Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Ten-Year Analysis

Revolutionizing localized prostate cancer treatment: Stereotactic radiotherapy "Moroccan experience"

INTRODUCTION

Prostate cancer is the most common urological cancer, and its incidence  is increasing. Radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy are theprimary treatments for localized forms. Stereotactic Body RadioTherapy (SBRT), a new and innovative therapy, has been validated for some cancer localizations but not yet for localized prostate cancer. Our study aims to report the efficacy and tolerance results of SBRT for localized prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective study of 27 patients with localized prostate cancer (CaP) who were treated with SBRT in our department from 2017 to 2021 using transponders for tumor tracking. The dose was 36.25 Gy delivered in five fractions of 7.25 Gy. The delineation and doses of organs at risk were determined based on the recommendations of the SFRO and the TG101 report of medical physics. All patients were treated using a latest-generation linear accelerator (True Beam STXÒ).

RESULTS

Acute toxicities were observed in 33.3% of cases, with 22.2% grade 1 or 2 genitourinary (GU) and no grade 3 while 11.1% gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities were reported as grade 1-2 (7.4%) and one case grade 3 (3.7%). Late grade 1 or 2 GU toxicity was observed in 14.84% of cases, with no reports of late GI toxicity. After a 26-month follow-up period, the biochemical failure-free survival rate was 92.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our study are consistent with the existing literature and support the safety and effectiveness of SBRT as a treatment option for localized prostate cancer (CaP). In the United States, both ASTRO and the NCCN recognize SBRT as a valid treatment option for localized CaP. Ongoing phase III trials are being conducted to further substantiate these long-term results and to establish SBRT as the future standard of care for localized CaP.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy with CyberKnife® System for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer: clinical outcomes and toxicities of CyPro Trial

Simple summary

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) of 35-36.25 Gy in five fractions with the CyberKnife System yields excellent control with low toxicity in low-intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. We found no differences in biochemical control and overall survival in relation to dose. There were no significant differences in toxicity or quality of life between the two groups.

Aims

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is an emerging therapeutic approach for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. We present retrospective data on biochemical control, toxicity, and quality of life of CyPro Trial.

Materials and methods

A total of 122 patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer were treated with the CyberKnife System at a dose of 35 Gy or 36.25 Gy in five fractions. Biochemical failure (BF)/biochemical disease-free survival (bDFS) was defined using the Phoenix method (nadir + 2 ng/ml). Acute/late rectal and urinary toxicities were assessed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) toxicity scale. Quality of life (QoL) was assessed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ C30 and PR25. International Erectile Function Index-5 (IIEF5) and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) questionnaires were administered at baseline, every 3 months after treatment during the first years, and then at 24 months and 36 months.

Results

The 1-, 2-, and 5-year DFS rates were 92.9%, 92.9%, and 92.3%, respectively, while the 1-, 2-, and 5-year bDFS rates were 100%, 100%, and 95.7%, respectively. With regard to risk groups or doses, no statistically significant differences were found in terms of DFS or bDFS. Grade 2 urinary toxicity was acute in 10% and delayed in 2% of patients. No Grade 3 acute and late urinary toxicity was observed. Grade 2 rectal toxicity was acute in 8% and late in 1% of patients. No Grade 3-4 acute and late rectal toxicity was observed. Grade 2 acute toxicity appeared higher in the high-dose group (20% in the 36.25-Gy group versus 3% in the 35-Gy group) but was not statistically significant.

Conclusion

Our study confirms that SBRT of 35-36.25 Gy in five fractions with the CyberKnife System produces excellent control with low toxicity in patients with low-intermediate-risk prostate cancer. We found no dose-related differences in biochemical control and overall survival. Further confirmation of these results is awaited through the prospective phase of this study, which is still ongoing.

Robotic stereotactic body radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: final analysis of the German HYPOSTAT trial

PURPOSE

We report results of the first German prospective multicenter single-arm phase II trial (ARO 2013-06; NCT02635256) of hypofractionated robotic stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for patients with localized prostate cancer (HYPOSTAT).

METHODS

Patients eligible for the HYPOSTAT study had localized prostate cancer (cT1‑3 cN0 cM0), Gleason score ≤ 7, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤ 15 ng/ml, prostate volume ≤ 80 cm³, and an International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) ≤ 12. Initially, inclusion was limited to patients ≥ 75 years or patients 70-74 years with additional risk factors. The trial protocol was later amended to allow for enrolment of patients aged ≥ 60 years. The treatment consisted of 35 Gy delivered in 5 fractions to the prostate and for intermediate- or high-risk patients, also to the proximal seminal vesicles using the CyberKnife system (Accuray Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA). Primary endpoint was the rate of treatment-related gastrointestinal or genitourinary grade ≥ 2 toxicity based on the RTOG scale 12-15 months after treatment. Secondary endpoints were acute toxicity, late toxicity, urinary function, quality of life, and PSA response.

RESULTS

From July 2016 through December 2018, 85 eligible patients were enrolled and received treatment, of whom 83 could be evaluated regarding the primary endpoint. Patients mostly had intermediate-risk disease with a median PSA value of 7.97 ng/ml and Gleason score of 7a and 7b in 43.5% and 25.9% of patients, respectively. At the final follow-up 12-15 months after treatment, no patient suffered from treatment-related gastrointestinal or genitourinary grade ≥ 2 toxicity. Acute toxicity was mostly mild, with three grade 3 events, and the cumulative rate of grade ≥ 2 genitourinary toxicity was 8.4% (95% CI 4.1-16.4%). There were no major changes in urinary function or quality of life. The median PSA value dropped to 1.18 ng/ml 12-15 months after treatment. There was one patient who developed distant metastases.

CONCLUSION

Robotic SBRT with 35 Gy in 5 fractions was associated with a favorable short-term toxicity profile. Recruitment for the HYPOSTAT‑2 trial (ARO-2018‑4; NCT03795337), which further analyses the late toxicity of this regimen with a planned sample size of 500 patients, is ongoing.

Robot-Assisted Surgery vs Robotic Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer: A Cost-Utility Analysis

Prostate cancer is the most common men cancer in France. Continuous progress in oncology led to develop robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomies (rRP) and robot-assisted stereotactic body radiotherapy (rSBRT). The present study aims at comparing economic and clinical impacts of prostate cancer treatments performed either with rSBRT or rRP in France. A Markov model using TreeAge Pro software was chosen to calculate annual costs; utilities and transition probabilities of localized prostate cancer treatments. Patients were eligible for radiotherapy or surgery and the therapeutic decision was a robot-assisted intervention. Over a 10-year period, rSBRT yielded a significantly higher number of quality-adjusted life years than rRP (8.37 vs 6.85). In France, rSBRT seemed more expensive than rRP (€19,475 vs €18,968, respectively). From a societal perspective, rRP was more cost-saving (incremental cost effectiveness ratio = €332/QALY). The model was sensitive to variations of costs of the initial and recurrence state in one-way sensitivity analyses. Robot-assisted stereotactic body radiotherapy seems more cost-effective than Radical Prostatectomy in terms of QALY despite the slightly higher initial cost due to the use of radiotherapy. It would be interesting to conduct comparative quality of life studies in France over longer periods of time.

SBRT for Localized Prostate Cancer: CyberKnife vs. VMAT-FFF, a Dosimetric Study

In recent years, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has gained popularity among clinical methods for the treatment of medium and low risk prostate cancer (PCa), mainly as an alternative to surgery. The hypo-fractionated regimen allows the administration of high doses of radiation in a small number of fractions; such a fractionation is possible by exploiting the different intrinsic prostate radiosensitivity compared with the surrounding healthy tissues. In addition, SBRT treatment guaranteed a better quality of life compared with surgery, avoiding risks, aftermaths, and possible complications. At present, most stereotactic prostate treatments are performed with the CyberKnife (CK) system, which is an accelerator exclusively dedicated for stereotaxis and it is not widely spread in every radiotherapy centre like a classic linear accelerator (LINAC). To be fair, a stereotactic treatment is achievable also by using a LINAC through Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT), but some precautions must be taken. The aim of this work is to carry out a dosimetric comparison between these two methodologies. In order to pursue such a goal, two groups of patients were selected at Instituto Nazionale Tumori—IRCCS Fondazione G. Pascale: the first group consisting of ten patients previously treated with a SBRT performed with CK; the second one was composed of ten patients who received a hypo-fractionated VMAT treatment and replanned in VMAT-SBRT flattening filter free mode (FFF). The two SBRT techniques were rescaled at the same target coverage and compared by normal tissue sparing, dose distribution parameters and delivery time. All organs at risk (OAR) constraints were achieved by both platforms. CK exhibits higher performances in terms of dose delivery; nevertheless, the general satisfying dosimetric results and the significantly shorter delivery time make VMAT-FFF an attractive and reasonable alternative SBRT technique for the treatment of localized prostate cancer.

Does CyberKnife improve dose distribution versus IMRT and VMAT on a linear accelerator in low-risk prostate cancer?

BACKGROUND

Hypofractionated stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer (PCa) can be delivered with the robot-assisted CyberKnife (CK) system or on a linear accelerator using dynamic intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or volumetric arc radiotherapy (VMAT). This retrospective study was performed to determine whether CK offers better dose distribution than IMRT and/or VMAT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Treatment plans for three techniques were prepared using the same treatment parameters (36.35 Gy, 7.25 Gy/fr). We evaluated target coverage, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), gamma index (GI), and organs at risk (OAR) constraints.

RESULTS

The mean planning target volume (PTV) dose for CK (39.58 Gy) was significantly greater than VMAT or IMRT (both 36.25 Gy). However, CK resulted in a wider dose range (31.48 to 45.89 Gy) vs. VMAT and IMRT (34.6-38.76 Gy). The mean dose to the rectum (V36Gy, mm³) was significantly lower (p < 0.001) in the CK plans (219.78 vs. 519.59 and 422.62, respectively). The mean bladder dose (V37Gy, mm³) was significantly greater for CK (3256 vs. 1090.75 for VMAT and 4.5 for IMRT (p < 0.001). CK yielded significantly better CI (1.07 vs. 1.17 and 1.25 for VMAT and IMRT, respectively; p < 0.01) and HI values (1.27 vs. 1.07 and 1.04; p < 0.01). GI values for the δd = 3mm, δ% = 3% criteria were 99.86 (VMAT), 99.07 (IMRT) and 99.99 (CK). For δd = 2mm, δ% = 2%, the corresponding values were 98.3, 93.35, and 97.12, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

For most variables, CK was superior to both VMAT and IMRT. However, dynamic IMRT techniques, especially VMAT, do not differ significantly from CK plans and are therefore acceptable alternatives to CyberKnife.

Comparison of toxicities between ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy versus brachytherapy with or without external beam radiotherapy for clinically localized prostate cancer

To compare gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities in patients with localized prostate cancer treated with ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy (UHF) or brachytherapy [BT; low dose rate, LDR or high dose rate (HDR) with or without external beam radiotherapy (EBRT)]. We compared 253 UHF and 1664 BT ± EBRT groups. The main outcomes were the incidence and severity of acute and late GU and GI toxicities. The secondary endpoint was biochemical control rate. Cumulative late actuarial GU toxicity did not differ for grade ≥ 2 (8.6% at 5-years in UHF and 13.3% in BT ± EBRT, hazard ratio [HR], 0.7066; 95% CI, 0.4093–1.22, p = 0.2127). Actuarial grade ≥ 2 late GI toxicity was higher in UHF (5.8% at 5-years, HR: 3.619; 95% CI, 1.774–7.383, p < 0.001) than in BT ± EBRT (1.1%). In detailed subgroup analyses, the high-dose UHF group (H-UHF) using BED ≥ 226 Gy_1.5, showed higher GI toxicity profiles than the other subgroups (HDR + EBRT, LDR + EBRT, and LDR monotherapy, and L-UHF BED < 226 Gy_1.5) with equivalent GU toxicity to other modalities. With a median follow-up period of 32 months and 75 months, the actuarial biochemical control rates were equivalent between the UHF and BT ± EBRT groups. UHF showed equivalent efficacy, higher GI and equivalent GU accumulated toxicity to BT ± EBRT, and the toxicity of UHF was largely dependent on the UHF schedule.

Ultrahypofractionated Radiotherapy versus Conventional to Moderate Hypofractionated Radiotherapy for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer

The purpose of this study was to compare the toxicity (first endpoint) and efficacy (second endpoint) of ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy (UHF) and dose-escalated conventional to moderate hypofractionated radiotherapy (DeRT) for clinically localized prostate cancer. We compared 253 patients treated with UHF and 499 patients treated with DeRT using multi-institutional retrospective data. To analyze toxicity, we divided UHF into High-dose UHF (H-UHF; equivalent doses of 2 Gy per fraction: EQD2 > 100 Gy1.5) and low-dose UHF (L-UHF; EQD2 ≤ 100 Gy1.5). In toxicity, H-UHF elevated for 3 years accumulated late gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity grade ≥ 2 (11.1% and 9.3%) more than L-UHF (3% and 1.2%) and DeRT (3.1% and 4.8%, p = 0.00126 and p = 0.00549). With median follow-up periods of 32.0 and 61.7 months, the actuarial 3-year biochemical failure-free survival rates were 100% (100% and 100% in the L-UHF and H-UHF) and 96.3% in the low-risk group, 96.5% (97.1% and 95.6%) and 94.9% in the intermediate-risk group, and 93.7% (100% and 94.6%) and 91.7% in the high-risk group in the UHF and DeRT groups, respectively. UHF showed equivocal efficacy, although not conclusive but suggestive due to a short follow-up period of UHF. L-UHF using EQD2 ≤ 100 Gy1.5 is a feasible UHF schedule with a good balance between toxicity and efficacy.

High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy as Monotherapy for Low- and Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer. Oncological Outcomes After a Median 15-Year Follow-Up

Introduction

To evaluate the oncological outcome of high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy (BRT) as monotherapy for clinically localised prostate cancer (PCA).

Material and Methods

Between January 2002 and February 2004, 141 consecutive patients with clinically localised PCA were treated with HDR-BRT monotherapy. The cohort comprised 103 (73%) low-, 32 (22.7%) intermediate- and 6 (4.3%) high risk patients according to D’Amico classification or 104 (73.8%) low-, 24 (17.0%) intermediate favourable-, 12 (8.5%) intermediate unfavourable- and one (0.7%) very high risk patient according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) one. Patients received four fractions of 9.5 Gy delivered within a single implant up to a total physical dose of 38 Gy. Catheter-implantation was transrectal ultrasound-based whereas treatment planning CT-based. Thirty-three patients (23.4%) received ADT neoadjuvantly and continued concurrently with BRT. Biochemical relapse-free survival (BRFS) was defined according to the Phoenix Consensus Criteria and genitourinary (GU)/gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity evaluated using the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0.

Results

Median age at treatment and median follow-up time was 67.2 and 15.2 years, respectively. Twenty-three (16.3%) patients experienced a biochemical relapse and 5 (3.5%) developed distant metastases, with only one patient dying of PCA. The BRFS was 85.1% at 15 years and 78.7% at 18 years. The corresponding overall survival, metastases-free survival, and prostate cancer specific mortality at 15- and 18-years was 73.9%/59.1%, 98.3%/90.6%, and 100%/98.5% respectively. Late grade 3 GI and GU toxicity was 4.2% and 5.6% respectively. Erectile dysfunction grade 3 was reported by 27 (19%) patients. From the prognostic factors evaluated, tumor stage (≤T2b compared to ≥T2c) along with the risk group (low-intermediate vs. high) when using the D’Amico classification but not when the NCCN one was taken into account, correlated significantly with BRFS.

Conclusion

Our long-term results confirm HDR-BRT to be a safe and effective monotherapeutic treatment modality for low- and intermediate risk PCA.

Quantifying the impact of SpaceOAR hydrogel on inter-fractional rectal and bladder dose during 0.35 T MR-guided prostate adaptive radiotherapy

PURPOSE

To investigate the impact of rectal spacing on inter-fractional rectal and bladder dose and the need for adaptive planning in prostate cancer patients undergoing SBRT with a 0.35 T MRI-Linac.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We evaluated and compared SBRT plans from prostate cancer patients with and without rectal spacer who underwent treatment on a 0.35 T MRI-Linac. Each group consisted of 10 randomly selected patients that received prostate SBRT to a total dose of 36.25 Gy in five fractions. Dosimetric differences in planned and delivered rectal and bladder dose and the number of fractions violating OAR constraints were quantified. We also assessed whether adaptive planning was needed to meet constraints for each fraction.

RESULTS

On average, rectal spacing reduced the maximum dose delivered to the rectum by more than 8 Gy (p < 0.001). We also found that D3cc received by the rectum could be 12 Gy higher in patients who did not have rectal spacer (p < 9E-7). In addition, the results show that a rectal spacer can reduce the maximum dose and D15cc to the bladder wall by more than 1 (p < 0.004) and 8 (p < 0.009) Gy, respectively. Our study also shows that using a rectal spacer could reduce the necessity for adaptive planning. The incidence of dose constraint violation was observed in almost 91% of the fractions in patients without the rectal spacer and 52% in patients with implanted spacer.

CONCLUSION

Inter-fractional changes in rectal and bladder dose were quantified in patients who underwent SBRT with/without rectal SpaceOAR hydrogel. Rectal spacer does not eliminate the need for adaptive planning but reduces its necessity.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy using a hydrogel spacer for localized prostate cancer: A dosimetric comparison between tomotherapy with the newly-developed tumor-tracking system and cyberknife

Purpose

With a new tumor‐tracking system (Synchrony®) for tomotherapy (Radixact®), the internal and set‐up margins can be tightened, like cyberknife (CyberKnife®), in the planning of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer. Recently, the usefulness of placing a hydrogel spacer between the prostate and rectum has been established in prostate radiotherapy. We evaluated the characteristics of tomotherapy plans with the tumor‐tracking system and compared them with cyberknife SBRT plans for localized prostate cancer using a hydrogel spacer.

Methods

In 20 patients, two plans were created and compared using tomotherapy and cyberknife. All patients underwent hydrogel spacer injection behind the prostate before simulation CT and MRI for fusion. For all plans, 36.25 Gy in 7.25‐Gy fractions for a minimum coverage dose of 95% of planning target volume (PTV) (D95%) was prescribed. The D99% of PTV and D0.1 ml of the PTV, urethra, bladder, and rectum were intended to be > 90%, 110–130%, 100–110%, <110%, and <100%, respectively, of the prescribed doses.

Results

All plans using tomotherapy and cyberknife achieved the intended dose constraints. The cyberknife plans yielded better median PTV‐V110% (volume of PTV covered by 110% isodose line, 54.8%), maintaining lower median D0.1 ml of the urethra (37.5 Gy) and V80% of the bladder (11.0 ml) compared to the tomotherapy plans (39.0%; p < 0.0001, 38.2 Gy; p < 0.0001, and 18.3 ml; p < 0.0001, respectively). The tomotherapy plans were superior to the cyberknife plans for the rectum (V80% = 0.4 vs. 1.0 ml, p < 0.001; D1ml = 26.4 vs. 29.0 Gy, p = 0.013).

Conclusions

Our results suggested that tomotherapy with the tumor‐tracking system has reasonable potential for SBRT for localized prostate cancer using a hydrogel spacer.

Multi-institutional retrospective analysis of ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy for Japanese prostate cancer patients

To report outcomes and risk factors of ultrahypofractionated (UHF) radiotherapy for Japanese prostate cancer patients. This multi-institutional retrospective analysis comprised 259 patients with localized prostate cancer from 6 hospitals. A total dose of 35–36 Gy in 4–5 fractions was prescribed for sequential or alternate-day administration. Biochemical failure was defined according to the Phoenix ASTRO consensus. Toxicities were assessed using National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria version 4. Tumor control and toxicity rates were analyzed by competing risk frames. Median follow-up duration was 32 months (range 22–97 months). 2- and 3-year biochemical control rates were 97.7% and 96.4%, respectively. Initial prostate-specific antigen (p < 0.01) and neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (p < 0.05) were identified as risk factors for biochemical recurrence. 2- and 3-year cumulative ≥ Grade 2 late genitourinary (GU) toxicities were 5.8% and 7.4%, respectively. Corresponding rates of gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities were 3.9% and 4.5%, respectively. Grade 3 rates were lower than 1% for both GU and GI toxicities. No grade 4 or higher toxicities were encountered. Biologically effective dose was identified as a risk factor for ≥ Grade 2 late GU and GI toxicities (p < 0.05). UHF radiotherapy offered effective, safe treatment for Japanese prostate cancer with short-term follow-up. Our result suggest higher prescribed doses are related to higher toxicity rates.

Prostate Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy With Halcyon 2.0: Treatment Plans Comparison Based on RTOG 0938 Protocol

Purpose

The aim of this study is to investigate the feasibility of prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy treatment with a newly developed Varian Halcyon^TM 2.0 machine by comparing radiotherapy plans with previously delivered CyberKnife G4 plans created with the previous version of CyberKnife Treatment Planning System Multiplan 4.6.1.

Methods

Fifteen previously treated prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy treatment CyberKnife plans were re-planned retrospectively according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0938 protocol on a Halcyon^TM 2.0 machine with a prescription of 3625 cGy in five fractions.

Results

All re-plans on a Halcyon^TM 2.0 were able to meet the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0938 protocol goals and constraints. The re-plans decreased the maximum dose to skin and urethra, mean doses to the bladder and rectum, and also improve the conformity index and the Planning Target Volume coverage. However, D1cc to the rectum, D1cc and D10% to the bladder increased with no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) with the re-plans.

Conclusion

The Halcyon^TM 2.0 can generate stereotactic body radiation therapy treatment prostate plans created based on the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0938 protocol by delivering adequate coverage to the target while sparing healthy tissues.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer - 5-year efficacy results

BACKGROUND

The use of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) as the primary treatment modality in clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa) is emerging. The aim of the study was to analyze the long-term results of PCa patients treated with SBRT.

METHODS

This non-selected, real-life patient cohort included 213 patients with localized PCa treated with a robotic SBRT device during 2012-2015.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 64 months (range, 10-85 months), and all risk-groups were represented as 47 (22.1%), 56 (26.3%) and 110 (51.6%) patients were classified into D'Amico risk stratification of low, intermediate and high-risk groups, respectively. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was administered to 64.3% of the patients. At cut-off, the biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) was 100, 87.5 and 80.0% for patients at low, intermediate and high-risk (p = 0.004), and 92.5, 84.2 and 66.7% for patients with Gleason score ≤ 6, 7 and ≥ 8, respectively (p = 0.001). The actuarial 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were 97.9, 96.4 and 88.6% in the low, intermediate and high-risk groups, respectively, and at the cut-off, the disease-specific survival (DSS) rate of the whole cohort was high (99.1%), as only two high-risk patients died due to PCa.

CONCLUSION

Our present results of SBRT delivered with CyberKnife produced excellent long-term bRFS, OS and DSS outcomes among patients with localized PCa. We conclude that SBRT provides an efficient and convenient treatment option for patients with localized PCa, irrespective of the risk-group.

Post-HIFU locally relapsed prostate cancer: high-dose salvage radiotherapy guided by molecular imaging

PURPOSE

To evaluate tolerance and biochemical control rates of salvage external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in patients with local relapse from prostate cancer (PC) after high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) as primary treatment.

METHODS

Twenty-four patients presented biochemical failure of PC. Salvage EBRT to the residual prostate was performed with moderate hypofractionation schedule (MHRT) in 28 fractions (n = 16) or with extreme hypofractionation schedule (SBRT) in 5 fractions (n = 8) by means of image-guided volumetric modulation arc therapy. In case of MHRT, the median dose was 71.4 Gy, whereas in case of SBRT it was 32.5 Gy.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 28 months. The median PSA nadir was 0.26 ng/mL. In case of MHRT, the median PSA nadir was 0.15 ng/mL and occurred within a median time of 19 months. In case of SBRT, the median PSA nadir was 0.64 ng/mL and occurred within a median time of 8 months. No G3 higher acute or late toxicity after EBRT was observed. Only three patients presented with G2 acute GI toxicity (actinic proctitis). Twelve patients experienced acute G1 GU toxicity: 8/16 of men treated with MHRT and 4/8 of men treated with SBRT. Complete local control of disease was achieved in 23/24 patients (96%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data confirm the feasibility and the low toxicity of salvage EBRT with both schedules of treatment after HIFU failure. The findings of low acute toxicity and good biochemical control rates are encouraging, but a larger number of patients and a longer follow-up are needed to confirm these results.

Soft-tissue prostate intrafraction motion tracking in 3D cine-MR for MR-guided radiotherapy

To develop a method to automatically determine intrafraction motion of the prostate based on soft tissue contrast on 3D cine-magnetic resonance (MR) images with high spatial and temporal resolution. Twenty-nine patients who underwent prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), with four implanted cylindrical gold fiducial markers (FMs), had cine-MR imaging sessions after each of five weekly fractions. Each cine-MR session consisted of 55 sequentially obtained 3D data sets ('dynamics') and was acquired over an 11 s period, covering a total of 10 min. The prostate was delineated on the first dynamic of every dataset and this delineation was used as the starting position for the soft tissue tracking (SST). Each subsequent dynamic was rigidly aligned to the first dynamic, based on the contrast of the prostate. The obtained translation and rotation describes the intrafraction motion of the prostate. The algorithm was applied to 6270 dynamics over 114 scans of 29 patients and the results were validated by comparing to previously obtained fiducial marker tracking data of the same dataset. Our proposed tracking method was also retro-perspectively applied to cine-MR images acquired during MR-guided radiotherapy of our first prostate patient treated on the MR-Linac. The difference in the 3D translation results between the soft tissue and marker tracking was below 1 mm for 98.2% of the time. The mean translation at 10 min were X: 0.0 [Formula: see text] 0.8 mm, Y: 1.0 [Formula: see text] 1.8 mm and Z: [Formula: see text] mm. The mean rotation results at 10 min were X: [Formula: see text], Y: 0.1 [Formula: see text] 0.6° and Z: 0.0 [Formula: see text] 0.7°. A fast, robust and accurate SST algorithm was developed which obviates the need for FMs during MR-guided prostate radiotherapy. To our knowledge, this is the first data using full 3D cine-MR images for real-time soft tissue prostate tracking, which is validated against previously obtained marker tracking data.

Early Tolerance and Tumor Control Outcomes with High-dose Ultrahypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Studies using stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) dose escalation in in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients have indicated favorable outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate tolerance and tumor control outcomes in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients treated with high-dose SBRT following our phase 1 trial.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A total of 551 patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer were treated with SBRT.

INTERVENTION

Treatment with 37.5-40Gy SBRT in five fractions directed to the prostate and seminal vesicles.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Outcome measurements included acute toxicities (<3 mo after radiotherapy [RT]) and late toxicities (>3 mo after RT) and tumor control evaluation (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] levels at 3-6-mo intervals and post-treatment prostate biopsy at 2yr).

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Acute grade 2 gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities occurred in 1.8% of patients, and late grade 2 and 3 GI toxicities were observed in 3.4% and 0.4% of patients, respectively. Acute grade 2 genitourinary (GU) toxicities occurred in 10% of patients, and grade 3 acute GU toxicities were observed in 0.7% of patients. Late grade 2 and 3 GU toxicities were observed in 21.1% and 2.5% of patients, respectively. The use of a hydrogel rectal spacer was significantly associated with reduced late GI toxicity and lower odds of developing late GU toxicity. The median follow-up was 17 mo, and 53% of those with at least 2yr of follow-up (103/193) had a biopsy performed. The 5-yr cumulative incidence of PSA failure was 2.1%, and the incidence of a positive 2-yr treatment biopsy was 12%. Limitations to this report include its retrospective nature and short follow-up time.

CONCLUSIONS

Favorable short-term outcomes were achieved with high-dose SBRT for low- and intermediate-risk disease. Severe late toxicities were observed and favorable tumor control was found.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We utilized stereotactic body radiotherapy, a form of external beam radiotherapy that delivers highly targeted high-dose treatment to the prostate, to treat over 500 localized prostate cancer patients in five sessions over 1.5 wk. Treatments were well tolerated without significant urinary or rectal side effects. Nearly 90% of those who underwent biopsies after treatment did not demonstrate residual active disease.

A phase I dose-escalation trial of stereotactic body radiotherapy using 4 fractions for patients with localized prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To report results from our phase I dose-escalation study of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) using 4 fractions for patients with localized prostate cancer.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Fraction sizes of 8 Gy, 8.5 Gy, and 9 Gy were defined as levels 1, 2, and 3. The prescribed dose was delivered to at least 95% of the planning target volume. Image-guided, intensity-modulated radiotherapy was delivered to all patients. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was defined as acute toxicity of Grade 3 or higher. The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was defined as the level at which ≥30% of patients showed DLT. The recommended dose (RD) was defined to be one dose level below the MTD. If no patients at level 3 showed DLT, level 3 was defined as the recommended dose (RD).

RESULTS

Nine patients were enrolled in each level. All patients were low or intermediate risk. Median durations of follow-up for patients at levels 1-3 were 48.9 months, 42.6 months, and 18.4 months, respectively. Protocol treatment was completed for all patients. No patient showed DLT at each dose level. Level 3 was therefore designated as the RD for the phase II study. Although most toxicities were Grade 1, genitourinary toxicity was common compared to gastrointestinal toxicity. Three-year biochemical control rate was 90.3%.

CONCLUSION

The dose level of 36 Gy in 4 fractions with a 2-day break was tolerable and highly encouraging for SBRT of localized prostate cancer. The phase II trial to confirm the efficacy and toxicity of this treatment is now on going.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN, UMIN000010236 . Registered 13 March 2013.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy with periprostatic hydrogel spacer for localized prostate cancer: toxicity profile and early oncologic outcomes

Background

Multiple phase I-II clinical trials have reported on the efficacy and safety of prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for the treatment of prostate cancer. However, few have reported outcomes for prostate SBRT using periprostatic hydrogel spacer (SpaceOAR; Augmenix). Herein, we report safety and efficacy outcomes from our institutional prostate SBRT experience with SpaceOAR placement.

Methods

Fifty men with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated at a single institution with linear accelerator-based SBRT to 3625 cGy in 5 fractions, with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) were included. All patients underwent SpaceOAR and fiducial marker placement followed by pre-treatment MRI. Toxicity assessments were conducted at least weekly while on treatment, 1 month after treatment, and every follow-up visit thereafter. Post-treatment PSA measurements were obtained 4 months after SBRT, followed by every 3–6 months thereafter. Acute toxicity was documented per RTOG criteria.

Results

Median follow up time was 20 (range 4–44) months. Median PSA at time of diagnosis was 7.4 (2.7–19.5) ng/ml. Eighteen men received 6 months of ADT for unfavorable intermediate risk disease. No PSA failures were recorded. Median PSA was 0.9 ng/mL at 20 months; 0.08 and 1.32 ng/mL in men who did and did not receive ADT, respectively. Mean prostate-rectum separation achieved with SpaceOAR was 9.6 ± 4 mm at the prostate midgland.

No grade ≥ 3 GU or GI toxicity was recorded. During treatment, 30% of men developed new grade 2 GU toxicity (urgency or dysuria). These symptoms were present in 30% of men at 1 month and in 12% of men at 1 year post-treatment. During treatment, GI toxicity was limited to grade 1 symptoms (16%), although 4% of men developed grade 2 symptoms during the first 4 weeks after SBRT. All GI symptoms were resolving by the 1 month post-treatment assessment and no acute or late rectal toxicity was reported > 1 month after treatment.

Conclusions

Periprostatic hydrogel placement followed by prostate SBRT resulted in minimal GI toxicity, and favorable early oncologic outcomes. These results indicate that SBRT with periprostatic spacer is a well-tolerated, safe, and convenient treatment option for localized prostate cancer.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13014-019-1346-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Planning feasibility of extremely hypofractionated prostate radiotherapy on a 1.5 T magnetic resonance imaging guided linear accelerator

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Recently, intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer patients have been treated in a multicenter phase II trial with extremely hypofractionated prostate radiotherapy (hypo-FLAME trial). The purpose of the current study was to investigate whether a 1.5 T magnetic resonance imaging guided linear accelerator (MRI-linac) could achieve complex dose distributions of a quality similar to conventional linac state-of-the-art prostate treatments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The clinically delivered treatment plans of 20 hypo-FLAME patients (volumetric modulated arc therapy, 10 MV, 5 mm leaf width) were included. Prescribed dose to the prostate was 5 × 7 Gy, with a focal tumor boost up to 5 × 10 Gy. MRI-linac treatment plans (intensity modulated radiotherapy, 7 MV, 7 mm leaf width, fixed collimator angle and 1.5 T magnetic field) were calculated. Dose distributions were compared.

RESULTS

In both conventional and MRI-linac treatment plans, the V35Gy to the whole prostate was >99% in all patients. Mean dose to the gross tumor volume was 45 Gy for conventional and 44 Gy for MRI-linac plans, respectively. Organ at risk doses were met in the majority of plans, except for a rectal V35Gy constraint, which was exceeded in one patient, by 1 cc, for both modalities. The bladder V32Gy and V28Gy constraints were exceeded in two and one patient respectively, for both modalities.

CONCLUSION

Planning of stereotactic radiotherapy with focal ablative boosting in prostate cancer on a high field MRI-linac is feasible with the current MRI-linac properties, without deterioration of plan quality compared to conventional treatments.

Two versus five stereotactic ablative radiotherapy treatments for localized prostate cancer: A quality of life analysis of two prospective clinical trials

PURPOSE

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is appealing for prostate cancer (PCa) due to low α/β, and increasing the dose per fraction could improve the therapeutic index and lead to a better quality of life (QOL). Here we report the outcomes of a QOL comparison between two phase II clinical trials: two vs. five fraction prostate SABR.

METHODS

Patients had low or intermediate risk PCa. The doses prescribed were 26 Gy/2 and 40 Gy/5. Expanded prostate cancer index composite was collected. Urinary, bowel and sexual domains were analyzed. Minimal clinically important change (MCIC) was defined as >0.5 standard deviation.

RESULTS

30 and 152 patients were treated with 2-fraction and 5-fraction SABR. Median follow-up was 55 and 62 months. Five-year biochemical failure rate was 3.3% and 4.6%. The 2-fraction cohort had a significantly better mean QOL over time in the bowel domain (p = 0.0004), without a significant difference in the urinary or sexual domains. The 2-fraction cohort had a significantly lower rate of bowel MCIC (17.8% vs 42.3%, p = 0.01), but there was no difference in urinary (24.1% vs 35.7%) or sexual (15.3% vs 29.2%) MCIC. For MCIC x2 (moderate QOL change), the 2-fraction trial had significantly lower MCIC rates in both the bowel (7.1% vs 24%, p = 0.04) and sexual (0 vs 17.6%, p = 0.01) domains.

CONCLUSIONS

2-Fraction SABR is feasible to deliver and well tolerated, with significant signals of improved bowel and sexual QOL. A randomized trial of two vs. five fractions for prostate SABR is needed to confirm the promising findings of this study.

Two StereoTactic ablative radiotherapy treatments for localized prostate cancer (2STAR): Results from a prospective clinical trial

PURPOSE

Ultrahypofractionation is appealing for prostate cancer (PCa) due to low α/β, and increasing the dose per fraction could improve the therapeutic index. Here we report the outcomes of a phase II prostate SABR trial using two fractions.

METHODS

Patients had low or intermediate risk prostate cancer. Three gold fiducials were implanted for image guidance. The clinical target volume (CTV) included the prostate only, and the planning target volume (PTV) was a 3 mm expansion enabled through the use of a rectal immobilization device. The dose prescribed was 26 Gy in 2 weekly fractions (EQD2 110 Gy_1.4). The primary endpoint was quality of life using EPIC, and minimal clinically important change (MCIC) was defined as an EPIC QOL decrease >0.5 SD.

RESULTS

30 patients were accrued with a median follow-up of 49.3 months. 10% had low-risk, 33% had favourable intermediate-risk and 57% had unfavourable intermediate-risk PCa. Five patients received a short course of ADT. Median nPSA was 0.2 ng/ml. One patient had BF and is being observed. 56.6% of patients had a 4yPSARR. Six (20.7%) patients had a MCIC in the urinary domain, 6 (21.4%) had a MCIC in the bowel domain, and 3 (20%) had a MCIC in the sexual domain.

CONCLUSIONS

Two-fraction SABR in prostate cancer is safe and feasible, with a minimal change in QOL and a low rate of late grade 3-4 toxicity. The PSA kinetics and biochemical control rates are encouraging given that the majority had unfavourable intermediate-risk disease, although longer follow-up is required.

Patient-reported Quality of Life Following Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy and Conventionally Fractionated External Beam Radiotherapy Compared with Active Surveillance Among Men with Localized Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Evidence supporting the efficacy of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for localized prostate cancer is accumulating, but comparative studies of patient-reported quality of life (QOL) following SBRT versus conventionally fractionated external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or active surveillance (AS) are limited.

OBJECTIVE

To compare QOL of patients pursuing SBRT and EBRT versus AS.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A population-based cohort of 680 men with newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer was prospectively enrolled from 2011 to 2013.

INTERVENTION

SBRT, EBRT without androgen deprivation therapy, or AS.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

QOL was prospectively assessed before treatment (baseline), and at 3, 12, and 24mo after treatment using the validated Prostate Cancer Symptom Indices, which contain four domains: sexual dysfunction, urinary obstruction/irritation, urinary incontinence, and bowel problems. Propensity weighting via logistic regression models was used to balance baseline characteristics, and the mean QOL scores of EBRT and SBRT patients were compared against AS patients as the control group.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Compared with AS patients, EBRT patients had worse urinary obstructive/irritative symptoms and sexual dysfunction at 3mo, and worse bowel symptoms at 3 and 24mo. SBRT patients had similar scores as AS patients in all domains and across all time points; however, due to small sample size, worse sexual function and urinary incontinence in SBRT patients cannot be ruled out. Further research is needed to assess long-term outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In a nonrandomized cohort of men with localized prostate cancer, SBRT appeared to result in favorable QOL results through 2yr of follow-up, but worse sexual function and urinary incontinence compared with AS cannot be ruled out completely. Larger studies with longer follow-up are needed to confirm these findings.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and active surveillance appear to have similar quality of life outcomes through 2yr, although worse sexual function and urinary incontinence from SBRT cannot be ruled out completely.

Five-Year Outcomes of a Phase 1 Dose-Escalation Study Using Stereotactic Body Radiosurgery for Patients With Low-Risk and Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

To report toxicity outcomes, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) relapse, and cumulative incidence posttreatment biopsy results among patients treated on a prospective dose escalation study using ultra-hypofractionated stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A total of 136 patients were enrolled in a phase 1 dose-escalation study to determine the tolerance of escalating radiation dose levels of SBRT for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. The initial dose level was 32.5 Gy in 5 fractions, and doses were then sequentially escalated to 35 Gy, 37.5 Gy, and 40 Gy. Eligibility criteria included only patients with low and intermediate risk, and the maximum prostate volume was 60 cm³. Patients treated with neoadjuvant androgen deprivation were excluded. The median follow-up in survivors for the 4 dose levels was 5.9, 5.4, 4.1, and 3.5 years, respectively.

RESULTS

The incidence of acute grade 2 rectal toxicities for dose levels 1 to 4 were 0%, 2.9%, 2.8%, and 11.4% respectively. No grade 3 or 4 acute rectal toxicities were observed. The incidence of acute grade 2 urinary toxicities for dose levels 1 to 4 were 16.7%, 22.9%, 8.3%, and 17.1%, respectively. No grade 3 or 4 acute urinary toxicities were observed. No grade 2 or higher rectal toxicities were observed. The incidence of late grade 2 urinary toxicities for dose levels 1 to 4 was 23.3%, 25.7%, 27.8%, and 31.4%, respectively. Only 1 late grade 3 urinary toxicity (urethral stricture) developed in the 40-Gy dose arm; the stricture was corrected with transurethral resection. No grade 4 late urinary toxicity was observed. The 5-year cumulative incidence of prostate-specific antigen failure for dose levels 1 to 4 was 15%, 6%, 0%, and 0%. The incidence of a 2-year positive posttreatment biopsy was 47.6%, 19.2%, 16.7%, and 7.7%, respectively for the 4 dose arms (P = .013).

CONCLUSIONS

SBRT doses ranging from 32.5 to 40 Gy in 5 fractions were well tolerated without severe urinary or rectal toxicities. Biopsy outcomes suggest improved rates of tumor clearance observed with higher doses.

Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer-The Treatment Results of 500 Patients and Analysis of Failures

OBJECTIVE

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy is a very promising approach for the treatment of patients with prostate cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical tolerance, effectiveness, patterns of failure, and attempt to define predictive factors based on our experience.

METHODS

The cohort consists of 264 low-risk and 236 intermediate-risk consecutive patients treated at one institution. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA), adverse effects, and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) usage were noted.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 31.3 months. Over 90% of the patients reported no gastrointestinal toxicity. There were 4 occurrences of G3+ sequelae. 75% patients had no genitourinary toxicity at first month, and up to 90% during the rest of follow-up, with only 1 case of G3 adverse event. The toxicity was more pronounced in patients with higher PSA concentrations. Prior to stereotactic ablative radiotherapy, the mean PSA was 7.59 and 277 patients used ADT. The PSA decreased for up to 20 months before reaching a plateau. The decline was slower, and PSA levels were higher in patients without ADT. A total of 15 treatment failures occured in a median time of 19.9 months. Higher PSA concentrations were connected with higher failure rates, even in the first month and prior to reaching Phoenix criterion.

CONCLUSION

CyberKnife-based stereotactic ablative radiotherapy of low-risk and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients is an effective and well-tolerated modality of treatment. PSA is the most important predictive factor. The evolution of PSA concentration in a particular subgroup of patients suggests that ADT in intermediate-risk cases could improve long-term results.

Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy in patients with prostate cancer

Prostate is the most common non-cutaneous cancer diagnosed among men in North America. Fortunately most prostate cancers are screen detected and non-metastatic on diagnosis. Treatment options for men with localized prostate cancer include surgery ± postoperative radiation or radiation ± androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Brachytherapy ± external beam radiation treatment (EBRT) appears to have superior long-term disease control over EBRT alone likely because of higher biologic effective dose delivered. Stereotactic ablative body radiation (SABR) is a novel, non-invasive, high-precision EBRT technique that allows safe delivery of biologic doses similar to brachytherapy with similar or lower side effects [measured using toxicity or quality of life (QOL) scales]. Efficacy for SABR appears to be similar to brachytherapy including positive biopsy rates 2-3 years post treatment, biochemical failure (BF) rates out to 10-year and incidence of metastases. SABR dose escalation reduces biopsy positivity and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) nadirs but increases genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity-no effect on BF has been realized yet. The overall treatment time (OTT) varies in many protocols. Phase 2 randomized data shows that QOL is better in the acute setting with a weekly course of treatment compared to an every other day treatment regimen with no difference in late setting. Follow-up data are immature and likely underpowered to determine efficacy differences. SABR is cheaper and uses less resource than any other radiation technique. Given the healthcare resource challenges (including financial resources), SABR would be a welcomed addition if studies show non-inferiority to other radiation techniques. For patients with de novo or metastatic disease on relapse, there is much enthusiasm regarding the use of SABR in the setting of oligometastatic prostate cancer. SABR appears to be feasible to deliver, well tolerated and may delay the next line of therapy. However, until adequately powered randomized studies confirm a benefit, such an approach cannot be considered standard of care treatment at this time. Enrollment of eligible prostate cancer patients onto SABR clinical trials should be encouraged.

Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Prostate Cancer Following Magnetic Resonance Imaging Directed Biopsy: A Multidisciplinary Approach with Case Examples

Classically, prostate cancer has been diagnosed via systematic, transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy prompted by an abnormal digital rectal exam or elevated serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level. The development of multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has led to improved detection of prostate cancer foci. For patients with clinically localized prostate cancer seeking definitive therapy through radiation therapy, external beam radiation has been a mainstay with a movement toward hypofractionation, notably prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). We aim to describe the practical aspects of establishing a multidisciplinary, MRI-based prostate SBRT program by means of case examples.

The prostate SBRT team at the University of Alabama at Birmingham has been performing prostate SBRT for over four years using a multidisciplinary workflow. We have additionally completed a phase II trial of prostate SBRT with additional targeting of intraprostatic lesions with higher doses of radiation using a simultaneous integrated boost technique.

While there have been no reported randomized trials of prostate SBRT, this treatment has been proven safe and effective for properly selected patients with low and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. We present our multidisciplinary approach to prostate SBRT with two clinical cases targeting high-risk [MAM1] lesions in different anatomic zones of the prostate highlighting pertinent clinical challenges in successfully delivering prostate SBRT and managing potential side effects.

In conclusion, we report a multidisciplinary, MRI-based approach to treating patients with ultra hyperfractionated stereotactic radiosurgery as primary definitive treatment for prostate cancer.

Dose escalation for prostate stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR): Late outcomes from two prospective clinical trials

PURPOSE

Optimal prostate SABR dose-fractionation is unknown. This study compares long-term outcomes from two prospective trials.

METHODS

Study1 patients had low-risk PCa and received 35 Gy/5. Study2 patients had low/intermediate-risk PCa and received 40 Gy/5. Biochemical failure (BF) was defined as nadir + 2.

RESULTS

114 patients were included (study1, n = 84; study2, n = 30). Median follow-up was 9.6 years and 6.9 years. Median nPSA was 0.4 and 0.1 ng/ml. Nine patients had BF (8 in study1, 1 in study2); two were managed with ADT and four had local salvage. The BF rate was 2.5% and 12.8% at 5 and 10 years for study1 and 3.3% at 5 years for study 2. BF probability was 0% if PSA <0.4 at 4 years, and 20.5% at 10 years if PSA ≥0.4 (p = 0.02). Nine patients died, none of PCa. No patient has metastases or castrate-resistance. At 10 years, OS and CSS were 90.4% (p = 0.25) and 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

Dose-escalated prostate SABR was associated with lower nPSAs but no difference in BF, OS, CSS or MFS. PSA <0.4 at 4 years was a predictor of biochemical control. Half of patients with BF were successfully salvaged. Given that this is a favorable-risk cohort, longer follow-up will be needed to see if the lower nPSA translates into lower BF rates.

Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Primary Prostate Cancer

Prostate cancer is the most common non-cutaneous cancer in males. There are a number of options for patients with localized early stage disease, including active surveillance for low-risk disease, surgery, brachytherapy, and external beam radiotherapy. Increasingly, external beam radiotherapy, in the form of dose-escalated and moderately hypofractionated regimens, is being utilized in prostate cancer, with randomized evidence to support their use. Stereotactic body radiotherapy, which is a form of extreme hypofractionation, delivered with high precision and conformality typically over 1 to 5 fractions, offers a more contemporary approach with several advantages including being non-invasive, cost-effective, convenient for patients, and potentially improving patient access. In fact, one study has estimated that if half of the patients currently eligible for conventional fractionated radiotherapy in the United States were treated instead with stereotactic body radiotherapy, this would result in a total cost savings of US$250 million per year. There is also a strong radiobiological rationale to support its use, with prostate cancer believed to have a low α/β ratio and therefore being preferentially sensitive to larger fraction sizes. To date, there are no published randomized trials reporting on the comparative efficacy of stereotactic body radiotherapy compared to alternative treatment modalities, although multiple randomized trials are currently accruing. Yet, early results from the randomized phase III study of HYPOfractionated RadioTherapy of intermediate risk localized Prostate Cancer (HYPO-RT-PC) trial, as well as multiple single-arm phase I/II trials, indicate low rates of late adverse effects with this approach. In patients with low- to intermediate-risk disease, excellent biochemical relapse-free survival outcomes have been reported, albeit with relatively short median follow-up times. These promising early results, coupled with the enormous potential cost savings and implications for resource availability, suggest that stereotactic body radiotherapy will take center stage in the treatment of prostate cancer in the years to come.