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

Long-term results of the M. D. Anderson randomized dose-escalation trial for prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To report the long-term results of a randomized radiotherapy dose escalation trial for prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

From 1993 to 1998, a total of 301 patients with stage T1b to T3 prostate cancer were accrued to a randomized external beam dose escalation trial using 70 Gy versus 78 Gy. The median follow-up is now 8.7 years. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to compute rates of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure (nadir + 2), clinical failure, distant metastasis, disease-specific, and overall survival as well as complication rates at 8 years post-treatment.

RESULTS

For all patients, freedom from biochemical or clinical failure (FFF) was superior for the 78-Gy arm, 78%, as compared with 59% for the 70-Gy arm (p = 0.004, and an even greater benefit was seen in patients with initial PSA >10 ng/ml (78% vs. 39%, p = 0.001). The clinical failure rate was significantly reduced in the 78-Gy arm as well (7% vs. 15%, p = 0.014). Twice as many patients either died of prostate cancer or are currently alive with cancer in the 70-Gy arm. Gastrointestinal toxicity of grade 2 or greater occurred twice as often in the high dose patients (26% vs. 13%), although genitourinary toxicity of grade 2 or greater was less (13% vs. 8%) and not statistically significantly different. Dose-volume histogram analysis showed that the complication rate could be significantly decreased by reducing the amount of treated rectum.

CONCLUSIONS

Modest escalation in radiotherapy dose improved freedom from biochemical and clinical progression with the largest benefit in prostate cancer patients with PSA >10 ng/ml.

Evidence-based radiation oncology: Definitive, adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy for non-metastatic prostate cancer

The standard treatment options based on the risk category (stage, Gleason score, PSA) for localized prostate cancer include surgery, radiotherapy and watchful waiting. The literature does not provide clear-cut evidence for the superiority of surgery over radiotherapy, whereas both approaches differ in their side effects. The definitive external beam irradiation is frequently employed in stage T1b-T1c, T2 and T3 tumors. There is a pretty strong evidence that intermediate- and high-risk patients benefit from dose escalation. The latter requires reduction of the irradiated normal tissue (using 3-dimensional conformal approach, intensity modulated radiotherapy, image-guided radiotherapy, etc.). Recent data suggest that prostate cancer may benefit from hypofractionation due to relatively low alpha/beta ratio; these findings warrant confirmation though. The role of whole pelvis irradiation is still controversial. Numerous randomized trials demonstrated a clinical benefit in terms of biochemical control, local and distant control, and overall survival from the addition of androgen suppression to external beam radiotherapy in intermediate- and high-risk patients. These studies typically included locally advanced (T3-T4) and poor-prognosis (Gleason score >7 and/or PSA >20 ng/mL) tumors and employed neoadjuvant/concomitant/adjuvant androgen suppression rather than only adjuvant setting. The ongoing trials will hopefully further define the role of endocrine treatment in more favorable risk patients and in the setting of the dose escalated radiotherapy. Brachytherapy (BRT) with permanent implants may be offered to low-risk patients (cT1-T2a, Gleason score <7, or 3+4, PSA <or=10 ng/mL), with prostate volume of <or=50 ml, no previous transurethral prostate resection and a good urinary function. Some recent data suggest a benefit from combining external beam irradiation and BRT for intermediate-risk patients. EBRT after radical prostatectomy improves disease-free survival and biochemical and local control rates in patients with positive surgical margins or pT3 tumors. Salvage radiotherapy may be considered at the time of biochemical failure in previously non-irradiated patients.

Particle therapy in prostate cancer: a review

While dose escalation is proving important to achieve satisfactory long-term outcomes in prostate cancer, the optimal radiation modality to deliver the treatment is still a topic of debate. Charged particle beams can offer improved dose distributions to the target volume as compared to conventional 3D-conformal radiotherapy, with better sparing of surrounding healthy tissues. Exquisite dose distributions, with the fulfillment of dose-volume constraints to normal tissues, however, can also be achieved with photon-based intensity-modulated techniques. This review summarizes the literature on the use of particle therapy in prostate cancer and attempts to put in perspective its relative merits compared to current photon-based radiotherapy.

Shielding design for a laser-accelerated proton therapy system

In this paper, we present the shielding analysis to determine the necessary neutron and photon shielding for a laser-accelerated proton therapy system. Laser-accelerated protons coming out of a solid high-density target have broad energy and angular spectra leading to dose distributions that cannot be directly used for therapeutic applications. A special particle selection and collimation device is needed to generate desired proton beams for energy- and intensity-modulated proton therapy. A great number of unwanted protons and even more electrons as a side-product of laser acceleration have to be stopped by collimation devices and shielding walls, posing a challenge in radiation shielding. Parameters of primary particles resulting from the laser-target interaction have been investigated by particle-in-cell simulations, which predicted energy spectra with 300 MeV maximum energy for protons and 270 MeV for electrons at a laser intensity of 2 x 10(21) W cm(-2). Monte Carlo simulations using FLUKA have been performed to design the collimators and shielding walls inside the treatment gantry, which consist of stainless steel, tungsten, polyethylene and lead. A composite primary collimator was designed to effectively reduce high-energy neutron production since their highly penetrating nature makes shielding very difficult. The necessary shielding for the treatment gantry was carefully studied to meet the criteria of head leakage <0.1% of therapeutic absorbed dose. A layer of polyethylene enclosing the whole particle selection and collimation device was used to shield neutrons and an outer layer of lead was used to reduce photon dose from neutron capture and electron bremsstrahlung. It is shown that the two-layer shielding design with 10-12 cm thick polyethylene and 4 cm thick lead can effectively absorb the unwanted particles to meet the shielding requirements.

Radiotherapy treatment of early-stage prostate cancer with IMRT and protons: a treatment planning comparison

PURPOSE

To compare intensity-modulated photon radiotherapy (IMRT) with three-dimensional conformal proton therapy (3D-CPT) for early-stage prostate cancer, and explore the potential utility of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Ten patients were planned with both 3D-CPT (two parallel-opposed lateral fields) and IMRT (seven equally spaced coplanar fields). Prescribed dose was 79.2 Gy (or cobalt Gray-equivalent, [CGE] for protons) to the prostate gland. Dose-volume histograms, dose conformity, and equivalent uniform dose (EUD) were compared. Additionally, plans were optimized for 3D-CPT with nonstandard beam configuration, and for IMPT assuming delivery with beam scanning.

RESULTS

At least 98% of the planning target volume received the prescription dose. IMRT plans yielded better dose conformity to the target, whereas proton plans achieved higher dose homogeneity and better sparing of rectum and bladder in the range below 30 Gy/CGE. Bladder volumes receiving more than 70 Gy/CGE (V70) were reduced, on average, by 34% with IMRT vs. 3D-CPT, whereas rectal V70 were equivalent. EUD from 3D-CPT and IMRT plans were indistinguishable within uncertainties for both bladder and rectum. With the use of small-angle lateral-oblique fields in 3D-CPT and IMPT, the rectal V70 was reduced by up to 35% compared with the standard lateral configuration, whereas the bladder V70 increased by less than 10%.

CONCLUSIONS

In the range higher than 60 Gy/CGE, IMRT achieved significantly better sparing of the bladder, whereas rectal sparing was similar with 3D-CPT and IMRT. Dose to healthy tissues in the range lower than 50% of the target prescription was substantially lower with proton therapy.

Proton therapy - a systematic review of clinical effectiveness

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Proton therapy is an emerging treatment modality for cancer that may have distinct advantages over conventional radiotherapy. This relates to its ability to confine the high-dose treatment area to the tumour volume and thus minimizing radiation dose to surrounding normal tissue. Several proton facilities are currently operating or under planning world-wide - in the United States, Asia and Europe. Until now no systematic review assessing the clinical effectiveness of this treatment modality has been published.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review of published studies that investigated clinical efficacy of proton therapy of cancer.

RESULTS

We included 54 publications: 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported in 5 publications, 5 comparative studies and 44 case series. Two RCTs addressed proton irradiation as a boost following conventional radiation therapy for prostate cancer, where one demonstrated improved biochemical local control for the highest dose group without increased serious complication rates. Proton therapy has been used to treat a large number of patients with ocular tumours, but except for one low quality RCT, no proper comparison with other treatment alternatives has been undertaken. Proton therapy offers the option to deliver higher radiation doses and/or better confinement of the treatment of intracranial tumours in children and adults, but reported studies are heterogeneous in design and do not allow for strict conclusions.

CONCLUSION

The evidence on clinical efficacy of proton therapy relies to a large extent on non-controlled studies, and thus is associated with low level of evidence according to standard heath technology assessment and evidence based medicine criteria.

A systematic literature review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of hadron therapy in cancer

BACKGROUND

In view of the continued increase in the number of hadron (i.e. neutron, proton and light or heavy ion) therapy (HT) centres we performed a systematic literature review to identify reports of the efficacy of HT.

METHODS

Eleven databases were searched systematically. No limit was applied to language or study design. Established experts were contacted for unpublished data. Data on outcomes were extracted and summarised in tabular form.

RESULTS

Seven hundred and seventy three papers were identified. For proton and heavy ion therapy, the number of RCTs was too small to draw firm conclusions. Based on prospective and retrospective studies, proton irradiation emerges as the treatment of choice for some ocular and skull base tumours. For prostate cancer, the results were comparable with those from the best photon therapy series. Heavy ion therapy is still in an experimental phase.

CONCLUSION

Existing data do not suggest that the rapid expansion of HT as a major treatment modality would be appropriate. Further research into the clinical and cost-effectiveness of HT is needed. The formation of a European Hadron Therapy Register would offer a straightforward way of accelerating the rate at which we obtain high-quality evidence that could be used in assessing the role of HT in the management of cancer.

Use of Individual Fraction Size Data from 3756 Patients to Directly Determine the α/β Ratio of Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

To examine the effect of fraction size and total dose of radiation on recurrence of localized prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A total of 3756 patients treated with radiation monotherapy at three institutions were analyzed, including 185 high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDRB) boost patients. The 5th to 95th centiles of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) fraction sizes and doses were 1.8 to 2.86 Gy, and 57.4 to 77.4 Gy, respectively, and HDRB fractional doses were between 5.5 and 12 Gy, totaling 147 unique fractionation schedules. Failure was defined by one biochemical (nadir + 2 ng/ml) and two advanced disease endpoints. The alpha/beta ratios were estimated via a proportional hazards model stratified by risk severity and institution.

RESULTS

The alpha/beta ratio using biochemical recurrence was 3.7 Gy (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.1, infinity Gy) for EBRT-only cases and 2.6 Gy (95% CI, 0.9, 4.8 Gy) after the addition of HDRB data. This estimate was highly dependent on an HDRB homogeneity correction factor (120% HDRB dose increase; alpha/beta ratio 4.5 Gy, 95% CI 1.6, 8.7 Gy). A 5-Gy increase in total dose reduced the hazard of failure by 16% (95% CI 11, 21%, p < 0.0001), and had more impact as follow-up matured (p < 0.0003). The clinically advanced endpoints concurred with the biochemical failure results, albeit with less precision.

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports the concept that the alpha/beta ratio of prostate cancer is low, although considerable uncertainty remains in the estimated value. Outcome data from EBRT studies using substantially higher doses per fraction are needed to show increased precision in these estimates.

Current status of radiotherapy with proton and light ion beams

Several model studies have shown potential clinical advantages with charged particles (protons and light ions) compared with 3D-conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in many disease sites. The newly developed intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) often yields superior dose distributions to photon IMRT, with the added advantage of a significant reduction in the volume of healthy normal tissues exposed to low-to-medium doses. Initially, the major emphasis in clinical research for proton and light ion therapy was dose escalation for inherently radioresistant tumors, or for lesions adjacent to critical normal structures that constrained the dose that could be safely delivered with conventional x-ray therapy. Since the advent of IMRT the interest in particle therapy has gradually shifted toward protocols aimed at morbidity reduction. Lately the emphasis has mostly been placed on the potential for reduced risk of radiation-induced carcinogenesis with protons. Compared with 3D-CRT, a 2-fold increase has been theoretically estimated with the use of IMRT due to the larger integral volumes. In the pediatric setting, due to a higher inherent susceptibility of tissues, the risk could be significant, and the benefits of protons have been strongly emphasized in the literature. There is a significant expansion of particle therapy facilities around the world. Increasing public awareness of the potential benefits of particle therapy and wider accessibility for patients require that treating physicians stay abreast of the clinical indications of this radiotherapy modality. The article reviews the available literature for various disease sites in which particle therapy has traditionally been considered to offer clinical advantages and to highlight current lines of clinical research. The issue of radiation-induced second malignancies is examined in the light of the controversial epidemiological evidence available. The cost-effectiveness of particle therapy is also discussed.

What dose of external-beam radiation is high enough for prostate cancer?

PURPOSE

To quantify the radiotherapy dose-response of prostate cancer, adjusted for prognostic factors in a mature cohort of men treated relatively uniformly at a single institution.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study cohort consisted of 1,530 men treated with three-dimensional conformal external-beam radiotherapy between 1989 and 2002. Patients were divided into four isocenter dose groups: <70 Gy (n = 43), 70-74.9 Gy (n = 552), 75-79.9 Gy (n = 568), and > or =80 Gy (n = 367). The primary endpoints were freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF), defined by American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) and Phoenix (nadir + 2.0 ng/mL) criteria, and freedom from distant metastases (FFDM). Multivariate analyses were performed and adjusted Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated. Logit regression dose-response functions were determined at 5 and 8 years for FFBF and at 5 and 10 years for FFDM.

RESULTS

Radiotherapy dose was significant in multivariate analyses for FFBF (ASTRO and Phoenix) and FFDM. Adjusted 5-year estimates of ASTRO FFBF for the four dose groups were 60%, 68%, 76%, and 84%. Adjusted 5-year Phoenix FFBFs for the four dose groups were 70%, 81%, 83%, and 89%. Adjusted 5-year and 10-year estimates of FFDM for the four dose groups were 96% and 93%, 97% and 93%, 99% and 95%, and 98% and 96%. Dose-response functions showed an increasing benefit for doses > or =80 Gy.

CONCLUSIONS

Doses of > or =80 Gy are recommended for most men with prostate cancer. The ASTRO definition of biochemical failure does not accurately estimate the effects of radiotherapy at 5 years because of backdating, compared to the Phoenix definition, which is less sensitive to follow-up and more reproducible over time.

Particle radiation therapy using proton and heavier ion beams

Particle beams like protons and heavier ions offer improved dose distributions compared with photon (also called x-ray) beams and thus enable dose escalation within the tumor while sparing normal tissues. Although protons have a biologic effectiveness comparable to photons, ions, because they are heavier than protons, provide a higher biologic effectiveness. Recent technologic developments in the fields of accelerator engineering, treatment planning, beam delivery, and tumor visualization have stimulated the process of transferring particle radiation therapy (RT) from physics laboratories to the clinic. This review describes the physical, biologic, and technologic aspects of particle beam therapy. Clinical trials investigating proton and carbon ion RT will be summarized and discussed in the context of their relevance to recent concepts of treatment with RT.

Knock-down of Bcl-2 by antisense oligodeoxynucleotides induces radiosensitization and inhibition of angiogenesis in human PC-3 prostate tumor xenografts

Expression of the proto-oncogene Bcl-2 is associated with tumor progression. Bcl-2's broad expression in tumors, coupled with its role in resistance to chemotherapy and radiation therapy-induced apoptosis, makes it a rational target for anticancer therapy. Antisense Bcl-2 oligodeoxynucleotide (ODN) reagents have been shown to be effective in reducing Bcl-2 expression in a number of systems. We investigated whether treating human prostate cancer cells with antisense Bcl-2 ODN (G3139, oblimersen sodium, Genasense) before irradiation would render them more susceptible to radiation effects. Two prostate cancer cell lines expressing Bcl-2 at different levels (PC-3-Bcl-2 and PC-3-Neo) were subjected to antisense Bcl-2 ODN, reverse control (CTL), or mock treatment. Antisense Bcl-2 ODN alone produced no cytotoxic effects and was associated with G(1) cell cycle arrest. The combination of antisense Bcl-2 ODN with irradiation sensitized both cell lines to the killing effects of radiation. Both PC-3-Bcl-2 and PC-3-Neo xenografts in mice treated with the combination of antisense Bcl-2 ODN and irradiation were more than three times smaller by volume compared with xenografts in mice treated with reverse CTL alone, antisense Bcl-2 ODN alone, irradiation alone, or reverse CTL plus radiotherapy (P = 0.0001). Specifically, PC-3-Bcl-2 xenograft tumors treated with antisense Bcl-2 ODN and irradiation had increased rates of apoptosis and decreased rates of angiogenesis and proliferation. PC-3-Neo xenograft tumors had decreased proliferation only. This is the first study which shows that therapy directed at Bcl-2 affects tumor vasculature. Together, these findings warrant further study of this novel combination of Bcl-2 reduction and radiation therapy, as well as Bcl-2 reduction and angiogenic therapy.

Determination of output factors for small proton therapy fields

Current protocols for the measurement of proton dose focus on measurements under reference conditions; methods for measuring dose under patient-specific conditions have not been standardized. In particular, it is unclear whether dose in patient-specific fields can be determined more reliably with or without the presence of the patient-specific range compensator. The aim of this study was to quantitatively assess the reliability of two methods for measuring dose per monitor unit (DIMU) values for small-field treatment portals: one with the range compensator and one without the range compensator. A Monte Carlo model of the Proton Therapy Center-Houston double-scattering nozzle was created, and estimates of D/MU values were obtained from 14 simulated treatments of a simple geometric patient model. Field-specific D/MU calibration measurements were simulated with a dosimeter in a water phantom with and without the range compensator. D/MU values from the simulated calibration measurements were compared with D/MU values from the corresponding treatment simulation in the patient model. To evaluate the reliability of the calibration measurements, six metrics and four figures of merit were defined to characterize accuracy, uncertainty, the standard deviations of accuracy and uncertainty, worst agreement, and maximum uncertainty. Measuring D/MU without the range compensator provided superior results for five of the six metrics and for all four figures of merit. The two techniques yielded different results primarily because of high-dose gradient regions introduced into the water phantom when the range compensator was present. Estimated uncertainties (approximately 1 mm) in the position of the dosimeter in these regions resulted in large uncertainties and high variability in D/MU values. When the range compensator was absent, these gradients were minimized and D/MU values were less sensitive to dosimeter positioning errors. We conclude that measuring D/MU without the range compensator present provides more reliable results than measuring it with the range compensator in place.

Radiation therapy for prostate cancer: the role for dose escalation

Recent technological advances in radiation treatment delivery have allowed relatively higher doses of radiation to be delivered safely to the prostate. Emerging data suggest improvements in disease control with higher doses of radiation in subsets of patients with prostate cancer.

The role and strategy of IMRT in radiotherapy of pelvic tumors: Dose escalation and critical organ sparing in prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To investigate the intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) strategy in dose escalation of prostate and pelvic lymph nodes.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Plan dosimetric data of 10 prostate cancer patients were compared with two-dimensional (2D) or IMRT techniques for pelvis (two-dimensional whole pelvic radiation therapy [2D-WPRT] or IM-WPRT) to receive 50 Gy or 54 Gy and additional prostate boost by three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy or IMRT (3D-PBRT or IM-PBRT) techniques up to 72 Gy or 78 Gy. Dose-volume histograms (DVHs), normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) of critical organ, and conformity of target volume in various combinations were calculated.

RESULTS

In DVH analysis, the plans with IM-WPRT (54 Gy) and additional boost up to 78 Gy had lower rectal and bladder volume percentage at 50 Gy and 60 Gy, compared with those with 2D-WPRT (50 Gy) and additional boost up to 72 Gy or 78 Gy. Those with IM-WPRT (54 Gy) also had better small bowel sparing at 30 Gy and 50 Gy, compared with those with 2D-WPRT (50 Gy). In NTCP, those with IM-WPRT and total dose of 78 Gy achieved lower complication rates in rectum and small bowel, compared with those of 2D-WPRT with total dose of 72 Gy. In conformity, those with IM-WPRT had better conformity compared with those with 2D-WPRT with significance (p < 0.005). No significant difference in DVHs, NTCP, or conformity was found between IM-PBRT and 3D-PBRT after IM-WPRT.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial pelvic IMRT is the most important strategy in dose escalation and critical organ sparing. IM-WPRT is recommended for patients requiring WPRT. There is not much benefit for critical organ sparing by IMRT after 2D-WPRT.

Dispositifs de repositionnement prostatique sous l'accélérateur linéaire

The development of sophisticated conformal radiation therapy techniques for prostate cancer, such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy, implies precise and accurate targeting. Inter- and intrafraction prostate motion can be significant and should be characterized, unless the target volume may occasionally be missed. Indeed, bony landmark-based portal imaging does not provide the positional information for soft-tissue targets (prostate and seminal vesicles) or critical organs (rectum and bladder). In this article, we describe various prostate localization systems used before or during the fraction: rectal balloon, intraprostatic fiducials, ultrasound-based localization, integrated CT/linear accelerator system, megavoltage or kilovoltage cone-beam CT, Calypso 4D localization system tomotherapy, Cyberknife and Exactrac X-Ray 6D. The clinical benefit in using such prostate localization tools is not proven by randomized studies and the feasibility has just been established for some of these techniques. Nevertheless, these systems should improve local control by a more accurate delivery of an increased prescribed dose in a reduced planning target volume.

Matched-pair analysis of prostate cancer patients with a high risk of positive pelvic lymph nodes treated with and without pelvic RT and high-dose radiation using high dose rate brachytherapy

OBJECTIVE

Adding pelvic radiation to high-dose prostate radiation for prostate cancer patients with a >15% risk of positive lymph nodes (LN) is controversial. We performed a matched-pair analysis of patients treated at 2 institutions to assess the impact of pelvic radiotherapy (P-RT).

METHODS

From January 1993 to March 2003, 2 institutions treated 1432 prostate cancer patients with combined external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and high-dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy. Those receiving EBRT were treated either to the prostate and seminal vesicles alone or to the entire pelvis (46 Gy). In all cases, prostate dose (EBRT and HDR) resulted in an average BED >100 Gy (alpha/beta = 1.2). There were 755 cases identified as having a pelvic LN risk >15% using the Roach formula. Of these, 255 cases were treated without pelvic RT and randomly matched by Gleason score, T stage, and pretreatment PSA to 500 cases treated with pelvic RT, resulting in 250 pairs (1:1).

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 4.0 years (P = 0.7). The 4-year prostate biochemical failure (22% versus 14%, P = 0.12), distant metastasis (9% versus 4%, P = 0.6), event-free survival (72% versus 78%, P = 0.3), prostate cancer death rate (4% versus 2%, P = 0.9), and overall survival (89% versus 88%, P = 0.7) were not significantly different for patients treated with and without P-RT. Analysis with and without androgen deprivation therapy showed similar results.

CONCLUSION

Improved biochemical, clinical, or survival outcomes were not observed for prostate cancer patients at risk for positive pelvic LN >15% when treated with high-dose EBRT and HDR brachytherapy to the prostate with or without pelvic radiation.

Combination of PTEN Gene Therapy and Radiation Inhibits the Growth of Human Prostate Cancer Xenografts

The resistance of prostate cancers to radiation therapy has been linked to abnormalities in overexpression of Bcl-2, an oncogene associated with inhibition of apoptosis. In this study, we evaluated whether the combination of the overexpression of phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN), a protein known to inhibit Bcl-2 expression, and radiation therapy would inhibit proliferation of Bcl-2-expressing human prostate cancer cells inoculated into the subcutis of athymic mice. Compared with either treatment alone, the combination of adenoviral vector-expressed PTEN (AdPTEN) and radiation (5 Gy) significantly inhibited xenograft tumor growth. Median tumor size on day 48 was 1030 mm3 in untreated controls, 656 mm3 in mice treated with radiation (5 Gy) alone, 640 mm3 in mice treated with AdPTEN alone, and 253 mm3 in mice treated with the combination (p<0.001). Treatment was well tolerated in all cases. Combination treatment also enhanced apoptosis (p=0.048), inhibited cellular proliferation (p=0.005), and inhibited tumor-induced neovascularity (p=0.030). Interestingly, this treatment increased apoptosis not only in tumor cells but also in tumor-associated endothelial cells. Together, these findings indicate that AdPTEN strongly inhibits the growth of human prostate tumors, especially when combined with radiation therapy, and that this effect is mediated by the induction of apoptosis and by the inhibition of angiogenesis and cellular proliferation.

High-dose irradiation for prostate cancer via a high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost: Results of a phase I to II study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate outcomes of intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer patients on a prospective dose-escalation study of pelvic external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) combined with high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy boost.

METHODS

From November 1991 to April 2003, 197 patients were treated for intermediate- and high-risk disease features. All patients had prostate-specific antigen>10 ng/ml, Gleason score>or=7, or clinical stage>or=T2b, and all received pelvic EBRT (46 Gy) while receiving either two or three HDR boost treatments. HDR dose fractionation increased progressively and was divided into two dose levels. The mean prostate biologic equivalency dose was 88.2 Gy for the low-dose group and 116.8 Gy for the high-dose group (alpha/beta=1.2). Clinical failure was either local failure or distant metastasis; clinical event-free survival (cEFS) was defined as patients who lived free of clinical failure.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 4.9 years. The 5-year rates were as follows: biologic failure (BF), 18.6%, clinical failure (CF), 9.8%, cEFS 84.8%, cause-specific survival (CSS), 98.3%, and overall survival (OS), 92.9%. Five-year biochemical failure (68.7% vs. 86%, p<0.001), CF (6.1% vs. 15.6%, p=0.04), cEFS (75.5% vs. 91.7%, p=0.003), CSS (95.4% vs. 100%, p=0.02), and OS (86.2% vs. 97.8%, p=0.002) were significantly better for the high-dose group. Multivariate analysis showed that high-dose group (p=0.01, HR 0.35) and Gleason score (p=0.01, HR 1.84) were significant variables for cEFS. Multivariate analysis showed that high-dose group (p=0.01, HR 0.14) and age (p=0.03, HR 1.09 per year) were significant variables for overall survival.

CONCLUSION

There is a strong dose-response relationship for intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer patients. Improved locoregional control with higher radiation doses alone can significantly decrease biochemical and clinical failures.

Particle therapy and treatment of cancer

The desire of radiation oncologists and medical physicists to maximise the radiation dose to the tumour while minimising that to healthy tissues has led to attempts to improve the dose distributions and biological effects achievable with photons and electrons. Protons, neutrons, pions, boron-neutron capture therapy, and charged-nuclei therapy (with argon, carbon, helium [alpha particles], neon, nitrogen, and silicon) have been assessed for their physical, biological, and clinical effects. In the 90 years since protons and neutrons were discovered, investigations of particle therapy for cancer have helped to elucidate many fundamental radiobiological ideas, such as linear energy transfer, relative biological effectiveness, oxygen effect, and oxygen enhancement. Particle therapy has contributed to our understanding of medical ethics when neutron therapy became intertwined with the debate over standards of informed consent in radiation experiments in humans during the cold war era. Particle teletherapy and brachytherapy continue to show promise in some clinical situations. In the future, the insights of molecular biology might clarify the ideal particles for clinical situations.

Update on Radiation Therapy in Prostate Cancer

Higher doses of radiation result in improved clinical control of prostate cancer,and the recent advances in prostate cancer radiotherapy are designed to escalate dose while minimizing toxicity. To achieve this goal, tighter treatment margins are needed, which require more accurate delineation of the prostate target and normal tissue at the time of treatment planning and before actual daily treatments. Modem radiation therapy techniques can deposit conformal dose virtually anywhere in the body; however, this precise therapy is of no value if it is not accurately hitting the target. Whether dose escalation is achieved by external beam techniques (eg, IMRT, protons) or brachytherapy, these ba-sic planning and delivery considerations are essentially the same. Future directions in prostate radiation therapy will use even higher radiation doses,alternative fractionation patterns, intraprostatic targets (eg, prostate tumor seen on MRI), and improved patient selection regarding which patients will benefit the most from these advanced techniques.

Minimal displacement of novel self-anchoring catheters suitable for temporary prostate implants

Catheters were developed that can be fixed in the prostate gland by self-expanding parts for use in PDR brachytherapy. Daily CT-scans were made to investigate the magnitude of catheter displacement. The mean absolute displacement during the 3 day treatment was 1.2 mm. The resulting minor alterations in dose-volume parameters were of no clinical importance.

The potential of proton beam radiation therapy in prostate cancer, other urological cancers and gynaecological cancers

A group of Swedish oncologists and hospital physicists have estimated the number of patients in Sweden suitable for proton beam therapy. The estimations have been based on current statistics of tumour incidence, number of patients potentially eligible for radiation treatment, scientific support from clinical trials and model dose planning studies and knowledge of the dose-response relations of different tumours and normal tissues. In prostate cancer it is estimated that annually about 300 patients and in gynaecological cancer about 50 patients, are candidates for proton beam therapy. Owing to major uncertainties, it has not been possible to give an estimate of the number of potential patients with urinary bladder cancer.

Proton therapy of cancer: potential clinical advantages and cost-effectiveness

Proton therapy may offer potential clinical advantages compared with conventional radiation therapy for many cancer patients. Due to the large investment costs for building a proton therapy facility, however, the treatment cost with proton radiation is higher than with conventional radiation. It is therefore important to evaluate whether the medical benefits of proton therapy are large enough to motivate the higher costs. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of proton therapy in the treatment of four different cancers: left-sided breast cancer, prostate cancer, head and neck cancer, and childhood medulloblastoma. A Markov cohort simulation model was created for each cancer type and used to simulate the life of patients treated with radiation. Cost and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were used as primary outcome measures. The results indicated that proton therapy was cost-effective if appropriate risk groups were chosen. The average cost per QALY gained for the four types of cancer assessed was about pounds 10,130. If the value of a QALY was set to pounds 55,000, the total yearly net benefit of treating 925 cancer patients with the four types of cancer was about pounds 20.8 million. Investment in a proton facility may thus be cost-effective. The results must be interpreted with caution, since there is a lack of data, and consequently large uncertainties in the assumptions used.

Dose-Response in Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: Results of the Dutch Multicenter Randomized Phase III Trial Comparing 68 Gy of Radiotherapy With 78 Gy

Purpose

To determine whether a dose of 78 Gy improves outcome compared with a conventional dose of 68 Gy for prostate cancer patients treated with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy.

Patients and Methods

Between June 1997 and February 2003, stage T1b-4 prostate cancer patients were enrolled onto a multicenter randomized trial comparing 68 Gy with 78 Gy. Patients were stratified by institution, age, (neo)adjuvant hormonal therapy (HT), and treatment group. Four treatment groups (with specific radiation volumes) were defined based on the probability of seminal vesicle involvement. The primary end point was freedom from failure (FFF). Failure was defined as clinical failure or biochemical failure, according to the American Society of Therapeutic Radiation Oncology definition. Other end points were freedom from clinical failure (FFCF), overall survival (OS), and toxicity.

Results

Median follow-up time was 51 months. Of the 669 enrolled patients, 664 were included in the analysis. HT was prescribed for 143 patients. FFF was significantly better in the 78-Gy arm compared with the 68-Gy arm (5-year FFF rate, 64% v 54%, respectively), with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.74 (P = .02). No significant differences in FFCF or OS were seen between the treatment arms. There was no difference in late genitourinary toxicity of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer grade 2 or more and a slightly higher nonsignificant incidence of late gastrointestinal toxicity of grade 2 or more.

Conclusion

This multicenter randomized trial shows a significantly improved FFF in prostate cancer patients treated with a higher dose of radiotherapy.

Radiotherapeutic techniques for prostate cancer, dose escalation and brachytherapy

There is evidence to confirm a dose-response relationship in prostate cancer. The relative benefit is dependent on the clinical prognostic risk factors (T stage, Gleason score and presenting prostate-specific antigen [PSA]) being more favourable for intermediate-risk patients. Refinement of prognostic groups and clinical threshold parameters is ongoing. Escalation of dose in prostate radiotherapy using conventional techniques is limited by rectal tolerance. Substantial advances have been made in radiotherapy practice, such as the development of conformal radiotherapy (CFRT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Randomised data support the value of CFRT in reducing rectal toxicity. IMRT can permit higher-dose escalation while still respecting known rectal tolerance thresholds. Brachytherapy is a recognised alternative for low-risk prostate cancer subgroups. New radiotherapeutic strategies for prostate cancer include pelvic nodal irradiation, exploiting the presumed low alpha/beta ratio in prostate cancer for hypofractionation and combining external beam with high-dose-rate brachytherapy boosts. New image-guided methodologies will enhance the therapeutic ratio of any radiotherapy technique or dose escalation programme by enabling more reliable and accurate treatment delivery for improved patient outcomes.

Phase II Feasibility Study of High-Dose Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer Using Proton Boost Therapy: First Clinical Trial of Proton Beam Therapy for Prostate Cancer in Japan

OBJECTIVE

To assess the feasibility of high-dose radiotherapy for prostate cancer using proton boost therapy following photon radiotherapy.

METHODS

The primary endpoint was acute grade 3 or greater genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities. The study included patients with clinical stage T1-3N0M0 prostate cancer. Radiotherapy consisted of 50 Gy/25 fx photon irradiation to the prostate and the bilateral seminal vesicles followed by proton boost of 26 Gy(E)/13 fx to the prostate alone. Hormonal therapy was allowed before and during the radiation therapy.

RESULTS

Between January 2001 and January 2003, 30 patients were enrolled in this study. Acute grade 1/2 GU and GI toxicities were observed in 20/4 and 17/0 patients, respectively. With the median follow-up period of 30 months (range 20-45), late grade 1/2 GU and GI toxicities occurred in 2/3 and 8/3 patients, respectively. No grade 3 or greater acute or late toxicities were observed. All patients were alive, but six patients relapsed biochemically after 7-24 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Proton boost therapy following photon radiotherapy for prostate cancer is feasible. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of proton beam therapy, a multi-institutional phase II trial is in progress in Japan.

Proton beam therapy

Conventional radiation therapy directs photons (X-rays) and electrons at tumours with the intent of eradicating the neoplastic tissue while preserving adjacent normal tissue. Radiation-induced damage to healthy tissue and second malignancies are always a concern, however, when administering radiation. Proton beam radiotherapy, one form of charged particle therapy, allows for excellent dose distributions, with the added benefit of no exit dose. These characteristics make this form of radiotherapy an excellent choice for the treatment of tumours located next to critical structures such as the spinal cord, eyes, and brain, as well as for paediatric malignancies.

Advanced-technology radiation therapy in the management of bone and soft tissue sarcomas

BACKGROUND

For patients with sarcomas, radiotherapy can be used as neoadjuvant, adjuvant, or primary local therapy, depending on the site and type of sarcoma, the surgical approach, and the efficacy of chemotherapy.

METHODS

The authors review the current status of advanced technology radiation therapy in the management of bone and soft tissue sarcoma.

RESULTS

Advances in radiotherapy have resulted in improved treatment for bone and soft tissue sarcomas. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) uses modifications in the intensity of the photon-beam from a linear accelerator across the irradiated fields to enhance dose conformation in three dimensions. For proton-beam radiation therapy, the nuclei of hydrogen atoms are accelerated in cyclotrons or synchrotrons, extracted, and transported to treatment rooms where the proton beam undergoes a series of modifications that conform the dose in a particular patient to the tumor target. Brachytherapy and intraoperative radiation therapy have generally been used to treat microscopic residual disease in patients with sarcomas. These technologies deliver dose to tumor cells with irradiation of limited volumes of normal tissue. Patients who may benefit from technically advanced radiotherapy include those with skull base and spine/paraspinal sarcomas, Ewing's sarcoma, and retroperitoneal/extremity sarcomas.

CONCLUSIONS

Advances in radiation therapy technology, particularly IMRT, proton-beam or other charged-particle radiation therapy, brachytherapy, and intraoperative radiation therapy, have led to improved treatment for patients with bone and soft tissue sarcomas.

Anatomy-based inverse planning dose optimization in HDR prostate implant: A toxicity study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to evaluate the acute and late complications in patients who have received HDR implant boost using inverse planning, and to determine dose volume correlations.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between September 1999 and October 2002, 44 patients with locally advanced prostate cancer (PSA>/=10 ng/ml, and/or Gleason score>/=7, and/or Stage T2c or higher) were treated with 40-45 Gy external pelvic field followed by 2--3 fraction of inverse-planned HDR implant boost (6--9.5 Gy /fraction). Median follow-up time was 1.7 years with 81.8% of patients who had at least 12 months of follow up (range 8.6--42.5. Acute and late morbidity data were collected and graded according to RTOG criteria. Questionnaires were used to collect prostate related measures of quality of life, and international prostate symptom score (IPSS) before and after treatment. Dose-volume histograms for prostate, urethra, bladder, penis bulb and rectum were analyzed.

RESULTS

The median patient age was 64 years. Of these, 32% were in the high risk group, and 61% in the intermediate risk group. 3 patients (7%) had no adverse prognostic factors. A single grade 3 GU acute toxicity was reported but no grade 3--4 acute GI toxicity. No grade 3--4 late GU or GI toxicity was reported. Acute (late) grade 2 urinary and rectal symptoms were reported in 31.8 (11.4%) and 4.6% (4.6%) of patients, respectively. A trend for predicting acute GU toxicity is seen for total HDR dose of more than 18 Gy (OR=3.6, 95%CI=[0.96--13.5], P=0.058). The evolution of toxicity is presented for acute and late GU/GI toxicity. Erectile dysfunction occurs in approximately 27% of patients who were not on hormonal deprivation, but may be taking sildenafil. The IPSS peaked on averaged 6 weeks post-implant and returned to the baseline at a median of 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Inverse-planned HDR brachytherapy is a viable option to deliver higher dose to the prostate as a boost without increasing GU or rectal complication. Further HDR dose escalation to the prostate is feasible.

The efficacy of conventional external beam, three-dimensional conformal, intensity-modulated, particle beam radiation, and brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer

Technologic advances in radiation treatment planning and delivery have generated popular interest in the different radiation therapy techniques used in treating patients with localized prostate cancer. Throughout the past decade, high-energy (> 4 MV) linear accelerators have largely replaced Cobalt machines in external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) delivery. Conventional EBRT has been used to treat prostate cancer successfully since the 1950s. By switching to computed tomography-based planning, three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy provides better relative conformality of dose than does conventional EBRT. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has further refined dose conformality by spreading the low-dose region to a larger volume. However, the potential long-term risks of larger volumes of normal tissues receiving low doses of radiation in IMRT are unknown. Particle-beam radiation therapy offers unique dose distributions and characteristics with higher relative biologic effect and linear energy transfer. Transperineal prostate brachytherapy offers the shortest treatment time with equivalent efficacy without significant risk of radiation exposure. The addition of hormonal therapy to radiation therapy has been shown to improve the outcome of radiation therapy.

70 Gy or more: which dose for which prostate cancer?

INTRODUCTION

Radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy are currently accepted treatment modalities for localized prostate cancer. Regarding radiotherapy, current evidence suggests that favorable treatment outcome critically depends on adequate radiation doses. However, the exact role of dose in relation to the individual risk profile is complex. In order to evaluate available data on radiation dose response relationships, in prostate cancer, a thorough and critical literature analysis was performed.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Studies on dose response relationships from randomized trials, dose escalation trials, retrospective subgroup analyses and pooled data were identified by Pubmed and ISI web of sciences searches and were critically reviewed.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

All available data suggest a clear dose response relationship for radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. In low risk cases, most studies suggest that doses of 70-72 Gy are adequate. Dose escalations up to 78-80 Gy seem to be beneficial for intermediate risk patients. Due to confounding variables, the dose response curves for high-risk patients are less steep. The integration of dose escalation into a more comprehensive treatment protocol is difficult, since trials on the relative impact of either hormonal ablation or inclusion of adjuvant nodal regions on dose escalation are missing.

Acute and late complications after radiotherapy for prostate cancer: results of a multicenter randomized trial comparing 68 Gy to 78 Gy

PURPOSE

To compare acute and late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) side effects in prostate cancer patients randomized to receive 68 Gy or 78 Gy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Between June 1997 and February 2003, 669 prostate cancer patients were randomized between radiotherapy with a dose of 68 Gy and 78 Gy, in 2 Gy per fraction and using three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy. All T stages with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) <60 ng/mL were included, except any T1a and well-differentiated T1b-c tumors with PSA < or =4 ng/mL. Stratification was done for four dose-volume groups (according to the risk of seminal vesicles [SV] involvement), age, hormonal treatment (HT), and hospital. The clinical target volume (CTV) consisted of the prostate with or without the SV, depending on the estimated risk of SV invasion. The CTV-planning target volume (PTV) margin was 1 cm for the first 68 Gy and was reduced to 0.5 cm (0 cm toward the rectum) for the last 10 Gy in the 78 Gy arm. Four Dutch hospitals participated in this Phase III trial. Evaluation of acute and late toxicity was based on 658 and 643 patients, respectively. For acute toxicity (<120 days), the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) scoring system was used and the maximum score was reported. Late toxicity (>120 days) was scored according to the slightly adapted RTOG/European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) criteria.

RESULTS

The median follow-up time was 31 months. For acute toxicity no significant differences were seen between the two randomization arms. GI toxicity Grade 2 and 3 was reported as the maximum acute toxicity in 44% and 5% of the patients, respectively. For acute GU toxicity, these figures were 41% and 13%. No significant differences between both randomization arms were seen for late GI and GU toxicity, except for rectal bleeding requiring laser treatment or transfusion (p = 0.007) and nocturia (p = 0.05). The 3-year cumulative risk of late RTOG/EORTC GI toxicity grade > or =2 was 23.2% for 68 Gy, and 26.5% for 78 Gy (p = 0.3). The 3-year risks of late RTOG/EORTC GU toxicity grade > or =2 were 28.5% and 30.2% for 68 Gy and 78 Gy, respectively (p = 0.3). Factors related to acute GI toxicity were HT (p < 0.001), a higher dose-volume group (p = 0.01), and pretreatment GI symptoms (p = 0.04). For acute GU toxicity, prognostic factors were: pretreatment GU symptoms (p < 0.001), HT (p = 0.003), and prior transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) (p = 0.02). A history of abdominal surgery (p < 0.001) and pretreatment GI symptoms (p = 0.001) were associated with a higher incidence of late GI grade > or =2 toxicity, whereas HT (p < 0.001), pretreatment GU symptoms (p < 0.001), and prior TURP (p = 0.006) were prognostic factors for late GU grade > or =2.

CONCLUSIONS

Raising the dose to the prostate from 68 Gy to 78 Gy resulted in higher incidences of acute and late GI and GU toxicity, but these differences were not significant, except for late rectal bleeding requiring treatment and late nocturia. Other factors than the studied dose levels appeared to be important in predicting toxicity after radiotherapy, especially previous surgical interventions (abdominal surgery or TURP), hormonal therapy, and the presence of pretreatment symptoms.

Particle selection and beam collimation system for laser-accelerated proton beam therapy

In a laser-accelerated proton therapy system, the initial protons have broad energy and angular distributions, which are not suitable for direct therapeutic applications. A compact particle selection and collimation device is needed to deliver small pencil beams of protons with desired energy spectra. In this work, we characterize a superconducting magnet system that produces a desired magnetic field configuration to spread the protons with different energies and emitting angles for particle selection. Four magnets are set side by side along the beam axis; each is made of NbTi wires which carry a current density of approximately 10(5) A/cm2 at 4.2 K, and produces a magnetic field of approximately 4.4 T in the corresponding region. Collimation is applied to both the entrance and the exit of the particle selection system to generate a desired proton pencil beam. In the middle of the magnet system, where the magnetic field is close to zero, a particle selection collimator allows only the protons with desired energies to pass through for therapy. Simulations of proton transport in the presence of the magnetic field show that the selected protons have successfully refocused on the beam axis after passing through the magnetic field with the optimal magnet system. The energy spread for any given characteristic proton energy has been obtained. It is shown that the energy spread is a function of the magnetic field strength and collimator size and reaches the full width at half maximum of 25 MeV for 230 MeV protons. Dose distributions have also been calculated with the GEANT3 Monte Carlo code to study the dosimetric properties of the laser-accelerated proton beams for radiation therapy applications.

Randomized Trial Comparing Iridium Implant Plus External-Beam Radiation Therapy With External-Beam Radiation Therapy Alone in Node-Negative Locally Advanced Cancer of the Prostate

Purpose

To determine if iridium implant (IM) and external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) is better than standard EBRT in locally advanced prostate cancer.

Methods

Patients with T2 and T3 prostate cancer with no evidence of metastatic disease were randomly assigned to EBRT of 66 Gy in 33 fractions during 6.5 weeks or to IM of 35 Gy delivered to the prostate during 48 hours plus EBRT of 40 Gy in 20 fractions during 4 weeks. The primary outcome consisted of biochemical or clinical failure (BCF). BCF was defined by biochemical failure, clinical failure, or death as a result of prostate cancer. Secondary outcomes included 2-year postradiation biopsy positivity, toxicity, and survival.

Results

Between 1992 and 1997, 51 patients were randomly assigned to receive IM plus EBRT, and 53 patients were randomly assigned to receive EBRT alone. The median follow-up was 8.2 years. In the IM plus EBRT arm, 17 patients (29%) experienced BCF compared with 33 patients (61%) in the EBRT arm (hazard ratio, 0.42; P = .0024). Eighty-seven patients (84%) had a postradiation biopsy; 10 (24%) of 42 in the IM plus EBRT arm had biopsy positivity compared with 23 (51%) of 45 in the EBRT arm (odds ratio, 0.30; P = .015). Overall survival was 94% in the IM plus EBRT arm versus 92% in the EBRT arm.

Conclusion

The combination of IM plus EBRT was superior to EBRT alone for BCF and postradiation biopsy. This trial provides evidence that higher doses of radiation delivered in a shorter duration result in better local as well as biochemical control in locally advanced prostrate cancer.

Clinical and research validity of hadrontherapy with ion beams

Clinical results obtained with hadrontherapy have been extremely positive for various tumours, with percentages of local control and survival higher than those ascribed to conventional radiotherapy. Most clinical data obtained with charged particles are related to protontherapy but the implementation of carbon ion therapy has demonstrated to be of great interest in the last decade. These results, accompanied by the new performances in accelerator technology and calculation systems of the delivered doses, have determined over the past years an increased interest for the development of hadrontherapy, with the construction of new centres provided with equipment entirely dedicated to clinical activity (LLUMC, Loma Linda and NPTC, Boston in USA, HIMAC-NIRS, Chiba, PROBEAT, Tsukuba, and Hyogo Beam Medical Centres in Japan). A revision of the clinical indications specifically focused on ion therapy is presented as well as the results obtained in the different centres. With hadrontherapy, it is finally possible to increase the spectrum of treatments allowing preserving the organ and its functionality, with positive impacts from a social and economic point of view.

Comparison of late rectal toxicity from conventional versus three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer: Analysis of clinical and dosimetric factors

OBJECTIVES

To compare late rectal toxicity (LRT) after definitive radiotherapy (DR) and salvage radiotherapy (SR) in prostate cancer using conventional (CONV) or three-dimensional conformal (3-D) techniques.

METHODS

The outcomes and clinical factors of 212 patients with Stage T1a-T4 prostate cancer were evaluated (separated into DR and SR groups). The median prescribed dose was 66, 74, 66, and 70 Gy, for the CONV-DR, 3-D-DR, CONV-SR, and 3-D-SR groups, respectively. LRT was scored using both Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) and modified RTOG and Late Effects Normal Tissue (mRTOG/LENT) scales.

RESULTS

The 4-year biochemical relapse-free survival rate was 83% for all patients, with a trend toward improvement in the 3-D groups (78% CONV and 85% 3-D, P = 0.12). One patient (1%) in the CONV group and 24 (24%) in the 3-D group experienced grade 2 or worse LRT by the mRTOG/LENT scale. Patients undergoing DR experienced grade 2 or worse LRT of 1% versus 21% (P = 0.003) for the CONV and 3-D groups, respectively. Patients undergoing SR experienced grade 2 or worse LRT of 0% versus 40% for the CONV and 3-D groups, respectively. The following variables correlated significantly with LRT on both univariate and multivariate analyses: prescribed radiation dose (P <0.0001), percentage of rectal volume receiving 60 Gy (P <0.005), and percentage of rectal volume receiving 70 Gy (P <0.001). The pretreatment clinical factors, when added to the dosimetric data, were not statistically significant on multivariate analysis (P >0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The prescribed radiation dose and percentage of rectal volume treated to 60 or 70 Gy had statistically significant correlations with increased LRT. The rate of grade 2 or worse LRT was greater for patients undergoing SR than for those undergoing DR. We believe that continued close attention to dosimetric variables is imperative for future studies of dose escalation.

Medical aspects of the national centre for oncological hadrontherapy (CNAO — Centro nazionale adroterapla oncologica) in Italy

More than 20 hadrontherapy centres are active in the world and about 40,000 patients have been treated, almost 4000 with ions. Physical selectivity and high relative biologic efficiency (RBE) represent the rationale for using ions in the treatment of tumours. The clinical results are very promising and justify the construction of new centres. We present the main characteristics of CNAO (Centro Nazionale Adroterapia Oncologica) and its possible integration in a nationwide network. The Italian project started in 1991 thanks to the activity of the TERA Foundation and was financed by the Italian Government in 2002. The CNAO will be built in Pavia to start clinical activity in 2007. The equipment will include a synchrotron and 3 treatment rooms mainly devoted to carbon ions but able to deliver also protons. The Centre should be able to deliver up to 20,000 fractions / year. The realization of CNAO is part of a more ambitious project to set up an integrated national network. The need of hadrontherapy centres is defined by epidemiological studies based on Italian tumour registries showing that almost 900 patients can be electively treated with protontherapy and about 10,000 could be included in clinical trials. Considering that ions could be used for radioresistant tumours that affect about 25,000 new patients/year, we estimate that 10-15%, i.e. 3000-4000 patients would benefit from ion therapy. The realization of a nationwide network possibly linked to a larger European network will be very helpful in making available hadrontherapy for a large part of the population.

Late effects from hadron therapy

Successful cancer patient survival and local tumor control from hadron radiotherapy warrant a discussion of potential secondary late effects from the radiation. The study of late-appearing clinical effects from particle beams of protons, carbon, or heavier ions is a relatively new field with few data. However, new clinical information is available from pioneer hadron radiotherapy programs in the USA, Japan, Germany and Switzerland. This paper will review available data on late tissue effects from particle radiation exposures, and discuss its importance to the future of hadron therapy. Potential late radiation effects are associated with irradiated normal tissue volumes at risk that in many cases can be reduced with hadron therapy. However, normal tissues present within hadron treatment volumes can demonstrate enhanced responses compared to conventional modes of therapy. Late endpoints of concern include induction of secondary cancers, cataract, fibrosis, neurodegeneration, vascular damage, and immunological, endocrine and hereditary effects. Low-dose tissue effects at tumor margins need further study, and there is need for more acute molecular studies underlying late effects of hadron therapy.

Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) in the Management of Prostate Cancer

Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is gaining widespread use in the radiation therapy community. Prostate cancer is the ideal target for IMRT due to the growing body of literature supporting dose escalation and normal tissue limitations. The need for dose escalation and the limits of conventional radiation therapy necessitate precise patient and prostate localization as well as advanced treatment delivery. The treatment of prostate cancer has been dramatically altered by the introduction of technology that can focus on the target while avoiding normal tissue. IMRT is evolving as the treatment of the future for prostate cancer.

A randomized trial of supine vs. prone positioning in patients undergoing escalated dose conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The optimal treatment position for patients receiving radical radiation therapy for prostate cancer has been a source of controversy. To resolve this issue, we conducted a randomized trial to evaluate the effects of supine and prone positioning on organ motion, positioning errors, and dose to critical organs during escalated dose conformal irradiation for localized prostate cancer and patient and therapist satisfaction with setup technique.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Twenty eight patients were randomized to commence treatment immobilized in the supine or prone position and were subsequently changed to the alternate positioning for the latter half of their treatment. Patients underwent CT simulation and conformal radiotherapy planning and treatment in both positions. The clinical target volume encompassed the prostate gland. Alternate day lateral port films were compared to corresponding simulator radiographs to measure the isocentre positioning errors (IPE). Prostate motion (PM) and total positioning error (TPE) were measured from the same films by the displacements of three implanted fiducial markers. Dose volume histograms (DVHs) for the two treatment positions were compared at the 95, 80 and 50% dose (D%) levels. The patients and radiation therapists completed weekly questionnaires regarding patient comfort and ease of setup.

RESULTS

Seven patients, who started in the supine position, subsequently refused prone position and received their whole treatment supine. Small bowel in the treatment volume, not present in the supine position, prevented one patient from being treated prone. PM in anterior posterior direction was statistically significantly less in the supine position (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in superior inferior PM for the two treatment positions. No statistically significant difference between supine and prone positioning was observed in isocentre positioning error (IPE) or total positioning error (TPE) due to a policy of daily pre-treatment correction. However, more pre-treatment corrections were required for patients in the prone position. The DVH analysis demonstrated larger volumes of the bladder wall, rectal wall and small bowel within the D95, D80 and D50% when comparing the planning target volumes (PTVs) actually treated for prone positioning. When the prone PTV was expanded to account for the greater PM encountered in that position, a statistically significant difference (P<0.007) was observed in favour of the supine position at all dose levels. In the prone position, four patients had small bowel within the 60 Gray (Gy) isodose and in the supine position, no patients had small bowel in the 60 or 38Gy volumes. Supine position was significantly more comfortable for the patients and setup was significantly easier for the radiation therapists. The median patient comfort score was 0.79 (Standard deviation (SD) 0.03) supine and 0.45 (SD 0.05) prone (P<0.001) The therapist convenience of setup was 0.80 (SD 0.016) supine and 0.54 (SD 0.025) prone (P<0.005). No statistically significant difference was seen for the other parameters studied.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated significantly less PM in the supine treatment position. There was no difference for either treatment position in IPE or TPE, however, more pre-treatment corrections were required in the prone position. Prone position required a larger PTV with resulting increased dose to critical organs. There were statistically significant improvements at all dose levels for small bowel, rectal wall and bladder wall doses in the supine position once corrections were made for differences in organ motion. Linear analogue scores of patient comfort and radiation therapist convenience demonstrated statistically significant improvement in favour of the supine position. Supine positioning has been adopted as the standard for conformal prostatic irradiation at our centre.

Proton beams to replace photon beams in radical dose treatments

With proton beam radiation therapy a smaller volume of normal tissues is irradiated at high dose levels for most anatomic sites than is feasible with any photon technique. This is due to the Laws of Physics, which determine the absorption of energy from photons and protons. In other words, the dose from a photon beam decreases exponentially with depth in the irradiated material. In contrast, protons have a finite range and that range is energy dependent. Accordingly, by appropriate distribution of proton energies, the dose can be uniform across the target and essentially zero deep to the target and the atomic composition of the irradiated material. The dose proximal to the target is lower compared with that in photon techniques, for all except superficial targets This resultant closer approximation of the planning treatment volume (PTV) to the CTV/GTV (grossly evident tumor volume/subclinical tumor extensions) constitutes a clinical gain by definition; i.e. a smaller treatment volume that covers the target three dimensionally for the entirety of each treatment session provides a clinical advantage. Several illustrative clinical dose distributions are presented and the clinical outcome results are reviewed briefly. An important technical advance will be the use of intensity modulated proton radiation therapy, which achieves contouring of the proximal edge of the SOBP (spread out Bragg peak) as well as the distal edge. This technique uses pencil beam scanning. To permit further progressive reductions of the PTV, 4-D treatment planning and delivery is required. The fourth dimension is time, as the position and contours of the tumor and the adjacent critical normal tissues are not constant. A potentially valuable new method for assessing the clinical merits of each of a large number of treatment plans is the evaluation of multidimensional plots of the complication probabilities for each of 'n' critical normal tissues/ structures for a specified tumor control probability. The cost of proton therapy compared with that of very high technology photon therapy is estimated and evaluated. The differential is estimated to be approximately 1.5 provided there were to be no charge for the original facility and that there were sufficient patients for operating on an extended schedule (6-7 days of 14-16 h) with > or = two gantries and one fixed horizontal beam.

Phase I/II clinical trials of carbon ion therapy for prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Heavy ion beams possess high linear energy transfer components and a prominent Bragg peak in the human body, resulting in higher relative biological effectiveness and improved dose distribution. To establish heavy ion therapy techniques for the treatment of prostate cancer, phase I/II clinical trials were initiated.

METHODS

For 96 patients with T1b-T3 prostate cancer, three carbon ion beams were used to irradiate the prostate and seminal vesicles (20 times/5 weeks) with or without endocrine therapy. Radiation dose was expressed in GyE which was initially thought to be equivalent to photon dose. Total dose was gradually increased from 54 to 72 GyE.

RESULTS

Carbon ion therapy was completed in 20 cases of T1b/T1c/T2aN0M0 as monotherapy, in 8 cases of T2b/T3pN0M0 with neoadjuvant endocrine therapy, and in 68 cases of T2b/T3N0/pN1M0 with neoadjuvant and adjuvant endocrine therapy. Median observation period was 47 months. Grade 3 late radiation morbidity of rectum and/or bladder/urethra developed in one and five cases who received 66 and 72 GyE of radiation, respectively. After these adverse effects were observed, total dose was decreased to 66 GyE and the radiation field was coned down during the treatment course. At 5 years, overall, cause-specific, clinical recurrence-free, and biochemical recurrence-free survival rates were 87.7, 94.9, 90.0, and 82.6%, respectively. Local control was achieved in all patients except one patient who received 54 GyE of radiation.

CONCLUSIONS

The therapeutic techniques of carbon ion therapy have been established for patients with prostate cancer. Carbon ion therapy may exert excellent effect to the tissues of prostate cancer.