Modeling of alpha/beta for late rectal toxicity from a randomized phase II study: conventional versus hypofractionated scheme for localized prostate cancer

Gastrointestinal dose-histogram effects in the context of dose-volume-constrained prostate radiation therapy: analysis of data from the RADAR prostate radiation therapy trial

PURPOSE

To use a high-quality multicenter trial dataset to determine dose-volume effects for gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity following radiation therapy for prostate carcinoma. Influential dose-volume histogram regions were to be determined as functions of dose, anatomical location, toxicity, and clinical endpoint.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Planning datasets for 754 participants in the TROG 03.04 RADAR trial were available, with Late Effects of Normal Tissues (LENT) Subjective, Objective, Management, and Analytic (SOMA) toxicity assessment to a median of 72 months. A rank sum method was used to define dose-volume cut-points as near-continuous functions of dose to 3 GI anatomical regions, together with a comprehensive assessment of significance. Univariate and multivariate ordinal regression was used to assess the importance of cut-points at each dose.

RESULTS

Dose ranges providing significant cut-points tended to be consistent with those showing significant univariate regression odds-ratios (representing the probability of a unitary increase in toxicity grade per percent relative volume). Ranges of significant cut-points for rectal bleeding validated previously published results. Separation of the lower GI anatomy into complete anorectum, rectum, and anal canal showed the impact of mid-low doses to the anal canal on urgency and tenesmus, completeness of evacuation and stool frequency, and mid-high doses to the anorectum on bleeding and stool frequency. Derived multivariate models emphasized the importance of the high-dose region of the anorectum and rectum for rectal bleeding and mid- to low-dose regions for diarrhea and urgency and tenesmus, and low-to-mid doses to the anal canal for stool frequency, diarrhea, evacuation, and bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Results confirm anatomical dependence of specific GI toxicities. They provide an atlas summarizing dose-histogram effects and derived constraints as functions of anatomical region, dose, toxicity, and endpoint for informing future radiation therapy planning.

Hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer

In the last few years, hypofractionated external beam radiotherapy has gained increasing popularity for prostate cancer treatment, since sufficient evidence exists that prostate cancer has a low α/β ratio, lower than the one of the surrounding organs at risk and thus there is a potential therapeutic benefit of using larger fractionated single doses. Apart from the therapeutic rationale there are advantages such as saving treatment time and medical resources and thereby improving patient’s convenience. While older trials showed unsatisfactory results in both standard and hypofractionated arm due to insufficient radiation doses and non-standard contouring of target volumes, contemporary randomized studies have reported on encouraging results of tumor control mostly without an increase of relevant side effects, especially late toxicity. Aim of this review is to give a detailed analysis of relevant, recently published clinical trials with special focus on rationale for hypofractionation and different therapy settings.

Quality of Life and Toxicity after SBRT for Organ-Confined Prostate Cancer, a 7-Year Study

Objectives: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) yields excellent disease control for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer by delivering high doses of radiation in a small number of fractions. Our report presents a 7-year update on treatment toxicity and quality of life (QOL) from 515 patients treated with prostate SBRT.

Methods: From 2006 to 2009, 515 patients with clinically localized, low-, intermediate-, and high-risk prostate cancer were treated with SBRT using Cyberknife technology. Treatment consisted of 35–36.25 Gy in 5 fractions. Seventy-two patients received hormone therapy. Toxicity was assessed at each follow-up visit using the expanded prostate cancer index composite (EPIC) questionnaire and the radiation therapy oncology group urinary and rectal toxicity scale.

Results: Median follow-up was 72 months. The actuarial 7-year freedom from biochemical failure was 95.8, 89.3, and 68.5% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively (p < 0.001). No patients experienced acute Grade 3 or 4 acute complications. Fewer than 5% of patients had any acute Grade 2 urinary or rectal toxicity. Late toxicity was low, with Grade 2 rectal and urinary toxicity of 4 and 9.1%, respectively, and Grade 3 urinary toxicity of 1.7%. Mean EPIC urinary and bowel QOL declined at 1 month post-treatment, returned to baseline by 2 years and remained stable thereafter. EPIC sexual QOL declined by 23% at 6–12 months and remained stable afterwards. Of patients potent at baseline evaluation, 67% remained potent at last follow-up.

Conclusion: This study suggests that SBRT, when administered to doses of 35–36.25 Gy, is efficacious and safe. With long-term follow-up in our large patient cohort, we continue to find low rates of late toxicity and excellent rates of biochemical control.

Comparative efficacy and safety of treatments for localised prostate cancer: an application of network meta-analysis

CONTEXT

There is ongoing uncertainty about the optimal management of patients with localised prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of different treatments for patients with localised prostate cancer.

DESIGN

Systematic review with Bayesian network meta-analysis to estimate comparative ORs, and a score (0-100%) that, for a given outcome, reflects average rank order of superiority of each treatment compared against all others, using the Surface Under the Cumulative RAnking curve (SUCRA) statistic.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic searches of MEDLINE without language restriction.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomised trials comparing the efficacy and safety of different primary treatments (48 papers from 21 randomised trials included 7350 men).

DATA EXTRACTION

2 reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias.

RESULTS

Comparative efficacy and safety evidence was available for prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy (different types and regimens), observational management and cryotherapy, but not high-intensity focused ultrasound. There was no evidence of superiority for any of the compared treatments in respect of all-cause mortality after 5 years. Cryotherapy was associated with less gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity than radiotherapy (SUCRA: 99% and 77% for gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The limited available evidence suggests that different treatments may be optimal for different efficacy and safety outcomes. These findings highlight the importance of informed patient choice and shared decision-making about treatment modality and acceptable trade-offs between different outcomes. More trial evidence is required to reduce uncertainty. Network meta-analysis may be useful to optimise the power of evidence synthesis studies once data from new randomised controlled studies in this field are published in the future.

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.

Is biochemical relapse-free survival after profoundly hypofractionated radiotherapy consistent with current radiobiological models?

AIMS

The α/β ratio for prostate cancer is thought to be low and less than for the rectum, which is usually the dose-limiting organ. Hypofractionated radiotherapy should therefore improve the therapeutic ratio, increasing cure rates with less toxicity. A number of models for predicting biochemical relapse-free survival have been developed from large series of patients treated with conventional and moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy. The purpose of this study was to test these models when significant numbers of patients treated with profoundly hypofractionated radiotherapy were included.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review of the literature with regard to hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer was conducted, focussing on data recently presented on prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy. For the work described here, we have taken published biochemical control rates for a range of moderately and profoundly fractionated schedules and plotted these together with a range of radiobiological models, which are described.

RESULTS

The data reviewed show consistency between the various radiobiological model predictions and the currently observed data.

CONCLUSION

Current radiobiological models provide accurate predictions of biochemical relapse-free survival, even when profoundly hypofractionated patients are included in the analysis.

First clinical implementation of the Capri applicator

This study was to assess the Capri applicator for patients with endometrial cancer undergoing high‐radiation dose treatments following external‐beam radiation therapy. The Capri applicator is an inflatable vaginal cylinder with multiple channels. It is used to tailor the dose distribution to an asymmetric vaginal disease, and better spare organs at risk. Five patients with high‐risk endometrial cancer were selected for this study. The patients were treated with a high dose of radiation using the Capri applicator: daily fraction of 7 Gy was prescribed for a total dose of 21 Gy. The treatment plans included radiobiological parameters such as equivalent uniform dose (EUD), normal tissue complication probability (NTCP), and tumor control probability (TCP). Based on the dose‐volume histograms (DVH), we also calculated four quality factors: conformity index (CI), dose homogeneity index (DHI), dose nonuniformity index (DNR), and overdose index (OI). The TCP values range from 82.26% to 95.92%. Very low values of NTCP were observed for the bladder and rectum. The EUDs to organs at risk ranged from 4.65 Gy to 18.22 Gy for the bladder, and from 3.41 Gy from to 6.56 Gy for the rectum. The mean CI was 1.05(SD=0.0008). The mean DNR was 0.10(range0.0−0.295,SD=0.100). The mean OI was 0.019(SD=0.028). The DHIs were in the range of 1.0−0.754(mean0.886,SD=0.116). The use of a multichannel vaginal cylinder may not only help cover extensive vaginal disease, but also reduce the dose to the rectum. This dosimetric analysis shows that rectal doses could be reduced using a multichannel cylinder. However, the dose delivered to the bladder based on EUD calculation may be higher than that obtained with other methods. Each patient must be evaluated independently to determine if a multichannel treatment is appropriate. Clinical followup will show whether this rectal dose sparing translates into a real toxicity improvement.

PACS number: 3.6.96.0

Analysis of high-dose rate brachytherapy dose distribution resemblance in CyberKnife hypofractionated treatment plans of localized prostate cancer

The present study is to analyze the CyberKnife hypofractionated dose distribution of localized prostate cancer in terms of high-dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy equivalent doses to assess the degree of HDR brachytherapy resemblance of CyberKnife dose distribution. Thirteen randomly selected localized prostate cancer cases treated using CyberKnife with a dose regimen of 36.25Gy in 5 fractions were considered. HDR equivalent doses were calculated for 30Gy in 3 fractions of HDR brachytherapy regimen. The D5% of the target in the CyberKnife hypofractionation was 41.57 ± 2.41Gy. The corresponding HDR fractionation (3 fractions) equivalent dose was 32.81 ± 1.86Gy. The mean HDR fractionation equivalent dose, D98%, was 27.93 ± 0.84Gy. The V100% of the prostate target was 95.57% ± 3.47%. The V100% of the bladder and the rectum were 717.16 and 79.6mm(3), respectively. Analysis of the HDR equivalent dose of CyberKnife dose distribution indicates a comparable resemblance to HDR dose distribution in the peripheral target doses (D98% to D80%) reported in the literature. However, there is a substantial difference observed in the core high-dose regions especially in D10% and D5%. The dose fall-off within the OAR is also superior in reported HDR dose distribution than the HDR equivalent doses of CyberKnife.

Hypofractionated external-beam radiation therapy (HEBRT) versus conventional external-beam radiation (CEBRT) in patients with localized prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this work was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and side effect profile of hypofractionated versus conventional external-beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer.

METHODS

Several databases were searched, including Medline, EmBase, LiLACS, and Central. The endpoints were freedom from biochemical failure and side effects. We performed a meta-analysis of the published data. The results are expressed as the hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR), with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

The final analysis included nine trials comprising 2702 patients. Freedom from biochemical failure was reported in only three studies and was similar in patients who received hypofractionated or conventional radiotherapy (fixed effect, HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.88-1.20; P = 0.75), with heterogeneity [χ(2) = 15.32, df = 2 (P = 0.0005); I2 = 87%]. The incidence of acute adverse gastrointestinal events was higher in the hypofractionated group (fixed effect, RR 2.02, 95% CI 1.45-2.81; P < 0.0001). We also found moderate heterogeneity on this analysis [χ(2) = 7.47, df = 5 (P = 0.19); I2 = 33%]. Acute genitourinary toxicity was similar among the groups (fixed effect, RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.95-1.49; P = 0.13), with moderate heterogeneity [χ(2) = 5.83, df = 4 (P = 0.21); I2 = 31%]. The incidence of all late adverse events was the same in both groups (fixed effect, gastrointestinal toxicity, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.79-1.72, P = 0.44; and acute genitourinary toxicity, RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.80-1.68, P = 0.44).

CONCLUSION

Hypofractionated radiotherapy in localized prostate cancer was not superior to conventional radiotherapy and showed higher acute gastrointestinal toxicity in this meta-analysis. Because the number of published studies is still small, future assessments should be conducted to clarify better the true role of hypofractionated radiotherapy in patients with prostate cancer.

Equivalent normalized total dose estimates in cyberknife radiotherapy dose delivery in prostate cancer hypofractionation regimens

As the α/β value of prostate is very small and lower than the surrounding critical organs, hypofractionated radiotherapy became a vital mode of treatment of prostate cancer. Cyberknife (Accuray Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA) treatment for localized prostate cancer is performed in hypofractionated dose regimen alone. Effective dose escalation in the hypofractionated regimen can be estimated if the corresponding conventional 2 Gy per fraction equivalent normalized total dose (NTD) distribution is known. The present study aims to analyze the hypofractionated dose distribution of localized prostate cancer in terms of equivalent NTD. Randomly selected 12 localized prostate cases treated in cyberknife with a dose regimen of 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions were considered. The 2 Gy per fraction equivalent NTDs were calculated using the formula derived from the linear quadratic (LQ) model. Dose distributions were analyzed with the corresponding NTDs. The conformity index for the prescribed target dose of 36.25 Gy equivalent to the NTD dose of 90.63 Gy (α/β = 1.5) or 74.31 Gy (α/β = 3) was ranging between 1.15 and 1.73 with a mean value of 1.32 ± 0.15. The D5% of the target was 111.41 ± 8.66 Gy for α/β = 1.5 and 90.15 ± 6.57 Gy for α/β = 3. Similarly, the D95% was 91.98 ± 3.77 Gy for α/β = 1.5 and 75.35 ± 2.88 Gy for α/β = 3. The mean values of bladder and rectal volume receiving the prescribed dose of 36.25 Gy were 0.83 cm3 and 0.086 cm3, respectively. NTD dose analysis shows an escalated dose distribution within the target for low α/β (1.5 Gy) with reasonable sparing of organs at risk. However, the higher α/β of prostate (3 Gy) is not encouraging the fact of dose escalation in cyberknife hypofractionated dose regimen of localized prostate cancer.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® definitive external beam irradiation in stage T1 and T2 prostate cancer

PURPOSE

: External beam radiation therapy is a standard of care treatment for men who present with clinically localized (T1-T2) prostate cancer. The purpose of this review was to provide clarification on the appropriateness criteria and management considerations for the treatment of prostate cancer with external beam radiation therapy.

METHODS

: A panel consisting of physicians with expertise on prostate cancer was assembled and provided with a number of clinical scenarios for consensus treatment and management guidelines. Prostate cancer patient vignettes were presented along with specific management recommendations based on an extensive review of the modern external beam radiotherapy literature. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 2 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of a well established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances, where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.

RESULTS

: Modern external beam radiation therapy series demonstrate favorable biochemical control rates for patients with localized prostate cancer. Morbidity profiles are also favorable and it is clear that this is enhanced by modern techniques like 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy. An active area of investigation is evaluating the use of hypofractionated dosing.

CONCLUSIONS

: Continued investigation to refine patient selection, external beam radiation technology application, and alternative dosing schedules should result in further improvements in biochemical outcome and decreased morbidity with external beam radiation treatment for localized prostate cancer.

Altered fractionation in radiotherapy: from radiobiological rationale to therapeutic gain

The implementation of altered fractionation schedules in clinical practice came as a need to improve loco-regional control and survival in those cancer patient groups which did not respond satisfactorily to conventionally fractionated radiotherapy. The current review aims to present the radiobiological rationale behind various non-conventional treatment schedules including the encountered challenges, through a compilation of clinical studies/trials and their contribution towards therapeutic gain.