1
|
Montero A, Hernando O, López M, Valero J, Ciérvide R, Sánchez E, Prado A, Zobec HB, Chen-Zhao X, Álvarez B, García-Aranda M, Alonso L, Alonso R, Fernández-Letón P, Rubio C. SABR tolerance after prostatectomy: pushing the boundaries of ultrahypofractionation. Clin Transl Oncol 2025:10.1007/s12094-025-03845-w. [PMID: 39862341 DOI: 10.1007/s12094-025-03845-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/05/2024] [Accepted: 01/08/2025] [Indexed: 01/27/2025]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the feasibility and tolerance of ultra-hypofractionated SABR (stereotactic ablative radiation therapy) protocol following radical prostatectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS We included patients undergoing adjuvant or salvage SABR between April 2019 and April 2023 targeting the surgical bed and pelvic lymph nodes up to a total dose of 36.25 Gy (7.25 Gy/fraction) and 26 Gy (5.2 Gy/fraction), respectively, in 5 fractions on alternate days with an urethra sparing protocol. Acute and late adverse effects were assessed using the CTCAE v5.0. Pearson's chi-square test for categorical variables was used to compare characteristics and possible associations among different subgroups. RESULTS Adjuvant radiation therapy (ART) was administered to 40 high-risk patients (detectable post-surgery PSA, Grade Group 4/5, nodal involvement, R1/R2 resection margin), while salvage radiotherapy (SRT) was delivered to 60 patients with rising PSA levels post-undetectable values. Elective nodal irradiation was performed in 57 patients, with 11 additional patients receiving a simultaneous integrated boost (total dose: 40 Gy in 5 fractions) for macroscopic nodal disease. Twenty-four high-risk patients underwent 24-months androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Treatment was well-tolerated with minimal toxicity. The maximum grade of SABR-related toxicity observed was grade 3. Acute gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity included seven cases of grade 2 and one of grade 3, while acute genitourinary (GU) events were limited to grade 2 in eight patients. Early-late toxicity included two cases of grade 3 and seven of grade 2 for GI, and 11 cases of grade 2 for GU. No toxicity above grade 3 was reported. With a median follow-up of 24 months (6-60 months), 14 patients experienced disease recurrence. CONCLUSIONS Ultra-hypofractionated adjuvant/salvage SABR appears feasible and safe. Longer follow-up is needed to validate observed outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Angel Montero
- Department of Radiation Oncology, HM Hospitales, C/Oña 10, 28050, Madrid, Spain.
- Universidad Camilo José Cela of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
| | - Ovidio Hernando
- Department of Radiation Oncology, HM Hospitales, C/Oña 10, 28050, Madrid, Spain
| | - Mercedes López
- Department of Radiation Oncology, HM Hospitales, C/Oña 10, 28050, Madrid, Spain
| | - Jeannette Valero
- Department of Radiation Oncology, HM Hospitales, C/Oña 10, 28050, Madrid, Spain
| | - Raquel Ciérvide
- Department of Radiation Oncology, HM Hospitales, C/Oña 10, 28050, Madrid, Spain
| | - Emilio Sánchez
- Department of Radiation Oncology, HM Hospitales, C/Oña 10, 28050, Madrid, Spain
| | | | - Helena B Zobec
- Department of Radiotherapy, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - Xin Chen-Zhao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, HM Hospitales, C/Oña 10, 28050, Madrid, Spain
| | - Beatriz Álvarez
- Department of Radiation Oncology, HM Hospitales, C/Oña 10, 28050, Madrid, Spain
| | | | - Leyre Alonso
- Department of Medical Physics, HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain
| | - Rosa Alonso
- Department of Radiation Oncology, HM Hospitales, C/Oña 10, 28050, Madrid, Spain
| | | | - Carmen Rubio
- Department of Radiation Oncology, HM Hospitales, C/Oña 10, 28050, Madrid, Spain
- Universidad Camilo José Cela of Madrid, Madrid, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Le Guévelou J, Zilli T, Ferretti L, Beuzit L, De Hertogh O, Palumbo S, Jolicoeur M, Crehange G, Derashodian T, De Crevoisier R, Chapet O, Terlizzi M, Supiot S, Salembier C, Sargos P. Urinary Organs at Risk for Prostate Cancer External Beam Radiation Therapy: Contouring Guidelines on Behalf of the Francophone Group of Urological Radiation Therapy. Pract Radiat Oncol 2024; 14:541-554. [PMID: 38986900 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2024.05.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/23/2024] [Revised: 05/09/2024] [Accepted: 05/14/2024] [Indexed: 07/12/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE The occurrence of genitourinary (GU) toxicity is a common adverse event observed after external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for prostate cancer (PCa). Recent findings suggest that the dose delivered to specific urinary organs at risk (OARs) such as the ureters, bladder trigone, and urethra is involved in the development of GU toxicity. METHODS AND MATERIALS A multidisciplinary task force including 3 radiation oncologists, a uroradiologist, and a urologist was created in 2022. First, OARs potentially involved in GU toxicity were identified and discussed. A literature review was performed, addressing several questions relative to urinary OARs: anatomic and radiological definition, radiation-induced injury, and dose-volume parameters. Second, results were presented and discussed with a panel of radiation oncologists and members of the "Francophone Group of Urological Radiation Therapy." Thereafter, the "Francophone Group of Urological Radiation Therapy" experts were asked to answer a dedicated questionnaire, including 35 questions on the controversial issues related to the delineation of urinary OARs. RESULTS The following structures were identified as critical for PCa EBRT: ureters, bladder, bladder neck, bladder trigone, urethra (intraprostatic, membranous, and spongious), striated sphincter, and postenucleation or posttransurethral resection of the prostate cavity. A consensus was obtained for 32 out of 35 items. CONCLUSIONS This consensus highlights contemporary urinary structures in both the upper and lower urinary tract to be considered for EBRT treatment planning of PCa. The current recommendations also propose a standardized definition of urinary OARs for both daily practice and future clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Thomas Zilli
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, EOC, Bellinzona, Switzerland; Università della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano, Switzerland; Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
| | | | - Luc Beuzit
- Department of Radiology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Pontchaillou, Rennes, France
| | - Olivier De Hertogh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, CHR Verviers East Belgium, Verviers, Belgium
| | - Samuel Palumbo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hôpital de Jolimont, La Louvière, Belgium
| | - Marjory Jolicoeur
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Charles LeMoyne Hospital, CISSS Montérégie-center, Montréal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Gilles Crehange
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut Curie, Saint-Cloud, France
| | - Talar Derashodian
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Charles LeMoyne Hospital, CISSS Montérégie-center, Montréal, Quebec, Canada
| | | | - Olivier Chapet
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud, Pierre Benite, France
| | - Mario Terlizzi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
| | - Stéphane Supiot
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest, Nantes Saint-Herblain, France; Unité en Sciences Biologiques et Biotechnologies, University of Nantes, Nantes, France
| | - Carl Salembier
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Europe Hospitals Brussels, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Paul Sargos
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Castelluccia A, Tramacere F, Colciago RR, Borgia M, Sallustio A, Proto T, Portaluri M, Arcangeli PS. 10-yr Results of Moderately Hypofractionated Postoperative Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer Focused on Treatment Related Toxicity. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2024; 22:102102. [PMID: 38759337 DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2024.102102] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/12/2024] [Revised: 03/04/2024] [Accepted: 04/22/2024] [Indexed: 05/19/2024]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION To retrospectively report long term outcomes following postoperative hypofractionated radiotherapy (RT) for prostate cancer, emphasizing treatment related toxicity. MATERIAL AND METHODS Patients for whom adjuvant or salvage RT was indicated after prostatectomy were treated with a course of moderate hypofractionation consisting in the delivery of 62.5 Gy in 25 fractions (2.5 Gy per fraction) on the prostate bed in 5 consecutive weeks (EQD21.5 = 70 Gy) by means of 3D-CRT in most of them. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was allowed at physician's discretion. Patients were evaluated for urinary and rectal complications according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4 (CTCAE v.4). Overall survival (OS), biochemical recurrence free survival (bRFS), and metastasis-free survival (MFS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS One hundred and ten patients with a median age of 67 years (range 51-78) were enrolled. The majority of them (82%) had adverse pathologic features only, while 31 (28%) had early biochemical relapse. Median PSA level before RT was 0.12 ng/mL (range 0-9 ng/mL). Median time from surgery was 4 months (range 1-136 months). Twenty-eight patients (25.4%) also received ADT. At a median follow up of 103 months (range 19-138 months), late Grade 3 and Grade 4 rectal toxicity were 0.9% (1 case of hematochezia) and 0.9% (1 case of fistula), respectively, while late Grade 3 GU side effects (urethral stenosis) occurred in 9 cases (8%). No late Grade 4 events were observed, respectively. Ten-year OS, b-RFS and MFS were 77.3% (95%CI: 82.1%-72.5%), 53.3% (95%CI: 59.9%-47.6%), and 76.7% (95%CI: 81.2%-72.2%), respectively. CONCLUSION Our study provides long term data that a shortened course of postoperative RT is as safe and effective as a long course of conventionally fractionated RT and would improve patients' convenience and significantly reduce RT department workloads.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Marzia Borgia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perrino Hospital, 72100, Brindisi, Italy
| | | | - Tiziana Proto
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perrino Hospital, 72100, Brindisi, Italy
| | - Maurizio Portaluri
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perrino Hospital, 72100, Brindisi, Italy
| | - Prof Stefano Arcangeli
- School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan Bicocca, Milan, Italy; Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, Monza, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Santamaria R, Zaffaroni M, Vincini MG, Colombi L, Gaeta A, Mastroleo F, Corrao G, Zerini D, Villa R, Mazzola GC, Alessi S, Luzzago S, Mistretta FA, Musi G, De Cobelli O, Gandini S, Kuncman L, Cattani F, Ceci F, Petralia G, Marvaso G, Jereczek-Fossa BA. Image-Guided Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy on Detectable Prostate Bed Recurrence after Prostatectomy in RT-Naïve Patients. Life (Basel) 2024; 14:870. [PMID: 39063623 PMCID: PMC11277978 DOI: 10.3390/life14070870] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/29/2024] [Revised: 07/02/2024] [Accepted: 07/08/2024] [Indexed: 07/28/2024] Open
Abstract
Purpose or Objective-The aim of the study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SBRT on detectable prostate bed recurrence in RT-naïve prostate cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS Eighty-six patients who underwent SBRT for macroscopic bed recurrence after prostatectomy were retrospectively included. Patients were treated based on mpMRI or choline/PSMA PET. RESULTS The median time to biochemical relapse (BCR) after RP was 46 months, with a median PSA at restaging of 1.04 ng/mL. Forty-six patients were staged with mpMRI and choline/PSMA PET, while ten and thirty were treated based on PET and MRI only, respectively. Only one late G ≥ 2 GI toxicity was observed. With a median BCR follow-up of 14 months, twenty-nine patients experienced a BCR with a median PSA at recurrence of 1.66 ng/mL and a median survival free from the event of 40.1 months. The median time to BCR was 17.9 months. Twenty-seven patients had clinical relapse (CR), with a median CR follow-up of 16.27 months and a median time to CR of 23.0 months. Biochemical recurrence-free survival at one and two years was 88% and 66%, respectively, while clinical recurrence-free survival at one and two years was 92% and 82%, respectively. Regarding local relapses, seven were in the field of treatment, while eight of them were outside the field of treatment. CONCLUSIONS Data showed that SBRT targeting only the macroscopic bed recurrence instead of the whole prostate bed is safe and effective. Additional data and longer follow-ups will provide a clearer indication of the appropriate treatment and staging methodology for these patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Riccardo Santamaria
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20139 Milan, Italy; (R.S.); (M.Z.); (L.C.); (F.M.); (G.C.); (D.Z.); (R.V.); (G.C.M.); (G.M.); (B.A.J.-F.)
| | - Mattia Zaffaroni
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20139 Milan, Italy; (R.S.); (M.Z.); (L.C.); (F.M.); (G.C.); (D.Z.); (R.V.); (G.C.M.); (G.M.); (B.A.J.-F.)
| | - Maria Giulia Vincini
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20139 Milan, Italy; (R.S.); (M.Z.); (L.C.); (F.M.); (G.C.); (D.Z.); (R.V.); (G.C.M.); (G.M.); (B.A.J.-F.)
| | - Lorenzo Colombi
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20139 Milan, Italy; (R.S.); (M.Z.); (L.C.); (F.M.); (G.C.); (D.Z.); (R.V.); (G.C.M.); (G.M.); (B.A.J.-F.)
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, 20122 Milan, Italy; (S.L.); (F.A.M.); (G.M.); (O.D.C.); (F.C.); (G.P.)
| | - Aurora Gaeta
- Department of Experimental Oncology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20139 Milan, Italy; (A.G.); (S.G.)
- Department of Statistics and Quantitative Methods, University of Milan-Bicocca, 20126 Milan, Italy
| | - Federico Mastroleo
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20139 Milan, Italy; (R.S.); (M.Z.); (L.C.); (F.M.); (G.C.); (D.Z.); (R.V.); (G.C.M.); (G.M.); (B.A.J.-F.)
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, 20122 Milan, Italy; (S.L.); (F.A.M.); (G.M.); (O.D.C.); (F.C.); (G.P.)
| | - Giulia Corrao
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20139 Milan, Italy; (R.S.); (M.Z.); (L.C.); (F.M.); (G.C.); (D.Z.); (R.V.); (G.C.M.); (G.M.); (B.A.J.-F.)
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, 20122 Milan, Italy; (S.L.); (F.A.M.); (G.M.); (O.D.C.); (F.C.); (G.P.)
| | - Dario Zerini
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20139 Milan, Italy; (R.S.); (M.Z.); (L.C.); (F.M.); (G.C.); (D.Z.); (R.V.); (G.C.M.); (G.M.); (B.A.J.-F.)
| | - Riccardo Villa
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20139 Milan, Italy; (R.S.); (M.Z.); (L.C.); (F.M.); (G.C.); (D.Z.); (R.V.); (G.C.M.); (G.M.); (B.A.J.-F.)
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, 20122 Milan, Italy; (S.L.); (F.A.M.); (G.M.); (O.D.C.); (F.C.); (G.P.)
| | - Giovanni Carlo Mazzola
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20139 Milan, Italy; (R.S.); (M.Z.); (L.C.); (F.M.); (G.C.); (D.Z.); (R.V.); (G.C.M.); (G.M.); (B.A.J.-F.)
| | - Sarah Alessi
- Division of Radiology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20139 Milan, Italy;
| | - Stefano Luzzago
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, 20122 Milan, Italy; (S.L.); (F.A.M.); (G.M.); (O.D.C.); (F.C.); (G.P.)
- Division of Urology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20139 Milan, Italy
| | - Francesco Alessandro Mistretta
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, 20122 Milan, Italy; (S.L.); (F.A.M.); (G.M.); (O.D.C.); (F.C.); (G.P.)
- Division of Urology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20139 Milan, Italy
| | - Gennaro Musi
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, 20122 Milan, Italy; (S.L.); (F.A.M.); (G.M.); (O.D.C.); (F.C.); (G.P.)
- Division of Urology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20139 Milan, Italy
| | - Ottavio De Cobelli
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, 20122 Milan, Italy; (S.L.); (F.A.M.); (G.M.); (O.D.C.); (F.C.); (G.P.)
- Division of Urology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20139 Milan, Italy
| | - Sara Gandini
- Department of Experimental Oncology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20139 Milan, Italy; (A.G.); (S.G.)
| | - Lukasz Kuncman
- Department of Radiotherapy, Medical University of Lodz, 90-419 Lodz, Poland;
- Department of External Beam Radiotherapy, Nicolaus Copernicus Multidisciplinary Centre for Oncology and Traumatology, 93-513 Lodz, Poland
| | - Federica Cattani
- Medical Physics Unit, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20139 Milan, Italy;
| | - Francesco Ceci
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, 20122 Milan, Italy; (S.L.); (F.A.M.); (G.M.); (O.D.C.); (F.C.); (G.P.)
- Division of Nuclear Medicine, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20139 Milan, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Petralia
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, 20122 Milan, Italy; (S.L.); (F.A.M.); (G.M.); (O.D.C.); (F.C.); (G.P.)
- Division of Radiology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20139 Milan, Italy;
| | - Giulia Marvaso
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20139 Milan, Italy; (R.S.); (M.Z.); (L.C.); (F.M.); (G.C.); (D.Z.); (R.V.); (G.C.M.); (G.M.); (B.A.J.-F.)
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, 20122 Milan, Italy; (S.L.); (F.A.M.); (G.M.); (O.D.C.); (F.C.); (G.P.)
| | - Barbara Alicja Jereczek-Fossa
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20139 Milan, Italy; (R.S.); (M.Z.); (L.C.); (F.M.); (G.C.); (D.Z.); (R.V.); (G.C.M.); (G.M.); (B.A.J.-F.)
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, 20122 Milan, Italy; (S.L.); (F.A.M.); (G.M.); (O.D.C.); (F.C.); (G.P.)
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Gao Y, Yoon S, Ma TM, Yang Y, Sheng K, Low DA, Ballas L, Steinberg ML, Kishan AU, Cao M. Intra-fractional geometric and dose/volume metric variations of magnetic resonance imaging-guided stereotactic radiotherapy of prostate bed after radical prostatectomy. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol 2024; 30:100573. [PMID: 38585371 PMCID: PMC10997948 DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2024.100573] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/06/2023] [Revised: 03/22/2024] [Accepted: 03/22/2024] [Indexed: 04/09/2024] Open
Abstract
Background and purpose Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)-guided Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) treatment to prostate bed after radical prostatectomy has garnered growing interests. The aim of this study is to evaluate intra-fractional anatomic and dose/volume metric variations for patients receiving this treatment. Materials and methods Nineteen patients who received 30-34 Gy in 5 fractions on a 0.35T MR-Linac were included. Pre- and post-treatment MRIs were acquired for each fraction (total of 75 fractions). The Clinical Target Volume (CTV), bladder, rectum, and rectal wall were contoured on all images. Volumetric changes, Hausdorff distance, Mean Distance to Agreement (MDA), and Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) for each structure were calculated. Median value and Interquartile range (IQR) were recorded. Changes in target coverage and Organ at Risk (OAR) constraints were compared and evaluated using Wilcoxon rank sum tests at a significant level of 0.05. Results Bladder had the largest volumetric changes, with a median volume increase of 48.9 % (IQR 28.9-76.8 %) and a median MDA of 5.1 mm (IQR 3.4-7.1 mm). Intra-fractional CTV volume remained stable with a median volume change of 1.2 % (0.0-4.8 %). DSC was 0.97 (IQR 0.94-0.99). For the dose/volume metrics, there were no statistically significant changes observed except for an increase in bladder hotspot and a decrease of bladder V32.5 Gy and mean dose. The CTV V95% changed from 99.9 % (IQR 98.8-100 %) to 99.6 % (IQR 93.9-100 %). Conclusion Despite intra-fractional variations of OARs, CTV coverage remained stable during MRI-guided SBRT treatments for the prostate bed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yu Gao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA
| | - Stephanie Yoon
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, City of Hope, Duarte, CA, USA
| | - Ting Martin Ma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Yingli Yang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Ruijin Hospital, China
| | - Ke Sheng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Daniel A. Low
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Leslie Ballas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Michael L. Steinberg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Amar U Kishan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Minsong Cao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Majewski W, Miszczyk M, Graupner D, Goc B, Goldner G, Napieralska A. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) re-irradiation for local failures following radical prostatectomy and post-operative radiotherapy. Strahlenther Onkol 2024; 200:230-238. [PMID: 38157016 PMCID: PMC10876733 DOI: 10.1007/s00066-023-02187-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/09/2023] [Accepted: 11/26/2023] [Indexed: 01/03/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE Local recurrences after radical prostatectomy (RP) and postoperative radiotherapy (RT) are challenging for salvage treatment. Retrospective analysis of own experiences with salvage re-irradiation was performed. METHODS The study included all consecutive patients treated with salvage stereotactic body radiotherapy (sSBRT) for prostate bed recurrence following RP and postoperative RT at a single tertiary center between 2014 and 2021. Treatment toxicity defined as the occurrence of CTCAE grade ≥ 2 genito-urinary (GU) or gastro-intestinal (GI) adverse events (AEs) was assessed. A PSA response, biochemical control (BC) and overall survival (OS) were also evaluated. RESULTS The study group included 32 patients with a median age of 68 years and a median follow-up of 41 months, treated with CyberKnife (53%) or Linac (47%) sSBRT. Total dose of 33.75-36.25 Gy in five fractions (72%) was applied in the majority of them. Approximately 19% patients reported grade ≥ 2 GU AEs both at baseline and at three months, and grade ≥ 2 GI toxicity increased from 0% at baseline to 6% at three months after sSBRT. There was some clinically relevant increase in late toxicity with 31% patients reporting late ≥ 2 GU, and 12.5% late ≥ 2 GI AEs. Two grade 3 AEs were recorded: recto-urinary fistulas. The majority of patients showed a PSA response (91% at one year post-sSBRT). The 3‑year BC was 40% and 3‑year OS was 87%. CONCLUSIONS Manageable toxicity profile and satisfactory biochemical response suggest that SBRT in patients with local recurrence following RP and postoperative RT might be a salvage option for selected patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wojciech Majewski
- Radiotherapy Department, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Wybrzeże Armii Krajowej 15, 44-100, Gliwice, Poland.
| | - Marcin Miszczyk
- III Department of Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Wybrzeże Armii Krajowej 15, 44-100, Gliwice, Poland
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, 1090, Vienna, Austria
| | - Donata Graupner
- III Department of Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Wybrzeże Armii Krajowej 15, 44-100, Gliwice, Poland
| | - Bartłomiej Goc
- Radiotherapy Department, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Wybrzeże Armii Krajowej 15, 44-100, Gliwice, Poland
| | - Gregor Goldner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, 1090, Vienna, Austria
| | - Aleksandra Napieralska
- Radiotherapy Department, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Wybrzeże Armii Krajowej 15, 44-100, Gliwice, Poland
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Mathier E, Althaus A, Zwahlen D, Lustenberger J, Zamboglou C, De Bari B, Aebersold DM, Guckenberger M, Zilli T, Shelan M. HypoFocal SRT Trial: Ultra-hypofractionated focal salvage radiotherapy for isolated prostate bed recurrence after radical prostatectomy; single-arm phase II study; clinical trial protocol. BMJ Open 2024; 14:e075846. [PMID: 38296279 PMCID: PMC10828884 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-075846] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/20/2023] [Accepted: 01/08/2024] [Indexed: 02/03/2024] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Despite radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy (RT) being established treatments for localised prostate cancer, a significant number of patients experience recurrent disease. While conventionally fractionated RT is still being used as a standard treatment in the postoperative setting, ultra-hypofractionated RT has emerged as a viable option with encouraging results in patients with localised disease in the primary setting. In addition, recent technological advancements in RT delivery and precise definition of isolated macroscopic recurrence within the prostate bed using prostate-specific membrane antigen-positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET) and multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) allow the exploration of ultra-hypofractionated schedules in the salvage setting using five fractions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS In this single-arm prospective phase II multicentre trial, 36 patients with node-negative prostate adenocarcinoma treated with RP at least 6 months before trial registration, tumour stage pT2a-3b, R0-1, pN0 or cN0 according to the UICC TNM 2009 and evidence of measurable local recurrence within the prostate bed detected by PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI within the last 3 months, will be included. The patients will undergo focal ultra-hypofractionated salvage RT with 34 Gy in five fractions every other day to the site of local recurrence in combination with 6 months of androgen deprivation therapy. The primary outcome of this study is biochemical relapse-free survival at 2 years. Secondary outcomes include acute side effects (until 90 days after the end of RT) of grade 3 or higher based on Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events V.5, progression-free survival, metastasis-free survival, late side effects and the quality of life (based on European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30, QLQ-PR25). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION The study has received ethical approval from the Ethics Commission of the Canton of Bern (KEK-BE 2022-01026). Academic dissemination will occur through publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT05746806.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Etienne Mathier
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Alexander Althaus
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Daniel Zwahlen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kantonsspital Winterthur, Winterthur, Switzerland
| | - Jens Lustenberger
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | | | - Berardino De Bari
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Réseau hospitalier neuchâtelois, Neuchatel, Switzerland
| | - Daniel M Aebersold
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | | | - Thomas Zilli
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Oncological Institute of Southern Switzerland, EOC, Bellinzona, Switzerland
- Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano, Switzerland
| | - Mohamed Shelan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Ferrario F, Franzese C, Faccenda V, Vukcaj S, Belmonte M, Lucchini R, Baldaccini D, Badalamenti M, Andreoli S, Panizza D, Magli A, Scorsetti M, Arcangeli S. Toxicity profile and Patient-Reported outcomes following salvage Stereotactic Ablative Radiation Therapy to the prostate Bed: The POPART multicentric prospective study. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2024; 44:100704. [PMID: 38111610 PMCID: PMC10726256 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2023.100704] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/31/2023] [Accepted: 11/25/2023] [Indexed: 12/20/2023] Open
Abstract
Background While SBRT to the prostate has become a valuable option as a radical treatment, limited data support its use in the postoperative setting. Here, we report the updated results of the multicentric Post-Prostatectomy Ablative Radiation Therapy (POPART) trial, investigating possible predictors of toxicities and patient-reported outcomes. Methods Patients with PSA levels between 0.1-2.0 ng/mL after radical prostatectomy received Linac-based SBRT to the prostate bed in five fractions every other day for a total dose of 32.5 Gy (EQD21.5 = 74.3 Gy). Late toxicity was assessed using CTCAE v.5 scale, while EPIC-CP, ICIQ-SF, IIEF 5 questionnaires and PSA levels measured quality of life and biochemical control. Pre- and post-treatment scores were compared using a paired t-test, with MID established at > 0.5 pooled SD from the baseline. A logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate potential associations between specific patient/tumor/treatment factors and outcome deterioration. Results From April 2021 to April 2023 a total of 50 pts were enrolled and treated. Median follow-up was 12.2 (3-27) months. No late ≥ G2 GI or GU toxicity was registered. Late G1 urinary and rectal toxicities occurred in 46 % and 4 % of patients, respectively. Among 47 patients completing all EPIC-CP domains, four (9 %) showed worsened QoL, and eleven (26 %) developed erectile dysfunction correlating with PTV D2% (P = 0.032). At Multivariate analysis bladder wall D10cc independently correlated with late G1 GU toxicity (P = 0.034). Median post-treatment PSA nadir was 0.04 ng/mL (0.00 - 0.84). At the last follow-up, six patients presented with biochemical failure, including two nodal relapses. Conclusions Our findings show that post-prostatectomy SBRT did not result in increased toxicity nor a significant decline in QoL measures, thus showing that it can be safely extended to the postoperative setting. Long-term follow-up and randomized comparisons with different RT schedules are needed to validate this approach.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Federica Ferrario
- School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan Bicocca, 20126 Milan, Italy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, 20900 Monza, Italy
| | - Ciro Franzese
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, 20090 Pieve Emanuele (MI), Italy
- Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery Department, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Rozzano (MI), Italy
| | - Valeria Faccenda
- Department of Medical Physics, Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, 20900 Monza, Italy
| | - Suela Vukcaj
- Department of Radiation Oncology, ASST Papa Giovanni XXIII, 24127 Bergamo, Italy
| | - Maria Belmonte
- School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan Bicocca, 20126 Milan, Italy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, 20900 Monza, Italy
| | - Raffaella Lucchini
- School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan Bicocca, 20126 Milan, Italy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, 20900 Monza, Italy
| | - Davide Baldaccini
- Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery Department, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Rozzano (MI), Italy
| | - Marco Badalamenti
- Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery Department, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Rozzano (MI), Italy
| | - Stefano Andreoli
- Department of Medical Physics, ASST Papa Giovanni XXIII, 24127 Bergamo, Italy
| | - Denis Panizza
- School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan Bicocca, 20126 Milan, Italy
- Department of Medical Physics, Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, 20900 Monza, Italy
| | - Alessandro Magli
- Department of Radiation Oncology, AULSS 1 Dolomiti, 32100 Belluno, Italy
| | - Marta Scorsetti
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, 20090 Pieve Emanuele (MI), Italy
- Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery Department, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Rozzano (MI), Italy
| | - Stefano Arcangeli
- School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan Bicocca, 20126 Milan, Italy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, 20900 Monza, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Ah-Thiane L, Sargos P, Chapet O, Jolicoeur M, Terlizzi M, Salembier C, Boustani J, Prevost C, Gaudioz S, Derashodian T, Palumbo S, De Hertogh O, Créhange G, Zilli T, Supiot S. Managing postoperative biochemical relapse in prostate cancer, from the perspective of the Francophone group of Urological radiotherapy (GFRU). Cancer Treat Rev 2023; 120:102626. [PMID: 37734178 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2023.102626] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/12/2023] [Revised: 09/14/2023] [Accepted: 09/15/2023] [Indexed: 09/23/2023]
Abstract
Up to 50% of patients treated with radical surgery for localized prostate cancer may experience biochemical recurrence that requires appropriate management. Definitions of biochemical relapse may vary, but, in all cases, consist of an increase in a PSA without clinical or radiological signs of disease. Molecular imaging through to positron emission tomography has taken a preponderant place in relapse diagnosis, progressively replacing bone scan and CT-scan. Prostate bed radiotherapy is currently a key treatment, the action of which should be potentiated by androgen deprivation therapy. Nowadays perspectives consist in determining the best combination therapies, particularly thanks to next-generation hormone therapies, but not exclusively. Several trials are ongoing and should address these issues. We present here a literature review aiming to discuss the current management of biochemical relapse in prostate cancer after radical surgery, in lights of recent findings, as well as future perspectives.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Loic Ah-Thiane
- Department of Radiation Oncology, ICO René Gauducheau, St-Herblain, France
| | - Paul Sargos
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Bergonie Institute, Bordeaux, France
| | - Olivier Chapet
- Department of Radiation Oncology, CHU Lyon Sud, Pierre-Bénite, France
| | - Marjory Jolicoeur
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Charles Le Moyne Hospital, Montreal, Canada
| | - Mario Terlizzi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, Villejuif, France
| | - Carl Salembier
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Europe Hospitals Brussels, Belgium
| | - Jihane Boustani
- Department of Radiation Oncology, CHU Besançon, Besançon, France
| | - Célia Prevost
- Department of Radiation Oncology, CHU Lyon Sud, Pierre-Bénite, France
| | - Sonya Gaudioz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, CHU Lyon Sud, Pierre-Bénite, France
| | - Talar Derashodian
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sindi Ahluwalia Hawkins Centre, Kelowna, Canada
| | - Samuel Palumbo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, CHU UCL Namur-Sainte Elisabeth, Namur, Belgium
| | - Olivier De Hertogh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, CHR Verviers East Belgium, Verviers, Belgium
| | - Gilles Créhange
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Curie Institute, Saint-Cloud, France
| | - Thomas Zilli
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Stéphane Supiot
- Department of Radiation Oncology, ICO René Gauducheau, St-Herblain, France.
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Le Guevelou J, Magne N, Counago F, Magsanoc JM, Vermeille M, De Crevoisier R, Benziane-Ouaritini N, Ost P, Niazi T, Supiot S, Sargos P. Stereotactic body radiation therapy after radical prostatectomy: current status and future directions. World J Urol 2023; 41:3333-3344. [PMID: 37725131 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-023-04605-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/18/2023] [Accepted: 08/28/2023] [Indexed: 09/21/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Around 40% of men with intermediate-risk or high-risk prostate cancer will experience a biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy (RP). The aim of this review is to describe both toxicity and oncological outcomes following stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) delivered to the prostate bed (PB). METHOD In april 2023, we performed a systematic review of studies published in MEDLINE or ClinicalTrials.gov according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews, using the keywords "stereotactic radiotherapy" AND "postoperative" AND "prostate cancer". RESULTS A total of 14 studies assessing either adjuvant or salvage SBRT to the whole PB or macroscopic local recurrence (MLR) within the PB, and SBRT on radiorecurrent MLR within the PB were included. Doses delivered to either whole PB or MLR between 30 to 40 Gy are associated with a low rate of late grade ≥ 2 genitourinary (GU) toxicity, ranging from 2.2 to 15.1%. Doses above 40 Gy are associated with increased rate of late GU toxicity, raising up to 38%. Oncological outcomes should be interpreted with caution, due to both short follow-up, heterogeneous populations and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) use. CONCLUSION PB or MLR SBRT delivered at doses up to 40 Gy appears safe with relatively low late severe GU toxicity rates. Caution is needed with dose-escalated RT schedules above 40 Gy. Further prospective trials are eagerly awaited in this disease setting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Nicolas Magne
- Department of Radiotherapy, Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France
| | - Felipe Counago
- Radiation Oncology Department, GenesisCare Madrid Clinical Director, San Francisco de Asis and La Milagrosa Hospitals, National Chair of Research and Clinical Trials, GenesisCare, Madrid, Spain
| | | | - Matthieu Vermeille
- Radiation Oncology Department, Genolier Swiss Radio-Oncology Network, Genolier, Switzerland
| | | | | | - Piet Ost
- Radiation Oncology Department, Iridium Network, Antwerp, Belgium
- Department of Human Structure and Repair, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Tamim Niazi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Stéphane Supiot
- Radiation Oncology Department, Institut de Cancérologie de L'Ouest, Nantes, France
| | - Paul Sargos
- Department of Radiotherapy, Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Alger E, Minchom A, Lee Aiyegbusi O, Schipper M, Yap C. Statistical methods and data visualisation of patient-reported outcomes in early phase dose-finding oncology trials: a methodological review. EClinicalMedicine 2023; 64:102228. [PMID: 37781154 PMCID: PMC10541462 DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102228] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/16/2023] [Revised: 08/25/2023] [Accepted: 09/05/2023] [Indexed: 10/03/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Traditionally, within dose-finding clinical trials, treatment toxicity and tolerability are assessed by clinicians. Research has shown that clinician reporting may have inadequate inter-rater reliability, poor correlation with patient reported outcomes, and under capture the true toxicity burden. The introduction of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), where the patient can assess their own symptomatic adverse events or quality of life, has potential to complement current practice to aid dose optimisation. There are no international recommendations offering guidance for the inclusion of PROs in dose-finding trial design and analysis. Our review aimed to identify and describe current statistical methods and data visualisation techniques employed to analyse and visualise PRO data in published early phase dose-finding oncology trials (DFOTs). Methods DFOTs published from June 2016-December 2022, which presented PRO analysis methods, were included in this methodological review. We extracted 35 eligible papers indexed in PubMed. Study characteristics extracted included: PRO objectives, PRO measures, statistical analysis and visualisation techniques, and whether the PRO was involved in interim and final dose selection decisions. Findings Most papers (30, 85.7%) did not include clear PRO objectives. 20 (57.1%) papers used inferential statistical techniques to analyse PROs, including survival analysis and mixed-effect models. One trial used PROs to classify a clinicians' assessed dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). Three (8.6%) trials used PROs to confirm the tolerability of the recommended dose. 25 trial reports visually presented PRO data within a figure or table within their publication, of which 12 papers presented PRO score longitudinally. Interpretation This review highlighted that the statistical methods and reporting of PRO analysis in DFOTs are often poorly described and inconsistent. Many trials had PRO objectives which were not clearly described, making it challenging to evaluate the appropriateness of the statistical techniques used. Drawing conclusions based on DFOTs which are not powered for PROs may be misleading. With no guidance and standardisation of analysis methods for PROs in early phase DFOTs, it is challenging to compare study findings across trials. Therefore, there is a crucial need to establish international guidance to enhance statistical methods and graphical presentation for PRO analysis in the dose-finding setting. Funding EA has been supported to undertake this work as part of a PhD studentship from the Institute of Cancer Research within the MRC/NIHR Trials Methodology Research Partnership. AM is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, the Institute of Cancer Research and Imperial College.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emily Alger
- Clinical Trial and Statistics Unit, Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Anna Minchom
- Drug Development Unit, Royal Marsden/Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, UK
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Matthew Schipper
- Departments of Radiation Oncology and Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Christina Yap
- Clinical Trial and Statistics Unit, Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Ozyigit G, Onal C, Beduk Esen CS, Tilki B, Hurmuz P. Treatment outcomes of postoperative ultra-hypofractionated stereotactic body radiotherapy in prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 2023; 41:252.e1-252.e8. [PMID: 36631368 DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2022.12.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/21/2022] [Revised: 11/29/2022] [Accepted: 12/03/2022] [Indexed: 01/11/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ultra-hypofractionated stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) to prostate bed. METHODS Sixty-six prostate cancer patients treated with postoperative ultra-hypofractionated SBRT between 2018 and 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. All patients received a total dose of 35 Gy to prostate bed in 5 fractions. Biochemical complete response (BCR), biochemical failure (BF), acute and late toxicities were assessed. RESULTS After a median follow-up of 24.2 months (range, 6.4-37.2), seven patients (10.6%) developed BF, and the 2-year freedom from BF (FFBF) rate was 88.4%. BCR was observed in 57 patients (86.4%). The 2-year FFBF in patients with pre-SBRT PSA value of <0.2 ng/mL was higher than those with pre-SBRT PSA of ≥0.2 ng/mL (100% vs. 81.4%; P = 0.04). The 2-year FFBF in patients with BCR was significantly higher than in those without BCR (94.5% vs. 58.3%; P < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, pre-SBRT PSA and post-SBRT PSA values were prognostic factors for FFBF (P = 0.009 and P = 0.01, respectively). Nine patients (13.6 %) developed acute and late grade 2 genitourinary (GU) toxicities. There was no acute or late grade ≥3 GU toxicity. Acute and late grade ≥2 gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity was observed in 9 (13.6%) and 2 (3%) patients, respectively. CONCLUSION Postoperative ultra-fractionated SBRT showed no severe acute toxicity and late toxicity rates of about 15%, in addition to excellent biochemical control rates. Pre- and post-SBRT PSA levels may be a predictor of BCR in patients receiving post-operative ultra-fractionated SBRT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gokhan Ozyigit
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
| | - Cem Onal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Adana Dr. Turgut Noyan Research and Treatment Center, Baskent University Faculty of Medicine, Adana, Turkey; Department of Radiation Oncology, Baskent University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| | | | - Burak Tilki
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Pervin Hurmuz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
The Role of Adaptive Planning in Margin-Reduced, MRI-Guided Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy to the Prostate Bed Following Radical Prostatectomy: Post-hoc Analysis of a Phase II Clinical Trial. Radiother Oncol 2023; 183:109631. [PMID: 36934894 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109631] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/18/2022] [Revised: 03/02/2023] [Accepted: 03/13/2023] [Indexed: 03/19/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE We examined the interfractional variations of clinical target volumes (CTVs), planning target volumes (PTVs), and organs-at-risk (OARs) in patients receiving MRI-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) to the prostate bed and evaluated the potential role of adaptive planning. MATERIALS AND METHODS 31 patients received 30-34 Gy in five fractions to the prostate bed on a phase II clinical trial. OARs, CTVs, and PTVs were retrospectively contoured on daily pretreatment MRIs (n=155). Geometric comparisons were made between initial planning contours and daily pretreatment contours. Predicted treatment plans for each fraction were evaluated using the following constraints: CTV V95%>93%, PTV V95%>90%, bladder Dmax<36.7Gy, bladder V32.5Gy<35%, rectum Dmax<36.7Gy, rectum V27.5Gy<45%, rectum 32.5Gy<30%, and rectal wall V24Gy<50%. Adaptive planning was simulated for all fractions that failed to meet these criteria. Plans were then re-evaluated. RESULTS Median change in volume was 0.48% for CTV, -24.5% for bladder, and 6.95% for rectum. Median DSC was 0.89 for CTV, 0.79 for bladder, and 0.76 for rectum. 145/155 fractions (93.5%) met CTV V95%>93%. 75/155 fractions (48.4%) failed at least one OAR dose constraint. Overall, 83/155 fractions (53.5%) met criteria for adapting planning. This affected 24/31 patients (77.4%). Following adaptive planning, all fractions met CTV V95%>93% and PTV V95%>90% and 120/155 fractions (77.4%) met all OAR constraints. CONCLUSION Due to significant interfractional variations in anatomy, a majority of fractions failed to meet both target volume and OAR constraints. However, adaptive planning was effective in overcoming these anatomic changes. Adaptive planning should be routinely considered in prostate bed SBRT. This was a post-hoc analysis of the following registered clinical trial: NCT03541850.
Collapse
|
14
|
Padayachee J, Chaudhary S, Shim B, So J, Lim R, Raman S. Utilizing clinical, pathological and radiological information to guide postoperative radiotherapy in prostate cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2023; 23:293-305. [PMID: 36795862 DOI: 10.1080/14737140.2023.2181795] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/18/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION A detectable and rising PSA following radical prostatectomy is indicative of recurrent prostate cancer. Salvage radiotherapy (SRT) with/without androgen deprivation therapy represents the main treatment option for these patients and has been historically associated with a biochemical control rate of ~70%. To determine the optimal timing, diagnostic workup, radiotherapy dosefractionation, treatment volume, and use of systemic therapy, several informative studies have been conducted in the last decade. AREAS COVERED This review examines the recent evidence to guide radiotherapy decision making in the SRT setting. Key topics include adjuvant vs salvage RT, utilization of molecular imaging and genomic classifiers, length of androgen deprivation therapy, inclusion of elective pelvic volume, and emerging role for hypofractionation. EXPERT OPINION Recently reported trials, conducted in an era prior to the routine use of molecular imaging and genomic classifiers, have been pivotal in establishing the current standard of care for SRT in prostate cancer. However, decisions about radiation treatment and systemic therapy may be tailored based on available prognostic and predictive biomarkers. Data from contemporary clinical trials are awaited to define and establish individualized, biomarker-driven approaches for SRT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jerusha Padayachee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Simone Chaudhary
- Princess Margaret Hospital Cancer Centre, Radiation Medicine Program, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Brian Shim
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Jonathan So
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Remy Lim
- Mercy PET/CT Epsom, Auckland, New Zealand.,Department of Radiology, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Srinivas Raman
- Princess Margaret Hospital Cancer Centre, Radiation Medicine Program, Toronto, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Three Months' PSA and Toxicity from a Prospective Trial Investigating STereotactic sAlvage Radiotherapy for Macroscopic Prostate Bed Recurrence after Prostatectomy-STARR (NCT05455736). Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:cancers15030992. [PMID: 36765948 PMCID: PMC9913280 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15030992] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/22/2022] [Revised: 01/27/2023] [Accepted: 01/30/2023] [Indexed: 02/08/2023] Open
Abstract
Biochemical recurrences after radical prostatectomy (RP) can be managed with curative purpose through salvage radiation therapy (SRT). RT dose escalation, such as stereotactic RT (SSRT), may improve relapse-free survival in this setting. STARR trial (NCT05455736) is a prospective multicenter study including patients affected by macroscopic recurrence within the prostate bed after RP treated with SSRT. Recurrence was detected with a Choline or PSMA CT-PET. In the current analysis, the early biochemical response (BR) rate and toxicity profile after three months of follow-up were assessed. Twenty-five patients were enrolled, and data about BR and toxicity at three months after treatment were available for 19 cases. Overall, BR was detected after three months in 58% of cases. Four G1-G2 adverse events were recorded; no G ≥ 3 adverse events were detected. SSRT appears feasible and safe, with more than half of patients experiencing BR and an encouraging toxicity profile. The STARR trial is one of the few prospective studies aimed at implementing this promising treatment strategy in this scenario.
Collapse
|
16
|
Ma TM, Ballas LK, Wilhalme H, Sachdeva A, Chong N, Sharma S, Yang T, Basehart V, Reiter RE, Saigal C, Chamie K, Litwin MS, Rettig MB, Nickols NG, Yoon SM, Smith L, Gao Y, Steinberg ML, Cao M, Kishan AU. Quality-of-Life Outcomes and Toxicity Profile Among Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer After Radical Prostatectomy Treated With Stereotactic Body Radiation: The SCIMITAR Multicenter Phase 2 Trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 115:142-152. [PMID: 36007724 PMCID: PMC11386273 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.08.041] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/07/2022] [Revised: 07/26/2022] [Accepted: 08/16/2022] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Postoperative radiation therapy (RT) is an underused standard-of-care intervention for patients with prostate cancer and recurrence/adverse pathologic features after radical prostatectomy. Although stereotactic body RT (SBRT) is a well-studied and convenient option for definitive treatment, data on the postprostatectomy setting are extremely limited. The purpose of this study was to evaluate short-term physician-scored genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities and patient-reported outcomes after postprostatectomy SBRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS The SCIMITAR trial was a phase 2, dual-center, open-label, single-arm trial that enrolled patients with postoperative prostate-specific antigen >0.03 ng/mL or adverse pathologic features. Coprimary endpoints were 4-year biochemical recurrence-free survival, physician-scored acute and late GU and GI toxicities by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.03) scale, and patient-reported quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes, as represented by the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index-26 and the International Prostate Symptom Score. Patients received SBRT 30 to 34 Gy/5 fractions to the prostate bed ± bed boost ± pelvic nodes with computed tomography (CTgRT) or magnetic resonance imaging guidance (MRgRT) in a nonrandomized fashion. Physician-scored toxicities and patient-reported QOL outcomes were collected at baseline and at 1, 3, and 6 months of follow-up. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to evaluate predictors of toxicities and QOL outcomes. RESULTS One hundred participants were enrolled (CTgRT, n = 69; MRgRT, n = 31). The median follow-up was 29.5 months (CTgRT: 33.3 months, MRgRT: 22.6 months). The median (range) prostate bed dose was 32 (30-34) Gy. Acute and late grade 2 GU toxicities were both 9% while acute and late grade 2 GI toxicities were 5% and 0%, respectively. Three patients had grade 3 toxicity (n = 1 GU, n = 2 GI). No patient receiving MRgRT had grade 3 GU or grade ≥2 GI toxicity. Compared with CTgRT, MRgRT was associated with a 30.5% (95% confidence interval, 11.6%-49.5%) reduction in any-grade acute GI toxicity (P = .006). MRgRT was independently associated with improved any-grade GI toxicity and improved bowel QOL. CONCLUSIONS Postprostatectomy SBRT was well tolerated at short-term follow-up. MRgRT may decrease GI toxicity. Longer toxicity and/or efficacy follow-up and randomized studies are needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ting Martin Ma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, California
| | - Leslie K Ballas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California
| | - Holly Wilhalme
- Department of Medicine Statistics Core, Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research
| | - Ankush Sachdeva
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, California
| | - Natalie Chong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, California
| | - Sahil Sharma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, California
| | - Tiffany Yang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, California
| | - Vincent Basehart
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, California
| | | | | | | | - Mark S Litwin
- Department of Urology; Department of Health Policy and Management, Fielding School of Public Health; School of Nursing
| | - Matthew B Rettig
- Department of Urology; Department of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Nicholas G Nickols
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, California
| | - Stephanie M Yoon
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, California
| | - Lauren Smith
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, California
| | - Yu Gao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, California
| | - Michael L Steinberg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, California
| | - Minsong Cao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, California
| | - Amar U Kishan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, California; Department of Urology.
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Laughlin BS, Voss MM, Toesca DA, Daniels T, Golafshar MA, Keole SR, Wong WW, Rwigema JC, Davis B, Schild SE, Stish BJ, Choo R, Lester S, DeWees TA, Vargas CE. Preliminary Analysis of a Phase II Trial of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer With High-Risk Features After Radical Prostatectomy. Adv Radiat Oncol 2022; 8:101143. [PMID: 36845611 PMCID: PMC9943785 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2022.101143] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/03/2022] [Accepted: 11/30/2022] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose There are limited data regarding using stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in the postprostatectomy setting. Here, we present a preliminary analysis of a prospective phase II trial that aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of postprostatectomy SBRT for adjuvant or early salvage therapy. Materials and Methods Between May 2018 and May 2020, 41 patients fulfilled inclusion criteria and were stratified into 3 groups: group I (adjuvant), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) < 0.2 ng/mL with high-risk features including positive surgical margins, seminal vesicle invasion, or extracapsular extension; group II (salvage), with PSA ≥ 0.2 ng/mL but < 2 ng/mL; or group III (oligometastatic), with PSA ≥ 0.2 ng/mL but < 2 ng/mL and up to 3 sites of nodal or bone metastases. Androgen deprivation therapy was not offered to group I. Androgen deprivation therapy was offered for 6 months for group II and 18 months for group III patients. SBRT dose to the prostate bed was 30 to 32 Gy in 5 fractions. Baseline-adjusted physician reported toxicities (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events), patient reported quality-of-life (Expanded Prostate Index Composite, Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System), and American Urologic Association scores were evaluated for all patients. Results The median follow-up was 23 months (range, 10-37). SBRT was adjuvant in 8 (20%) patients, salvage in 28 (68%), and salvage with the presence of oligometastases in 5 (12%) patients. Urinary, bowel, and sexual quality of life domains remained high after SBRT. Patients tolerated SBRT with no grade 3 or higher (3+) gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicities. The baseline adjusted acute and late toxicity grade 2 genitourinary (urinary incontinence) rate was 2.4% (1/41) and 12.2% (5/41). At 2 years, clinical disease control was 95%, and biochemical control was 73%. Among the 2 clinical failures, 1 was a regional node and the other a bone metastasis. Oligometastatic sites were salvaged successfully with SBRT. There were no in-target failures. Conclusions Postprostatectomy SBRT was very well tolerated in this prospective cohort, with no significant effect on quality of life metrics postirradiation, while providing excellent clinical disease control.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Molly M. Voss
- Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona
| | | | - Thomas Daniels
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona,Department of Radiation Oncology, NYU Langone Health, Brooklyn, New York
| | | | - Sameer R. Keole
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona
| | - William W. Wong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona
| | | | - Brian Davis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | - Brad J. Stish
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Richard Choo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Scott Lester
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Todd A. DeWees
- Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona
| | - Carlos E. Vargas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona,Corresponding author: Carlos E. Vargas, MD
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Acute Toxicity and Quality of Life in a Post-Prostatectomy Ablative Radiation Therapy (POPART) Multicentric Trial. Curr Oncol 2022; 29:9349-9356. [PMID: 36547147 PMCID: PMC9776836 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol29120733] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/12/2022] [Revised: 11/23/2022] [Accepted: 11/28/2022] [Indexed: 12/05/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy to the prostate bed in patients with biochemical and/or clinical relapse following radical prostatectomy who were enrolled in the prospective, observational, multicentric POPART trial (NCT04831970). METHODS Patients with post-radical prostatectomy PSA levels of ≥0.1-2.0 ng/mL and/or local relapse at PSMA PET/CT or multiparametric MRI were treated with Linac-based SBRT on the prostate bed up to a total dose of 32.5 Gy in five fractions every other day (EQD21.5 = 74.2 Gy). Maximum acute toxicity was assessed using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5 scale. International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form (ICIQ-SF) and Prostate Cancer Index Composite for Clinical Practice (EPIC-CP) scores were assessed at baseline and during the follow-up. RESULTS From April 2021 to June 2022, thirty men with a median age of 72 years (range 55-82) were enrolled in three centers. The median PSA level before RT was 0.30 ng/mL (range 0.18-1.89 ng/mL). At 3 months post-treatment, no GI or ≥2 GU side effects were reported; three patients (10%) experienced Grade 1 GU toxicity. No changes in ICIQ-SF or in the urinary domains of EPIC-CP were observed, while a transient worsening was registered in the bowel domain. At the same time point, all but two patients, who progressed distantly, were found to be biochemically controlled with a median post-treatment PSA level of 0.07 ng/mL (range 0-0.48 ng/mL). CONCLUSIONS Our preliminary findings show that SBRT can be safely extended to the postoperative setting, without an increase in short-term toxicity or a significant decline in QoL. Long-term results are needed to confirm this strategy.
Collapse
|
19
|
Kishan AU, Kaminski J, Alongi F. Editorial: Stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Front Oncol 2022; 12:1034987. [PMID: 36324568 PMCID: PMC9619069 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.1034987] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/02/2022] [Accepted: 09/12/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Amar U. Kishan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States
- Department of Urology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States
- *Correspondence: Amar U. Kishan,
| | - Joseph Kaminski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, United States
- Department of Radiology, Memphis Veterans Administration Medical Center, Memphis, TN, United States
| | - Filippo Alongi
- Advanced Radiation Oncology department, IRCCS Ospedale Sacro Cuore Don Calabria, Negrar dì Valpolicella (Verona), Verona, Italy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Brescia, Verona, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
A Phase I Trial of Highly Conformal, Hypofractionated Post-Prostatectomy Radiotherapy. Adv Radiat Oncol 2022; 7:101024. [DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2022.101024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/08/2022] [Accepted: 07/05/2022] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
|
21
|
Stereotactic or conventional radiotherapy for macroscopic prostate bed recurrence: a propensity score analysis. Radiol Med 2022; 127:449-457. [PMID: 35247134 PMCID: PMC8897730 DOI: 10.1007/s11547-022-01465-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/12/2021] [Accepted: 02/01/2022] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
Purpose To assess outcomes between salvage radiation therapy (SRT) with curative intent and stereotactic radiotherapy for macroscopic prostate recurrence (SSRT) after radical prostatectomy (RP). In order to compare these two different options, we compared their outcomes with a propensity score-based matched analysis. Methods Data from 185 patients in seven Italian centres treated for macroscopic prostate bed recurrence after RP were retrospectively collected. To make a comparison between the two treatment groups, propensity matching was applied to create comparable cohorts.
Results After matching, 90 patients in the SRT and SSRT groups were selected (45 in each arm). Kaplan–Meier analysis did not show any significant differences in terms of BRFS and PFS between matched populations (p = 0.08 and p = 0.8, respectively). Multivariate models show that treatment was not associated with BRFS, neither in the whole or matched cohort, with HR of 2.15 (95%CI 0.63–7.25, p = 0.21) and 2.65 (95%CI 0.59–11.97, p = 0.21), respectively. In the matched cohort, lower rate of toxicity was confirmed for patients undergoing SSRT, with acute GI and GU adverse events reported in 4.4 versus 44.4% (p < 0.001) and 28.9 versus 46.7% (p = 0.08) of patients, and late GI and GU adverse events reported in 0 versus 13.3% (p = 0.04) and 6.7 versus 22.2% (p = 0.03) of patients, respectively.
Conclusion Considering the favourable therapeutic ratio of this approach and the lower number of fractions needed, SSRT should be considered as an attractive alternative to conventional SRT in this setting.
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11547-022-01465-w.
Collapse
|
22
|
Schröder C, Tang H, Windisch P, Zwahlen DR, Buchali A, Vu E, Bostel T, Sprave T, Zilli T, Murthy V, Förster R. Stereotactic Radiotherapy after Radical Prostatectomy in Patients with Prostate Cancer in the Adjuvant or Salvage Setting: A Systematic Review. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14030696. [PMID: 35158961 PMCID: PMC8833497 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14030696] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/04/2022] [Revised: 01/22/2022] [Accepted: 01/26/2022] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Stereotactic body radiotherapy, a type of high-precision radiotherapy delivering high doses within few treatment sessions has proven to be effective and well tolerated in prostate cancer patients treated with definite radiotherapy. This systematic review summarizes the available data and analyzes whether this modern treatment may routinely be offered to prostate cancer patients after radical prostatectomy. Abstract (1) Background: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men and can be treated with radical prostatectomy (RPE) or radiotherapy in the primary setting. Stereotactic radiotherapy (SBRT) has proven to be effective and well tolerated in this setting. However, if SBRT is an equally promising treatment option if applied in the adjuvant or salvage setting after RPE remains unknown. (2) Methods: We searched the PubMed and Embase databases with the following full-text queries in August 2021 for any combination of the terms “SBRT”, “prostate”, “adjuvant”, “postoperative”, “salvage”, “stereotactic radiotherapy”, “prostate bed”. There were no limitations regarding publication date or language. We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. (3) Results: We identified 11 individual studies that were included in this systematic review. Three publications included patients without prior radiotherapy and the remaining eight patients with prior radiotherapy. In all but two publications the radiation target was the macroscopic recurrence. SBRT was overall well tolerated with acceptable rates of acute and late gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicity. Quality of life was published for two phase I trials with good results. There was a very heterogeneous reporting on biochemical control after SBRT. (4) Conclusions: At this point, ultra-hypofractionated RT using SBRT to the prostate bed remains experimental and its use should be restricted to clinical trials. Given the biological rationale for extreme hypofractionation in patients with prostate cancer and the acceptable toxicity rates that have been reported, further exploration of this field is warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christina Schröder
- Institute for Radiation Oncology, Cantonal Hospital Winterthur (KSW), 8400 Winterthur, Switzerland; (C.S.); (H.T.); (P.W.); (D.R.Z.)
| | - Hongjian Tang
- Institute for Radiation Oncology, Cantonal Hospital Winterthur (KSW), 8400 Winterthur, Switzerland; (C.S.); (H.T.); (P.W.); (D.R.Z.)
| | - Paul Windisch
- Institute for Radiation Oncology, Cantonal Hospital Winterthur (KSW), 8400 Winterthur, Switzerland; (C.S.); (H.T.); (P.W.); (D.R.Z.)
| | - Daniel Rudolf Zwahlen
- Institute for Radiation Oncology, Cantonal Hospital Winterthur (KSW), 8400 Winterthur, Switzerland; (C.S.); (H.T.); (P.W.); (D.R.Z.)
| | - André Buchali
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ruppiner Kliniken GmbH, Brandenburg Medical School (MHB), 16816 Neuruppin, Germany;
| | - Erwin Vu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cantonal Hospital St. Gallen (KSSG), 9000 St. Gallen, Switzerland;
| | - Tilman Bostel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Mainz, 55131 Mainz, Germany;
| | - Tanja Sprave
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Freiburg, 79106 Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany;
| | - Thomas Zilli
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Geneva (HUG), 1205 Geneva, Switzerland;
| | - Vedang Murthy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital and Advanced Centre for Treatment Research and Education in Cancer (ACTREC), Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Mumbai 400012, India;
| | - Robert Förster
- Institute for Radiation Oncology, Cantonal Hospital Winterthur (KSW), 8400 Winterthur, Switzerland; (C.S.); (H.T.); (P.W.); (D.R.Z.)
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +41-52-266-31-40
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Roy A, Green O, Brenneman R, Bosch W, Gay HA, Michalski JM, Baumann BC. Assessing inter-fraction changes in the size and position of the penile bulb during daily MR-guided radiation therapy to the prostate bed: Do we need to adjust how we plan radiation in the post-radical prostatectomy setting to reduce risk of erectile dysfunction? Clin Genitourin Cancer 2022; 20:e227-e232. [DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2022.01.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/11/2021] [Revised: 01/05/2022] [Accepted: 01/06/2022] [Indexed: 11/03/2022]
|
24
|
Giraud N, Benziane-Ouaritini N, Schick U, Beauval JB, Chaddad A, Niazi T, Faye MD, Supiot S, Sargos P, Latorzeff I. Post-Operative Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer: Is It Time for a Belt and Braces Approach? Front Oncol 2021; 11:781040. [PMID: 34881187 PMCID: PMC8647553 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.781040] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/22/2021] [Accepted: 10/27/2021] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Approximately 30% of patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancers experience biochemical recurrence (BCR). Post-operative radiation therapy (RT) can be either offered immediately after the surgery in case of aggressive pathological features or proposed early if BCR occurs. Until recently, little data were available regarding the optimal RT timing, protocol, volumes to treat, and the benefit of adding androgen deprivation therapies to post-operative RT. In this review, we aim to pragmatically discuss current literature data on these points. Early salvage RT appears to be the optimal post-operative approach, improving oncological outcomes especially with low prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, as well as sparing several unnecessary adjuvant treatments. The standard RT dose is still 64–66 Gy to the prostate bed in conventional fractionation, but hypofractionation protocols are emerging pending on late toxicity data. Several scientific societies have published contouring atlases, even though they are heterogeneous and deserve future consensus. During salvage RT, the inclusion of pelvic lymph nodes is also controversial, but preliminary data show a possible benefit for PSA > 0.34 ng/ml at the cost of increased hematological side effects. Concomitant ADT and its duration are also discussed, possibly advantageous (at least in terms of metastasis-free survival) for PSA rates over 0.6 ng/ml, taking into account life expectancy and cardiovascular comorbidities. Intensified regimens, for instance, with new-generation hormone therapies, could further improve outcomes in carefully selected patients. Finally, recent advances in molecular imaging, as well as upcoming breakthroughs in genomics and artificial intelligence tools, could soon reshuffle the cards of the current therapeutic strategy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicolas Giraud
- Radiation Oncology Department, Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France
| | | | - Ulrike Schick
- Radiation Oncology Department, University Hospital, Brest, France
| | | | - Ahmad Chaddad
- School of Artificial Intelligence, Guilin University of Electronic Technology, Guilin, China
| | - Tamim Niazi
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Mame Daro Faye
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Stéphane Supiot
- Radiation Oncology Department, Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest, Nantes Saint-Herblain, France
| | - Paul Sargos
- Radiation Oncology Department, Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France
| | - Igor Latorzeff
- Radiation Oncology Department, Clinique Pasteur, Toulouse, France
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Abstract
More than 40% of men with intermediate-risk or high-risk prostate cancer will experience a biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Clinical guidelines for the management of these patients largely focus on the use of salvage radiotherapy with or without systemic therapy. However, not all patients with biochemical recurrence will go on to develop metastases or die from their disease. The optimal pre-salvage therapy investigational workup for patients who experience biochemical recurrence should, therefore, include novel techniques such as PET imaging and genomic analysis of radical prostatectomy specimen tissue, as well as consideration of more traditional clinical variables such as PSA value, PSA kinetics, Gleason score and pathological stage of disease. In patients without metastatic disease, the only known curative intervention is salvage radiotherapy but, given the therapeutic burden of this treatment, importance must be placed on accurate timing of treatment, radiation dose, fractionation and field size. Systemic therapy also has a role in the salvage setting, both concurrently with radiotherapy and as salvage monotherapy.
Collapse
|
26
|
Lai‐Kwon J, Yin Z, Minchom A, Yap C. Trends in patient-reported outcome use in early phase dose-finding oncology trials - an analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov. Cancer Med 2021; 10:7943-7957. [PMID: 34676991 PMCID: PMC8607259 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.4307] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/18/2021] [Accepted: 09/14/2021] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Patient-reported adverse events (AEs) may be a useful adjunct to clinician-assessed AEs for assessing tolerability in early phase, dose-finding oncology trials (DFOTs). We reviewed DFOTs on ClinicalTrials.gov to describe trends in patient-reported outcome (PRO) use. METHODS DFOTs commencing 01 January 2007 - 20 January 2020 with 'PROs' or 'quality of life' as an outcome were extracted and inclusion criteria confirmed. Study and PRO characteristics were extracted. Completed trials that reported PRO outcomes and published manuscripts on ClinicalTrials.gov were identified, and PRO reporting details were extracted. RESULTS 5.3% (548/10 372) DFOTs included PROs as an outcome. 231 (42.2%) were eligible: adult (224, 97%), solid tumour (175, 75.8%), and seamless phase 1/2 (108, 46.8%). PRO endpoints were identified in more trials (2.3 increase/year, 95% CI: 1.6-2.9) from an increasing variety of countries (0.7/year) (95% CI: 0.4-0.9) over time. PROs were typically secondary endpoints (207, 89.6%). 15/77 (19.5%) completed trials reported results on the ClinicalTrials.gov results database, and of those eight included their PRO results. Eighteen trials had published manuscripts available on ClinicalTrials.gov. Three (16.7%) used PROs to confirm the maximum tolerated dose. No trials identified who completed the PROs or how PROs were collected. CONCLUSIONS PRO use in DFOT has increased but remains limited. Future work should explore the role of PROs in DFOT and determine what guidelines are needed to standardise PRO use.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julia Lai‐Kwon
- Drug Development UnitThe Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden HospitalLondonUK
| | - Zhulin Yin
- Clinical Trials and Statistics UnitThe Institute of Cancer ResearchSuttonUK
| | - Anna Minchom
- Drug Development UnitThe Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden HospitalLondonUK
| | - Christina Yap
- Clinical Trials and Statistics UnitThe Institute of Cancer ResearchSuttonUK
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Schick U, Latorzeff I, Sargos P. Postoperative radiotherapy in prostate cancer: Dose and volumes. Cancer Radiother 2021; 25:674-678. [PMID: 34400088 DOI: 10.1016/j.canrad.2021.07.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/14/2021] [Revised: 07/05/2021] [Accepted: 07/24/2021] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
Approximately thirty percent of patients experience biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Early salvage radiotherapy has recently become a standard of care in this setting. The purpose of this review is first to summarize current knowledge in terms of dose to the prostate bed in light of the recent SAKK 09/10 randomized phase III trial results. The evidence on moderate hypofractionation will also be discussed whereas extreme hypofractionation remains highly investigational. Regarding target volumes, several different guidelines have been published to address the need for standardization of postoperative target delineation. The recent GFRU (Groupe Francophone de Radiothérapie Urologique) recommendations could represent an international consensus.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- U Schick
- Radiation Oncology Department, University Hospital, Brest, France; LaTIM, UMR 1101, INSERM, University Brest, Brest, France.
| | - I Latorzeff
- Department of Oncology Radiotherapy, Bât Atrium, Clinique Pasteur, Toulouse, France
| | - P Sargos
- Department of Radiotherapy, Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Gómez-Aparicio MA, Valero J, Caballero B, García R, Hernando-Requejo O, Montero Á, Gómez-Iturriaga A, Zilli T, Ost P, López-Campos F, Couñago F. Extreme Hypofractionation with SBRT in Localized Prostate Cancer. Curr Oncol 2021; 28:2933-2949. [PMID: 34436023 PMCID: PMC8395496 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol28040257] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/07/2021] [Revised: 07/24/2021] [Accepted: 07/27/2021] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among men around the world. Radiotherapy is a standard of care treatment option for men with localized prostate cancer. Over the years, radiation delivery modalities have contributed to increased precision of treatment, employing radiobiological insights to shorten the overall treatment time, improving the control of the disease without increasing toxicities. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) represents an extreme form of hypofractionated radiotherapy in which treatment is usually delivered in 1-5 fractions. This review assesses the main efficacy and toxicity data of SBRT in non-metastatic prostate cancer and discusses the potential to implement this scheme in routine clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Jeannette Valero
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario HM Sanchinarro, 28050 Madrid, Spain; (J.V.); (O.H.-R.); (Á.M.)
| | - Begoña Caballero
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario de Fuenlabrada, 28942 Fuenlabrada, Spain;
| | - Rafael García
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Ruber Internacional, 28034 Madrid, Spain;
| | - Ovidio Hernando-Requejo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario HM Sanchinarro, 28050 Madrid, Spain; (J.V.); (O.H.-R.); (Á.M.)
| | - Ángel Montero
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario HM Sanchinarro, 28050 Madrid, Spain; (J.V.); (O.H.-R.); (Á.M.)
| | | | - Thomas Zilli
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Geneva University Hospital, 1205 Geneva, Switzerland;
| | - Piet Ost
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ghent University Hospital, 9000 Ghent, Belgium;
| | - Fernando López-Campos
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, 28034 Madrid, Spain
| | - Felipe Couñago
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario Quirónsalud, 28223 Madrid, Spain;
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital La Luz, 28003 Madrid, Spain
- Clinical Department, Faculty of Biomedicine, Universidad Europea, 28670 Madrid, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Wages NA, Sanders JC, Smith A, Wood S, Anscher MS, Varhegyi N, Krupski TL, Harris TJ, Showalter TN. Hypofractionated Postprostatectomy Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer to Reduce Toxicity and Improve Patient Convenience: A Phase 1/2 Trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021; 109:1254-1262. [PMID: 33227441 PMCID: PMC7965239 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.11.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/16/2020] [Revised: 09/16/2020] [Accepted: 11/02/2020] [Indexed: 01/14/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE The phase 1 portion of this multicenter, phase 1/2 study of hypofractionated (HypoFx) prostate bed radiation therapy (RT) as salvage or adjuvant therapy aimed to identify the shortest dose-fractionation schedule with acceptable toxicity. The phase 2 portion aimed to assess the health-related quality of life (QoL) of using this HypoFx regimen. METHODS AND MATERIALS Eligibility included standard adjuvant or salvage prostate bed RT indications. Patients were assigned to receive 1 of 3 daily RT schedules: 56.6 Gy in 20 Fx, 50.4 Gy in 15 Fx, or 42.6 Gy in 10 Fx. Regional nodal irradiation and androgen deprivation therapy were not allowed. Participants were followed for 2 years after treatment with outcome measures based on prostate-specific antigen levels, toxicity assessments (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, v4.0), QoL measures (the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite [EPIC] and EuroQol EQ-5D instruments), and out-of-pocket costs. RESULTS There were 32 evaluable participants, and median follow-up was 3.53 years. The shortest dose-fractionation schedule with acceptable toxicity was determined to be 42.6 Gy in 10 Fx, with most patients (23) treated with this schedule. Grade 3 genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities occurred in 3 patients and 1 patient, respectively. There was 1 grade 4 sepsis event. Higher dose to the hottest 25% of the rectum was associated with increased risk of grade 2+ GI toxicity; no dosimetric factors were found to predict for GU toxicity. There was a significant decrease in the mean bowel, but not bladder, QoL score at 1 year compared with baseline. Prostate-specific antigen failure occurred in 34.3% of participants, using a definition of nadir plus 2 ng/mL. Metastases were more likely to occur in regional lymph nodes (5 of 7) than in bones (2 of 7). The mean out-of-pocket cost for patients during treatment was $223.90. CONCLUSIONS We identified 42.6 Gy in 10 fractions as the shortest dose-fractionation schedule with acceptable toxicity in this phase 1/2 study. There was a higher than expected rate of grade 2 to 3 GU and GI toxicity and a decreased EPIC bowel QoL domain with this regimen. Future studies are needed to explore alternative adjuvant/salvage HypoFx RT schedules after radical prostatectomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nolan A Wages
- Division of Translational Research & Applied Statistics, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, Virginia.
| | - Jason C Sanders
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, Virginia
| | - Amy Smith
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, Virginia
| | - Songserea Wood
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, Virginia
| | - Mitchell S Anscher
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, Virginia
| | - Nikole Varhegyi
- Division of Translational Research & Applied Statistics, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, Virginia
| | - Tracey L Krupski
- Department of Urology, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, Virginia
| | - Timothy J Harris
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, Virginia
| | - Timothy N Showalter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, Virginia
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Shinde A, Li R, Han C, Frankel P, Sampath S. Dosimetric Predictors of Genitourinary Toxicity From a Phase I Trial of Prostate Bed Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy. Pract Radiat Oncol 2020; 11:e90-e97. [PMID: 32562789 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2020.06.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/10/2020] [Revised: 06/02/2020] [Accepted: 06/04/2020] [Indexed: 10/24/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Our purpose was to analyze dose-volume parameters associated with genitourinary (GU) toxicity from a phase I clinical trial of prostate bed stereotactic body radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS Patients were treated in escalating dose levels of 35, 40, and 45 Gy, over 5 fractions. Data from all 26 patients enrolled in the protocol were analyzed using multiple dose-volume cut points for multiple GU organs at risk. Univariate logistical regression and Fisher exact test were used to assess statistical significance associated with incidence of toxicity. RESULTS The median follow-up was 36 months for all patients. Acute GU toxicity was mild and resolved spontaneously. Eight out of 26 patients (30.7%) developed late GU toxicity of grade 2 or higher. Two patients developed grade 3 ureteral stenosis, 1 in the 35 Gy arm and the other in the 45 Gy arm. Three patients developed grade 2 or higher hematuria/cystitis, and 3 developed grade 2 or higher incontinence. Incidence of grade 3 ureteral stenosis was related to the absolute volume of bladder wall receiving greater than 20, 25, and 30 Gy (P < .01). Grade 2 cystitis and hematuria were related to the volume of bladder wall receiving 20 Gy less than 34% and 35 Gy less than 25% (18.8% vs 60% and 23.8% vs 80%, respectively, P < .05). Incontinence was related to mean urethral dose less than 35 Gy and 25 Gy (4.3% vs 66.7% and 0% vs 37.5%, respectively, P < .05) and volume of urethra receiving 35 Gy less than 24% (8.3% vs 50%, P < .05). CONCLUSIONS This is the first analysis to report dose-volume thresholds associated with late GU toxicity in patients receiving prostate bed stereotactic body radiation therapy. We recommend limiting the bladder wall receiving 25 Gy to less than 18 cubic centimeters to reduce the risk for late grade 3 ureteral stenosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ashwin Shinde
- Department of Radiation Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California
| | - Richard Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California
| | - Chunhui Han
- Department of Radiation Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California
| | - Paul Frankel
- Department of Biostatistics, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California
| | - Sagus Sampath
- Department of Radiation Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California.
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Parikh NR, Kishan AU, Kane N, Diaz-Perez S, Ganapathy E, Nazarian R, Felix C, Mathis C, Bradley M, Sachdeva A, Wyatt B, Basehart V, Zomorodian N, Lin L, King CR, Kupelian PA, Rettig MB, Steinberg ML, Cao M, Knudsen BS, Elashoff D, Schaue D, Reiter RE, Nickols NG. Phase 1 Trial of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Neoadjuvant to Radical Prostatectomy for Patients With High-Risk Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020; 108:930-935. [PMID: 32562839 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.06.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/30/2020] [Revised: 05/19/2020] [Accepted: 06/04/2020] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) neoadjuvant to radical prostatectomy (RP) in a phase 1 trial. The primary endpoint was treatment completion rate without severe acute surgical complications. Secondary endpoints included patient-reported quality of life and physician-reported toxicities. METHODS AND MATERIALS Patients with nonmetastatic high-risk or locally advanced prostate cancer received 24 Gy in 3 fractions to the prostate and seminal vesicles over 5 days, completed 2 weeks before RP. Patients with pN1 disease were treated after multidisciplinary discussion and shared decision making. Patient-reported quality of life (International Prostate Symptom Score and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite 26-item version questionnaires) and physician-reported toxicity (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.03) were assessed before SBRT, immediately before surgery, and at 3-month intervals for 1 year. RESULTS Twelve patients were enrolled, and 11 completed treatment (1 patient had advanced disease on prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography after enrollment but before treatment). There were no significant surgical complications. After RP, 2 patients underwent additional radiation therapy to nodes with androgen suppression for pN1 disease. Median follow-up after completion of treatment was 20.1 months, with 9 of 11 patients having a follow-up period of >12 months. Two patients had biochemical recurrence (prostate-specific antigen ≥0.05) within the first 12 months, with an additional 2 patients found to have biochemical recurrence after the 12-month period. The highest Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events genitourinary grades were 0, 1, 2, and 3 (n = 1, 4, 4, and 2, respectively), and the highest gastrointestinal grades were 0, 1, and 2 (n = 9, 1, and 1, respectively). At 12 months, incontinence was the only grade ≥2 toxicity. One and 2 of 9 patients had grade 2 and 3 incontinence, respectively. On the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (26-item version), the mean/median changes in scores from baseline to 12 months were -32.8/-31.1 for urinary incontinence, -1.6/-6.2 for urinary irritative/obstructive, -2.1/0 for bowel, -34.4/-37.5 for sexual function, and -10.6/-2.5 for hormonal. The mean/median change in International Prostate Symptom Score from baseline to 12 months was 0.5/0.5. CONCLUSIONS RP after neoadjuvant SBRT appears to be feasible and safe at the dose tested. The severity of urinary incontinence may be higher than RP alone.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Neil R Parikh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Amar U Kishan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; Department of Urology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Nathanael Kane
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Silvia Diaz-Perez
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Ekambaram Ganapathy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Ramin Nazarian
- Department of Urology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Carol Felix
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Colleen Mathis
- Department of Urology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Margaret Bradley
- Department of Urology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Ankush Sachdeva
- Department of Urology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Bashir Wyatt
- Department of Urology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Vince Basehart
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Nazy Zomorodian
- Department of Urology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Lin Lin
- Department of Urology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Christopher R King
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Patrick A Kupelian
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Matthew B Rettig
- Department of Urology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Michael L Steinberg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Minsong Cao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Beatrice S Knudsen
- Departments of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California
| | - David Elashoff
- Department of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Dorthe Schaue
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Robert E Reiter
- Department of Urology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Nicholas G Nickols
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; Department of Urology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; Radiation Therapy Service, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California.
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Frankel PH, Chung V, Tuscano J, Siddiqi T, Sampath S, Longmate J, Groshen S, Newman EM. Model of a Queuing Approach for Patient Accrual in Phase 1 Oncology Studies. JAMA Netw Open 2020; 3:e204787. [PMID: 32401317 PMCID: PMC7221509 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.4787] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Phase 1 cancer studies, which guide dose selection for subsequent studies, are almost 3 times more prevalent than phase 3 studies and have a median study duration considerably longer than 2 years, which constitutes a major component of drug development time. OBJECTIVE To discern a method to reduce the duration of phase 1 studies in adult and pediatric cancer studies without violating risk limits by better accommodating the accrual and evaluation process (or queue). DESIGN The process modeled, the phase 1 queue (IQ), includes patient interarrival time, screening, and dose-limiting toxicity evaluation. For this proof of principle, the rules of the 3 + 3 and rolling 6 phase 1 designs were modified to improve patient flow through the queue without exceeding the maximum risk permitted in the parent designs. The resulting designs, the IQ 3 + 3 and the IQ rolling 6, were each compared with their parent design by simulations in 12 different scenarios. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES (1) The time from study opening to determination of the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), (2) the number of patients treated to determine the MTD, and (3) the association of the design with the dose selected as the MTD. RESULTS Based on 800 simulations, for all 12 scenarios considered, the IQ 3 + 3 and the IQ rolling 6 designs were associated with reduced expected study durations compared with the parent design. The expected IQ 3 + 3 reduction ranged from 1.6 to 10.4 months (with 3.7 months for the standard scenario), and the expected reduction associated with IQ rolling 6 ranged from 0.4 to 10.5 months (with 3.4 months for the standard scenario). The increase in the mean number of patients treated in the IQ 3 + 3 compared with the 3 + 3 ranged from 0.6 to 3.2 patients. No increase in the number of patients was associated with the IQ rolling 6 compared with the rolling 6 design. The probability of selecting a dose level as the MTD changed by less than 3% for all dose levels and scenarios in both parent designs. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This study found that IQ designs were associated with reduced mean duration of phase 1 studies compared with their parent designs without changing the risk limits or MTD selection operating characteristics. These approaches have been successfully implemented in both hematology and solid tumor phase 1 studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul H. Frankel
- Division of Biostatistics, Department of Research Information Sciences, City of Hope, Duarte, California
| | - Vincent Chung
- Department of Medical Oncology, City of Hope, Duarte, California
| | - Joseph Tuscano
- Hematology/Oncology, University of California, Davis, Davis
| | - Tanya Siddiqi
- Hematology and Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation, City of Hope, Duarte, California
| | - Sagus Sampath
- Radiation Oncology, City of Hope, Duarte, California
| | - Jeffrey Longmate
- Division of Biostatistics, Department of Research Information Sciences, City of Hope, Duarte, California
| | - Susan Groshen
- Biostatistics Core, Norris Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles
| | - Edward M. Newman
- Department of Medical Oncology, City of Hope, Duarte, California
- Developmental Cancer Therapeutics Program, Division of Molecular Pharmacology, City of Hope, Duarte, California
| |
Collapse
|