-CRT schedule delivering 78.0 at 2.0 Gy/fraction. The late rectal toxicity profile has been extremely favorable. If longer follow-up confirms the favorable biochemical failure and low late toxicity rates, SCIM-RT will be an alternative and more convenient way of providing dose escalation in the treatment of localized prostate cancer.

Intensity modulation using multileaf collimators: current status

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) extends the capability of 3D conformal methods (3D-CRT). Studies show that these methods can clinically reduce complications and can allow a larger safety margin for dose escalation. The ultimate goal is improved survival and improved quality of life. IMRT methods typically require more fields, or segments, and more monitor units for a given dose, as compared to conventional CRT methods. Because of this, some multileaf collimator (MLC) parameters take on more importance. A review of current standard MLC configurations are discussed, along with the concept of integral dose. An effective quality assurance (QA) program for IMRT involves more than dose modeling of the MLC. Integrity of data flowing from 3D radiograph databases to treatment planning to delivery sequencing files to verify-and-record function is required. End users need to be aware of differences in commercial availability vs. in-house developments for configuring a system. Great strides have been made in streamlining the whole process. This is evidenced by the first major symposium on community-based IMRT. Research continues to improve accuracy and productivity.

Defining a dose-response relationship with radiotherapy for prostate cancer: is more really better?

PURPOSE

Data were reviewed addressing the association between radiation therapy (RT) dose and treatment outcome for localized prostate cancer to help clarify the existence of a potential dose-response relationship.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Articles were identified through the MEDLINE database, CancerLit database, and reference lists of relevant articles. Studies were categorized into four groups based upon the endpoint analyzed, including biochemical control (BC), local control (LC), pathologic control (PC), and cause-specific survival (CSS). The impact of increasing RT dose with each endpoint was recorded.

RESULTS

Twenty-two trials involving a total of 11,297 patients were identified. Of the 11 trials addressing the association of RT dose with LC, 9 showed statistically significant improvements. Of the 12 trials that reported BC with RT dose, all showed statistically significant improvements. Two out of 4 studies analyzing PC with increasing dose showed a positive correlation. Finally, 3 out of 9 studies addressing RT dose with CSS showed statistically significant improvements. Despite inconclusive results, patients with poor risk features (e.g., prostate-specific antigen [PSA] > or = 10, Gleason score [GS] > or = 7, or tumor stage > or = T2b) were most likely to benefit from increasing dose with respect to each endpoint. However, the optimal RT dose and the magnitude of benefit of dose escalation could not be identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Although RT dose appears to correlate with various measures of treatment outcome, objective, high-quality data addressing this critical issue are still lacking. At the present time, the absolute improvement in outcome due to dose escalation, the subset of patients benefitting most, and the optimal dose remain to be defined.

Short-course intensity-modulated radiotherapy (70 GY at 2.5 GY per fraction) for localized prostate cancer: preliminary results on late toxicity and quality of life

PURPOSE

To present our preliminary observations on the late toxicity and quality of life (QOL) of patients treated with short-course intensity-modulated radiotherapy (SCIM-RT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Fifty-one patients were treated with SCIM-RT at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation between October 1998 and May 1999. The technique consisted of intensity-modulated radiotherapy using 5 static fields (anterior, 2 laterals, and 2 anterior obliques). Inverse plans were generated by the Corvus treatment-planning system. The treatment delivery was performed with a dynamic multileaf collimator. A total of 70.0 Gy was prescribed in all cases at 2.5 Gy per fraction to be delivered in 28 fractions over 5 and a half weeks. The location of the prostate gland was verified and adjusted daily with the BAT transabdominal ultrasound system. The median follow-up was 18 months (range: 11 to 26 months). The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) scales were used to evaluate late toxicity. The Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) was used to evaluate QOL. A total of 24 patients completed the EPIC questionnaire at approximately 2 years after therapy (median time from treatment to questionnaire administration: 24 months; range: 21 to 26 months). The results from the EPIC questionnaires were compared to scores from 46 patients treated during the same time period with conformal radiotherapy (CRT) to 78 Gy at 2 Gy per fraction.

RESULTS

The dose was prescribed to an isodose line ranging from 82.0% to 90.0% (mean: 87.2%). The range of the individual prostate mean doses was 73.5 to 78.5 Gy (average: 75.3 Gy). To date, only 1 patient had Grade 1 late urinary toxicity. To date, only 4 patients had Grade 1 late rectal toxicity. No Grade 2 or 3 late urinary or rectal complications have occurred. The actuarial rectal bleeding rate observed at 18 months was 7%. There were no differences in scores from the urinary, bowel, hormonal, and overall QOL domains between SCIM-RT patients and patients treated with CRT. The overall physical and mental QOL scores were also nearly identical to scores reported for the general U.S. population.

CONCLUSION

Preliminary late toxicity results up to 2 years after SCIM-RT are encouraging, with a median follow-up of 18 months (range 11 to 26 months). Late toxicity assessed by the physicians using RTOG late toxicity scores has been excellent. QOL reported by the patients using the EPIC questionnaire reveals no difference between patients treated with high-dose CRT at standard fractionation and patients treated with SCIM-RT. SCIM-RT is an alternative method of dose escalation in the treatment of localized prostate cancer. The proposed schedule significantly increases convenience to patients due to the decrease in overall treatment time.

The treatment of prostate cancer: an overview of current options

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to discuss the current treatment options available to the patient with prostate cancer in all stages of the disease.

OVERVIEW

With the exception of skin cancer, prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men in the United States. Most patients in the current era will present with organ-confined disease, amenable to curative treatment. Treatment for organ-confined disease includes watchful waiting, radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, and cryosurgery in selective cases. Hormone therapy is the cornerstone of treatment of patients with advanced prostate cancer. There is no curative treatment for hormone-refractory prostate cancer.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

The availability of several therapeutic options for localized prostate cancer warrants careful consideration when planning treatment with curative intent. Patients need to be active participants in decision making, and they must be aware of the benefits and possible complications of the different types of treatment. Patients with advanced prostate cancer need to be aware that hormone treatment will provide temporization and palliation in the majority of cases. Hormone-resistant prostate cancer is refractory to most forms of conventional and experimental therapy.

Novel cancer therapies: more efficacy, less toxicity and improved organ preservation

Novel approaches to the treatment of cancer include techniques such as gene therapy, antiangiogenic therapy, monoclonal antibodies either alone or linked with radioactive isotopes or cytotoxins, cancer immunotherapy and vaccines, oligonucleotides and antisense technologies as well as anticancer drugs targeting single metabolic processes, enzymes or oncoproteins. However, substantial improvements are also being made in more conventional cancer treatment modalities. These comprise radiotherapy given concomitantly with chemotherapy, which appears to improve treatment results in a number of common types of human cancer. Other important advances include conformal and intensity-modulated radiation therapy, which may allow for higher target doses with little or no increase in toxicity. Stereotactic radiation therapy for extracranial targets is also being developed, as well as biologically targeted radiation therapy, in which targeting is based on metabolic pathways or carrier molecules, such as boronated compounds in boron neutron capture therapy or monoclonal antibodies in radioimmunotherapy. Sentinel node biopsy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer represent advances in surgery and cancer chemotherapy, which may also allow for a greater chance for organ and tissue preservation without a loss in treatment efficacy.