Long-term results of the Dutch randomized prostate cancer trial: Impact of dose-escalation on local, biochemical, clinical failure, and survival

Standard whole prostate gland radiotherapy with and without lesion boost in prostate cancer: Toxicity in the FLAME randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

To compare toxicity rates in patients with localized prostate cancer treated with standard fractionated external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with or without an additional integrated boost to the macroscopically visible tumour.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

FLAME is a phase 3 multicentre RCT (NCT01168479) of patients with pathologically confirmed localized intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer. The standard treatment arm (n = 287) received a dose to the entire prostate of 77 Gy in 35 fractions. The dose-escalated treatment arm (n = 284) received 77 Gy in 35 fractions to the entire prostate, with an integrated boost up to 95 Gy to the multi-parametric MRI-defined (macroscopic) tumour within the prostate. Treatment related toxicity was measured using the CTCAE version 3.0. Grade 2 or worse GU or GI events up to two years were compared between groups by presenting proportions and by Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) analyses for repeated measures.

RESULTS

Ninety percent of the 571 men randomly assigned between September 2009 and January 2015 had high-risk disease (Ash 2000), of whom nearly 66% were prescribed hormonal therapy up to three years. Median follow-up was 55 months at the time of this analysis. Toxicity prevalence rates for both GI and GU increased until the end of treatment and regressed thereafter, with no obvious differences across treatment groups. Late cumulative GI toxicity rates were 11.1% and 10.2% for the standard and dose-escalated group, respectively. These rates were 22.6% and 27.1% for GU toxicity. GEE analyses showed that both GU toxicity and GI toxicity (≥grade 2) up to two years after treatment were similar between arms (OR 1.02 95%CI 0.78-1.33p = 0.81 and (OR 1.19 95%CI 0.82-1.73p = 0.38), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer patients, focal dose escalation integrated with standard EBRT did not result in an increase in GU and GI toxicity when compared to the standard treatment up to two years after treatment. This suggests that the described focal dose escalation technique is safe and feasible.

Hypofractionated stereotactic boost in intermediate risk prostate carcinoma: Preliminary results of a multicenter phase II trial (CKNO-PRO)

PURPOSE

Dose escalation may improve curability in intermediate-risk prostate carcinoma. A multicenter national program was developed to assess toxicity and tumor response with hypofractionated stereotactic boost after conventional radiotherapy in intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIAL

Between August 2010 and April 2013, 76 patients with intermediated-risk prostate carcinoma were included in the study. A first course delivered 46 Gy by IMRT (68.4% of patients) or 3D conformal radiotherapy (31.6% of patients). The second course delivered a boost of 18 Gy (3x6Gy) within 10 days. Gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities were evaluated as defined by NCI-CTCAE (v4.0). Secondary outcome measures were local control, overall and metastasis-free survival, PSA kinetics, and patient functional status (urinary and sexual) according to the IIEF5 and IPSS questionnaires.

RESULTS

The overall treatment time was 45 days (median, range 40-55). Median follow-up was 26.4 months (range, 13.6-29.9 months). Seventy-seven per cent (n = 58) of patients presented a Gleason score of 7. At 24 months, biological-free survival was 98.7% (95% CI, 92.8-99.9%) and median PSA 0.46 ng/mL (range, 0.06-6.20 ng/mL). Grade ≥2 acute GI and GU toxicities were 13.2% and 23.7%, respectively. Grade ≥2 late GI and GU toxicities were observed in 6.6% and 2.6% of patients, respectively. No grade 4 toxicity was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Hypofractionated stereotactic boost is effective and safely delivered for intermediate-risk prostate carcinoma after conventional radiation. Mild-term relapse-free survival and tolerance results are promising, and further follow-up is warranted to confirm the results at long term.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01596816.

Pelvic bone anatomy vs implanted gold seed marker registration for image-guided intensity modulated radiotherapy for prostate carcinoma: Comparative analysis of inter-fraction motion and toxicities

OBJECTIVES

We compared the prostate motion variability and toxicities between patients treated with gold marker registration based IG-IMRT (IG-IMRT-M) and bony landmark registration based IG-IMRT (IG-IMRT-B).

METHODS

T1c-T3b (node negative), intermediate and high risk (non-metastatic) adenocarcinoma of prostate, age ≥18years, Karnofsky Performance Status of ≥70 were included in this retrospective study. The prostate motion variability, acute and late radiation toxicities between the two treatment arms (IG-IMRT-M versus IG-IMRT-B) were compared.

RESULTS

Total of 35 patients (17 for IG-IMRT-M and 18 for IG-IMRT-B) were treated with a median radiotherapy dose of 76 Gray. The prostate variability observed with and without markers in millimeter was 4.1±2.3 vs 3.7±2.1 [Antero-Posterior (A-P); p=0.001], 2.3±1.5 vs 2.1±1.2 [Superior-Inferior (S-I); p=0.095] and 1.1±1.7 vs 0.4±1.4 [Left-Right (L-R); p=0.003]. There was higher acute toxicity in IG-IMRT-B arm compared to IG-IMRT-M arm in terms of grade ≥2 diarrhea [50% vs 11% OR=7.5 (1.3-42.7); p=0.02] and grade ≥2 proctitis [38% vs 5.8%, OR=10.1 (1.09-94.1); p=0.04]. At a median follow up of 36months, the late genitourinary toxicities grade ≥2 [27% vs 0%; p=0.04] were higher in the IG-IMRT-B arm compared to IG-IMRT-M arm.

CONCLUSIONS

IG-IMRT-M detects higher prostate motion variability as compared to IG-IMRT-B, inferring a significant prostate motion inside fixed pelvic bony cavity. The addition of marker based image guidance results in higher precision of prostate localization and lesser acute and late toxicities.

Spatial rectal dose/volume metrics predict patient-reported gastro-intestinal symptoms after radiotherapy for prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Gastro-intestinal (GI) toxicity after radiotherapy (RT) for prostate cancer reduces patient's quality of life. In this study, we explored associations between spatial rectal dose/volume metrics and patient-reported GI symptoms after RT for localized prostate cancer, and compared these with those of dose-surface/volume histogram (DSH/DVH) metrics.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Dose distributions and six GI symptoms (defecation urgency/emptying difficulties/fecal leakage, ≥Grade 2, median follow-up: 3.6 y) were extracted for 200 patients treated with image-guided RT in 2005-2007. Three hundred and nine metrics assessed from 2D rectal dose maps or DSHs/DVHs were subject to 50-times iterated five-fold cross-validated univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis (UVA, MVA). Performance of the most frequently selected MVA models was evaluated by the area under the receiving-operating characteristics curve (AUC).

RESULTS

The AUC increased for dose-map compared to DSH/DVH-based models (mean SD: 0.64 ± 0.03 vs. 0.61 ± 0.01), and significant relations were found for six versus four symptoms. Defecation urgency and faecal leakage were explained by high doses at the central/upper and central areas, respectively; while emptying difficulties were explained by longitudinal extensions of intermediate doses.

CONCLUSIONS

Predictability of patient-reported GI toxicity increased using spatial metrics compared to DSH/DVH metrics. Novel associations were particularly identified for emptying difficulties using both approaches in which intermediate doses were emphasized.

Consensus statement on definition, diagnosis, and management of high-risk prostate cancer patients on behalf of the Spanish Groups of Uro-Oncology Societies URONCOR, GUO, and SOGUG

PURPOSE

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most prevalent malignancy in men and the second cause of mortality in industrialized countries.

METHODS

Based on Spanish Register of PCa, the incidence of high-risk PCa is 29%, approximately. In spite of the evidence-based beneficial effect of radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy in high-risk PCa, these patients (pts) are still a therapeutic challenge for all specialists involved, in part due to the absence of comparative studies to establish which of the present disposable treatments offer better results.

RESULTS

Nowadays, high-risk PCa definition is not well consensual through the published oncology guides. Clinical stage, tumour grade, and number of risk factors are relevant to be considered on PCa prognosis. However, these factors are susceptible to change depending on when surgical or radiation therapy is considered to be the treatment of choice. Other factors, such as reference pathologist, different diagnosis biopsy schedules, surgical or radiotherapy techniques, adjuvant treatments, biochemical failures, and follow-up, make it difficult to compare the results between different therapeutic options.

CONCLUSIONS

This article reviews important issues concerning high-risk PCa. URONCOR, GUO, and SOGUG on behalf of the Spanish Groups of Uro-Oncology Societies have reached a consensus addressing a practical recommendation on definition, diagnosis, and management of high-risk PCa.

Rectal/urinary toxicity after hypofractionated vs conventional radiotherapy in low/intermediate risk localized prostate cancer: systematic review and meta analysis

Purpose

The aim of this review was to compare radiation toxicity in Localized Prostate Cancer (LPC) patients who underwent conventional fractionation (CV), hypofractionated (HYPO) or extreme hypofractionated (eHYPO) radiotherapy. We analyzed the impact of technological innovation on the management of prostate cancer, attempting to make a meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Methods

PubMed database has been explored for studies concerning acute and late urinary/gastrointestinal toxicity in low/intermediate risk LPC patients after receiving radiotherapy. Studies were then gathered into 5 groups: detected acute and chronic toxicity data from phase II non randomized trials were analyzed and Odds Ratio (OR) was calculated by comparing the number of patients with G0-1 toxicity and those with toxicity > G2 in the studied groups. A meta-analysis of prospective randomized trials was also carried out.

Results

The initial search yielded 575 results, but only 32 manuscripts met all eligibility requirements: in terms of radiation-induced side effects, such as gastrointestinal and genitourinary acute and late toxicity, hypofractionated 3DCRT seemed to be more advantageous than 3DCRT with conventional fractionation as well as IMRT with conventional fractionation compared to 3DCRT with conventional fractionation; furthermore, IMRT hypofractionated technique appeared more advantageous than IMRT with conventional fractionation in late toxicities. Randomized trials meta-analysis disclosed an advantage in terms of acute gastrointestinal and late genitourinary toxicity for Hypofractionated schemes.

Conclusions

Although our analysis pointed out a more favorable toxicity profile in terms of gastrointestinal acute side effects of conventional radiotherapy schemes compared to hypofractionated ones, prospective randomized trials are needed to better understand the real incidence of rectal and urinary toxicity in patients receiving radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer.

Long-term economic value of hypofractionated prostate radiation: Secondary analysis of a randomized trial

Purpose

Moderately hypofractionated intensity modulated radiation therapy (HIMRT) for prostate cancer shortens the treatment course while providing outcomes comparable with those of conventional intensity modulated radiation therapy (CIMRT). To determine the long-term economic value of HIMRT, including the costs of managing long-term radiation toxicities, a cost minimization analysis compared CIMRT with dose-escalated HIMRT using patient-level data from a randomized trial.

Methods and materials

Men with localized prostate cancer were randomized to CIMRT (75.6 Gy in 42 fractions over 8.4 weeks) or HIMRT (72 Gy in 30 fractions over 6 weeks). A decision tree modeled trial probabilities of maximum late bowel and urinary toxicities using patient-level data with a median follow-up of 6 years. Costs were estimated from the healthcare perspective using the 2014 national reimbursement rates for services received. Patient-level institutional costs, adjusted to 2014 dollars, verified reimbursements. A sensitivity analysis assessed model uncertainty.

Results

The cost for HIMRT and toxicity management was $22,957, saving $7,000 compared with CIMRT ($30,241). CIMRT was the common factor among the 5 most influential scenarios that contributed to total costs. Toxicity represented a small part (<10%) of the average total cost for patients with either grade 2-3 bowel toxicity or grade 2-3 urinary toxicity. However, toxicity management reached up to 26% of the total cost for patients with both high-grade bowel and urinary toxicities. There was no threshold at which CIMRT became the less costly regimen. Institutional costs confirmed the economic value of HIMRT ($6,000 in savings).

Conclusions

HIMRT is more cost-efficient than CIMRT for treating prostate cancer, even when taking into account the costs related to late radiation toxicities. HIMRT enhances the value of prostate radiation when compared with CIMRT.

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy from 70Gy to 80Gy in prostate cancer: six- year outcomes and predictors of late toxicity

Objective

To report grade ≥2 overall late rectal and urinary toxicities in patients (pts) with prostate cancer treated by intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) at 3 dose-levels. Identify predictors of radiation toxicity and report biochemical progression free survival (bPFS).

Methods

A total of 277 pts were treated with 70Gy (10.8%), 74Gy (63.9%) and 80 Gy (25.3%) using IMRT without pelvic irradiation were analyzed. Short or long-course androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was allowed in 46.1% of pts. The toxicity was described using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4.0 scale. Cox regression models addressed demographics, disease and dosimetry characteristics as potential predictors of late grade ≥2 toxicity after adjusting for other modifying factors.

Results

The median follow-up was 77 months (range 15; 150). There was no grade ≥4 toxicity. The 5-year cumulative rate of grade ≥2 late rectal and urinary toxicities was 6.3% (95% CI = 3.8%; 10.3%) and 25.3% (95% CI = 19.8%; 31.8%) respectively. In multivariate analysis, only the dose (80Gy vs 74 and 70Gy) was found to increase the risk of rectal toxicity (HR = 2.96 [1.07; 8.20]). For pts receiving 74 Gy, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at baseline ≥8 (HR = 2.40 [1.08; 5.35]) and dose ≥73Gy delivered in more than 2% of bladder (D2%) were found to be predictors of bladder toxicity (HR = 3.29 [1.36; 7.98]). The 5–year biochemical relapse free survival was 81.0% [74.5%; 86.0%] in the entire population, 97.5% [83.5%; 99.6%] in the low risk group, 84.9% [76.7%; 90.3%] in the intermediate risk group and 66.4% [51.8%; 77.4%] in the high-risk group. D’Amico low (HR = 0.09 [0.01; 0.69]) and intermediate risk groups (HR = 0.50 [0.28; 0.88]) as well as PSA nadir ≥0.2 ng/ml (HR = 1.79 [1.01; 3.21]) were predictive of biochemical relapse.

Conclusions

The rate of late rectal toxicity increased with higher doses, while Dmax ≥74Gy, D2% ≥ 73Gy for bladder wall and baseline IPSS ≥8 increased late urinary toxicity.

Improved outcomes with dose escalation in localized prostate cancer treated with precision image-guided radiotherapy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Dose-escalated radiotherapy (DE) improves outcomes in localized prostate cancer (PCa). The impact of DE in the context of image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) remains unknown. Herein, we determined outcomes of three sequential cohorts treated with progressive DE-IGRT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed data from 1998 to 2012. Patients treated with radical radiotherapy were included, with three sequential institutional schedules: (A) 75.6Gy, (B) 79.8Gy, (C) 78Gy, with 1.8, 1.9 and 2Gy/fraction, respectively. IGRT consisted of fiducial markers and daily EPID (A, B) or CBCT (C).

RESULTS

961 patients were included, with median follow-up of 6.1y. 30.5%, 32.6% and 36.9% were treated in A, B and C, respectively. Risk category distribution was 179 (18.6%) low-, 653 (67.9%) intermediate- and 129 (13.5%) high-risk. PSA, T-category, androgen deprivation use and risk distribution were similar among groups. BCR (biochemical recurrence) was different (p<0.001) between A, B and C with 5-year rates of 23%, 17% and 9%, respectively (HR 2.68 [95% CI 1.87-3.85] and 1.92 [95% CI 1.33-2.78] for A and B compared to C, respectively). Findings were most significant in the intermediate-risk category. Metastasis, cause-specific-death and toxicities were not different between cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest continuous BCR improvement with progressive DE-IGRT. Prospective validation considering further DE with IGRT seems warranted.

Rectal dose to prostate cancer patients treated with proton therapy with or without rectal spacer

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether a spacer inserted in the prerectal space could reduce modeled rectal dose and toxicity rates for patients with prostate cancer treated in silico with pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy. A total of 20 patients were included in this study who received photon therapy (12 with rectal spacer (DuraSeal™ gel) and 8 without). Two PBS treatment plans were retrospectively created for each patient using the following beam arrangements: (1) lateral-opposed (LAT) fields and (2) left and right anterior oblique (LAO/RAO) fields. Dose volume histograms (DVH) were generated for the prostate, rectum, bladder, and right and left femoral heads. The normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for ≥grade 2 rectal toxicity was calculated using the Lyman-Kutcher-Burman model and compared between patients with and without the rectal spacer. A significantly lower mean rectal DVH was achieved in patients with rectal spacer compared to those without. For LAT plans, the mean rectal V70 with and without rectal spacer was 4.19 and 13.5%, respectively. For LAO/RAO plans, the mean rectal V70 with and without rectal spacer was 5.07 and 13.5%, respectively. No significant differences were found in any rectal dosimetric parameters between the LAT and the LAO/RAO plans generated with the rectal spacers. We found that ≥ 9 mm space resulted in a significant decrease in NTCP modeled for ≥grade 2 rectal toxicity. Rectal spacers can significantly decrease modeled rectal dose and predicted ≥grade 2 rectal toxicity in prostate cancer patients treated in silico with PBS. A minimum of 9 mm separation between the prostate and anterior rectal wall yields the largest benefit.

Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy: What Do Clinicians Have to Know?

Radiotherapy (RT) for prostate cancer (PC) has steadily evolved over the last decades, with improving biochemical disease-free survival. Recently population based research also revealed an association between overall survival and doses ≥ 75.6 Gray (Gy) in men with intermediate- and high-risk PC. Examples of improved RT techniques are image-guided RT, intensity-modulated RT, volumetric modulated arc therapy, and stereotactic ablative body RT, which could facilitate further dose escalation. Brachytherapy is an internal form of RT that also developed substantially. New devices such as rectum spacers and balloons have been developed to spare rectal structures. Newer techniques like protons and carbon ions have the intrinsic characteristics maximising the dose on the tumour while minimising the effect on the surrounding healthy tissue, but clinical data are needed for confirmation in randomised phase III trials. Furthermore, it provides an overview of an important discussion issue in PC treatment between urologists and radiation oncologists: the comparison between radical prostatectomy and RT. Current literature reveals that all possible treatment modalities have the same cure rate, but a different toxicity pattern. We recommend proposing the possible different treatment modalities with their own advantages and side-effects to the individual patient. Clinicians and patients should make treatment decisions together (shared decision-making) while using patient decision aids.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of focal and total salvage 125I brachytherapy for recurrent prostate cancer after primary radiotherapy

PURPOSE

Focal salvage (FS) iodine 125 (125I) brachytherapy could be an effective treatment for locally radiorecurrent prostate cancer (PCa). Toxicity is often reduced compared to total salvage (TS) while cancer control can be maintained, which could increase cost-effectiveness. The current study estimates the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of FS compared to TS.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A decision analytic Markov model was developed, which compares costs and QALYs associated with FS and TS. A 3-year time horizon was adopted with six month cycles, with a hospital perspective on costs. Probabilities for genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity and their impact on health-related quality of life (SF-36) were derived from clinical studies in the University Medical Center Utrecht (UMCU). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis, using 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations, was performed to quantify the joint decision uncertainty up to the recommended maximum willingness-to-pay threshold of €80,000/QALY.

RESULTS

Focal salvage dominates TS as it results in less severe toxicity and lower treatment costs. Decision uncertainty is small, with a 97-100% probability for FS to be cost-effective compared to TS (€0-€80,000/QALY). Half of the difference in costs between FS and TS was explained by higher treatment costs of TS, the other half by higher incidence of severe toxicity. One-way sensitivity analyses show that model outcomes are most sensitive to utilities and probabilities for severe toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

Focal salvage 125I brachytherapy dominates TS, as it has lower treatment costs and leads to less toxicity in our center. Larger comparative studies with longer follow-up are necessary to assess the exact influence on (biochemical disease free) survival and toxicity.

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.

Twenty Fraction Prostate Radiotherapy with Intra-prostatic Boost: Results of a Pilot Study

AIMS

For patients with high-risk, locally bulky prostate cancer, an intra-prostatic boost to tumour volumes (dose-painting) offers a risk-adapted dose escalation. We evaluated the feasibility of hypofractionated dose-painting radiotherapy and the associated toxicity. The possibility to streamline a radiobiologically optimised planning protocol was also investigated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-eight patients were treated using a dose-painting approach; boost volumes were identified with functional magnetic resonance imaging scans. The prostate dose outside the boost volume was 60 Gy in 20 fractions, and the maximum integrated boost dose was set to 68 Gy, provided that the dose constraints to the organs at risk could be fulfilled. Rotational intensity-modulated radiotherapy was used with daily image guidance and fiducial markers.

RESULTS

The boost dose was escalated to 68 Gy for 25 patients (median dose 69 Gy, range 68-70 Gy); for three patients the boost dose was 67 Gy, due to the proximity of the urethra and/or the rectum. The mean normal tissue complication probability for rectal bleeding was 4.7% (range 3.4-5.8%) and was 3.5% for faecal incontinence (range 2.3-5.0%). At a median follow-up of 38 months (range 32-45) there was no grade 3 toxicity. Two patients developed grade 2 genitourinary toxicity (7.1%) and none developed grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicity. The mean prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for 23 patients who had stopped the adjuvant hormone therapy with a normal testosterone was 0.27 ng/ml (0.02-0.72) at follow-up; two patients have suppressed PSA and testosterone after stopping 3 year adjuvant hormone and three patients have relapsed (one pelvic node, two PSA only) at 36, 12 and 42 months, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A hypofractionated radiotherapy schedule, 60 Gy in 20 fractions with intra-prostatic boost dose of 68 Gy, can be achieved without exceeding dose constraints for organs at risk. Hypofractionated dose-painting escalated radiotherapy has an acceptable safety profile. The same planning protocol was used in a phase II single-arm trial (BIOPROP20: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02125175) and will further be used in a large phase III randomised trial (PIVOTALboost): patients will be randomised standard radiotherapy (60 Gy in 20 fractions) with or without lymph node radiotherapy versus dose-painting radiotherapy with or without lymph node radiotherapy; the trial will be opened for recruitment in summer 2017.

EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent

OBJECTIVE

To present a summary of the 2016 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU) - European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) - International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) Guidelines on screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent of clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa).

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The working panel performed a literature review of the new data (2013-2015). The guidelines were updated and the levels of evidence and/or grades of recommendation were added based on a systematic review of the evidence.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

BRCA2 mutations have been added as risk factors for early and aggressive disease. In addition to the Gleason score, the five-tier 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology grading system should now be provided. Systematic screening is still not recommended. Instead, an individual risk-adapted strategy following a detailed discussion and taking into account the patient's wishes and life expectancy must be considered. An early prostate-specific antigen test, the use of a risk calculator, or one of the promising biomarker tools are being investigated and might be able to limit the overdetection of insignificant PCa. Breaking the link between diagnosis and treatment may lower the overtreatment risk. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging using standardised reporting cannot replace systematic biopsy, but robustly nested within the diagnostic work-up, it has a key role in local staging. Active surveillance always needs to be discussed with very low-risk patients. The place of surgery in high-risk disease and the role of lymph node dissection have been clarified, as well as the management of node-positive patients. Radiation therapy using dose-escalated intensity-modulated technology is a key treatment modality with recent improvement in the outcome based on increased doses as well as combination with hormonal treatment. Moderate hypofractionation is safe and effective, but longer-term data are still lacking. Brachytherapy represents an effective way to increase the delivered dose. Focal therapy remains experimental while cryosurgery and HIFU are still lacking long-term convincing results.

CONCLUSIONS

The knowledge in the field of diagnosis, staging, and treatment of localised PCa is evolving rapidly. The 2016 EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and advice for the use in clinical practice. These are the first PCa guidelines endorsed by the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology and the International Society of Geriatric Oncology and reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management. A full version is available from the EAU office and online (http://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/).

PATIENT SUMMARY

The 2016 EAU-STRO-IOG Prostate Cancer (PCa) Guidelines present updated information on the diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised prostate cancer. In Northern and Western Europe, the number of men diagnosed with PCa has been on the rise. This may be due to an increase in opportunistic screening, but other factors may also be involved (eg, diet, sexual behaviour, low exposure to ultraviolet radiation). We propose that men who are potential candidates for screening should be engaged in a discussion with their clinician (also involving their families and caregivers) so that an informed decision may be made as part of an individualised risk-adapted approach.

Factors associated with the omission of androgen deprivation therapy in radiation-managed high-risk prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been shown to improve survival for men with unfavorable-risk prostate cancer (PCa). We investigated the utilization and factors associated with the omission of ADT in radiation-managed high-risk PCa.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We used the National Cancer Database to identify men with National Comprehensive Cancer Network high-risk PCa treated with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with or without brachytherapy boost from 2004 to 2012. Multivariable logistic regression adjusting for clinical and sociodemographic factors was used to identify independent predictors for ADT use.

RESULTS

A total of 57,968 radiation-treated high-risk PCa men were included in our analysis. There were 49,363 patients (85.2%) treated with EBRT alone and 8605 patients (14.8%) treated with EBRT plus brachytherapy boost. Overall, 77% of men received ADT. In multivariable regression analysis, the use of brachytherapy boost was associated with a significantly lower utilization of ADT (70% vs. 78%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.62-0.69; p-Value <0.0001), as was treatment at an academic vs. nonacademic center (AOR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.86-0.95; p-Value <0.0001) and treatment in 2010-2012 compared to 2004-2006 (AOR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.81-0.90; p-Value <0.0001). Conversely, greater ADT use was seen with higher Gleason scores, PSA, and T-category (all p-Values <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately one in four men with radiation-managed high-risk PCa do not receive ADT, which may reflect concerns about its toxicity profile despite known improvements in overall survival. Practice patterns suggest that some providers believe dose escalation through brachytherapy boost may obviate the need for ADT in some high-risk patients, but this hypothesis requires further testing.

Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: is it 'what you do' or 'the way that you do it'? A UK Perspective on Technique and Quality Assurance

AIMS

The treatment of prostate cancer has evolved markedly over the last 40 years, including radiotherapy, notably with escalated dose and targeting. However, the optimal treatment for localised disease has not been established in comparative randomised trials. The aim of this article is to describe the history of prostate radiotherapy trials, including their quality assurance processes, and to compare these with the ProtecT trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The UK ProtecT randomised trial compares external beam conformal radiotherapy, surgery and active monitoring for clinically localised prostate cancer and will report on the primary outcome (disease-specific mortality) in 2016 following recruitment between 1999 and 2009. The embedded quality assurance programme consists of on-site machine dosimetry at the nine trial centres, a retrospective review of outlining and adherence to dose constraints based on the trial protocol in 54 participants (randomly selected, around 10% of the total randomised to radiotherapy, n = 545). These quality assurance processes and results were compared with prostate radiotherapy trials of a comparable era.

RESULTS

There has been an increasingly sophisticated quality assurance programme in UK prostate radiotherapy trials over the last 15 years, reflecting dose escalation and treatment complexity. In ProtecT, machine dosimetry results were comparable between trial centres and with the UK RT01 trial. The outlining review showed that most deviations were clinically acceptable, although three (1.4%) may have been of clinical significance and were related to outlining of the prostate. Seminal vesicle outlining varied, possibly due to several prostate trials running concurrently with different protocols. Adherence to dose constraints in ProtecT was considered acceptable, with 80% of randomised participants having two or less deviations and planning target volume coverage was excellent.

CONCLUSION

The ProtecT trial quality assurance results were satisfactory and comparable with trials of its era. Future trials should aim to standardise treatment protocols and quality assurance programmes where possible to reduce complexities for centres involved in multiple trials.

Can we avoid high levels of dose escalation for high-risk prostate cancer in the setting of androgen deprivation?

Aim

Both dose-escalated external beam radiotherapy (DE-EBRT) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improve outcomes in patients with high-risk prostate cancer. However, there is little evidence specifically evaluating DE-EBRT for patients with high-risk prostate cancer receiving ADT, particularly for EBRT doses >74 Gy. We aimed to determine whether DE-EBRT >74 Gy improves outcomes for patients with high-risk prostate cancer receiving long-term ADT.

Patients and methods

Patients with high-risk prostate cancer were treated on an institutional protocol prescribing 3–6 months neoadjuvant ADT and DE-EBRT, followed by 2 years of adjuvant ADT. Between 2006 and 2012, EBRT doses were escalated from 74 Gy to 76 Gy and then to 78 Gy. We interrogated our electronic medical record to identify these patients and analyzed our results by comparing dose levels.

Results

In all, 479 patients were treated with a 68-month median follow-up. The 5-year biochemical disease-free survivals for the 74 Gy, 76 Gy, and 78 Gy groups were 87.8%, 86.9%, and 91.6%, respectively. The metastasis-free survivals were 95.5%, 94.5%, and 93.9%, respectively, and the prostate cancer-specific survivals were 100%, 94.4%, and 98.1%, respectively. Dose escalation had no impact on any outcome in either univariate or multivariate analysis.

Conclusion

There was no benefit of DE-EBRT >74 Gy in our cohort of high-risk prostate patients treated with long-term ADT. As dose escalation has higher risks of radiotherapy-induced toxicity, it may be feasible to omit dose escalation beyond 74 Gy in this group of patients. Randomized studies evaluating dose escalation for high-risk patients receiving ADT should be considered.

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy reduces toxicity with similar biochemical control compared with 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer: A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The objective of this article was to report the results from a randomized clinical trial comparing intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with 3-dimensonal conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) for the treatment of prostate cancer on a hypofractionated schedule.

METHODS

The authors randomly assigned 215 men who had localized prostate cancer to receive hypofractionated radiotherapy to a total dose of 70 grays (Gy) in 25 fractions (at 2.8 Gy per fraction) using either IMRT or 3DCRT. Acute and late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity were prospectively evaluated according to modified Radiation Therapy Oncology Group criteria. Biochemical control was defined according to the Phoenix criteria (prostate-specific antigen nadir + 2 ng/mL).

RESULTS

In total, 215 patients were enrolled in the IMRT group (n = 109) or the 3DCRT group (n = 106). The 3DCRT arm had a 27% rate of grade ≥ 2 acute GU toxicity compared with a 9% rate in the IMRT arm (P = .001) and a 24% rate of grade ≥ 2 acute GI toxicity compared with a 7% rate in the IMRT arm (P = .001). The maximal rate of grade ≥2 late GU toxicity during the entire period of follow-up was 3.7% in the IMRT group versus 12.3% in the 3DCRT group (P = .02). The maximal rate of grade ≥2 late GI toxicity during the entire follow-up was 6.4% in the IMRT group versus 21.7% in the 3DCRT group (P = .001). The 5-year rate of freedom from biochemical failure was 95.4% in the IMRT arm and 94.3% in the 3DCRT arm (P = .678).

CONCLUSIONS

IMRT reduced the delivery of significant radiation doses to the bladder and rectum using a similar target volume. This dosimetric advantage resulted in a lower rate of acute/late grade ≥ 2 GI and GU toxicity for IMRT compared with 3DCRT. Cancer 2016;122:2004-11. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Can we avoid dose escalation for intermediate-risk prostate cancer in the setting of short-course neoadjuvant androgen deprivation?

Background

Both dose-escalated external beam radiotherapy (DE-EBRT) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improve the outcomes in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Despite this, there are only few reports evaluating DE-EBRT for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer receiving neoadjuvant ADT, and virtually no studies investigating dose escalation >74 Gy in this setting. We aimed to determine whether DE-EBRT >74 Gy improved the outcomes for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer who received neoadjuvant ADT.

Findings

In our institution, patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer were treated with neoadjuvant ADT and DE-EBRT, with doses sequentially increasing from 74 Gy to 76 Gy and then to 78 Gy between 2006 and 2012. We identified 435 patients treated with DE-EBRT and ADT, with a median follow-up of 70 months. For the 74 Gy, 76 Gy, and 78 Gy groups, five-year biochemical disease-free survival rates were 95.0%, 97.8%, and 95.3%, respectively; metastasis-free survival rates were 99.1%, 100.0%, and 98.6%, respectively; and prostate cancer-specific survival rate was 100% for all three dose levels. There was no significant benefit for dose escalation either on univariate or multivariate analysis for any outcome.

Conclusion

There was no benefit for DE-EBRT >74 Gy in our cohort of intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant ADT. Given the higher risks of toxicity associated with dose escalation, it may be feasible to omit dose escalation in this group of patients. Randomized studies evaluating dose de-escalation should be considered.

Predictive factors for urinary toxicity after iodine-125 prostate brachytherapy with or without supplemental external beam radiotherapy

PURPOSE

We examined the factors associated with urinary toxicities because of brachytherapy with iodine-125 with or without supplemental external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We investigated 1313 patients with localized prostate cancer treated with iodine-125 brachytherapy with or without supplemental EBRT between 2003 and 2009. The International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events data were prospectively determined. Patients, treatment, and implant factors were investigated for their association with urinary toxicity or symptoms.

RESULTS

IPSS resolution was not associated with biologically effective dose (BED). Baseline IPSS, total needles, and the minimal dose received by 30% of the urethra had the greatest effect according to multivariate analysis (MVA). Urinary symptom flare was associated with baseline IPSS, age, BED, and EBRT on MVA. Urinary symptom flare and urinary Grade 2 or higher (G2+) toxicity occurred in 51%, 58%, and 67% (p = 0.025) and 16%, 22%, and 20% (p = 0.497) of the <180, 180-220, and >220 Gy BED groups, respectively. Urinary G2+ toxicity was associated with baseline IPSS, neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (NADT), and seed density on MVA. When we divided patients into four groups according to prostate volume (<30 cc or ≥30 cc) and NADT use, urinary G2+ toxicity was most commonly observed in those patients with larger prostates who received NADT, and least in the patients with smaller prostates and no NADT.

CONCLUSIONS

NADT was associated with urinary G2+ toxicity. Higher dose and supplemental EBRT did not appear to increase moderate to severe urinary toxicities or time to IPSS resolution; however, it influenced urinary symptom flare.

Prostate Radiotherapy in the Era of Advanced Imaging and Precision Medicine

Tremendous technological advancements in prostate radiotherapy have decreased treatment toxicity and improved clinical outcomes for men with prostate cancer. While these advances have allowed for significant treatment volume reduction and whole-organ dose escalation, further improvement in prostate radiotherapy has been limited by classic techniques for diagnosis and risk stratification. Developments in prostate imaging, image-guided targeted biopsy, next-generation gene expression profiling, and targeted molecular therapies now provide information to stratify patients and select treatments based on tumor biology. Image-guided targeted biopsy improves detection of clinically significant cases of prostate cancer and provides important information about the biological behavior of intraprostatic lesions which can further guide treatment decisions. We review the evolution of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MRI-ultrasound fusion-guided prostate biopsy. Recent advancements in radiation therapy including dose escalation, moderate and extreme hypofractionation, partial prostate radiation therapy, and finally dose escalation by simultaneous integrated boost are discussed. We also review next-generation sequencing and discuss developments in targeted molecular therapies. Last, we review ongoing clinical trials and future treatment paradigms that integrate targeted biopsy, molecular profiling and therapy, and prostate radiotherapy.

Ten-year outcomes of intensity-modulated radiation therapy combined with neoadjuvant hormonal therapy for intermediate- and high-risk patients with T1c-T2N0M0 prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

We aimed to analyze the 10-year outcomes of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) combined with neoadjuvant hormonal therapy (HT) for patients with intermediate- and high-risk T1c-T2N0M0 prostate cancer.

METHODS

Fifty patients with T1c-T2N0M0 prostate cancer, who were treated with high-dose IMRT combined with neoadjuvant HT, were evaluated. Of these patients, 19 and 31 were classified into the intermediate- and high-risk groups, respectively. Neoadjuvant HT was administered over a median duration of 6 months; 74 and 78 Gy in 2 Gy per fraction were essentially delivered to the intermediate- and high-risk cases, respectively. Adjuvant HT was not administered to any of the patients after the completion of IMRT.

RESULTS

Over a median follow-up period of 118 months, the 10-year prostate-specific antigen failure-free survival, prostate-specific antigen failure-free, salvage hormonal therapy-free, prostate cancer-specific survival, and overall survival rates were 70.2 %, 78.7 %, 89.2 %, 100 %, and 88.8 %, respectively. No grade 3 or higher acute or late toxicities were observed. The 10-year likelihoods of developing grade 2 late urinary and rectal toxicities were 13.7 % and 4.2 %, respectively. Compared with the outcomes of a cohort of historical controls who were locally irradiated with 70 Gy by three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, the prostate-specific antigen failure-free rate was significantly better in the IMRT groups (78.7 % vs. 53.4 % at 10 years; p = 0.027).

CONCLUSIONS

High-dose IMRT combined with neoadjuvant HT achieved not only high prostate-specific antigen control, but also excellent survival outcomes with acceptable morbidities, for a Japanese cohort of intermediate- and high-risk T1c-T2N0M0 prostate cancer patients, and these results warrant further investigation.

Very High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer: Outcomes Following Definitive Radiation

PURPOSE

Existing definitions of high-risk prostate cancer consist of men who experience significant heterogeneity in outcomes. As such, criteria that identify a subpopulation of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high-risk prostate cancer patients who are at very high risk (VHR) for poor survival outcomes following prostatectomy were recently developed at our institution and include the presence of any of the following disease characteristics: multiple NCCN high-risk factors, primary Gleason pattern 5 disease and/or ≥5 biopsy cores with Gleason sums of 8 to 10. Whether these criteria also apply to men undergoing definitive radiation is unclear, as is the optimal treatment regimen in these patients.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

All men consecutively treated with definitive radiation by a single provider from 1993 to 2006 and who fulfilled criteria for NCCN high-risk disease were identified (n=288), including 99 patients (34%) with VHR disease. Multivariate-adjusted competing risk regression models were constructed to assess associations between the VHR definition and biochemical failure (BF), distant metastasis (DM), and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM). Multivariate-adjusted Cox regression analysis assessed the association of the VHR definition with overall mortality (OM). Cumulative incidences of failure endpoints were compared between VHR men and other NCCN high-risk men.

RESULTS

Men with VHR disease compared to other NCCN high-risk men experienced a higher 10-year incidence of BF (54.0% vs 35.4%, respectively, P<.001), DM (34.9% vs 13.4%, respectively, P<.001), PCSM (18.5% vs 5.9%, respectively, P<.001), and OM (36.4% vs 27.0%, respectively, P=.04). VHR men with a detectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration at the end of radiation (EOR) remained at high risk of 10-year PCSM compared to VHR men with an undetectable EOR PSA (31.0% vs 13.7%, respectively, P=.05).

CONCLUSIONS

NCCN high-risk prostate cancer patients who meet VHR criteria experience distinctly worse outcomes following definitive radiation and long-term androgen deprivation therapy, particularly if an EOR PSA is detectable. Optimal use of local therapies for VHR patients should be explored further, as should novel agents.

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

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

Moderate Hypofractionated Protracted Radiation Therapy and Dose Escalation for Prostate Cancer: Do Dose and Overall Treatment Time Matter?

PURPOSE

This was a retrospective study of 2 sequential dose escalation regimens of twice-weekly 4 Gy/fractions hypofractionated intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT): 56 Gy and 60 Gy delivered within a protracted overall treatment time (OTT) of 6.5 and 7 weeks, respectively.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

163 prostate cancer patients with cT1c-T3a disease and nodal involvement risk ≤20% (Roach index) were treated twice weekly to the prostate ± seminal vesicles with 2 sequential dose-escalated IMRT schedules: 56 Gy (14 × 4 Gy, n=81) from 2003 to 2007 and 60 Gy (15 × 4 Gy, n=82) from 2006 to 2010. Patient repositioning was made with bone matching on portal images. Gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities were scored according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0 grading scale.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences regarding the acute GU and GI toxicities in the 2 dose groups. The median follow-up times were 80.2 months (range, 4.5-121 months) and 56.5 months (range, 1.4-91.2 months) for patients treated to 56 and 60 Gy, respectively. The 5-year grade ≥2 late GU toxicity-free survivals with 56 Gy and 60 Gy were 96 ± 2.3% and 78.2 ± 5.1% (P=.001), respectively. The 5-year grade ≥2 late GI toxicity-free survivals with 56 Gy and 60 Gy were 98.6 ± 1.3% and 85.1 ± 4.5% (P=.005), respectively. Patients treated with 56 Gy showed a 5-year biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS) of 80.8 ± 4.7%, worse than patients treated with 60 Gy (93.2 ± 3.9%, P=.007). A trend for a better 5-year distant metastasis-free survival was observed among patients treated in the high-dose group (95.3 ± 2.7% vs 100%, P=.073, respectively). On multivariate analysis, only the 60-Gy group predicted for a better bPFS (P=.016, hazard ratio = 4.58).

CONCLUSIONS

A single 4-Gy additional fraction in patients treated with a hypofractionated protracted IMRT schedule of 14 × 4 Gy resulted in a similar and minimal acute toxicity, in worse moderate to severe urinary and GI late effects, but a significantly better biochemical control.

Accumulated dose to the rectum, measured using dose-volume histograms and dose-surface maps, is different from planned dose in all patients treated with radiotherapy for prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

We sought to calculate accumulated dose (DA) to the rectum in patients treated with radiotherapy for prostate cancer. We were particularly interested in whether dose-surface maps (DSMs) provide additional information to dose-volume histograms (DVHs).

METHODS

Manual rectal contours were obtained for kilovoltage and daily megavoltage CT scans for 10 participants from the VoxTox study (380 scans). Daily delivered dose recalculation was performed using a ray-tracing algorithm. Delivered DVHs were summated to create accumulated DVHs. The rectum was considered as a cylinder, cut and unfolded to produce daily delivered DSMs; these were summated to produce accumulated DSMs.

RESULTS

Accumulated dose-volumes were different from planned in all participants. For one participant, all DA levels were higher and all volumes were larger than planned. For four participants, all DA levels were lower and all volumes were smaller than planned. For each of these four participants, ≥1% of pixels on the accumulated DSM received ≥5 Gy more than had been planned.

CONCLUSION

Differences between accumulated and planned dose-volumes were seen in all participants. DSMs were able to identify differences between DA and planned dose that could not be appreciated from the DVHs. Further work is needed to extract the dose data embedded in the DSMs. These will be correlated with toxicity as part of the VoxTox Programme.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

DSMs are able to identify differences between DA and planned dose that cannot be appreciated from DVHs alone and should be incorporated into future studies investigating links between DA and toxicity.

A method for evaluation of proton plan robustness towards inter-fractional motion applied to pelvic lymph node irradiation

BACKGROUND

The benefit of proton therapy may be jeopardized by dose deterioration caused by water equivalent path length (WEPL) variations. In this study we introduced a method to evaluate robustness of proton therapy with respect to inter-fractional motion and applied it to irradiation of the pelvic lymph nodes (LNs) from different beam angles. Patient- versus population-specific patterns in dose deterioration were explored.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patient data sets consisting of a planning computed tomography (pCT) as well as multiple repeat CT (rCT) scans for three patients were used, with target volumes and organs at risk (ORs) outlined in all scans. Single beam spot scanning proton plans were optimized for the left and right LN targets separately, across all possible beam angle configurations (5° angle intervals). Isotropic margins of 0, 3, 5 and 7 mm from the clinical target volume (CTV) to the planning target volume (PTV) were investigated. The optimized fluence maps for the pCT for each beam were applied onto all rCTs and the dose distributions were re-calculated. WEPL variation for each beam angle was computed by averaging over beams eye view WEPL distributions.

RESULTS

Similarity in deterioration patterns were found for the investigated patients, with beam angles delivering less dose to rectum, bladder and overall normal tissue identified around 40° and around 150°-160° for the left LNs, and corresponding angles for the right LNs. These angles were also associated with low values of WEPL variation.

CONCLUSION

We have established and explored a method to quantify the robustness towards inter-fractional motion of single beam proton plans treating the pelvic LNs from different beam configurations and with different CTV to PTV margins. For the patients investigated we were able to identify beam orientations that were robust to dose deterioration in the target and ORs.

An image-based method to quantify biomechanical properties of the rectum in radiotherapy of prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal morbidity after radiotherapy (RT) for prostate cancer may be related to the biomechanical properties of the rectum. In this study we present a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based method to quantitate the thickness and elasticity of the rectal wall in prostate cancer patients treated with RT.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Four patients previously treated with RT for prostate cancer underwent an MRI session with stepwise rectal bag deflation (from a maximum tolerable volume to 0 ml, in 50 ml steps), with a probe inserted inside the bag to monitor the internal rectal pressure. MRIs were acquired using Dixon sequences (4 mm axial slice thickness) at each deflation step. Rectal walls were defined from the recto-sigmoid junction to 3 cm above the anal canal as the space between the inner and outer wall surfaces. The wall thickness was determined and biomechanical properties (strain and stress) were calculated from the pressure measurements and the MRI-segmented rectal walls.

RESULTS

The integral rectal pressure varied for the maximum tolerable volume (range 150-250 ml) across patients and ranged from 1.3 to 4.0 kPa (SD = 1.2 kPa). Wall thickness was found to vary between patients and also across different rectum segments, with a mean (SD) thickness for the different segments at the 50 ml distension volume of 1.8-4.0 (0.6) mm. Stress showed larger variation than strain, with mean (SD) values for the different segments ranging between 1.5 and 7.0 (1.5) kPa.

CONCLUSION

We have developed a method to quantify biomechanical properties of the rectal wall. The resulting rectal wall thickness, strain and stress differed between patients, as well as across different rectal wall sections. These findings could provide guidance in future predictive outcome modelling in order to better understand the rectal dose-volume response relationship.

Hypofractionated Helical Tomotherapy for Older Aged Patients With Prostate Cancer: Preliminary Results of a Phase I-II Trial

In our center, the feasibility and related acute toxicities of hypofractionated helical tomotherapy have been evaluated in older aged patients with prostate cancer . Between February 2009 and February 2014, 67 patients (older than 65 years) were enrolled in a prospective phase I-II study (registered number, ChiCTR-ONC-13004037). Patients in cohort 1 (n = 33) and cohort 2 (n = 34) received 76 Gy in 34 fractions (2.25 Gy/F) and 71.6 Gy in 28 fractions (2.65 Gy/F), respectively, to the prostate and seminal vesicles, while 25 patients in cohort 2 also received integrated elective lymph node irradiation (50.4 Gy). All patients were treated with helical tomotherapy, and daily image guidance was performed before each treatment. Acute toxicities were assessed with Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG)/European Organization for Research on Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) criteria. No significant difference was detected between the 2 cohorts in the incidence of acute toxicities. In cohort 1, the incidences of grade 1 and 2 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were 45.5% and 45.4%, respectively, and without grade 3 and 4 toxicities. In cohort 2, the incidences of acute grade 1 and 2 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were 47.1% and 55.9%, respectively, and grade 3 genitourinary toxicity (hematuria) was noted only in 1 patient. No significant difference was detected in the incidence of acute toxicities between the patients receiving integrated elective lymph node irradiation and those receiving irradiation to prostate and seminal vesicle in cohort 2. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed with clinical parameters. Only the baseline weight was found negatively correlated with genitourinary toxicities at a weak level (relative risk = 0.946, 95% confidence interval 0.896-0.998], P = .043). This study shows that 2 hypofractionation regimens (76 Gy/34F and 71.6 Gy/28F) delivered with HT are well tolerated in older aged patients having prostate cancer without significant difference for acute toxicities between the 2 cohorts. Late toxicities and treatment outcomes for these patients are under investigation.

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.

Acute toxicity after image-guided intensity modulated radiation therapy compared to 3D conformal radiation therapy in prostate cancer patients

PURPOSE

Image-guided intensity modulated radiation therapy (IG-IMRT) allows significant dose reductions to organs at risk in prostate cancer patients. However, clinical data identifying the benefits of IG-IMRT in daily practice are scarce. The purpose of this study was to compare dose distributions to organs at risk and acute gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity levels of patients treated to 78 Gy with either IG-IMRT or 3D-CRT.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients treated with 3D-CRT (n=215) and IG-IMRT (n=260) receiving 78 Gy in 39 fractions within 2 randomized trials were selected. Dose surface histograms of anorectum, anal canal, and bladder were calculated. Identical toxicity questionnaires were distributed at baseline, prior to fraction 20 and 30 and at 90 days after treatment. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grade ≥1, ≥2, and ≥3 endpoints were derived directly from questionnaires. Univariate and multivariate binary logistic regression analyses were applied.

RESULTS

The median volumes receiving 5 to 75 Gy were significantly lower (all P<.001) with IG-IMRT for anorectum, anal canal, and bladder. The mean dose to the anorectum was 34.4 Gy versus 47.3 Gy (P<.001), 23.6 Gy versus 44.6 Gy for the anal canal (P<.001), and 33.1 Gy versus 43.2 Gy for the bladder (P<.001). Significantly lower grade ≥2 toxicity was observed for proctitis, stool frequency ≥6/day, and urinary frequency ≥12/day. IG-IMRT resulted in significantly lower overall RTOG grade ≥2 GI toxicity (29% vs 49%, respectively, P=.002) and overall GU grade ≥2 toxicity (38% vs 48%, respectively, P=.009).

CONCLUSIONS

A clinically meaningful reduction in dose to organs at risk and acute toxicity levels was observed in IG-IMRT patients, as a result of improved technique and tighter margins. Therefore reduced late toxicity levels can be expected as well; additional research is needed to quantify such reductions.

Importance of Local Control in Early-Stage Prostate Cancer: Outcomes of Patients With Positive Post-Radiation Therapy Biopsy Results Treated in RTOG 9408

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to assess the association between positive post-radiation therapy (RT) biopsy results and subsequent clinical outcomes in males with localized prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Radiation Therapy Oncology Group study 94-08 analyzed 1979 males with prostate cancer, stage T1b-T2b and prostate-specific antigen concentrations of ≤ 20 ng/dL, to investigate whether 4 months of total androgen suppression (TAS) added to RT improved survival compared to RT alone. Patients randomized to receive TAS received flutamide with luteinizing hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist. According to protocol, patients without evidence of clinical recurrence or initiation of additional endocrine therapy underwent repeat prostate biopsy 2 years after RT completion. Statistical analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of positive post-RT biopsy results on clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 831 patients underwent post-RT biopsy, 398 were treated with RT alone and 433 with RT plus TAS. Patients with positive post-RT biopsy results had higher rates of biochemical failure (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.3-2.1) and distant metastasis (HR = 2.4; 95% CI = 1.3-4.4) and inferior disease-specific survival (HR = 3.8; 95% CI = 1.9-7.5). Positive biopsy results remained predictive of such outcomes after correction for potential confounders such as Gleason score, tumor stage, and TAS administration. Prior TAS therapy did not prevent elevated risk of adverse outcome in the setting of post-RT positive biopsy results. Patients with Gleason score ≥ 7 with a positive biopsy result additionally had inferior overall survival compared to those with a negative biopsy result (HR = 1.56; 95% CI = 1.04-2.35).

CONCLUSIONS

Positive post-RT biopsy is associated with increased rates of distant metastases and inferior disease-specific survival in patients treated with definitive RT and was associated with inferior overall survival in patients with high-grade tumors.

Brachytherapy improves biochemical failure-free survival in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer compared with conventionally fractionated external beam radiation therapy: a propensity score matched analysis

PURPOSE

To compare, in a retrospective study, biochemical failure-free survival (bFFS) and overall survival (OS) in low-risk and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients who received brachytherapy (BT) (either low-dose-rate brachytherapy [LDR-BT] or high-dose-rate brachytherapy with external beam radiation therapy [HDR-BT+EBRT]) versus external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) alone.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patient data were obtained from the ProCaRS database, which contains 7974 prostate cancer patients treated with primary radiation therapy at four Canadian cancer institutions from 1994 to 2010. Propensity score matching was used to obtain the following 3 matched cohorts with balanced baseline prognostic factors: (1) low-risk LDR-BT versus EBRT; (2) intermediate-risk LDR-BT versus EBRT; and (3) intermediate-risk HDR-BT+EBRT versus EBRT. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to compare differences in bFFS (primary endpoint) and OS in the 3 matched groups.

RESULTS

Propensity score matching created acceptable balance in the baseline prognostic factors in all matches. Final matches included 2 1:1 matches in the intermediate-risk cohorts, LDR-BT versus EBRT (total n=254) and HDR-BT+EBRT versus EBRT (total n=388), and one 4:1 match in the low-risk cohort (LDR-BT:EBRT, total n=400). Median follow-up ranged from 2.7 to 7.3 years for the 3 matched cohorts. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed that all BT treatment options were associated with statistically significant improvements in bFFS when compared with EBRT in all cohorts (intermediate-risk EBRT vs LDR-BT hazard ratio [HR] 4.58, P=.001; intermediate-risk EBRT vs HDR-BT+EBRT HR 2.08, P=.007; low-risk EBRT vs LDR-BT HR 2.90, P=.004). No significant difference in OS was found in all comparisons (intermediate-risk EBRT vs LDR-BT HR 1.27, P=.687; intermediate-risk EBRT vs HDR-BT+EBRT HR 1.55, P=.470; low-risk LDR-BT vs EBRT HR 1.41, P=.500).

CONCLUSIONS

Propensity score matched analysis showed that BT options led to statistically significant improvements in bFFS in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patient populations.