Proton Beam Therapy Alone for Intermediate- or High-Risk Prostate Cancer: An Institutional Prospective Cohort Study

Photon vs proton hypofractionation in prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

High-level evidence on hypofractionated proton therapy (PT) for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) patients is currently missing. The aim of this study is to provide a systematic literature review to compare the toxicity and effectiveness of curative radiotherapy with photon therapy (XRT) or PT in PCa.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched up to April 2022. Men with a diagnosis of PCa who underwent curative hypofractionated RT treatment (PT or XRT) were included. Risk of grade (G) ≥ 2 acute and late genitourinary (GU) OR gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity were the primary outcomes of interest. Secondary outcomes were five-year biochemical relapse-free survival (b-RFS), clinical relapse-free, distant metastasis-free, and prostate cancer-specific survival. Heterogeneity between study-specific estimates was assessed using Chi-square statistics and measured with the I2 index (heterogeneity measure across studies).

RESULTS

A total of 230 studies matched inclusion criteria and, due to overlapped populations, 160 were included in the present analysis. Significant lower rates of G ≥ 2 acute GI incidence (2 % vs 7 %) and improved 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival (95 % vs 91 %) were observed in the PT arm compared to XRT. PT benefits in 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival were maintained for the moderate hypofractionated arm (p-value 0.0122) and among patients in intermediate and low-risk classes (p-values < 0.0001 and 0.0368, respectively). No statistically relevant differences were found for the other considered outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The present study supports that PT is safe and effective for localized PCa treatment, however, more data from RCTs are needed to draw solid evidence in this setting and further effort must be made to identify the patient subgroups that could benefit the most from PT.

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.

Proton therapy for high-risk prostate cancer: Results from the Proton Collaborative Group PCG 001-09 prospective registry trial

BACKGROUND

Data for proton therapy in high-risk prostate cancer (HRPC) are limited. Using the Proton Collaborative Group prospective registry, we evaluated outcomes for HRPC patients treated with proton therapy.

METHODS

A totsl of 605 men with localized HRPC treated with proton therapy from 8/2009 to 3/2019 at nine institutions were selected. Outcomes examined included freedom from progression (FFP), metastasis free survival (MFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity. Multivariable cox/binomial regression models were used to assess predictors of FFP and toxicity.

RESULTS

Median age was 71 years. Gleason grade groups 4 (49.4%) and 5 (31.7%) were most common, as were clinical stage T1c (46.1%) and cT2 (41.3%). The median pretreatment prostate specific antigen (PSA) was 9.18 and median International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) was 6. Androgen deprivation therapy was given in 63.6%. Median dose was 79.2 GyE in 44 fractions. Pelvic lymph nodes were treated in 58.2% of cases. Pencil beam scanning was used in 54.5%, uniform scanning in 38.8%, and a rectal spacer in 14.2%. At a median followup of 22 months, the 3- and 5-year FFP were 90.7% and 81.4%, respectively. Five-year MFS and OS were 92.8% and 95.9%, respectively. Independent correlates of FFP included Gleason ≥8, PSA > 10, and cT2 (all p < 0.05). No grade 4 or 5 adverse events were reported. There were 23 (5%) grade 2 and 0 grade 3 gastrointestinal events. Prevalence of late grade 3, late grade 2, acute grade 3, and acute grade 2 genitourinary toxicity was 1.7%, 5.8%, 0%, and 21.8%, respectively. Prevalence of grade 2 and 3 erectile dysfunction at 2 years was 48.4% and 8.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In the largest series published to date, our results suggest early outcomes using proton therapy for HRPC are encouraging for both safety and efficacy. Further evaluation is needed to determine if an advantage exists to use protons over other radiation techniques in this population.

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.

Therapeutic Sequences in the Treatment of High-Risk Prostate Cancer: Paving the Way Towards Multimodal Tailored Approaches

Various definitions are currently in use to describe high-risk prostate cancer. This variety in definitions is important for patient counseling, since predicted outcomes depend on which classification is applied to identify patient’s prostate cancer risk category. Historically, strategies for the treatment of localized high-risk prostate cancer comprise local approaches such as surgery and radiotherapy, as well as systemic approaches such as hormonal therapy. Nevertheless, since high-risk prostate cancer patients remain the group with higher-risk of treatment failure and mortality rates, nowadays, novel treatment strategies, comprising hypofractionated-radiotherapy, second-generation antiandrogens, and hadrontherapy, are being explored in order to improve their long-term oncological outcomes. This narrative review aims to report the current management of high-risk prostate cancer and to explore the future perspectives in this clinical setting.

Health-related quality of life in Japanese patients with prostate cancer following proton beam therapy: an institutional cohort study

Objective

Many treatment options have guaranteed long-term survival in patients with localized prostate cancer and health-related quality of life has become a greater concern for those patients. The purpose of this study was to reveal the health-related quality of life after proton beam therapy and to clarify the differences from other treatment modalities for prostate cancer.

Methods

Between January 2011 and April 2016, 583 patients were enrolled in the study and health-related quality of life outcomes using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite questionnaire were evaluated and compared with previous research targeted at Japanese patients.

Results

We found a significant decrease in the least square mean scores for urinary and bowel domains excluding the incontinence subscale after proton beam therapy (P < 0.0001) and recovery at a year following treatment. The scores for sexual function in patients without androgen deprivation therapy decreased each year after proton beam therapy (P < 0.0001). The scores for hormones in patients without androgen deprivation therapy remained high and those of patients with androgen deprivation therapy were lower before treatment but were comparable to those of non-androgen deprivation therapy patients at 2 years post-treatment. We found that the impact of radiotherapy including proton beam therapy on urinary condition and sexual function was lower than that of surgery.

Conclusions

For the first time in Japan, we investigated health-related quality of life using Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite questionnaires in patients with prostate cancer after proton beam therapy and compared it with other treatment modalities.

Assessment of Polyethylene Glycol Hydrogel Spacer and Its Effect on Rectal Radiation Dose in Prostate Cancer Patients Receiving Proton Beam Radiation Therapy

Purpose

To assess the efficacy of placing a polyethylene glycol (PEG) spacing hydrogel in patients undergoing proton beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer. This study also aims to assess the effect on rectal radiation dose of prostate-rectum separation in various anatomic planes.

Methods and Materials

Seventy-two consecutive prostate cancer patients undergoing conventionally fractionated pencil beam scanning proton radiation therapy with and without hydrogel placement were compared. Magnetic resonance images taken after hydrogel placement measured prostate-rectum separation and were correlated to rectal dosing and rectal toxicity. Univariate analysis of clinical variables and radiation dosing was conducted using nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test with continuity correction between groups (hydrogel spacer vs controls). Spearman's rank correlation coefficient assessed relationships between the various anatomic dimensions of perirectal space and rectal radiation dosing.

Results

Fifty-one patients had hydrogel placement before therapy and 21 did not. There was a 42.2% reduction in rectal dosing (mL³ rectum) in hydrogel patients (P < .001). Increasing midline sagittal lift resulted in a greater mitigation of total rectal dose (P = .031). The degree of prostate surface area coverage on coronal plane did not correlate with further reductions in rectal radiation dose (P = .673). Patients who had PEG hydrogels placed reported more rectal side effects during treatment compared with those patients who did not (35.3% vs 9.5%, P = .061). At median 9.5-month follow-up, there was no difference in reporting of grade ≤2 rectal toxicity between the 2 groups (7.7% vs 7.1%, P = .145).

Conclusions

Polyethylene glycol hydrogel placement before pencil proton beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer reduced rectal radiation dose. The most important factor reducing total rectal dose was the degree of sagittal midline separation created by the PEG hydrogel. This is the largest study with the longest follow-up to investigate hydrogel placement in the proton beam radiation setting.

A Literature Review of Proton Beam Therapy for Prostate Cancer in Japan

Aim: Patients of proton beam therapy (PBT) for prostate cancer had been continuously growing in number due to its promising characteristics of high dose distribution in the tumor target and a sharp distal fall-off. Considering the large number of proton beam facilities in Japan, the further increase of patients undergoing this treatment is due to the emendations by Japanese National Health Insurance (NHI) and the development of medical equipment and technology, it is necessary to know what kind of research and advancements has been done on proton therapy for prostate cancer in the country. For these reasons, this literature review was conducted. The aim of this review is to identify and discuss research studies of proton beam therapy for prostate cancer in Japan. These include observational, interventional, and secondary data analysis of published articles. Method: A literature review on published works related to proton beam therapy for prostate cancer in Japan was conducted using articles that were gathered in the PubMed database of June 2018. We went through abstracts and manuscripts written in English with the keywords ‘proton beam therapy’, ‘prostate cancer’, and ‘Japan’. Results: A total of 23 articles were included. Fourteen articles were observational studies, most of which focused on the adverse effects of Proton Beam Therapy (PBT). Seven articles were interventional studies related on treatment planning, equipment parts, as well as target positioning. Two were secondary data analysis. The included studies were published in 13 different journals by different institutions using various equipment. Conclusion: Despite the favorable results of proton beam therapy, future research should include more patients and longer follow-up schedules to clarify the definitive role of PBT, yet, up to recent retrospective studies, included in this paper, concluded that PBT can be a suitable treatment option for localized prostate cancer. In addition, interventional studies were conducted by several institutions to further embellish proton therapy.

Targeted α-therapy of prostate cancer using radiolabeled PSMA inhibitors: a game changer in nuclear medicine

Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most common malignancies in men and is a major contributor to cancer related deaths worldwide. Metastatic spread and disease progression under androgen deprivation therapy signify the onset of metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPCa)-the lethal form of the disease, which severely deteriorates the quality of life of patients. Over the last decade, tremendous progress has been made toward identifying appropriate molecular targets that could enable efficient in vivo targeting for non-invasive imaging and therapy of mCPRCa. In this context, a promising enzymatic target is prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA), which is overexpressed on PCa cells, in proportion to the stage and grade of the tumor progression. This is especially relevant for mCRPCa, which has significant overexpression of PSMA. For therapy of mCRPCa, several nuclear medicine clinics all over the world have confirmed that 177Lu-labeled-PSMA enzyme inhibitors (177Lu-PSMA-617 and 177Lu-PSMA I&T) have a favorable dosimetry and convincing therapeutic response. However, ~30% of patients were found to be short or non-responders and dose escalation was severely limited by chronic hematological toxicity. Such limitations could be better overcome by targeted alpha therapy (TAT) which has the potential to bring a paradigm shift in treatment of mCRPCa patients. This concise review presents an overview of the successes and challenges currently faced in TAT of mCRPCa using radiolabeled PSMA inhibitors. The preclinical and clinical data reported to date are quite promising, and it is expected that this therapeutic modality will play a pivotal role in advanced stage PCa management in the foreseeable future.