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

Proton beam therapy for the treatment of prostate cancer

Through unique physical dose deposition properties, proton beam therapy (PBT) potentiates radiation dose escalation to target tissue while minimizing radiation exposure to nontarget organs. Proton beam therapy has been used to treat prostate cancer for several decades; however, access to proton centers has been restricted to the limited number of proton centers. Because of recent enhancements in availability and treatment delivery systems, interest in PBT has been burgeoning among oncologists, industry experts, and prostate cancer patients. As a result, the importance of understanding the collective experience to date and technical aspects of PBT delivery has become increasingly important in cancer medicine. This review article is intended to discuss the fundamentals of PBT treatment, critically review the literature on PBT for localized prostate cancer, and describe the continued development of proton beam technology for the treatment of prostate cancer.

High dose versus conventional dose in external beam radiotherapy of prostate cancer: a meta-analysis of long-term follow-up

PURPOSE

To assess the efficacy and toxicity between high-dose radiotherapy (HDRT) and conventional-dose radiotherapy (CDRT) by collecting randomized controlled trials of long-term follow-ups.

METHODS

Unrestricted by language, we searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index (Web of Science) and ClinicalTrials.gov for the following end points: biochemical failure (BF), overall survival (OS), prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) and side effects. The meta-analysis was performed by using Review Manager 5.2 and Stata version 12.0 software packages. Results were expressed as the odds ratio (OR) with the corresponding 95 % confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Six randomized controlled trials, with a total population of 2,822, were eligible. In terms of 10-year efficacy relative to CDRT, the HDRT was associated with almost an equivalent OS (73.4 vs. 74.3 %, OR 1.05, 95 % CI 0.86-1.28; p = 0.64) and PCSS (90.7 vs. 91.6 %, OR 1.11, 95 % CI 0.83-1.49; p = 0.47), but a significant decrease in the BF (34.0 vs. 24.7 %, OR 0.61, 95 % CI 0.51-0.74; p < 0.00001). In terms of toxicity, HDRT significantly increased the late Grade 2 or higher (G ≥ 2) gastrointestinal toxicity (28.0 vs. 18.6 %, OR 1.72, 95 % CI 1.42-2.08; p < 0.00001) and late G ≥ 2 genitourinary (GU) toxicity (22.6 vs. 19.5 %, OR 1.24, 95 % CI 1.01-1.52; p = 0.04). In the subgroup analysis, trials with or without androgen deprivation therapy both had a significant decrease in the BF at 10 years. With regard to quality of life, there was no significant difference between HDRT and CDRT (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

This was the first meta-analysis of trials with long-term follow-up to indicate that HDRT is superior to CDRT in terms of preventing BF in localized prostate cancer patients. However, this advantage did not translate into an improvement in OS and PCSS. This was also the first meta-analysis to suggest that the HDRT in three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) significantly increases the late G ≥ 2 GU toxicity. Thus, the dose escalation in 3D-CRT should be discreetly used in the treatment of prostate cancer due to the increase in late toxicities.

The physics of proton therapy

The physics of proton therapy has advanced considerably since it was proposed in 1946. Today analytical equations and numerical simulation methods are available to predict and characterize many aspects of proton therapy. This article reviews the basic aspects of the physics of proton therapy, including proton interaction mechanisms, proton transport calculations, the determination of dose from therapeutic and stray radiations, and shielding design. The article discusses underlying processes as well as selected practical experimental and theoretical methods. We conclude by briefly speculating on possible future areas of research of relevance to the physics of proton therapy.

[Current situation and perspectives of proton therapy]

Proton beam therapy is indicated as a treatment for some rare tumours and paediatric tumours because the technique allows a good local control with minimal toxicity; the growing number of centres that use proton beam therapy is associated with an increase of dosimetric and clinical data for other malignant tumours as well. This paper reviews potential indications of proton beam therapy. A systematic review on Medline was performed with the following keywords proton beam therapy, cancer, heavy particle, charged particle. No phase III trial has been published using proton beam therapy in comparison with the best photon therapy, but numerous retrospective and dosimetric studies have revealed an advantage of proton beam therapy compared to photons, above all in tumours next to parallel organs at risk (thoracic and abdominal tumours). This could be accompanied with a better safety profile and/or a better tumoural control; numerous phase 0, I, II, III and IV studies are ongoing to examine these hypotheses in more common cancers. Use of proton beam therapy is growing for common cancers within clinical trials but some indications could be applied sooner since in silico analysis showed major advantages with this technique.

The role of androgen deprivation therapy on biochemical failure and distant metastasis in intermediate-risk prostate cancer: effects of radiation dose escalation

BACKGROUND

To determine whether the effect of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) on the risk of biochemical failure varies at different doses of radiation in patients treated with definitive external beam radiation for intermediate risk prostate cancer (IRPC).

METHODS

This study included 1218 IRPC patients treated with definitive external beam radiation therapy to the prostate and seminal vesicles from June 1987 to January 2009 at our institution. Patient, treatment, and tumor information was collected, including age, race, Gleason score, radiation dose, PSA, T-stage, and months on ADT.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 6 years. A total of 421(34.6%) patients received ADT, 211 (17.3%) patients experienced a biochemical failure, and 38 (3.1%) developed distant metastasis. On univariable analyses, higher PSA, earlier year of diagnosis, higher T-stage, lower doses of radiation, and the lack of ADT were associated with an increased risk of biochemical failure. No difference in biochemical failure was seen among different racial groups or with the use of greater than 6 months of ADT compared with less than 6 months. On multivariate analysis, the use of ADT was associated with a lower risk of biochemical failure than no ADT (HR, 0.599; 95% CI, 0.367-0.978; P<0.04) and lower risk of distant metastasis (HR, 0.114; 95% CI, 0.014-0.905; P=0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

ADT reduced the risk of biochemical failure and distant metastasis in both low- and high dose radiation groups among men with intermediate-risk PCa. Increasing the duration of ADT beyond 6 months did not reduce the risk of biochemical failures. Better understanding the benefit of ADT in the era of dose escalation will require a randomized clinical trial.

Urethral strictures and the cancer survivor

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Urethral stricture disease is poorly understood in prostate cancer survivors who have undergone radiation or ablative treatments. We review the cause and incidence of urethral strictures (excluding bladder neck contracture) in this setting, as well as risk factors and treatment options.

RECENT FINDINGS

Stricture rates differ for various modalities of radiation therapy, with the highest rate in high-dose-rate brachytherapy. Risk factors include higher dose of radiation delivered to prostate apex, radiation delivered per treatment, and prior transurethral resection of prostate. Cryoablation and high-intensity focused ultrasound of the prostate also carry high risk of urethral stricture formation, particularly in the salvage setting. Dilation or direct vision incision of the urethra can be utilized as a temporizing technique, with frequent recurrence. Urethral stenting is also an option; however, this is associated with a high rate of incontinence. Urethroplasty has durable outcomes for radiation-induced strictures, with a preference for excision and primary anastomosis because of the bulbomembranous location and relatively short length of these strictures. Salvage radical prostatectomy has been described in a small series as treatment for posterior urethral strictures and bladder neck contractures resulting from ablative therapies.

SUMMARY

Prostate cancer survivors treated with radiation or ablative therapies are at risk for urethral stricture formation. Urethroplasty is a feasible and durable treatment option and should be considered in the appropriate patient.

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.

Particle radiotherapy for prostate cancer

Recent advances in external beam radiotherapy have allowed us to deliver higher doses to the tumors while decreasing doses to the surrounding tissues. Dose escalation using high-precision radiotherapy has improved the treatment outcomes of prostate cancer. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy has been widely used throughout the world as the most advanced form of photon radiotherapy. In contrast, particle radiotherapy has also been under development, and has been used as an effective and non-invasive radiation modality for prostate and other cancers. Among the particles used in such treatments, protons and carbon ions have the physical advantage that the dose can be focused on the tumor with only minimal exposure of the surrounding normal tissues. Furthermore, carbon ions also have radiobiological advantages that include higher killing effects on intrinsic radio-resistant tumors, hypoxic tumor cells and tumor cells in the G0 or S phase. However, the degree of clinical benefit derived from these theoretical advantages in the treatment of prostate cancer has not been adequately determined. The present article reviews the available literature on the use of particle radiotherapy for prostate cancer as well as the literature on the physical and radiobiological properties of this treatment, and discusses the role and the relative merits of particle radiotherapy compared with current photon-based radiotherapy, with a focus on proton beam therapy and carbon ion radiotherapy.

Recommendations for the referral of patients for proton-beam therapy, an Alberta Health Services report: a model for Canada?

BACKGROUND

Compared with photon therapy, proton-beam therapy (pbt) offers compelling advantages in physical dose distribution. Worldwide, gantry-based proton facilities are increasing in number, but no such facilities exist in Canada. To access pbt, Canadian patients must travel abroad for treatment at high cost. In the face of limited access, this report seeks to provide recommendations for the selection of patients most likely to benefit from pbt and suggests an out-of-country referral process.

METHODS

The medline, embase, PubMed, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for studies published between January 1990 and May 2014 that evaluated clinical outcomes after pbt. A draft report developed through a review of evidence was externally reviewed and then approved by the Alberta Health Services Cancer Care Proton Therapy Guidelines steering committee.

RESULTS

Proton therapy is often used to treat tumours close to radiosensitive tissues and to treat children at risk of developing significant late effects of radiation therapy (rt). In uncontrolled and retrospective studies, local control rates with pbt appear similar to, or in some cases higher than, photon rt. Randomized trials comparing equivalent doses of pbt and photon rt are not available.

SUMMARY

Referral for pbt is recommended for patients who are being treated with curative intent and with an expectation for long-term survival, and who are able and willing to travel abroad to a proton facility. Commonly accepted indications for referral include chordoma and chondrosarcoma, intraocular melanoma, and solid tumours in children and adolescents who have the greatest risk for long-term sequelae. Current data do not provide sufficient evidence to recommend routine referral of patients with most head-and-neck, breast, lung, gastrointestinal tract, and pelvic cancers, including prostate cancer. It is recommended that all referrals be considered by a multidisciplinary team to select appropriate cases.

[What is the level of evidence of new techniques in prostate cancer radiotherapy?]

Prostate cancer radiotherapy has evolved from the old 2D technique to conformal, and then to intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and stereotactic radiotherapy. At the same time, image-guidance (IGRT) is routinely used. New techniques such as protontherapy or carbontherapy are being developed with the objective of increased efficacy, decreased treatment duration, toxicity or cost. This review summarizes the evidence-based medicine of new technologies in the treatment of prostate cancer.

[Prostate cancer boost using high-dose-rate brachytherapy: impact of the learning curve on the dosimetry]

PURPOSE

To analyse the influence of the learning curve on dosimetric data for high-dose-rate brachytherapy prostate cancer boost.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From February 2009 to May 2012, after a first course of external beam radiation therapy (46Gy/23 fractions), 124 patients underwent high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost using Plato™ (Nucletron, an Elekta company, Elekta AB, Stockholm, Sweden). The impact of the learning curve on the dosimetric quality of the prostate implant was assessed. The dosimetric data have been analysed: clinical target volume (CTV), D90 (dose to 90 % of CTV), D100, V100 (part on the CTV receiving 100 % of the dose), V150, V200 and DHI (dose non-homogeneity index). The doses delivered to 0.1, 1 and 2 cm(3) of the rectum and urethra were calculated.

RESULTS

During the study period (39 months), a significant reduction of V150 (P<0.001), V200 (P<0.001), D0.1rectum (P<0.001), D1rectum (P<0.001), D2rectum (P<0.001), D0.1urethra (P<0.001), and D1urethra (P<0.002) was observed associated with a significant degradation of the D90 (P<0.001) but not significant for the V100 (P=0.29) and the D100 (P=0.3).

CONCLUSION

This study confirms that the dosimetric quality of high-dose-rate brachytherapy prostate implant is significantly improved during the learning curve period.

Increasing use of dose-escalated external beam radiation therapy for men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To examine recent practice patterns, using a large national cancer registry, to understand the extent to which dose-escalated external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) has been incorporated into routine clinical practice for men with prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study using the National Cancer Data Base, a nationwide oncology outcomes database in the United States. We identified 98,755 men diagnosed with nonmetastatic prostate cancer between 2006 and 2011 who received definitive EBRT and classified patients into National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk groups. We defined dose-escalated EBRT as total prescribed dose of ≥75.6 Gy. Using multivariable logistic regression, we examined the association of patient, clinical, and demographic characteristics with the use of dose-escalated EBRT.

RESULTS

Overall, 81.6% of men received dose-escalated EBRT during the study period. The use of dose-escalated EBRT did not vary substantially by NCCN risk group. Use of dose-escalated EBRT increased from 70.7% of patients receiving treatment in 2006 to 89.8% of patients receiving treatment in 2011. On multivariable analysis, year of diagnosis and use of intensity modulated radiation therapy were significantly associated with receipt of dose-escalated EBRT.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study results indicate that dose-escalated EBRT has been widely adopted by radiation oncologists treating prostate cancer in the United States. The proportion of patients receiving dose-escalated EBRT increased nearly 20% between 2006 and 2011. We observed high utilization rates of dose-escalated EBRT within all disease risk groups. Adoption of intensity modulated radiation therapy was strongly associated with use of dose-escalated treatment.

Efficacy and toxicity of external-beam radiation therapy for localised prostate cancer: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Many radiation regimens for treating prostate cancer have been used over the years, but which regimen is optimal for localised or locally advanced prostate cancer lacks consensus. We performed a network meta-analysis to identify the optimal radiation regimen.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed data from 27 randomised controlled trials and could group seven radiation regimens as follows: low- and high-dose radiation therapy (LDRT and HDRT), LDRT+ short- or long-term androgen deprivation therapy (LDRT+SADT and LDRT+LADT), HDRT+SADT, hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT), and HFRT+SADT. The main outcomes were overall mortality (OM), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure, cancer-specific mortality, and adverse events.

RESULTS

For the network meta-analysis of 27 trials, LDRT+LADT and LDRT+SADT were associated with decreased risk of OM as compared with LDRT alone as was LDRT+LADT compared with HDRT. Apart from HFRT, all other treatments were associated with decreased risk of PSA failure as compared with LDRT. HFRT+SADT was associated with decreased risk of cancer-specific mortality as compared with HFRT, LDRT+SADT, HDRT, and LDRT.

CONCLUSIONS

HFRT+SADT therapy might be the most efficacious treatment but with worst toxicity for localised or locally advanced prostate cancer, and HDRT showed excellent efficacy but more adverse events.

Bringing the heavy: carbon ion therapy in the radiobiological and clinical context

Radiotherapy for the treatment of cancer is undergoing an evolution, shifting to the use of heavier ion species. For a plethora of malignancies, current radiotherapy using photons or protons yields marginal benefits in local control and survival. One hypothesis is that these malignancies have acquired, or are inherently radioresistant to low LET radiation. In the last decade, carbon ion radiotherapy facilities have slowly been constructed in Europe and Asia, demonstrating favorable results for many of the malignancies that do poorly with conventional radiotherapy. However, from a radiobiological perspective, much of how this modality works in overcoming radioresistance, and extending local control and survival are not yet fully understood. In this review, we will explain from a radiobiological perspective how carbon ion radiotherapy can overcome the classical and recently postulated contributors of radioresistance (α/β ratio, hypoxia, cell proliferation, the tumor microenvironment and metabolism, and cancer stem cells). Furthermore, we will make recommendations on the important factors to consider, such as anatomical location, in the future design and implementation of clinical trials. With the existing data available we believe that the expansion of carbon ion facilities into the United States is warranted.

Proton beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer-is the hype (and the cost) justified?

Although in use for over 40 years, proton beam therapy for prostate cancer has only recently come under public scrutiny, due to its increased cost compared to other forms of treatment. While the last decade has seen a rapid accumulation of evidence to suggest that proton beam therapy is both safe and effective in this disease site, a rigorous comparison to other radiotherapy techniques has not yet been completed. In this review, we provide an in-depth look at the evidence both supporting and questioning proton beam therapy's future role in the treatment of prostate cancer, with emphasis on its history, physical properties, comparative clinical and cost effectiveness, advances in its delivery and future promise.

Dose escalation using ultra-high dose IMRT in intermediate risk prostate cancer without androgen deprivation therapy: preliminary results of toxicity and biochemical control

Background

To investigate the feasibility of dose escalation (86 Gy at 2 Gy/fraction) with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in intermediate-risk prostate cancer without androgen deprivation therapy.

Methods

Patients with histologically proven adenocarcinoma of the prostate, intermediate prognostic category, were enrolled in this study. Early and late toxicity were scored according to the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, Version 3.0. Treatment outcome was stated in terms of biochemical failure, biopsy result and clinical failure.

Results

39 patients with a median follow-up of 71 months were analyzed. No patient experienced G3 or G4 acute gastrointestinal (GI) or genitourinary (GU) toxicity. G2 acute GI and GU toxicity were observed in 17 (44%) and 20 (51%) patients, respectively. Fourteen patients (36%) did not experience acute GI toxicity and 4 patients (10%) did not experience acute GU toxicity. G2 late GI bleeding occurred in 7 of 39 patients (18%). Both G3 and G4 late GI toxicity were seen only in one patient (2.5%). Two patients (5%) experienced G2 late GU toxicity, while G3 late GU toxicity occurred in 3 patients (8%). The 5-year actuarial freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) was 87%. Thirty-four patients (87%) did not show biochemical relapse. Seventeen patients (44%) underwent biopsy two year after radiotherapy; of these only two were non-negative and both did not show evidence of biochemical disease.

Conclusions

IMRT treatment of patients with localized intermediate-risk prostate cancer at high dose levels without using androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) seems to give good disease control. Nevertheless, future trials should aim at further decreasing toxicity by exploiting image guidance techniques and by reducing the dose delivered at the interface between organs at risk and prostate.

Prostate cancer boost using high-dose-rate brachytherapy: early toxicity analysis of 3 different fractionation schemes

Purpose

To analyse early toxicity of high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDRB) boost for prostate cancer using 3 fractionation schemes.

Material and methods

From February 2009 to May 2012, after the first course of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT 46 Gy/23 f), 124 patients underwent HDRB boost for low (7%), intermediate (19%), and high-risk (73%) prostate cancers. From February to December 2009, Group 1 (G1) = 18 Gy/3 f/2 d (24%); from January 2010 to April 2011, Group 2 (G2) = 18 Gy/2 f/2 d (42%), and from May to September 2011, Group 3 (G3) = 14 Gy/1 f/1 d (34%). Planning and CT-scan was performed before each fraction. Dose constraints for G1/G2 were V₁₀₀ rectum = 0 and V₁₂₅ urethra = 0, while for G3 V₉₀ rectum = 0 and V₁₁₅ urethra = 0. Genito-urinary (GU) and Gastro-intestinal (GI) acute toxicities were assessed at 1 month (for the 3 fractionation schemes) and 6 months (for 18 Gy/3 f and 18 Gy/2 f) after the boost (CTCv3.0).

Results

Median follow-up was 25 months (8-46.9), median age was 71 years (50-82), and median CTV was 31 cc (16-71). The grades of acute GI and GU toxicities at 1 and 6 months after HDRB were mainly Grade 1 with few Grade 2 (GU: 5% at 1 month; GI: 1% at 6 months). One patient developed G4 sepsis toxicity 2 days after HDRB and recovered without after-effects. No significant differences were observed at 1 and 6 months after the HDRB between treatment groups.

Conclusions

The right fractionation remains under discussion, but prostate cancer HDRB boost using a single fraction (providing similar results in terms of acute toxicity) is more comfortable for the patient, and less time consuming for the medical staff.

Future directions from past experience: a century of prostate radiotherapy

Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed noncutaneous malignancy in men, yet 100 years ago it was considered a rare disease. Over the past century, radiation therapy has evolved from a radium source placed in the urethra to today's advanced proton therapy delivered by only a few specialized centers. As techniques in radiation have evolved, the treatment of localized prostate cancer has become one of the most debated topics in oncology. Today, patients with prostate cancer must often make a difficult decision between multiple treatment modalities, each with the risk of permanent sequelae, without robust randomized data to compare every treatment option. Meanwhile, opinions of urologists and radiation oncologists about the risks and benefits involved with each modality vary widely. Further complicating the issue is rapidly advancing technology which often outpaces clinical data. This article represents a complete description of the evolution of prostate cancer radiation therapy with the goal of illuminating the historical basis for current challenges facing oncologists and their patients.

New strategies in radiation therapy: exploiting the full potential of protons

Protons provide significant dosimetric advantages compared with photons because of their unique depth-dose distribution characteristics. However, they are more sensitive to the effects of intra- and intertreatment fraction anatomic variations and uncertainties in treatment setup. Furthermore, in the current practice of proton therapy, the biologic effectiveness of protons relative to photons is assumed to have a generic fixed value of 1.1. However, this is a simplification, and it is likely higher in different portions of the proton beam. Current clinical practice and trials have not fully exploited the unique physical and biologic properties of protons. Intensity-modulated proton therapy, with its ability to manipulate energies (in addition to intensities), provides an entirely new dimension, which, with ongoing research, has considerable potential to increase the therapeutic ratio.

Clinical controversies: proton therapy for prostate cancer

Proton therapy has been used in the treatment of prostate cancer for several decades, and interest surrounding its use continues to grow. Proton-based treatment techniques have evolved significantly over this period, and several centers now routinely use technologies such as pencil-beam scanning. However, whether the theoretical dosimetric advantages of the proton beam translate into clinically meaningful improvements for prostate cancer patients is unknown, and outcomes from single-arm experiences using whole courses of proton beam therapy in the treatment of early-stage prostate cancer have shown mixed results when compared with contemporary intensity-modulated radiotherapy. A randomized trial comparing proton beam therapy with intensity-modulated radiotherapy in early-stage disease has been launched and will be important in defining the role for proton therapy in this setting. We review the available evidence and present the current state of proton beam therapy for prostate cancer.

Proton beam and prostate cancer: An evolving debate

This paper evaluates the reasons behind the rise in the use of proton beam for prostate cancer, the economics drivers behind it, and the evidence that exists to support it. It concludes that clinical outcome data underlying the notion that this is a superior treatment remains sparse and discusses what is needed to fill in the gaps.

Reconstruction of radiation-induced injuries of the lower urinary tract

This article presents an overview of reconstruction of lower urinary tract injury caused by radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Discussions include cause, patient evaluation, reconstructive techniques, and outcomes following repair.

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.

Prostate cancer: current treatment and prevention strategies

Abstract

Prostate cancer is one of the life threatening disorders of male. Although, over the last two decades, a high rate of overdiagnosis, and overtreatment has lowered the incidence rate of prostate cancer, the treatment or prevention strategies are not enough to control the high rate of disease related mortality. Current medical treatment approaches include surgery, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, cryosurgery and other methods. These approaches are more or less effective either as monotherapy or in multimodal approach. However, many adverse or side effects exist with these strategies. Researches are ongoing to find out the way or better strategies to eliminate the adverse effects. Dietary modifications may also contribute to decrease prostate cancer risk. Several nutraceuticals against prostate cancer have also been identified. This review article summarizes some of the current treatment, and prevention strategies with the protection of prostate cancer, which may be helpful to control and prevent this highly frequent life threatening disease.

Proton beam therapy and localised prostate cancer: current status and controversies

Proton therapy is a promising, but costly, treatment for prostate cancer. Theoretical physical advantages exist; yet to date, it has been shown only to be comparably safe and effective when compared with the alternatives and not necessarily superior. If clinically meaningful benefits do exist for patients, more rigorous study will be needed to detect them and society will require this to justify the investment of time and money. New technical advances in proton beam delivery coupled with shortened overall treatment times and declining device costs have the potential to make this a more cost-effective therapy in the years ahead.

Risk of second cancer from scattered radiation of intensity-modulated radiotherapies with lung cancer

PURPOSE

To compare the risk of secondary cancer from scattered and leakage doses following intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) and tomotherapy (TOMO) in patients with lung cancer.

METHODS

IMRT, VMAT and TOMO were planned for five lung cancer patients. Organ equivalent doses (OEDs) are estimated from the measured corresponding secondary doses during irradiation at various points 20 to 80 cm from the iso-center by using radio-photoluminescence glass dosimeter (RPLGD).

RESULTS

The secondary dose per Gy from IMRT, VMAT and TOMO for lung cancer, measured 20 to 80 cm from the iso-center, are 0.02~2.03, 0.03~1.35 and 0.04~0.46 cGy, respectively. The mean values of relative OED of secondary dose of VMAT and TOMO, which is normalized by IMRT, ranged between 88.63% and 41.59% revealing 88.63% and 41.59% for thyroid, 82.33% and 41.85% for pancreas, 77.97% and 49.41% for bowel, 73.42% and 72.55% for rectum, 74.16% and 81.51% for prostate. The secondary dose and OED from TOMO became similar to those from IMRT and VMAT as the distance from the field edge increased.

CONCLUSIONS

OED based estimation suggests that the secondary cancer risk from TOMO is less than or comparable to the risks from conventional IMRT and VMAT.

Radiosensitization in prostate cancer: mechanisms and targets

Prostate cancer is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer in American men over the age of 45 years and is the third most common cause of cancer related deaths in American men. In 2012 it is estimated that 241,740 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer and 28,170 men will succumb to prostate cancer. Currently, radiation therapy is one of the most common definitive treatment options for localized prostate cancer. However, significant number of patients undergoing radiation therapy will develop locally persistent/recurrent tumours. The varying response rates to radiation may be due to 1) tumor microenvironment, 2) tumor stage/grade, 3) modality used to deliver radiation, and 4) dose of radiation. Higher doses of radiation has not always proved to be effective and have been associated with increased morbidity. Compounds designed to enhance the killing effects of radiation, radiosensitizers, have been extensively investigated over the past decade. The development of radiosensitizing agents could improve survival, improve quality of life and reduce costs, thus benefiting both patients and healthcare systems. Herin, we shall review the role and mechanisms of various agents that can sensitize tumours, specifically prostate cancer.

Intensity modulated proton and photon therapy for early prostate cancer with or without transperineal injection of a polyethylen glycol spacer: a treatment planning comparison study

PURPOSE

Rectal toxicity is a serious adverse effect in early-stage prostate cancer patients treated with curative radiation therapy (RT). Injecting a spacer between Denonvilliers' fascia increases the distance between the prostate and the anterior rectal wall and may thus decrease the rectal radiation-induced toxicity. We assessed the dosimetric impact of this spacer with advanced delivery RT techniques, including intensity modulated RT (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and intensity modulated proton beam RT (IMPT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Eight prostate cancer patients were simulated for RT with or without spacer. Plans were computed for IMRT, VMAT, and IMPT using the Eclipse treatment planning system using both computed tomography spacer+ and spacer- data sets. Prostate ± seminal vesicle planning target volume [PTV] and organs at risk (OARs) dose-volume histograms were calculated. The results were analyzed using dose and volume metrics for comparative planning.

RESULTS

Regardless of the radiation technique, spacer injection decreased significantly the rectal dose in the 60- to 70-Gy range. Mean V(70 Gy) and V(60 Gy) with IMRT, VMAT, and IMPT planning were 5.3 ± 3.3%/13.9 ± 10.0%, 3.9 ± 3.2%/9.7 ± 5.7%, and 5.0 ± 3.5%/9.5 ± 4.7% after spacer injection. Before spacer administration, the corresponding values were 9.8 ± 5.4% (P=.012)/24.8 ± 7.8% (P=.012), 10.1 ± 3.0% (P=.002)/17.9 ± 3.9% (P=.003), and 9.7 ± 2.6% (P=.003)/14.7% ± 2.7% (P=.003). Importantly, spacer injection usually improved the PTV coverage for IMRT. With this technique, mean V(70.2 Gy) (P=.07) and V(74.1 Gy) (P=0.03) were 100 ± 0% to 99.8 ± 0.2% and 99.1 ± 1.2% to 95.8 ± 4.6% with and without Spacer, respectively. As a result of spacer injection, bladder doses were usually higher but not significantly so. Only IMPT managed to decrease the rectal dose after spacer injection for all dose levels, generally with no observed increase to the bladder dose.

CONCLUSIONS

Regardless of the radiation technique, a substantial decrease of rectal dose was observed after spacer injection for curative RT to the prostate.

High-dose conformal radiotherapy reduces prostate cancer-specific mortality: results of a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To determine in a meta-analysis whether prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), biochemical or clinical failure (BCF), and overall mortality (OM) in men with localized prostate cancer treated with conformal high-dose radiotherapy (HDRT) are better than those in men treated with conventional-dose radiotherapy (CDRT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The MEDLINE, Embase, CANCERLIT, and Cochrane Library databases, as well as the proceedings of annual meetings, were systematically searched to identify randomized, controlled studies comparing conformal HDRT with CDRT for localized prostate cancer.

RESULTS

Five randomized, controlled trials (2508 patients) that met the study criteria were identified. Pooled results from these randomized, controlled trials showed a significant reduction in the incidence of PCSM and BCF rates at 5 years in patients treated with HDRT (p = 0.04 and p < 0.0001, respectively), with an absolute risk reduction (ARR) of PCSM and BCF at 5 years of 1.7% and 12.6%, respectively. Two trials evaluated PCSM with 10 years of follow up. The pooled results from these trials showed a statistical benefit for HDRT in terms of PCSM (p = 0.03). In the subgroup analysis, trials that used androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) showed an ARR for BCF of 12.9% (number needed to treat = 7.7, p < 0.00001), whereas trials without ADT had an ARR of 13.6% (number needed to treat = 7, p < 0.00001). There was no difference in the OM rate at 5 and 10 years (p = 0.99 and p = 0.11, respectively) between the groups receiving HDRT and CDRT.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis is the first study to show that HDRT is superior to CDRT in preventing disease progression and prostate cancer-specific death in trials that used conformational technique to increase the total dose. Despite the limitations of our study in evaluating the role of ADT and HDRT, our data show no benefit for HDRT arms in terms of BCF in trials with or without ADT.

Radiation treatment for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer

Around 70% of men presenting with prostate cancer will have organ-confined disease, with the majority presenting with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer. This article reviews the evidence supporting the current standard of care in radiation oncology for the evaluation and management of men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Dose escalation, hormonal therapy, combined modality therapy, and modern techniques for the delivery of radiation therapy are reviewed.

A review of update clinical results of carbon ion radiotherapy

Among various types of ion species, carbon ions are considered to have the most balanced, optimal properties in terms of possessing physically and biologically effective dose localization in the body. This is due to the fact that when compared with photon beams, carbon ion beams offer improved dose distribution, leading to the concentration of the sufficient dose within a target volume while minimizing the dose in the surrounding normal tissues. In addition, carbon ions, being heavier than protons, provide a higher biological effectiveness, which increases with depth, reaching the maximum at the end of the beam's range. This is practically an ideal property from the standpoint of cancer radiotherapy. Clinical studies have been carried out in the world to confirm the efficacy of carbon ions against a variety of tumors as well as to develop effective techniques for delivering an efficient dose to the tumor. Through clinical experiences of carbon ion radiotherapy at the National Institute of Radiological Sciences and Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung, a significant reduction in the overall treatment time with acceptable toxicities has been obtained in almost all types of tumors. This means that carbon ion radiotherapy has meanwhile achieved for itself a solid place in general practice. This review describes clinical results of carbon ion radiotherapy together with physical, biological and technological aspects of carbon ions.

Hypofractionated proton boost combined with external beam radiotherapy for treatment of localized prostate cancer

Proton boost of 20 Gy in daily 5 Gy fractions followed by external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) of 50 Gy in daily 2 Gy fractions were given to 278 patients with prostate cancer with T1b to T4N0M0 disease. Fifty-three percent of the patients received neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (N-ADT). The medium followup was 57 months. The 5-year PSA progression-free survival was 100%, 95%, and 74% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients, respectively. The toxicity evaluation was supported by a patient-reported questionnaire before every consultant visit. Cumulative probability and actuarial prevalence of genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities are presented according to the RTOG classification. N-ADT did not influence curability. Mild pretreatment GU-symptoms were found to be a strong predictive factor for GU-toxicity attributable to treatment. The actuarial prevalence declined over 3 to 5 years for both GU and GI toxicities, indicating slow resolution of epithelial damage to the genitourinary and gastrointestinal tract. Bladder toxicities rather than gastrointestinal toxicities seem to be dose limiting. More than 5-year followup is necessary to reveal any sign of true progressive late side effects of the given treatment. Hypofractionated proton-boost combined with EBRT is associated with excellent curability of localized PC and acceptable frequencies of treatment toxicity.

Stamp test delivers message on erectile dysfunction after high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate erectile function after high-dose radiotherapy for prostate cancer using the International Index of Erectile Function, Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite, and stamp test.

METHODS

Men with favorable and intermediate-risk prostate cancer were assigned to receive prostate intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) versus an erectile tissue-sparing IMRT technique in a Phase III randomized, prospective study. The stamp test and International Index of Erectile Function and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite questionnaires were completed at baseline and 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after IMRT. The Sexual Health Inventory for Men scores were abstracted from the International Index of Erectile Function questionnaire. A partner questionnaire, designated IIEF-P, modeled after the International Index of Erectile Function questionnaire but from the perspective of the partner, was also collected.

RESULTS

The data from 94 men who were enrolled in the trial and who had completed ≥1 questionnaire or 1 stamp test were analyzed. The median age of the patient population was 62.5 years. The median radiation dose was 76 Gy (range 74-80). At 6 months and 1 year after high-dose IMRT, a positive stamp result correlated significantly with the median Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite sexual summary, sexual function, and bother subscale scores. Additionally, 6 months after IMRT, the stamp test correlated with the median International Index of Erectile Function, International Index of Erectile Function sexual function domain, and Sexual Health Inventory for Men scores. Robust concordance for the International Index of Erectile Function and Sexual Health Inventory for Men scores was appreciated between responding patient and partner pairs.

CONCLUSION

Nocturnal tumescence, as indicated by a positive stamp test, correlated well with established quality of life questionnaires after IMRT. The stamp test should strongly be considered as an objective measure of erectile function in future studies of erectile dysfunction in patients with prostate cancer.

Clinical evidence of particle beam therapy (proton)

Proton beam therapy (PBT) makes it possible to deliver a high concentration of radiation to a tumor using its Bragg peak, and it is simple to utilize as its radiobiological characteristics are identical to those of photon beams. PBT has now been used for half a century, and more than 60,000 patients worldwide are reported to have been treated with proton beams. The most significant change to PBT occurred in the 1990s, when the Loma Linda University Medical Center became the first hospital in the world to operate a medically dedicated proton therapy facility. Following its success, similar medically dedicated facilities have been constructed. Internationally, results have demonstrated the therapeutic superiority of PBT over alternative treatment options for several disease sites. Further advances in PBT are expected from both clinical and technological perspectives.

Effect of gold marker seeds on magnetic resonance spectroscopy of the prostate

PURPOSE

Magnetic resonance stereoscopic imaging (MRSI) of the prostate is an emerging technique that may enhance targeting and assessment in radiotherapy. Current practices in radiotherapy invariably involve image guidance. Gold seed fiducial markers are often used to perform daily prostate localization. If MRSI is to be used in targeting prostate cancer and therapy assessment, the impact of gold seeds on MRSI must be investigated. The purpose of this study was to quantify the effects of gold seeds on the quality of MRSI data acquired in phantom experiments.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A cylindrical plastic phantom with a spherical cavity 10 centimeters in diameter wss filled with water solution containing choline, creatine, and citrate. A gold seed fiducial marker was put near the center of the phantom mounted on a plastic stem. Spectra were acquired at 1.5 Tesla by use of a clinical MRSI sequence. The ratios of choline + creatine to citrate (CC/Ci) were compared in the presence and absence of gold seeds. Spectra in the vicinity of the gold seed were analyzed.

RESULTS

The maximum coefficient of variation of CC/Ci induced by the gold seed was found to be 10% in phantom experiments at 1.5 T.

CONCLUSION

MRSI can be used in prostate radiotherapy in the presence of gold seed markers. Gold seeds cause small effects (in the order of the standard deviation) on the ratio of the metabolite's CC/Ci in the phantom study done on a 1.5-T scanner. It is expected that gold seed markers will have similar negligible effect on spectra from prostate patients. The maximum of 10% of variation in CC/Ci found in the phantom study also sets a limit on the threshold accuracy of CC/Ci values for deciding whether the tissue characterized by a local spectrum is considered malignant and whether it is a candidate for local boost in radiotherapy dose.

PSA Doubling Time Predicts for the Development of Distant Metastases for Patients Who Fail 3DCRT Or IMRT Using the Phoenix Definition

PURPOSE: PSA doubling time (PSADT) is commonly used as an indication for salvage androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for PSA failure following RT. Previously, we had shown that PSADT of <12 months is an important predictor of distant metastasis following 3DCRT using the ASTRO definition of BF. We sought to determine if this approach is still valid using the Phoenix definition. METHODS: Eligible patients included 432 men with T1-3N0M0 prostate cancer who demonstrated PSA failure after completing definitive 3DCRT or IMRT from 1989-2005. Endpoints included freedom from distant metastasis (FDM), cause-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS). PSADT was stratified by 0-6, 6-12, 12-18, 18-24, and >24 months. The median follow-up was 95 months (6-207 months). RESULTS: The 7 year FDM, CSS, and OS rates for the entire group were 73%, 77% and 52%, respectively. 7 year FDM was 50% for PSADT <6 months vs. 83% for PSADT >6 months (p=0.0001). 7 year CSS was 61% for PSADT <6 and 85% for PSADT >6 (p=0.0001). 7 year OS was 47% for PSADT <6 and 53% for PSADT >6 (p=0.04). The proportion of men with BF receiving salvage ADT with a PSADT <6 months was 59%, 6-12 was 45%, 12-18 was 42%, 18-24 was 36%, >24 was 28%. ADT was associated with improved 7 year CSS (68% vs. 46%, p=0.015). Of the 314 men with PSADT >6 months, 124 received ADT and 190 were observed. With a median follow-up of 38 months from BF, there was no demonstrable benefit to ADT in the 7 year CSS (87% vs. 79%, respectively; p=0.758). Independent predictors of FDM were PSADT (p<0.0001), GS (p=0.011), and the use of initial ADT (p=0.005). CONCLUSION: PSADT remains a significant predictor of clinical failure and CSS for men treated with 3DCRT or IMRT who fail according to the Phoenix definition. Immediate use of ADT in patients with PSADT <6 months is significantly associated with improved CSS, although the benefit is less apparent in patients with longer PSADT. These results further refine the role of PSADT in predicting which patients may benefit from salvage ADT and those who may be observed expectantly.

Comparison of three-dimensional conformal irradiation techniques for prostate cancer using a low-energy (6 MV) photon beam

Purpose: To evaluate composite coplanar and non-coplanar three-dimensional conformal techniques (3D-CRT) for external-beam prostate radiotherapy using a low-energy (6 MV) photon beam.

Methods and Materials: For treatment-planning purposes, three different planning target volumes (PTV) were defined for ten patients with prostate cancer and as follows: PTV1 (pelvis), PTV2 (prostate + seminal vesicles + 1 cm margin) and PTV3 (prostate + 1 cm margin). Conformal techniques of 2, 3, 4, 5 (coplanar) and 6 (non-coplanar) field techniques have been considered and combined to produce five different plan combinations (i.e. techniques A, B, C, D and E). Treatment plans were generated with a prescription dose of 75 Gy to PTV3, 65 Gy to PTV2 and 45 Gy to PTV1 and were assessed on the basis of 3D dose distributions and dose-volume histograms (DVHs). Normal tissue-dose constraints for the relevant organs at risk (OARs), that is, rectum, bladder and femoral heads, were also considered.

Results: Findings show that all five treatment-plan combinations result in adequate PTV coverage and acceptable OAR irradiated volumes. The greatest rectal spacing in the high-dose region is achieved by technique C; all techniques achieve this, except for technique A, and give approximately the same fraction of volume (of rectum) that receives a dose of 50 Gy (V50) and 60 Gy (V60). When considering the bladder, techniques B, D and E give the best bladder sparing with small absolute differences, whereas technique A results in the lowest dose for femoral heads. Technique E appears to give the best compromise for all three considered OARs, provided the PTV is adequately covered.

Conclusions: Even though the optimum photon-beam energy for conformal prostate radiotherapy is greater than 10 MV, our study shows that a good sparing of OAR can be achieved even with a lower-energy beam (6 MV) and the appropriate plan combination and that the dose to prostate can be as high as 75 Gy.