Proton Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: Long-Term Results From a Single-Center Experience

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

Evaluation of Delivered Doses in Proton Beam Therapy for Prostate Cancer Using Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Imaging

AIMS

Proton beams deposit energy along their paths and stop abruptly without penetrating the opposite side, making it difficult to detect their actual paths. However, confirming the path may lead to evaluating the actual doses to organs at risk in proton therapy for prostate cancer. As proton beams produce positron emitters through nuclear fragmentation reactions, theoretically, proton beam paths can be measured by positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT). Therefore, this study investigated whether conducting PET/CT examinations immediately after proton beam therapy helps to assess the doses delivered to the rectal and urinary bladder walls, which are the major sites of radiation-related toxicity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between June 2022 and June 2023, 51 consecutive patients with prostate cancer who underwent proton beam therapy were enrolled and imaged with PET/CT to measure these radioactive particles and validate the actual dose delivered to the rectal and urinary bladder walls.

RESULTS

The delivered doses assessed using PET/CT after proton beam therapy strongly correlated with the planned volume for proton beam treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

PET/CT exhibited potential as a valuable tool for validating the irradiated dose to organs at risk.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Proton therapy for the management of localized prostate cancer: Long-term clinical outcomes at a comprehensive cancer center

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Proton therapy (PT) has emerged as a standard-of-care treatment option for localized prostate cancer at our comprehensive cancer center. However, there are few large-scale analyses examining the long-term clinical outcomes. Therefore, this article aims to evaluate the long-term effectiveness and toxicity of PT in patients with localized prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Review of 2772 patients treated from May 2006 through January 2020. Disease risk was stratified according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines as low [LR, n = 640]; favorable-intermediate [F-IR, n = 850]; unfavorable-intermediate [U-IR, n = 851]; high [HR, n = 315]; or very high [VHR, n = 116]. Biochemical failure and toxicity were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimates and multivariate models.

RESULTS

The median patient age was 66 years; the median follow-up time was 7.0 years. Pelvic lymph node irradiation was prescribed to 28 patients (1%) (2 [0.2%] U-IR, 11 [3.5%] HR, and 15 [12.9%] VHR). The median dose was 78 Gy in 1.8-2.0 Gy(RBE) fractions. Freedom from biochemical relapse (FFBR) rates at 5 years and 10 years were 98.2% and 96.8% for the LR group; 98.3% and 93.6%, F-IR; 94.2% and 90.2%, U-IR; 94.3% and 85.2%, HR; and 86.1% and 68.5%, VHR. Two patients died of prostate cancer. Overall rates of late grade ≥ 3 GU and GI toxicity were 0.87% and 1.01%.

CONCLUSIONS

Proton therapy for localized prostate cancer demonstrated excellent clinical outcomes in this large cohort, even among higher-risk groups with historically poor outcomes despite aggressive therapy.

Variation of the relative biological effectiveness with fractionation in proton therapy: Analysis of prostate cancer response

BACKGROUND

In treatment planning for proton therapy a constant Relative Biological Effectiveness (RBE) of 1.1 is used, disregarding variations with linear energy transfer, clinical endpoint, or fractionation.

PURPOSE

To present a methodology to analyze the variation of RBE with fractionation from clinical data of tumor control probability (TCP) and to apply it to study the response of prostate cancer to proton therapy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We analyzed the dependence of the RBE on the dose per fraction by using the LQ model and the Poisson TCP formalism. Clinical tumor control probabilities for prostate cancer (low and intermediate risk) treated with photon and proton therapy for conventional fractionation (2 Gy(RBE)×37 fractions), moderate hypofractionation (3 Gy(RBE)×20 fractions) and hypofractionation (7.25 Gy(RBE)×5 fractions) were obtained from the literature and analyzed aiming at obtaining the RBE and its dependence on the dose per fraction.

RESULTS

The theoretical analysis of the dependence of the RBE on the dose per fraction showed three distinct regions with RBE monotonically decreasing, increasing or staying constant with the dose per fraction, depending on the change of (α, β) values between photon and proton irradiation (the equilibrium point being at (αp /βp ) = (αX /βX )(αX /αp )). An analysis of the clinical data showed RBE values that decline with increasing dose per fraction: for low risk RBE≈1.124, 1.119, and 1.102 for 1.82 Gy, 2.73 Gy and 6.59 Gy per fraction (physical proton doses), respectively; for intermediate risk RBE≈1.119 and 1.102 for 1.82 Gy and 6.59 Gy per fraction (physical proton doses), respectively. These values are nonetheless very close to the nominal 1.1 value.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we have presented a methodology to analyze the RBE for different fractionations, and we used it to study clinical data for prostate cancer and evaluate the RBE versus dose per fraction. The analysis shows a monotonically decreasing RBE with increasing dose per fraction, which is expected from the LQ formalism and the changes in (α, β) values between photon and proton irradiation. However, the calculations in this study have to be considered with care as they may be biased by limitations in the modeling assumptions and/or by the clinical data set used for the analysis.

5-Years Analysis of Effectivity and Toxicity of Ultra-Hypofractionated Proton Radiotherapy in the Treatment of Low- and Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer-A Retrospective Analysis

BACKGROUND

We retrospectively analyzed the 5-year biochemical disease-free survival (bDFS) and occurrence of late toxicity in prostate cancer patients treated with pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton radiotherapy.

METHODOLOGY

In the period from January 2013 to June 2018, 853 patients with prostate cancer were treated with an ultra-hypofractionated schedule (36.25 GyE/five fractions). The mean PSA value was 6.7 (0.7-19.7) µg/L. There were 318 (37.3%), 314 (36.8%), and 221 (25.9%) patients at low (LR), favorable intermediate (F-IR), and unfavorable intermediate risk (U-IR), respectively. Neoadjuvant hormonal therapy was administered to 197 (23.1%) patients, and 7 (0.8%) patients had adjuvant hormonal therapy. The whole group of patients reached median follow-up time at 62.7 months, and their mean age was 64.8 (40.0-85.7) years. The bDFS rates and late toxicity profile were evaluated.

RESULTS

Median treatment time was 10 (7-38) days. Estimated 5-year bDFS rates were 96.5%, 93.7%, and 91.2% for low-, favorable intermediate-, and unfavorable intermediate-risk groups, respectively. Cumulative late toxicity (CTCAE v4.0) of G2+ was as follows: gastrointestinal (GI)-G2: 9.1%; G3: 0.5%; genitourinary (GU)-G2: 4.3%, and no G3 toxicity was observed. PSA relapse was observed in 58 (6.8%) patients: 16 local, 22 lymph node, 4 bone recurrences, and 10 combined sites of relapse were detected. Throughout the follow-up period, 40 patients (4.7%) died, though none due to prostate cancer.

CONCLUSION

Ultra-hypofractionated proton beam radiotherapy is an effective treatment for low- and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer, with long-term bDFS rates comparable to other techniques. It is promising for unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer and has acceptable long-term GI and favorable GU toxicity.

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

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Image-Guided Proton Therapy: A Comprehensive Review

Image guidance for radiation therapy can improve the accuracy of the delivery of radiation, leading to an improved therapeutic ratio. Proton radiation is able to deliver a highly conformal dose to a target due to its advantageous dosimetric properties, including the Bragg peak. Proton therapy established the standard for daily image guidance as a means of minimizing uncertainties associated with proton treatment. With the increasing adoption of the use of proton therapy over time, image guidance systems for this modality have been changing. The unique properties of proton radiation present a number of differences in image guidance from photon therapy. This paper describes CT and MRI-based simulation and methods of daily image guidance. Developments in dose-guided radiation, upright treatment, and FLASH RT are discussed as well.

Changes in Nutritional Status of Cancer Patients Undergoing Proton Radiation Therapy Based on Real-World Data

Methods

Observational study on 47 adult hospitalized cancer patients including 27 males and 20 females who received proton beam radiotherapy during December 2021 and August 2022. Nutritional assessments, 24 h dietary survey, handgrip strength (HGS) test, anthropometrical measurements, and hematological parameters were conducted or collected at the beginning and the completion of treatment.

Results

The rate of nutritional risk and malnutrition among the total of 47 enrolled patients was 4.3% and 12.8% at the onset of proton radiation and raised up to 6.4% and 27.7% at the end of the treatment. 42.6% of patients experienced weight loss during the proton radiotherapy, and 1 of them had weight loss over 5%, and in general, the average body weight was stable over radiotherapy. The changes in patients' 24 h dietary intakes, HGS, and anthropometrical parameters, including triceps skinfold thickness (TSF), midupper arm circumference (MUAC), and midupper arm muscle circumference (MAMC), were statistically insignificant over the treatment (all p values > 0.05). The changes in patients' hematological parameters, including total protein (TP) and serum albumin (ALB), were not statistically significant over the treatment (all p values >0.05), and the level of hemoglobin (HGB) at the end of treatment was higher than that at the onset (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

The results of this study demonstrated that proton radiotherapy might have a lighter effect on the nutritional status of cancer patients.

Does particle radiation have superior radiobiological advantages for prostate cancer cells? A systematic review of in vitro studies

BACKGROUND

Charged particle beams from protons to carbon ions provide many significant physical benefits in radiation therapy. However, preclinical studies of charged particle therapy for prostate cancer are extremely limited. The aim of this study was to comprehensively investigate the biological effects of charged particles on prostate cancer from the perspective of in vitro studies.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review by searching EMBASE (OVID), Medline (OVID), and Web of Science databases to identify the publications assessing the radiobiological effects of charged particle irradiation on prostate cancer cells. The data of relative biological effectiveness (RBE), surviving fraction (SF), standard enhancement ratio (SER) and oxygen enhancement ratio (OER) were extracted.

RESULTS

We found 12 studies met the eligible criteria. The relative biological effectiveness values of proton and carbon ion irradiation ranged from 0.94 to 1.52, and 1.67 to 3.7, respectively. Surviving fraction of 2 Gy were 0.17 ± 0.12, 0.55 ± 0.20 and 0.53 ± 0.16 in carbon ion, proton, and photon irradiation, respectively. PNKP inhibitor and gold nanoparticles were favorable sensitizing agents, while it was presented poorer performance in GANT61. The oxygen enhancement ratio values of photon and carbon ion irradiation were 2.32 ± 0.04, and 1.77 ± 0.13, respectively. Charged particle irradiation induced more G0-/G1- or G2-/M-phase arrest, more expression of γ-H2AX, more apoptosis, and lower motility and/or migration ability than photon irradiation.

CONCLUSIONS

Both carbon ion and proton irradiation have advantages over photon irradiation in radiobiological effects on prostate cancer cell lines. Carbon ion irradiation seems to have further advantages over proton irradiation.

Particle Therapy: Clinical Applications and Biological Effects

Particle therapy is a developing area of radiotherapy, mostly involving the use of protons, neutrons and carbon ions for cancer treatment. The reduction of side effects on healthy tissues in the peritumoral area is an important advantage of particle therapy. In this review, we analyze state-of-the-art particle therapy, as compared to conventional photon therapy, to identify clinical benefits and specify the mechanisms of action on tumor cells. Systematization of published data on particle therapy confirms its successful application in a wide range of cancers and reveals a variety of biological effects which manifest at the molecular level and produce the particle therapy-specific molecular signatures. Given the rapid progress in the field, the use of particle therapy holds great promise for the near future.

Carbon-ion radiotherapy for urological cancers

Carbon-ions are charged particles with a high linear energy transfer, and therefore, they make a better dose distribution with greater biological effects on the tumors compared with photons and protons. Since prostate cancer, renal cell carcinoma, and retroperitoneal sarcomas such as liposarcoma and leiomyosarcoma are known to be radioresistant tumors, carbon-ion radiotherapy, which provides the advantageous radiobiological properties such as an increasing relative biological effectiveness toward the Bragg peak, a reduced oxygen enhancement ratio, and a reduced dependence on fractionation and cell-cycle stage, has been tested for these urological tumors at the National Institute for Radiological Sciences since 1994. To promote carbon-ion radiotherapy as a standard cancer therapy, the Japan Carbon-ion Radiation Oncology Study Group was established in 2015 to create a registry of all treated patients and conduct multi-institutional prospective studies in cooperation with all the Japanese institutes. Based on accumulating evidence of the efficacy and feasibility of carbon-ion therapy for prostate cancer and retroperitoneal sarcoma, it is now covered by the Japanese health insurance system. On the other hand, carbon-ion radiotherapy for renal cell cancer is not still covered by the insurance system, although the two previous studies showed the efficacy. In this review, we introduce the characteristics, clinical outcomes, and perspectives of carbon-ion radiotherapy and our efforts to disseminate the use of this new technology worldwide.

Proton therapy for prostate cancer: current state and future perspectives

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

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

Proton Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Challenges and Opportunities

Simple Summary

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

Abstract

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

Online adaptive radiotherapy potentially reduces toxicity for high-risk prostate cancer treatment

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

With daily, MR-guided online adapted radiotherapy (MRgART) it may be possible to reduce the PTV in pelvic RT. This study investigated the potential reduction in normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) of MRgART compared to standard radiotherapy for high-risk prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty patients treated with 78 Gy to the prostate and 56 Gy to elective pelvic lymph nodes were included. VMAT plans were generated with standard clinical PTV margins. Additionally to the planning MR, patients had three MRI scans during treatment to simulate an MRgART. A reference plan with PTV margins determined for MRgART was created per patient and adapted to each of the following MRs. Adapted plans were warped to the planning MR for dose accumulation. The standard plan was rigidly registered to each adaptation MR before it was warped to the planning MR for dose accumulation. Dosimetric impact was compared by DVH analysis and potential clinical effects were assessed by NTCP modeling.

RESULTS

MRgART yielded statistically significant lower doses for the bladder wall, rectum and peritoneal cavity, compared to the standard RT, which translated into reduced median risks of urine incontinence (ΔNTCP 2.8%), urine voiding pain (ΔNTCP 2.8%) and acute gastrointestinal toxicity (ΔNTCP 17.4%). Mean population accumulated doses were as good or better for all investigated OAR when planned for MRgART as standard RT.

CONCLUSION

Online adapted radiotherapy may reduce the dose to organs at risk in high-risk prostate cancer patients, due to reduced PTV margins. This potentially translates to significant reductions in the risks of acute and late adverse effects.

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

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Proton and Carbon Ion Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) are promising methods for prostate cancer, however, the consensus of an increasing number of studies has not been reached. We aimed to provide systematic evidence for evaluating the efficacy and safety of CIRT and PBT for prostate cancer by comparing photon radiotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched for studies focusing on CIRT and PBT for prostate cancer in four online databases until July 2021. Two independent reviewers assessed the quality of included studies and used the GRADE approach to rate the quality of evidence. R 4.0.2 software was used to conduct the meta-analysis. A meta-regression test was performed based on the study design and tumor stage of each study.

RESULTS

A total of 33 studies including 13 CIRT- and 20 PBT-related publications, involving 54,101, participants were included. The quality of the included studies was found to be either low or moderate quality. Random model single-arm meta-analysis showed that both the CIRT and PBT have favorable efficacy and safety, with similar 5-year overall survival (OS) (94 vs 92%), the incidence of grade 2 or greater acute genitourinary (AGU) toxicity (5 vs 13%), late genitourinary (LGU) toxicity (4 vs 5%), acute gastrointestinal (AGI) toxicity (1 vs 1%), and late gastrointestinal (LGI) toxicity (2 vs 4%). However, compared with CIRT and PBT, photon radiotherapy was associated with lower 5-year OS (72-73%) and a higher incidence of grade 2 or greater AGU (28-29%), LGU (13-14%), AGI (14-19%), and LGI toxicity (8-10%). The meta-analysis showed the 3-, 4-, and 5-year local control rate (LCR) of CIRT for prostate cancer was 98, 97, and 99%; the 3-, 4-, 5-, and 8-year biochemical relapse-free rate (BRF) was 92, 91, 89, and 79%. GRADE assessment results indicated that the certainty of the evidence was very low. Meta-regression results did not show a significant relationship based on the variables studied (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Currently available evidence demonstrated that the efficacy and safety of CIRT and PBT for prostate cancer were similar, and they may significantly improve the OS, LCR, and reduce the incidence of GU and GI toxicity compared with photon radiotherapy. However, the quantity and quality of the available evidence are insufficient. More high-quality controlled studies are needed in the future.

Therapeutic Sequences in the Treatment of High-Risk Prostate Cancer: Paving the Way Towards Multimodal Tailored Approaches

Various definitions are currently in use to describe high-risk prostate cancer. This variety in definitions is important for patient counseling, since predicted outcomes depend on which classification is applied to identify patient’s prostate cancer risk category. Historically, strategies for the treatment of localized high-risk prostate cancer comprise local approaches such as surgery and radiotherapy, as well as systemic approaches such as hormonal therapy. Nevertheless, since high-risk prostate cancer patients remain the group with higher-risk of treatment failure and mortality rates, nowadays, novel treatment strategies, comprising hypofractionated-radiotherapy, second-generation antiandrogens, and hadrontherapy, are being explored in order to improve their long-term oncological outcomes. This narrative review aims to report the current management of high-risk prostate cancer and to explore the future perspectives in this clinical setting.

Insurance Approval for Definitive Proton Therapy for Prostate Cancer

Purpose

To determine factors that influence insurance approval for definitive proton therapy (PT) for prostate cancer.

Materials and Methods

Between 2014 and 2018, 1592 insured patients with localized prostate cancer were evaluated and recommended to undergo definitive PT; 547 patients (34.4%) had commercial insurance, whereas 1045 patients (65.6%) had Medicare/Medicaid. Of those with Medicare, 164 patients (15.7%) had Medicare alone; 677 (64.8%) had supplemental plans; and 204 (19.5%) had secondary commercial insurance. Insurance that “covered” PT for prostate cancer implied that it was an indication designated in the coverage policy. “Not covered” means that the insurance policy did not list prostate cancer as an indication for PT. Of all 1592 patients, 1263 (79.3%) belonged to plans that covered PT per policy. However, approval for PT was still required via medical review for 619 patients (38.9%), comparative dosimetry for 56 patients (3.5%), peer-to-peer discussion for 234 patients (14.7%), and administrative law judge hearings for 3 patients (<0.1%). Multivariate analyses of factors affecting approval were conducted, including risk group (low/intermediate versus high), insurance type (commercial versus Medicare/Medicaid), whether PT was included as a covered benefit under the plan (covered versus not covered), and time period (2014-16 versus 2017 versus 2018).

Results

On multivariate analysis, factors affecting PT approval for prostate treatment included coverage of PT per policy (97.1% had approval with insurance that covered PT versus 48.6% whose insurance did not cover PT; P < .001); insurance type (32.5% had approval with commercial insurance versus 97.4% with Medicare; P < .001); and time, with 877/987 patients (88.9%) approved between 2014 and 2016, 255/312 patients (81.7%) approved during 2017, and 255/293 patients (87.0%) approved thereafter (P = .02). Clinical factors, including risk group, had no bearing on insurance approval (P = .44).

Conclusion

Proton insurance approval for prostate cancer has decreased, is most influenced by the type of insurance a patient belongs to, and is unrelated to clinical factors (risk group) in this study. More work is needed to help navigate appropriate access to care and to assist patients seeking definitive PT for prostate cancer treatment.

Androgen Deprivation Therapy Combined With Particle Therapy for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

Purpose

There is high-level evidence for addition of androgen deprivation therapy to photon-based radiotherapy of the prostate in intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. Little is known about the value of ADT in particle therapy of prostate cancer. We are conducting a systematic review on biochemical disease-free survival, overall survival, and morbidity after combined particle therapy and ADT for prostate cancer.

Methods

A thorough search in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were conducted, searching for relevant studies. Clinical studies on prostate cancer and the treatment combination of particle therapy and androgen deprivation therapy were included. The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021230801).

Results

A total of 298 papers were identified. Fifteen papers reporting on 7,202 patients after proton or carbon-ion therapy for localized prostate cancer where a fraction or all patients received ADT were selected for analysis. Three thousand five hundred and nineteen (49%) of the patients had received combined ADT and particle therapy. Primarily high-risk (87%), to a lesser extent intermediate-risk (34%) and low-risk patients (12%) received ADT. There were no comparative studies on the effect of ADT in patients treated with particles and no studies identified ADT as an independent prognostic factor related to survival outcomes.

Conclusions

The review found no evidence to support that the effects on biochemical disease-free survival and morbidity of combining ADT to particle therapy differs from the ADT effects in conventional photon based radiotherapy. The available data on the topic is limited.