Dose–Volume Comparison of Proton Therapy and Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer

Real-world comparative outcomes and toxicities after definitive radiotherapy using proton beam therapy versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer: a retrospective, single-institutional analysis

This retrospective study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT). A total of 606 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer between January 2008 and December 2018 were included. Of these patients, 510 received PBT up to a dose of 70-78 Gy (relative biological effectiveness) and 96 patients received IMRT up to a dose of 70-78 Gy. The median follow-up period was 82 months (range: 32-140 months). Patients in the PBT group had significantly higher 7-year rates of biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates: 95.1% for PBT vs 89.9% for IMRT (P = 0.0271) and 93.1% for PBT vs 85.0% for IMRT (P = 0.0019). After matching analysis, 94 patients were assigned to both groups, and the PBT group showed significantly higher 7-year bRFS and DFS rates: 98.9% for PBT vs 89.7% for IMRT (P = 0.023) and 93.4% for PBT vs 84.6% for IMRT (P = 0.022), respectively. In the subgroup analysis of intermediate-risk patients, the PBT group showed a significantly higher 7-year bRFS rate (98.3% for PBT vs 90.5% for IMRT; P = 0.007). The V60 of the bladder in the PBT group (18.1% ± 10.1%) was higher than that in the IMRT group (14.4% ± 7.6%) (P = 0.024). This study found that the treatment outcomes of PBT potentially surpassed those of IMRT specifically concerning bRFS and DFS in real-world settings. However, it should be noted that attention is warranted for late bladder complication of PBT.

Stereotactic Body Proton Therapy Versus Conventionally Fractionated Proton Therapy for Early Prostate Cancer: A Randomized, Controlled, Phase 3 Trial

PURPOSE

We aimed to determine if ultrahypofractionated proton therapy delivered via stereotactic body proton therapy (SBPT) is noninferior to conventionally fractionated proton therapy (CFPT) in patients with early prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This study was a multicenter, randomized, controlled, noninferiority phase 3 trial that included patients with histologically confirmed low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma defined by Gleason score grouping 1, Prostate-specific antigen <10 ng/mL, and clinical stage T1-T2a N0 M0 according to 7th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer tumor-node-metastasis cancer staging system. Eligible participants were randomly assigned initially at a 1:1 ratio and later at a 2:1 ratio to SBPT (38 Gy in 5 fractions) or CFPT (79.2 Gy in 44 fractions). The primary endpoint was freedom from failure (FFF) at 2 years from the date of randomization. Noninferiority for FFF was determined based on 1-sided confidence intervals. Toxicities were compared at different time points using Fisher's exact test. Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) was analyzed at different time points using a mixed-effects linear model. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01230866, and is closed to accrual.

RESULTS

Between December 10, 2010, and September 29, 2020, 144 patients were enrolled and 135 were randomly assigned (90 to the SBPT group and 45 to the CFPT group). The median follow-up was 5 years (IQR, 3.9-5.2). The 2-year FFF was 100% for both groups, with the 1-sided 5-year risk difference in FFF between groups reported as 2.63% (90% CI, -1.70% to 6.96%), favoring the SBRT arm, thus fulfilling the prespecified criteria for noninferiority of SBPT compared with CFPT. Rates of gastrointestinal and genitourinary G2 and G3 toxicities did not differ significantly between groups. Further, HRQoL metrics did not differ significantly between groups over the study's median follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

SBPT is noninferior to CFPT regarding FFF, with similar long-term genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity rates and minimal impact in patient-reported HRQoL over time.

Health Disparities and Inequities in the Utilization of Proton Therapy for Prostate Cancer

Our study sought to review and summarize the reported health disparities and inequities in the utilization of proton beam therapy (PBT) for prostate cancer. We queried the PubMed search engine through 12/2023 for original publications examining disparate utilization of PBT for prostate cancer. The query terms included the following: prostate cancer AND proton AND (disparities OR IMRT OR race OR insurance OR socioeconomic OR inequities)". Studies were included if they involved United States patients, examined PBT in prostate cancer, and addressed health inequities. From this query, 22 studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 13 population-based analyses, 5 single-institutional analyses, 3 cost/modeling investigations, and 1 survey-based study. The analyses revealed that in addition to age-related and insurance-related disparities, race and socioeconomic status played significant roles in the receipt of PBT. The likelihood of receiving PBT was lower for non-White patients in population-based and single-institution analyses. Socioeconomic metrics, such as higher median income and higher education level, portended an increased likelihood of receiving PBT. Conclusively, substantial age-based, racial, socioeconomic/insurance-related, and facility-associated disparities and inequities existed for PBT utilization in prostate cancer. The identification of these disparities provides a framework to better address these as the utility of PBT continues to expand across the US and globally.

Five-Year Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography-Based Outcomes of Spot-Scanning Proton Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Single Institution Experience

Purpose

We report 5-year oncologic outcomes of a prospective series of patients with prostate cancer treated with spot-scanning proton therapy (SSPT).

Methods and Materials

A prospective registry identified patients with prostate cancer treated with SSPT between January 2016 and December 2018. Five-year overall survival, local control, biochemical failure, regional and distant failures, and adverse events (AEs) were assessed. Biochemical failure was defined as rise in prostate-specific antigen ≥ 2.0 ng/mL above nadir prostate-specific antigen. Baseline-adjusted toxicities were assigned using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0.

Results

With a median follow-up of 4.4 years, 284 patients with prostate cancer were treated with SSPT. Median total radiation dose was 79.2 Gy over 44 fractions, 70 Gy over 28 fractions, and 38 Gy over 5 fractions for conventional fractionation (CF), hypofractionation (HF), and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), respectively. Biochemical failure rate for all patients was 6.7%. Five-year local control rates for CF, HF, and SBRT were 100%, 100%, and 97.3%, respectively (P = .07). Regional recurrences occurred in 12 (4.2%) patients: 8 treated with CF, 2 with HF, and 2 with SBRT (P = .62). Distant failures occurred in 12 patients (4.2%): 5 treated with CF, 7 with HF, and none with SBRT (P = .05). Five-year overall survival for patients treated with CF, HF, and SBRT SSPT were 88.1%, 86.1%, and 97.2%, respectively (P = .1). Acute and chronic grade 2+ gastrointestinal AEs occurred in 8 (2.8%) and 51 (18.0%) patients, respectively. Acute and chronic grade 3+ gastrointestinal AEs occurred in 3 (1.1%) and 4 (1.4%) patients, respectively. Acute and chronic grade 2+ genitourinary-related AEs were observed in 71 (25%) and 63 (22.2%) patients, respectively. Acute and chronic grade 3+ genitourinary toxicity were observed in 3 (1.1%) and 6 (2.1%) patients, respectively.

Conclusions

SSPT provides high local control rates and excellent oncologic outcomes across different fractionation schedules with low long-term AE rates.

Proton therapy toxicity outcomes for localized prostate cancer: Long-term results at a comprehensive cancer center

Background

Proton therapy (PT) has unique biologic properties with excellent clinical outcomes for the management of localized prostate cancer. Here, we aim to characterize the toxicity of PT for patients with localized prostate cancer and propose mitigation strategies using a large institutional database.

Methods

We reviewed medical records of 2772 patients with localized prostate cancer treated with definitive PT between May 2006 through January 2020. Disease risk was stratified according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines as low [LR, n = 640]; favorable-intermediate [F-IR, n = 849]; unfavorable-intermediate [U-IR, n = 851]; high [HR, n = 315]; or very high [VHR, n = 117]. Descriptive statistics and Kaplan-Meier estimates assessed toxicity and freedom from biochemical relapse (FFBR).

Results

Median follow-up was 7.0 years. The median dose was 78 Gy(RBE)(range: 72-79.2 Gy) in 2.0 Gy(RBE) fractions; 63 % of patients received 78 Gy(RBE) in 39 fractions, and 29 % received 76 Gy(RBE) in 38 fractions. Overall rates of late grade ≥3 GU and GI toxicity were 0.87 % and 1.01 %, respectively. Two patients developed grade 4 late GU toxicity and seven patients with grade 4 late GI toxicity. All patients experiencing severe late grade 4 toxicities were treated to 78 Gy(RBE) in 39 fractions with 80 Gy(RBE) dose to the anterior rectal wall and/or bladder neck. The 10-year FFBR rates for patients with LR to U-IR disease were compared between those treated with 76 and 78 Gy(RBE); the rates were 94.5 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 92.4-96.0 %) and 93.2 % (95 % CI 91.3-95.7 %), respectively (log-rank p = 0.22).

Conclusions

Proton therapy is associated with low rates of late grade ≥3 GU and GI toxicity. While rare, late grade 4 toxicities occurred in nine (0.3 %) patients. De-escalation to a total dose of 76 Gy(RBE) yields excellent clinical outcomes for patients with LR to U-IR disease with the potential for significant reductions in grade ≥3 late toxicity.

In Silico Comparison of Three Different Beam Arrangements for Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy for Postoperative Whole Pelvic Irradiation of Prostate Cancer

Background and purpose: Proton therapy has been shown to provide dosimetric benefits in comparison with IMRT when treating prostate cancer with whole pelvis radiation; however, the optimal proton beam arrangement has yet to be established. The aim of this study was to evaluate three different intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) beam arrangements when treating the prostate bed and pelvis in the postoperative setting. Materials and Methods: Twenty-three post-prostatectomy patients were planned using three different beam arrangements: two-field (IMPT2B) (opposed laterals), three-field (IMPT3B) (opposed laterals inferiorly matched to a posterior-anterior beam superiorly), and four-field (IMPT4B) (opposed laterals inferiorly matched to two posterior oblique beams superiorly) arrangements. The prescription was 50 Gy radiobiological equivalent (GyE) to the pelvis and 70 GyE to the prostate bed. Comparisons were made using paired two-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Results: CTV coverages were met for all IMPT plans, with 99% of CTVs receiving ≥ 100% of prescription doses. All organ at risk (OAR) objectives were met with IMPT3B and IMPT4B plans, while several rectum objectives were exceeded by IMPT2B plans. IMPT4B provided the lowest doses to OARs for the majority of analyzed outcomes, with significantly lower doses than IMPT2B +/- IMPT3B for bladder V30-V50 and mean dose; bowel V15-V45 and mean dose; sigmoid maximum dose; rectum V40-V72.1, maximum dose, and mean dose; femoral head V37-40 and maximum dose; bone V40 and mean dose; penile bulb mean dose; and skin maximum dose. Conclusion: This study is the first to compare proton beam arrangements when treating the prostate bed and pelvis. four-field plans provided better sparing of the bladder, bowel, and rectum than 2- and three-field plans. The data presented herein may help inform the future delivery of whole pelvis IMPT for prostate cancer.

Dosimetric Features of Ultra-Hypofractionated Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy for Prostate Cancer

Purpose

To report clinical and dosimetric characteristics of 5-fraction stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) using intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for localized prostate cancer.

Materials and Methods

All patients receiving IMPT SABR from 2017 to 2021 for localized prostate cancer at our institution were included. Five fractions were delivered every other day to the prostate +/- seminal vesicles [clinical target volume (CTV)] with 3 mm/3% robustness. A 4-field arrangement with 2 anterior oblique and 2 opposed lateral beams was used in most patients (97%), and most (99%) had a retroprostatic hydrogel spacer.

Results

A total of 534 patients with low (14%), favorable intermediate (45%), unfavorable intermediate (36%), high (4.0%), or very high-risk (0.6%) disease are evaluated. Prescription dose was 36.25 Gy (31%), 38 Gy (38%), or 40 Gy (31%) was prescribed. Median volume percentage of CTV receiving at least 100% of prescription dose [V100% (%)] was 100% [interquartile range: 99.99-100]. Rectum V50% (%), V80% (%), and V90% (%) were significantly lower in patients who had spacer, with a mean difference of -9.70%, -6.59%, and -4.42%, respectively, compared to those who did not have spacer. Femoral head dose was lower with a 4-field arrangement. Mean differences in left and right femoral head V40% (%) were -6.99% and -10.74%, respectively.

Conclusion

We provide a large, novel report of patients treated with IMPT SABR for localized prostate cancer. Four-field IMPT with hydrogel spacer provides significant sparing of rectum and femoral heads without compromising target coverage.

Photon vs proton hypofractionation in prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

High-level evidence on hypofractionated proton therapy (PT) for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) patients is currently missing. The aim of this study is to provide a systematic literature review to compare the toxicity and effectiveness of curative radiotherapy with photon therapy (XRT) or PT in PCa.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched up to April 2022. Men with a diagnosis of PCa who underwent curative hypofractionated RT treatment (PT or XRT) were included. Risk of grade (G) ≥ 2 acute and late genitourinary (GU) OR gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity were the primary outcomes of interest. Secondary outcomes were five-year biochemical relapse-free survival (b-RFS), clinical relapse-free, distant metastasis-free, and prostate cancer-specific survival. Heterogeneity between study-specific estimates was assessed using Chi-square statistics and measured with the I2 index (heterogeneity measure across studies).

RESULTS

A total of 230 studies matched inclusion criteria and, due to overlapped populations, 160 were included in the present analysis. Significant lower rates of G ≥ 2 acute GI incidence (2 % vs 7 %) and improved 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival (95 % vs 91 %) were observed in the PT arm compared to XRT. PT benefits in 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival were maintained for the moderate hypofractionated arm (p-value 0.0122) and among patients in intermediate and low-risk classes (p-values < 0.0001 and 0.0368, respectively). No statistically relevant differences were found for the other considered outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The present study supports that PT is safe and effective for localized PCa treatment, however, more data from RCTs are needed to draw solid evidence in this setting and further effort must be made to identify the patient subgroups that could benefit the most from PT.

Moderately hypofractionated proton beam therapy for localized prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of a phase II trial

The usefulness of moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer has been extensively reported, but there are limited studies on proton beam therapy (PBT) using similar hypofractionation schedules. The aim of this prospective phase II study is to confirm the safety of a shortened PBT course using 70 Gy relative biological effectiveness (RBE) in 28 fractions. From May 2013 to June 2015, 102 men with localized prostate cancer were enrolled. Androgen deprivation therapy was administered according to risk classification. Toxicity was assessed using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. Of the 100 patients ultimately evaluated, 15 were classified as low risk, 43 as intermediate risk, and 42 as high risk. The median follow-up time of the surviving patients was 96 months (range: 60-119 months). The 5-year cumulative incidences of grade 2 gastrointestinal/genitourinary adverse events were 1% (95% CI: 0.1-6.9) and 4% (95% CI: 1.5-10.3), respectively; no grade ≥ 3 gastrointestinal/genitourinary adverse events were observed. The current study revealed a low incidence of late adverse events in prostate cancer patients treated with moderately hypofractionated PBT of 70 Gy (RBE) in 28 fractions, indicating the safety of this schedule.

Long-Term Control With Proton Beam Therapy for Recurrent Prostate Cancer in the Right Perineum Following Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy: A Case Report

Radiation therapy (RT) is commonly used for the treatment of prostate cancer, with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) being the utilized modalities. This case report outlines the treatment course of a recurrent prostate cancer lesion in the right perineal musculature managed with proton therapy following IMRT. A 64-year-old Japanese man, diagnosed with prostate cancer and categorized as high risk according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, underwent six months of androgen deprivation therapy, which included bicalutamide and degarelix acetate. Six months after completing 78 Gy in 39 fractions of IMRT, the patient reported perineal to anal pain. Laboratory tests showed an elevated serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, and pelvic MRI showed a mass lesion in the right perineal musculature. Consequently, the patient was diagnosed with recurrent prostate cancer. Thereafter, the patient underwent eight cycles of systemic chemotherapy with docetaxel; however, his pain progressively worsened. Subsequently, the treatment was switched to 12 cycles of cabazitaxel, which led to gradual pain relief. The patient received PBT at 60 Gy relative biological effectiveness in 30 fractions for the recurrent lesion. Five years after PBT, pelvic MRI showed no mass lesions in the prostate or surrounding tissues. The PSA levels remained low, less than 0.008 ng/ml, and there were no apparent late complications.

Potential Therapeutic Improvements in Prostate Cancer Treatment Using Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Therapy with LETd Optimization and Disease-Specific RBE Models

PURPOSE

To demonstrate the feasibility of improving prostate cancer patient outcomes with PBS proton LETd optimization.

METHODS

SFO, IPT-SIB, and LET-optimized plans were created for 12 patients, and generalized-tissue and disease-specific LET-dependent RBE models were applied. The mean LETd in several structures was determined and used to calculate mean RBEs. LETd- and dose-volume histograms (LVHs/DVHs) are shown. TODRs were defined based on clinical dose goals and compared between plans. The impact of robust perturbations on LETd, TODRs, and DVH spread was evaluated.

RESULTS

LETd optimization achieved statistically significant increased target volume LETd of ~4 keV/µm compared to SFO and IPT-SIB LETd of ~2 keV/µm while mitigating OAR LETd increases. A disease-specific RBE model predicted target volume RBEs > 1.5 for LET-optimized plans, up to 18% higher than for SFO plans. LET-optimized target LVHs/DVHs showed a large increase not present in OARs. All RBE models showed a statistically significant increase in TODRs from SFO to IPT-SIB to LET-optimized plans. RBE = 1.1 does not accurately represent TODRs when using LETd optimization. Robust evaluations demonstrated a trade-off between increased mean target LETd and decreased DVH spread.

CONCLUSION

The demonstration of improved TODRs provided via LETd optimization shows potential for improved patient outcomes.

Dosimetric Comparison Study of Proton Therapy Using Line Scanning versus Passive Scattering and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

The proton irradiation modality has transitioned from passive scattering (PS) to pencil beam scanning. Nevertheless, the documented outcomes predominantly rely on PS.

METHODS

Thirty patients diagnosed with prostate cancer were selected to assess treatment planning across line scanning (LS), PS, and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Dose constraints encompassed clinical target volume (CTV) D98 ≥ 73.0 Gy (RBE), rectal wall V65 < 17% and V40 < 35%, and bladder wall V65 < 25% and V40 < 50%. The CTV, rectal wall, and bladder wall dose volumes were calculated and evaluated using the Freidman test.

RESULTS

The LS technique adhered to all dose limitations. For the rectal and bladder walls, 10 (33.3%) and 21 (70.0%) patients in the PS method and 5 (16.7%) and 1 (3.3%) patients in VMAT, respectively, failed to meet the stipulated requirements. The wide ranges of the rectal and bladder wall volumes (V10-70) were lower with LS than with PS and VMAT. LS outperformed VMAT across all dose-volume rectal and bladder wall indices.

CONCLUSION

The LS method demonstrated a reduction in rectal and bladder doses relative to PS and VMAT, thereby suggesting the potential for mitigating toxicities.

Advancing knowledge-based intensity modulated proton planning for adaptive treatment of high-risk prostate cancer

To assess the performance of a knowledge-based planning (KBP) model for generating intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) treatment plans as part of an adaptive radiotherapy (ART) strategy for patients with high-risk prostate cancer. A knowledge-based planning (KBP) model for proton adaptive treatment plan generation was developed based on thirty patient treatment plans utilizing RapidPlanTM PT (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA). The model was subsequently validated using an additional eleven patient cases. All patients in the study were administered a prescribed dose of 70.2 Gy to the prostate and seminal vesicle (CTV70.2), along with 46.8 Gy to the pelvic lymph nodes (CTV46.8) through simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique. To assess the quality of the validation knowledge-based proton plans (KBPPs), target coverage and organ-at-risk (OAR) dose-volume constraints were compared against those of clinically used expert plans using paired t-tests. The KBP model training statistics (R2) (mean ± SD, 0.763 ± 0.167, range, 0.406 to 0.907) and χ² values (1.162 ± 0.0867, 1.039-1.253) indicate acceptable model training quality. Moreover, the average total treatment planning optimization and calculation time for adaptive plan generation is approximately 10 minutes. The CTV70.2 D98% for the KBPPs (mean ± SD, 69.1 ± 0.08 Gy) and expert plans (69.9 ± 0.04 Gy) shows a significant difference (p < 0.05) but are both within 1.1 Gy of the prescribed dose which is clinically acceptable. While the maximum dose for some organs-at-risk (OARs) such as the bladder and rectum is generally higher in the KBPPs, the doses still fall within clinical constraints. Among all the OARs, most of them received comparable results to the expert plan, except the cauda equina Dmax, which shows statistical significance and was lower in the KBPPs than in expert plans (48.5 ± 0.06 Gy vs 49.3 ± 0.05 Gy). The generated KBPPs were clinically comparable to manually crafted plans by expert treatment planners. The adaptive plan generation process was completed within an acceptable timeframe, offering a quick same-day adaptive treatment option. Our study supports the integration of KBP as a crucial component of an ART strategy, including maintaining plan consistency, improving quality, and enhancing efficiency. This advancement in speed and adaptability promises more precise treatment in proton ART.

Dose evaluation of inter- and intra-fraction prostate motion in extremely hypofractionated intensity-modulated proton therapy for prostate cancer

Inter- and intra-fractional prostate motion can deteriorate the dose distribution in extremely hypofractionated intensity-modulated proton therapy. We used verification CTs and prostate motion data calculated from 1024 intra-fractional prostate motion records to develop a voxel-wise based 4-dimensional method, which had a time resolution of 1 s, to assess the dose impact of prostate motion. An example of 100 fractional simulations revealed that motion had minimal impact on planning dose, the accumulated dose in 95 % of the scenarios fulfilled the clinical goals for target coverage (D95 > 37.5 Gy). This method can serve as a complementary measure in clinical setting to guarantee plan quality.

Case-Matched Outcomes of Proton Beam and Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer

Purpose

Although both intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) offer effective long-term disease control for localized prostate cancer (PCa), there are limited data directly comparing the 2 modalities.

Methods

The data from 334 patients treated with conventionally fractionated (79.2 GyRBE in 44 fractions) PBT or IMRT were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity score matching was used to balance factors associated with biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS). Age, race, and comorbidities (not BFFS associates) remained imbalanced after matching. Univariable and covariate-adjusted multivariable (MVA) Cox regression models were used to determine if modality affected BFFS.

Results

Of 334 patients, 176 (52.7%) were included in the matched cohort with exact matching to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group. With a median follow-up time of 9.0 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 7.8-10.2 years), long-term BFFS was similar between the IMRT and PBT matched arms with 8-year estimates of 85% (95% CI: 76%-91%) and 91% (95% CI: 82%-96%, P = .39), respectively. On MVA, modality was not significantly associated with BFFS in both the unmatched (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.35-1.63, P = .47) and matched (HR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.33-2.33, P = .78) cohorts. Prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) and overall survival (OS) were also similar (P > .05). However, in an unmatched analysis, the PBT arm had significantly fewer incidences of secondary cancers within the irradiated field (0.6%, 95% CI: 0.0%-3.1% versus 4.5%, 95% CI: 1.8%-9.0%, P = .028).

Conclusions

Both PBT and IMRT offer excellent long-term disease control for PCa, with no significant differences between the 2 modalities in BFFS, PCSS, and OS in matched patients. In the unmatched cohort, fewer incidences of secondary malignancy were noted in the PBT group; however, owing to overall low incidence of secondary cancer and imbalanced patient characteristics between the 2 groups, these data are strictly hypothesis generating and require further investigation.

Normal Tissue Integral Dose as a Result of Prostate Radiation Therapy: A Quantitative Comparison Between High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy and Modern External Beam Radiation Therapy Techniques

Purpose

Quantification of integral radiation dose delivered during treatment for prostate cancer is lacking. We performed a comparative quantification of dose to nontarget body tissues delivered via 4 common radiation techniques: conventional volumetric modulated arc therapy, stereotactic body radiation therapy, pencil-beam scanning proton therapy, and high-dose-rate brachytherapy.

Methods and Materials

Plans for each radiation technique were generated for 10 patients with typical anatomy. For brachytherapy plans, virtual needles were placed to achieve standard dosimetry. Standard planning target volume margins or robustness margins were applied as appropriate. A "normal tissue" structure (entire computed tomography simulation volume minus planning target volume) was generated for integral dose computation. Dose-volume histogram parameters for targets and normal structures were tabulated. Normal tissue integral dose was calculated by multiplying normal tissue volume by mean dose.

Results

Normal tissue integral dose was lowest for brachytherapy. Pencil-beam scanning protons, stereotactic body radiation therapy, and brachytherapy resulted in 17%, 57%, and 91% absolute reductions compared with standard volumetric modulated arc therapy, respectively. Mean nontarget tissues receiving 25%, 50%, and 75% of the prescription dose were reduced by 85%, 76%, and 83% for brachytherapy relative to volumetric modulated arc therapy, by 79%, 64%, and 74% relative to stereotactic body radiation therapy, and 73%, 60%, and 81% relative to proton therapy. All reductions observed using brachytherapy were statistically significant.

Conclusions

High-dose-rate brachytherapy is an effective technique for reducing dose to nontarget body tissues relative to volumetric modulated arc therapy, stereotactic body radiation therapy, and pencil-beam scanning proton therapy.

Proton therapy for high-risk prostate cancer: Results from the Proton Collaborative Group PCG 001-09 prospective registry trial

BACKGROUND

Data for proton therapy in high-risk prostate cancer (HRPC) are limited. Using the Proton Collaborative Group prospective registry, we evaluated outcomes for HRPC patients treated with proton therapy.

METHODS

A totsl of 605 men with localized HRPC treated with proton therapy from 8/2009 to 3/2019 at nine institutions were selected. Outcomes examined included freedom from progression (FFP), metastasis free survival (MFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity. Multivariable cox/binomial regression models were used to assess predictors of FFP and toxicity.

RESULTS

Median age was 71 years. Gleason grade groups 4 (49.4%) and 5 (31.7%) were most common, as were clinical stage T1c (46.1%) and cT2 (41.3%). The median pretreatment prostate specific antigen (PSA) was 9.18 and median International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) was 6. Androgen deprivation therapy was given in 63.6%. Median dose was 79.2 GyE in 44 fractions. Pelvic lymph nodes were treated in 58.2% of cases. Pencil beam scanning was used in 54.5%, uniform scanning in 38.8%, and a rectal spacer in 14.2%. At a median followup of 22 months, the 3- and 5-year FFP were 90.7% and 81.4%, respectively. Five-year MFS and OS were 92.8% and 95.9%, respectively. Independent correlates of FFP included Gleason ≥8, PSA > 10, and cT2 (all p < 0.05). No grade 4 or 5 adverse events were reported. There were 23 (5%) grade 2 and 0 grade 3 gastrointestinal events. Prevalence of late grade 3, late grade 2, acute grade 3, and acute grade 2 genitourinary toxicity was 1.7%, 5.8%, 0%, and 21.8%, respectively. Prevalence of grade 2 and 3 erectile dysfunction at 2 years was 48.4% and 8.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In the largest series published to date, our results suggest early outcomes using proton therapy for HRPC are encouraging for both safety and efficacy. Further evaluation is needed to determine if an advantage exists to use protons over other radiation techniques in this population.

Systematic study of the iodinated rectal hydrogel spacer material discrepancy on accuracy of proton dosimetry

PURPOSE

Iodination of rectal hydrogel spacer increases the computed tomography (CT) visibility. The effect of iodinated hydrogel spacer material on the accuracy of proton dosimetry has not been fully studied yet. We presented a systematic study to determine the effect of iodination on proton dosimetry accuracy during proton therapy (PT).

METHODS

PT plans were designed for 20 prostate cancer patients with rectal hydrogel spacer. Three variations of hydrogel density were considered. First, as the ground truth, the true elemental composition of hydrogel true material (TM), verified by our measurement of spacer stopping power ratio, was used for plan optimization and Monte Carlo dose calculation. The dose distribution was recalculated with (1) no material (NM) override based on the CT intensity of the iodinated spacer, and (2) the water material (WM) override, where spacer material was replaced by water. The plans were compared with the ground truth using the metrics of gamma index (GI) and dosimetric indices.

RESULTS

The iodination of hydrogel spacer affected the proton dose distribution with the NM scenario showing the most deviation from the ground truth. The iodination of spacer resulted in a notable increase in CT intensity and led to the treatment planning systems mistreating the iodinated spacer as a high-density material. Among the structures adjacent to the target, neurovascular bundles showed the largest dose difference, up to 350 cGy or about 5% of the prescribed dose with NM. Compared to the WM scenario, dose distribution similarity and GI passing ratios were lower in the NM scenario.

CONCLUSION

The inaccurate CT intensity-based material for iodinated spacer resulted in errors in PT dose calculation. We found that the error was negligible if the iodinated spacer was replaced with water. Water density can be used as a clinically accessible and convenient alternative material override to true spacer material.

Assessment of IMPT versus VMAT plans using different uncertainty scenarios for prostate cancer

Background

To assess the impact of systematic setup and range uncertainties for robustly optimized (RO) intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans in patients with localized prostate cancer.

Methods

Twenty-six localized prostate patients previously treated with VMAT (CTV to PTV expansion of 3-5 mm) were re-planned with RO-IMPT with 3 mm and 5 mm geometrical uncertainties coupled with 3% range uncertainties. Robust evaluations (RE) accounting for the geometrical uncertainties of 3 and 5 mm were evaluated for the IMPT and VMAT plans. Clinical target volume (CTV), anorectum, and bladder dose metrics were analyzed between the nominal plans and their uncertainty perturbations.

Results

With geometric uncertainties of 5 mm and accounting for potential inter-fractional perturbations, RO-IMPT provided statistically significant (p < 0.05) sparing at intermediate doses (V_4000cGy) to the anorectum and bladder and high dose sparring (V_8000cGy) to the bladder compared to VMAT. Decreasing the RO and RE parameters to 3 mm improved IMPT sparing over VMAT at all OAR dose levels investigated while maintaining equivalent coverage to the CTV.

Conclusions

For localized prostate treatments, if geometric uncertainties can be maintained at or below 3 mm, RO-IMPT provides clear dosimetric advantages in anorectum and bladder sparing compared to VMAT. This advantage remains even under uncertainty scenarios. As geometric uncertainties increase to 5 mm, RO-IMPT still provides dosimetric advantages, but to a smaller magnitude.

Comparison of Estimated Late Toxicities between IMPT and IMRT Based on Multivariable NTCP Models for High-Risk Prostate Cancers Treated with Pelvic Nodal Radiation

Purpose

To compare the late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary toxicities (GU) estimated using multivariable normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models, between pencil-beam scanning proton beam therapy (PBT) and helical tomotherapy (HT) in patients of high-risk prostate cancers requiring pelvic nodal irradiation (PNI) using moderately hypofractionated regimen.

Materials and Methods

Twelve consecutive patients treated with PBT at our center were replanned with HT using the same planning goals. Six late GI and GU toxicity domains (stool frequency, rectal bleeding, fecal incontinence, dysuria, urinary incontinence, and hematuria) were estimated based on the published multivariable NTCP models. The ΔNTCP (difference in absolute NTCP between HT and PBT plans) for each of the toxicity domains was calculated. A one-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to analyze distribution of data, and either a paired t test or a Wilcoxon matched-pair signed rank test was used to test statistical significance.

Results

Proton beam therapy and HT plans achieved adequate target coverage. Proton beam therapy plans led to significantly better sparing of bladder, rectum, and bowel bag especially in the intermediate range of 15 to 40 Gy, whereas doses to penile bulb and femoral heads were higher with PBT plans. The average ΔNTCP for grade (G)2 rectal bleeding, fecal incontinence, stool frequency, dysuria, urinary incontinence, and G1 hematuria was 12.17%, 1.67%, 2%, 5.83%, 2.42%, and 3.91%, respectively, favoring PBT plans. The average cumulative ΔNTCP for GI and GU toxicities (ΣΔNTCP) was 16.58% and 11.41%, respectively, favoring PBT. Using a model-based selection threshold of any G2 ΔNTCP >10%, 67% (8 patients) would be eligible for PBT.

Conclusion

Proton beam therapy plans led to superior sparing of organs at risk compared with HT, which translated to lower NTCP for late moderate GI and GU toxicities in patients of prostate cancer treated with PNI. For two-thirds of our patients, the difference in estimated absolute NTCP values between PBT and HT crossed the accepted threshold for minimal clinically important difference.

Proton therapy for prostate cancer: current state and future perspectives

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

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

Proton Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Challenges and Opportunities

Simple Summary

Reported clinical outcomes of proton therapy (PT) for localized prostate cancer are similar to photon-based external beam radiotherapy. Apparently, the dosimetric advantages of PT have yet to be translated to clinical benefits. The suboptimal clinical outcomes of PT might be attributable to inadequate dose prescription, as indicated by the ASCENDE-RT trial. Moreover, uncertainties involved in the treatment planning and delivery processes, as well as technological limitations in PT treatment systems, may lead to discrepancies between planned doses and actual doses delivered to patients. In this article, we reviewed the current status of PT for prostate cancer and discussed different clinical implementations that could potentially improve the clinical outcome of PT for prostate cancer. Various technological advancements under which uncertainties in dose calculations can be minimized, including MRI-guided PT, dual-energy photon-counting CT and high-resolution Monte Carlo-based treatment planning systems, are highlighted.

Abstract

The dosimetric advantages of proton therapy (PT) treatment plans are demonstrably superior to photon-based external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for localized prostate cancer, but the reported clinical outcomes are similar. This may be due to inadequate dose prescription, especially in high-risk disease, as indicated by the ASCENDE-RT trial. Alternatively, the lack of clinical benefits with PT may be attributable to improper dose delivery, mainly due to geometric and dosimetric uncertainties during treatment planning, as well as delivery procedures that compromise the dose conformity of treatments. Advanced high-precision PT technologies, and treatment planning and beam delivery techniques are being developed to address these uncertainties. For instance, external magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided patient setup rooms are being developed to improve the accuracy of patient positioning for treatment. In-room MRI-guided patient positioning systems are also being investigated to improve the geometric accuracy of PT. Soon, high-dose rate beam delivery systems will shorten beam delivery time to within one breath hold, minimizing the effects of organ motion and patient movements. Dual-energy photon-counting computed tomography and high-resolution Monte Carlo-based treatment planning systems are available to minimize uncertainties in dose planning calculations. Advanced in-room treatment verification tools such as prompt gamma detector systems will be used to verify the depth of PT. Clinical implementation of these new technologies is expected to improve the accuracy and dose conformity of PT in the treatment of localized prostate cancers, and lead to better clinical outcomes. Improvement in dose conformity may also facilitate dose escalation, improving local control and implementation of hypofractionation treatment schemes to improve patient throughput and make PT more cost effective.

Ultra-Hypofractionated Proton Therapy in Localized Prostate Cancer: Passive Scattering versus Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy

Few studies have directly compared passive scattering (PS) to intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) in the delivery of ultra-hypofractionated proton beams to the localized prostate cancer (PCa). In this preliminary study involving five patients previously treated with CyberKnife, treatment plans were created for PS and IMPT (36.25 CGE in five fractions with two opposing fields) to compare the dosimetric parameters to the planning target volume (PTV) and organs-at-risk (OAR: rectum, bladder, femoral heads). Both plans met the acceptance criteria. Significant differences were observed in the minimum and maximum doses to the PTV. The mean dose to the PTV was lower for PS (35.62 ± 0.26 vs. 37.18 ± 0.14; p = 0.002). Target coverage (D98%) was better for IMPT (96.79% vs. 99.10%; p = 0.004). IMPT resulted in significantly lower mean doses to the rectum (16.75 CGE vs. 6.88 CGE; p = 0.004) and bladder (17.69 CGE vs. 5.98 CGE p = 0.002). High dose to the rectum (V36.25 CGE) were lower with PS, but not significantly opposite to high dose to the bladder. No significant differences were observed in mean conformity index values, with a non-significant trend towards higher mean homogeneity index values for PS. Non-significant differences in the gamma index for both fields were observed. These findings suggest that both PS and IMPT ultra-hypofractionated proton therapy for PCa are highly precise, offering good target coverage and sparing of normal tissues and OARs.

Long-term Clinical Outcomes in Favorable Risk Prostate Cancer Patients Receiving Proton Beam Therapy

Purpose

Long-term data regarding the disease control outcomes of proton beam therapy (PBT) for patients with favorable risk intact prostate cancer (PC) are limited. Herein, we report our institution's long-term disease control outcomes in PC patients with clinically localized disease who received PBT as primary treatment.

Methods

One hundred sixty-six favorable risk PC patients who received definitive PBT to the prostate gland at our institution from 2010 to 2012 were retrospectively assessed. The outcomes studied were biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS), biochemical failure, local failure, regional failure, distant failure, PC-specific survival, and overall survival. Patterns of failure were also analyzed. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to estimate independent predictors of BFFS.

Results

The median length of follow-up was 8.3 years (range, 1.2–10.5 years). The majority of patients had low-risk disease (58%, n = 96), with a median age of 64 years at the onset of treatment. Of 166 treated men, 13 (7.8%), 8 (4.8%), 2 (1.2%) patient(s) experienced biochemical failure, local failure, regional failure, respectively. Regional failure was seen in an obturator lymph node in 1 patient and the external iliac lymph nodes in the other. None of the patients experienced distant failure. There were 5 (3.0%) deaths, none of which were due to PC. The 5- and 8-year BFFS rate were 97% and 92%, respectively. None of the clinical disease characteristics or treatment-related factors assessed were associated with BFFS on multivariate Cox proportional hazards modeling (all P > .05).

Conclusion

Disease control rates reported in our assessment of PBT were similar to those reported in previous clinically localized intact PC analyses, which used intensity-modulated radiotherapy, three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, or radical prostatectomy as definitive therapy. In addition, BFFS rates were similar, if not improved, to previous PBT studies.

Dose-volume histogram parameters and patient-reported EPIC-Bowel domain in prostate cancer proton therapy

Purpose

To analyze rectal dose and changes in quality of life (QOL) measured with the Expanded Prostate and Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) bowel domain in patients being treated for prostate cancer with curative-intent proton beam therapy (PBT) within a large single-institution prospective registry.

Materials and Methods

Data was collected from 243 patients with localized prostate cancer treated with PBT from 2016 to 2018. The EPIC survey was administered at baseline, end-of-treatment, 3, 6, and 12 months, then annually. Dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters for the rectum were computed, and rectal dose was analyzed using BED (α/β = 3), EQD_2Gy, and total dose. Repeated measures mixed models were implemented to determine the effect of patient, clinical, and treatment factors (including DVH) on patient-reported bowel symptom burden (EPIC-Bowel).

Results

Treatment overall resulted in changes in EPIC-Bowel scores (baseline score = 93.7), most notably at end-of-treatment (90.6) and 12 months (89.7). However, they returned to baseline at 36 months (92.9). On multivariate modeling, rectal BED D₂₅ (Gy) ≥23% was significantly associated with decline in QOL scores measuring bother (p < 0.01; 4.06 points different).

Conclusion

Rectal doses, specifically BED D₂₅ (Gy) ≥23%, are significantly associated with decline in bowel bother-related QOL in patients undergoing definitive radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. This study demonstrates BED as an independent predictor of bowel QOL across dose fractionations of PBT.

Biologically Effective Dose and Rectal Bleeding in Definitive Proton Therapy for Prostate Cancer

Purpose and Objectives

With increasing use of hypofractionation and extreme hypofractionation for prostate cancer, rectal dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters that apply across dose fractionations may be helpful for treatment planning in clinical practice. We present an exploratory analysis of biologically effective rectal dose (BED) and equivalent rectal dose in 2 Gy fractions (EQD2) for rectal bleeding in patients treated with proton therapy across dose fractionations.

Materials and Methods

From 2016 to 2018, 243 patients with prostate cancer were treated with definitive proton therapy. Rectal DVH parameters were obtained from treatment plans, and rectal bleeding events were recorded. The BED and EQD2 transformations were applied to each rectal DVH parameter. Univariate analysis using logistic regression was used to determine DVH parameters that were significant predictors of grade ≥ 2 rectal bleeding. Youden index was used to determine optimum cutoffs for clinically meaningful DVH constraints. Stepwise model-selection criteria were then applied to fit a “best” multivariate logistic model for predicting Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade ≥ 2 rectal bleeding.

Results

Conventional fractionation, hypofractionation, and extreme hypofractionation were prescribed to 117 (48%), 84 (34%), and 42 (17.3%) patients, respectively. With a median follow-up of 20 (2.5-40) months, 10 (4.1%) patients experienced rectal bleeding. On univariate analysis, multiple rectal DVH parameters were significantly associated with rectal bleeding across BED, EQD2, and nominal doses. The BED volume receiving 55 Gy > 13.91% was found to be statistically and clinically significant. The BED volume receiving 55 Gy remained statistically significant for an association with rectal bleeding in the multivariate model (odds ratio, 9.81; 95% confidence interval, 2.4-40.5; P = .002).

Conclusion

In patients undergoing definitive proton therapy for prostate cancer, dose to the rectum and volume of the rectum receiving the dose were significantly associated with rectal bleeding across conventional fractionation, hypofractionation, and extreme hypofractionation when using BED and EQD2 transformations.

Towards real-time PGS range monitoring in proton therapy of prostate cancer

Proton therapy of prostate cancer (PCPT) was linked with increased levels of gastrointestinal toxicity in its early use compared to intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). The higher radiation dose to the rectum by proton beams is mainly due to anatomical variations. Here, we demonstrate an approach to monitor rectal radiation exposure in PCPT based on prompt gamma spectroscopy (PGS). Endorectal balloons (ERBs) are used to stabilize prostate movement during radiotherapy. These ERBs are usually filled with water. However, other water solutions containing elements with higher atomic numbers, such as silicon, may enable the use of PGS to monitor the radiation exposure of the rectum. Protons hitting silicon atoms emit prompt gamma rays with a specific energy of 1.78 MeV, which can be used to monitor whether the ERB is being hit. In a binary approach, we search the silicon energy peaks for every irradiated prostate region. We demonstrate this technique for both single-spot irradiation and real treatment plans. Real-time feedback based on the ERB being hit column-wise is feasible and would allow clinicians to decide whether to adapt or continue treatment. This technique may be extended to other cancer types and organs at risk, such as the oesophagus.

A Pooled Toxicity Analysis of Moderately Hypofractionated Proton Beam Therapy and Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy in Early-Stage Prostate Cancer Patients

PURPOSE

Data comparing moderately hypofractionated intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) are lacking. We aim to compare late toxicity profiles of patients with early-stage prostate cancer treated with moderately hypofractionated PBT and IMRT.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This multi-institutional analysis included patients with low- or intermediate-risk biopsy-proven prostate adenocarcinoma from 7 tertiary referral centers treated from 1998 to 2018. All patients were treated with moderately hypofractionated radiation, defined as 250 to 300 cGy per daily fraction given for 4 to 6 weeks, and stratified by use of IMRT or PBT. Primary outcomes were late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. Adjusted toxicity rates were calculated using inverse probability of treatment weighting, accounting for race, National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group, age, pretreatment International Prostate Symptom Score (GU only), and anticoagulant use (GI only).

RESULTS

A total of 1850 patients were included: 1282 IMRT (median follow-up 80.0 months) and 568 PBT (median follow-up 43.9 months). Overall toxicity rates were low, with the majority of patients experiencing no late GU (56.6%, n = 1048) or late GI (74.4%, n = 1377) toxicity. No difference was seen in the rates of late toxicity between the groups, with late grade 3+ GU toxicity of 2.0% versus 3.9% (odds ratio [OR] 0.47; 95% confidence interval 0.17-1.28) and late grade 2+ GI toxicity of 14.6% versus 4.7% (OR 2.69; confidence interval 0.80-9.05) for the PBT and IMRT cohorts, respectively. On multivariable analysis, no factors were significantly predictive of GU toxicity, and only anticoagulant use was significantly predictive of GI toxicity (OR 1.90; P = .008).

CONCLUSIONS

In this large, multi-institutional analysis of 1850 patients with early-stage prostate cancer, treatment with moderately hypofractionated IMRT and PBT resulted in low rates of toxicity. No difference was seen in late GI and GU toxicity between the modalities during long-term follow-up. Both treatments are safe and well tolerated.

Ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer with simultaneous boost to the dominant intraprostatic lesion: a plan comparison

OBJECTIVE

To compare different stereotactic body techniques-intensity-modulated radiotherapy with photons and protons, applied to radiotherapy of prostatic cancer-with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) on the dominant intraprostatic lesion (DIL).

METHODS

Ten patients were selected for this planning study. Dosimetric results were compared between volumetric modulated arc therapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and intensity-modulated proton therapy both with two (IMPT 2F) and five fields (IMPT 5F) planning while applying the prescription schemes of 7.25 Gy/fraction to the prostate gland and 7.5 Gy/fraction to the DIL in 5 fractions.

RESULTS

Comparison of the coverages of the planning target volumes showed that small differences exist. The IMPT-2F-5F techniques allowed higher doses in the targets; conformal indexes resulted similar; homogeneity was better in the photon techniques (2%-5%). Regarding the organs at risk, all the techniques were able to maintain the dose well below the prescribed constraints: in the rectum, the IMPT-2F-5F and IMRT were more efficient in lowering the intermediate doses; in the bladder, the median dose was significantly better in the case of IMPT (2F-5F). In the urethra, the best sparing was achieved only by IMPT-5F.

CONCLUSIONS

Stereotactic radiotherapy with SIB for localized prostate cancer is feasible with all the investigated techniques. Concerning IMPT, the two-beam technique does not seem to have a greater advantage compared to the standard techniques; the 5-beam technique seems more promising also accounting for the range uncertainty.

Consensus Statement on Proton Therapy for Prostate Cancer

Proton therapy is a promising but controversial treatment in the management of prostate cancer. Despite its dosimetric advantages when compared with photon radiation therapy, its increased cost to patients and insurers has raised questions regarding its value. Multiple prospective and retrospective studies have been published documenting the efficacy and safety of proton therapy for patients with localized prostate cancer and for patients requiring adjuvant or salvage pelvic radiation after surgery. The Particle Therapy Co-Operative Group (PTCOG) Genitourinary Subcommittee intends to address current proton therapy indications, advantages, disadvantages, and cost effectiveness. We will also discuss the current landscape of clinical trials. This consensus report can be used to guide clinical practice and research directions.

Dual-storage phosphor proton therapy dosimetry: Simultaneous quantification of dose and linear energy transfer

PURPOSE

To investigate the feasibility of using the high Z_eff storage phosphor material BaFBrI:Eu²⁺ in conjunction with the low Z_eff storage phosphor material KCl:Eu²⁺ for simultaneous proton dose and linear energy transfer (LET) measurements by (a) measuring the fundamental optical and dosimetric properties of BaFBrI:Eu²⁺ , (b) evaluating its compatibility in being readout simultaneously with KCl:Eu²⁺ dosimeters, and (c) modeling and validating its LET dependence under elevated proton LET irradiation.

METHODS

A commercial BaFBrI:Eu²⁺ storage phosphor detector (Model ST-VI, Fujifilm) was characterized with energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (EDS) analysis to obtain its elemental composition. The dosimeters were irradiated using both a Mevion S250 proton therapy unit (at the center of a spread-out Bragg peak, SOBP) and a Varian Clinac iX linear accelerator with the latter being a low LET irradiation. The photostimulated luminescence (PSL) emission spectra, excitation spectra, and luminescent lifetimes of the detector were measured after proton and photon irradiations. Dosimetric properties including dose linearity, dose rate dependence, radiation hardness, temporal, and readout stabilities were studied using a laboratory optical reader after proton irradiations. In addition, its proton energy dependence was analytically modeled and experimentally validated by irradiating the detectors at various depths within the SOBP (Range: 15.0 g/cm² , Modulation: 10.0 g/cm² ).

RESULTS

The active detector composition for the high Z_eff storage phosphor detector was found to be BaFBr_0.85 I_0.15 :Eu²⁺ . The BaFBr_0.85 I_0.15 :Eu²⁺ material's excitation and emission spectra were in agreement under proton and photon irradiations, with peaks of 586 ± 1 nm and 400 ± 1 nm, respectively, with a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of 119 ± 3 nm and 30 ± 2 nm, respectively. As dosimeter response under photon irradiation is generally believed to be free from LET effect, these results suggest LET independence of charge storage center types resulted from ionizing radiations. There is sufficient spectral overlaps with KCl:Eu²⁺ dosimeters allowing both dosimeters to be readout under equivalent readout conditions, that is, 594 nm stimulation and 420 nm detection wavelengths. Its PSL characteristic lifetime was found to be less than 5 microseconds which would make it suitable for fast 2D readout post irradiation. Its 420 nm emission band intensity was found to be linear up to 10 Gy absolute proton dose under the same irradiation conditions, dose rate independent, stable in time and under multiple readouts, and with high radiation hardness under cumulative proton dose histories up to 200 Gy as tested in this study. BaFBr_0.85 I_0.15 :Eu²⁺ showed significant proton energy-dependent dose under-response in regions of high LET which could be modeled by stopping power ratio calculations with an accuracy of 3% in low LET regions and a distance-to-agreement (DTA) of 1 mm in high LET regions (>5 keV/μm).

CONCLUSION

We have proven the feasibility of dual-storage phosphor proton dosimetry for simultaneous proton dose and LET measurements. BaFBr_0.85 I_0.15 :Eu²⁺ has shown equally excellent dosimetry performance as its low Z_eff complement KCl:Eu²⁺ with distinctive LET dependence merely as a result of its higher Z_eff . These promising results pave the way for future studies involving simultaneous proton dose and LET measurements using this novel approach.

Simulation study of proton arc therapy with the compact single-room MEVION-S250 proton therapy system

Aim:

The purpose of this study is to investigate the feasibility of proton arc therapy (PAT) using the double-scattering MEVION-S250 proton system. The treatment planning and dose delivery parameters from PAT were compared with conventional treatment planning techniques.

Materials and methods:

PAT was simulated with multiple conformal and fixed-aperture beams (5–15) using the MEVION-S250-double-scattering proton system. Conformal apertures were simulated with the Eclipse-treatment-planning system: (a) using a static single aperture that provides the best average conformal circular or rectangular apertures to cover the tumour from different angular views (SPAT), and (b) dynamic conformal apertures of the tumour shape at each irradiation angle that can be obtained from a multi-leaf-collimator system (DPAT).

Results:

The DPAT and SPAT plans provided superior dose coverage and sparing of normal tissues in comparison with conventional plans (CPT). The entrance normal tissue and skin doses (<40%) were lowered significantly by delivering dose from different directions over a wider angular view compared to conventional plans that have large entrance dose from only two fields. While the mean and minimum doses from PAT and CPT were comparable, the maximum doses from arc plans were lower than the maximum doses in conventional plans. The SPAT and DPAT plans had comparable dose parameters for regularly shaped targets. The heterogeneity index (HI) was superior in PAT plans which improved with increasing number of beams in arc plans for the different treatment sites. The conformality index (CI) depends on the treatment site and complexity of the shape of the planning target volume where for brain, pancreatic and lung tumours, PAT plans conformality was comparable and sometimes superior to CPT; and HI and CI were generally better in DPAT compared to SPAT.

Conclusions:

PAT plans have superior dose coverage and sparing of normal tissues compared to CPT plans using the MEVION double-scattering system as shown in this simulation study. Ideally, conformal proton arcs require beam shaping and dose delivery with the gantry moving; however, the MEVION double-scattering system lacks a multi-leaf collimator system and cannot deliver dose during gantry rotation. The single aperture conformal proton therapy technique is more time and cost effective compared with conventional techniques that are used currently with the MEVION proton therapy system because of the elimination of the need for patient-specific compensators. In present study, PAT was simulated with the MEVION double-scattering proton therapy system; however, it can be performed also with other proton therapy systems.

Comparing bowel and urinary domains of patient-reported quality of life at the end of and 3 months post radiotherapy between intensity-modulated radiotherapy and proton beam therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To prospectively assess acute differences in patient-reported outcomes in bowel and urinary domains between intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) for prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Bowel function (BF), urinary irritative/obstructive symptoms (UO), and urinary incontinence (UI) domains of EPIC-26 were collected in patients with T1-T2 prostate cancer receiving IMRT or PBT at a tertiary cancer center (2015-2018). Mean changes in domain scores were analyzed from pretreatment to the end of and 3 months post-radiotherapy for each modality. A clinically meaningful change was defined as a score change >50% of the baseline standard deviation.

RESULTS

A total of 157 patients receiving IMRT and 105 receiving PBT were included. There were no baseline differences in domain scores between cohorts. At the end of radiotherapy, there was significant and clinically meaningful worsening of BF and UO scores for patients receiving either modality. In the BF domain, the IMRT cohort experienced greater decrement (-13.0 vs -6.7, P < .01), and had a higher proportion of patients with clinically meaningful reduction (58.4% vs 39.5%, P = .01), compared to PBT. At 3 months post-radiotherapy, the IMRT group had significant and clinically meaningful worsening of BF (-9.3, P < .001), whereas the change in BF score of the PBT cohort was no longer significant or clinically meaningful (-1.2, P = .25). There were no significant or clinically meaningful changes in UO or UI 3 months post-radiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

PBT had less acute decrement in BF than IMRT following radiotherapy. There was no difference between the two modalities in UO and UI.

Health-related quality of life in Japanese patients with prostate cancer following proton beam therapy: an institutional cohort study

Objective

Many treatment options have guaranteed long-term survival in patients with localized prostate cancer and health-related quality of life has become a greater concern for those patients. The purpose of this study was to reveal the health-related quality of life after proton beam therapy and to clarify the differences from other treatment modalities for prostate cancer.

Methods

Between January 2011 and April 2016, 583 patients were enrolled in the study and health-related quality of life outcomes using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite questionnaire were evaluated and compared with previous research targeted at Japanese patients.

Results

We found a significant decrease in the least square mean scores for urinary and bowel domains excluding the incontinence subscale after proton beam therapy (P < 0.0001) and recovery at a year following treatment. The scores for sexual function in patients without androgen deprivation therapy decreased each year after proton beam therapy (P < 0.0001). The scores for hormones in patients without androgen deprivation therapy remained high and those of patients with androgen deprivation therapy were lower before treatment but were comparable to those of non-androgen deprivation therapy patients at 2 years post-treatment. We found that the impact of radiotherapy including proton beam therapy on urinary condition and sexual function was lower than that of surgery.

Conclusions

For the first time in Japan, we investigated health-related quality of life using Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite questionnaires in patients with prostate cancer after proton beam therapy and compared it with other treatment modalities.

Quantitative assessment of the production of radioactive materials by the Mevion S250i Hyperscan proton therapy system: a year-long survey

Introduction:

This technical note describes a quantitative assessment of the production of radioactive materials during a year-long clinical operation of a Mevion S250i Hyperscan proton therapy system. The production of accumulated radioactive materials plays an important role in determining radiation safety in and around the proton therapy facilities.

Methods:

We have conducted a weekly room survey, every week for a year, during normal clinical operation.

Results and conclusions:

We estimated the accumulated activity from secondary neutron activation on aluminium structures at 3 m away from isocentre in the beamline to be less than 300 μCi.

Optimal Androgen Deprivation Therapy Combined with Proton Beam Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Results from a Multi-Institutional Study of the Japanese Radiation Oncology Study Group

Background: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) combined with radiation therapy benefits intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer (PC) patients. The optimal ADT duration in combination with high-dose proton beam therapy (PBT) remains unknown. Methods: Intermediate- and high-risk PC patients treated with PBT combined with ADT for various durations were analyzed retrospectively. To assess the relationship between ADT and biochemical relapse-free (bRF) rate, Cox proportional hazards models including T stage, prostate specific antigen (PSA) level, Gleason score (GS), and total radiation dose were used. Results: In the intermediate-risk PC patients (n = 520), ADT use improved bRF (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.26–0.93; p = 0.029), especially in those with multiple intermediate-risk factors (T2b–2c, PSA 10–20 ng/mL, and GS 7). In the high-risk PC patients (n = 555), a longer ADT duration (>6 months) conferred a benefit for bRF (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32–0.90; p = 0.018), which was most apparent in patients with multiple high-risk factors (T3a–4, PSA > 20 ng/mL, and GS ≥ 8) treated with ADT for ≥21 months. Conclusions: Short-term (≤6 months) ADT is beneficial for intermediate-risk PC patients, but likely unnecessary for those with a single risk factor, whereas ADT for >6 months is necessary for high-risk PC patients and ADT for ≥21 months might be optimal for those with multiple risk factors in combination of high-dose PBT.

Developing a Monte Carlo model for MEVION S250i with HYPERSCAN and Adaptive Aperture™ pencil beam scanning proton therapy system

Aim:

As the number of proton therapy facilities has steadily increased, the need for the tool to provide precise dose simulation for complicated clinical and research scenarios also increase. In this study, the treatment head of Mevion HYPERSCAN pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy system including energy modulation system (EMS) and Adaptive Aperture™ (AA) was modelled using TOPAS (TOolkit for PArticle Simulation) Monte Carlo (MC) code and was validated during commissioning process.

Materials and methods:

The proton beam characteristics including integral depth doses (IDDs) of pristine Bragg peak and in-air beam spot sizes were simulated and compared with measured beam data. The lateral profiles, with and without AA, were also verified against calculation from treatment planning system (TPS).

Results:

All beam characteristics for IDDs and in-air spot size agreed well within 1 mm and 10% separately. The full width at half maximum and penumbra of lateral dose profile also agree well within 2 mm.

Finding:

The TOPAS MC simulation of the MEVION HYPERSCAN PBS proton therapy system has been modelled and validated; it could be a viable tool for research and verification of the proton treatment in the future.

Comparative toxicity outcomes of proton-beam therapy versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer in the postoperative setting

BACKGROUND

Despite increasing utilization of proton-beam therapy (PBT) in the postprostatectomy setting, no data exist regarding toxicity outcomes relative to intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). The authors compared acute and late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity outcomes in patients with prostate cancer (PC) who received treatment with postprostatectomy IMRT versus PBT.

METHODS

With institutional review board approval, patients with PC who received adjuvant or salvage IMRT or PBT (70.2 gray with an endorectal balloon) after prostatectomy from 2009 through 2017 were reviewed. Factors including combined IMRT and PBT and/or concurrent malignancies prompted exclusion. A case-matched cohort analysis was performed using nearest-neighbor 3-to-1 matching by age and GU/GI disorder history. Logistic and Cox regressions were used to identify univariate and multivariate associations between toxicities and cohort/dosimetric characteristics. Toxicity-free survival (TFS) was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Three hundred seven men (mean ± SD age, 59.7 ± 6.3 years; IMRT, n = 237; PBT, n = 70) were identified, generating 70 matched pairs. The median follow-up was 48.6 and 46.1 months for the IMRT and PBT groups, respectively. Although PBT was superior at reducing low-range (volumes receiving 10% to 40% of the dose, respectively) bladder and rectal doses (all P ≤ .01), treatment modality was not associated with differences in clinician-reported acute or late GU/GI toxicities (all P ≥ .05). Five-year grade ≥2 GU and grade ≥1 GI TFS was 61.1% and 73.7% for IMRT, respectively, and 70.7% and 75.3% for PBT, respectively; and 5-year grade ≥3 GU and GI TFS was >95% for both groups (all P ≥ .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Postprostatectomy PBT minimized low-range bladder and rectal doses relative to IMRT; however, treatment modality was not associated with clinician-reported GU/GI toxicities. Future prospective investigation and ongoing follow-up will determine whether dosimetric differences between IMRT and PBT confer clinically meaningful differences in long-term outcomes.

Proton therapy- the modality of choice for future radiation therapy management of Prostate Cancer?

BACKGROUND

Proton Therapy (PR) is an emerging treatment for prostate cancer (Pca) patients. However, limited and conflicting data exists regarding its ability to result in fewer bladder and rectal toxicities compared to Photon Therapy (PT), as well as its cost efficiency and plan robustness.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic literature search was performed to acquire eligible studies published between 2007 and 2018. Studies comparing bladder and rectal dosimetry or Gastrointestinal (GI) and Genitourinary (GU) toxicities between PR and PT, the plan robustness of PR relative to motion and its cost efficiency for Pca patients were assessed.

RESULTS

28 studies were eligible for inclusion in this review. PR resulted in improved bladder and rectal dosimetry but did not manifest as improved GI/GU toxicities clinically compared to PT. PR plans were considered robust when specific corrections, techniques, positioning or immobilisation devices were applied. PR is not cost effective for intermediate risk Pca patients; however PR may be cost effective for younger or high risk Pca patients.

CONCLUSION

PR offers improved bladder and rectal dosimetry compared to PT but this does not specifically translate to improved GI/GU toxicities clinically. The robustness of PR plans is acceptable under specific conditions. PR is not cost effective for all Pca patients.

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

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

Simultaneous optimization of mixed photon energy beams in volumetric modulated arc therapy

PURPOSE

Despite the availability of multiple energy photon beams on clinical linear accelerators, volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) optimization is currently limited to a single photon beam. The purpose of this work was to present a proof-of-principle study on an algorithm for simultaneous optimization of mixed photon beams for VMAT (MP - VMAT), utilizing an additional photon energy as an additional degree of freedom.

METHODS

The MP - VMAT optimization algorithm is presented as a two-step heuristic approach. First, a convex linear programming problem is solved for simultaneous optimization of nonuniform dual energy intensity maps (DEIMs) for an angular resolution of 36 equi-spaced beam segments. Subsequently, for a given gantry speed schedule, the second step aims to best replicate each DEIM by dispersing MP - VMAT apertures along with their corresponding intensities over their respective beam segment. This constitutes a nonlinear problem, which is linearized using McCormick relaxation. The final large-scale mixed integer linear programming (MILP) dispersion model ensures a contiguous and smooth transition of multileaf collimators (MLCs) from one beam segment to the next. To demonstrate the proof-of-principle, we first compared the quality of dose volume histograms (DVHs) of MP - VMAT to the ones calculated from 36 DEIMs following the step 1 of MP - VMAT model. Additionally, the MLCs motion violations were evaluated for the complete 360° gantry rotation for gantry speeds ranging from 1 to 6° per second. The quality of MP - VMAT plans were also compared to conventional single energy VMAT plans via DVH, homogeneity index (HI), and conformity number (CN) for two prostate cases.

RESULTS

The MP - VMAT model resulted in a successful convergence of DVHs relative to the ones from DEIMs with HI and CN of 0.05 and 0.9, respectively, for 1 and 2° per second gantry speed schedules. In replicating the DEIMs, the MILP dispersion model was able to achieve optimality for almost all segments at 1° per second and for majority of segments at 2° per second. Although, DVHs quality was slightly inferior for 3° per second gantry speed, the target conformity of 0.9 and heterogeneity of 0.08 were achievable even for the suboptimal solutions. No violations of the MLC constraints were observed throughout the complete 360 degree arc rotation for any gantry speed schedule, thereby confirming MILP dispersion model. For the two prostate cases, the results showed MP - VMAT's ability to achieve substantial dose reduction in rectum and bladder while yielding similar target coverage compared to single energy VMAT. Bladder volume was mostly spared in low-to-intermediate dose region. Rectal volume sparing (3 % to 12 %) was observed in the intermediate (from 25 to 50 Gy) dose region.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrate the first formalism of a large-scale simultaneous optimization of mixed photon energy beams for VMAT. Dosimetric comparison of MP - VMAT to single energy VMAT demonstrated potential advantages of using mixed photon energy beams for prostate plans, thus providing an impetus for further testing on a large clinical cohort.

Early and late side effects, dosimetric parameters and quality of life after proton beam therapy and IMRT for prostate cancer: a matched-pair analysis

Purpose: To compare early and late toxicities, dosimetric parameters and quality of life (QoL) between conventionally fractionated proton beam therapy (PBT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in prostate cancer (PCA) patients. Methods: Eighty-eight patients with localized PCA treated between 2013 and 2017 with either definitive PBT (31) or IMRT (57) were matched using propensity score matching on PCA risk group, transurethral resection of the prostate, prostate volume, diabetes mellitus and administration of anticoagulants resulting in 29 matched pairs. Early and late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) and QoL based on EORTC-QLQ-C30/PR25 questionnaires were collected prospectively until 12 months after radiotherapy (RT). Associations between toxicities and dose-volume parameters in corresponding organs at risk (OARs) were modeled by logistic regression. Results: There were no significant differences in GI and GU toxicities between both treatment groups except for late urinary urgency, which was significantly lower after PBT (IMRT: 25.0%, PBT: 0%, p = .047). Late GU toxicities and obstruction grade ≥2 were significantly associated with the relative volume of the anterior bladder wall receiving 70 Gy and the entire bladder receiving 60 Gy, respectively. The majority of patients in both groups reported high functioning and low symptom scores for the QoL questionnaires before and after RT. No or little changes were observed for most items between baseline and 3 or 12 months after RT, respectively. Global health status increased more at 12 months after IMRT (p = .040) compared to PBT, while the change of constipation was significantly better at 3 months after PBT compared to IMRT (p = .034). Conclusions: Overall, IMRT and PBT were well tolerated. Despite the superiority of PBT in early constipation and IMRT in late global health status compared to baseline, overall QoL and the risks of early and late GU and GI toxicities were similar for conventionally fractionated IMRT and PBT.

Hydrogel Spacer Reduces Rectal Dose during Proton Therapy for Prostate Cancer: A Dosimetric Analysis

Purpose

Proton therapy for prostate cancer may reduce bowel dose and risk of bowel symptoms relative to photon-based methods. Here, we determined the effect of using a biodegradable, injectable hydrogel spacer on rectal dose on plans for treating prostate cancer with intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) or passive scattering proton therapy (PSPT).

Materials and Methods

Pairs of IMPT and PSPT plans for 9 patients were created from fused computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging scans obtained before and after spacer injection. Calculated values of rectal V40, V60, V70, V80, and maximum dose (Dmax) were compared with Wilcoxon signed rank tests. Displacements at the base (BP), midgland (MP), and apex (AP) of the prostate relative to the anterior rectal wall with the spacer in place were averaged for each patient and correlated with V70 by using linear regression models.

Results

The presence of a spacer reduced all dosimetric parameters for both PSPT and IMPT, with the greatest difference in V70, which was 81.1% lower for PSPT-with-spacer than for IMPT-without-spacer. Median displacements at BP, MP, and AP were 12 mm (range 7-19), 2 mm (range 0-4), and 1 mm (range 0-5) without the spacer and 19 mm (range 12-23), 10 mm (range 8-16), and 7 mm (range 2-12) with the spacer. Modest linear trends were noted between rectal V70 and displacement for IMPT-with-spacer and PSPT-with-spacer. When displacement was ≥8 mm, V70 was ≤5.1% for IMPT-with-spacer and PSPT-with-spacer.

Conclusion

Use of biodegradable hydrogel spacers for prostate cancer treatment provides a significant reduction of radiation dose to the rectum with proton therapy. Significant reductions in rectal dose occurred in both PSPT and IMPT plans, with the greatest reduction for IMPT-with-spacer relative to PSPT alone. Prospective studies are ongoing to assess the clinical impact of reducing rectal dose with hydrogel spacers.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Evaluation of mixed energy partial arcs for volumetric modulated arc therapy for prostate cancer

PURPOSE

The purpose of this work was to investigate the dosimetric impact of mixed energy (6-MV, 15-MV) partial arcs (MEPAs) technique on prostate cancer VMAT plans.

METHODS

This work involved prostate only patients, planned with 79.2 Gy in 44 fractions to the planning target volume (PTV). Femoral heads, bladder, and rectum were considered organs at risk. This study was performed in two parts. For each of the 25 patients in Part 1, two single-energy single-arc plans, a 6 MV-SA plan and a 15 MV-SA plan, and a third MEPA plan involving composite of 6-MV anterior-posterior partial arcs and a 15-MV lateral partial arc weighted 1:2 were created. The dosimetric difference between MEPA(6/15 MV 1:2 weighted) and 6 MV-SA plans, and MEPA(6/15 MV 1:2 weighted) and 15 MV-SA plans were measured. In the Part 2 of this study, a second MEPAs plan (6 MV anterior-posterior arcs and 15 MV lateral arcs weighted 1:1), (MEPA 6/15 MV 1:1 weighted), was generated for 15 patients and compared only with two single-energy partial arcs plans, a 6 and a 15 MV-PA, to investigate the influence of the energy only. Dosimetric parameters of each structure, total monitor-units (MUs), homogeneity index (HI), and conformity number (CN) were analyzed.

RESULTS

In Part 1, no statistically significant differences were observed for mean dose to PTV and CN for MEPAs (6/15 MV 1:2 weighted) vs 6 and 15 MV-SA. MEPAs (6/15 MV 1:2 weighted) increased HI compared to 6 and 15 MV-SA (P < 0.0005; P < 0.0005). MEPAs (6/15 MV 1:2 weighted) produced significantly lower mean doses to rectum, bladder, and MUs/fraction, but higher mean doses to femoral heads, compared to 6 MV-SA (P < 0.0005) and 15 MV-SA (P < 0.0005). The results of Part 2 of this study showed that, in comparison to 6 and 15 MV-PA, MEPAs (6/15 MV 1:1 weighted) plans significantly improved CNs (P < 0.0005; P < 0.0005) and produced significantly lower mean doses to the rectum and bladder (P < 0.0005; P < 0.0005). While mean doses to the PTV and femoral heads of MEPAs (6/15 MV 1:1 weighted) plans were statistically comparable to 6 MV-PA (P > 0.05), MEPAs (6/15 MV 1:1 weighted) increased mean doses to left (P = 0.04) and right (P = 0.04) femoral heads compared to 15 MV-PA. MEPAs (6/15 MV 1:1 weighted) resulted in significantly lower total MUs compared to 6 MV-PA (P < 0.0005) and 15 MV-PA (P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

The study for prostate radiotherapy demonstrated that a choice of MEPAs for VMAT has the potential to minimize doses to OARs and improve dose conformity to PTV, at the expense of a moderate increase in mean dose to the femoral heads.

Hypofractionated Versus Standard Fractionated Proton-beam Therapy for Low-risk Prostate Cancer: Interim Results of a Randomized Trial PCG GU 002

OBJECTIVE

To identify differences in terms of quality of life, the American Urological Association Symptom Index (AUA), or adverse events (AEs) among patients with prostate cancer treated with either standard fractionation or hypofractionation proton-beam therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients were prospectively randomized to receive 38 Gy relative biological effectiveness (RBE) in 5 treatments (n=49) or 79.2 Gy RBE in 44 treatments (n=33). All patients had low-risk prostate cancer and were treated with proton therapy using fiducial markers and daily image guidance.

RESULTS

Median follow-up for both groups was 18 months; 33 patients had follow-up of 2 years or longer. Baseline median (range) AUA was 4.7 (0 to 13) for the 38 Gy RBE arm and 4.8 (0 to 17) for the 79.2 Gy RBE arm. We observed no difference between the groups regarding the Expanded Prostate Index Composite urinary, bowel, or sexual function scores at 3, 6, 12, 18, or 24 months after treatment. The only significant difference was the AUA score at 12 months (8 for the 38 Gy RBE arm vs. 5 for the 79.2 Gy RBE arm; P=0.04); AUA scores otherwise were similar between groups. No grade 3 or higher AEs occurred in either arm.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated with proton therapy in this randomized trial tolerated treatment well, with excellent quality-of-life scores, persistent low AUA, and no grade 3 or higher AEs on either arm. We showed no apparent clinical difference in outcomes with hypofractionated proton-beam therapy compared with standard fractionation on the basis of this interim analysis.