Whole Pelvic Radiotherapy With Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy Boost vs. Conventionally Fractionated Radiotherapy for Patients With High or Very High-Risk Prostate Cancer

Towards optimal heterogeneous prostate radiotherapy dose prescriptions based on patient-specific or population-based biological features

BACKGROUND

Escalation of prescribed dose in prostate cancer (PCa) radiotherapy enables improvement in tumor control at the expense of increased toxicity. Opportunities for reduction of treatment toxicity may emerge if more efficient dose escalation can be achieved by redistributing the prescribed dose distribution according to the known heterogeneous, spatially-varying characteristics of the disease.

PURPOSE

To examine the potential benefits, limitations and characteristics of heterogeneous boost dose redistribution in PCa radiotherapy based on patient-specific and population-based spatial maps of tumor biological features.

METHOD

High-resolution prostate histology images, from a cohort of 63 patients, annotated with tumor location and grade, provided patient-specific "maps" and a population-based "atlas" of cell density and tumor probability. Dose prescriptions were derived for each patient based on a heterogeneous redistribution of the boost dose to the intraprostatic lesions, with the prescription maximizing patient tumor control probability (TCP). The impact on TCP was assessed under scenarios where the distribution of population-based biological data was ignored, partially included, or fully included in prescription generation. Heterogeneous dose prescriptions were generated for three combinations of maps and atlas, and for conventional fractionation (CF), extreme hypo-fractionation (EH), moderate hypo-fractionation (MH), and whole Pelvic RT + SBRT Boost (WPRT + SBRT). The predicted efficacy of the heterogeneous prescriptions was compared with equivalent homogeneous dose prescriptions.

RESULTS

TCPs for heterogeneous dose prescriptions were generally higher than those for homogeneous dose prescriptions. TCP escalation by heterogeneous dose prescription was the largest for CF. When only using population-based atlas data, the generated heterogeneous dose prescriptions of 55 to 58 patients (out of 63) had a higher TCP than for the corresponding homogeneous dose prescriptions. The TCPs of the heterogeneous dose prescriptions generated with the population-based atlas and tumor probability maps did not differ significantly from those using patient-specific biological information. The generated heterogeneous dose prescriptions achieved significantly higher TCP than homogeneous dose prescriptions in the posterior section of the prostate.

CONCLUSION

Heterogeneous dose prescriptions generated via biologically-optimized dose redistribution can produce higher TCP than the homogeneous dose prescriptions for the majority of the patients in the studied cohort. For scenarios where patient-specific biological information was unavailable or partially available, the generated heterogeneous dose prescriptions can still achieve TCP improvement relative to homogeneous dose prescriptions.

Focal Boost in Prostate Cancer Radiotherapy: A Review of Planning Studies and Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Focal boost radiotherapy was developed to deliver elevated doses to functional sub-volumes within a target. Such a technique was hypothesized to improve treatment outcomes without increasing toxicity in prostate cancer treatment.

PURPOSE

To summarize and evaluate the efficacy and variability of focal boost radiotherapy by reviewing focal boost planning studies and clinical trials that have been published in the last ten years.

METHODS

Published reports of focal boost radiotherapy, that specifically incorporate dose escalation to intra-prostatic lesions (IPLs), were reviewed and summarized. Correlations between acute/late ≥G2 genitourinary (GU) or gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity and clinical factors were determined by a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

By reviewing and summarizing 34 planning studies and 35 trials, a significant dose escalation to the GTV and thus higher tumor control of focal boost radiotherapy were reported consistently by all reviewed studies. Reviewed trials reported a not significant difference in toxicity between focal boost and conventional radiotherapy. Acute ≥G2 GU and late ≥G2 GI toxicities were reported the most and least prevalent, respectively, and a negative correlation was found between the rate of toxicity and proportion of low-risk or intermediate-risk patients in the cohort.

CONCLUSION

Focal boost prostate cancer radiotherapy has the potential to be a new standard of care.

Virtual HDR Boost for Prostate Cancer: Rebooting a Classic Treatment Using Modern Tech

Prostate cancer (PC) is the most common malignancy in men. Internal radiotherapy (brachytherapy) has been used to treat PC successfully for over a century. In particular, there is level-one evidence of the benefits of using brachytherapy to escalate the dose of radiotherapy compared with standard external beam radiotherapy approaches. However, the use of PC brachytherapy is declining, despite strong evidence for its improved cancer outcomes. A method using external beam radiotherapy known as virtual high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost (vHDRB) aims to noninvasively mimic a brachytherapy boost radiation dose plan. In this review, we consider the evidence supporting brachytherapy boosts for PC and the continuing evolution of vHDRB approaches, culminating in the current generation of clinical trials, which will help define the role of this emerging modality.

The Journey of Radiotherapy Dose Escalation in High Risk Prostate Cancer; Conventional Dose Escalation to Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) Boost Treatments

High risk prostate cancer (HR-PrCa) is a subset of localized PrCa with significant potential for morbidity and mortality associated with disease recurrence and metastasis. Radiotherapy combined with Androgen Deprivation Therapy has been the standard of care for many years in HR-PrCa. In recent years, dose escalation, hypo-fractionation and high precision delivery with immobilization and image-guidance have substantially changed the face of modern PrCa radiotherapy, improving treatment convenience and outcomes. Ultra-hypo-fractionated radiotherapy delivered with high precision in the form of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) combines delivery of high biologically equivalent dose radiotherapy with the convenience of a shorter treatment schedule, as well as the promise of similar efficacy and reduced toxicity compared to conventional radiotherapy. However, rigorous investigation of SBRT in HR-PrCa remains limited. Here, we review the changes in HR-PrCa radiotherapy through dose escalation, hypo- and ultra-hypo-fractionated radiotherapy boost treatments, and the radiobiological basis of these treatments. We focus on completed and on-going trials in this disease utilizing SBRT as a sole radiation modality or as boost therapy following pelvic radiation.

Assessment of the optimal number of positive biopsy cores to discriminate between cancer-specific mortality in high-risk versus very high-risk prostate cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Number of positive prostate biopsy cores represents a key determinant between high versus very high-risk prostate cancer (PCa). We performed a critical appraisal of the association between the number of positive prostate biopsy cores and CSM in high versus very high-risk PCa.

METHODS

Within Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2010-2016), 13,836 high versus 20,359 very high-risk PCa patients were identified. Discrimination according to 11 different positive prostate biopsy core cut-offs (≥2-≥12) were tested in Kaplan-Meier, cumulative incidence, and multivariable Cox and competing risks regression models.

RESULTS

Among 11 tested positive prostate biopsy core cut-offs, more than or equal to 8 (high-risk vs. very high-risk: n = 18,986 vs. n = 15,209, median prostate-specific antigen [PSA]: 10.6 vs. 16.8 ng/ml, <.001) yielded optimal discrimination and was closely followed by the established more than or equal to 5 cut-off (high-risk vs. very high-risk: n = 13,836 vs. n = 20,359, median PSA: 16.5 vs. 11.1 ng/ml, p < .001). Stratification according to more than or equal to 8 positive prostate biopsy cores resulted in CSM rates of 4.1 versus 14.2% (delta: 10.1%, multivariable hazard ratio: 2.2, p < .001) and stratification according to more than or equal to 5 positive prostate biopsy cores with CSM rates of 3.7 versus 11.9% (delta: 8.2%, multivariable hazard ratio: 2.0, p < .001) in respectively high versus very high-risk PCa.

CONCLUSIONS

The more than or equal to 8 positive prostate biopsy cores cutoff yielded optimal results. It was very closely followed by more than or equal to 5 positive prostate biopsy cores. In consequence, virtually the same endorsement may be made for either cutoff. However, more than or equal to 5 positive prostate biopsy cores cutoff, based on its existing wide implementation, might represent the optimal choice.

Simultaneous Integrated Boost Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy for Locally Advanced Drug-Resistant Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: A Feasibility Study

Background

As an emerging clinical problem, locally advanced drug-resistant gastrointestinal stromal tumors (LADRGISTs) has relatively few therapeutic schemes. Although radiotherapy is not often considered for GISTs, it could be a valuable contributing modality. The aim of our study is to explore a safe and effective radiation regimen for LADR-GISTs.

Methods

Three patients with LADR-GISTs were treated with simultaneous integrated boost intensity-modulated radiation therapy (SIB-IMRT) plans. In the SIB-IMRT plans, gross target volume (GTV) was divided into GTV-outer, GTV-mid, and GTV-center. And the prescribed dose of planning gross target volume (PGTV) and GTV-outer were both set to 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions. GTV-mid and GTV-center were simultaneously boosted to 60–62 Gy and 62–64 Gy respectively. For comparison purposes, conventional IMRT (Con-IMRT) plans with uniform dose distribution were generated for same optimization objectives without a dose boost to GTV-mid and GTV-center. All plans were optimized to make sure that deliver at least 95% of the prescription dose was delivered to PGTV. Isodose distribution, dose profiles, conformity indexes (CIs), monitor units (MUs), and dose volume histogram (DVH) was evaluated for each individual patient. After the three patients were treated with SIB-IMRT plans, the relative changes in the tumor size and CT values by CT scanning were also tracked.

Results

Compared with Con-IMRT plans, SIB-IMRT plans saw a significant increase from D₉₅ to D₂ of the GTV. With steeper dose gradients in the dose profiles, SIB-IMRT plans had GTV-mid and GTV-center accumulated with higher dose mainly by delivering extra 93 MUs in average. However, there was no significant difference in CIs and organs at risks (OARs) DVH. The relative changes in tumor size and CT values of the three patients in follow up were up to the Choi criteria and the three patients were all assessed as partial response.

Conclusions

The proposed SIB-IMRT may be a potential technique for achieving objective response and prolonging survival of selected GISTs patients.