1
|
Le Guévelou J, Jeandin M, Angrisani A, Bosetti DG, Shelan M, Zilli T. Ultra-hypofractionation for node-positive prostate cancer: pushing boundaries and redefining standards. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2025:10.1038/s41391-025-00976-7. [PMID: 40341654 DOI: 10.1038/s41391-025-00976-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/20/2025] [Revised: 04/08/2025] [Accepted: 04/24/2025] [Indexed: 05/10/2025]
Abstract
Radiotherapy is a cornerstone in the management of node-positive prostate cancer. Advances in imaging modalities and radiation therapy techniques have led to the evolution of treatment standards for this patient population. This review aims to explore the therapeutic advancements of the past decade, with a focus on the role of ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy in node-positive prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer Le Guévelou
- Laboratoire de traitement du signal et de l'image, Rennes University, Rennes, France
| | - Mathilde Jeandin
- Department of Geriatry, Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Antonio Angrisani
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, EOC, Bellinzona, Switzerland
| | - Davide Giovanni Bosetti
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, EOC, Bellinzona, Switzerland
| | - Mohamed Shelan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Thomas Zilli
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, EOC, Bellinzona, Switzerland.
- Faculty of Biomedical Sciences, Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano, Switzerland.
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Murthy V, Mallick I, Maitre P, Mulye G, Arunsingh M, Valle L, Steinberg M, Kennedy T, Loblaw A, Kishan AU. Pelvic Regional Control With 25 Gy in 5 Fractions in Stereotactic Radiation Therapy for High-Risk Prostate Cancer: Pooled Prospective Outcomes From the SHARP Consortium. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2025; 122:93-98. [PMID: 39755216 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.12.018] [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: 10/08/2024] [Revised: 12/04/2024] [Accepted: 12/22/2024] [Indexed: 01/06/2025]
Abstract
PURPOSE To evaluate the efficacy of 25 Gy in 5 fractions (25 Gy/5#) prophylactic pelvic nodal irradiation for regional control during stereotactic radiation therapy (SBRT) for high-risk prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS The multinational SHARP consortium database of patients treated with curative-intent prostate SBRT for high-risk prostate cancer was queried for prophylactic radiation therapy 25 Gy/5# to the pelvic lymph nodes. Details of Phoenix-defined biochemical failure and location of recurrence (local, regional, or distant) were extracted. Five-year biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS), metastasis-free survival, and overall survival were estimated by Kaplan-Meier method. Impact of potential prognostic factors (tumor stage, grade group [GG], prostate radiation therapy dose, and Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) duration) was analyzed using Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS A total of 171 patients were eligible for analysis. Two-thirds of the patients had GG 4-5 cancer. Prostate was irradiated to 40 Gy/5# in 51.5% of the cohort, whereas the rest received 35 to 36.25 Gy/5#. Median ADT duration was 15 months (IQR, 9-24). Over a median follow-up of 51 months, biochemical failure was recorded for 19 (11.1%) patients. Restaging with Prostate Specific Membrane Antigen (PSMA)-Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography (PETCT) showed recurrence within the pelvic nodes in 3 patients, all with co-occurring distant metastases. Overall pelvic control was 98.2%, with 5-year BFFS and overall survival being 86.1% and 89.3%, respectively. None of the prognostic factors showed a statistically significant impact on BFFS, except GG (adjusted HR 3.6 [95% CI, 0.9-13.0], P = .06). CONCLUSIONS For high-risk prostate cancer treated with SBRT, prophylactic pelvic nodal irradiation with 25 Gy/5# achieved near universal regional control.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- 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, India.
| | - Indranil Mallick
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Medical Center, Kolkata, India
| | - Priyamvada Maitre
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital and Advanced Centre for Treatment Research and Education in Cancer (ACTREC), Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Mumbai, India
| | - Gargee Mulye
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital and Advanced Centre for Treatment Research and Education in Cancer (ACTREC), Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Mumbai, India
| | - Moses Arunsingh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Medical Center, Kolkata, India
| | - Luca Valle
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, California; Department of Radiation Oncology, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California
| | - Michael Steinberg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, California
| | - Thomas Kennedy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Andrew Loblaw
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Amar U Kishan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, California
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Felefly T, Jooya A, Laprade S, Roy S, Malone S, Morgan SC. Long-term outcomes of radiotherapy and impact of nodal disease burden in clinically node-positive prostate cancer. Cancer Radiother 2025; 29:104619. [PMID: 40273649 DOI: 10.1016/j.canrad.2025.104619] [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: 07/18/2024] [Revised: 01/26/2025] [Accepted: 01/28/2025] [Indexed: 04/26/2025]
Abstract
PURPOSE The optimal management for pelvic clinical node-positive (cN1) prostate cancer remains controversial and randomized evidence for local therapy is lacking. Recent data suggest that common-iliac nodal metastases might carry a prognosis similar to that of cN1 disease when treated radically. In this context, we retrospectively reviewed the experience at our centre of treating cN1 prostate cancer, with or without common-iliac nodal metastases, focusing on the role of radiotherapy and the effect of nodal disease burden on survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS The study population consisted of men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2002 and 2018 with cN1 disease and/or common-iliac nodal metastases and treated with androgen deprivation therapy and/or definitive local therapy. Outcomes of interest included overall survival and castration resistance-free survival, which were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression were used to identify factors associated with overall - and castration resistance-free survival. In the subgroup of patients treated with radiation, the association between a number of variables - including biologically effective dose to the prostate, use of elective pelvic nodal radiotherapy, and escalated dose (radiotherapy boost) to positive nodes-and overall survival was studied. RESULTS A total of 87 patients were included, of whom 14 had common-iliac nodal metastases and 68 received radiotherapy. Median follow-up was 110 months. On univariate analysis, radiotherapy was associated with improved overall survival (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.28, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.14-0.55, P<0.0005) and castration resistance-free survival (HR: 0.22, 95 % CI: 0.12-0.41, P<0.0005). Median overall survival in those patients receiving radiotherapy was 134.9 versus 63.1 months in those not receiving radiotherapy. Receipt of radiotherapy remained significantly associated with overall survival on multivariable analysis (HR: 0.13, 95 % CI: 0.05-0.32, P<0.001). Biopsy Gleason score 10 and presence of more than two positive lymph nodes were associated with worse overall survival while presence of common-iliac nodal metastases was not found to have any significant association with overall survival. In patients treated with radiation, increasing the biologically effective dose to the prostate was associated with improved overall survival (HR: 0.73 per 10Gy, 95 % CI: 0.54-0.97, P=0.03) while use of elective pelvic nodal radiotherapy and use of a radiotherapy boost to positive nodes had no significant association with overall survival. CONCLUSION In this cohort, we evaluate the impact of radiotherapy in pelvic clinical node-positive prostate cancer that includes common-iliac nodal metastases. Receipt of radiotherapy was associated with improved oncologic outcomes. The number of positive pelvic nodes, but not their common-iliac location, was prognostic.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tony Felefly
- Department of Radiology, Radiation Oncology and Medical Physics, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, Hôtel-Dieu de Lévis, Lévis, QC, Canada.
| | - Alborz Jooya
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Selena Laprade
- Department of Radiology, Radiation Oncology and Medical Physics, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Soumyajit Roy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, United States
| | - Shawn Malone
- Department of Radiology, Radiation Oncology and Medical Physics, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Scott C Morgan
- Department of Radiology, Radiation Oncology and Medical Physics, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Facondo G, Bottero M, Goanta L, Farneti A, Faiella A, D'Urso P, Sanguineti G. Incidence and predictors of lower extremity lymphedema after postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Radiat Oncol 2025; 20:41. [PMID: 40102881 PMCID: PMC11921733 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-025-02599-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/12/2024] [Accepted: 02/08/2025] [Indexed: 03/20/2025] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND To assess the rate and predictors of lower extremity lymphedema (LEL) after radiotherapy (RT) following radical prostatectomy (RP) ± pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) for prostate cancer. METHODS Patients (pts) treated with adjuvant or salvage RT after RP ± PLND and a minimum 2-year follow-up were included. LEL was defined as a volume difference ≥ 10% between limbs evaluated using circumferential measurements with a flexible non-stretch tape. The following predictors were investigated at logistic regression: age (continuous); body mass index (BMI, continuous); exercise level (low vs. medium/high); smoking (yes vs. no); cigarette pack/year (continuous); hypertension (yes ns no); vascular comorbidity (yes vs. no); diabetes (yes vs. no); PLND (yes vs. no); number of examined nodes (continuous); whole pelvis radiotherapy (WPRT) (yes vs. no); time between RP and RT (continuous); planning target volume (PTV) volume (continuous); PTV/BMI (continuous). Statistical significance was claimed for p < 0.05. RESULTS 101 pts were examined. The median time from surgery to RT was 36.1 months (mths) (IQR: 15.0-68.3), the median time from RT to the date of study examination was 51.1 months (IQR: 36.8-65.3). 14 pts developed LEL (13.9%), 3 pts (2.9%) before RT, 11 pts (10.8%) after RT. The median time from RT to LEL was 4 mths (IQR: 0.5-17.3). At multivariable analysis (MVA) diabetes mellitus (DM) (OR = 32.8, p = 0.02), time between surgery and RT (OR = 0.966, p = 0.039) and exercise (OR = 0.03, p = 0.002) were independently correlated to LEL. The number of examined nodes was highly correlated to LEL at univariate analysis (OR = 1.066, p = 0.025) but was not confirmed at MVA (p = 0.719). Interestingly, the distribution of the examined nodes was statistically different between pts with low (median N = 12) vs. medium/high (N = 5) exercise (p = 0.034). CONCLUSIONS Clinically detectable LEL involves a minority of pts after RT. DM is a predisposing factor, while awaiting RT delivery has a protective effect favoring salvage over adjuvant RT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Giuseppe Facondo
- Radiation Oncology, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144, Rome, Italy
| | - Marta Bottero
- Radiation Oncology, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144, Rome, Italy.
| | - Lucia Goanta
- Radiation Oncology, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144, Rome, Italy
| | - Alessia Farneti
- Radiation Oncology, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144, Rome, Italy
| | - Adriana Faiella
- Radiation Oncology, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144, Rome, Italy
| | - Pasqualina D'Urso
- Radiation Oncology, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144, Rome, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Sanguineti
- Radiation Oncology, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144, Rome, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Sanford NN, Narang AK, Aguilera TA, Bassetti MF, Chuong MD, Erickson BA, Goodman KA, Herman JM, Intven M, Kilcoyne A, Kim H, Paulson E, Reyngold M, Tsai S, Tchelebi LT, Tuli R, Versteijne E, Wei AC, Wo JY, Zhang Y, Hong TS, Hall WA. NRG Oncology International Consensus Contouring Atlas on Target Volumes and Dosing Strategies for Dose-Escalated Pancreatic Cancer Radiation Therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2025; 121:918-929. [PMID: 39510320 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.10.026] [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: 06/24/2024] [Revised: 10/09/2024] [Accepted: 10/11/2024] [Indexed: 11/15/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE Dose-escalated radiation therapy is increasingly used in the treatment of pancreatic cancer; however, approaches to target delineation vary widely. We present the first North American cooperative group consensus contouring atlas for dose-escalated pancreatic cancer radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS An expert international panel comprising 15 radiation oncologists, 2 surgeons, and 1 radiologist was recruited. Participants used MimCloud software to contour high- and low-risk clinical target volumes (CTVs) on 3 pancreatic cancer cases: a borderline resectable head tumor, a locally advanced head tumor, and a medically inoperable tail tumor. Simultaneous Truth and Performance Level Estimation volumes were created, and contours were analyzed using Dice similarity coefficients. RESULTS The contoured gross tumor volume for the borderline head, locally advanced head, and unresectable tail tumor cases were 156.7, 58.2, and 9.0 cc, respectively, and the Dice similarity coefficients (SD) for the high- and low-risk CTV ranged from 0.45 to 0.82. Consensus volumes were agreed upon by authors. High-risk CTVs comprised the tumor plus abutting vessels. Low-risk CTVs started superiorly at (tail and distal body tumors) or 1 cm above (head, neck and proximal body tumors) the celiac takeoff and extended inferiorly to the superior mesenteric artery at the level of the first jejunal takeoff. For head, neck, and proximal body tumors, the lateral volume encompassed the entire pancreas head and 5 to 10 mm around the celiac, superior mesenteric artery, superior mesenteric vein, including the common hepatic artery and medial portal vein, consistent with a "Triangle" volume-based approach. For distal body and tail tumors, the entire tail was included, along with the splenic vessels and the takeoffs of celiac artery. CONCLUSIONS Through multidisciplinary collaboration, we created consensus contouring guidelines for dose-escalated pancreatic cancer radiation therapy. These volumes include not only gross disease, but also routine elective coverage, and can be used to standardize practice for future trials seeking to define the role of dose-escalated radiation therapy in pancreatic cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nina N Sanford
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
| | - Amol K Narang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Todd A Aguilera
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - Michael F Bassetti
- Department of Human Oncology, University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics, Madison, Wisconsin
| | - Michael D Chuong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Miami, Florida
| | - Beth A Erickson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
| | - Karyn A Goodman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
| | - Joseph M Herman
- Northwell Health Cancer Institute, Department of Radiation Medicine, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, New Hyde Park, NY; Histosonics, Plymouth, Minnesota
| | - Martijn Intven
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Aoife Kilcoyne
- Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Hyun Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| | - Eric Paulson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
| | - Marsha Reyngold
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Susan Tsai
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
| | - Leila T Tchelebi
- Northwell Health Cancer Institute, Department of Radiation Medicine, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, New Hyde Park, NY
| | - Richard Tuli
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of South Florida, Morsani College of Medicine, Florida
| | - Eva Versteijne
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Alice C Wei
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jennifer Y Wo
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Ying Zhang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - Theodore S Hong
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - William A Hall
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Murthy V, Maitre P, Bakshi G, Pal M, Singh M, Sharma R, Gudipudi D, Pujari L, Pandey H, Bandekar B, Joseph D, Krishnatry R, Phurailatpam R, Kannan S, Arora A, Misra A, Joshi A, Noronha V, Prabhash K, Menon S, Prakash G. Bladder Adjuvant Radiation Therapy (BART): Acute and Late Toxicity From a Phase III Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2025; 121:728-736. [PMID: 39353477 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.09.040] [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: 08/23/2024] [Revised: 09/14/2024] [Accepted: 09/19/2024] [Indexed: 10/04/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE To report toxicity from the multicenter phase III randomized trial of Bladder Adjuvant Radiation Therapy (BART) after radical cystectomy and chemotherapy in high-risk muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). METHODS AND MATERIALS Patients with nonmetastatic urothelial MIBC with ≥1 high-risk feature after radical cystectomy- pT3-4, pN1-3, nodal yield <10, positive margin, or ≥cT3 downstaged with neoadjuvant chemotherapy- were randomized 1:1 to observation (Obs) or adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) at 4 centers, stratified by pN stage (N0, N+) and chemotherapy (neoadjuvant, adjuvant, none). Stoma-sparing image guided intensity modulated RT 50.4 Gy in 28# was prescribed to the cystectomy bed and pelvic nodes. Acute toxicity (≤3 months of RT/randomization) and late toxicity were assessed per protocol using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event v5.0. Patients progressing within 3 or 6 months of randomization were excluded from acute or late toxicity analysis, respectively. RESULTS The BART trial enrolled 153 patients (Obs = 76, RT = 77). About half (49%) had pN+. Nearly 90% received chemotherapy (70% neoadjuvant; most commonly gemcitabine plus cisplatin). In the RT arm, 63/77 completed RT per protocol with no toxicity-related RT termination. Of the 134 patients analyzable for acute toxicity, no difference was observed in grade 3 (Obs 4.2% vs RT 1.6%, P = .34). Grade 2 effects were higher with RT (17.5% vs 1.1%, P < .001), mainly diarrhea/enteritis or proctitis. Late toxicity was analyzable for 104 patients (Obs = 57, RT = 47) with a median follow-up of 27 months. Grades 3 to 4 toxicity were about 10% (Obs 10.5% vs RT 8.4%, P = .62), and cumulative late grade 2+ toxicity was similar in both groups (17.5% vs 23.3%, P = .27). CONCLUSIONS In the largest trial of adjuvant RT for high-risk urothelial MIBC, severe acute and late toxicity were low and similar with obervation or radiation therapy. The oncological outcomes are awaited.
Collapse
MESH Headings
- Humans
- Male
- Female
- Aged
- Urinary Bladder Neoplasms/radiotherapy
- Urinary Bladder Neoplasms/pathology
- Urinary Bladder Neoplasms/drug therapy
- Urinary Bladder Neoplasms/surgery
- Middle Aged
- Radiotherapy, Adjuvant/adverse effects
- Radiotherapy, Adjuvant/methods
- Cystectomy
- Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated/adverse effects
- Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated/methods
- Chemotherapy, Adjuvant
- Radiation Injuries/pathology
- Neoadjuvant Therapy
- Radiotherapy, Image-Guided/methods
- Radiotherapy, Image-Guided/adverse effects
- Aged, 80 and over
- Adult
- Cisplatin/administration & dosage
- Carcinoma, Transitional Cell/pathology
- Carcinoma, Transitional Cell/radiotherapy
- Carcinoma, Transitional Cell/drug therapy
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vedang Murthy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India.
| | - Priyamvada Maitre
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India
| | - Ganesh Bakshi
- Division of Uro-oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India
| | - Mahendra Pal
- Division of Uro-oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India
| | - Maneesh Singh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India
| | - Rakesh Sharma
- Department of Surgery, Basavatarakam Indo-American Cancer Hospital and Research Institute, Hyderabad, India
| | - Duleep Gudipudi
- Department of Surgery, Basavatarakam Indo-American Cancer Hospital and Research Institute, Hyderabad, India; Department of Radiation Oncology, Basavatarakam Indo-American Cancer Hospital and Research Institute, Hyderabad, India
| | - Lincoln Pujari
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Homi Bhabha Cancer Hospital and Mahamana Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya Cancer Centre, Varanasi, India
| | - Himanshu Pandey
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Homi Bhabha Cancer Hospital and Mahamana Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya Cancer Centre, Varanasi, India; Department of Surgery, Homi Bhabha Cancer Hospital and Mahamana Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya Cancer Centre, Varanasi, India
| | - Bhavesh Bandekar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Homi Bhabha Cancer Hospital and Mahamana Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya Cancer Centre, Varanasi, India; Trial Co-ordinator, Homi Bhabha Cancer Hospital and Mahamana Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya Cancer Centre, Varanasi, India
| | - Deepa Joseph
- Department of Radiation Oncology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, India
| | - Rahul Krishnatry
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India
| | - Reena Phurailatpam
- Department of Medical Physics, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India
| | - Sadhana Kannan
- Clinical Research Secretariat, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India
| | - Amandeep Arora
- Division of Uro-oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India
| | - Ankit Misra
- Division of Uro-oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India
| | - Amit Joshi
- Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India
| | - Vanita Noronha
- Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India
| | - Kumar Prabhash
- Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India
| | - Santosh Menon
- Department of Pathology, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India
| | - Gagan Prakash
- Division of Uro-oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Le Guévelou J, Murthy V, Zilli T, Nicosia L, Bossi A, Bokhorst LP, Barret E, Ouzaid I, Nguyen PL, Ferrario F, Chargari C, Arcangeli S, Magne N, Sargos P. « Augmented radiotherapy » in the management of high-risk prostate cancer (PCa): A systematic review. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2025; 207:104623. [PMID: 39827978 DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2025.104623] [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: 09/27/2024] [Revised: 01/09/2025] [Accepted: 01/14/2025] [Indexed: 01/22/2025] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND In patients with high-risk (HR) prostate cancer (PCa) treated with radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), intensification with androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) improves overall survival (OS), at the cost of significant side-effects. We hypothesized that "augmented RT" schedules (defined as either dose-escalation on the prostate gland over 78 Gy and/or addition of whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT)), combined with long-term ADT can reach excellent prostate cancer specific survival (PCSS) in this population with little detrimental impact on quality of life. METHODS We searched Pubmed database until February 8, 2024. Studies reporting both oncological and toxicity outcomes after "augmented RT" were deemed eligible. Studies without ADT or with ARPI intensification were deemed ineligible. RESULTS Dose-escalation within the prostate gland at doses over 78 Gy halved the risk of biochemical recurrence at 5 years, with however no impact on PCSS. The addition of WPRT provides a 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) reaching 89.5 % at 5 years, with no significant increase in late grade≥ 2 genito-urinary (GU) or gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. Combined approaches result in 9-year PCSS ranging between 96.1 % and 100 %. Most approaches demonstrated excellent safety profiles. CONCLUSIONS "Augmented RT" reached excellent oncological outcomes, with minimal additional toxicity. The development of biomarkers might lead to further treatment personalization, in the rapidly evolving landscape of systemic therapies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - 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, India
| | - Thomas Zilli
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland (IOSI), EOC, Bellinzona, Switzerland
| | - Luca Nicosia
- Advanced Radiation Oncology Department, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Cancer Care Center, Italy
| | - Alberto Bossi
- Centre de Radiothérapie Charlebourg, La Défense, Groupe Amethyst, 65, avenue Foch, La Garenne-Colombes 92250, France
| | | | - Eric Barret
- Department of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France
| | - Idir Ouzaid
- Department of Urology, Bichat Claude Bernard Hospital, Paris Cité University, Paris, France
| | - Paul L Nguyen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana Farber Harvard Cancer Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Federica Ferrario
- Department of Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan Bicocca, Milan, Italy
| | - Cyrus Chargari
- Department of radiation oncology, Hopital Pitié Salpétrière, Paris, France
| | - Stefano Arcangeli
- Department of Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan Bicocca, Milan, Italy
| | - Nicolas Magne
- Department of radiation oncology, Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France
| | - Paul Sargos
- Centre de Radiothérapie Charlebourg, La Défense, Groupe Amethyst, 65, avenue Foch, La Garenne-Colombes 92250, France; Department of radiation oncology, Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Ong WL, Kang TMJ, Loblaw A. Radiotherapy for node-positive prostate cancer in the PSMA-PET era: The need for prospective clinical trials. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2025; 69:126-128. [PMID: 39529467 DOI: 10.1111/1754-9485.13806] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/26/2024] [Accepted: 10/27/2024] [Indexed: 11/16/2024]
Affiliation(s)
- Wee Loon Ong
- Alfred Health Radiation Oncology, School of Translational Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Andrew Love Cancer Centre, Barwon Health, Geelong, Victoria, Australia
- Australia and New Zealand Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Therese Min Jung Kang
- Alfred Health Radiation Oncology, School of Translational Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Andrew Love Cancer Centre, Barwon Health, Geelong, Victoria, Australia
- Australia and New Zealand Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Andrew Loblaw
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Challis B, Kneebone A, Eade T, Guo L, Atyeo J, Brown C, Hruby G. Avoiding prostate bed radiation for the PSMA-PET detected nodal recurrence patient post prostatectomy. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2025; 50:100896. [PMID: 39676999 PMCID: PMC11638620 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2024.100896] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/01/2024] [Revised: 11/18/2024] [Accepted: 11/22/2024] [Indexed: 12/17/2024] Open
Abstract
Background Nodal only recurrence post radical prostatectomy (RP) is increasingly recognised in the PSMA scan era. Management is controversial with a curative approach usually incorporating prostate bed and nodal irradiation (PB + NRT) in combination with long-term hormonal therapy. It is unknown whether omitting prostate-bed irradiation (PBRT) is safe in a subgroup of these patients. Purpose To document the outcomes for pelvic nodal only salvage radiation therapy (NRT) plus concurrent androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for patients with PSMA PET documented nodal relapses. Methods and materials Eligible patients included PSMA PET documented nodal only relapses post RP who received NRT with or without PBRT at Royal North Shore Hospital (NSCC), Gosford Hospital (CCCC) or Genesis Care (GC) between January 2015 and December 2021. Baseline demographics, surgical pathology, radiation details, ADT use and outcomes were documented. Results Forty-six patients were identified, 22 in the PB + NRT cohort and 24 in the NRT cohort. Compared to the PBRT + NRT group, the NRT cohort had lower stage disease (pT2 = 7 (29 %), pT3a = 15 (63 %), pT3b = 1 (4 %) vs pT2 = 0, pT3a = 10 (45 %), pT3b = 12 (55 %)) (p=<0.001) and lower rates of R1 resection (0 % vs 63.6 % (n = 14)) (p < 0.001) respectively. The median follow-up from radiotherapy was 3.9 years.Four-year biochemical failure- free survival (BFFS) was 64 % in the NRT group vs 67 % in the PB + NRT group. Of the ten (41.6 %) failures in the NRT group, 1 (4 %) was a biochemical failure only, 2 (8 %) recurred in the PB and received further salvage treatment, 4 (17 %) had nodal failure outside the pelvis and 3 (13 %) had distant metastases.One patient (4 %) in the NRT group recorded late grade ≥2 GU toxicity compared with 7 (32 %) in the PB + NRT. No patients in the NRT group recorded late grade ≥2 GI toxicity compared with 2 (9 %) in the PB + NRT cohort. Conclusion This study provides early evidence for the feasibility of PBRT sparing to avoid local toxicity. Most patients in this cohort failed distantly. This data suggests that for selected men PB-avoidance may be considered given informed consent.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Benjamin Challis
- Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Radiation Oncology Unit, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Northern Clinical School, University of Sydney, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Andrew Kneebone
- Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Radiation Oncology Unit, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Northern Clinical School, University of Sydney, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Genesis Care, Mater Hospital, North Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Central Coast Cancer Centre, Radiation Oncology Unit, Gosford Hospital, Gosford, NSW, Australia
| | - Thomas Eade
- Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Radiation Oncology Unit, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Northern Clinical School, University of Sydney, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Genesis Care, Mater Hospital, North Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Central Coast Cancer Centre, Radiation Oncology Unit, Gosford Hospital, Gosford, NSW, Australia
| | - Lesley Guo
- Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Radiation Oncology Unit, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - John Atyeo
- Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Radiation Oncology Unit, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Chris Brown
- Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Radiation Oncology Unit, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- National Health and Medical Research Council, Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - George Hruby
- Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Radiation Oncology Unit, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Northern Clinical School, University of Sydney, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Genesis Care, Mater Hospital, North Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Schubert P, Strnad V, Weißmann T, Schweizer C, Lotter M, Kreppner S, Karius A, Fietkau R, Merten R. Protocol-based CT-guided brachytherapy for patients with prostate cancer and previous rectal extirpation-a curative approach. Strahlenther Onkol 2025; 201:20-26. [PMID: 39095649 PMCID: PMC11739314 DOI: 10.1007/s00066-024-02266-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/14/2024] [Accepted: 06/28/2024] [Indexed: 08/04/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE There are numerous curative treatment possibilities for prostate cancer. In patients who have undergone rectal extirpation for rectal cancer treatment, curative options are limited due to anatomic changes and previous irradiation of the pelvis. In this analysis, we validate the feasibility of CT-guided transperineal interstitial brachytherapy for this specific scenario. PATIENTS AND METHODS We analyzed the treatment procedures and outcomes of 5 patients with metachronic nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Ultrasound-guided brachytherapy was not possible in any of the patients. Of these 5 patients, 3 were treated for prostate cancer using temporary brachytherapy with Ir-192 only, and 2 were treated with external-beam radiation therapy and temporary brachytherapy as a boost. CT-guided brachytherapy was performed in all patients. We analyzed the feasibility, efficacy, treatment-related toxicity, and quality of life (EORTC-30, IEFF, IPSS, and ICIQ questionnaires) of the treatments. RESULTS Median follow-up was 35 months. Two out of five patients received boost irradiation (HDR 2 × 9 Gy, PDR 30 Gy). Three out of five patients were treated with PDR brachytherapy in two sessions up to a total dose of 60 Gy. Dosimetric parameters were documented as median values as follows: V100 94.7% (94.5-98.4%), D2bladder 64.3% (50.9-78.3%), D10urethra 131.05% (123.2%-141.2%), and D30urethra 122.45% (116.2%-129.5%). At the time of analysis, no biochemical recurrence had been documented. Furthermore, neither early nor late side effects exceeding CTCAE grade 2 were documented. CONCLUSION CT-guided transperineal brachytherapy of the prostate in patients with previous rectal surgery and radiation therapy is safe and represents a possible curative treatment option. Brachytherapy can be considered for patients with metachronic prostate cancer in this specific scenario, albeit preferably in experienced high-volume centers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Philipp Schubert
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Universitätsstraße 27, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
- Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Erlangen, Germany.
| | - Vratislav Strnad
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Universitätsstraße 27, 91054, Erlangen, Germany
- Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Thomas Weißmann
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Universitätsstraße 27, 91054, Erlangen, Germany
- Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Claudia Schweizer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Universitätsstraße 27, 91054, Erlangen, Germany
- Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Michael Lotter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Universitätsstraße 27, 91054, Erlangen, Germany
- Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Stephan Kreppner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Universitätsstraße 27, 91054, Erlangen, Germany
- Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Andre Karius
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Universitätsstraße 27, 91054, Erlangen, Germany
- Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Rainer Fietkau
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Universitätsstraße 27, 91054, Erlangen, Germany
- Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Ricarda Merten
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Universitätsstraße 27, 91054, Erlangen, Germany
- Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Erlangen, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Chen X, Zhao Y, Baroudi H, El Basha MD, Daniel A, Gay SS, Yu C, Wang H, Phan J, Choi SL, Goodman CR, Zhang X, Niedzielski JS, Shete SS, Court LE, Liao Z, Löfman F, Balter PA, Yang J. Comparison of Vendor-Pretrained and Custom-Trained Deep Learning Segmentation Models for Head-and-Neck, Breast, and Prostate Cancers. Diagnostics (Basel) 2024; 14:2851. [PMID: 39767212 PMCID: PMC11675285 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14242851] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/20/2024] [Revised: 12/13/2024] [Accepted: 12/16/2024] [Indexed: 01/11/2025] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES We assessed the influence of local patients and clinical characteristics on the performance of commercial deep learning (DL) segmentation models for head-and-neck (HN), breast, and prostate cancers. METHODS Clinical computed tomography (CT) scans and clinically approved contours of 210 patients (53 HN, 49 left breast, 55 right breast, and 53 prostate cancer) were used to train and validate segmentation models integrated within a vendor-supplied DL training toolkit and to assess the performance of both vendor-pretrained and custom-trained models. Four custom models (HN, left breast, right breast, and prostate) were trained and validated with 30 (training)/5 (validation) HN, 34/5 left breast, 39/5 right breast, and 30/5 prostate patients to auto-segment a total of 24 organs at risk (OARs). Subsequently, both vendor-pretrained and custom-trained models were tested on the remaining patients from each group. Auto-segmented contours were evaluated by comparing them with clinically approved contours via the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and mean surface distance (MSD). The performance of the left and right breast models was assessed jointly according to ipsilateral/contralateral locations. RESULTS The average DSCs for all structures in vendor-pretrained and custom-trained models were as follows: 0.81 ± 0.12 and 0.86 ± 0.11 in HN; 0.67 ± 0.16 and 0.80 ± 0.11 in the breast; and 0.87 ± 0.09 and 0.92 ± 0.06 in the prostate. The corresponding average MSDs were 0.81 ± 0.76 mm and 0.76 ± 0.56 mm (HN), 4.85 ± 2.44 mm and 2.42 ± 1.49 mm (breast), and 2.17 ± 1.39 mm and 1.21 ± 1.00 mm (prostate). Notably, custom-trained models showed significant improvements over vendor-pretrained models for 14 of 24 OARs, reflecting the influence of data/contouring variations in segmentation performance. CONCLUSIONS These findings underscore the substantial impact of institutional preferences and clinical practices on the implementation of vendor-pretrained models. We also found that a relatively small amount of institutional data was sufficient to train customized segmentation models with sufficient accuracy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xinru Chen
- Department of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (X.C.); (Y.Z.); (H.B.); (M.D.E.B.); (A.D.); (S.S.G.); (C.Y.); (H.W.); (X.Z.); (J.S.N.); (L.E.C.); (P.A.B.)
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, TX 77030, USA;
| | - Yao Zhao
- Department of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (X.C.); (Y.Z.); (H.B.); (M.D.E.B.); (A.D.); (S.S.G.); (C.Y.); (H.W.); (X.Z.); (J.S.N.); (L.E.C.); (P.A.B.)
| | - Hana Baroudi
- Department of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (X.C.); (Y.Z.); (H.B.); (M.D.E.B.); (A.D.); (S.S.G.); (C.Y.); (H.W.); (X.Z.); (J.S.N.); (L.E.C.); (P.A.B.)
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, TX 77030, USA;
| | - Mohammad D. El Basha
- Department of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (X.C.); (Y.Z.); (H.B.); (M.D.E.B.); (A.D.); (S.S.G.); (C.Y.); (H.W.); (X.Z.); (J.S.N.); (L.E.C.); (P.A.B.)
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, TX 77030, USA;
| | - Aji Daniel
- Department of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (X.C.); (Y.Z.); (H.B.); (M.D.E.B.); (A.D.); (S.S.G.); (C.Y.); (H.W.); (X.Z.); (J.S.N.); (L.E.C.); (P.A.B.)
| | - Skylar S. Gay
- Department of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (X.C.); (Y.Z.); (H.B.); (M.D.E.B.); (A.D.); (S.S.G.); (C.Y.); (H.W.); (X.Z.); (J.S.N.); (L.E.C.); (P.A.B.)
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, TX 77030, USA;
| | - Cenji Yu
- Department of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (X.C.); (Y.Z.); (H.B.); (M.D.E.B.); (A.D.); (S.S.G.); (C.Y.); (H.W.); (X.Z.); (J.S.N.); (L.E.C.); (P.A.B.)
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, TX 77030, USA;
| | - He Wang
- Department of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (X.C.); (Y.Z.); (H.B.); (M.D.E.B.); (A.D.); (S.S.G.); (C.Y.); (H.W.); (X.Z.); (J.S.N.); (L.E.C.); (P.A.B.)
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, TX 77030, USA;
| | - Jack Phan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA;
| | - Seungtaek L. Choi
- Department of GU Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA;
| | - Chelain R. Goodman
- Department of Breast Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA;
| | - Xiaodong Zhang
- Department of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (X.C.); (Y.Z.); (H.B.); (M.D.E.B.); (A.D.); (S.S.G.); (C.Y.); (H.W.); (X.Z.); (J.S.N.); (L.E.C.); (P.A.B.)
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, TX 77030, USA;
| | - Joshua S. Niedzielski
- Department of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (X.C.); (Y.Z.); (H.B.); (M.D.E.B.); (A.D.); (S.S.G.); (C.Y.); (H.W.); (X.Z.); (J.S.N.); (L.E.C.); (P.A.B.)
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, TX 77030, USA;
| | - Sanjay S. Shete
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, TX 77030, USA;
- Department of Biostatistics, Division of Discovery Science, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Laurence E. Court
- Department of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (X.C.); (Y.Z.); (H.B.); (M.D.E.B.); (A.D.); (S.S.G.); (C.Y.); (H.W.); (X.Z.); (J.S.N.); (L.E.C.); (P.A.B.)
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, TX 77030, USA;
| | - Zhongxing Liao
- Department of Thoracic Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA;
| | | | - Peter A. Balter
- Department of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (X.C.); (Y.Z.); (H.B.); (M.D.E.B.); (A.D.); (S.S.G.); (C.Y.); (H.W.); (X.Z.); (J.S.N.); (L.E.C.); (P.A.B.)
| | - Jinzhong Yang
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, TX 77030, USA;
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Tyrrell PN, Alvarez-Román MT, Bakeer N, Brand-Staufer B, Jiménez-Yuste V, Kras S, Martinoli C, Mendez M, Nagao A, Ozelo M, Ricciardi JB, Zak M, Roth J. Utilizing artificial intelligence for the detection of hemarthrosis in hemophilia using point-of-care ultrasonography. Res Pract Thromb Haemost 2024; 8:102602. [PMID: 39677374 PMCID: PMC11638597 DOI: 10.1016/j.rpth.2024.102602] [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: 06/26/2024] [Revised: 10/02/2024] [Accepted: 10/17/2024] [Indexed: 12/17/2024] Open
Abstract
Background Recurrent hemarthrosis and resultant hemophilic arthropathy are significant causes of morbidity in persons with hemophilia, despite the marked evolution of hemophilia care. Prevention, timely diagnosis, and treatment of bleeding episodes are key. However, a physical examination or a patient's assessment of musculoskeletal pain may not accurately identify a joint bleed. This difficulty is compounded as hemophilic arthropathy progresses. Objectives Our system aims to utilize artificial intelligence and ultrasonography (US; point-of-care and handheld) to enable providers, and ultimately patients, to detect joint bleeds at the bedside and at home. We aimed to develop and assess the reliability of artificial intelligence algorithms in detecting and segmenting synovial recess distension (SRD; an indicator of disease activity) on US images of adult and pediatric knee, elbow, and ankle joints. Methods A total of 12,145 joint exams, comprising 61,501 US images from 7 international healthcare centers, were collected. The dataset included healthy participants and adult and pediatric persons with hemophilia, with and without SRD. Images were manually labeled by 2 experts and used to train binary convolutional neural network classifiers and segmentation models. Metrics to evaluate performance included accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve. Results The algorithms exhibited high performance across all joints and all cohorts. Specifically, the knee model showed an accuracy of 97%, sensitivity of 96%, specificity of 97%, and an area under the curve of 0.97 in SRD. High Dice coefficients (80%-85%) were achieved in segmentation tasks across all joints. Conclusion This technology could assist with the early detection and management of hemarthrosis in hemophilia.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pascal N. Tyrrell
- Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
- Department of Statistical Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | | | - Nihal Bakeer
- Indiana Hemophilia & Thrombosis Center, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
- Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | | | - Victor Jiménez-Yuste
- Hematology Department, Hospital Universitario La Paz-IdiPaz, Autónoma University, Madrid, Spain
| | - Susan Kras
- Mohawk College, Institute for Applied Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Carlo Martinoli
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Genoa, Genova, Italy
- IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy
| | - Mauro Mendez
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Genoa, Genova, Italy
| | - Azusa Nagao
- Department of Blood Coagulation, Ogikubo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Margareth Ozelo
- Hemocentro UNICAMP, University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
| | | | | | - Johannes Roth
- Children’s Hospital of Central Switzerland, Luzern, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Gooding MJ, Aluwini S, Guerrero Urbano T, McQuinlan Y, Om D, Staal FHE, Perennec T, Azzarouali S, Cardenas CE, Carver A, Korreman SS, Bibault JE. Fully automated radiotherapy treatment planning: A scan to plan challenge. Radiother Oncol 2024; 200:110513. [PMID: 39222848 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110513] [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: 04/30/2024] [Revised: 08/19/2024] [Accepted: 08/26/2024] [Indexed: 09/04/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Over the past decade, tools for automation of various sub-tasks in radiotherapy planning have been introduced, such as auto-contouring and auto-planning. The purpose of this study was to benchmark what degree of automation is possible. MATERIALS AND METHODS A challenge to perform automated treatment planning for prostate and prostate bed radiotherapy was set up. Participants were provided with simulation CTs and a treatment prescription and were asked to use automated tools to produce a deliverable radiotherapy treatment plan with as little human intervention as possible. Plans were scored for their adherence to the protocol when assessed using consensus expert contours. RESULTS Thirteen entries were received. The top submission adhered to 81.8% of the minimum objectives across all cases using the consensus contour, meeting all objectives in one of the ten cases. The same system met 89.5% of objectives when assessed with their own auto-contours, meeting all objectives in four of the ten cases. The majority of systems used in the challenge had regulatory clearance (Auto-contouring: 82.5%, Auto-planning: 77%). Despite the 'hard' rule that participants should not check or edit contours or plans, 69% reported looking at their results before submission. CONCLUSIONS Automation of the full planning workflow from simulation CT to deliverable treatment plan is possible for prostate and prostate bed radiotherapy. While many generated plans were found to require none or minor adjustment to be regarded as clinically acceptable, the result indicated there is still a lack of trust in such systems preventing full automation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mark J Gooding
- Inpictura Ltd, 5 The Chambers, Vineyard, Abingdon OX14 3PX, United Kingdom; Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, M20 4BX Manchester, United Kingdom.
| | - Shafak Aluwini
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
| | - Teresa Guerrero Urbano
- Department of Clinical Oncology Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
| | - Yasmin McQuinlan
- Mirada Medical Ltd, Barclay House, 234 Botley Road OX2 0HP, United Kingdom.
| | - Deborah Om
- Department of Medical Physics, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Université Paris Cité, 75015 Paris, France.
| | - Floor H E Staal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
| | - Tanguy Perennec
- Département de radiothérapie, Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest, Nantes, France.
| | - Sana Azzarouali
- Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Carlos E Cardenas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
| | - Antony Carver
- Department of Medical Physics, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
| | - Stine Sofia Korreman
- Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, 8000 Aarhus, Denmark; Danish Center for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, 8200 Aarhus N, Denmark.
| | - Jean-Emmanuel Bibault
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hôpital Européen Georges-Pompidou, Université Paris Cité, 75015 Paris, France.
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Koh MJ, Pilkington P, Koh MJ, Lawlor MK, Creswell M, O’Connor T, Zwart A, Danner M, Kumar D, Suy S, Carrasquilla M, Collins SP. Safety and early efficacy of involved-field SBRT for nodal oligo-recurrent prostate cancer. Front Oncol 2024; 14:1434504. [PMID: 39484030 PMCID: PMC11524995 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1434504] [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: 05/17/2024] [Accepted: 09/16/2024] [Indexed: 11/03/2024] Open
Abstract
Purpose Following treatment for localized prostate cancer, a subset of men will develop recurrent disease in the abdominopelvic nodes. For radiation therapy (RT), the optimal treatment volume, fractionation schedule, and dose remain unanswered questions. We report early outcomes for patients treated with involved-field stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) (IF-SBRT) for nodal oligo-recurrent (NOR) prostate cancer. Methods Between January 2018 and October 2023, 67 patients with a median age of 75 with NOR prostate cancer treated with 74 courses of IF-SBRT at Georgetown were eligible for this analysis. NOR was defined as any volume of disease that could be safely treated within an IF. All patients were treated with five-fraction IF-SBRT (27.5-35 Gy). The IF treatment volume was defined as the nodal basin containing the gross disease as well as the immediately adjacent basins. Disease progression was defined as a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) rise above the pretreatment baseline or initiation of a second treatment. Local control and progression-free survival were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results Detection of pre-SBRT NOR was ascertained by prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) (38%), fluciclovine (50%), or MRI/CT (12%). Median follow-up was 50 months (1-262). The median pre-salvage PSA was 6.5 ng/mL (range, 0.1-335). The median number of involved nodes was 3 (range, 1-16). The local control at 1 and 2 years was 98% and 93%, respectively. The 1- and 2-year progression-free survival was 78% and 50%, respectively. Twenty percent of treatment courses were followed by acute Grade 2 gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity: diarrhea (9%) and/or nausea (14%). Two patients (3%) experienced late Grade 2 nausea. On univariate analysis, measures of disease volume such as hormone sensitivity (p = 0.03), increasing involved node number (p = 0.008), and abdominal treatment (p = 0.03) were significantly associated with GI toxicity. Conclusions With the widespread adoption of PSMA agents, NORs are likely to increase. The optimal combination of local and systemic therapy in this population is unknown. With a favorable toxicity profile, IF-SBRT represents a safe and convenient local therapy treatment option for an elderly patient population. Patient- and treatment-related factors such as a large number of involved nodes and/or abdominal treatment may be associated with an increased risk of GI toxicity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Min Ji Koh
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Padraig Pilkington
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Min Jung Koh
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Mary-Kate Lawlor
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Michael Creswell
- Department of Urology, The University of Kansas Health System, Kansas City, KS, United States
| | - Timothy O’Connor
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Alan Zwart
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Malika Danner
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Deepak Kumar
- Biotechnology Research Institute, North Carolina Central University, Durham, NC, United States
| | - Simeng Suy
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Michael Carrasquilla
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Sean P. Collins
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Huijben EMC, Terpstra ML, Galapon AJ, Pai S, Thummerer A, Koopmans P, Afonso M, van Eijnatten M, Gurney-Champion O, Chen Z, Zhang Y, Zheng K, Li C, Pang H, Ye C, Wang R, Song T, Fan F, Qiu J, Huang Y, Ha J, Sung Park J, Alain-Beaudoin A, Bériault S, Yu P, Guo H, Huang Z, Li G, Zhang X, Fan Y, Liu H, Xin B, Nicolson A, Zhong L, Deng Z, Müller-Franzes G, Khader F, Li X, Zhang Y, Hémon C, Boussot V, Zhang Z, Wang L, Bai L, Wang S, Mus D, Kooiman B, Sargeant CAH, Henderson EGA, Kondo S, Kasai S, Karimzadeh R, Ibragimov B, Helfer T, Dafflon J, Chen Z, Wang E, Perko Z, Maspero M. Generating synthetic computed tomography for radiotherapy: SynthRAD2023 challenge report. Med Image Anal 2024; 97:103276. [PMID: 39068830 DOI: 10.1016/j.media.2024.103276] [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: 03/13/2024] [Revised: 06/02/2024] [Accepted: 07/11/2024] [Indexed: 07/30/2024]
Abstract
Radiation therapy plays a crucial role in cancer treatment, necessitating precise delivery of radiation to tumors while sparing healthy tissues over multiple days. Computed tomography (CT) is integral for treatment planning, offering electron density data crucial for accurate dose calculations. However, accurately representing patient anatomy is challenging, especially in adaptive radiotherapy, where CT is not acquired daily. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) provides superior soft-tissue contrast. Still, it lacks electron density information, while cone beam CT (CBCT) lacks direct electron density calibration and is mainly used for patient positioning. Adopting MRI-only or CBCT-based adaptive radiotherapy eliminates the need for CT planning but presents challenges. Synthetic CT (sCT) generation techniques aim to address these challenges by using image synthesis to bridge the gap between MRI, CBCT, and CT. The SynthRAD2023 challenge was organized to compare synthetic CT generation methods using multi-center ground truth data from 1080 patients, divided into two tasks: (1) MRI-to-CT and (2) CBCT-to-CT. The evaluation included image similarity and dose-based metrics from proton and photon plans. The challenge attracted significant participation, with 617 registrations and 22/17 valid submissions for tasks 1/2. Top-performing teams achieved high structural similarity indices (≥0.87/0.90) and gamma pass rates for photon (≥98.1%/99.0%) and proton (≥97.3%/97.0%) plans. However, no significant correlation was found between image similarity metrics and dose accuracy, emphasizing the need for dose evaluation when assessing the clinical applicability of sCT. SynthRAD2023 facilitated the investigation and benchmarking of sCT generation techniques, providing insights for developing MRI-only and CBCT-based adaptive radiotherapy. It showcased the growing capacity of deep learning to produce high-quality sCT, reducing reliance on conventional CT for treatment planning.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Evi M C Huijben
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Maarten L Terpstra
- Radiotherapy Department, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Computational Imaging Group for MR Diagnostics & Therapy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Arthur Jr Galapon
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Suraj Pai
- Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Adrian Thummerer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands; Department of Radiation Oncology, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Peter Koopmans
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Manya Afonso
- Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen Plant Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands
| | - Maureen van Eijnatten
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Oliver Gurney-Champion
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Zeli Chen
- School of Biomedical Engineering, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Yiwen Zhang
- School of Biomedical Engineering, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Kaiyi Zheng
- School of Biomedical Engineering, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Chuanpu Li
- School of Biomedical Engineering, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Haowen Pang
- School of Integrated Circuits and Electronics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China
| | - Chuyang Ye
- School of Integrated Circuits and Electronics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China
| | - Runqi Wang
- School of Biomedical Engineering, ShanghaiTech University, Shanghai, China
| | - Tao Song
- Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Fuxin Fan
- Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Jingna Qiu
- Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Yixing Huang
- Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | | | | | | | | | - Pengxin Yu
- Infervision Medical Technology Co., Ltd. Beijing, China
| | - Hongbin Guo
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Shantou University, China
| | - Zhanyao Huang
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Shantou University, China
| | | | | | - Yubo Fan
- Department of Computer Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA
| | - Han Liu
- Department of Computer Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA
| | - Bowen Xin
- Australian e-Health Research Centre, CSIRO, Herston, Queensland, Australia
| | - Aaron Nicolson
- Australian e-Health Research Centre, CSIRO, Herston, Queensland, Australia
| | - Lujia Zhong
- Stevens Neuroimaging and Informatics Institute, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California (USC), Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Zhiwei Deng
- Stevens Neuroimaging and Informatics Institute, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California (USC), Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | | | | | - Xia Li
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen, Switzerland; Department of Computer Science, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Ye Zhang
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen, Switzerland; Department of Computer Science, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Cédric Hémon
- University Rennes 1, CLCC Eugène Marquis, INSERM, LTSI, Rennes, France
| | - Valentin Boussot
- University Rennes 1, CLCC Eugène Marquis, INSERM, LTSI, Rennes, France
| | | | | | - Lu Bai
- MedMind Technology Co. Ltd., Beijing, China
| | | | - Derk Mus
- MRI Guidance BV, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | | | | | | | | | - Satoshi Kasai
- Niigata University of Health and Welfare, Niigata, Japan
| | - Reza Karimzadeh
- Image Analysis, Computational Modelling and Geometry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Bulat Ibragimov
- Image Analysis, Computational Modelling and Geometry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
| | | | - Jessica Dafflon
- Data Science and Sharing Team, Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Facility, National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, USA; Machine Learning Team, Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Facility National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, USA
| | - Zijie Chen
- Shenying Medical Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Shenzhen, Guangdong, China
| | - Enpei Wang
- Shenying Medical Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Shenzhen, Guangdong, China
| | - Zoltan Perko
- Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Department of Radiation Science and Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
| | - Matteo Maspero
- Radiotherapy Department, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Computational Imaging Group for MR Diagnostics & Therapy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Trapp C, Aebersold DM, Belka C, Casuscelli J, Emmett L, Eze C, Fanti S, Farolfi A, Fendler W, Grosu AL, Guckenberger M, Hruby G, Kirste S, Koerber SA, Kroeze S, Peeken JC, Rogowski P, Scharl S, Shelan M, Spohn SKB, Strouthos I, Unterrainer L, Vogel M, Wiegel T, Zamboglou C, Schmidt-Hegemann NS. Whole pelvis vs. hemi pelvis elective nodal radiotherapy in patients with PSMA-positive nodal recurrence after radical prostatectomy - a retrospective multi-institutional propensity score analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2024; 51:3770-3781. [PMID: 38940843 PMCID: PMC11445306 DOI: 10.1007/s00259-024-06802-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/13/2024] [Accepted: 06/10/2024] [Indexed: 06/29/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE Despite growing evidence for bilateral pelvic radiotherapy (whole pelvis RT, WPRT) there is almost no data on unilateral RT (hemi pelvis RT, HPRT) in patients with nodal recurrent prostate cancer after prostatectomy. Nevertheless, in clinical practice HPRT is sometimes used with the intention to reduce side effects compared to WPRT. Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography / computed tomography (PSMA-PET/CT) is currently the best imaging modality in this clinical situation. This analysis compares PSMA-PET/CT based WPRT and HPRT. METHODS A propensity score matching was performed in a multi-institutional retrospective dataset of 273 patients treated with pelvic RT due to nodal recurrence (214 WPRT, 59 HPRT). In total, 102 patients (51 in each group) were included in the final analysis. Biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS) defined as prostate specific antigen (PSA) < post-RT nadir + 0.2ng/ml, metastasis-free survival (MFS) and nodal recurrence-free survival (NRFS) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log rank test. RESULTS Median follow-up was 29 months. After propensity matching, both groups were mostly well balanced. However, in the WPRT group there were still significantly more patients with additional local recurrences and biochemical persistence after prostatectomy. There were no significant differences between both groups in BRFS (p = .97), MFS (p = .43) and NRFS (p = .43). After two years, BRFS, MFS and NRFS were 61%, 86% and 88% in the WPRT group and 57%, 90% and 82% in the HPRT group, respectively. Application of a boost to lymph node metastases, a higher RT dose to the lymphatic pathways (> 50 Gy EQD2α/β=1.5 Gy) and concomitant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) were significantly associated with longer BRFS in uni- and multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS Overall, this analysis presents the outcome of HPRT in nodal recurrent prostate cancer patients and shows that it can result in a similar oncologic outcome compared to WPRT. Nevertheless, patients in the WPRT may have been at a higher risk for progression due to some persistent imbalances between the groups. Therefore, further research should prospectively evaluate which subgroups of patients are suitable for HPRT and if HPRT leads to a clinically significant reduction in toxicity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christian Trapp
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
| | - Daniel M Aebersold
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Claus Belka
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany
- Deutsches Konsortium für Translationale Krebsforschung (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, Munich, Germany
| | | | - Louise Emmett
- Department of Theranostics and Nuclear Medicine, St. Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, Australia
- St. Vincent's Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
| | - Chukwuka Eze
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany
| | - Stefano Fanti
- Nuclear Medicine, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Andrea Farolfi
- Nuclear Medicine, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Wolfgang Fendler
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital,University of Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Anca-Ligia Grosu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical Center , University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
- Deutsches Konsortium für Translationale Krebsforschung (DKTK), Partner Site Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Matthias Guckenberger
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - George Hruby
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Royal North Shore Hospital, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Simon Kirste
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical Center , University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Stefan A Koerber
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Barmherzige Brüder Hospital Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Stephanie Kroeze
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Jan C Peeken
- Deutsches Konsortium für Translationale Krebsforschung (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, Munich, Germany
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Munich, Germany
| | - Paul Rogowski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany
| | - Sophia Scharl
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany
| | - Mohamed Shelan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Simon K B Spohn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical Center , University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
- Deutsches Konsortium für Translationale Krebsforschung (DKTK), Partner Site Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
- Berta-Ottenstein-Programm, Medical Faculty, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Iosif Strouthos
- Department of Radiation Oncology, German Oncology Center, European University Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
| | - Lena Unterrainer
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
- Ahmanson Translational Theranostics Division, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, USA
| | - Marco Vogel
- Deutsches Konsortium für Translationale Krebsforschung (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, Munich, Germany
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Munich, Germany
| | - Thomas Wiegel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany
| | - Constantinos Zamboglou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical Center , University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
- Deutsches Konsortium für Translationale Krebsforschung (DKTK), Partner Site Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
- Department of Radiation Oncology, German Oncology Center, European University Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
| | | |
Collapse
|
17
|
Wen F, Chen Z, Wang X, Dou M, Yang J, Yao Y, Shen Y. Deep learning based clinical target volumes contouring for prostate cancer: Easy and efficient application. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2024; 25:e14482. [PMID: 39120487 PMCID: PMC11466469 DOI: 10.1002/acm2.14482] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/06/2023] [Revised: 05/30/2024] [Accepted: 07/09/2024] [Indexed: 08/10/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Radiotherapy has been crucial in prostate cancer treatment. However, manual segmentation is labor intensive and highly variable among radiation oncologists. In this study, a deep learning based automated contouring model is constructed for clinical target volumes (CTVs) of intact and postoperative prostate cancer. METHODS Computed tomography (CT) data sets of 197 prostate cancer patients were collected. Two auto-delineation models were built for radical radiotherapy and postoperative radiotherapy of prostate cancer respectively, and each model included CTVn for pelvic lymph nodes and CTVp for prostate tumors or prostate tumor beds. RESULTS In the radical radiotherapy model, the volumetric dice (VD) coefficient of CTVn calculated by AI, was higher than that of the one delineated by the junior physicians (0.85 vs. 0.82, p = 0.018); In the postoperative radiotherapy model, the quantitative parameter of CTVn and CTVp, counted by AI, was better than that of the junior physicians. The median delineation time for AI was 0.23 min in the postoperative model and 0.26 min in the radical model, which were significantly shorter than those of the physicians (50.40 and 45.43 min, respectively, p < 0.001). The correction time of the senior physician for AI was much shorter compared with that for the junior physicians in both models (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION Using deep learning and attention mechanism, a highly consistent and time-saving contouring model was built for CTVs of pelvic lymph nodes and prostate tumors or prostate tumor beds for prostate cancer, which also might be a good approach to train junior radiation oncologists.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Feng Wen
- Department of Radiation OncologyCancer CenterWest China Hospital, Sichuan UniversityChengduChina
- Abdominal Oncology Ward, Cancer CenterWest China Hospital, Sichuan UniversityChengduChina
| | - Zhebin Chen
- Chengdu Institute of Computer ApplicationChinese Academy of Sciences, SichuanChengduChina
- University of Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
| | - Xin Wang
- Department of Radiation OncologyCancer CenterWest China Hospital, Sichuan UniversityChengduChina
- Abdominal Oncology Ward, Cancer CenterWest China Hospital, Sichuan UniversityChengduChina
| | - Meng Dou
- Chengdu Institute of Computer ApplicationChinese Academy of Sciences, SichuanChengduChina
- University of Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
| | - Jialuo Yang
- Department of Medicine OncologyShifang people's HospitalShifangChina
| | - Yu Yao
- Chengdu Institute of Computer ApplicationChinese Academy of Sciences, SichuanChengduChina
- University of Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
| | - Yali Shen
- Department of Radiation OncologyCancer CenterWest China Hospital, Sichuan UniversityChengduChina
- Abdominal Oncology Ward, Cancer CenterWest China Hospital, Sichuan UniversityChengduChina
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Singh M, Murthy V. Pushing the Borders: One at a Time. Reply to C. Onal, A. Elmaliy, P. Hurmuz's Letter to Editor Re: Patterns of Failure After Prostate-Only Radiotherapy in High-Risk Prostate Cancer: Implications for Refining Pelvic Nodal Contouring Guidelines in Regard to Singh et al. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2024; 36:e346-e347. [PMID: 38969528 DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2024.06.043] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/12/2024] [Accepted: 06/13/2024] [Indexed: 07/07/2024]
Affiliation(s)
- M Singh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital and Advanced Centre for Treatment Research and Education in Cancer (ACTREC), Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Mumbai, India
| | - V 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, India
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Leow BYJ, Eade T, Hruby G, Lieng H, Hsiao E, Brown C, Kneebone A. Prognostic impact of prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA PET) staging for clinically node-positive prostate cancer. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2024; 68:721-728. [PMID: 38618900 DOI: 10.1111/1754-9485.13655] [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: 11/19/2023] [Accepted: 04/03/2024] [Indexed: 04/16/2024]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION In the current American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system, patients with pelvic nodal metastases are considered stage IV prostate cancer. This study aims to investigate whether men with prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA PET)-detected pelvic node-positive prostate cancer at diagnosis have a better outcome compared to men with node-positive disease identified on conventional imaging. METHODS This is a retrospective cohort study comparing the outcomes of men with node-positive prostate cancer and disease confined to the pelvis, staged with conventional versus PSMA PET imaging. Men had to be treated definitively with a combination of androgen deprivation therapy and radiation treatment to the prostate and pelvic lymph nodes. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analysis was used to compare biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS Seventy-six men with nodal metastases confined to the pelvis were identified. Fifty-one were detected with PSMA PET while 25 were staged with conventional imaging. PSMA PET staged patients had a lower proportion of Gleason 8-10 disease (78% vs. 96%) as well as a lower median prostate-specific antigen (11 ng/mL vs. 26 ng/mL). BFFS at 4 years was 72% with PSMA PET-detected node-positive disease vs. 38% with conventionally detected node-positive disease. Four-year OS was 93% with PSMA PET staged patients vs. 76% with conventionally staged patients. On multivariate analysis, the PSMA PET staged group was associated with improved BFFS (Adjusted HR = 3.00, 95% CI 1.43, 6.29, P = 0.004) and OS (Adjusted HR = 5.81, 95% CI 1.43, 23.7, P = 0.007). CONCLUSION Men with PSMA PET-detected node-positive prostate cancer confined to the pelvis have significantly better biochemical control and survival compared to those with node-positive pelvic disease identified through conventional staging.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Thomas Eade
- Central Coast Cancer Centre, Gosford Hospital, Gosford, New South Wales, Australia
- Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Radiation Oncology Unit, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - George Hruby
- Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Radiation Oncology Unit, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Hester Lieng
- Central Coast Cancer Centre, Gosford Hospital, Gosford, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Edward Hsiao
- Department of Nuclear Medicine and PET, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Chris Brown
- Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Radiation Oncology Unit, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- National Health and Medical Research Council, Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Andrew Kneebone
- Central Coast Cancer Centre, Gosford Hospital, Gosford, New South Wales, Australia
- Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Radiation Oncology Unit, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Kahlmeter Brandell J, Valachis A, Ugge H, Smith D, Johansson B. Moderately hypofractionated prostate-only versus whole-pelvis radiotherapy for high-risk prostate cancer: A retrospective real-world single-center cohort study. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2024; 48:100846. [PMID: 39258243 PMCID: PMC11384977 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2024.100846] [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: 06/26/2024] [Revised: 08/08/2024] [Accepted: 08/18/2024] [Indexed: 09/12/2024] Open
Abstract
Background The benefit of prophylactic whole pelvis radiation therapy (WPRT) in prostate cancer has been debated for decades, with evidence based mainly on conventional fractionation targeting pelvic nodes. Aim This retrospective cohort study aimed to explore the impact of adding moderately hypofractionated pelvic radiotherapy to prostate-only irradiation (PORT) on prognosis, toxicity, and quality of life in real-world settings. Materials and methods Patients with high-risk and conventionally staged prostate cancer (cT1-3N0M0) treated with moderately hypofractionated WPRT or PORT, using external beam radiotherapy alone or combined with high-dose-rate brachytherapy, at Örebro University Hospital between 2008 and 2021 were identified. Biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS), and overall survival (OS) were compared using Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards. Toxicity and quality of life measures were also analysed. Results Among 516 patients (227 PORT, 289 WPRT), 5-year BFFS rates were 77 % (PORT) and 74 % (WPRT), adjusted HR=1.50 (95 % CI=0.88-2.55). No significant differences were found in MFS, PCSS, or OS in main analyses. WPRT was associated with a higher risk of acute grade ≥ 2 and 3 genitourinary toxicities whereas no differences in late toxicities or quality of life between PORT and WPRT were observed. Conclusion We found no significant differences in oncological outcomes or quality of life when comparing moderately hypofractionated PORT to WPRT. Some differences in toxicity patterns were observed. Despite caveats related to study design, our findings support the need for further research on WPRT's impact on treatment-related and patient-reported outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jenny Kahlmeter Brandell
- Department of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University Hospital, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden
| | - Antonis Valachis
- Department of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University Hospital, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden
| | - Henrik Ugge
- Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University Hospital, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden
| | - Daniel Smith
- Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Medical Sciences, Örebro University, 702 81 Örebro, Sweden
| | - Bengt Johansson
- Department of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University Hospital, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Quintin K, Créhange G, Graff P. [Moderately hypofractionated dose escalation radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer, ESHYPRO: Results of a retrospective single-centre series evaluating safety and efficacy]. Cancer Radiother 2024; 28:333-340. [PMID: 39155168 DOI: 10.1016/j.canrad.2024.01.005] [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: 11/01/2023] [Revised: 01/13/2024] [Accepted: 01/19/2024] [Indexed: 08/20/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE Prostate cancer is the most frequent cancer among men and radiotherapy hypofractionation regimens have become standard treatments for the localized stages, but the absence of increased risk of acute and late genitourinary or gastrointestinal toxicity of the dose escalation still must be demonstrated. MATERIAL AND METHODS The study population included all patients with localized prostatic adenocarcinoma treated at the institut Curie from February 2016 to March 2018 by external radiation delivered by a linear accelerator using an image-guided conformal intensity modulation technique at a total dose of 75Gy in 30 fractions of 2.5Gy in the planning target volume that included the prostate and the proximal seminal vesicles, and could be paired with a prophylactic lymph node radiotherapy at 46Gy in 23 fractions with simultaneous integrated boost. RESULTS A total of 166 patients were included. Among them, 68.6% were unfavourable intermediate or (very) high risk. The median age and follow-up were 71.4years and 3.96years. One hundred and forty-nine patients received prophylactic lymph node radiotherapy (89.8%). One hundred and thirty-one patients received hormonotherapy (78.9%). Genito-urinary toxicity events of grades 2 or above during radiotherapy, at 6months, 1year and 5years were respectively 36.7%, 8.8%, 3.1% and 4.7%. Two patients had late grade 4 toxicity at 5years (1.6%). Grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicity events during radiotherapy, 6months, 1year and 5years were respectively 15.1%, 1.9%, 14.6% and 9.3%. Of these, eight patients had grade 3 toxicity (6.2%). There was no grade 4 toxicity. Analyses did not reveal any predictive factor for toxicity. The 5-year overall, progression-free, and specific survival rates were respectively 82.4%, 85.7%, and 93.3%. Serum prostate specific antigen concentration and cardiovascular risk factors were found to be predictive factors of deterioration in overall survival (P=0.0028 for both). CONCLUSION External radiotherapy for localized prostatic cancer with our moderately hypofractionated dose escalation regimen is well tolerated. In the absence of increased late toxicity, the analysis of the modes of long-term relapses will be interesting to determine the benefit of this dose escalation on local and distant relapses.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K Quintin
- Service d'oncologie-radiothérapie, institut Curie, 26, rue d'Ulm, 75005 Paris, France.
| | - G Créhange
- Service d'oncologie-radiothérapie, institut Curie, 26, rue d'Ulm, 75005 Paris, France
| | - P Graff
- Service d'oncologie-radiothérapie, institut Curie, 26, rue d'Ulm, 75005 Paris, France
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Gogineni E, Chen H, Cruickshank IK, Koempel A, Gogineni A, Li H, Deville C. In Silico Comparison of Three Different Beam Arrangements for Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy for Postoperative Whole Pelvic Irradiation of Prostate Cancer. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16:2702. [PMID: 39123430 PMCID: PMC11311848 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16152702] [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: 04/15/2024] [Revised: 07/17/2024] [Accepted: 07/23/2024] [Indexed: 08/12/2024] Open
Abstract
Background and purpose: Proton therapy has been shown to provide dosimetric benefits in comparison with IMRT when treating prostate cancer with whole pelvis radiation; however, the optimal proton beam arrangement has yet to be established. The aim of this study was to evaluate three different intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) beam arrangements when treating the prostate bed and pelvis in the postoperative setting. Materials and Methods: Twenty-three post-prostatectomy patients were planned using three different beam arrangements: two-field (IMPT2B) (opposed laterals), three-field (IMPT3B) (opposed laterals inferiorly matched to a posterior-anterior beam superiorly), and four-field (IMPT4B) (opposed laterals inferiorly matched to two posterior oblique beams superiorly) arrangements. The prescription was 50 Gy radiobiological equivalent (GyE) to the pelvis and 70 GyE to the prostate bed. Comparisons were made using paired two-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Results: CTV coverages were met for all IMPT plans, with 99% of CTVs receiving ≥ 100% of prescription doses. All organ at risk (OAR) objectives were met with IMPT3B and IMPT4B plans, while several rectum objectives were exceeded by IMPT2B plans. IMPT4B provided the lowest doses to OARs for the majority of analyzed outcomes, with significantly lower doses than IMPT2B +/- IMPT3B for bladder V30-V50 and mean dose; bowel V15-V45 and mean dose; sigmoid maximum dose; rectum V40-V72.1, maximum dose, and mean dose; femoral head V37-40 and maximum dose; bone V40 and mean dose; penile bulb mean dose; and skin maximum dose. Conclusion: This study is the first to compare proton beam arrangements when treating the prostate bed and pelvis. four-field plans provided better sparing of the bladder, bowel, and rectum than 2- and three-field plans. The data presented herein may help inform the future delivery of whole pelvis IMPT for prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emile Gogineni
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH 43210, USA; (A.K.); (A.G.)
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA; (H.C.); (I.K.C.J.); (H.L.); (C.D.J.)
| | - Hao Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA; (H.C.); (I.K.C.J.); (H.L.); (C.D.J.)
| | - Ian K. Cruickshank
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA; (H.C.); (I.K.C.J.); (H.L.); (C.D.J.)
| | - Andrew Koempel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH 43210, USA; (A.K.); (A.G.)
| | - Aarush Gogineni
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH 43210, USA; (A.K.); (A.G.)
| | - Heng Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA; (H.C.); (I.K.C.J.); (H.L.); (C.D.J.)
| | - Curtiland Deville
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA; (H.C.); (I.K.C.J.); (H.L.); (C.D.J.)
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Furman B, Falick Michaeli T, Den R, Ben Haim S, Popovtzer A, Wygoda M, Blumenfeld P. Pelvic lymph node mapping in prostate cancer: examining the impact of PSMA PET/CT on radiotherapy decision-making in patients with node-positive disease. Cancer Imaging 2024; 24:96. [PMID: 39075567 PMCID: PMC11285572 DOI: 10.1186/s40644-024-00742-3] [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: 04/14/2024] [Accepted: 07/16/2024] [Indexed: 07/31/2024] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Prostate Specific Membrane Antigen (PSMA) imaging with Positron Emission Tomography (PET) plays a crucial role in prostate cancer management. However, there is a lack of comprehensive data on how PSMA PET/CT (Computed Tomography) influences radiotherapeutic decisions, particularly in node-positive prostate cancer cases. This study aims to address this gap by evaluating two primary objectives: (1) Mapping the regional and non-regional lymph nodes (LNs) up to the aortic bifurcation and their distribution using conventional methods with CT compared to PSMA PET/CT, and (2) assessing the impact of PSMA PET/CT findings on radiotherapeutic decisions. METHODS A retrospective analysis of 95 node-positive prostate cancer patients who underwent both CT and PSMA PET/CT imaging prior to primary radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was conducted. The analysis focused on identifying LNs in various regions including the common iliac, external iliac, internal iliac, obturator, presacral, mesorectal, inguinal, and other stations. Treatment plans were reviewed for modifications based on PSMA PET/CT findings, and statistical analysis was performed to identify predictors for exclusive nodal positivity on PSMA PET/CT scans. RESULTS PSMA PET/CT identified additional positive nodes in 48% of cases, resulting in a staging shift from N0 to N1 in 29% of patients. The most frequent metastatic LNs were located in the external iliac (76 LNs; 34%), internal iliac (43 LNs; 19%), and common iliac (35 LNs; 15%) stations. In patients with nodes only detected on PSMA PET the most common nodes were in the external iliac (27, 40%), internal iliac (13, 19%), obturator (11, 15%) stations. Within the subgroup of 28 patients exclusively demonstrating PSMA PET-detected nodes, changes in radiotherapy treatment fields were implemented in 5 cases (18%), and a dose boost was applied for 23 patients (83%). However, no discernible predictors for exclusive nodal positivity on PSMA PET/CT scans emerged from the analysis. DISCUSSION The study underscores the pivotal role of PSMA PET/CT compared to CT alone in accurately staging node-positive prostate cancer and guiding personalized radiotherapy strategies. The routine integration of PSMA PET/CT into diagnostic protocols is advocated to optimize treatment precision and improve patient outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ben Furman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sharett Institute of Oncology, Hadassah Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, POB 12272, Jerusalem, 9112002, Israel
| | - Tal Falick Michaeli
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sharett Institute of Oncology, Hadassah Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, POB 12272, Jerusalem, 9112002, Israel
| | - Robert Den
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sharett Institute of Oncology, Hadassah Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, POB 12272, Jerusalem, 9112002, Israel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Thomas Jefferson, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Simona Ben Haim
- Department of Nuclear Medicine and Medical Biophysics, Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Hadassah Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel
| | - Aron Popovtzer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sharett Institute of Oncology, Hadassah Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, POB 12272, Jerusalem, 9112002, Israel
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sharett Institute of Oncology, Hadassah Medical Center and Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
| | - Marc Wygoda
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sharett Institute of Oncology, Hadassah Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, POB 12272, Jerusalem, 9112002, Israel
| | - Philip Blumenfeld
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sharett Institute of Oncology, Hadassah Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, POB 12272, Jerusalem, 9112002, Israel.
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sharett Institute of Oncology, Hadassah Medical Center and Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel.
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Singh M, Maitre P, Mody R, Murthy V. Patterns of Failure After Prostate-Only Radiotherapy in High-Risk Prostate Cancer: Implications for Refining Pelvic Nodal Contouring Guidelines. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2024; 36:445-451. [PMID: 38664178 DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2024.04.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/28/2023] [Revised: 03/20/2024] [Accepted: 04/02/2024] [Indexed: 06/03/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE To study prostate specific membrane antigen - positron emission tomography (Ga68PSMA-PETCT) based patterns of relapse at biochemical failure (BCF) after prostate-only radiotherapy (PORT) in high-risk (HR) prostate cancer and its implications on pelvic contouring recommendations. METHODS AND MATERIALS Patients with clinico-radiological high-risk node-negative prostate cancer treated with curative PORT and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), either within the POP-RT randomised trial or off trial, who underwent a Ga68PSMA-PETCT upon BCF were included. Patterns of regional and distant recurrence on Ga68PSMA-PETCT were studied. Pelvic nodal recurrences were mapped with reference to the superior border of pubic symphysis. Pelvic lymph nodal caudal border (PLNcb) recommendations in the published contouring guidelines (RTOGcb, GETUGcb, PIVOTALcb, NRGcb, GFRUcb) were evaluated. RESULTS Of the total 262 patients screened, 68 eligible patients were included (POP-RT trial 35 patients; off-trial 33 patients). Median follow-up was 91 months (IQR, 72-117) and median time to BCF was 65 months (IQR, 49-83). Regional and distant recurrence was seen in 31 (46%) and 31 (46%) patients, respectively. Of the nodal recurrences, nearly half (46%, 14/31) had no distant metastases and 64% (20/31) had a failure in the common iliac nodal region. The lower-most nodal recurrence was 20 mm cranial to the top of pubic symphysis (RTOGcb, GETUGcb, GFRUcb) and 10 mm cranial to the PIVOTALcb. The PLNcb recommended by NRG guideline (NRGcb) had an inter-patient variability of 32 mm, ranging from 16 mm above to 16 mm below the top of pubic symphysis, and the lower most nodal recurrence ranged from 4 mm to 36 mm cranial to NRGcb. CONCLUSION Pelvic failures accounted for a major proportion of recurrences after prostate-only radiotherapy, with the caudal most nodal recurrence being 20 mm cranial to the top of pubic symphysis. This could have implications in defining the caudal border of contouring recommendations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Singh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital and Advanced Centre for Treatment Research and Education in Cancer (ACTREC), Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Mumbai, India.
| | - P Maitre
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital and Advanced Centre for Treatment Research and Education in Cancer (ACTREC), Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Mumbai, India.
| | - R Mody
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital and Advanced Centre for Treatment Research and Education in Cancer (ACTREC), Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Mumbai, India.
| | - V 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, India.
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Armstrong WR, Kishan AU, Booker KM, Grogan TR, Elashoff D, Lam EC, Clark KJ, Steinberg ML, Fendler WP, Hope TA, Nickols NG, Czernin J, Calais J. Impact of Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography on Prostate Cancer Salvage Radiotherapy Management: Results from a Prospective Multicenter Randomized Phase 3 Trial (PSMA-SRT NCT03582774). Eur Urol 2024; 86:52-60. [PMID: 38290964 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2024.01.012] [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] [Revised: 12/12/2023] [Accepted: 01/10/2024] [Indexed: 02/01/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE Both imaging and several prognostic factors inform the planning of salvage radiotherapy (SRT). Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET) can localize disease unseen by other imaging modalities. The main objective of the study was to evaluate the impact of PSMA-PET on biochemical recurrence-free survival rate after SRT. METHODS This prospective randomized, controlled, phase 3 clinical trial randomized 193 patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy to proceed with SRT (control arm, n = 90) or undergo a PSMA-PET/computed tomography (CT) scan prior to SRT planning (investigational arm, n = 103) from June 2018 to August 2020. Any other approved imaging modalities were allowed in both arms (including fluciclovine-PET). This is a secondary endpoint analysis: impact of PSMA-PET on SRT planning. Case-report forms were sent to referring radiation oncologists to collect the management plans before randomization and after completion of SRT. The relative frequency (%) of management changes within each arm were compared using chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS The delivered SRT plan was available in 178/193 patients (92.2%;76/90 control [84.4%] and 102/103 PSMA-PET [99%]). Median prostate-specific antigen levels at enrollment was 0.30 ng/ml (interquartile range [IQR] 0.19-0.91) in the control arm and 0.23 ng/ml (IQR 0.15-0.54) in the PSMA-PET arm. Fluciclovine-PET was used in 33/76 (43%) in the control arm. PSMA-PET localized recurrence(s) in 38/102 (37%): nine of 102 (9%) outside of the pelvis (M1), 16/102 (16%) in the pelvic LNs (N1, with or without local recurrence), and 13/102 (13%) in the prostate fossa only. There was a 23% difference (95% confidence interval [CI] 9-35%, p = 0.002) of frequency of major changes between the control arm (22% [17/76]) and the PSMA-PET intervention arm (45%[46/102]). Of the major changes in the intervention group, 33/46 (72%) were deemed related to PSMA-PET. There was a 17.6% difference (95% CI 5.4-28.5%, p = 0.005) of treatment escalation frequency between the control arm (nine of 76 [12%]) and the intervention arm (30/102 [29%]). Treatment de-escalation occurred in the control and intervention arms in eight of 76 (10.5%) and 12/102 (11.8%) patients, and mixed changes in zero of 76 (0%) and four of 102 (3.9%) patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS In this prospective randomized phase 3 study, PSMA-PET findings provided information that initiated major management changes to SRT planning in 33/102 (33%) patients. The final readout of the primary endpoint planned in 2025 may provide evidence on whether these changes result in improved outcomes. PATIENT SUMMARY Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography leads to management changes in one-third of patients receiving salvage radiotherapy for post-radical prostatectomy biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wesley R Armstrong
- Ahmanson Translational Theranostics Division, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA; UCLA-Caltech Medical Scientist Training Program, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Amar U Kishan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Kiara M Booker
- Ahmanson Translational Theranostics Division, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Tristan R Grogan
- Department of Medicine Statistics Core (DOMStat), David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - David Elashoff
- Department of Medicine Statistics Core (DOMStat), David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Ethan C Lam
- Ahmanson Translational Theranostics Division, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Kevyn J Clark
- Ahmanson Translational Theranostics Division, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Michael L Steinberg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Wolfgang P Fendler
- Ahmanson Translational Theranostics Division, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Duisburg-Essen and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) - University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Thomas A Hope
- Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Nicholas G Nickols
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Johannes Czernin
- Ahmanson Translational Theranostics Division, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Jeremie Calais
- Ahmanson Translational Theranostics Division, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Telarovic I, Yong CSM, Kurz L, Vetrugno I, Reichl S, Fernandez AS, Cheng HW, Winkler R, Guckenberger M, Kipar A, Ludewig B, Pruschy M. Delayed tumor-draining lymph node irradiation preserves the efficacy of combined radiotherapy and immune checkpoint blockade in models of metastatic disease. Nat Commun 2024; 15:5500. [PMID: 38951172 PMCID: PMC11217506 DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-49873-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/07/2023] [Accepted: 06/21/2024] [Indexed: 07/03/2024] Open
Abstract
Cancer resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors motivated investigations into leveraging the immunostimulatory properties of radiotherapy to overcome immune evasion and to improve treatment response. However, clinical benefits of radiotherapy-immunotherapy combinations have been modest. Routine concomitant tumor-draining lymph node irradiation (DLN IR) might be the culprit. As crucial sites for generating anti-tumor immunity, DLNs are indispensable for the in situ vaccination effect of radiotherapy. Simultaneously, DLN sparing is often not feasible due to metastatic spread. Using murine models of metastatic disease in female mice, here we demonstrate that delayed (adjuvant), but not neoadjuvant, DLN IR overcomes the detrimental effect of concomitant DLN IR on the efficacy of radio-immunotherapy. Moreover, we identify IR-induced disruption of the CCR7-CCL19/CCL21 homing axis as a key mechanism for the detrimental effect of DLN IR. Our study proposes delayed DLN IR as a strategy to maximize the efficacy of radio-immunotherapy across different tumor types and disease stages.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Irma Telarovic
- Laboratory for Applied Radiobiology, Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Carmen S M Yong
- Laboratory for Applied Radiobiology, Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
- Department of Immunology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Lisa Kurz
- Institute of Immunobiology, Medical Research Center, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland
| | - Irene Vetrugno
- Laboratory for Applied Radiobiology, Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Sabrina Reichl
- Laboratory for Applied Radiobiology, Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Alba Sanchez Fernandez
- Laboratory for Applied Radiobiology, Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Hung-Wei Cheng
- Institute of Immunobiology, Medical Research Center, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland
| | - Rona Winkler
- Laboratory for Applied Radiobiology, Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Matthias Guckenberger
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Anja Kipar
- Laboratory for Animal Model Pathology, Institute of Veterinary Pathology, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Burkhard Ludewig
- Institute of Immunobiology, Medical Research Center, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland
| | - Martin Pruschy
- Laboratory for Applied Radiobiology, Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Canales JP, Barnafi E, Salazar C, Reyes P, Merino T, Calderón D, Cortés A. Moderate hypofractionated radiotherapy to the prostate bed with or without pelvic lymph nodes: a prospective trial. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2024; 29:187-196. [PMID: 39143977 PMCID: PMC11321776 DOI: 10.5603/rpor.99677] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/16/2023] [Accepted: 02/29/2024] [Indexed: 08/16/2024] Open
Abstract
Background Hypofractionated radiotherapy in the treatment of prostate cancer has been widely studied. However, in the postoperative setting it has been less explored. The objective of this prospective study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of hypofractionated radiotherapy in postoperative prostate cancer. Materials and methods A prospective study was designed to include patients with prostate cancer with an indication of postoperative radiotherapy as adjuvant or salvage. A hypofractionated radiotherapy scheme of 51 Gy in 17 fractions was performed with the possibility of treating the pelvis at a dose of 36 Gy in 12 fractions sequentially. Safety was evaluated based on acute and late toxicity [according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) scale and Common Terminology Criteria Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4.03], International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) over time, and quality of life. Results From August 2020 to June 2022, 31 patients completed treatment and were included in this report. 35.5% of patients received elective treatment of the pelvic nodal areas. Most patients reported minimal or low acute toxicity, with an acute gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) grade 3 or greater toxicity of 3.2% and 0%, respectively. The evolution in time of the IPSS remained without significant differences (p = 0.42). With the exception of a significant improvement in the domains of hormonal and sexual symptoms of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) questionnaire, the rest of the domains [EPIC, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Core quality of life questionnaire (C-30) and Prostate Cancer module (PR-25)] were maintained without significant differences over time. With a follow-up of 15.4 months, late GI and GU grade 2 toxicity was reported greater than 0% and 9.6%, respectively. Conclusions Hypofractionated radiotherapy in postoperative prostate cancer appears to be safe with low reports of relevant acute or late toxicity. Further follow-up is required to confirm these results. Trial registration The protocol was approved by the accredited Medical Ethical Committee of Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. All participants accepted and wrote informed consent.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Juan P. Canales
- Department of Hemato-oncology, Radiotherapy, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago de Chile, Chile
| | - Esteban Barnafi
- Medicine School, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago de Chile, Chile
| | - Cristian Salazar
- Medicine School, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago de Chile, Chile
| | - Paula Reyes
- Department of Hemato-oncology, Radiotherapy, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago de Chile, Chile
| | - Tomas Merino
- Department of Hemato-oncology, Radiotherapy, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago de Chile, Chile
| | - David Calderón
- Department of Urology, Hospital del Salvador, Santiago de Chile, Chile
| | - Analía Cortés
- Department of Oncology, Hospital del Salvador, Santiago de Chile, Chile
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Scharl S, Zamboglou C, Strouthos I, Farolfi A, Serani F, Koerber SA, Debus J, Peeken JC, Vogel MME, Kroeze SGC, Guckenberger M, Krafcsik M, Hruby G, Emmett L, Schmidt-Hegemann NS, Trapp C, Spohn SKB, Henkenberens C, Mayer B, Shelan M, Aebersold DM, Thamm R, Wiegel T. European association of urology risk stratification predicts outcome in patients receiving PSMA-PET-planned salvage radiotherapy for biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy. Radiother Oncol 2024; 194:110215. [PMID: 38458259 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110215] [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: 02/03/2024] [Revised: 03/01/2024] [Accepted: 03/03/2024] [Indexed: 03/10/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE The European Association of Urology (EAU) proposed a risk stratification (high vs. low risk) for patients with biochemical recurrence (BR) following radical prostatectomy (RP). Here we investigated whether this stratification accurately predicts outcome, particularly in patients staged with PSMA-PET. METHODS For this study, we used a retrospective database including 1222 PSMA-PET-staged prostate cancer patients who were treated with salvage radiotherapy (SRT) for BR, at 11 centers in 5 countries. Patients with lymph node metastases (pN1 or cN1) or unclear EAU risk group were excluded. The remaining cohort comprised 526 patients, including 132 low-risk and 394 high-risk patients. RESULTS The median follow-up time after SRT was 31.0 months. The 3-year biochemical progression-free survival (BPFS) was 85.7 % in EAU low-risk versus 69.4 % in high-risk patients (p = 0.002). The 3-year metastasis-free survival (MFS) was 94.4 % in low-risk versus 87.6 % in high-risk patients (p = 0.005). The 3-year overall survival (OS) was 99.0 % in low-risk versus 99.6 % in high-risk patients (p = 0.925). In multivariate analysis, EAU risk group remained a statistically significant predictor of BPFS (p = 0.003, HR 2.022, 95 % CI 1.262-3.239) and MFS (p = 0.013, HR 2.986, 95 % CI 1.262-7.058). CONCLUSION Our data support the EAU risk group definition. EAU risk grouping for BCR reliably predicted outcome in patients staged lymph node-negative after RP and with PSMA-PET before SRT. To our knowledge, this is the first study validating the EAU risk grouping in patients treated with PSMA-PET-planned SRT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sophia Scharl
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Ulm, Germany.
| | - Constantinos Zamboglou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical Center -Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Germany
| | - Iosif Strouthos
- Department of Radiation Oncology, German Oncology Center, University Hospital of the European University, Limassol, Cyprus
| | - Andrea Farolfi
- Nuclear Medicine, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Francesca Serani
- Nuclear Medicine, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Stefan A Koerber
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; Department of Radiation Oncology, Barmherzige Brüder Hospital Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany
| | - Jürgen Debus
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Jan C Peeken
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Germany
| | - Marco M E Vogel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Germany
| | | | | | - Manuel Krafcsik
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Ulm, Germany
| | - George Hruby
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Royal North Shore Hospital - University of Sydney, Australia
| | - Louise Emmett
- St Vincent's Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
| | - Nina-Sophie Schmidt-Hegemann
- Department of Department of Radiotherapy and Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany; Bavarian Cancer Research Center (BZKF), Munich, Germany
| | - Christian Trapp
- Department of Department of Radiotherapy and Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Germany
| | - Simon K B Spohn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical Center -Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Germany
| | - Christoph Henkenberens
- Department of Radiotherapy and Special Oncology, Medical School Hannover, Hannover, Germany
| | - Benjamin Mayer
- Institute for Epidemiology and Medical Biometry, University Ulm, Ulm, Germany
| | - Mohamed Shelan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital Bern, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland
| | - Daniel M Aebersold
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital Bern, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland
| | - Reinhard Thamm
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Ulm, Germany
| | - Thomas Wiegel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Ulm, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Lee TH, Pyo H, Yoo GS, Jeon SS, Seo SI, Jeong BC, Jeon HG, Sung HH, Kang M, Song W, Chung JH, Bae BK, Park W. Hypofractionated radiation therapy combined with androgen deprivation therapy for high-risk localized prostate cancer. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2024; 68:333-341. [PMID: 38477380 DOI: 10.1111/1754-9485.13639] [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: 01/07/2024] [Accepted: 03/03/2024] [Indexed: 03/14/2024]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION This study aimed to analyse the treatment outcomes of moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy (RT) combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and the prognostic implications of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics in high-risk localized prostate cancer. METHODS The medical records of 140 patients who underwent definitive RT (70 Gy in 28 fractions) combined with ADT were retrospectively reviewed. ADT consists of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist and an anti-androgen. Clinical outcomes included the biochemical failure rate (BFR), clinical failure rate (CFR), overall survival (OS) and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS). The BFR and CFR were stratified by the PSA nadir and the time to the PSA nadir, respectively. Acute and late genitourinary and gastrointestinal adverse events were also recorded. RESULTS The 5-year BFR, CFR, OS and PCSS rates were 9.8%, 4.5%, 90.2% and 98.7%, respectively. Ninety-five (67.9%) patients achieved a PSA nadir of 0.01 ng/mL. Patients with a PSA nadir >0.01 ng/mL had a significantly higher BFR and CFR (BFR, P = 0.001; CFR, P = 0.027), even after adjusting for other prognostic factors [per 0.1 ng/mL; BFR, hazard ratio (HR) 4.440, P < 0.001; CFR, HR 4.338, P = 0.001]. However, the time to the PSA nadir and pre-RT PSA were not significantly associated with the BFR and CFR. Six patients (4.3%) reported grade 3 late adverse events, mostly haematuria and haematochezia. CONCLUSION Definitive RT with moderate hypofractionation combined with long-term ADT showed good efficacy for high-risk localized prostate cancer. The lowest PSA nadir was significantly associated with a low recurrence rate, indicating the importance of PSA follow-up.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tae Hoon Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Hongryull Pyo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Gyu Sang Yoo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chungbuk National University Hospital, Cheongju, Korea
| | - Seong Soo Jeon
- Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Seong Il Seo
- Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Byong Chang Jeong
- Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Hwang Gyun Jeon
- Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Hyun Hwan Sung
- Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Minyong Kang
- Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Wan Song
- Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Jae Hoon Chung
- Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Bong Kyung Bae
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kyungpook National University Chilgok Hospital, Daegu, Korea
| | - Won Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Fink CA, Wegener D, Sauer LD, Lentz-Hommertgen A, Liermann J, Müller AC, Zips D, Debus J, Herfarth K, Koerber SA. Pelvic Irradiation for Node-Positive Prostate Cancer After Prostatectomy: Long-Term Results of the Prospective PLATIN-4 and PLATIN-5 Trials. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2024; 118:1011-1017. [PMID: 37863242 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.10.009] [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: 05/08/2023] [Revised: 09/26/2023] [Accepted: 10/08/2023] [Indexed: 10/22/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE After radical prostatectomy (RP), adjuvant or salvage radiation treatment in node-positive prostate cancer is offered to prevent systemic disease. Prospective long-term survival and toxicity data on patients with radiation for nodal disease are still scarce. This study evaluates safety and feasibility of salvage radiation therapy to the pelvic lymph nodes in node-positive prostate cancer after RP. METHODS AND MATERIALS Between 2009 and 2018, 78 patients with lymph node recurrence after RP (PLATIN-4 trial) or after RP and prostate bed radiation therapy (PLATIN-5 trial) were treated with salvage pelvic lymph node radiation therapy with boost to the involved nodes as field abutment (PLATIN-5) and boost to the prostate bed (PLATIN-4). Androgen deprivation therapy was started 2 months before radiation and recommended for 24 months. The primary endpoint was safety and feasibility of the intensity modulated radiation therapy-image guided radiation therapy technique based on the rate of treatment discontinuations and incidence of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3+ toxicity. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival. RESULTS No treatment discontinuations were reported in either trial. Median overall survival was not reached in PLATIN-4 and was 117 months in PLATIN-5. Median progression-free survival was 66 months in PLATIN-4 and 39 months in PLATIN-5. Late grade 3+ genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were observed in 4% of patients at 24 months of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS Salvage radiation therapy to the prostate bed and pelvic lymphatic drainage combined with long-term androgen deprivation therapy is a curative treatment option for patients with node-positive prostate cancer after RP, with excellent in-field disease control. Pelvic lymph node radiation therapy as field abutment after prostate bed radiation therapy is feasible with long-term survival and no high-grade toxicity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christoph A Fink
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology, National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Heidelberg, Germany; National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg, Germany.
| | - Daniel Wegener
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany
| | - Lukas D Sauer
- University of Heidelberg, Institute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Adriane Lentz-Hommertgen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology, National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Jakob Liermann
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology, National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Heidelberg, Germany; National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg, Germany
| | | | - Daniel Zips
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany
| | - Juergen Debus
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology, National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Heidelberg, Germany; National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg, Germany; Clinical Cooperation Unit, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Klaus Herfarth
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology, National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Heidelberg, Germany; National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Stefan A Koerber
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology, National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Heidelberg, Germany; National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg, Germany; Department of Radiation Oncology, Barmherzige Brueder Hospital Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Mohamad O, Zamboglou C, Zilli T, Murthy V, Aebersold DM, Loblaw A, Guckenberger M, Shelan M. Safety of Ultrahypofractionated Pelvic Nodal Irradiation in the Definitive Management of Prostate Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2024; 118:998-1010. [PMID: 37863241 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.09.053] [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: 07/31/2023] [Revised: 09/15/2023] [Accepted: 09/29/2023] [Indexed: 10/22/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the evidence for ultrahypofractionated pelvic nodal irradiation in patients with prostate cancer, with a focus on reported acute and late toxicities. METHODS AND MATERIALS A comprehensive search was conducted in 5 electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov) from inception until March 23, 2023. Eligible publications included patients with intermediate- and high-risk and node-positive prostate cancer who underwent elective or therapeutic ultrahypofractionated pelvic nodal irradiation. Primary outcomes included the presence of grade ≥2 rates of acute and late gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity based on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events or Radiation Therapy Oncology Group scales. Quality assessment was performed using National Institutes of Health tools for noncontrolled beforeand after (single arm) clinical trials, as well as single-arm observational studies. Because all outcomes were categorical variables, proportion was calculated to estimate the effect size and compare the outcomes after the intervention. RESULTS We identified 16 publications that reported the use of ultrahypofractionated radiation therapy to treat the pelvis in prostate cancer. Seven publications met our criteria and were included in the meta-analysis, including 417 patients. The median total dose to the pelvic lymph nodes was 25 Gy (range, 25-28.5 Gy), with a median of 5 fractions. The prostate received a median dose of 40 Gy (range, 35-47.5 Gy). All studies used androgen deprivation therapy for a median duration of 18 months. The median follow-up period was 3 years (range, 0.5-5.6 years). The rates of acute grade ≥2 gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity were 8% (95% CI, 1%-15%) and 29% (95% CI, 18%-41%), respectively. For late grade ≥2 gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity, the rates were 13% (95% CI, 5%-21%) and 29% (95% CI, 17%-42%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS Ultrahypofractionated pelvic nodal irradiation appears to be a safe approach in terms of acute and late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Osama Mohamad
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Constantinos Zamboglou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical Center - Uwniversity of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany; German Oncology Center, European University Cyprus, Limassol, Cyprus
| | - Thomas Zilli
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, EOC, Bellinzona, Switzerland; Faculty of Biomedical Sciences, Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano, Switzerland; Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Vedang Murthy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, ACTREC, Tata Memorial Centre and Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Mumbai, India
| | - Daniel M Aebersold
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland
| | - Andrew Loblaw
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Matthias Guckenberger
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zürich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Mohamed Shelan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland.
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Moll M, Goldner G. Assessing the toxicity after moderately hypofractionated prostate and whole pelvis radiotherapy compared to conventional fractionation. Strahlenther Onkol 2024; 200:188-194. [PMID: 37341774 PMCID: PMC10876811 DOI: 10.1007/s00066-023-02104-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/12/2023] [Accepted: 05/19/2023] [Indexed: 06/22/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate acute and late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities after moderately hypofractionated (HF) or conventionally fractionated (CF) primary whole-pelvis radiotherapy (WPRT). METHODS Primary prostate-cancer patients treated between 2009 and 2021 with either 60 Gy at 3 Gy/fraction to the prostate and 46 Gy at 2.3 Gy/fraction to the whole pelvis (HF), or 78 Gy at 2 Gy/fraction to the prostate and 50/50.4 Gy at 1.8-2 Gy/fraction to the whole pelvis (CF). Acute and late GI and GU toxicities were retrospectively assessed. RESULTS 106 patients received HF and 157 received CF, with a median follow-up of 12 and 57 months. Acute GI toxicity rates in the HF and CF groups were, respectively, grade 2: 46.7% vs. 37.6%, and grade 3: 0% vs. 1.3%, with no significant difference (p = 0.71). Acute GU toxicity rates were, respectively, grade 2: 20.0% vs. 31.8%, and grade 3: 2.9% vs. 0%, (p = 0.04). We compared prevalence of late GI and GU toxicities between groups after 3, 12, and 24 months and did not find any significant differences (respectively, p = 0.59, 0.22, and 0.71 for GI toxicity; p = 0.39, 0.58, and 0.90 for GU toxicity). CONCLUSION Moderate HF WPRT was well tolerated during the first 2 years. Randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthias Moll
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, A-1090, Vienna, Austria.
| | - Gregor Goldner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, A-1090, Vienna, Austria
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Sarria GR, Kugel F, Roehner F, Layer J, Dejonckheere C, Scafa D, Koeksal M, Leitzen C, Schmeel LC. Artificial Intelligence-Based Autosegmentation: Advantages in Delineation, Absorbed Dose-Distribution, and Logistics. Adv Radiat Oncol 2024; 9:101394. [PMID: 38292888 PMCID: PMC10823084 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2023.101394] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/20/2023] [Accepted: 10/09/2023] [Indexed: 02/01/2024] Open
Abstract
Purpose The study's purpose was to compare the performance of artificial intelligence (AI) in auto-contouring compared with a human practitioner in terms of precision, differences in dose distribution, and time consumption. Methods and Materials Datasets of previously irradiated patients in 3 different segments (head and neck, breast, and prostate cancer) were retrospectively collected. An experienced radiation oncologist (MD) performed organs-at-risk (OARs) and standard clinical target volume delineations as baseline structures for comparison. AI-based autocontours were generated in 2 additional CT copies; therefore, 3 groups were assessed: MD alone, AI alone, and AI plus MD corrections (AI+C). Differences in Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and person-hour burden were assessed. Furthermore, changes in clinically relevant dose-volume parameters were evaluated and compared. Results Seventy-five previously treated cases were collected (25 per segment) for the analysis. Compared with MD contours, the mean DSC scores were higher than 0.7 for 74% and 80% of AI and AI+C, respectively. After corrections, 17.1% structures presented DSC score deviations higher than 0.1 and 10.4% dose-volume parameters significantly changed in AI-contoured structures. The time consumption assessment yielded mean person-hour reductions of 68%, 51%, and 71% for breast, prostate, and head and neck cancer, respectively. Conclusions In great extent, AI yielded clinically acceptable OARs and certain clinical target volumes in the explored anatomic segments. Sparse correction and assessment requirements place AI+C as a standard workflow. Minimal clinically relevant differences in OAR exposure were identified. A substantial amount of person-hours could be repurposed with this technology.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Julian Layer
- Department of Radiation Oncology
- Institute of Experimental Oncology, University Hospital Bonn, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
34
|
De Hertogh O, Le Bihan G, Zilli T, Palumbo S, Jolicoeur M, Crehange G, Derashodian T, Roubaud G, Salembier C, Supiot S, Chapet O, Achard V, Sargos P. Consensus Delineation Guidelines for Pelvic Lymph Node Radiation Therapy of Prostate Cancer: On Behalf of the Francophone Group of Urological Radiation Therapy (GFRU). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2024; 118:29-40. [PMID: 37506982 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.07.020] [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: 03/08/2023] [Revised: 06/01/2023] [Accepted: 07/14/2023] [Indexed: 07/30/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Clinical target volume (CTV) delineation for pelvic lymph nodes in prostate cancer is currently based on 3 consensus guidelines with some inherent discrepancies. To improve the reproducibility in nodal delineation, the Francophone Group of Urological Radiotherapy (Groupe Francophone de Radiothérapie Urologique [GFRU]) worked toward proposing an easily applicable, reproducible, and practice-validated contouring guideline for pelvic nodal CTV. METHODS AND MATERIALS The nodal CTV data sets of a high-risk node-negative prostate cancer clinical case contoured by 86 radiation oncologists participating in a GFRU contouring workshop were analyzed. CTV volumes were defined before and after a structured presentation of literature data on lymphatic drainage pathways and patterns of nodal involvement and relapse, illustrated using a reference contour (CRef) defined by 3 GFRU experts. The consistency between the participants' contours and CRef was assessed quantitively by means of the Simultaneous Truth and Performance Level Estimation (STAPLE) method, the Dice coefficient, and the Hausdorff distance and qualitatively using a count map. These results combined with the literature review were thoroughly discussed among GFRU experts to reach a consensus. RESULTS From the 86 workshop participants, the volume of the STAPLE CTV was 591 cc compared with 502 cc for CRef. The Dice coefficient of the STAPLE CTV compared with the experts' CRef was 0.736 (±0.084) before and 0.823 (±0.070) after the workshop; the standard deviation decreased from 11.5% to 8.5% over the workshop. The Hausdorff distance of the STAPLE CTV compared with the CRef was 34.5 mm (±12.4) before the workshop and 21.8 mm (±9.3) after the workshop. Four areas of significant interobserver variability were identified, and a consensus was reached. CONCLUSIONS Using a robust methodology, our cooperative group proposed an easily applicable, reproducible, and practice-validated guideline for the delineation of the pelvic CTV in prostate cancer, useful for implementation in daily practice and clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Olivier De Hertogh
- Radiation Oncology Department, CHR Verviers East Belgium, Verviers, Belgium.
| | | | - Thomas Zilli
- Radiation Oncology, Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, EOC, Bellinzona, Switzerland; Università della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano, Switzerland; Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Samuel Palumbo
- Radiation Oncology Department, Hôpital de Jolimont, La Louvière, Belgium
| | - Marjory Jolicoeur
- Radiation Oncology Department, Charles LeMoyne Hospital, CISSS Montérégie-center, Montréal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Gilles Crehange
- Radiation Oncology Department, Institut Curie, Saint-Cloud, France
| | - Talar Derashodian
- Radiation Oncology Department, Charles LeMoyne Hospital, CISSS Montérégie-center, Montréal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Guilhem Roubaud
- Medical Oncology Department, Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France
| | - Carl Salembier
- Radiation Oncology Department, Europe Hospitals Brussels, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Stéphane Supiot
- Radiation Oncology Department, Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest, Nantes Saint-Herblain, France; Unité en Sciences Biologiques et Biotechnologies, University of Nantes, Nantes, France
| | - Olivier Chapet
- Radiation Oncology Department, Center Hospitalier Lyon Sud, Pierre Benite, France
| | - Verane Achard
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland; Department of Radiation Oncology, HFR Fribourg, Villars-sur-Glâne, Switzerland
| | - Paul Sargos
- Radiation Oncology Department, Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France; Department of Radiation Oncology, McGill University Health Centre, Montréal, Quebec, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Carrasquilla M, Sholklapper T, Pepin AN, Hodgins N, Lei S, Rashid A, Danner M, Zwart A, Bolanos G, Ayoob M, Yung T, Aghdam N, Collins B, Suy S, Kumar D, Hankins R, Kowalczyk K, Dawson N, Collins S. Intensity modulated radiation therapy with stereotactic body radiation therapy boost for unfavorable prostate cancer: five-year outcomes. Front Oncol 2023; 13:1240939. [PMID: 38074646 PMCID: PMC10708908 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1240939] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/15/2023] [Accepted: 10/23/2023] [Indexed: 04/05/2025] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with brachytherapy boost for unfavorable prostate cancer has been shown to improve biochemical relapse-free survival compared to IMRT alone. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is a less-invasive alternative to brachytherapy. Early outcomes utilizing SBRT boost suggest low rates of high-grade toxicity with a maintained patient-reported quality of life. Here, we report the 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) of patients treated with IMRT plus SBRT boost. MATERIALS AND METHODS Between 2008 and 2020, 255 patients with unfavorable prostate cancer were treated with robotic SBRT (19.5 Gy in three fractions) followed by fiducial-guided IMRT (45-50.4 Gy) according to an institutional protocol. For the first year, the patient's PSA level was monitored every 3 months, biannually for 2 years, and annually thereafter. Failure was defined as nadir + 2 ng/mL or a rising PSA with imaging suggestive of recurrence. Detection of recurrence also included digital rectal examination and imaging studies, such as MRI, CT, PET/CT, and/or bone scans. PFS and PCSS were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS The median follow-up period was 71 months. According to the NCCN risk classification, 5% (13/255) of the patients had favorable intermediate-risk disease, 23% (57/255) had unfavorable intermediate-risk disease, 40% (102/255) had high-risk disease, and 32% (83/255) had very high-risk disease. Androgen deprivation therapy was administered to 80% (204/255) of the patients. Elective pelvic lymph node IMRT was performed in 28 (10%) patients. The PFS for all patients at 5 years was 81% (favorable intermediate risk, 91%; unfavorable intermediate risk, 89%; high-risk, 78%; and very-high risk, 72%). The PCSS for all patients at 5 years was 97% (favorable intermediate risk, 100%; unfavorable intermediate risk, 100%; high risk, 100%; and very high risk, 89%). CONCLUSION The incidence of failure following IMRT plus SBRT for unfavorable prostate cancer remains low at 5 years.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael Carrasquilla
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Tamir Sholklapper
- Department of Urology, Einstein Healthcare Network, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Abigail N. Pepin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Nicole Hodgins
- School of Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Siyuan Lei
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Abdul Rashid
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Malika Danner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Alan Zwart
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Grecia Bolanos
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Marilyn Ayoob
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Thomas Yung
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Nima Aghdam
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Brian Collins
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tampa General Hospital, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, United States
| | - Simeng Suy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Deepak Kumar
- Biomedical Research Institute, North Carolina Central State, Durham, NC, United States
| | - Ryan Hankins
- Department of Urology, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Keith Kowalczyk
- Department of Urology, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Nancy Dawson
- Department of Medical Oncology, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Sean Collins
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
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
|
37
|
Saripalli AL, Lee B, Adams W, Bhandare N, Venkatesulu BP, Yoo RK, Price J, Harmon GA, Block AM, Friedman N, Harkenrider MM, Major EJ, Small W, Wagner RH, Welsh JS, Solanki AA. Multi-institutional Development and Validation of Contouring Guidelines for Para-aortic Elective Nodal Irradiation in Prostate Cancer Based on Patterns of Involvement on Targeted Molecular Imaging Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:630-640. [PMID: 37201758 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.05.017] [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: 02/01/2023] [Revised: 04/07/2023] [Accepted: 05/08/2023] [Indexed: 05/20/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Molecular imaging better identifies anatomic regions of metastatic spread of prostate cancer compared with conventional imaging, resulting in para-aortic (PA) nodal metastases being increasingly identified. Consequently, some radiation oncologists electively treat the PA lymph node region in patients with gross or high risk of PA nodal involvement. The anatomic locations of at-risk PA lymph nodes for prostate cancer are unknown. Our objective was to use molecular imaging to develop guidelines for the optimal delineation of the PA clinical target volume (CTV) in patients with prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS We conducted a multi-institutional retrospective cohort study of patients with prostate cancer undergoing 18F-fluciclovine or 18F-DCFPyL prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT). Images of patients with PET-positive PA nodes were imported into the treatment planning system, avid nodes were contoured, and measurements were taken in relation to anatomic landmarks. A contouring guideline that encompassed the location of ≥95% of PET-positive PA nodes was created using descriptive statistics and then validated in an independent data set. RESULTS Five hundred fifty-nine patients had molecular PET/CT imaging in the development data set (78% 18F-fluciclovine, 22% prostate-specific membrane antigen). Seventy-six patients (14%) had evidence of PA nodal metastasis. We determined that expanding the CTV to 1.8 cm left of the aorta, 1.4 cm right of the inferior vena cava (IVC), 7 mm posterior to the aorta/IVC or to the vertebral body, and superiorly to the T11/T12 vertebral interface, with the anterior border 4 mm anterior to the aorta/IVC and inferior border at the bifurcation of the aorta/IVC, resulted in coverage of ≥95% of PET-positive PA nodes. When the guideline was used in the independent validation data set (246 patients with molecular PET/CT imaging, of whom 31 had PA nodal metastasis), 97% of nodes were encompassed, thereby validating our guideline. CONCLUSIONS We used molecular PET/CT imaging to determine the anatomic locations of PA metastases to develop contouring guidelines for creating a prostate cancer PA CTV. Although the optimal patient selection and clinical benefits of PA radiation therapy remain uncertain, our results will aid in delineating the optimal target when PA radiation therapy is pursued.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anjali L Saripalli
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, Illinois; Department of Radiation Oncology, Edward Hines Jr VA Hospital, Hines, Illinois
| | - Brian Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, Illinois
| | - William Adams
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, Illinois
| | - Niranjan Bhandare
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Edward Hines Jr VA Hospital, Hines, Illinois
| | - Bhanu P Venkatesulu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, Illinois; Department of Radiation Oncology, Edward Hines Jr VA Hospital, Hines, Illinois
| | - Ryan K Yoo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Edward Hines Jr VA Hospital, Hines, Illinois
| | - Jennifer Price
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Edward Hines Jr VA Hospital, Hines, Illinois
| | - Grant A Harmon
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, Illinois; Department of Radiation Oncology, Edward Hines Jr VA Hospital, Hines, Illinois
| | - Alec M Block
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, Illinois; Department of Radiation Oncology, Edward Hines Jr VA Hospital, Hines, Illinois
| | - Nicholas Friedman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Edward Hines Jr VA Hospital, Hines, Illinois
| | - Matthew M Harkenrider
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, Illinois; Department of Radiation Oncology, Edward Hines Jr VA Hospital, Hines, Illinois
| | - Erica J Major
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Edward Hines Jr VA Hospital, Hines, Illinois
| | - William Small
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, Illinois; Department of Radiation Oncology, Edward Hines Jr VA Hospital, Hines, Illinois
| | - Robert H Wagner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, Illinois
| | - James S Welsh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, Illinois; Department of Radiation Oncology, Edward Hines Jr VA Hospital, Hines, Illinois
| | - Abhishek A Solanki
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, Illinois; Department of Radiation Oncology, Edward Hines Jr VA Hospital, Hines, Illinois.
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Lorton O, Achard V, Koutsouvelis N, Jaccard M, Vanhoutte F, Dipasquale G, Ost P, Zilli T. Elective Nodal Irradiation for Oligorecurrent Nodal Prostate Cancer: Interobserver Variability in the PEACE V-STORM Randomized Phase 2 Trial. Adv Radiat Oncol 2023; 8:101290. [PMID: 38047214 PMCID: PMC10692293 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2023.101290] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/11/2023] [Accepted: 06/05/2023] [Indexed: 12/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose Consistency in delineation of pelvic lymph node regions for prostate cancer elective nodal radiation therapy is still challenging despite current guidelines. The aim of this study was to evaluate the interobserver variability in elective lymph node delineation in the PEACE V - STORM randomized phase 2 trial for oligorecurrent nodal prostate cancer. Methods and Materials Twenty-three centers were asked to delineate the elective pelvic nodal clinical target volume (CTV) of a postoperative oligorecurrent nodal prostate cancer benchmark case using a modified Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 2009 template (upper limit at the L4/L5 interspace). Overall, intersection and overflow volumes, Dice coefficient, Hausdorff distance, and count maps merged with computed tomography images were analyzed. Results The mean volume including the 23 nodal CTVs was 430.4 ± 64.1 cm3, larger than the modified RTOG 2009 CTV reference volume (386.1 cm3). The intersection common volume between the modified reference RTOG 2009 and the 23 nodal CTVs was estimated at 83.9%, whereas the overflow volume was 23.4%, mainly located at the level of the presacral and the upper limit of the L4/L5 interspace. The mean Dice coefficient was 0.79 ± 0.02, whereas the mean Hausdorff distance was 27 ± 4.4 mm. Conclusions In salvage radiation therapy treatment of oligorecurrent nodal prostate cancer, variations in elective lymph node volume delineation were mainly observed in the presacral and common iliac areas. Routine implementation and diffusion of available contouring guidelines together with a constant evaluation and evidence-based updating are expected to further decrease the existing variability in pelvic node contouring.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Orane Lorton
- Department of Radiology, Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Vérane Achard
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fribourg Cantonal Hospital, Fribourg, Switzerland
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
| | | | - Maud Jaccard
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Frederik Vanhoutte
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Giovanna Dipasquale
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Piet Ost
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
- Iridium Network, Radiation Oncology, Antwerp, Belgium
| | - Thomas Zilli
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, EOC, Bellinzona, Switzerland
- Facoltà di Scienze Biomediche, Università della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Murray J, De Meerleer G. How High Should We Go for Para-aortic Lymph Node Radiation Therapy? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:641-643. [PMID: 37739609 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.06.248] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/09/2023] [Revised: 06/21/2023] [Accepted: 06/23/2023] [Indexed: 09/24/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Julia Murray
- Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, United Kingdom; Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, United Kingdom.
| | - Gert De Meerleer
- Department of Radiotherapy, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Surasi DS, Eiber M, Maurer T, Preston MA, Helfand BT, Josephson D, Tewari AK, Somford DM, Rais-Bahrami S, Koontz BF, Bostrom PJ, Chau A, Davis P, Schuster DM, Chapin BF. Diagnostic Performance and Safety of Positron Emission Tomography with 18F-rhPSMA-7.3 in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Unfavourable Intermediate- to Very-high-risk Prostate Cancer: Results from a Phase 3, Prospective, Multicentre Study (LIGHTHOUSE). Eur Urol 2023; 84:361-370. [PMID: 37414702 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.06.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 42] [Impact Index Per Article: 21.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/13/2023] [Revised: 05/20/2023] [Accepted: 06/20/2023] [Indexed: 07/08/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Radiohybrid (rh) 18F-rhPSMA-7.3 is a novel high-affinity prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeting radiopharmaceutical for prostate cancer (PCa) imaging. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the diagnostic performance and safety of 18F-rhPSMA-7.3 in newly diagnosed PCa patients planned for prostatectomy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Data on 18F-rhPSMA-7.3 were reported from the phase 3 prospective, multicentre LIGHTHOUSE study (NCT04186819). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Patients underwent positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) 50-70 min after an injection of 296 MBq 18F-rhPSMA-7.3. Images were interpreted locally and by three blinded independent readers. The coprimary endpoints were patient-level sensitivity and specificity for the detection of pelvic lymph node (PLN) metastases, validated using histopathology at PLN dissection. Prespecified statistical thresholds (lower bounds of 95% confidence interval [CI]) were set at 22.5% for sensitivity and 82.5% for specificity. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Of 372 patients screened, 352 had evaluable 18F-rhPSMA-7.3-PET/CT and 296 (99 [33%] with unfavourable intermediate-risk [UIR] and 197 [67%] with high-/very-high-risk [VHR] PCa) subsequently underwent surgery. As per the independent reads, 23-37 (7.8-13%) patients had 18F-rhPSMA-7.3-positive PLN. Seventy (24%) patients had one or more positive PLNs on histopathology. The sensitivity for PLN detection was 30% (95% CI, 19.6-42.1%) for reader 1, 27% (95% CI, 17.2-39.1%) for reader 2, and 23% (95% CI, 13.7-34.4%) for reader 3, not meeting the prespecified threshold. Specificity was 93% (95% CI, 88.8-95.9%), 94% (95% CI, 89.8-96.6%), and 97% (95% CI, 93.7-98.7%), respectively, exceeding the threshold for all readers. Specificity was high (≥92%) across both risk stratifications. Sensitivity was higher among high-risk/VHR (24-33%) than among UIR (16-21%) patients. Extrapelvic (M1) lesions were reported for 56-98/352 (16-28%) patients who underwent 18F-rhPSMA-7.3-PET/CT irrespective of surgery. Verification of these (predominantly by conventional imaging) gave a verified detection rate of 9.9-14% (positive predictive value, 51-63%). No serious adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS Across all risk stratifications, 18F-rhPSMA-7.3-PET/CT had high specificity, meeting the specificity endpoint. The sensitivity endpoint was not met, although higher sensitivity was noted among high-risk/VHR than among UIR patients. Overall, 18F-rhPSMA-7.3-PET/CT was well tolerated, and identified N1 and M1 disease prior to surgery in newly diagnosed PCa patients. PATIENT SUMMARY In order to select the most appropriate treatment for patients with prostate cancer, it is critical to diagnose the disease burden accurately at initial diagnosis. In this study, we investigated a new diagnostic imaging agent in a large population of men with primary prostate cancer. We found it to have an excellent safety profile and to provide clinically useful information regarding the presence of disease beyond the prostate.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Devaki Shilpa Surasi
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
| | - Matthias Eiber
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany
| | - Tobias Maurer
- Martini-Klinik, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | | | | | - David Josephson
- Tower Urology, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | | | - Diederik M Somford
- Department of Urology, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Prosper Prostate Cancer Clinics, Nijmegen/Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | | | | | - Peter J Bostrom
- Turku University Central Hospital, Turku, Finland; University of Turku, Turku, Finland
| | | | - Phillip Davis
- Blue Earth Diagnostics Inc, Monroe Township, NJ, USA
| | - David M Schuster
- Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Brian F Chapin
- Department of Urology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
Elakshar S, Tolba M, Tisseverasinghe S, Pruneau L, Di Lalla V, Bahoric B, Niazi T. Salvage Whole-Pelvic Radiation and Long-Term Androgen-Deprivation Therapy in the Management of High-Risk Prostate Cancer: Long-Term Update of the McGill 0913 Study. Curr Oncol 2023; 30:7252-7262. [PMID: 37623007 PMCID: PMC10453184 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol30080526] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/03/2023] [Revised: 07/21/2023] [Accepted: 07/24/2023] [Indexed: 08/26/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To report the long-term outcomes of the McGill 0913 study and the potential benefits of combining prostate-bed radiotherapy (PBRT), pelvic-lymph-node radiotherapy (PLNRT), and long term ADT (LT-ADT). MATERIALS AND METHODS From 2010 to 2016, 46 high-risk prostate cancer patients who experienced biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP) were enrolled in this single-arm phase II clinical trial. The patients were eligible if they had a Gleason score > 8, locally advanced disease (≥pT3), a preoperative PSA of >20 ng/mL, or positive lymph nodes (LN). The patients were treated with a combination of 24 months of ADT, PBRT, and PLNRT. The primary outcome was biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS) and the predefined secondary endpoints included distant-metastasis-free survival (DMFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity. In this update, we also report the median follow-up of 8.8 years and 10 years OS. RESULTS At a median follow-up of 8.8 years, 43 patients were eligible for analysis. The median pre-salvage PSA was 0.30 μg/L. Half (51%) of the patients (n = 22) had positive margins, 40% (n = 17) had Gleason scores > 8, 63% (n = 27) had extracapsular extension, 42% (n = 18) had seminal vesicle invasion, and 19% (n = 8) had LN involvement. The 10-year bPFS was 68.3 %. The 10-year DMFS was 72.9%. The 10-year OS was 97%. There were two non-cancer-related deaths. The first patient died of congestive heart failure while the other died of an unknown cause. No new toxicity was observed after the initial report. CONCLUSIONS Our study demonstrates that treatment escalation with PBRT, PLNRT, and LT-ADT improves long term outcomes. In view of the recently published SPPORT study, we conclude that this novel approach of treatment intensification in high-risk post-prostatectomy patients is safe and effective, and that it should be offered as the standard of care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sara Elakshar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3T 1E2, Canada; (S.E.); (M.T.); (L.P.); (V.D.L.); (B.B.)
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Tanta University Hospitals, Tanta University, Tanta 6632110, Egypt
| | - Marwan Tolba
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3T 1E2, Canada; (S.E.); (M.T.); (L.P.); (V.D.L.); (B.B.)
| | - Steven Tisseverasinghe
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gatineau Hospital, McGill University, Gatineau, QC J8P 7H2, Canada;
| | - Laurie Pruneau
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3T 1E2, Canada; (S.E.); (M.T.); (L.P.); (V.D.L.); (B.B.)
| | - Vanessa Di Lalla
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3T 1E2, Canada; (S.E.); (M.T.); (L.P.); (V.D.L.); (B.B.)
| | - Boris Bahoric
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3T 1E2, Canada; (S.E.); (M.T.); (L.P.); (V.D.L.); (B.B.)
| | - Tamim Niazi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3T 1E2, Canada; (S.E.); (M.T.); (L.P.); (V.D.L.); (B.B.)
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Ah-Thiane L, Rousseau C, Aumont M, Cailleteau A, Doré M, Mervoyer A, Vaugier L, Supiot S. The Sentinel Lymph Node in Treatment Planning: A Narrative Review of Lymph-Flow-Guided Radiotherapy. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:2736. [PMID: 37345071 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15102736] [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: 04/06/2023] [Revised: 05/09/2023] [Accepted: 05/11/2023] [Indexed: 06/23/2023] Open
Abstract
The sentinel lymph node technique is minimally invasive and used routinely by surgeons, reducing the need for morbid extensive lymph node dissections, which is a significant advantage for cancer staging and treatment decisions. The sentinel lymph node could also help radiation oncologists to identify tumor drainage for each of their patients, leading to a more personalized radiotherapy, instead of a probabilistic irradiation based on delineation atlases. The aim is both to avoid recurrence in unexpected areas and to limit the volume of irradiated healthy tissues. The aim of our study is to evaluate the impact of sentinel lymph node mapping for radiation oncologists. This concept, relying on sentinel lymph node mapping for treatment planning, is known as lymph-flow-guided radiotherapy. We present an up-to-date narrative literature review showing the potential applications of the sentinel lymph node technique for radiotherapy, as well as the limits that need to be addressed before its routine usage.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Loic Ah-Thiane
- Department of Radiotherapy, ICO René Gauducheau, Boulevard Jacques Monod, 44800 St-Herblain, France
| | - Caroline Rousseau
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, ICO René Gauducheau, Boulevard Jacques Monod, 44800 St-Herblain, France
- CRCI2NA, UMR 1307 Inserm-UMR 6075 CNRS, Nantes University, 44000 Nantes, France
| | - Maud Aumont
- Department of Radiotherapy, ICO René Gauducheau, Boulevard Jacques Monod, 44800 St-Herblain, France
| | - Axel Cailleteau
- Department of Radiotherapy, ICO René Gauducheau, Boulevard Jacques Monod, 44800 St-Herblain, France
| | - Mélanie Doré
- Department of Radiotherapy, ICO René Gauducheau, Boulevard Jacques Monod, 44800 St-Herblain, France
| | - Augustin Mervoyer
- Department of Radiotherapy, ICO René Gauducheau, Boulevard Jacques Monod, 44800 St-Herblain, France
| | - Loig Vaugier
- Department of Radiotherapy, ICO René Gauducheau, Boulevard Jacques Monod, 44800 St-Herblain, France
| | - Stéphane Supiot
- Department of Radiotherapy, ICO René Gauducheau, Boulevard Jacques Monod, 44800 St-Herblain, France
- CRCI2NA, Inserm UMR 1232, CNRS ERL 6001, Nantes University, 44000 Nantes, France
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Scharl S, Zamboglou C, Strouthos I, Farolfi A, Serani F, Lanzafame H, Giuseppe Morganti A, Trapp C, Koerber SA, Debus J, Peeken JC, Vogel MME, Vrachimis A, K B Spohn S, Ruf J, Grosu AL, Ceci F, Fendler WP, Bartenstein P, Kroeze SGC, Guckenberger M, Krafcsik M, Klopscheck C, Fanti S, Hruby G, Emmett L, Belka C, Stief C, Schmidt-Hegemann NS, Henkenberens C, Mayer B, Miksch J, Shelan M, Aebersold DM, Thamm R, Wiegel T. Salvage radiotherapy is effective in patients with PSMA-PET-negative biochemical recurrence- results of a retrospective study. Radiother Oncol 2023; 184:109678. [PMID: 37146766 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109678] [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: 11/21/2022] [Revised: 04/12/2023] [Accepted: 04/17/2023] [Indexed: 05/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND /Purpose: The present study aimed to assess whether SRT to the prostatic fossa should be initiated in a timely manner after detecting biochemical recurrence (BR) in patients with prostate cancer, when no correlate was identified with prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET). MATERIALS AND METHODS This retrospective, multicenter analysis included 1222 patients referred for PSMA-PET after a radical prostatectomy due to BR. Exclusion criteria were: pathological lymph node metastases, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) persistence, distant or lymph node metastases, nodal irradiation, and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). This led to a cohort of 341 patients. Biochemical progression-free survival (BPFS) was the primary study endpoint. RESULTS The median follow-up was 28.0 months. The 3-year BPFS was 71.6% in PET-negative cases and 80.8% in locally PET-positive cases. This difference was significant in univariate (p=0.019), but not multivariate analyses (p=0.366, HR: 1.46, 95%CI: 0.64-3.32). The 3-year BPFS in PET-negative cases was significantly influenced by age (p=0.005), initial pT3/4 (p<0.001), pathology scores (ISUP) ≥3 (p=0.026), and doses to fossa >70 Gy (p=0.027) in univariate analyses. In multivariate analyses, only age (HR: 1.096, 95%CI: 1.023-1.175, p=0.009) and PSA-doubling time (HR: 0.339, 95%CI: 0.139-0.826, p=0.017) remained significant. CONCLUSION To our best knowledge, this study provided the largest SRT analysis in patients without ADT that were lymph node-negative on PSMA-PET. A multivariate analysis showed no significant difference in BPFS between locally PET-positive and PET-negative cases. These results supported the current EAU recommendation to initiate SRT in a timely manner after detecting BR in PET negative patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sophia Scharl
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Ulm, Germany.
| | - Constantinos Zamboglou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical Center -Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Freiburg, Germany; Berta-Ottenstein-Programme, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Germany; German Oncology Center, University Hospital of the European University, Limassol, Cyprus
| | - Iosif Strouthos
- Department of Radiation Oncology, German Oncology Center, University Hospital of the European University, Limassol, Cyprus
| | - Andrea Farolfi
- Division of Nuclear Medicine, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Francesca Serani
- Division of Nuclear Medicine, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Helena Lanzafame
- Division of Nuclear Medicine, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy; Department of Radiation Oncology, Royal North Shore Hospital - University of Sydney, Australia
| | | | - Christian Trapp
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Germany
| | - Stefan A Koerber
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Jürgen Debus
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Jan C Peeken
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Germany; Institute of Radiation Medicine (IRM), Department of Radiation Sciences (DRS), Helmholtz Zentrum, München, Germany; Deutsches Konsortium für Translationale Krebsforschung (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, Germany
| | - Marco M E Vogel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Germany; Institute of Radiation Medicine (IRM), Department of Radiation Sciences (DRS), Helmholtz Zentrum, München, Germany; Deutsches Konsortium für Translationale Krebsforschung (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, Germany
| | - Alexis Vrachimis
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, German Oncology Center, University Hospital of the European University, Limassol, Cyprus; C.A.R.I.C. Cancer Research & Innovation Center, Limassol, Cyprus
| | - Simon K B Spohn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical Center -Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Freiburg, Germany; Berta-Ottenstein-Programme, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Germany
| | - Juri Ruf
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Freiburg, Germany; Department of Nuclear Medicine, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Germany
| | - Anca-Ligia Grosu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical Center -Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Freiburg, Germany
| | - Francesco Ceci
- Division of Nuclear Medicine, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Wolfgang P Fendler
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Germany; Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Peter Bartenstein
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zürich, University of Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Stephanie G C Kroeze
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Ulm, Germany; Radiation Oncology Center KSA-KSB, Canton Hospital of Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland
| | | | - Manuel Krafcsik
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Ulm, Germany
| | | | - Stefano Fanti
- Division of Nuclear Medicine, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - George Hruby
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Royal North Shore Hospital - University of Sydney, Australia
| | - Louise Emmett
- Department of Theranostics and Nuclear medicine, St Vincent's Hospital Sydney Australia; St Vincent's Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney Australia
| | - Claus Belka
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Germany
| | - Christian Stief
- Department of Urology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Germany
| | | | - Christoph Henkenberens
- Department of Radiotherapy and Special Oncology, Medical School Hannover, Hannover, Germany
| | - Benjamin Mayer
- Institute for Epidemiology and Medical Biometry, University Ulm, Ulm, Germany
| | - Jonathan Miksch
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Ulm, University Ulm, Ulm, Germany
| | - Mohamed Shelan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital Bern, University of Bern, Switzerland
| | - Daniel M Aebersold
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital Bern, University of Bern, Switzerland
| | - Reinhard Thamm
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Ulm, Germany
| | - Thomas Wiegel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Ulm, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Sujenthiran A, Parry MG, Dodkins J, Nossiter J, Morris M, Berry B, Nathan A, Cathcart P, Clarke NW, Payne H, van der Meulen J, Aggarwal A. Treatment-related toxicity using prostate bed versus prostate bed and pelvic lymph node radiation therapy following radical prostatectomy: A national population-based study. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2023; 40:100622. [PMID: 37152844 PMCID: PMC10159812 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2023.100622] [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: 11/02/2022] [Revised: 03/08/2023] [Accepted: 03/25/2023] [Indexed: 05/09/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose There is debate about the effectiveness and toxicity of pelvic lymph node (PLN) irradiation in addition to prostate bed radiotherapy when used to treat disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy. We compared toxicity from radiation therapy (RT) to the prostate bed and pelvic lymph nodes (PBPLN-RT) with prostatebed only radiation therapy (PBO-RT) following radical prostatectomy. Methods and Materials Patients with prostate cancer who underwent post-prostatectomy RT between 2010 and 2016 were identified by using the National Prostate Cancer Audit (NPCA) database. Follow-up data was available up to December 31, 2018. Validated outcome measures, based on a framework of procedural and diagnostic codes, were used to capture ≥Grade 2 gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity. An adjusted competing-risks regression analysis estimated subdistribution hazard ratios (sHR). A sHR > 1 indicated a higher incidence of toxicity with PBPLN-RT than with PBO-RT. Results 5-year cumulative incidences in the PBO-RT (n = 5,087) and PBPLNRT (n = 593) groups was 18.2% and 15.9% for GI toxicity, respectively. For GU toxicity it was 19.1% and 20.7%, respectively. There was no evidence of difference in GI or GU toxicity after adjustment between PBO-RT and PBPLN-RT (GI: adjusted sHR, 0.90, 95% CI, 0.67-1.19; P = 0.45); (GU: adjusted sHR, 1.19, 95% CI, 0.99-1.44; P = 0.09). Conclusions This national population-based study found that including PLNs in the radiation field following radical prostatectomy is not associated with a significant increase in rates of ≥Grade 2 GI or GU toxicity at 5 years.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arunan Sujenthiran
- Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, UK
- Flatiron Health, UK
| | - Matthew G. Parry
- Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, UK
- Department of Health Services Research & Policy, LHSTM, UK
| | - Joanna Dodkins
- Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, UK
- Department of Health Services Research & Policy, LHSTM, UK
- Corresponding authors at: Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, 35-43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PE, England, UK.
| | - Julie Nossiter
- Department of Health Services Research & Policy, LHSTM, UK
| | - Melanie Morris
- Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, UK
- Department of Health Services Research & Policy, LHSTM, UK
| | - Brendan Berry
- Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, UK
- Department of Health Services Research & Policy, LHSTM, UK
| | - Arjun Nathan
- Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, UK
| | - Paul Cathcart
- Department of Urology, Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, UK
| | - Noel W. Clarke
- Department of Urology, The Christie & Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trusts, UK
| | - Heather Payne
- Department of Oncology, University College London Hospitals, London, UK
| | | | - Ajay Aggarwal
- Department of Health Services Research & Policy, LHSTM, UK
- Department of Radiotherapy, Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, UK
- Department of Cancer Epidemiology, Population & Global Health, KCL, UK
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Choo R, Hillman DW, Mitchell C, Daniels T, Vargas C, Rwigema JC, Corbin K, Keole S, Vora S, Merrell K, Stish B, Pisansky T, Davis BJ, Amundson A, Wong W. Late Toxicity of Moderately Hypofractionated Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy Treating the Prostate and Pelvic Lymph Nodes for High-Risk Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 115:1085-1094. [PMID: 36427645 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.11.027] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/19/2022] [Revised: 10/19/2022] [Accepted: 11/11/2022] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To evaluate late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity of moderately hypofractionated intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) targeting the prostate and pelvic lymph nodes. METHODS AND MATERIALS A target accrual of 56 patients with high-risk or unfavorable intermediate risk prostate cancer were enrolled into a prospective study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02874014) of moderately hypofractionated IMPT. IMPT with pencil beam scanning was used to deliver 6750 and 4500 cGy relative biological effectiveness in 25 daily fractions simultaneously to the prostate and pelvic lymph nodes, respectively. All received androgen deprivation therapy. Late GI and GU toxicity was prospectively assessed using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0, at baseline, weekly during radiation therapy, 3-month postradiation therapy, and then every 6 months. Actuarial rates of late GI and GU toxicity were estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS Median age was 75.5 years. Fifty-four patients were available for late toxicity evaluation. Median follow-up was 43.9 months (range, 16-66). The actuarial rate of late grade ≥2 GI toxicity at both 2 and 3 years was 7.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2%-14.2%). The actuarial rate of late grade 3 GI toxicity at both 2 and 3 years was 1.9% (95% CI, 0%-5.4%). One patient experienced grade 3 GI toxicity with proctitis. The actuarial rate of late grade ≥2 GU toxicity was 20.5% (95% CI, 8.9%-30.6%) at 2 years, and 29.2 % (95% CI, 15.5%-40.7%) at 3 years. None had grade 3 GU toxicity. The presence of baseline GU symptoms was associated with a higher likelihood of experiencing late grade 2 GU toxicity. CONCLUSIONS A moderately hypofractionated IMPT targeting the prostate and regional pelvic lymph nodes was generally well tolerated. Patients with pre-existing GU symptoms had a higher rate of late grade 2 GU toxicity. A phase 3 study is needed to assess any therapeutic gain of IMPT, in comparison with photon-based radiation therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Richard Choo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
| | - David W Hillman
- Department of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Cecilia Mitchell
- Department of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Thomas Daniels
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona
| | - Carlos Vargas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, New York University Langone Hospital, Brooklyn, New York
| | - Jean Claude Rwigema
- Department of Radiation Oncology, New York University Langone Hospital, Brooklyn, New York
| | - Kimberly Corbin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Sameer Keole
- Department of Radiation Oncology, New York University Langone Hospital, Brooklyn, New York
| | - Sujay Vora
- Department of Radiation Oncology, New York University Langone Hospital, Brooklyn, New York
| | - Kenneth Merrell
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Bradley Stish
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Thomas Pisansky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Brian J Davis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Adam Amundson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - William Wong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, New York University Langone Hospital, Brooklyn, New York
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Metz R, Rauscher A, Vaugier L, Supiot S, Drouet F, Campion L, Rousseau C. Comparison of Hormone-Sensitive Oligorecurrent Prostate Cancer Patients Based on Routine Use of Choline and/or PSMA PET/CT to Guide Metastasis-Directed Therapy. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:cancers15061898. [PMID: 36980784 PMCID: PMC10047404 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15061898] [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: 02/02/2023] [Revised: 03/17/2023] [Accepted: 03/20/2023] [Indexed: 03/30/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND In hormone-sensitive oligorecurrent prostate cancer (PC), the literature showed [68Ga]Ga-PSMA (PSMA) and [18F]F-choline (FCH) PET/CT can successfully guide metastasis-directed therapies (MDT). This observational retrospective study aimed to explore, in routine use, the impact of FCH or PSMA PET/CT in guiding MDT for hormone-sensitive oligometastatic PC at different recurrences. METHODS In 2017-2020, patients initially treated with radical prostatectomy but, in biochemical recurrence (with PSA ≤ 2 ng/mL), diagnosed as oligometastatic based on FCH or PSMA PET/CT, were identified. MDT was stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), elective nodal or prostate bed radiotherapy ± boost and ± androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). The primary endpoint was biochemical relapse-free survival (BR-FS), defined as a PSA increase ≥ 0.2 ng/mL above the nadir and increasing over two successive samples and the secondaries were ADT-free survival (ADT-FS). RESULTS 123 patients (70 PSMA and 53 FCH) were included. The median follow-up was 42.2 months. The median BR-FS was 24.7 months in the PSMA group versus 13.0 months in the FCH group (p = 0.008). Similarly, ADT-FS (p = 0.001) was longer in patients in the PSMA group. In multivariate analysis, a short PSA doubling time before imaging (p = 0.005) and MDT with SBRT (p = 0.001) were poor prognostic factors for BR-FS. CONCLUSIONS Routine use of FCH or PSMA PET/CT in hormone-sensitive PC showed an advantage for using PSMA PET/CT to guide MDT in terms of BR-FS and ADT-FS in patients with low PSA value. Prospective studies are needed to confirm these hypotheses.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Raphaël Metz
- Nuclear Medicine Department, Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest, Boulevard J. Monod, F-44800 St-Herblain, France
| | - Aurore Rauscher
- Nuclear Medicine Department, Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest, Boulevard J. Monod, F-44800 St-Herblain, France
| | - Loïg Vaugier
- Radiation Oncology Department, Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest, Boulevard J. Monod, F-44800 St-Herblain, France
| | - Stéphane Supiot
- Radiation Oncology Department, Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest, Boulevard J. Monod, F-44800 St-Herblain, France
- Laboratoire US2B, Unité en Sciences Biologiques et Biotechnologies, UMR CNRS 6286, UFR SCIENCES ET TECHNIQUES, 2, Rue de la Houssinière, F-44322 Nantes, France
| | - Franck Drouet
- Radiation Oncology Department, Clinique Mutualiste de l'Estuaire, F-44600 Saint-Nazaire, France
| | - Loic Campion
- Biostatistics Department, Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest, Boulevard J. Monod, F-44800 St-Herblain, France
- Nantes Université, Univ Angers, INSERM, CNRS, CRCI2NA, F-44000 Nantes, France
| | - Caroline Rousseau
- Nuclear Medicine Department, Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest, Boulevard J. Monod, F-44800 St-Herblain, France
- Nantes Université, Univ Angers, INSERM, CNRS, CRCI2NA, F-44000 Nantes, France
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
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
|
48
|
Repka MC, Carrasquilla M, Paydar I, Wu B, Lei S, Suy S, Collins SP, Kole TP. Dosimetric predictors of acute bowel toxicity after Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) in the definitive treatment of localized prostate cancer. Acta Oncol 2023; 62:174-179. [PMID: 36826994 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2023.2180661] [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: 02/25/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION SBRT is an increasingly popular treatment for localized prostate cancer, though considerable variation in technical approach is common and optimal dose constraints are uncertain. In this study, we sought to identify dosimetric and patient-related predictors of acute rectal toxicity. METHODS Patients included in this study were treated with prostate SBRT on a prospective institutional protocol. Physician-graded toxicity and patient-reported outcomes were captured at one week, one month, and three months following SBRT. DVH data were extracted and converted into relative volume differential DVHs for NTCP modeling. Patient- and disease-related covariates along with NTCP model predictions were independently tested for significant association with physician-graded toxicity or a decline in bowel-related QoL. A multivariate model was constructed using forward selection, and significant parameter cutoff values were obtained with Fischer's exact test to group patients by risk of developing physician-graded toxicity or detriments in patient-reported QoL. RESULTS One hundred and three patients treated for localized prostate cancer with SBRT were included in our analysis. 52% of patients experienced a clinically significant decline in bowel-related QOL within 1 week of completion of treatment, while only 27.5% of patients developed grade 2+ physician-graded rectal toxicity. Sequential feature selection multivariate logistic regression identified rectal V22.5 Gy (p = 0.001) and D19% (p = 0.001) as independent predictors of clinically significant toxicity, while rectal V20Gy (p = 0.004) and D25.3% (p = 0.007) were independently correlated with physician-graded toxicity. Global multivariate step-wise logistic regression identified only D19% (p = 0.001) and V20Gy (p = 0.004) as independent predictors of acute bowel bother or physician-graded rectal toxicity respectively. CONCLUSIONS Moderate doses to large rectal volumes, D19% and V20Gy, were associated with an increased incidence of a clinically significant decrease in patient-reported bowel QOL and physician-scored grade 2+ rectal toxicity, respectively. These dosimetric parameters may help practitioners mitigate acute toxicity in patients treated with prostate SBRT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael C Repka
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Michael Carrasquilla
- Department of Radiation Medicine, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA
| | | | - Binbin Wu
- Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Siyuan Lei
- Department of Radiation Medicine, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Simeng Suy
- Department of Radiation Medicine, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Sean P Collins
- Department of Radiation Medicine, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Thomas P Kole
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Valley Mount Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Care, Paramus, NJ, USA
| |
Collapse
|
49
|
Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen-radioguided Surgery Facilitates Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection During Radical Prostatectomy for the Treatment of Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer with Regional Lymph Node Metastases. Eur Urol Oncol 2023; 6:95-98. [PMID: 36604297 DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2022.12.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/08/2022] [Revised: 11/16/2022] [Accepted: 12/19/2022] [Indexed: 01/07/2023]
Abstract
Lymph node metastases (LNMs) are common in intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer (PC) and may be missed during extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND). Here we report on the use of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-radioguided surgery (RGS) during open radical prostatectomy (RP) with ePLND to resect locoregional LNMs identified on preoperative PSMA positron emission tomography (PET). Preoperative PSMA PET showed 78 LNMs in 35 patients undergoing RP with ePLND and RGS between January 2018 and June 2020. In 14 patients (40%), LNMs were located outside the ePLND template. RGS achieved resection of PSMA-positive LNMs in 33/35 patients (94%). On univariable analysis, lower metastatic burden with up to two PSMA-positive LNMs on preoperative PET was associated with better postoperative outcomes. Limitations include the retrospective analysis and the small sample size. RGS facilitates resection of PSMA-positive LNs in patients treated with RP. Our data indicate a favorable treatment outcome in patients with low metastatic LN burden on preoperative PSMA PET. PATIENT SUMMARY: We investigated the use of radioactive guidance to remove lymph nodes affected by prostate cancer during surgical removal of the prostate. This approach can help to identify cancerous lymph nodes that might otherwise be missed and could lead to better survival outcomes.
Collapse
|
50
|
Variability of radiotherapy volume delineation: PSMA PET/MRI and MRI based clinical target volume and lymph node target volume for high-risk prostate cancer. Cancer Imaging 2023; 23:1. [PMID: 36600283 DOI: 10.1186/s40644-022-00518-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/01/2022] [Accepted: 12/25/2022] [Indexed: 01/06/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE A comparative retrospective study to assess the impact of PSMA Ligand PET/MRI ([68 Ga]-Ga-PSMA-11 and [18F]-F-PSMA-1007 PET/MRI) as a new method of target delineation compared to conventional imaging on whole-pelvis radiotherapy for high-risk prostate cancer (PCa). PATIENTS AND METHODS Forty-nine patients with primary high-risk PCa completed the whole-pelvis radiotherapy plan based on PSMA PET/MRI and MRI. The primary endpoint compared the size and overlap of clinical target volume (CTV) and nodal gross tumour volume (GTVn) based on PSMA PET/MRI and MRI. The diagnostic performance of two methods for pelvic lymph node metastasis (PLNM) was evaluated. RESULTS In the radiotherapy planning for high-risk PCa patients, there was a significant correlation between MRI-CTV and PET/MRI-CTV (P = 0.005), as well as between MRI-GTVn and PET/MRI-GTVn (P < 0.001). There are non-significant differences in the CTV and GTVn based on MRI and PET/MRI images (P = 0.660, P = 0.650, respectively). The conformity index (CI), lesion coverage factor (LCF) and Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) of CTVs were 0.999, 0.953 and 0.954. The CI, LCF and DSC of GTVns were 0.927, 0.284, and 0.32. Based on pathological lymph node analysis of 463 lymph nodes from 37 patients, the sensitivity, specificity of PET/MRI in the diagnosis of PLNM were 77.78% and 99.76%, respectively, which were higher than those of MRI (P = 0.011). Eight high-risk PCa patients who finished PSMA PET/MRI changed their N or M stage. CONCLUSION The CTV delineated based on PET/MRI and MRI differ little. The GTVn delineated based on PET/MRI encompasses metastatic pelvic lymph nodes more accurately than MRI and avoids covering pelvic lymph nodes without metastasis. We emphasize the utility of PET/MRI fusion images in GTVn delineation in whole pelvic radiotherapy for PCa. The use of PSMA PET/MRI aids in the realization of more individual and precise radiotherapy for PCa.
Collapse
|