Elective pelvic irradiation in stage A2, B carcinoma of the prostate: analysis of RTOG 77-06

Treatment intensification strategies for men undergoing definitive radiotherapy for high-risk prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Treatment intensification of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) plays a crucial role in the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer.

METHODS

We performed a critical narrative review of the relevant literature and present new developments in evidence-based treatment intensification strategies.

RESULTS

For men with high-risk prostate cancer, there is strong evidence to support prolonging androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to 18-36 months and escalating the dose to the prostate using a brachytherapy boost. A potentially less toxic alternative to a brachytherapy boost is delivering a focal boost to dominant intraprostatic lesions using EBRT. In patients who meet STAMPEDE high-risk criteria, there is evidence to support adding a second-generation anti-androgen agent, such as abiraterone acetate, to long-term ADT. Elective pelvic lymph node irradiation may be beneficial in select patients, though more prospective data is needed to elucidate the group of patients who may benefit the most. Tumor genomic classifier (GC) testing and advanced molecular imaging will likely play a role in improving patient selection for treatment intensification as well as contribute to the evolution of treatment intensification strategies for future patients.

CONCLUSION

Treatment intensification using a combination of EBRT, advanced hormonal therapies, and brachytherapy may improve patient outcomes and survival in men with high-risk prostate cancer. Shared decision-making between patients and multidisciplinary teams of radiation oncologists, urologists, and medical oncologists is essential for personalizing care in this setting and deciding which strategies make sense for individual patients.

Prostate cancer and elective nodal radiation therapy for cN0 and pN0-a never ending story? : Recommendations from the prostate cancer expert panel of the German Society of Radiation Oncology (DEGRO)

For prostate cancer, the role of elective nodal irradiation (ENI) for cN0 or pN0 patients has been under discussion for years. Considering the recent publications of randomized controlled trials, the prostate cancer expert panel of the German Society of Radiation Oncology (DEGRO) aimed to discuss and summarize the current literature. Modern trials have been recently published for both treatment-naïve patients (POP-RT trial) and patients after surgery (SPPORT trial). Although there are more reliable data to date, we identified several limitations currently complicating the definitions of general recommendations. For patients with cN0 (conventional or PSMA-PET staging) undergoing definitive radiotherapy, only men with high-risk factors for nodal involvement (e.g., cT3a, GS ≥ 8, PSA ≥ 20 ng/ml) seem to benefit from ENI. For biochemical relapse in the postoperative situation (pN0) and no PSMA imaging, ENI may be added to patients with risk factors according to the SPPORT trial (e.g., GS ≥ 8; PSA > 0.7 ng/ml). If PSMA-PET/CT is negative, ENI may be offered for selected men with high-risk factors as an individual treatment approach.

Ten‐year outcomes of whole‐pelvic intensity‐modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer with regional lymph node metastasis

BACKGROUND

Management of pelvic node-positive prostate cancer has been challenging and controversial. We conducted a study to evaluate the outcomes of whole-pelvic (WP) simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT).

METHODS

A total of 67 consecutive patients with cT1c-4N1M0 prostate cancer were definitively treated by WP SIB-IMRT. Neoadjuvant ADT (median: 8.3 months) was administered in all cases. WP SIB-IMRT was designed to simultaneously deliver 78, 66.3, and 58.5 Gy in 39 fractions to the prostate plus seminal vesicles, metastatic lymph nodes (LNs), and the pelvic LN region, respectively. Adjuvant ADT (median: 24.7 months) was administered in 66 patients.

RESULTS

The median follow-up period was 81.6 months (range: 30.5-160.7). Biochemical relapse-free, overall, and prostate cancer-specific survival rates at 10 years were 59.8%, 79.6%, and 86.3%, respectively. Loco-regional recurrence was not observed. Being in International Society of Urological Pathology grade group 5 and having a posttreatment detectable nadir prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level (≥0.010 ng/ml) were significantly associated with worse prostate cancer-specific survival and progression of castration resistance. The 10-year cumulative incidence rates of grade 2 and 3 late toxicities were, respectively, 1.5% and 0% for genitourinary, 0% and 1.5% for gastrointestinal events. No grade 4 acute or late toxicities were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

WP SIB-IMRT can be safely administered to patients with pelvic node-positive prostate cancer. Since grade group 5 and detectable nadir PSA levels are risks for castration resistance, we may need to increase the intensity of treatment for such cases.

The cost of elective nodal coverage in prostate cancer: Late quality of life outcomes and dosimetric analysis with 0, 45 or 54 Gy to the pelvis

•

Pelvic nodal radiation to 54 Gy correlates with worse urinary quality of life.

•

Pelvic nodal radiation to 45 Gy does not correlate with urinary quality of life.

•

Post-operative radiation resulted in greater urinary quality of life decline.

•

Pelvic nodal radiation did not correlate with bowel quality of life.

Purpose

Elective pelvic lymph node radiotherapy (PLNRT) in prostate cancer is often omitted from definitive (n = 267) and post prostatectomy (n = 160) radiotherapy (RT) due to concerns regarding toxicity and efficacy. Data comparing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) with or without PLNRT is limited. Our long-term supposition is that PLNRT, particularly to higher doses afforded by IMRT, will decrease pelvic failure rate in select patients. We aim to establish the impact of two different PLNRT doses on long term quality of life (QOL).

Methods and materials

Prostate cancer patients (n = 428) recorded baseline scores using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), prior to definitive or post-prostatectomy RT. PLNRT, if given, was prescribed to 45 or 54 Gy at 1.8 Gy per fraction. New EPIC scores were recorded 20–36 months after radiotherapy. Absolute change in each domain subscale and summary score was recorded, along with if these changes met minimally important difference (MID) criteria. A separate multivariate analysis (MVA) was performed for each measure. Subsequent dosimetric analysis was performed.

Results

Frequency of a MID decline was significantly greater with PLNRT to 54 Gy for urinary function, incontinence, and overall. No urinary decline was correlated with PLNRT to 45 Gy. PLNRT to 54 Gy was significant for decline in urinary function, bother, irritative, incontinence, and overall score in one or both MVA models while 45 Gy was not. Postoperative status was significant for decline in urinary function, incontinence, and overall. Amongst postoperative patients, there was significantly greater decline in urinary function score in the salvage setting. Neither 54 nor 45 Gy significantly affected bowel subscale or overall score decline.

Conclusions

Using conventional fractionation, adding PLNRT to 54 Gy, but not 45 Gy, correlates with worse urinary QOL, with postoperative patients experiencing a steeper decline. PLNRT had no significant impact on bowel QOL with either dose.

Dose-escalated pelvic radiotherapy for prostate cancer in definitive or postoperative setting

PURPOSE

Given the absence of standardized planning approach for clinically node-positive (cN1) prostate cancer (PCa), we collected data about the use of prophylactic pelvic irradiation and nodal boost. The aim of the present series is to retrospectively assess clinical outcomes after this approach to compare different multimodal treatment strategies in this scenario.

METHODS

Data from clinical records of patients affected by cN1 PCa and treated in six different Italian institutes with prophylactic pelvic irradiation and boost on pathologic pelvic lymph nodes detected with CT, MRI or choline PET/CT were retrospectively reviewed and collected. Clinical outcomes in terms of overall survival (OS) and biochemical relapse-free survival (b-RFS) were explored. The correlation between outcomes and baseline features (International Society of Urological Pathology-ISUP pattern, total dose to positive pelvic nodes ≤ / > 60 Gy, sequential or simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) administration and definitive vs postoperative treatment) was explored.

RESULTS

ISUP pattern < 2 was a significant predictor of improved b-RFS (HR = 0.3, 95% CI 0.1220-0.7647, P = 0.0113), while total dose < 60 Gy to positive pelvic nodes was associated with worse b-RFS (HR = 3.59, 95% CI 1.3245-9.741, P = 0.01). Conversely, treatment setting (postoperative vs definitive) and treatment delivery technique (SIB vs sequential boost) were not associated with significant differences in terms of b-RFS (HR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.338-2.169, P = 0.743, and HR = 2.39, 95% CI 0.93-6.111, P = 0.067, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Results from the current analysis are in keeping with data from literature showing that pelvic irradiation and boost on positive nodes are effective approaches. Upfront surgical approach was not associated with better clinical outcomes.

Feeding the Controversy: When Pelvic Irradiation Improves Outcomes in High-Risk and Very High-Risk Prostate Cancer

The Oncology Grand Rounds series is designed to place original reports published in the Journal into clinical context. A case presentation is followed by a description of diagnostic and management challenges, a review of the relevant literature, and a summary of the authors' suggested management approaches. The goal of this series is to help readers better understand how to apply the results of key studies, including those published in Journal of Clinical Oncology, to patients seen in their own clinical practice.

Patterns of care for prostate cancer radiotherapy-results from a survey among German-speaking radiation oncologists

Background

Emerging moderately hypofractionated and ultra-hypofractionated schemes for radiotherapy (RT) of prostate cancer (PC) have resulted in various treatment options. The aim of this survey was to evaluate recent patterns of care of German-speaking radiation oncologists for RT of PC.

Methods

We developed an online survey which we distributed via e‑mail to all registered members of the German Society of Radiation Oncology (DEGRO). The survey was completed by 109 participants between March 3 and April 3, 2020. For evaluation of radiation dose, we used the equivalent dose at fractionation of 2 Gy with α/β = 1.5 Gy, equivalent dose (EQD2 [1.5 Gy]).

Results

Median EQD2(1.5 Gy) for definitive RT of the prostate is 77.60 Gy (range: 64.49–84.00) with median single doses (SD) of 2.00 Gy (range: 1.80–3.00), while for postoperative RT of the prostate bed, median EQD2(1.5 Gy) is 66.00 Gy (range: 60.00–74.00) with median SD of 2.00 Gy (range: 1.80–2.00). For definitive RT, the pelvic lymph nodes (LNs) are treated in case of suspect findings in imaging (82.6%) and/or according to risk formulas/tables (78.0%). In the postoperative setting, 78.9% use imaging and 78.0% use the postoperative tumor stage for LN irradiation. In the definitive and postoperative situation, LNs are irradiated with a median EQD2(1.5 Gy) of 47.52 Gy with a range of 42.43–66.00 and 41.76–62.79, respectively.

Conclusion

German-speaking radiation oncologists’ patterns of care for patients with PC are mainly in line with the published data and treatment recommendation guidelines. However, dose prescription is highly heterogenous for RT of the prostate/prostate bed, while the dose to the pelvic LNs is mainly consistent.

Supplementary Information

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00066-020-01738-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Role of 68-Ga-PSMA-PET/CT in pelvic radiotherapy field definitions for lymph node coverage in prostate cancer patients

PURPOSE

To evaluate the distribution of metastatic lymph nodes (LN) detected on 68Ga-PSMA-positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in treatment-naïve prostate cancer (PC) patients and to analyze the LN coverage rates of the pelvic fields defined in the GETUG trial and RTOG guidelines and a pelvic field extending superiorly from the L4/L5 interspace.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

68Ga-PSMA-PET/CT images obtained at diagnosis of 138 PC patients were retrospectively analyzed. The number and locations of 68Ga-PSMA-positive LNs were co-registered with one single-planning CT. The numbers, locations, and sizes of LNs located outside the three pelvic volumes were investigated for the entire cohort and for patients with LN metastasis in the pelvic area only.

RESULTS

A total of 441 PSMA-PET-positive LN metastases were identified. The most frequent metastatic LNs were internal iliac LNs (25.2%). Para-aortic and presacral LNs outside the three pelvic fields were present in 20 (14.5%) and 22 patients (15.9%), respectively. The LN coverage rates according to the GETUG trial, the RTOG guidelines, and the pelvic field extending superiorly from L4/L5 were 44.2%, 52.2%, and 71, respectively, in the entire cohort and 51.7%, 61 and 83.1%, respectively, in patients with only pelvic LN metastasis. The number of metastatic LNs was a predictive factor for LNs located outside the three pelvic fields.

CONCLUSIONS

Extending the cranial margin of the pelvic field from L5/S1 to L4/L5 increases the accuracy of pelvic field irradiation in approximately 20% of patients, highlighting the importance of proximal common iliac irradiation, particularly in patients with multiple LN metastasis.

Toxicity of Pelvic Lymph Node Irradiation With Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for High-Risk and Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer: A National Population-Based Study Using Patient-Reported Outcomes

PURPOSE

Little is known about the toxicity of additional pelvic lymph node irradiation in men receiving intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer. The aim of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes after IMRT to the prostate only (PO-IMRT) versus the prostate and pelvic lymph nodes (PPLN-IMRT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients who received a diagnosis of high-risk or locally advanced prostate cancer in the English National Health Service between April 2014 and September 2016 who were treated with IMRT were mailed a questionnaire at least 18 months after diagnosis. Patient-reported urinary, sexual, bowel, and hormonal functional domains on a scale from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better outcomes, and generic health-related quality of life were collected using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite 26-item version and EQ-5D-5L. We used linear regression to compare PPLN-IMRT versus PO-IMRT with adjustment for patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics.

RESULTS

Of the 7017 men who received a questionnaire, 5468 (77.9%) responded; 4196 (76.7%) had received PO-IMRT and 1272 (23.3%) PPLN-IMRT. Adjusted differences in the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite 26-item version domain scores were smaller than 1 (P always >.2), except for sexual function, with men who had PPNL-IMRT reporting a lower mean score (adjusted difference, 2.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-3.7; P = .002). This did not represent a clinically relevant difference. There was no significant difference in health-related quality of life (P = .5).

CONCLUSIONS

Additional pelvic lymph node irradiation does not lead to clinically meaningful increases in the toxicity of IMRT for prostate cancer according to patient-reported functional outcomes and health-related quality of life.

Acute and late toxicity and preliminary outcomes report of moderately hypofractionated helical tomotherapy for localized prostate cancer: a mono-institutional analysis

AIMS

To assess toxicity and clinical outcomes of moderately hypofractionated helical tomotherapy (HT) for the curative treatment of localized prostate cancer (PC).

METHODS

From December 2012 to May 2018, 170 patients were treated with definitive intent for PC. Thirty-four percent were low risk, 30% intermediate risk (IR) and 36% high risk (HR). All patients received 70 Gy in 28 fractions to the prostate; 61.6 Gy were delivered to the seminal vesicles for IR; pelvic lymph nodes irradiation for a total dose of 50.4 Gy was added in the HR subgroup. Toxicity was assessed using CTCAE V4.0, and biochemical failure was defined following Phoenix criteria. Time-to-event data were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 36 months (range 12-78); acute toxicity was as follows: G1 and G2 in 27.6% and 19.4% for GI; 53% and 24% for GU. No G ≥ 3 event was observed. For late toxicity, G ≥ 3 GI and GU rates were, respectively, 3% and 2.4% at 3 years and 3% and 4.8% at 4 years; no G4 occurred. A statistical correlation between acute or late G3 incidence and clinical or dosimetric parameters was not found. At the time of analysis, 2- and 3-year biochemical relapse-free survival rates were 90% and 87.5% and 2- and 3-year overall survival rates were 96.4% and 90%, respectively. The log-rank test revealed no difference between the risk groups in terms of biochemical control (p = 0.16).

CONCLUSIONS

Moderately hypofractionated RT with HT for localized prostate cancer reported excellent outcomes with mild acute and late toxicity incidence, with promising biochemical control rates.

Treatment-Related Toxicity Using Prostate-Only Versus Prostate and Pelvic Lymph Node Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy: A National Population-Based Study

PURPOSE

There is a debate about the effectiveness and toxicity of pelvic lymph node (PLN) irradiation for the treatment of men with high-risk prostate cancer. This study compared the toxicity of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to the prostate and the pelvic lymph nodes (PPLN-IMRT) with prostate-only IMRT (PO-IMRT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with high-risk localized or locally advanced prostate cancer treated with IMRT in the English National Health Service between 2010 and 2013 were identified by using data from the Cancer Registry, the National Radiotherapy Dataset, and Hospital Episode Statistics, an administrative database of all hospital admissions. Follow-up was available up to December 31, 2015. Validated indicators were used to identify patients with severe toxicity according to the presence of both a procedure code and diagnostic code in patient Hospital Episode Statistics records. A competing risks regression analysis, with adjustment for patient and tumor characteristics, estimated subdistribution hazard ratios (sHRs) by comparing GI and genitourinary (GU) complications for PPLN-IMRT versus PO-IMRT.

RESULTS

Three-year cumulative incidence in the PPLN-IMRT (n = 780) and PO-IMRT (n = 3,065) groups was 14% for both groups for GI toxicity, and 9% and 8% for GU toxicity, respectively. Patients receiving PPLN-IMRT and PO-IMRT had similar levels of severe GI (adjusted sHR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.24; P = .97) and GU (adjusted sHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.46; P = .50) toxicity rates.

CONCLUSION

Including PLNs in radiation fields for high-risk or locally advanced prostate cancer is not associated with increased GI or GU toxicity at 3 years. Additional follow-up is required to answer questions about its impact on late GU toxicity. Results from ongoing trials will provide insight into the anticancer effectiveness of PLN irradiation.

11C-Choline PET Guided Salvage Radiation Therapy for Isolated Pelvic and Paraortic Nodal Recurrence of Prostate Cancer After Radical Prostatectomy: Rationale and Early Genitourinary or Gastrointestinal Toxicities

Purpose

To assess gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) adverse events (AEs) of ¹¹C-choline-positron emission tomography (CholPET) guided lymph node (LN) radiation therapy (RT) in patients who experience biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy.

Methods and Materials

From 2013 to 2016, 107 patients experienced biochemical failure of prostate cancer, had CholPET-detected pelvic and/or paraortic LN recurrence, and were referred for RT. Patients received androgen suppression and CholPET guided LN RT (median dose, 45 Gy) with a simultaneous integrated boost to CholPET-avid sites (median dose, 56.25 Gy), all in 25 fractions. RT-naïve patients had the prostatic fossa included in the initial treatment volumes followed by a sequential boost (median dose, 68 Gy). GI and GU AEs were reported per Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.0) with data gathered retrospectively. Differences in maximum GI and GU AEs at baseline, immediately post-RT, and at early (median, 4 months) and late (median, 14 months) follow-up were assessed.

Results

Median follow-up was 16 months (interquartile range [IQR], 11-25). Median prostate-specific antigen at time of positive CholPET was 2.3 ng/mL (IQR, 1.3-4.8), with a median of 2 (IQR, 1-4) choline-avid LNs per patient. Most recurrences were within the pelvis (53%) or pelvis + paraortic (40%). Baseline rates of grade 1 to 2 GI AEs were 8.4% compared with 51.9% (4.7% grade 2) of patients post-RT (P < .01). These differences resolved by 4-month (12.2%, P = .65) and 14-month AE assessments (9.1%, P = .87). There was no significant change in grade 1 to 2 GU AEs post-RT (64.1%) relative to baseline (56.0%, P = .21), although differences did arise at 4-month (72.2%, P = .01) and 14-month (74.3%, P = .01) AE assessments.

Conclusions

Salvage CholPET guided nodal RT has acceptably low rates of acute GI and GU AEs and no significant detriment in 14-month GI AEs. These data are of value in counseling patients and designing prospective trials evaluating the oncologic efficacy of this treatment strategy.

Risk-adapted moderate hypofractionation of prostate cancer : A prospective analysis of acute toxicity, QOL and outcome in 221 patients

Purpose

Prostate cancer (PCA) is highly heterogeneous in terms of its oncologic outcome. We therefore aimed to tailor radiation treatment to the risk status by using three different hypofractionated radiation regimen differing in applied dose, use of rectum spacer, inclusion of pelvic lymph nodes (pLN) and use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Here we report on acute toxicity, quality of life (QOL) and oncologic outcome at a median follow-up of 12 months.

Methods

A total of 221 consecutive PCA patients received hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Low-risk (LR) patients were planned to receive 60 Gy in 20 fractions (EQD2^α/β1.5 = 77.1 Gy), intermediate-risk (IR) patients 63 Gy in 21 fractions (EQD2^α/β1.5 = 81 Gy), and high-risk (HR) patients 67.5 Gy in 25 fractions (EQD2^α/β1.5 = 81 Gy) to the prostate and 50 Gy in 25 fractions to the pLN. Acute rectal toxicity was assessed by endoscopy. In addition, toxicity was scored using CTC-AE 4.0 and IPSS score, while QOL was assessed using QLQ-PR25 questionnaires.

Results

Acute CTC reactions were slightly higher in the HR regimen but reverted to baseline at 3 months. GI G2 toxicity was 4%, 0% and 12% for the LR, IR and HR regimen. Compared to IR patients, the increase in toxicity in HR patients was statistically significant (p = 0.002) and mainly caused by a higher incidence of diarrhea presumably due to pelvic EBRT. QOL scores of all domains were worse for the HR regimen (not significant).

Conclusion

Risk-adapted moderate hypofractionation is associated with low GI/GU toxicity. Given the higher rate of pelvic metastases in HR patients, slightly higher transient acute reactions should be outweighed by possible oncological benefits.

Prostate-only Versus Whole-pelvis Radiation with or Without a Brachytherapy Boost for Gleason Grade Group 5 Prostate Cancer: A Retrospective Analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of elective whole-pelvis radiotherapy (WPRT) remains controversial. Few studies have investigated it in Gleason grade group (GG) 5 prostate cancer (PCa), known to have a high risk of nodal metastases.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of WPRT on patients with GG 5 PCa treated with external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or EBRT with a brachytherapy boost (EBRT+BT).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

We identified 1170 patients with biopsy-proven GG 5 PCa from 11 centers in the United States and one in Norway treated between 2000 and 2013 (734 with EBRT and 436 with EBRT+BT).

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) were compared using Cox proportional hazards models with propensity score adjustment.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

A total of 299 EBRT patients (41%) and 320 EBRT+BT patients (73%) received WPRT. The adjusted 5-yr bRFS rates with WPRT in the EBRT and EBRT+BT groups were 66% and 88%, respectively. Without WPRT, these rates for the EBRT and EBRT+BT groups were 58% and 78%, respectively. The median follow-up was 5.6yr. WPRT was associated with improved bRFS among patients treated with EBRT+BT (hazard ratio [HR] 0.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.2-0.9, p=0.02), but no evidence for improvement was found in those treated with EBRT (HR 0.8, 95% CI 0.6-1.2, p=0.4). WPRT was not significantly associated with improved DMFS or PCSS in the EBRT group (HR 1.1, 95% CI 0.7-1.7, p=0.8 for DMFS and HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.4-1.1, p=0.1 for PCSS), or in the EBRT+BT group (HR 0.6, 95% CI 0.3-1.4, p=0.2 for DMFS and HR 0.5 95% CI 0.2-1.2, p=0.1 for PCSS).

CONCLUSIONS

WPRT was not associated with improved PCSS or DMFS in patients with GG 5 PCa who received either EBRT or EBRT+BT. However, WPRT was associated with a significant improvement in bRFS among patients receiving EBRT+BT. Strategies to optimize WPRT, potentially with the use of advanced imaging techniques to identify occult nodal disease, are warranted.

PATIENT SUMMARY

When men with a high Gleason grade prostate cancer receive radiation with external radiation and brachytherapy, the addition of radiation to the pelvis results in a longer duration of prostate-specific antigen control. However, we did not find a difference in their survival from prostate cancer or in their survival without metastatic disease. We also did not find a benefit for radiation to the pelvis in men who received radiation without brachytherapy.

Evolution of definitive external beam radiation therapy in the treatment of prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Although the clinical significance of a diagnosis of prostate cancer for some men is debated, for many men it leads to significant morbidity and mortality. Radical treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer has been shown to improve survival in men with intermediate or high-risk disease. There is no high level evidence to support the superiority of radical prostatectomy, with or without adjuvant or salvage external beam radiotherapy in comparison to definitive radiotherapy with or without androgen deprivation, and the choice should be individualized. External beam radiation therapy practices are in constant evolution, and numerous strategies have been investigated to improve either efficacy or reduce toxicity, or both.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials investigating strategies to improve efficacy, reduce toxicity, or both of external beam radiotherapy have been reviewed in men with prostate cancer without nodal or distant metastases. These strategies include the use of neo-adjuvant and adjuvant androgen deprivation, dose-escalation, hypofractionation, whole pelvic radiation therapy, incorporation of improved imaging, image- guided radiation therapy, and adjuvant systemic therapy. The evidence to date for these strategies is discussed, noting limitations in applying the results of reported trials to men treated in contemporary settings.

RESULTS

A number of strategies have shown improvements in biochemical control using external beam radiotherapy. To date, only with the use of androgen deprivation therapy has this translated into improvements in disease specific and overall survival. This may reflect the long natural history of prostate cancer and high incidence of competing risks. Technological advances have enabled dose escalation with reduced toxicity, of paramount importance given the long natural history.

RESULTS

The use of external beam radiation therapy in prostate cancer is evolving with numerous strategies incorporated to improve outcomes. The optimum dose and fractionation and use of androgen deprivation or systemic adjuvants for each man is unclear based on current evidence and prognostic and predictive parameters. Patient preferences play an important role in chosen therapy. It is hoped that future studies better capture all prostate cancer- and treatment- related morbidity to clarify the optimal therapy choices for each man with prostate cancer.

Contemporary prostate cancer radiation therapy in the United States: Patterns of care and compliance with quality measures

PURPOSE

Quality measures represent the standards of appropriate treatment agreed upon by experts in the field and often supported by data. The extent to which providers in the community adhere to quality measures in radiation therapy (RT) is unknown.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation study enrolled men with clinically localized prostate cancer in 2011 and 2012. Patients completed surveys and medical records were reviewed. Patients were risk-stratified according to D'Amico classification criteria. Patterns of care and compliance with 8 quality measures as endorsed by national consortia as of 2011 were assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, 926 men underwent definitive RT (69% external beam radiation therapy [EBRT]), 17% brachytherapy (BT), and 14% combined EBRT and BT with considerable variation in radiation techniques across risk groups. Most men who received EBRT had dose-escalated EBRT (>75 Gy; 93%) delivered with conventional fractionation (<2 Gy; 95%), intensity modulated RT (76%), and image guided RT (85%). Most men treated with BT received I125 (77%). Overall, 73% of the men received EBRT that was compliant with the quality measures (dose-escalation, image-guidance, appropriate use of androgen deprivation therapy, and appropriate treatment target) but only 60% of men received BT that was compliant with quality measures (postimplant dosimetry and appropriate dose). African-American men (64%) and other minorities (62%) were less likely than white men (77%) to receive EBRT that was compliant with quality measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Most men who received RT for localized prostate cancer were treated with an appropriately high dose and received image guidance and intensity modulated RT. However, compliance with some nationally recognized quality measures was relatively low and varied by race. There are significant opportunities to improve the delivery of RT and especially for men of a minority race.

Phase 1-2 Study of Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy Including Regional Lymph Node Irradiation in Patients With High-Risk Prostate Cancer (SATURN): Early Toxicity and Quality of Life

PURPOSE

Five-fraction stereotactic ablative radiation therapy appears to be gaining popularity in treatment of prostate cancer, but it has not been extensively tested in the context of pelvic radiation. The objective of this prospective prostate and pelvic SABR study is to report the acute toxicity, late toxicity, and quality of life (QoL) after study completion.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A phase 1/2 study was conducted for patients with high-risk prostate cancer. Radiation therapy was planned to deliver 25 Gy to pelvis and seminal vesicles (SV) and a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) of up to 40 Gy to the prostate in 5 fractions, weekly, over 29 days. Androgen deprivation therapy was used for 12 to 18 months. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0 was used to assess worst acute and late toxicities. QoL data was captured using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite questionnaire (EPIC).

RESULTS

Thirty patients completed the planned treatment with a median follow-up of 25.7 months (range, 18.5-30.7 months). The following "worst" acute and late toxicities were observed: grade 2 genitourinary toxicity, 46.7% and 52%, respectively; grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicity, 3.3% and 32%, respectively. No grade 3 or higher toxicities were noted. Mean (95% confidence interval) EPIC urinary QoL scores were 86.6 (81.9-91.3), 87.1 (81.4-92.6), and 87.9 (80.1-95.7) at baseline, 3 months and 24 months; bowel scores were 94.1 (91.3-97.0), 93.2 (89.1-97.2), and 92.4 (87.7- 97.1), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This gantry-based novel fractionation schedule incorporating pelvic radiation for high-risk prostate cancer in combination with androgen deprivation therapy is feasible and well tolerated.

Contemporary role of postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer

While radical prostatectomy (RP) has provided long-term disease control for the majority of patients with localized prostate cancer (CaP), nearly 30% of all surgical patients have disease progression. For high-risk patients, more than half of men experience disease recurrence within 10 years. Postoperative radiotherapy is the only known potentially curative treatment for a large number of patients following prostatectomy. Lately, there have been several advances with the potential to improve outcomes for patients undergoing postoperative radiotherapy. This article will give an overview of the existing literature and current controversies on: (I) timing of postoperative radiation; (II) use of concomitant androgen deprivation therapy; (III) optimal dose to the prostate bed; (IV) use of hypofractionation; (V) elective treatment of the pelvic lymph nodes; (VI) novel imaging modalities, and (VII) genomic biomarkers.

Conformal Radiotherapy of Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: Analysis of Rectal and Urinary Toxicity and Correlation with Dose-Volume Parameters

Aims and background

Rectal and urinary toxicities are the principal limiting factors in delivering a high target dose to patients affected by prostate cancer. The verification of such toxicity is an important step before starting a dose-escalation program. The present observational study reports on the acute and late rectal and urinary toxicity in relation with dose-volume parameters in 104 patients with localized prostate cancer treated with 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy.

Methods and study design

One hundred and four patients with stage T1b-T3b prostate cancer were treated with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy to a total dose of 74 Gy, 2 Gy per fraction. Rigid dose constraints were applied for rectum and bladder. Acute and late rectal and urinary toxicities were analyzed also in relation to dose-volume histograms. Biochemical relapse-free survival was defined according to the American Society of Therapeutic Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) criteria and to the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix Consensus Conference Recommendations using the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results

No grade 3 toxicity was observed. Acute and late grade 2 toxicity rates were 5.8% and 9.0% for rectum and 12.5% and 2.0% for bladder, respectively. Rectal V70 influenced the occurrence of late grade 2 toxicity. A relationship between acute and late urinary toxicity was also found. After a median follow-up of 30 months (range, 20–50), the actuarial overall and biochemical relapse-free survival rates were 84% and 77%, respectively, with a significant difference between low-intermediate and high-risk patients.

Conclusions

Conformal radiotherapy to the dose of 74 Gy was administered with good compliance. The incidence of acute and late toxicity was relatively low in accord with our dose constraints. Rectal V70 proved to be a reliable prognosticator of late toxicity. Overall survival and biochemical relapse-free survival rates were more favorable for low and intermediate-risk and significantly less favorable for high-risk patients.

Long-Term Patient-Reported Outcomes From a Phase 3 Randomized Prospective Trial of Conventional Versus Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

To assess the long-term quality of life (QoL) outcomes from a phase 3 trial comparing 2 modes of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT): conventional IMRT (CIMRT) versus hypofractionated IMRT (HIMRT) in patients with localized prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Between 2002 and 2006, 303 men with low-risk to high-risk prostate cancer were randomized to 76 Gy in 38 fractions (CIMRT) versus 70.2 Gy in 26 fractions (HIMRT). QoL was compared by use of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), and EuroQoL (EQ5D) questionnaires. The primary outcome of the QoL analysis was a minimum clinically important difference defined as a 0.5 standard deviation change from baseline for each respective QoL parameter. Treatment effects were evaluated with the use of logistic mixed effects regression models.

RESULTS

A total of 286, 299, and 218 patients had baseline EPIC, IPSS, or EQ5D data available and were included in the analysis. Overall, there was no statistically significant difference between the 2 treatment arms in terms of EPIC, IPSS, or EQ5D scores over time, although there was a trend toward lower EPIC urinary incontinence scores in the HIMRT arm. More patients in the HIMRT arm had a lower EPIC urinary incontinence score relative to baseline versus patients in the CIMRT arm with long-term follow-up. On multivariable analysis, there was no association between radiation fractionation scheme and any QoL parameter. When other clinical factors were examined, lymph node radiation was associated with worse EPIC hormonal scores versus patients receiving no lymph node radiation. In general, QoL outcomes were generally stable over time, with the exception of EPIC hormonal and EQ5D scores.

CONCLUSIONS

In this randomized prospective study, there were stable QoL changes in patients receiving HIMRT or CIMRT. Our results add to the growing body of literature suggesting that HIMRT may be an acceptable treatment modality in clinically localized prostate cancer.

[Multimodal therapy of locally advanced prostate cancer]

Locally advanced prostate cancer (LAPCA) comprises about 5-10 % of all newly diagnosed prostate cancers and is associated with the highest prostate cancer specific mortality (approximately 8-20 %). LAPCA is defined by the presence of extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle invasion, and bladder neck infiltration of pelvic lymph node metastases. It is evident that prognosis can only be improved by interdisciplinary multimodality treatment strategies. Adequate local staging by multiparametric MRI is one of the cornerstones for an individualized, risk-adapted treatment approach. This might consist of extended radical prostatectomy with an extended pelvic lymphadenectomy or intensity-modulated radiation therapy with androgen deprivation as the primary local therapeutic approach. Both treatment strategies may be combined with neoadjuvant or adjuvant radiation therapy or salvage surgery. Combination with neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy and new androgen receptor pathway inhibitors might also be possible. This article summarizes the current treatment strategies for LAPCA.

Patterns of Lymph Node Failure after Dose-escalated Radiotherapy: Implications for Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Coverage

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials evaluating the benefit of pelvic radiotherapy (PRT) in the radiotherapeutic management of patients with higher-risk prostate cancer have limited the superior field border to the S1/S2 or L5/S1 interspace. However, imaging and surgical series have demonstrated a high frequency of prostatic lymph node (LN) drainage beyond these landmarks.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the patterns of radiographically defined abdominopelvic LN failures and their potential implications for PRT field design.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

During 1992-2008, 2694 patients with localized prostate cancer were treated with prostate/seminal vesicle-only radiotherapy without PRT. Some 156 patients had their first failure within the abdominopelvic LNs, of whom 60 had isolated failures within the pelvic LNs.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

A radiologist reviewed all imaging and mapped each LN failure to a template consisting of 34 abdominopelvic LN stations.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The median follow-up was 8.9 yr. Of patients who experienced first recurrence in the pelvic LNs (n=60), the common iliac station was involved in 55% (n=33) of patients, including 10% (n=6) who had isolated common iliac failures. Use of a PRT field superior border of L5/S1 would fully cover only 42% of the first recurrences among these patients. Extending the field to cover the common iliac stations would increase coverage to 93% of recurrences. The presence of T3/T4 disease and omission of androgen-deprivation therapy both independently conferred an approximate fivefold increase in the likelihood of having a common iliac LN failure. Use of imaging as a surrogate for LN involvement is the primary study limitation.

CONCLUSIONS

Pelvic LN failures frequently occur superior to the commonly used L5/S1 landmark for PRT coverage, and use of ADT may be protective of more superior LN failures. The current RTOG 0924 trial is evaluating the benefit of PRT with extended superior coverage to L4/5 when possible, which, according to our data, should significantly improve the coverage of potential sites of failure.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We looked at lymph node recurrence patterns after external beam radiotherapy of the prostate in men who did not have their lymph nodes treated. We found that there was a high incidence of pelvic lymph node recurrences above the internal and external iliac lymph node regions. Therefore, the current field recommendation for pelvic lymph nodes that stops at the superior border of the internal and external iliac vessels provides inadequate coverage of common sites of cancer recurrence, namely the common iliac lymph nodes.

Incidental Dose to Pelvic Nodal Regions in Prostate-Only Radiotherapy

OBJECTIVES

Pelvic lymph nodal regions receive an incidental dose from conformal treatment of the prostate. This study was conducted to investigate the doses received by the different pelvic nodal regions with varying techniques used for prostate radiotherapy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Twenty patients of high-risk node-negative prostate cancer treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy to the prostate alone were studied. Replanning was done for intensity-modulated radiotherapy, 3-dimensional conformal treatment, and 2-dimensional conventional radiotherapy with additional delineation of the pelvic nodal regions, namely, common iliac (upper and lower), presacral, internal iliac, obturator, and external iliac. Dose-volume parameters such as Dmean, D100%, D66%, D33%, V40, and V50 to each of the nodal regions were estimated for all patients.

RESULTS

The obturator nodes received the highest dose among all nodal regions. The mean dose received by obturator nodal region was 44, 29, and 22 Gy from 2-dimensional conventional radiotherapy, 3-dimensional conformal treatment, and intensity-modulated radiotherapy, respectively. The mean dose was significantly higher when compared between 2-dimensional conventional radiotherapy and 3-dimensional conformal treatment ( P < .001), 2-dimensional conventional radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy ( P < .001), and 3-dimensional conformal treatment and intensity-modulated radiotherapy ( P < .001). The D33% of the obturator region was 64, 39, and 37 Gy from 2-dimensional conventional radiotherapy, 3-dimensional conformal treatment, and intensity-modulated radiotherapy, respectively. The dose received by all other pelvic nodal regions was low and not clinically relevant.

CONCLUSION

The incidental dose received by obturator regions is significant especially with 2-dimensional conventional radiotherapy and 3-dimensional conformal treatment techniques as used in the trials studying elective pelvic nodal irradiation. However, with intensity-modulated radiotherapy, this dose is lower, making elective pelvic irradiation more relevant. Advances in Knowledge: This study highlights that incidental dose received by obturator regions is significant especially with 2-dimensional conventional radiotherapy and 3-dimensional conformal treatment techniques.

[Expected benefit of lymph node and seminal vesical dissection to decrease high-risk prostate cancer radiotherapy]

PURPOSE

In case of pelvic lymph node and seminal vesicle dissection followed by prostate cancer intensity-modulated radiotherapy, the objective of the study was to evaluate the dosimetric benefit of reducing the target volume.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 25 patients with high-risk prostate cancer had surgery first followed by intensity-modulated radiotherapy and androgen deprivation. Four treatment planning were simulated for each patient, based on two CT scans performed before and after surgery. The target volumes were: prostate-seminal vesicles-lymph nodes, prostate-lymph nodes, prostate-seminal vesicles and prostate only. The total dose was 46Gy in the seminal vesicles and lymph nodes, and 80Gy in the prostate.

RESULTS

Compared to prostate target volume only, the addition of seminal vesicles and lymph nodes multiplied by a factor of 1.6 and 6.5 the target volume, respectively. Decreasing the target volume from prostate-seminal vesicles-lymph nodes to prostate-seminal vesicles, to prostate only decreased the rectal wall mean dose from 49Gy to 42Gy, to 36Gy, and the risk of late rectal bleeding from 4.4% to 3.2%, to 2.4% (P<0.05), respectively. The bladder wall mean dose decreased from 51Gy to 40Gy, to 35Gy (P<0,05), respectively. Not irradiating the lymph nodes decreased the absolute risk of diarrhea by 11%.

CONCLUSION

Lymph node and seminal vesicle dissection before prostate cancer intensity-modulated radiotherapy allows decreasing moderately the risk of digestive toxicity.

Improved survival with the addition of radiotherapy to androgen deprivation: questions answered and a review of current controversies in radiotherapy for non-metastatic prostate cancer

The contemporary standard of care for locally advanced high-risk prostate cancer includes a combination of dose-escalated radiotherapy (RT) plus androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). However, 20 years ago, at the inception of the National Cancer Institute of Canada (NCIC) led study (NCIC Clinical Trials Group PR.3/Medical Research Council PR07/Intergroup T94-0110), the survival impact of prostate RT for high-risk disease was uncertain. Recently, Mason, Warde and colleagues presented the final results of this NCIC/MRC study (PMID: 25691677) randomizing 1,205 high-risk prostate cancer patients to ADT + RT vs. ADT alone. These updated results confirm substantial improvements with the addition of RT to ADT for the endpoints of overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and biochemical recurrence. Close examination of subtleties of this trial's design highlight some of the most salient controversies in the field of prostate RT, including the risk-stratified roles of ADT, optimal ADT duration, and RT field design in the dose-escalated and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) era.

Outcome According to Elective Pelvic Radiation Therapy in Patients With High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer: A Secondary Analysis of the GETUG 12 Phase 3 Randomized Trial

PURPOSE

The role of pelvic elective nodal irradiation (ENI) in the management of prostate cancer is controversial. This study analyzed the role of pelvic radiation therapy (RT) on the outcome in high-risk localized prostate cancer patients included in the Groupe d'Etude des Tumeurs Uro-Genitales (GETUG) 12 trial.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients with a nonpretreated high-risk localized prostate cancer and a staging lymphadenectomy were randomly assigned to receive either goserelin every 3 months for 3 years and 4 cycles of docetaxel plus estramustine or goserelin alone. Local therapy was administered 3 months after the start of systemic treatment. Performance of pelvic ENI was left to the treating physician. Only patients treated with primary RT were included in this analysis. The primary endpoint was biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS).

RESULTS

A total of 413 patients treated from 2002 to 2006 were included, of whom 358 were treated using primary RT. A total of 208 patients received pelvic RT and 150 prostate-only RT. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration, Gleason score, or T stage did not differ according to performance of pelvic RT; pN+ patients more frequently received pelvic RT than pN0 patients (P<.0001). Median follow-up was 8.8 years. In multivariate analysis, bPFS was negatively impacted by pN stage (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.52 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.78-3.54], P<.0001), Gleason score 8 or higher (HR: 1.41 [95% CI: 1.03-1.93], P=.033) and PSA higher than 20 ng/mL (HR: 1.41 [95% CI: 1.02-1.96], P=.038), and positively impacted by the use of chemotherapy (HR: 0.66 [95% CI: 0.48-0.9], P=.009). There was no association between bPFS and use of pelvic ENI in multivariate analysis (HR: 1.10 [95% CI: 0.78-1.55], P=.60), even when analysis was restricted to pN0 patients (HR: 0.88 [95% CI: 0.59-1.31], P=.53). Pelvic ENI was not associated with increased acute or late patient reported toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

This unplanned analysis of a randomized trial failed to demonstrate a benefit of pelvic ENI on bPFS in high-risk localized prostate cancer patients.

Survival Outcomes of Whole-Pelvic Versus Prostate-Only Radiation Therapy for High-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients With Use of the National Cancer Data Base

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES

The addition of whole pelvic (WP) compared with prostate-only (PO) radiation therapy (RT) for clinically node-negative prostate cancer remains controversial. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the survival benefit of adding WPRT versus PO-RT for high-risk, node-negative prostate cancer, using the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients with high-risk prostate cancer treated from 2004 to 2006, with available data for RT volume, coded as prostate and pelvis (WPRT) or prostate alone (PO-RT) were included. Multivariate analysis (MVA) and propensity-score matched analysis (PSM) were performed. Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) based on overall survival (OS) using Gleason score (GS), T stage, and pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was also conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 14,817 patients were included: 7606 (51.3%) received WPRT, and 7211 (48.7%) received PO-RT. The median follow-up time was 81 months (range, 2-122 months). Under MVA, the addition of WPRT for high-risk patients had no OS benefit compared with PO-RT (HR 1.05; P=.100). On subset analysis, patients receiving dose-escalated RT also did not benefit from WPRT (HR 1.01; P=.908). PSM confirmed no survival benefit with the addition of WPRT for high-risk patients (HR 1.05; P=.141). In addition, RPA was unable to demonstrate a survival benefit of WPRT for any subset. Other prognostic factors for inferior OS under MVA included older age (HR 1.25; P<.001), increasing comorbidity scores (HR 1.46; P<.001), higher T stage (HR 1.17; P<.001), PSA (HR 1.81; P<.001), and GS (HR 1.29; P<.001), and decreasing median county household income (HR 1.15; P=.011). Factors improving OS included the addition of androgen deprivation therapy (HR 0.92; P=.033), combination external beam RT plus brachytherapy boost (HR 0.71; P<.001), and treatment at an academic/research institution (HR 0.84; P=.002).

CONCLUSION

In the largest reported analysis of WPRT for patients with high-risk prostate cancer treated in the dose-escalated era, the addition of WPRT demonstrated no survival advantage compared with PO-RT.

Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy with CyberKnife in the Treatment of Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer: Preliminary Results

Aims and Background

Recent clinical reports of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) in the treatment of low-risk prostate cancer have been encouraging. Our study evaluates the efficacy and safety of SABR using the CyberKnife system for treating intermediate- to very-high-risk prostate cancer.

Methods and Study Design

Between May 2010 and June 2013, 31 patients (15 intermediate risk, 14 high risk, and 2 very high risk) without pelvic lymph node metastasis were enrolled retrospectively. The treatment consisted of 37.5 Gy in 5 fractions over 1-2 weeks using CyberKnife SABR. Twenty-five patients (81%) received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Biochemical failure was defined using the nadir + 2 criterion. Toxicity was assessed with the Common Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events (version 4).

Results

The median follow-up was 36 months (range 7-58 months). The median pretreatment prostate-­pecific antigen (PSA) was 13.5 ng/mL (range 4.5-124.0 ng/mL). The median PSA decreased to 0.09 ng/mL (range <0.04-5.38 ng/mL) and 0.12 ng/mL (range <0.04-2.63 ng/mL) at 6 months and 12 months after SABR, respectively. The 3-year biochemical relapse-free survival was 90.2% for all patients, 100% for the intermediate-risk patients, and 82% for the high- and very-high-risk patients (p = 0.186). No patient experienced ≥ grade 3 toxicity. There were 7 acute and 5 late grade 2 genitourinary toxicities and 1 acute and no late grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicity.

Conclusions

Our preliminary results support that CyberKnife SABR with ADT is safe and feasible in patients with intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer. A further large-scale clinical trial with longer follow-up is warranted.

Potential applications of image-guided radiotherapy for radiation dose escalation in patients with early stage high-risk prostate cancer

Patients with early stage high-risk prostate cancer (prostate specific antigen > 20, Gleason score > 7) are at high risk of recurrence following prostate cancer irradiation. Radiation dose escalation to the prostate may improve biochemical-free survival for these patients. However, high rectal and bladder dose with conventional three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy may lead to excessive gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity. Image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT), by virtue of combining the steep dose gradient of intensity-modulated radiotherapy and daily pretreatment imaging, may allow for radiation dose escalation and decreased treatment morbidity. Reduced treatment time is feasible with hypo-fractionated IGRT and it may improve patient quality of life.

Evolution of hypofractionated accelerated radiotherapy for prostate cancer - the sunnybrook experience

Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) is a newer method of ultra hypo fractionated radiotherapy that uses combination of image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), to deliver high doses of radiation in a few fractions to a target, at the same time sparing the surrounding organs at risk (OAR). SABR is ideal for treating small volumes of disease and has been introduced in a number of disease sites including brain, lung, liver, spine, and prostate. Given the radiobiological advantages of treating prostate cancer with high doses per fraction, SABR is becoming a standard of care for low and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients based upon the results from Sunnybrook and also the US-based prostate SABR consortium. This review examines the development of moderate and ultra hypo-fractionation schedules at the Odette Cancer centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences. Moderate hypo-fractionation protocol was first developed in 2001 for intermediate-risk prostate cancer and from there on different treatment schedules including SABR evolved for all risk groups.

Progress and controversies: Radiation therapy for prostate cancer

Radiation therapy remains a standard treatment option for men with localized prostate cancer. Alone or in combination with androgen-deprivation therapy, it represents a curative treatment and has been shown to prolong survival in selected populations. In this article, the authors review recent advances in prostate radiation-treatment techniques, photon versus proton radiation, modification of treatment fractionation, and brachytherapy-all focusing on disease control and the impact on morbidity. Also discussed are refinements in the risk stratification of men with prostate cancer and how these are better for matching patients to appropriate treatment, particularly around combined androgen-deprivation therapy. Many of these advances have cost and treatment burden implications, which have significant repercussions given the prevalence of prostate cancer. The discussion includes approaches to improve value and future directions for research.

[Is there a role for pelvic lymphadenectomy before radiation therapy in localized prostate carcinoma?]

Pelvic nodal irradiation has classically been recommended in all patients with a predicted lymph node invasion risk of 15% or greater. However, in view of the results of recent series of extended lymphadenectomy, this rule has been critically discussed. Moreover, the technological progress of radiotherapy has drastically decreased the risk of rectal and urinary injuries secondary to the pelvic irradiation. These two points have lead the teams who used to perform a staging lymphadectomy before radiation therapy in order to avoid a useless pelvic irradiation to the N0 patients, to question this attitude. The objective of this review is to discuss these points and to present the clinical situations in which a pelvic lymphadenectomy performed before the irradiation of a prostate cancer, either exclusive or associated to an androgen deprivation, keeps a potential benefit.

EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013

CONTEXT

The most recent summary of the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on prostate cancer (PCa) was published in 2011.

OBJECTIVE

To present a summary of the 2013 version of the EAU guidelines on screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent of clinically organ-confined PCa.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A literature review of the new data emerging from 2011 to 2013 has been performed by the EAU PCa guideline group. The guidelines have been updated, and levels of evidence and grades of recommendation have been added to the text based on a systematic review of the literature, which included a search of online databases and bibliographic reviews.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A full version of the guidelines is available at the EAU office or online (www.uroweb.org). Current evidence is insufficient to warrant widespread population-based screening by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for PCa. Systematic prostate biopsies under ultrasound guidance and local anesthesia are the preferred diagnostic method. Active surveillance represents a viable option in men with low-risk PCa and a long life expectancy. A biopsy progression indicates the need for active intervention, whereas the role of PSA doubling time is controversial. In men with locally advanced PCa for whom local therapy is not mandatory, watchful waiting (WW) is a treatment alternative to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), with equivalent oncologic efficacy. Active treatment is recommended mostly for patients with localized disease and a long life expectancy, with radical prostatectomy (RP) shown to be superior to WW in prospective randomized trials. Nerve-sparing RP is the approach of choice in organ-confined disease, while neoadjuvant ADT provides no improvement in outcome variables. Radiation therapy should be performed with ≥ 74 Gy in low-risk PCa and 78 Gy in intermediate- or high-risk PCa. For locally advanced disease, adjuvant ADT for 3 yr results in superior rates for disease-specific and overall survival and is the treatment of choice. Follow-up after local therapy is largely based on PSA and a disease-specific history, with imaging indicated only when symptoms occur.

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge in the field of PCa is rapidly changing. These EAU guidelines on PCa summarize the most recent findings and put them into clinical practice.

PATIENT SUMMARY

A summary is presented of the 2013 EAU guidelines on screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent of clinically organ-confined prostate cancer (PCa). Screening continues to be done on an individual basis, in consultation with a physician. Diagnosis is by prostate biopsy. Active surveillance is an option in low-risk PCa and watchful waiting is an alternative to androgen-deprivation therapy in locally advanced PCa not requiring immediate local treatment. Radical prostatectomy is the only surgical option. Radiation therapy can be external or delivered by way of prostate implants. Treatment follow-up is based on the PSA level.

Overview of randomized controlled treatment trials for clinically localized prostate cancer: implications for active surveillance and the United States preventative task force report on screening?

Prostate cancer and its management have been intensely debated for years. Recommendations range from ardent support for active screening and immediate treatment to resolute avoidance of screening and active surveillance. There is a growing body of level I evidence establishing a clear survival advantage for treatment of subsets of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. This chapter presents a review of these randomized controlled trials. We argue that an understanding of this literature is relevant not only to those considering active surveillance but also to those evaluating the merits of screening. In addition, a number of important evidence-based conclusions concerning what should and should not be done can be gleaned from these trials.

Current standards and future directions for prostate cancer radiation therapy

Definitive radiation therapy is a well-recognized curative treatment option for localized prostate cancer. A suitable technique, dose, target volume and the option of a combination with androgen deprivation therapy need to be considered. An optimal standard external beam radiotherapy currently includes intensity-modulated and image-guided radiotherapy techniques with total doses of ≥76-78 Gy in conventional fractionation. Protons or carbon ions are alternatives available only in specific centers. Data from several randomized studies increasingly support the rationale for hypofractionated radiotherapy. A simultaneous integrated boost with dose escalation focused on a computed tomography/PET- or MRI/magnetic resonance spectroscopy-detected malignant lesion is one option to increase tumor control, with potentially no additional toxicity. The application of a spacer is a promising concept for optimal protection of the rectal wall.

Individualized image-based lymph node irradiation for prostate cancer

Controversy surrounds the benefit of whole pelvis radiotherapy (WPRT) over prostate-only radiotherapy (PORT) for intermediate-risk and high-risk patients with prostate cancer. In the PSA screening era, two large randomized trials as well as multiple retrospective studies comparing WPRT with PORT have been performed, albeit with contradictory results. Data regarding the use of WPRT in patients with biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy are scarce. As a consequence, the practice of WPRT varies worldwide. Advanced highly accurate imaging methods for the detection of lymph node metastases in patients with prostate cancer have been developed, such as PET, single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), diffusion-weighted MRI and magnetic resonance lymphography (MRL). The use of these new imaging methods might improve nodal irradiation, as they can be used not only for selection of patients, but also for accurately determining the target volume to reduce geographical miss. Furthermore, these new techniques can enable dose escalation to involved lymph nodes.

Radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy

Radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy has been controversial and no consensus has developed on the most appropriate use of radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. In the last decade the results of three randomized controlled trials examining the effects of early radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy in patients with high-risk features (positive surgical margins, extracapsular extension and seminal vesical involvement) have been published. The results of these trials indicate that early radiotherapy changes the natural history of high-risk prostate cancer. Specifically, early radiotherapy reduces the risk of biochemical recurrence, improves clinical disease-free survival, decreases the utilization of salvage androgen suppression and, in the study with longest follow-up, early radiotherapy improves overall survival. This article will review the evidence, provide a commentary on the existing evidence, and describe key issues going forward (timing of radiotherapy, androgen suppression and radiotherapy techniques).

Functional imaging for prostate cancer: therapeutic implications

Functional radionuclide imaging modalities, now commonly combined with anatomical imaging modalities computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (single photon emission computed tomography [SPECT]/CT, positron emission tomography [PET]/CT, and PET/magnetic resonance imaging), are promising tools for the management of prostate cancer, particularly for therapeutic implications. Sensitive detection capability of prostate cancer using these imaging modalities is one issue; however, the treatment of prostate cancer using the information that can be obtained from functional radionuclide imaging techniques is another challenging area. There are not many SPECT or PET radiotracers that can cover the full spectrum of the management of prostate cancer from initial detection to staging, prognosis predictor, and all the way to treatment response assessment. However, when used appropriately, the information from functional radionuclide imaging improves, and sometimes significantly changes, the whole course of the cancer management. The limitations of using SPECT and PET radiotracers with regard to therapeutic implications are not so much different from their limitations solely for the task of detecting prostate cancer; however, the specific imaging target and how this target is reliably imaged by SPECT and PET can potentially make significant impact in the treatment of prostate cancer. Finally, although the localized prostate cancer is considered manageable, there is still significant need for improvement in noninvasive imaging of metastatic prostate cancer, in treatment guidance, and in response assessment from functional imaging, including radionuclide-based techniques. In this review article, we present the rationale of using functional radionuclide imaging and the therapeutic implications for each of radionuclide imaging agent that have been studied in human subjects.