Advanced prostate cancer: the results of a randomized comparative trial of high dose irradiation boosting with conformal protons compared with conventional dose irradiation using photons alone

Safety and early outcomes of proton therapy and low-dose rate brachytherapy boost for patients with prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Brachytherapy boost improves biochemical control for patients with prostate cancer. Here, we report the safety and early efficacy of proton therapy (PT) with a low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy boost.

METHODS

This retrospective study included patients with intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer treated with PT followed by LDR boost, with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), from 2010 through 2023. Patient, disease, and treatment characteristics, gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity, and efficacy outcomes are reported.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine patients received PT and LDR boost; median age at diagnosis was 68 years (interquartile range [IQR] 61-72). Most patients (n = 77) were White, 12 were African American, 5 Asian, and 3 Hispanic. Thirty-five patients had intermediate-risk (4 favorable and 31 unfavorable), 56 had high-risk, and 8 had very high-risk disease. Median PT dose was 44 Gy(RBE) (range 40-50.4) and median LDR dose was 90Gy (range 90-110). Pd-103 seed strands were used for 95 patients and I-125 for 4; 90 had MRI-assisted radiosurgery brachytherapy; 91 received ADT; and 21 had a rectal spacer. At a median follow-up time of 45 months, 5-year biochemical recurrence-free survival was 98%. There was no local recurrence, distant metastasis, or cancer death. Four patients had acute urinary retention after brachytherapy procedure. Eleven patients (11%) had late grade 2 GU toxicity, and 3 (3%) had late grade 2 GI toxicity. One patient had grade 3 urethral stricture requiring dilatation and transurethral resection.

CONCLUSIONS

At 45 months' follow-up time, treatment with PT and LDR boost led to high control rates and low toxicity for men with prostate cancer.

The current state of proton radiotherapy

Radiotherapy is indicated for nearly all cancers and at all stages in one form or another. More than half of all cancer patients are treated with radiation at some point in their cancer treatment. Conventional X-ray (photon) based radiotherapy does have a number of physical limitations which were theorized to be overcome by instead employing proton based radiotherapy. The late 1990s and early 2000s saw a rapid adoption in proton therapy as many speculated a greatly improved therapeutic window compared with photon therapy. Only a few randomized clinical trials have been reported, but to-date proton therapy has not shown to improve cancer control metrics. There is improved treatment related toxicity which may be clinically meaningful in some scenarios, but further expansion and wide spread utilization of the technology may be drastically limited by the substantially higher start up and operational costs of a proton center. Nonetheless, proton therapy may be beneficial in select scenarios which warrant individualized consideration.

French AFU Cancer Committee Guidelines - Update 2024-2026: Prostate cancer - Diagnosis and management of localised disease

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the Oncology Committee of the French Urology Association is to propose updated recommendations for the diagnosis and management of localized prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature from 2022 to 2024 was conducted by the CCAFU on the elements of diagnosis and therapeutic management of localized PCa, evaluating references with their level of evidence.

RESULTS

The recommendations set out the genetics, epidemiology and diagnostic methods of PCa, as well as the concepts of screening and early detection. MRI, the reference imaging test for localized cancer, is recommended before prostate biopsies are performed. Molecular imaging is an option for disease staging. Performing biopsies via the transperineal route reduces the risk of infection. Active surveillance is the standard treatment for tumours with a low risk of progression. Therapeutic methods are described in detail, and recommended according to the clinical situation.

CONCLUSION

This update of French recommendations should help to improve the management of localized PCa.

Approach to Patients with High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer: Radiation Oncology Perspective

OPINION STATEMENT

High-risk localized prostate cancer is a challenging clinical entity to treat, with heterogeneous responses to an evolving array of multidisciplinary treatment approaches. In addition, this disease state is growing in incidence due to a variety of factors, including shifting recommendations that discouraged routine prostate cancer screening. Current guidelines now incorporate an informed decision-making process for prostate cancer screening and evaluation. More work is underway to improve targeted screening for certain at-risk populations and to implement greater personalization in the use of diagnostic tools. Once diagnosed with high-risk localized disease, a multimodality treatment paradigm is warranted. Radiation-in its various forms and combinations-plays a large and continually evolving role in the management of high-risk prostate cancer, yet treatment outcomes are still suboptimal. There is a growing need to improve upon current treatment approaches, and better personalize a particular treatment recommendation based on both tumor and patient characteristics, as well as patient preference and goals of therapy. Given that treatment generally requires more than one therapy, there are notable implications on long-term quality of life, especially with respect to overlapping and cumulative side effects of local and systemic therapies, respectively. The desire for aggressive therapy to optimize cancer control outcomes must be weighed against the risk of morbidities and overtreatment and discussed with each patient so that an informed decision about treatment and care can be determined. High-level evidence to support treatment recommendations, where available, is critical for a data-driven and tailored approach to address all goals of care.

Advances and Challenges in Conducting Clinical Trials With Proton Beam Therapy

Advances in proton therapy have garnered much attention and speculation in recent years as the indications for proton therapy have grown beyond pediatric, prostate, spine, and ocular tumors. To achieve and maintain consistent access to this cancer treatment and to ensure the future viability and availability of proton centers in the United States, a call for evidence has been heard and answered by proton radiation oncologists. Answers provided in this review include the evolution of proton therapy research, rationale for proton clinical trial design, challenges in and barriers to the conduct of proton therapy research, and other unique considerations for the study of proton therapy.

Proton versus photon radiation therapy: A clinical review

While proton radiation therapy offers substantially better dose distribution characteristics than photon radiation therapy in certain clinical applications, data demonstrating a quantifiable clinical advantage is still needed for many treatment sites. Unfortunately, the number of patients treated with proton radiation therapy is still comparatively small, in some part due to the lack of evidence of clear benefits over lower-cost photon-based treatments. This review is designed to present the comparative clinical outcomes between proton and photon therapies, and to provide an overview of the current state of knowledge regarding the effectiveness of proton radiation therapy.

Dose-escalated radiotherapy for clinically localized and locally advanced prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer include radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, brachytherapy, active surveillance, hormonal therapy, and watchful waiting. For external beam radiation therapy, oncological outcomes may be expected to improve as the dose of radiotherapy (RT) increases. However, radiation-mediated side effects on surrounding critical organs may also increase.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of dose-escalated RT in comparison with conventional dose RT for curative treatment of clinically localized and locally advanced prostate cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases including trial registries and other sources of grey literature, up until 20 July 2022. We applied no restrictions on publication language or status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-arm randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of definitive RT in men with clinically localized and locally advanced prostate adenocarcinoma. RT was dose-escalated RT (equivalent dose in 2 Gy [EQD2] ≥ 74 Gy, lesser than 2.5 Gy per fraction) versus conventional RT (EQD2 < 74 Gy, 1.8 Gy or 2.0 Gy per fraction). Two review authors independently classified studies for inclusion or exclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently abstracted data from the included studies. We performed statistical analyses by using a random-effects model and interpreted them according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used GRADE guidance to rate the certainty of the evidence of RCTs.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine studies with 5437 men in an analysis comparing dose-escalated RT versus conventional dose RT for the treatment of prostate cancer. The mean participant age ranged from 67 to 71 years. Almost all men had localized prostate cancer (cT1-3N0M0). Primary outcomes Dose-escalated RT probably results in little to no difference in time to death from prostate cancer (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.04; I2 = 0%; 8 studies; 5231 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Assuming a risk of death from prostate cancer of 4 per 1000 at 10 years in the conventional dose RT group, this corresponds to 1 fewer men per 1000 (1 fewer to 0 more) dying of prostate cancer in the dose-escalated RT group. Dose-escalated RT probably results in little to no difference in severe RT toxicity of grade 3 or higher late gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.25; I2 = 0%; 8 studies; 4992 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); 23 more men per 1000 (10 more to 40 more) in the dose-escalated RT group assuming severe late GI toxicity as 32 per 1000 in the conventional dose RT group. Dose-escalated RT probably results in little to no difference in severe late genitourinary (GU) toxicity (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.63; I2 = 0%; 8 studies; 4962 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); 9 more men per 1000 (2 fewer to 23 more) in the dose-escalated RT group assuming severe late GU toxicity as 37 per 1000 in the conventional dose RT group. Secondary outcomes Dose-escalated RT probably results in little to no difference in time to death from any cause (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; I2 = 0%; 9 studies; 5437 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Assuming a risk of death from any cause of 101 per 1000 at 10 years in the conventional dose RT group, this corresponds to 2 fewer men per 1000 (11 fewer to 9 more) in the dose-escalated RT group dying of any cause. Dose-escalated RT probably results in little to no difference in time to distant metastasis (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.22; I2 = 45%; 7 studies; 3499 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Assuming a risk of distant metastasis of 29 per 1000 in the conventional dose RT group at 10 years, this corresponds to 5 fewer men per 1000 (12 fewer to 6 more) in the dose-escalated RT group developing distant metastases. Dose-escalated RT may increase overall late GI toxicity (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.55; I2 = 85%; 7 studies; 4328 participants; low-certainty evidence); 92 more men per 1000 (14 more to 188 more) in the dose-escalated RT group assuming overall late GI toxicity as 342 per 1000 in the conventional dose RT group. However, dose-escalated RT may result in little to no difference in overall late GU toxicity (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.29; I2 = 51%; 7 studies; 4298 participants; low-certainty evidence); 34 more men per 1000 (9 fewer to 82 more) in the dose-escalated RT group assuming overall late GU toxicity as 283 per 1000 in the conventional dose RT group. Based on long-term follow-up (up to 36 months), dose-escalated RT may result or probably results in little to no difference in the quality of life using 36-Item Short Form Survey; physical health (MD -3.9, 95% CI -12.78 to 4.98; 1 study; 300 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and mental health (MD -3.6, 95% CI -83.85 to 76.65; 1 study; 300 participants; low-certainty evidence), respectively.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to conventional dose RT, dose-escalated RT probably results in little to no difference in time to death from prostate cancer, time to death from any cause, time to distant metastasis, and RT toxicities (except overall late GI toxicity). While dose-escalated RT may increase overall late GI toxicity, it may result, or probably results, in little to no difference in physical and mental quality of life, respectively.

Introducing new plan evaluation indices for prostate dose painting IMRT plans based on apparent diffusion coefficient images

BACKGROUND

Dose painting planning would be more complicated due to different levels of prescribed doses and more complex evaluation with conventional plan quality indices considering uniform dose prescription. Therefore, we tried to introduce new indices for evaluating the dose distribution conformity and homogeneity of treatment volumes based on the tumoral cell density and relative volumes of each lesion in prostate IMRT.

METHODS

CT and MRI scans of 20 male patients having local prostate cancer were used for IMRT DP planning. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) images were imported to a MATLAB program to identify lesion regions based on ADC values automatically. Regions with ADC values lower than 750 mm²/s and regions with ADC values higher than 750 and less than 1500 mm²/s were considered CTV_70Gy (clinical tumor volume with 70 Gy prescribed dose), and CTV_60Gy, respectively. Other regions of the prostate were considered as CTV_53Gy. New plan evaluation indices based on evaluating the homogeneity (IOE(H)), and conformity (IOE(C)) were introduced, considering the relative volume of each lesion and cellular density obtained from ADC images. These indices were compared with conventional homogeneity and conformity indices and IOEs without considering cellular density. Furthermore, tumor control probability (TCP) was calculated for each patient, and the relationship of the assessed indices were evaluated with TCP values.

RESULTS

IOE (H) and IOE (C) with considering cellular density had significantly lower values compared to conventional indices and IOEs without considering cellular density. (P < 0.05). TCP values had a stronger relationship with IOE(H) considering cell density (R² = -0.415), and IOE(C) without considering cell density (R² = 0.624).

CONCLUSION

IOE plan evaluation indices proposed in this study can be used for evaluating prostate IMRT dose painting plans. We suggested to consider cell densities in the IOE(H) calculation formula and it's appropriate to calculate IOE(C) without considering cell density values.

Proton therapy for prostate cancer: current state and future perspectives

OBJECTIVE

Localized prostate cancer can be treated with several radiotherapeutic approaches. Proton therapy (PT) can precisely target tumors, thus sparing normal tissues and reducing side-effects without sacrificing cancer control. However, PT is a costly treatment compared with conventional photon radiotherapy, which may undermine its overall efficacy. In this review, we summarize current data on the dosimetric rationale, clinical benefits, and cost of PT for prostate cancer.

METHODS

An extensive literature review of PT for prostate cancer was performed with emphasis on studies investigating dosimetric advantage, clinical outcomes, cost-effective strategies, and novel technology trends.

RESULTS

PT is safe, and its efficacy is comparable to that of standard photon-based therapy or brachytherapy. Data on gastrointestinal, genitourinary, and sexual function toxicity profiles are conflicting; however, PT is associated with a low risk of second cancer and has no effects on testosterone levels. Regarding cost-effectiveness, PT is suboptimal, although evolving trends in radiation delivery and construction of PT centers may help reduce the cost.

CONCLUSION

PT has several advantages over conventional photon radiotherapy, and novel approaches may increase its efficacy and safety. Large prospective randomized trials comparing photon therapy with proton-based treatments are ongoing and may provide data on the differences in efficacy, toxicity profile, and quality of life between proton- and photon-based treatments for prostate cancer in the modern era.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

PT provides excellent physical advantages and has a superior dose profile compared with X-ray radiotherapy. Further evidence from clinical trials and research studies will clarify the role of PT in the treatment of prostate cancer, and facilitate the implementation of PT in a more accessible, affordable, efficient, and safe way.

Integrative Analysis of MALT1 as a Potential Therapeutic Target for Prostate Cancer and its Immunological Role in Pan-Cancer

Background: Mucosa-associated lymphoma antigen 1 (MALT1) is an oncogene in subsets of diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue type (MALT) lymphoma. However, the role of MALT1 across cancers, especially in prostate cancer is still poorly understood.

Methods: Here, we used several public datasets to evaluate MALT1 expression. Then, PCa cell lines and nude mice were used to investigate the cellular functions in vitro and in vivo. Microarray data were downloaded from The Cancer Genome Atlas and MALT1 was subjected to gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) and Gene Ontology (GO) analysis to identify the biological functions and relevant pathways. Additionally, the correlations between MALT1 expression and mismatch repair (MMR) gene mutation, immune checkpoint gene expression, tumor mutational burden (TMB), and microsatellite instability (MSI) were investigated by Pearson correlation analysis. Moreover, the correlation between MALT1 expression and tumor immune infiltration was analyzed by the Tumor Immune Evaluation Resource (TIMER) database.

Results: MALT1 overexpression was significantly correlated with MMR gene mutation levels and crucially promoted proliferation and colony genesis while reducing PCa cell apoptosis levels in vivo and in vitro. MALT1 expression showed strong correlations with immune checkpoint genes, TMB, and MSI in most cancers. The GO analysis indicated that MALT1-coexpressed genes were involved in heterotypic cell-cell adhesion, actin filament-based movement regulation, and action potential regulation. GSEA revealed that MALT1 expression was associated with several signaling pathways, including the NF-κB signaling, Wnt/β-catenin and TGF-β signaling pathways, in PCa. Additionally, MALT1 expression was significantly correlated with the infiltration of immune cells, including B cells, CD8⁺ T cells, dendritic cells and macrophages, and negatively correlated with CD4⁺ cell infiltration in PCa.

Conclusion: MALT1 expression is higher in pancancer samples than in normal tissues. MALT1 promoted proliferation and colony genesis while reducing PCa cell apoptosis levels, and MALT1 suppression could inhibit xenograft tumor establishment in nude mice. Furthermore, MALT1 expression is closely related to the occurrence and development of multiple tumors in multiple ways. Therefore, MALT1 may be an emerging therapeutic target for a variety of cancers especially PCa.

Preliminary tests of dosimetric quality and projected therapeutic outcomes of multi-phase 4D radiotherapy with proton and carbon ion beams

Objective. The purpose of this study was to perform preliminary pre-clinical tests to compare the dosimetric quality of two approaches to treating moving tumors with ion beams: synchronously delivering the beam with the motion of a moving planning target volume (PTV) using the recently developed multi-phase 4D dose delivery (MP4D) approach, and asynchronously delivering the ion beam to a motion-encompassing internal tumor volume (ITV) combined with rescanning.Approach. We created 4D optimized treatment plans with proton and carbon ion beams for two patients who had previously received treatment for non-small cell lung cancer. For each patient, we created several treatment plans, using approaches with and without motion mitigation: MP4D, ITV with rescanning, static deliveries to a stationary PTV, and deliveries to a moving tumor without motion compensation. Two sets of plans were optimized with margins or robust uncertainty scenarios. Each treatment plan was delivered using a recently-developed motion-synchronized dose delivery system (M-DDS); dose distributions in water were compared to measurements using gamma index analysis to confirm the accuracy of the calculations. Reconstructed dose distributions on the patient CT were analyzed to assess the dosimetric quality of the deliveries (conformity, uniformity, tumor coverage, and extent of hotspots).Main results. Gamma index analysis pass rates confirmed the accuracy of dose calculations. Dose coverage was >95% for all static and MP4D treatments. The best conformity and the lowest lung doses were achieved with MP4D deliveries. Robust optimization led to higher lung doses compared to conventional optimization for ITV deliveries, but not for MP4D deliveries.Significance. We compared dosimetric quality for two approaches to treating moving tumors with ion beams. Our findings suggest that the MP4D approach, using an M-DDS, provides conformal motion mitigation, with full target coverage and lower OAR doses.

[The role of proton therapy in esophageal cancer]

Because of the physical properties of proton beam radiation therapy (PT), which allows energy to be deposited at a specific depth with a rapid energy fall-off beyond that depth, PT has several theoretical advantages over photon radiation therapy for esophageal cancer (EC). Protons have the potential to reduce the dose to healthy tissue and to more safely allow treatment of tumors near critical organs, dose escalation, trimodal treatment, and re-irradiation. In recent years, larger multicenter retrospective studies have been published showing excellent survival rates, lower than expected toxicities and even better outcomes with PT than with photon radiotherapy even using IMRT or VMAT techniques. Although PT was associated with reduced toxicities, postoperative complications, and hospital stays compared to photon radiation therapy, these studies all had inherent biases in relation with patient selection for PT. These observations were recently confirmed by a randomized phase II study in locally advanced EC that showed significantly reduced toxicities with protons compared with IMRT. Currently, two randomized phase III trials (NRG-GI006 in the US and PROTECT in Europe) are being conducted to confirm whether protons could become the standard of care in locally advanced and resectable esophageal cancers.

A Critical Review of Radiation Therapy: From Particle Beam Therapy (Proton, Carbon, and BNCT) to Beyond

In this paper, we discuss the role of particle therapy—a novel radiation therapy (RT) that has shown rapid progress and widespread use in recent years—in multidisciplinary treatment. Three types of particle therapies are currently used for cancer treatment: proton beam therapy (PBT), carbon-ion beam therapy (CIBT), and boron neutron capture therapy (BNCT). PBT and CIBT have been reported to have excellent therapeutic results owing to the physical characteristics of their Bragg peaks. Variable drug therapies, such as chemotherapy, hormone therapy, and immunotherapy, are combined in various treatment strategies, and treatment effects have been improved. BNCT has a high dose concentration for cancer in terms of nuclear reactions with boron. BNCT is a next-generation RT that can achieve cancer cell-selective therapeutic effects, and its effectiveness strongly depends on the selective ¹⁰B accumulation in cancer cells by concomitant boron preparation. Therefore, drug delivery research, including nanoparticles, is highly desirable. In this review, we introduce both clinical and basic aspects of particle beam therapy from the perspective of multidisciplinary treatment, which is expected to expand further in the future.

Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for High-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Radiotherapy (RT) is an established, potentially curative treatment option for all risk constellations of localized prostate cancer (PCA). Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and dose-escalated RT can further improve outcome in high-risk (HR) PCA. In recent years, shorter RT schedules based on hypofractionated RT have shown equal outcome. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is a highly conformal RT technique enabling ultra-hypofractionation which has been shown to be safe and efficient in patients with low- and intermediate-risk PCA. There is a paucity of data on the role of SBRT in HR PCA. In particular, the need for pelvic elective nodal irradiation (ENI) needs to be addressed. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to analyze the available data on observed toxicities, ADT prescription practice, and oncological outcome to shed more light on the value of SBRT in HR PCA.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed and Embase electronic databases for the terms "prostate cancer" AND "stereotactic" AND "radiotherapy" in June 2020. We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations.

RESULTS

After a rigorous selection process, we identified 18 individual studies meeting all selection criteria for further analyses. Five additional studies were included because their content was judged as relevant. Three trials have reported on prostate SBRT including pelvic nodes; 2 with ENI and 1 with positive pelvic nodes only. The remaining studies investigated SBRT of the prostate only. Grade 2+ acute genitourinary (GU) toxicity was between 12% and 46.7% in the studies investigating pelvic nodes irradiation and ranged from 0% to 89% in the prostate only studies. Grade 2+ chronic GU toxicity was between 7% and 60% vs. 2% and 56.7%. Acute gastrointestinal (GI) grade 2+ toxicity was between 0% to 4% and 0% to 18% for studies with and without pelvic nodes irradiation, respectively. Chronic GI grade 2+ toxicity rates were between 4% and 50.1% vs. 0% and 40%. SBRT of prostate and positive pelvic nodes only showed similar toxicity rates as SBRT for the prostate only. Among the trials that reported on ADT use, the majority of HR PCA patients underwent ADT for at least 2 months; mostly neoadjuvant and concurrent. Biochemical control rates ranged from 82% to 100% after 2 years and 56% to 100% after 3 years. Only a few studies reported longer follow-up data.

CONCLUSION

At this point, SBRT with or without pelvic ENI cannot be considered the standard of care in HR PCA, due to missing level 1 evidence. Treatment may be offered to selected patients at specialized centers with access to high-precision RT. While concomitant ADT is the current standard of care, the necessary duration of ADT in combination with SBRT remains unclear. Ideally, all eligible patients should be enrolled in clinical trials.

Cellular and Molecular Progression of Prostate Cancer: Models for Basic and Preclinical Research

Simple Summary

The molecular progression of prostate cancer is complex and elusive. Biological research relies heavily on in vitro and in vivo models that can be used to examine gene functions and responses to the external agents in laboratory and preclinical settings. Over the years, several models have been developed and found to be very helpful in understanding the biology of prostate cancer. Here we describe these models in the context of available information on the cellular and molecular progression of prostate cancer to suggest their potential utility in basic and preclinical prostate cancer research. The information discussed herein should serve as a hands-on resource for scholars engaged in prostate cancer research or to those who are making a transition to explore the complex biology of prostate cancer.

Abstract

We have witnessed noteworthy progress in our understanding of prostate cancer over the past decades. This basic knowledge has been translated into efficient diagnostic and treatment approaches leading to the improvement in patient survival. However, the molecular pathogenesis of prostate cancer appears to be complex, and histological findings often do not provide an accurate assessment of disease aggressiveness and future course. Moreover, we also witness tremendous racial disparity in prostate cancer incidence and clinical outcomes necessitating a deeper understanding of molecular and mechanistic bases of prostate cancer. Biological research heavily relies on model systems that can be easily manipulated and tested under a controlled experimental environment. Over the years, several cancer cell lines have been developed representing diverse molecular subtypes of prostate cancer. In addition, several animal models have been developed to demonstrate the etiological molecular basis of the prostate cancer. In recent years, patient-derived xenograft and 3-D culture models have also been created and utilized in preclinical research. This review is an attempt to succinctly discuss existing information on the cellular and molecular progression of prostate cancer. We also discuss available model systems and their tested and potential utility in basic and preclinical prostate cancer research.

Particle therapy tumour outcomes: An updated systematic review

Particle therapy (PT) offers the potential for reduced normal tissue damage as well as escalation of target dose, thereby enhancing the therapeutic ratio in radiation therapy. Reflecting the building momentum of PT use worldwide, construction has recently commenced for The Australian Bragg Centre for Proton Therapy and Research in Adelaide - the first PT centre in Australia. This systematic review aims to update the clinical evidence base for PT, both proton beam and carbon ion therapy. The purpose is to inform clinical decision-making for referral of patients to PT centres in Australia as they become operational and overseas in the interim. Three major databases were searched by two independent researchers, and evidence quality was classified according to the National Health and Medical Research Council evidence hierarchy. One hundred and thirty-six studies were included, two-thirds related to proton beam therapy alone. PT at the very least provides equivalent tumour outcomes compared to photon controls with the possibility of improved control in the case of carbon ion therapy. There is suggestion of reduced morbidities in a range of tumour sites, supporting the predictions from dosimetric modelling and the wide international acceptance of PT for specific indications based on this. Though promising, this needs to be counterbalanced by the overall low quality of evidence found, with 90% of studies of level IV (case series) evidence. Prospective comparative clinical trials, supplemented by database-derived outcome information, preferably conducted within international and national networks, are strongly recommended as PT is introduced into Australasia.

Systematic review of methodology used in clinical studies evaluating the benefits of proton beam therapy

BACKGROUND

Proton beam therapy (PBT) delivers high-energy radiation to target tumours while sparing surrounding normal tissues. The dosimetric advantages of PBT over traditional photon radiotherapy may be clear but the translation of this benefit into clinically meaningful reductions in toxicities and improved quality-of-life (QoL) needs to be determined. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for generating the highest-level evidence in medicine. The objectives of this systematic review were to provide an overview of published clinical studies evaluating the benefits of PBT, and to examine the methodology used in clinical trials with respect to study design and outcomes.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for published clinical studies where PBT was a cancer treatment intervention. All randomised and non-randomised studies, prospective or retrospective, were eligible for inclusion.

RESULTS

In total, 219 studies were included. Prospective studies comprised 89/219 (41%), and of these, the number of randomised phase II and III trials were 5/89 (6%) and 3/89 (3%) respectively. Of all the phase II and III trials, 18/24 (75%) were conducted at a single PBT centre. Over one-third of authors recommended an increase in length of follow up. Research design and/or findings were poorly reported in 74/89 (83%) of prospective studies. Patient reported outcomes were assessed in only 19/89 (21%) of prospective studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Prospective randomised evidence for PBT is limited. The set-up of national PBT services in several countries provides an opportunity to guide the optimal design of prospective studies, including RCTs, to evaluate the benefits of PBT across various disease sites. Collaboration between PBT centres, both nationally and internationally, would increase potential for the generation of practice changing evidence. There is a need to facilitate and guide the collection and analysis of meaningful outcome data, including late toxicities and patient reported QoL.

Hypofractionated Proton Therapy in Early Prostate Cancer: Results of a Phase I/II Trial at Loma Linda University

Purpose

To determine whether a hypofractionated proton therapy regimen will control early-stage disease and maintain low rates of side effects similar to results obtained using standard-fraction proton therapy at our institution.

Materials and Methods

A cohort of 146 patients with low-risk prostate cancer according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines (Gleason score <7, prostate-specific antigen [PSA] <10, tumor stage of T1-T2a) received 60 Gy (cobalt Gy equivalent) of proton therapy (20 fractions of 3.0 Gy per fraction) in 4 weeks, a dose biologically equivalent to standard fractionation (44-45 fractions of 1.8 Gy to a total of 79.2 to 81 Gy in 0 weeks). Patients were evaluated at least weekly during treatment, at which time documentation of treatment tolerance and acute reactions was obtained. Follow-up visits were conducted every 3 months for the first 1 years, every 6 months for the next 3 years, then annually. Follow-up visits consisted of history and physical examination, PSA measurements, and evaluation of toxicity.

Results

The median follow-up time was 42 months (range, 3-96 months). Acute grade 2 urinary toxicity occurred in 16% (20/120) of the patients; acute grade 2 or higher gastrointestinal toxicity was seen in 1.7% (2/120). At 9 months, 1 patient had late grade 3 urinary toxicity, which resolved by 12 months; no grade 3 gastrointestinal toxicities occurred. The 3-year biochemical survival rate was 99.3% (144/145). The median time to PSA nadir was 30 months.

Conclusion

Hypofractionated proton therapy of 60 Gy in 20 fractions was safe and effective for patients with low-risk prostate cancer.

Consensus statements on the management of clinically localized prostate cancer from the Hong Kong Urological Association and the Hong Kong Society of Uro-Oncology

OBJECTIVE

To formulate consensus statements to facilitate physician management strategies for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa) in Hong Kong by jointly convening a panel of 12 experts from the two local professional organizations representing PCa specialists, who had previously established consensus statements on the management of metastatic PCa for the locality.

METHODS

Through a series of meetings, the panellists discussed their clinical experience and the published evidence regarding various areas of the management of localized PCa, then drafted consensus statements. At the final meeting, each drafted statement was voted on by every panellist based on its practicability of recommendation in the locality.

RESULTS

A total of 76 consensus statements were ultimately accepted and established by panel voting.

CONCLUSION

Derived from the recent evidence and major overseas guidelines, along with local clinical experience and practicability, the consensus statements were aimed to serve as a practical reference for physicians in Hong Kong for the management of localized PCa.

Particle therapy for prostate cancer: The past, present and future

Although prostate cancer control using radiotherapy is dose‐dependent, dose–volume effects on late toxicities in organs at risk, such as the rectum and bladder, have been observed. Both protons and carbon ions offer advantageous physical properties for radiotherapy, and create favorable dose distributions using fewer portals compared with photon‐based radiotherapy. Thus, particle beam therapy using protons and carbon ions theoretically seems suitable for dose escalation and reduced risk of toxicity. However, it is difficult to evaluate the superiority of particle beam radiotherapy over photon beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer, as no clinical trials have directly compared the outcomes between the two types of therapy due to the limited number of facilities using particle beam therapy. The Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology organized a joint effort among research groups to establish standardized treatment policies and indications for particle beam therapy according to disease, and multicenter prospective studies have been planned for several common cancers. Clinical trials of proton beam therapy for intermediate‐risk prostate cancer and carbon‐ion therapy for high‐risk prostate cancer have already begun. As particle beam therapy for prostate cancer is covered by the Japanese national health insurance system as of April 2018, and the number of facilities practicing particle beam therapy has increased recently, the number of prostate cancer patients treated with particle beam therapy in Japan is expected to increase drastically. Here, we review the results from studies of particle beam therapy for prostate cancer and discuss future developments in this field.

Definition of fields margins for the optimized 2D radiotherapy of prostate carcinoma

Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most common malignancies in men both in western and developing countries. Radiotherapy (RT) is an important therapeutic option. New technologies (including 3D, intensity modulated RT, image-guided RT and, volumetric modulated arc therapy) have been introduced in the last few decades with progressive improvement of clinical outcomes. However, in many developing countries, the only treatment option is the traditional two-dimensional (2D) technique based on standard simulation. The guidelines for 2D field definition are still based on expert's opinions. The aim of the present study was to propose new practical guidelines for 2D fields definition based on 3D simulation in PCa. A total of 20 patients were enrolled. Computed tomography-simulation and pelvic magnetic resonance images were merged to define the prostate volumes. Clinical Target Volume (CTV) was defined using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer guidelines in consideration of the four risk categories: Low, intermediate, and high risk with or without seminal vesicles involvement, respectively. Planning Target Volume (PTV) was defined by adding 10 mm to the CTV. For each category, two treatment plans were calculated using a cobalt source or 10 MV photons. Progressive optimization was achieved by evaluating 3D dose distribution. Finally, the optimal distances between field margins and radiological landmarks (bones and rectum with contrast medium) were defined. The results were reported in tabular form. Both field margins (PTV D_98% >95%) needed to adequately irradiate all patients and to achieve a similar result in 95% of the enrolled patients are reported. Using a group of patients with PCa and based on a 3D planning analysis, we propose new practical guidelines for PCa 2D-RT based on current criteria for risk category and CTV, and PTV definition.

Proton versus photon-based radiation therapy for prostate cancer: emerging evidence and considerations in the era of value-based cancer care

BACKGROUND

Advances in radiation technology have transformed treatment options for patients with localized prostate cancer. The evolution of three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) have allowed physicians to spare surrounding normal organs and reduce adverse effects. The introduction of proton beam technology and its physical advantage of depositing its energy in tissue at the end-of-range maximum may potentially spare critical organs such as the bladder and rectum in prostate cancer patients. Data thus far are limited to large, observational studies that have not yet demonstrated a definite benefit of protons over conventional treatment with IMRT. The cost of proton beam treatment adds to the controversy within the field.

METHODS

We performed an extensive literature review for all proton treatment-related prostate cancer studies. We discuss the history of proton beam technology, as well as its role in the treatment of prostate cancer, associated controversies, novel technology trends, a discussion of cost-effectiveness, and an overview of the ongoing modern large prospective studies that aim to resolve the debate between protons and photons for prostate cancer.

RESULTS

Present data have demonstrated that proton beam therapy is safe and effective compared with the standard treatment options for prostate cancer. While dosimetric studies suggest lower whole-body radiation dose and a theoretically higher relative biological effectiveness in prostate cancer compared with photons, no studies have demonstrated a clear benefit with protons.

CONCLUSIONS

Evolving trends in proton treatment delivery and proton center business models are helping to reduce costs. Introduction of existing technology into proton delivery allows further control of organ motion and addressing organs-at-risk. Finally, the much-awaited contemporary studies comparing photon with proton-based treatments, with primary endpoints of patient-reported quality-of-life, will help us understand the differences between proton and photon-based treatments for prostate cancer in the modern era.

Proton therapy for prostate cancer: A review of the rationale, evidence, and current state

Men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer have many curative treatment options including several different radiotherapeutic approaches. Proton radiation is one such radiation treatment modality and, due to its unique physical properties, offers the appealing potential of reduced side effects without sacrificing cancer control. In this review, we examine the intriguing dosimetric rationale and theoretical benefit of proton radiation for prostate cancer and highlight the results of preclinical modeling studies. We then discuss the current state of the clinical evidence for proton efficacy and toxicity, derived from both large claim-based datasets and prospective patient-reported data. The result is that the data are mixed, and clinical equipoise persists in this area. We place these studies into context by summarizing the economics of proton therapy and the changing practice patterns of prostate proton irradiation. Finally, we await the results of a large prospective randomized clinical trial currently accruing and also a large prospective pragmatic comparative study which will provide more rigorous evidence regarding the clinical and comparative effectiveness of proton therapy for prostate cancer.

The role of salvage brachytherapy for local relapse after external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is the most prevalent cancer amongst men. For localized disease, there currently exist several reliable treatment modalities including surgery, radiotherapy and brachytherapy. Our growing understanding of this disease indicates that local control plays a very important role in prevention of subsequent dissemination. Many improvements to external beam radiotherapy over recent years have decreased toxicity and improved outcomes, but nonetheless, local relapse remains common. Many salvage options exist for locally recurrent prostate cancer, but are rarely offered, partly because of the fear of toxicity. Many men with isolated local recurrence therefore do not receive potentially curative second line treatment and are instead treated with palliative androgen suppression. Selection plays an important role in determining which individuals are likely to benefit from salvage. Those at high risk of pre-existing micro-metastatic disease despite negative staging scans are unlikely to benefit. Prostate brachytherapy has evolved over the more than 3 decades of experience. Modern techniques allow more precise tumor localization and dose delivery. Better understanding of dosimetric parameters can distinguish optimal from suboptimal implants. Salvage brachytherapy can be an effective treatment for locally recurrent prostate cancer after prior external beam radiotherapy. We review the literature pertaining to both low dose rate (LDR) and high dose rate (HDR) salvage brachytherapy and discuss patient selection, optimal dose, treatment volume and toxicity avoidance.

Review of Current Protocols for Protontherapy in USA

The basis for interest in proton beams by clinical radiation oncologists lies in reduction in treatment volume. The yields from employing a smaller treatment volume are the increase of tumor control probability and the reduction of normal tissues complication probability. The clinical use of proton therapy began in 1954 at Uppsala University in Sweden and in 1961 at Harvard Cyclotron Laboratory in Boston, USA. So far, the total number of worldwide patients treated by protons is about 20,000. In this paper attention will be given to the treatment of patients at the Massachusetts General Hospital-Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary-Harvard Cyclotron Laboratory, and at the Loma Linda University Medical Center. In particular, a review of the literature about the techniques and the results of treatment of skull base and cervical spine chordoma and low-grade chondrosarcoma, skull base meningioma, pituitary tumors, paranasal sinus carcinoma, glioblastoma multiforme, artero-venous malformations, uveal melanoma, macular degeneration, retinoblastoma, thoracic spine-sacrum tumors, and prostate carcinoma is presented. In order to verify and improve the clinical results, the conduct of prospective trials on an inter-institutional basis is essential. To facilitate the conduct of such studies the US National Cancer Institute and the American College of Radiology have established the Proton Therapy Oncology Group (PROG). Several phase III and some phase I-II trials are active at the Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Cyclotron Laboratory, and at the Loma Linda University Medical Center.

Dosimetric and Radiobiological Evaluation of Multiparametric MRI-Guided Dose Painting in Radiotherapy of Prostate Cancer

Radiotherapy is one of the treatment options for locally advanced prostate cancer; however, with standard radiation doses, it is not always very effective. One of the strategies to improve the efficiency of radiotherapy is increasing the dose. In this study, to increase tumor local control rates, a new radiotherapy method, known as dose painting (DP), was investigated. To compare 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans with DP for prostate cancer. Twenty-four consecutive patients with locally advanced prostate cancer who underwent an multiparametric-magnetic resonance imaging (MP-MRI) (T2w, diffusion weighted image, dynamic contrast enhancement, and MRS) scan before a diagnostic biopsy from September 2015 to April 2016 were invited to take part in this study. The tumor local control probability (TCP) values for 3D-CRT, IMRT, and DP techniques were 45, 56, and 77%, respectively. The DP technique had a 37.5 and 71% higher TCP than IMRT and 3D-CRT, and these differences were statistically significant (P = 0.001). The mean normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) values of the organ at risks for 3D-CRT, IMRT, and DP showed that there were statistically significant differences among them in three plans (P = 0.01). DP by contours using MP-MRI is technically feasible. This study evaluated biological modeling based on both MP-MRI defined subvolumes and pathologically defined subvolumes. The MP-MRI-guided DP results in better TCP/NTCP than 3D-CRT and IMRT.

Proton therapy - Present and future

In principle, proton therapy offers a substantial clinical advantage over conventional photon therapy. This is because of the unique depth-dose characteristics of protons, which can be exploited to achieve significant reductions in normal tissue doses proximal and distal to the target volume. These may, in turn, allow escalation of tumor doses and greater sparing of normal tissues, thus potentially improving local control and survival while at the same time reducing toxicity and improving quality of life. Protons, accelerated to therapeutic energies ranging from 70 to 250MeV, typically with a cyclotron or a synchrotron, are transported to the treatment room where they enter the treatment head mounted on a rotating gantry. The initial thin beams of protons are spread laterally and longitudinally and shaped appropriately to deliver treatments. Spreading and shaping can be achieved by electro-mechanical means to treat the patients with "passively-scattered proton therapy" (PSPT) or using magnetic scanning of thin "beamlets" of protons of a sequence of initial energies. The latter technique can be used to treat patients with optimized intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT), the most powerful proton modality. Despite the high potential of proton therapy, the clinical evidence supporting the broad use of protons is mixed. It is generally acknowledged that proton therapy is safe, effective and recommended for many types of pediatric cancers, ocular melanomas, chordomas and chondrosarcomas. Although promising results have been and continue to be reported for many other types of cancers, they are based on small studies. Considering the high cost of establishing and operating proton therapy centers, questions have been raised about their cost effectiveness. General consensus is that there is a need to conduct randomized trials and/or collect outcomes data in multi-institutional registries to unequivocally demonstrate the advantage of protons. Treatment planning and plan evaluation of PSPT and IMPT require special considerations compared to the processes used for photon treatment planning. The differences in techniques arise from the unique physical properties of protons but are also necessary because of the greater vulnerability of protons to uncertainties, especially from inter- and intra-fractional variations in anatomy. These factors must be considered in designing as well as evaluating treatment plans. In addition to anatomy variations, other sources of uncertainty in dose delivered to the patient include the approximations and assumptions of models used for computing dose distributions for planning of treatments. Furthermore, the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of protons is simplistically assumed to have a constant value of 1.1. In reality, the RBE is variable and a complex function of the energy of protons, dose per fraction, tissue and cell type, end point, etc. These uncertainties, approximations and current technological limitations of proton therapy may limit the achievement of its true potential. Ongoing research is aimed at better understanding the consequences of the various uncertainties on proton therapy and reducing the uncertainties through image-guidance, adaptive radiotherapy, further study of biological properties of protons and the development of novel dose computation and optimization methods. However, residual uncertainties will remain in spite of the best efforts. To increase the resilience of dose distributions in the face of uncertainties and improve our confidence in dose distributions seen on treatment plans, robust optimization techniques are being developed and implemented. We assert that, with such research, proton therapy will be a commonly applied radiotherapy modality for most types of solid cancers in the near future.

Androgen Suppression Combined with Elective Nodal and Dose Escalated Radiation Therapy (the ASCENDE-RT Trial): An Analysis of Survival Endpoints for a Randomized Trial Comparing a Low-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy Boost to a Dose-Escalated External Beam Boost for High- and Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

To report the primary endpoint of biochemical progression-free survival (b-PFS) and secondary survival endpoints from ASCENDE-RT, a randomized trial comparing 2 methods of dose escalation for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

ASCENDE-RT enrolled 398 men, with a median age of 68 years; 69% (n=276) had high-risk disease. After stratification by risk group, the subjects were randomized to a standard arm with 12 months of androgen deprivation therapy, pelvic irradiation to 46 Gy, followed by a dose-escalated external beam radiation therapy (DE-EBRT) boost to 78 Gy, or an experimental arm that substituted a low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy (LDR-PB) boost. Of the 398 trial subjects, 200 were assigned to DE-EBRT boost and 198 to LDR-PB boost. The median follow-up was 6.5 years.

RESULTS

In an intent-to-treat analysis, men randomized to DE-EBRT were twice as likely to experience biochemical failure (multivariable analysis [MVA] hazard ratio [HR] 2.04; P=.004). The 5-, 7-, and 9-year Kaplan-Meier b-PFS estimates were 89%, 86%, and 83% for the LDR-PB boost versus 84%, 75%, and 62% for the DE-EBRT boost (log-rank P<.001). The LDR-PB boost benefited both intermediate- and high-risk patients. Because the b-PFS curves for the treatment arms diverge sharply after 4 years, the relative advantage of the LDR-PB should increase with longer follow-up. On MVA, the only variables correlated with reduced overall survival were age (MVA HR 1.06/y; P=.004) and biochemical failure (MVA HR 6.30; P<.001). Although biochemical failure was associated with increased mortality and randomization to DE-EBRT doubled the rate of biochemical failure, no significant overall survival difference was observed between the treatment arms (MVA HR 1.13; P=.62).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with 78 Gy EBRT, men randomized to the LDR-PB boost were twice as likely to be free of biochemical failure at a median follow-up of 6.5 years.

Proton beam therapy: clinical utility and current status in prostate cancer

Proton beam therapy has recently become available to a broader population base. There remains much controversy about its routine use in prostate cancer. We provide an analysis of the existing literature regarding efficacy and toxicity of the technique. Currently, the use of proton beam therapy for prostate cancer is largely dependent on continued reimbursement for the practice. While there are potential benefits supporting the use of protons in prostate cancer, the low risk of toxicity using existing techniques and the high cost of protons contribute to lower the value of the technique.

Emerging Technologies and Techniques in Radiation Therapy

The past decade has brought an improved ability to precisely target and deliver radiation as well as other focal prostate-directed therapy. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), proton beam radiation, high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy, as well as nonradiotherapy treatments such as cryoablation and high-intensity focused ultrasound are several therapeutic modalities that have been investigated for the treatment of prostate cancer in an attempt to reduce toxicity while improving cancer control. However, high-risk prostate cancer requires a comprehensive treatment of the prostate as well as areas at risk for cancer spread. Therefore, most new radiation treatment (SBRT, HDR, and proton beam radiation) modalities have been largely investigated in combination with regional radiation therapy. Though the evidence is evolving, the use of SBRT, HDR, and proton beam radiation is promising. Nonradiation focal therapy has been proposed mainly for partial gland treatment in men with low-risk disease, and its use in high-risk prostate cancer patients remains experimental.

Assessing the Optimum Use of Androgen-Deprivation Therapy in High-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients Undergoing External Beam Radiation Therapy

The optimum use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in high-risk prostate cancer patients has not been defined in the setting of dose-escalated external beam radiation therapy. A retrospective analysis of 1,290 patients with high-risk prostate cancer from June 1987 through March 2010 treated with external beam radiation therapy was performed. Median follow-up was 7.2 years, and 797 patients received ADT, with 384 patients experiencing a biochemical failure and 145 with distant metastasis. ADT was associated with lower risk of biochemical failure and distant metastasis than no ADT after adjusting for age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), Gleason score, year of diagnosis, tumor stage, and radiation dose. ADT was associated with a greater reduction in biochemical failure in the low-dose radiation group than in the high-dose group. Patients with >24 months of ADT had a lower risk of PSA failures than those with <24 months. ADT was associated with decreased risk of biochemical failure and distant metastasis in all patients. The effect of ADT on reducing risk of biochemical failure was greater among men with low-dose radiation. There was a benefit in PSA and distant metastasis-free survival with >24 months of ADT in all patients who received ADT.

Innovative radiotherapy of sarcoma: Proton beam radiation

This review on proton beam radiotherapy (PBT) focusses on an historical overview, cost-effectiveness, techniques, acute and late toxicities and clinical results of PBT for sarcoma patients. PBT has gained its place among the armamentarium of modern radiotherapy techniques. For selected patients, it can be cost-effective.

The comparative oncologic effectiveness of available management strategies for clinically localized prostate cancer

The primary goal of modern prostate cancer treatment paradigms is to optimize the balance of predicted benefits associated with prostate cancer treatment against the predicted harms of therapy. However, given the limitations in the existing evidence as well as the significant tradeoffs posed by each treatment, there remain myriad challenges associated with individualized prostate cancer treatment decision-making. In this review, we summarize the existing comparative effectiveness evidence of treatments for localized prostate cancer with an emphasis on oncologic control. While we focus on the major treatment categories of radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, and observation, we also provide a review of emerging therapies such as cryotherapy and high-intensity frequency ultrasound (HIFU).

The Role of Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy with Photons, Protons, and Heavy Ions for Treating Extracranial Lesions

Traditionally, the ability to deliver large doses of ionizing radiation to a tumor has been limited by radiation-induced toxicity to normal surrounding tissues. This was the initial impetus for the development of conventionally fractionated radiation therapy, where large volumes of healthy tissue received radiation and were allowed the time to repair the radiation damage. However, advances in radiation delivery techniques and image guidance have allowed for more ablative doses of radiation to be delivered in a very accurate, conformal, and safe manner with shortened fractionation schemes. Hypofractionated regimens with photons have already transformed how certain tumor types are treated with radiation therapy. Additionally, hypofractionation is able to deliver a complete course of ablative radiation therapy over a shorter period of time compared to conventional fractionation regimens making treatment more convenient to the patient and potentially more cost-effective. Recently, there has been an increased interest in proton therapy because of the potential further improvement in dose distributions achievable due to their unique physical characteristics. Furthermore, with heavier ions the dose conformality is increased and, in addition, there is potentially a higher biological effectiveness compared to protons and photons. Due to the properties mentioned above, charged particle therapy has already become an attractive modality to further investigate the role of hypofractionation in the treatment of various tumors. This review will discuss the rationale and evolution of hypofractionated radiation therapy, the reported clinical success with initially photon and then charged particle modalities, and further potential implementation into treatment regimens going forward.

Proton beams in cancer treatments: Clinical outcomes and dosimetric comparisons with photon therapy

PURPOSE

To review current evidence of the role of proton therapy (PT) in other tumors than skull base, sinusal/parasinusal, spinal and pediatric tumors; to determine medico-economic aspects raised by PT.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review on Medline was performed with the following keywords: proton therapy, proton beam, protontherapy, cancer; publications with comparison between PT and photon-therapy were also selected.

RESULTS

In silico studies have shown superiority (better dose delivery to the target and/or to organs at risk) of PT toward photon-therapy in most of thoracic and abdominal malignant tumors. Potential benefits of PT could be: reduction of toxicities (including radiation-induced cancer), increase of tumor control through a dose-escalation approach, hypofractionation. Cost of treatment is always cited as an issue which actually can be managed by a precise patient selection making PT a cost-effective procedure. Comparison plan with photon therapy may be useful to determine the dosimetric and clinical advantages of PT (Normal Tissue Complications Probability).

CONCLUSION

PT may be associated with a great advantage compared to the best photon-therapies in various types of cancers. Accumulation of clinical data is on-going and will challenge the in silico data analysis. Some indications are associated with strong superiority of PT and may be discussed as a new standard within prospective observational studies.

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.

Concurrent chemoradiation for high-risk prostate cancer

There are estimated to be 220800 cases of prostate cancer diagnosed in 2015, making up 26% of all cancer diagnoses. Fortunately, adenocarcinoma of the prostate is often a highly treatable malignancy. Even though the majority of prostate cancer patients present with localized disease, prostate cancer still accounts for over 27000 deaths a year. There is a subset of patients that are likely to recur after locoregional treatment that is thought of as a “high-risk” population. This more aggressive subset includes patients with clinical stage greater than T2b, Gleason score greater than 7, and prostate specific antigen greater than 20 ng/dL. The rate of biochemical relapse in this high risk group is 32%-70% within five years of definitive focal therapy. Given these discouraging outcomes, attempts have been made to improve cure rates by radiation dose escalation, addition of androgen depravation therapy, and addition of chemotherapy either sequentially or concurrently with radiation. One method that has been shown to improve clinical outcomes is the addition of chemotherapy to radiotherapy for definitive treatment. Concurrent chemoradiation with 5-fluorouracil, estramustine phosphate, vincristine, docetaxel, and paclitaxel has been studied in the phase I and/or II setting. These trials have identified the maximum tolerated dose of chemotherapy and radiation that can be safely delivered concurrently and established the safety and feasibility of this technique. This review will focus on the addition of concurrent chemotherapy to radiotherapy in the definitive management of high-risk prostate cancer.