Escalated-dose versus standard-dose conformal radiotherapy in prostate cancer: first results from the MRC RT01 randomised controlled trial

Dissemination and Implementation-A Primer for Accelerating "Time to Translation" in Radiation Oncology

The field of radiation oncology has achieved significant technological and scientific advancements in the 21st century. Yet uptake of new evidence-based practices has been heterogeneous, even in the presence of national and international guidelines. Addressing barriers to practice change requires a deliberate focus on developing and testing strategies tailored to improving care delivery and quality, especially for vulnerable patient populations. Implementation science provides a systematic approach to developing and testing strategies, though applications in radiation oncology remain limited. In this critical review, we aim to (1) assess the time from first evidence to widespread adoption, or "time to translation," across multiple evidence-based practices involving radiation therapy, and (2) provide a primer on the application of implementation science to radiation oncology. Specifically, we discuss potential targets for implementation research in radiation oncology, including both evidence-based practices and quality metrics, and highlight examples of studies evaluating implementation strategies. We also define key concepts and frameworks in the field of implementation science, review common study designs, including hybrid trials and cluster randomization, and discuss the interaction with related disciplines such as quality improvement and behavioral economics. Ultimately, this review aims to illustrate how a comprehensive understanding of implementation science could be used to promote equity and quality in cancer care through the development of effective, scalable, and sustainable care delivery solutions.

Direct minimization of normal-tissue toxicity via an NTCP-based IMPT planning method

BACKGROUND

Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) planning often relies on physical dose constraints to balance tumor control and sparing of organs at risk (OARs). However, focusing solely on these dose objectives does not always minimize the normal-tissue toxicity, which is quantified as normal tissue complication probability (NTCP). NTCP is also a quantitative criterion for patient selection between proton and photon treatments.

PURPOSE

This study introduces an NTCP-based IMPT planning (NTCP-IMPT) method designed to directly minimize normal-tissue toxicity while maintaining tumor coverage.

METHODS

NTCP-IMPT simultaneously optimizes NTCP and dose-volume histogram (DVH)-based physical dose objectives while adhering to the minimum-monitor-unit (MMU) constraint for plan deliverability. The optimization problem is solved by the interior-point method. To assess its efficacy in reducing normal-tissue toxicity, NTCP-IMPT is compared with standard IMPT (without NTCP optimization) for four head-and-neck (HN) cancer patients in terms of physical dose quality and NTCP of xerostomia and dysphagia.

RESULTS

Across all four patients, NTCP-IMPT plans met target dose criteria (D95% ≥ 100% and D2% ≤ 110%) while maintaining maximum doses to the spinal cord and brainstem comparable to standard IMPT. NTCP-IMPT also reduced mean doses to parotid glands, submandibular glands, oral cavity, and pharyngeal constrictor muscles (PCMs). Compared to the standard IMPT, NTCP-IMPT achieved average reductions in NTCP for xerostomia (grade ≥ 2: 3.67%; grade ≥3: 1.07%) and dysphagia (grade ≥ 2: 7.54%; grade ≥ 3: 3.72%).

CONCLUSIONS

NTCP-IMPT effectively minimizes normal-tissue toxicity and improves the sparing of OARs associated with side effects while maintaining comparable tumor coverage compared to standard IMPT.

Assessing the effects of prostate cancer therapies on cardiovascular health

Contemporary advances in prostate cancer treatments have markedly improved patient outcomes, yet concerns persist regarding the increased cardiovascular toxicity of prostate cancer treatments, which is multifaceted. Local therapies entail non-negligible cardiovascular risks. The effects of androgen deprivation therapy, which is pivotal in disease management, on cardiovascular health remains contentious, with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists and antagonists showing varying cardiovascular outcomes. Despite the ongoing controversy over the cardiovascular risks of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists versus agonists, current evidence does not support favouring one over the other based solely on cardiovascular risk. Combination therapy with androgen receptor pathway inhibitors and androgen deprivation therapy shows additive cardiovascular risks, but robust comparative data are lacking. Chemotherapies such as docetaxel and cabazitaxel, along with emerging targeted therapies and radiopharmaceuticals, are associated with varied cardiovascular risks, necessitating personalized patient assessment. Clinicians should adhere to cardio-oncology guidelines when prescribing therapeutic agents, especially for patients with pre-existing cardiovascular conditions. Optimal monitoring and management strategies are essential to mitigate cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

Biochemical response to neoadjuvant hormonal therapy predicts long-term prostate cancer survival outcomes after high-dose-rate brachytherapy with external beam radiotherapy

We evaluated the long-term treatment outcomes and toxicities in patients with clinically localized and locally advanced prostate cancer (PC) who underwent high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). We retrospectively analyzed 417 patients with PC who underwent HDR-BT with EBRT. The treatment dose was 19- and 13-Gy HDR-BT in two and single fractions, respectively, both combined with external irradiation of 46 Gy in 23 fractions, and hormonal therapy (HT). The median observation period was 7.2 (range, 2.0-17.6) years. The 7-year recurrence-free, PC-specific, and overall survival rates were 93.3%, 99.1%, and 94.8%, respectively, with only six PC mortalities. Multivariable analysis showed that pre-radiotherapy prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of > 0.05 ng/mL after neoadjuvant HT was an independent poor prognostic factor of recurrence (HR, 4.44; 95% CI 1.56-12.63; p = 0.005) and overall mortality (HR, 2.20; 95% CI 1.11-4.39; p = 0.025). The 7-year cumulative incidence rate of grade ≥ 2 toxicities in genitourinary and gastrointestinal tracts were 15.7% and 2.0%, respectively. HDR-BT combined with EBRT shows promising disease control and tolerant toxicities for PC. Poor PSA response to neoadjuvant androgen deprivation predicts worse survival measures. These patients may require more intensive multidisciplinary treatment in combination with radiotherapy.

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

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

Protocol-based CT-guided brachytherapy for patients with prostate cancer and previous rectal extirpation-a curative approach

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.

Microboost in Localized Prostate Cancer: Analysis of a Statewide Quality Consortium

Purpose

Prospective trials have reported isotoxicity and improved oncologic outcomes with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) microboost to a dominant intraprostatic lesion. There is often variability in the rate of adoption of new treatments, and current microboost practice patterns are unknown. We leveraged prospectively collected data from the multicenter Michigan Radiation Oncology Quality Consortium to understand the current state of microboost usage for localized prostate cancer.

Materials and Methods

Men with intermediate- and high-risk prostate adenocarcinoma treated with curative-intent radiation between October, 26, 2020, and June, 26, 2023, were included across 26 centers. Demographic-, tumor-, and treatment-related data along with DICOM files were prospectively collected. Microboost intent was prospectively documented and DICOM-confirmed. Multivariable analyses were used to evaluate associations with microboost receipt, and mixed-effects modeling evaluated facility-level variation.

Results

Most patients received EBRT without brachytherapy (71%, n = 524/741). Of those, a minority received an EBRT microboost (10%, n = 53/524) at a subset of sites (27%, n = 7/26), without a change in rate over the study period (P = .62). Grade group 4/5 (odds ration [OR] = 2.35; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-5.28), magnetic resonance imaging planning (OR = 6.34; 95%CI: 2.16-27.12), and fiducial marker/rectal spacer placement (OR = 2.59; 95% CI: 1.14-6.70) were associated with microboost use. Significant facility-level variability was present (minimum 0%; 95% CI: 0.0-10.7 to maximum 71%; 95% CI: 55.5-83.2, unadjusted, P < .0001). Median boost volume was 20.7cc, and median boost D98% was 94.4 EQD2Gy. Compared with non-microboost cases, intermediate doses to rectum in the microboost cohort were increased (eg, V20Gy [EQD2] of 53.8% vs 36.5%, P = .03). However, the proportion exceeding NRG/RTOG bladder/rectal constraints was low and not significantly different between cohorts.

Conclusions

Despite prospective data demonstrating its benefit, EBRT microboost was used within a diverse statewide quality consortium in only 10% of cases at 27% of sites with significant facility-level heterogeneity. Concerted efforts are required to understand current barriers to microboost utilization, and results from trials such as PIVOTALboost (ISRCTN80146950) are eagerly awaited.

Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for High-Risk and Very High-Risk Locoregional Prostate Cancer in the Modern Era: Real-World Experience from an Asian Cohort

This study retrospectively evaluates the clinical outcomes of definitive volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for high-risk or very high-risk locoregional prostate cancer patients from an Asian institution. Consecutive patients who received VMAT (76 Gy in 38 fractions) between January 2017 and June 2022 were included. Whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) (46 Gy in 23 fractions) was employed for clinically node-negative disease (cN0) and a Roach estimated risk of ≥15%, as well as simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) of 55-57.5 Gy to node-positive (cN1) disease. The primary endpoint was biochemical relapse-free survival (BRFS). Secondary endpoints included radiographic relapse-free survival (RRFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS) and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS). A total of 209 patients were identified. After a median follow-up of 47.5 months, the 4-year actuarial BRFS, RRFS, MFS and PCSS were 85.2%, 96.8%, 96.8% and 100%, respectively. The incidence of late grade ≥ 2 genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity were 15.8% and 11.0%, respectively. No significant difference in cancer outcomes or toxicity was observed between WPRT and prostate-only radiotherapy for cN0 patients. SIB to the involved nodes did not result in increased toxicity. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) group 5 and cN1 stage were associated with worse RRFS (p < 0.05). PSMA PET-CT compared to conventional imaging staging was associated with better BRFS in patients with ISUP grade group 5 (p = 0.039). Five-year local experience demonstrates excellent clinical outcomes. PSMA PET-CT staging for high-grade disease and tailored pelvic irradiation based on nodal risk should be considered to maximize clinical benefit.

[Short- and medium-term tolerance of hypofractionated prostate radiotherapy with simultaneous integrated boost]

PURPOSE

This retrospective study was conducted to ensure that irradiation of the pelvic lymph node areas associated with simultaneous hypofractionated boost to the prostate according to the protocol implemented at the university hospital of Tours (France) does not result in excess urinary and digestive toxicity in the short and medium term.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study population included patients with localized unfavourable intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer. The dose delivered was 65Gy in 25 fractions of 2.6Gy to the prostate and seminal vesicles, and 50Gy in 25 fractions of 2Gy to the pelvic lymph nodes. Acute toxicity events (between the start of radiotherapy and the first follow-up consultation) and medium-term toxicity events (after the first follow-up consultation) were assessed using the CTCAE version 5.0 classification.

RESULTS

Sixty-three patients were treated according to the protocol between January 1st, 2020, and October 31st, 2022. The majority of them had high-risk prostate cancer (79%). The median follow-up was 15 months. Very few patients reported grade 3-4 toxicity acutely (6% urinary and 0% digestive toxicity) or in the medium term (7% urinary and 0% and digestive toxicity).

CONCLUSION

Radiotherapy of pelvic lymph node areas with simultaneous hypofractionated boost to the prostate is feasible, with low rates of severe acute and medium-term toxicity.

Spatial Distribution of Recurrence and Long-Term Toxicity Following Dose Escalation to the Dominant Intra-Prostatic Nodule for Intermediate-High-Risk Prostate Cancer: Insights from a Phase I/II Study

Objectives: We investigated spatial patterns between primary and recurrent tumor sites and assessed long-term toxicity after dose escalation stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) to the dominant intra-prostatic nodule (DIN). Materials and methods: In 33 patients with intermediate-high-risk prostate cancer (PCa), doses up to 50 Gy were administered to the DIN. Recurrence sites were determined and compared to the original tumor development sites through multiparametric MRI and 68Ga-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (68Ga-PSMA-PET/CT) images. Overlap rates, categorized as 75% or higher for full overlap, and 25-74% for partial overlap, were assessed. Long-term toxicity is reported. Results: All patients completed treatment, with only one receiving concomitant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Recurrences were diagnosed after a median of 33 months (range: 17-76 months), affecting 13 out of 33 patients (39.4%). Intra-prostatic recurrences occurred in 7 patients (21%), with ≥75% overlap in two, a partial overlap in another two, and no overlap in the remaining three patients. Notably, five patients with intra-prostatic recurrences had synchronous bone and/or lymph node metastases, while six patients had isolated bone or lymph node metastasis without intra-prostatic recurrences. Extended follow-up revealed late grade ≥ 2 GU and GI toxicity in 18% (n = 6) and 6% (n = 2) of the patients. Conclusions: Among patients with intermediate-high-risk PCa undergoing focal dose-escalated SBRT without ADT, DIN recurrences were infrequent. When present, these recurrences were typically located at the original site or adjacent to the initial tumor. Conversely, relapses beyond the DIN and in extra-prostatic (metastatic) sites were prevalent, underscoring the significance of systemic ADT in managing this patient population. Advances in knowledge: Focal dose-escalated prostate SBRT prevented recurrences in the dominant nodule; however, extra-prostatic recurrence sites were frequent.

Nonsurgical salvage options for locally recurrent prostate cancer after primary definitive radiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a meta-analysis to provide the latest evidence of nonsurgical local salvage options in the first-line radiotherapy (RT) failure setting for localized prostate cancer patients.

BACKGROUND

Recurrence of localized prostate cancer after primary RT remains a clinical challenge. There is no consensus on optimal nonsurgical local salvage therapies, which mainly consist of cryotherapy (CRYO), high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), high/low-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR/LDR), and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT).

METHODS

Our study was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The authors systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to September 2023 to identify potentially relevant studies. The risk of bias was assessed using the European Association of Urology (EAU) items. Biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS) and genitourinary/gastrointestinal toxicities were the outcomes of interest. Pooled rates with 95% CIs were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 99 studies comprising 8440 patients were included. The pooled rate of 1-year biochemical control (BC) was highest for LDR (0.88, 95% CI: 0.72-0.95) and lowest for SBRT (0.68, 95% CI: 0.49-0.83). The pooled rate of 5-year BC was highest for CRYO (0.52, 95% CI: 0.33-0.69) and lowest for HDR (0.23, 95% CI: 0.08-0.51). HIFU presented the worst outcome of grade ≥3 genitourinary toxicities (GU3), with a rate of 0.22 (95% CI: 0.12-0.3). Conversely, CRYO (0.09, 95% CI: 0.04-0.14), HDR (0.05, 95% CI: 0.02-0.07), LDR (0.10, 95% CI: 0.06-0.14), and SBRT (0.06, 95% CI: 0.03-0.09) presented low rates of GU3. All subgroups induced a quite low incidence of grade ≥3 gastrointestinal toxicities (GI3).

CONCLUSIONS

Nonsurgical salvage therapies are promising modalities for prostate cancer in the local radiorecurrence setting. Based on the preliminary evidence from this study, CRYO and SBRT might present a relatively steady efficacy of BC with acceptable treatment-related toxicities.

MRI-guided radiotherapy in twenty fractions for localised prostate cancer; results from the MOMENTUM study

Background and purpose

MRI-guided radiotherapy (MRIgRT) offers multiple potential advantages over CT-guidance. This study examines the potential clinical benefits of MRIgRT for men with localised prostate cancer, in the setting of moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy. We evaluate two-year toxicity outcomes, early biochemical response and patient-reported outcomes (PRO), using data obtained from a multicentre international registry study, for the first group of patients with prostate cancer who underwent treatment on a 1.5 T MR-Linac.

Materials and methods

Patients who were enrolled within the MOMENTUM study and received radical treatment with 60 Gy in 20 fractions were identified. PSA levels and CTCAE version 5.0 toxicity data were measured at follow-up visits. Those patients who consented to PRO data collection also completed EQ-5D-5L, EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-PR25 questionnaires.

Results

Between November 2018 and June 2022, 146 patients who had MRIgRT for localised prostate cancer on the 1.5 T MR-Linac were eligible for this study. Grade 2 and worse gastro-intestinal (GI) toxicity was reported in 3 % of patients at three months whilst grade 2 and worse genitourinary (GU) toxicity was 7 % at three months. There was a significant decrease in the median PSA at 12 months. The results from both the EQ-5D-5L data and EORTC global health status scale indicate a decline in the quality of life (QoL) during the first six months. The mean change in score for the EORTC scale showed a decrease of 11.4 points, which is considered clinically important. QoL improved back to baseline by 24 months. Worsening of hormonal symptoms in the first six months was reported with a return to baseline by 24 months and sexual activity in all men worsened in the first three months and returned to baseline at 12 months.

Conclusion

This study establishes the feasibility of online-MRIgRT for localised prostate on a 1.5 T MR-Linac with low rates of toxicity, similar to that published in the literature. However, the clinical benefits of MRIgRT over conventional radiotherapy in the setting of moderate hypofractionation is not evident. Further research will focus on the delivery of ultrahypofractionated regimens, where the potential advantages of MRIgRT for prostate cancer may become more discernible.

Assessing the toxicity after moderately hypofractionated prostate and whole pelvis radiotherapy compared to conventional fractionation

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.

Use of rectal balloon spacer in patients with localized prostate cancer receiving external beam radiotherapy

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy of the balloon spacer when used to reduce the radiation dose delivered to the rectum in prostate cancer patients undergoing external beam radiotherapy.

Method

A single center retrospective analysis including 75 PC patients with localized T1-T3a disease who received balloon spacer followed by EBRT. Pre- and post-implantation computed tomography (CT) scans were utilized for treatment planning for standard EBRT (78-81 Gy in 1.8-2 Gy fractions). Rectal dosimetry was assessed using DVHs, and toxicities were graded with CTCAE v.4.

Results

A median (IQR) prostate-rectum separation resulted in 1.6 cm (1.4-2.0) post balloon spacer implantation. Overall, 90.6 % (68/75) of patients had a clinically significant 25 % relative reduction in the rectal with a median relative reduction of 91.8 % (71.2-98.6 %) at rV70. Three (4.0 %) patients reported mild procedural adverse events, anal discomfort and dysuria. Within 90 days post-implantation, five patients (6.67 %) and 1 patient (1.33 %) reported grade 1 and grade 2 rectal toxicities (anal pain, constipation, diarrhea and hemorrhoids). Genitourinary (GU) grade 1 toxicity was reported in 37 patients (49.33 %), with only one patient (1.33 %) experiencing grade 2 GU toxicity. No grade ≥ 3 toxicity was reported.

Conclusion

Balloon spacer implantation effectively increased prostate-rectum separation and associated with dosimetric gains EBRT for PC stage T1-T3a. Further controlled studies are required to ascertain whether this spacer allows for radiotherapy dose escalation and minimizes gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Carbon ion irradiation exerts antitumor activity by inducing cGAS-STING activation and immune response in prostate cancer-bearing mice

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

As an advanced radiotherapy technique, carbon ion radiotherapy has demonstrated good efficacy and low toxicity for prostate cancer patients, but the radiobiological mechanism of killing tumor cells has not been fully elucidated. This study aims to explore the antitumor effects of carbon ion irradiation (CIR) through investigating the immune response induced by CIR in prostate cancer-bearing mice and the underlying molecular mechanism.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We established subcutaneous transplantation tumor models of prostate cancer to evaluate the tumor inhibition effect of CIR. Investigation of immunophenotype alterations were assessed by flow cytometry. Immunofluorescence, western blot, and real-time quantitative PCR was employed to analyze the activation of cGAS-STING pathway.

RESULTS

CIR showed more powerful tumor growth control than photon irradiation in immunocompetent syngeneic C57BL/6 mice. CIR exerts antitumor effect by triggering immune response, characterized by increased CD4+ T cells and macrophages in tumor, enhanced CD8+ T cells and T effector memory cells in spleen, improved IFN-γ production of CD8+ tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, and reduced exhausted T cells in tumor and spleen. Additionally, production of cytoplasmic double-stranded DNA, protein levels of p-TBK1 and p-IRF3 in the cGAS-STING pathway, and gene expression levels of downstream interferon-stimulated genes were significantly increased after CIR in a dose-dependent manner. Treatment of RM1 tumor-bearing mice with the STING inhibitor C-176 impaired the antitumor effect of CIR.

CONCLUSION

The excellent antitumor activity of CIR in immunocompetent prostate cancer-bearing C57BL/6 mice may be attributed to stronger induction of antitumor immune response and higher activation of cGAS-STING pathway.

Impact of Prostate Cancer-related Genitourinary Radiation Injury on Mental Health Diagnosis and Treatment: Assessment of 55,425 Men

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association of low-grade radiation injury (LGRI) and high-grade radiation injury (HGRI) following prostate cancer treatment with mental health diagnoses and therapy.

METHODS

A retrospective study of men diagnosed with prostate cancer who were treated with radiotherapy. Men were followed to assess for LGRI or HGRI using IBM MarketScan. Cohorts included: no injury (no-RI), LGRI, HGRI, and controls. Mental health diagnoses and related treatment (medication/therapy) were identified using ICD-10 codes, CPT codes, and national drug codes. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model from time of radiation to first instance of mental health diagnosis was modeled against injury group, age, and comorbidities.

RESULTS

Between 2011 and 2020 we identified 55,425 men who received radiotherapy for prostate cancer. 22,879 (41.3%) experienced a LGRI while 4128 (7.4%) experienced a HGRI. Prior to radiation therapy, mental health diagnoses were equally distributed across cohorts (P > .05). Every marker of mental health showed a step-wise increase in incidence from no-RI to LGRI to HGRI except for alcohol abuse. Use of mental health medications and therapy visits were slightly more likely in the LGRI and HGRI groups prior to radiation, however, this difference was greatly increased postradiation therapy. LGRI (HR 1.38; P < .001) and HGRI (HR 2.1; P < .001) were independently associated with an increased likelihood of mental health diagnoses.

CONCLUSION

LGRI and HGRI following prostate cancer radiotherapy are associated with increased risk of mental health diagnosis, medication use, and therapy need compared to men who do not develop injuries. The most common mental health diagnoses were depression and anxiety.

Radiation-induced recto-urinary fistula: A dreaded complication with devastating consequences

Purpose

This study was undertaken to evaluate our 16-year experience with fistulas between the rectum and urethra or urinary bladder, collectively called recto-urinary fistulas (RUFs), and their devastating consequences in patients treated with radiation for prostate cancer.

Methods

We downloaded the records of all patients with radiation-related RUFS from 2004 to 2020 at our institution using the electronic medical record system. Details concerning patient demographics, clinical presentation, diagnostic approaches and surgical management were obtained and assessed.

Results

We identified a total of seven patients with radiation-induced RUFS: all were male and had an average age of 66 at diagnosis. Each had a history of prostate cancer that was treated with external, internal (i.e.brachytherapy), or combination radiation therapy. No fistulas were noted in patients treated with radiation for another malignancy. Radiation proctitis with rectal ulcer formation occurred in 6 of 7 patients. Common symptoms included fecaluria, pneumaturia, urine leakage via rectum, rectal pain and urinary tract infection. CT scanning was the most useful diagnostic tool. Once confirmed, fistula management included both urinary and fecal diversion in all patients. Only one patient received definitive repair of the fistula. Five others either died before repair could be attempted or had prohibitive co-morbid diseases. One patient declined repair.

Conclusions

Although rare, the development of a recto-urinary fistula is a dreaded complication. Our results indicate that radiation proctitis with rectal ulcer formation precedes fistula formation in most patients and must be aggressively managed. While fecal and urinary diversion can manage fistula symptoms in the majority of patients, definitive fistula repair is only possible in selected individuals.

A Randomized Feasibility Trial of Stereotactic Prostate Radiation Therapy With or Without Elective Nodal Irradiation in High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer (SPORT Trial)

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to establish the feasibility of a randomized clinical trial comparing SABR with prostate-only (P-SABR) or with prostate plus pelvic lymph nodes (PPN-SABR) in patients with unfavorable intermediate- or high-risk localized prostate cancer and to explore potential toxicity biomarkers.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Thirty adult men with at least 1 of the following features were randomized 1:1 to P-SABR or PPN-SABR: clinical magnetic resonance imaging stage T3a N0 M0, Gleason score ≥7 (4+3), and prostate-specific antigen >20 ng/mL. P-SABR patients received 36.25 Gy/5 fractions/29 days, and PPN-SABR patients received 25 Gy/5 fractions to pelvic nodes, with the final cohort receiving a boost to the dominant intraprostatic lesion of 45 to 50 Gy. Phosphorylated gamma-H2AX (γH2AX) foci numbers, citrulline levels, and circulating lymphocyte counts were quantified. Acute toxicity information (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.03) was collected weekly at each treatment and at 6 weeks and 3 months. Physician-reported late Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) toxicity was recorded from 90 days to 36 months postcompletion of SABR. Patient-reported quality of life (Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite and International Prostate Symptom Score) scores were recorded with each toxicity time point.

RESULTS

The target recruitment was achieved, and treatment was successfully delivered in all patients. A total of 0% and 6.7% (P-SABR) and 6.7% and 20.0% (PPN-SABR) experienced acute grade ≥2 gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity, respectively. At 3 years, 6.7% and 6.7% (P-SABR) and 13.3% and 33.3% (PPN-SABR) had experienced late grade ≥2 GI and GU toxicity, respectively. One patient (PPN-SABR) had late grade 3 GU toxicity (cystitis and hematuria). No other grade ≥3 toxicity was observed. In addition, 33.3% and 60% (P-SABR) and 64.3% and 92.9% (PPN-SABR) experienced a minimally clinically important change in late Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite bowel and urinary summary scores, respectively. γH2AX foci numbers at 1 hour after the first fraction were significantly higher in the PPN-SABR arm compared with the P-SABR arm (P = .04). Patients with late grade ≥1 GI toxicity had significantly greater falls in circulating lymphocytes (12 weeks post-radiation therapy, P = .01) and a trend toward higher γH2AX foci numbers (P = .09) than patients with no late toxicity. Patients with late grade ≥1 bowel toxicity and late diarrhea experienced greater falls in citrulline levels (P = .05).

CONCLUSIONS

A randomized trial comparing P-SABR with PPN-SABR is feasible with acceptable toxicity. Correlations of γH2AX foci, lymphocyte counts, and citrulline levels with irradiated volume and toxicity suggest potential as predictive biomarkers. This study has informed a multicenter, randomized, phase 3 clinical trial in the United Kingdom.

Quality rectal hydrogel placement allows for gel-enabled dose-escalated EBRT (GEDE-EBRT) without rectal interference in prostate cancer

Multiple trials have shown that dose-escalation of radiation for prostate cancer provides a biochemical progression-free survival benefit (bPFS); however, rectal constraints are often limiting. In this dosimetric study, we hypothesized that a well-placed rectal hydrogel (RH) would permit improved dose-escalation and target coverage. We selected patients with good-quality RH and created plans with and without RH, prescribing 70 Gy in 28 fractions to the prostate and proximal seminal vesicles (PSV), and a peripheral zone (PZ) boost to 84 Gy, 98 Gy, or 112 Gy. We then compared plans with and without RH, prescribing a 112 Gy boost to 1 to 2 cm simulated dominant intraprostatic lesions (DIL). In the 18 plans created with a PZ boost, the PTV_boost D95% was higher in RH plans compared to non-RH plans (median 98.5 Gy vs 75.53 Gy, p < 0.01). The PSV planning target volume (PTV_PSV) D95% was also marginally higher with RH (71.87 Gy vs 71.04 Gy, p < 0.01). All rectal metrics were improved with RH. For the 32 plans created for simulated DILs treated to 112 Gy, the PTV_boost coverage (median D95% 112.48 Gy vs 102.63 Gy, p < 0.01) and rectal metrics were improved with RH. Four non-RH plans with at least a 4 mm rectal-PTV_boost gap achieved D95% > 98% of the prescription dose for the PTV_boost. Our study showed that placement of a high-quality RH allowed for GEDE-EBRT up to 112 Gy in 28 fractions (EQD2 160 Gy with α/β = 2.5). This concept should be tested prospectively, particularly to assess for increases in nonrectal toxicities.

The impact of the apparent diffusion coefficient for the early prediction of the treatment response after definitive radiotherapy in prostate cancer patients

PURPOSE

We assessed early changes in apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) values after definitive radiotherapy (RT) without androgen deprivation treatment in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PC) patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The clinical data and ADC parameters of 229 PC patients were retrospectively evaluated. Pre-treatment and post-treatment serum PSA and primary tumor ADC values were calculated. Post-treatment DW-MRI was performed median 4.1 months after completion of definitive RT. The prognostic factors predicting freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed using univariable and multivariable analyses.

RESULTS

With a median follow-up time of 80.8 months, the 5-year FFBF and PFS rates were 95.9% and 89.3%, respectively. Eleven patients (4.8%) had PSA relapse, with a median of 34.4 months after the completion of RT. A statistically significant difference in post-treatment ADC values was noted between patients with and without recurrence (0.94 ± 0.07 vs. 1.10 ± 0.20 × 10-3 mm2/sec; p< 0.001). Patients with a Gleason score (GS) of 6 and low-risk disease had significantly higher post-treatment tumor ADC and PSA levels than patients with a GS of 7 and intermediate-risk disease. The 5-year FFBF rate in patients with tumor ADC ≤ 0.96 × 10-3 mm2/sec was significantly lower than patients with tumor ADC > 0.96 × 10-3 mm2/sec (85.5% vs. 100; p< 0.001). In the multivariable analysis, a lower ADC value, GS 4 + 3 and intermediate-risk disease were independent predictors of worse FFBF. In the multivariate analysis, a lower post-treatment ADC value and a GS of 4 + 3 were significant prognostic factors for a lower PFS.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that the post-treatment tumor ADC value could be used for early treatment response evaluation after definitive RT in PC patients.

A pilot study of MRI radiomics for high-risk prostate cancer stratification in 1.5 T MR-guided radiotherapy

PURPOSE

To investigate the potential value of MRI radiomics obtained from a 1.5 T MRI-guided linear accelerator (MR-LINAC) for D'Amico high-risk prostate cancer (PC) classification in MR-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT).

METHODS

One hundred seventy-six consecutive PC patients underwent 1.5 T MRgRT treatment were retrospectively enrolled. Each patient received one or two pretreatment T₂ -weighted MRI scans on a 1.5 T MR-LINAC. The endpoint was to differentiate high-risk from low/intermediate-risk PC based on D'Amico criteria using MRI-radiomics. Totally 1023 features were extracted from clinical target volume (CTV) and planning target volume (PTV). Intraclass correlation coefficient of scan-rescan repeatability, feature correlation, and recursive feature elimination were used for feature dimension reduction. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression was employed for model construction. Receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC) analysis was used for model performance assessment in both training and testing data.

RESULTS

One hundred and eleven patients fulfilled all criteria were finally included: 76 for training and 35 for testing. The constructed MRI-radiomics models extracted from CTV and PTV achieved the AUC of 0.812 and 0.867 in the training data, without significant difference (P = 0.083). The model performances remained in the testing. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 85.71%, 64.29%, and 77.14% for the PTV-based model; and 71.43%, 71.43%, and 71.43% for the CTV-based model. The corresponding AUCs were 0.718 and 0.750 (P = 0.091) for CTV- and PTV-based models.

CONCLUSION

MRI-radiomics obtained from a 1.5 T MR-LINAC showed promising results in D'Amico high-risk PC stratification, potentially helpful for the future PC MRgRT. Prospective studies with larger sample sizes and external validation are warranted for further verification.

Decision regret in breast cancer patients after adjuvant radiotherapy

PURPOSE

Breast cancer patients often engage in shared decision-making to select an individualized treatment regimen from multiple options. However, dissatisfaction with treatment outcomes can lead to decision regret. We evaluated decision regret and physical and psychological well-being among breast cancer patients who underwent adjuvant radiotherapy and explored their associations with patient, tumor, treatment, and symptom characteristics.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study involved retrospectively obtaining clinical data and data collected through interviews carried out as part of regular long-term medical aftercare. Decision regret regarding the radiotherapy was assessed using the Ottawa Decision Regret Scale, physical and psychological well-being were assessed using the PROMIS Global Health-10 questionnaire, and patients were asked about their treatment outcomes and symptoms. The questionnaire was administered 14 months to 4 years after completion of radiotherapy.

RESULTS

Of the 172 included breast cancer patients, only 13.9% expressed high decision regret, with most patients expressing little or no decision regret. More decision regret was associated with volumetric modulated arc therapy, chest wall irradiation, use of docetaxel as a chemotherapy agent, lymphangiosis carcinomatosa, new heart disease after radiotherapy, and lower psychological well-being.

CONCLUSION

Although most patients reported little or no decision regret, we identified several patient, treatment, and symptom characteristics associated with more decision regret. Our findings suggest that psychological well-being influences patients' satisfaction with therapy decisions, implying that practitioners should pay special attention to maintaining psychological well-being during shared decision-making and ensuring that psychological assessment and treatment is provided after cancer therapy to deal with long-term effects of radiotherapy.

Toxicity of dose-escalated radiotherapy up to 84 Gy for prostate cancer

PURPOSE

The outcome of radiotherapy (RT) for prostate cancer (PCA) depends on the delivered dose. While the evidence for dose-escalated RT up to 80 gray (Gy) is well established, there have been only few studies examining dose escalation above 80 Gy. We initiated the present study to assess the safety of dose escalation up to 84 Gy.

METHODS

In our retrospective analysis, we included patients who received dose-escalated RT for PCA at our institution between 2016 and 2021. We evaluated acute genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity as well as late GU and GI toxicity.

RESULTS

A total of 86 patients could be evaluated, of whom 24 patients had received 80 Gy and 62 patients 84 Gy (35 without pelvic and 27 with pelvic radiotherapy). Regarding acute toxicities, no > grade 2 adverse events occurred. Acute GU/GI toxicity of grade 2 occurred in 12.5%/12.5% of patients treated with 80 Gy, in 25.7%/14.3% of patients treated with 84 Gy to the prostate only, and in 51.9%/12.9% of patients treated with 84 Gy and the pelvis included. Late GU/GI toxicity of grade ≥ 2 occurred in 4.2%/8.3% of patients treated with 80 Gy, in 7.1%/3.6% of patients treated with 84 Gy prostate only, and in 18.2%/0% of patients treated with 84 Gy pelvis included (log-rank test p = 0.358).

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated that dose-escalated RT for PCA up to 84 Gy is feasible and safe without a significant increase in acute toxicity. Further follow-up is needed to assess late toxicity and survival.

Dose-escalated radiotherapy for clinically localized and locally advanced prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer include radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, brachytherapy, active surveillance, hormonal therapy, and watchful waiting. For external beam radiation therapy, oncological outcomes may be expected to improve as the dose of radiotherapy (RT) increases. However, radiation-mediated side effects on surrounding critical organs may also increase.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of dose-escalated RT in comparison with conventional dose RT for curative treatment of clinically localized and locally advanced prostate cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases including trial registries and other sources of grey literature, up until 20 July 2022. We applied no restrictions on publication language or status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-arm randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of definitive RT in men with clinically localized and locally advanced prostate adenocarcinoma. RT was dose-escalated RT (equivalent dose in 2 Gy [EQD2] ≥ 74 Gy, lesser than 2.5 Gy per fraction) versus conventional RT (EQD2 < 74 Gy, 1.8 Gy or 2.0 Gy per fraction). Two review authors independently classified studies for inclusion or exclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently abstracted data from the included studies. We performed statistical analyses by using a random-effects model and interpreted them according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used GRADE guidance to rate the certainty of the evidence of RCTs.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine studies with 5437 men in an analysis comparing dose-escalated RT versus conventional dose RT for the treatment of prostate cancer. The mean participant age ranged from 67 to 71 years. Almost all men had localized prostate cancer (cT1-3N0M0). Primary outcomes Dose-escalated RT probably results in little to no difference in time to death from prostate cancer (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.04; I2 = 0%; 8 studies; 5231 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Assuming a risk of death from prostate cancer of 4 per 1000 at 10 years in the conventional dose RT group, this corresponds to 1 fewer men per 1000 (1 fewer to 0 more) dying of prostate cancer in the dose-escalated RT group. Dose-escalated RT probably results in little to no difference in severe RT toxicity of grade 3 or higher late gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.25; I2 = 0%; 8 studies; 4992 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); 23 more men per 1000 (10 more to 40 more) in the dose-escalated RT group assuming severe late GI toxicity as 32 per 1000 in the conventional dose RT group. Dose-escalated RT probably results in little to no difference in severe late genitourinary (GU) toxicity (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.63; I2 = 0%; 8 studies; 4962 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); 9 more men per 1000 (2 fewer to 23 more) in the dose-escalated RT group assuming severe late GU toxicity as 37 per 1000 in the conventional dose RT group. Secondary outcomes Dose-escalated RT probably results in little to no difference in time to death from any cause (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; I2 = 0%; 9 studies; 5437 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Assuming a risk of death from any cause of 101 per 1000 at 10 years in the conventional dose RT group, this corresponds to 2 fewer men per 1000 (11 fewer to 9 more) in the dose-escalated RT group dying of any cause. Dose-escalated RT probably results in little to no difference in time to distant metastasis (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.22; I2 = 45%; 7 studies; 3499 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Assuming a risk of distant metastasis of 29 per 1000 in the conventional dose RT group at 10 years, this corresponds to 5 fewer men per 1000 (12 fewer to 6 more) in the dose-escalated RT group developing distant metastases. Dose-escalated RT may increase overall late GI toxicity (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.55; I2 = 85%; 7 studies; 4328 participants; low-certainty evidence); 92 more men per 1000 (14 more to 188 more) in the dose-escalated RT group assuming overall late GI toxicity as 342 per 1000 in the conventional dose RT group. However, dose-escalated RT may result in little to no difference in overall late GU toxicity (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.29; I2 = 51%; 7 studies; 4298 participants; low-certainty evidence); 34 more men per 1000 (9 fewer to 82 more) in the dose-escalated RT group assuming overall late GU toxicity as 283 per 1000 in the conventional dose RT group. Based on long-term follow-up (up to 36 months), dose-escalated RT may result or probably results in little to no difference in the quality of life using 36-Item Short Form Survey; physical health (MD -3.9, 95% CI -12.78 to 4.98; 1 study; 300 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and mental health (MD -3.6, 95% CI -83.85 to 76.65; 1 study; 300 participants; low-certainty evidence), respectively.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to conventional dose RT, dose-escalated RT probably results in little to no difference in time to death from prostate cancer, time to death from any cause, time to distant metastasis, and RT toxicities (except overall late GI toxicity). While dose-escalated RT may increase overall late GI toxicity, it may result, or probably results, in little to no difference in physical and mental quality of life, respectively.

Toxicity, quality of life, and PSA control after 50 Gy stereotactic body radiation therapy to the dominant intraprostatic nodule with the use of a rectal spacer: results of a phase I/II study

OBJECTIVES

We conducted a phase I/II prospective trial to determine whether stereotactic dose escalation to the dominant intra-prostatic nodule (DIN) up to 50 Gy incorporating a rectal balloon spacer is safe, does not affect patient quality of life, and preserves local control in patients with intermediate-high risk PCa.

METHODS

Eligible patients included males with stage ≤T3b localized disease, a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level ≤50 , International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) ≤14, and a gland volume ≤70 cm³. Patients underwent perirectal spacer placement, followed by a planning MRI and were subsequently treated with SBRT doses of 36.25 Gy in five fractions to the whole prostate while simultaneously escalating doses to the magnetic resonance image visible DIN up to 50 Gy. Primary endpoint: safety. Secondary endpoints: biochemical control, quality of life (QofL), and dosimetry outcome.

RESULTS

Nine patients were treated in the Phase I part of the study. Dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) were not observed. Further characterization of tolerability and efficacy was conducted in the subsequent 24 patients irradiated at the recommended Phase II dose (50 Gy, RP2D). At a median follow-up of 61 months, biochemical control is 69%. Grade 1 and 2 acute GU and GI toxicity was 57.5 and 15%, and 24.2 and 6.1%, respectively. Grade 1 and 2 late GU and GI toxicity was 66.6 and 12.1%, and 15.1 and 3%, respectively. No Grade 3 or higher toxicity was reported. QofL data confirmed physician's reported side effects. Dosimetry analysis showed adherence to the doses prescribed in the protocol.

CONCLUSIONS

SBRT of the whole prostate with 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions and dose escalation to 50 Gy to the DIN, when combined with a peri-rectal balloon spacer, was tolerable and established the RP2D. QofL analysis showed minimal negative impact in GU, GI, and sexual domains.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

Extreme hypofractionated prostate radiation therapy with focal dose escalation to the DIN is well tolerated with efficacy comparable to normal fractionated radiation therapy.

Long-term oncologic outcomes of low dose-rate brachytherapy compared to hypofractionated external beam radiotherapy for intermediate -risk prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To compare the long-term oncologic outcomes of intermediate risk (IR) prostate cancer (PCa) patients treated with low dose-rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT) or moderate hypofractionated external beam radiotherapy (HF-EBRT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients diagnosed with IR PCa and treated with LDR-BT or HF-EBRT between January 2005 and December 2013 were included. Brachytherapy treatment involved a transperineal implant of iodine-125 to a dose of 145 Gy to the PTV, while HF-EBRT was delivered using intensity modulated radiotherapy with 60 Gy in 20 fractions. The Phoenix ''nadir +2'' threshold was used to define biochemical relapse (BR). The cumulative incidence function (CIF) of BR and metastases was reported for each group and compared using the Gray's test to account for the competing risk of death. The Kaplan-Meier (KM) method was used to estimate overall survival (OS) and prostate cancer specific survival (PCSS). Univariate (UVA) and multivariable (MVA) analysis of the CIF of BR and metastases were performed. A 2-tailed p-value ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Overall, 122 and 124 patients were treated with LDR-BT and HF-EBRT respectively. Median follow-up was 95 months [interquartile range (IQR): 79-118] in the LDR-BT group and 96 months (IQR: 63-123) in the HF-EBRT group. BR was observed in 5 patients treated with LDR-BT and 34 treated with HF-EBRT. At 60 and 90 months, the CIF of BR was 0.9% and 3.5% in the LDR-BT group vs. 16.6% and 23.7% in the HF-EBRT (p < 0.001). The CIF of metastases at 90 and 108 months, was 0% and 1.6% vs. 3.4% and 9.1% in the LDR-BT and HF-EBRT groups (p = 0.003), respectively. At the last follow-up, 3 patients treated with HF-EBRT died from their cancer [PCSS of 97.5% at 8 years and none died in the LDR-BT group (p = 0.09). On UVA and MVA risk group and treatment modality were independently associated with CIF of BR. On UVA HF-EBRT and ISUP grade group 3 were associated with metastases.

CONCLUSION

LDR-BT was associated with higher biochemical and metastases control in our cohort when compared to moderately HF-EBRT. In the absence of a randomized trial, LDR-BT when feasible should be offered to patients with a life expectancy of >8 years.

Effects of gold fiducial marker implantation on tumor control and toxicity in external beam radiotherapy of prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Evidence regarding the effects of fiducials in image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) for tumor control and acute and late toxicity is sparse.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with primary low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer, 40 with and 21 without gold fiducial markers (GFM), and treated between 2010 and 2015 were retrospectively included. The decision for or against GFM implantation took anaesthetic evaluation and patient choice into account. IGRT was performed using electronic portal imaging devices. The prescribed dose was 78 Gy, with 2 Gy per fraction. Biochemical no evidence of disease (bNED) failure was defined using the Phoenix criteria. Acute and late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary toxicity (GU) were assessed using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group criteria.

RESULTS

Most patients did not receive GFM due to contraindications for anaesthesia or personal choice (60% and 25%). Regarding tumor control, no significant differences were found regarding bNED and overall and disease-specific survival (p = 0.61, p = 0.56, and p > 0.9999, respectively). No significant differences in acute and late GI (p = 0.16 and 0.64) and GU toxicity (p = 0.58 and 0.80) were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

We were unable to detect significant benefits in bNED or in early or late GI and GU side effects after GFM implantation.

Standard and Hypofractionated Dose Escalation to Intraprostatic Tumor Nodules in Localized Prostate Cancer: 5-Year Efficacy and Toxicity in the DELINEATE Trial

PURPOSE

Our purpose was to report 5-year efficacy and toxicity of intraprostatic lesion boosting using standard and hypofractionated radiation therapy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

DELINEATE (ISRCTN 04483921) is a single center phase 2 multicohort study including standardly fractionated (cohort A: 74 Gy/37F to prostate and seminal vesicles [PSV]; cohort C 74 Gy/37F to PSV plus 60 Gy/37F to pelvic lymph nodes) and moderately hypofractionated (cohort B: 60 Gy/20F to PSV) prostate intensity-modulated radiation therapy patients with National Comprehensive Cancer Network intermediate/high-risk disease. Patients received an integrated boost of 82 Gy (cohorts A and C) or 67 Gy (cohort B) to multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging identified lesion(s). Primary endpoint was late Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity at 1 year. Secondary endpoints were acute and late toxicity (clinician and patient reported) and freedom from biochemical/clinical failure at 5 years.

RESULTS

Two hundred and sixty-five men were recruited and 256 were treated (55 cohort A, 153 cohort B, and 48 cohort C). Median follow-up for each cohort was >5 years. Cumulative late RTOG grade 2+ GI toxicity at 1 year was 3.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9%-13.8%) (cohort A), 7.2% (95% CI, 4%-12.6%) (cohort B), and 8.4% (95% CI, 3.2%-20.8%) (cohort C). Cumulative late RTOG grade 2+ GI toxicity to 5 years was 12.8% (95% CI, 6.3%-25.1%) (cohort A), 14.6% (95% CI, 9.9%-21.4%) (cohort B), and 20.7% (95% CI, 11.2%-36.2%) (cohort C). Cumulative RTOG grade 2+ genitourinary toxicity to 5 years was 12.9% (95% CI, 6.4%-25.2%) (cohort A), 18.2% (95% CI, 12.8%-25.4%) (cohort B), and 18.2% (95% CI, 9.5%-33.2%) (cohort C). Five-year freedom from biochemical/clinical failure was 98.2% (95% CI, 87.8%-99.7%) (cohort A), 96.7% (95% CI, 91.3%- 98.8%) (cohort B), and 95.1% (95% CI, 81.6-98.7%) (cohort C).

CONCLUSIONS

The DELINEATE trial has shown safety, tolerability, and feasibility of focal boosting in 20 or 37 fractions. Efficacy results indicate a low chance of prostate cancer recurrence 5 years after radiation therapy. Evidence from ongoing phase 3 randomized trials is awaited.

A clinical study comparing polymer and gold fiducials for prostate cancer radiotherapy

Introduction

Image guidance with gold fiducials improves outcomes of prostate radiotherapy. However, gold produces artefact on CT imaging, interfering with contouring and verification. The purpose of this study was to compare polymer to standard gold fiducials using radiotherapy imaging modalities to assess the visibility and artefact.

Methods

Twenty eight patients with locally advanced prostate cancer were enrolled, half had three polymer fiducials implanted into the prostate and half underwent insertion of gold fiducials. Patients were imaged with CT, T2 weighted MRI, cone-beam CT (CBCT) and planar KV images. Fiducials were scored for visibility and assessed for CT artefact in surrounding prostate tissue. The artefact was quantified from Hounsfield number histograms and separated into percentile ranges and proportion of voxels in HU normal tissue range of a 2cm sphere surrounding the fiducial.

Results

Gold and polymer fiducials were sufficiently visible for CT and CBCT verification. The gold fiducials could be visualized well on KV planar imaging; however, the polymer markers were obscured by pelvic bones. Neither polymer nor gold fiducials could be visualized on MRI. The polymer fiducial produced less artefact than gold on CT, having less voxel spread for the HU percentile ranges and a greater proportion of voxels in the normal tissue range.

Conclusions

Polymer fiducials are a more suitable fiducial than gold for CT/CBCT in prostate cancer radiotherapy, demonstrating minimal artefact and good visibility on CT. However, they were not well seen on MRI or KV imaging and thus not suitable for co-registration or planar KV verification.

Is an Endorectal Balloon Beneficial for Rectal Sparing after Spacer Implantation in Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with Hypofractionated Intensity-Modulated Proton Beam Therapy? A Dosimetric and Radiobiological Comparison Study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to examine the dosimetric influence of endorectal balloons (ERB) on rectal sparing in prostate cancer patients with implanted hydrogel rectum spacers treated with dose-escalated or hypofractionated intensity-modulated proton beam therapy (IMPT).

METHODS

Ten patients with localized prostate cancer included in the ProRegPros study and treated at our center were investigated. All patients underwent placement of hydrogel rectum spacers before planning. Two planning CTs (with and without 120 cm3 fluid-filled ERB) were applied for each patient. Dose prescription was set according to the h strategy, with 72 Gray (Gy)/2.4 Gy/5× weekly to prostate + 1 cm of the seminal vesicle, and 60 Gy/2 Gy/5× weekly to prostate + 2 cm of the seminal vesicle. Planning with two laterally opposed IMPT beams was performed in both CTs. Rectal dosimetry values including dose-volume statistics and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) were compared for both plans (non-ERB plans vs. ERB plans).

RESULTS

For ERB plans compared with non-ERB, the reductions were 8.51 ± 5.25 Gy (RBE) (p = 0.000) and 15.76 ± 11.11 Gy (p = 0.001) for the mean and the median rectal doses, respectively. No significant reductions in rectal volumes were found after high dose levels. The use of ERB resulted in significant reduction in rectal volume after receiving 50 Gy (RBE), 40 Gy (RBE), 30 Gy (RBE), 20 Gy (RBE), and 10 Gy (RBE) with p values of 0.034, 0.008, 0.003, 0.001, and 0.001, respectively. No differences between ERB and non-ERB plans for the anterior rectum were observed. ERB reduced posterior rectal volumes in patients who received 30 Gy (RBE), 20 Gy (RBE), or 10 Gy (RBE), with p values of 0.019, 0.003, and 0.001, respectively. According to the NTCP models, no significant reductions were observed in mean or median rectal toxicity (late rectal bleeding ≥ 2, necrosis or stenosis, and late rectal toxicity ≥ 3) when using the ERB.

CONCLUSION

ERB reduced rectal volumes exposed to intermediate or low dose levels. However, no significant reduction in rectal volume was observed in patients receiving high or intermediate doses. There was no benefit and also no disadvantage associated with the use of ERB for late rectal toxicity, according to available NTCP models.

Comparative evaluation of hypofractionated radiotherapy versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for patients with intermediate and high risk prostate cancer

Background

The purpose of this study was to comparatively evaluate an efficacy and toxicity profile of hypofractionated radiotherapy (67.5 Gy in 25 fractions) to conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (78 Gy in 39 fractions) in prostate cancer patients with intermediate and high-risk disease.

Materials and methods

From January 2015 to December 2018, 168 patients were randomized to hypofractionated radiation treatment and conventional fractionated radiation treatment schedules of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) to the prostate and seminal vesicles. All the patients also received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radiation therapy started after ADT.

Results

The median (range) follow-up was 51 (31-63) and 53 (33-64) months in the hypofractionated and conventionally fractionated regimes, respectively. The 3-year biochemical no evidence of disease (bNED) rates were 86.9% and 73.8% in the hypofractionated and conventionally fractionated groups, respectively (p = 0.032, significant). The 3-year bNED rates in patients at a high risk [i.e., pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) > 20 ng/mL, Gleason score ≥ 8, or T ≥ 2 c], were 87.9% and 73.5% (p = 0.007, significant) in the hypofractionated and conventionally fractionated radiotherapy groups, respectively. No statistically significant difference was found for late toxicity between the two groups, with 3-year grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicity rates of 19% and 16.7% and 3-year grade 2 genitourinary toxicity rates of 15.5% and 11.9% in the hypofractionated and conventionally fractionated radiotherapy groups, respectively.

Conclusion

Hypofractionated schedule is superior to the conventional fractionation schedule of radiation treatment in terms of bNED in intermediate and high grade prostate cancer patients. Also, the late toxicity is found to be equivalent between the two treatment groups.

Hyaluronic acid rectal spacer in EBRT: Usability, safety and symmetry related to user experience

OBJECTIVES

To report on the usability, safety, symmetry, and effectiveness of hyaluronic acid (HA) injected between the prostate and the rectum for patients undergoing treatment for prostate cancer with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), and present a novel definition of rectal spacer symmetry that is reproducible and independent of patient anatomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

102 consecutive patients with clinical stage of T1c-3b prostate cancer underwent general anaesthesia for fiducial marker insertion and injection of HA into the perirectal space before EBRT. HA safety, symmetry, separation, and usability based on user experience were assessed.

RESULTS

HA insertion was completed with a 100% success rate independent of user experience, rated as 'easy' or 'very easy' in all cases. There were no postoperative complications reported. The mean (SD) recto-prostatic separation for all patients at the base, midgland and apex were 12 (±2) mm, 11 (±2) mm, and 9 (±1) mm respectively. The mean sagittal length of the implant was 43 (±5) mm. The implant was rated as symmetrical in 98% of cases. The mean rV70Gy was 1.6% (IQR 0.8-3.3%) for patients receiving 78-80Gy. The mean rV53Gy was 2.8% (IQR 1.2-4.8%) for patients receiving 60-62Gy. The median prostate size was 43.5 cc (IQR 32-57).

CONCLUSION

Injection of HA was able to achieve highly symmetrical recto-prostatic separation, with new users able to produce excellent separation, particularly at the apex, achieving similar dosimetry outcomes as competent and experienced users. HA is safe, easy to use, and significantly reduced mean rV70Gy and rV53Gy compared to non-spacer patients.

Introducing new plan evaluation indices for prostate dose painting IMRT plans based on apparent diffusion coefficient images

BACKGROUND

Dose painting planning would be more complicated due to different levels of prescribed doses and more complex evaluation with conventional plan quality indices considering uniform dose prescription. Therefore, we tried to introduce new indices for evaluating the dose distribution conformity and homogeneity of treatment volumes based on the tumoral cell density and relative volumes of each lesion in prostate IMRT.

METHODS

CT and MRI scans of 20 male patients having local prostate cancer were used for IMRT DP planning. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) images were imported to a MATLAB program to identify lesion regions based on ADC values automatically. Regions with ADC values lower than 750 mm²/s and regions with ADC values higher than 750 and less than 1500 mm²/s were considered CTV_70Gy (clinical tumor volume with 70 Gy prescribed dose), and CTV_60Gy, respectively. Other regions of the prostate were considered as CTV_53Gy. New plan evaluation indices based on evaluating the homogeneity (IOE(H)), and conformity (IOE(C)) were introduced, considering the relative volume of each lesion and cellular density obtained from ADC images. These indices were compared with conventional homogeneity and conformity indices and IOEs without considering cellular density. Furthermore, tumor control probability (TCP) was calculated for each patient, and the relationship of the assessed indices were evaluated with TCP values.

RESULTS

IOE (H) and IOE (C) with considering cellular density had significantly lower values compared to conventional indices and IOEs without considering cellular density. (P < 0.05). TCP values had a stronger relationship with IOE(H) considering cell density (R² = -0.415), and IOE(C) without considering cell density (R² = 0.624).

CONCLUSION

IOE plan evaluation indices proposed in this study can be used for evaluating prostate IMRT dose painting plans. We suggested to consider cell densities in the IOE(H) calculation formula and it's appropriate to calculate IOE(C) without considering cell density values.

Dose-escalation in prostate cancer: Results of randomized trials

In 1998, an editorial from the International Journal of Radiation Oncology - Biology - Physics (IJROBP) on the occasion of the publication of Phase I by Zelefsky et al. on 3D radiotherapy dose escalation asked the question: "will more prove better?". More than 20 years later, several prospective studies have supported the authors' conclusions, making dose escalation a new standard in prostate cancer. The data from prospective randomized studies were ultimately disappointing in that they failed to show an overall survival benefit from dose escalation. However, there is a clear and consistent benefit in biochemical recurrence-free survival, which must be weighed on an individual patient basis against the potential additional toxicity of dose escalation. Techniques and concepts have become more and more precise, such as intensity modulated irradiation, simultaneous integrated boost, hypofractionated dose-escalation, pelvic irradiation with involved node boost or focal dose-escalation on gross recurrence after prostatectomy. The objective here was to summarize the prospective data on dose escalation in prostate cancer and in particular on recent advances in the field. In 2022, can we finally say that more has proven better?

Advancements in the radiooncological treatment of high-risk prostate cancer: a quarter century of achievements

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to evaluate the development of treatment of primary high-risk prostate cancer in regards to biochemical no evidence of disease (bNED), acute and late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) side effects.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Primary high-risk prostate cancer patients treated between 1994 and 2016 were included. Applied doses ranged from 60 to 80 Gy, with a dose of 1.8 or 2 Gy per fraction. Techniques were either 3D conformal or intensity modulated radiotherapy and volumetric intensity modulated arc therapy.

RESULTS

142 patients were treated with doses up to 70 Gy (median dose 66 Gy; 66 Gy group), 282 with doses between 70 and 76 Gy (median dose 74 Gy; 74 Gy group), and 141 with doses >76 Gy (median dose 78 Gy; 78 Gy group). The median follow-up was 48 months. The bNED rates were 50% after 5 years and 44% after 9 years in the 66 Gy group; 65% and 54%, respectively, in the 74 Gy group; and 83% and 66%, respectively, in the 78 Gy group (p = 0.03 vs. 74 Gy and p < 0.0001 vs. 66 Gy). We found a higher rate of acute GI side effects in the 78 Gy group compared to the other groups, but not in maximum acute GU side effects and late maximum GI and GU effects.

CONCLUSIONS

High-risk prostate cancer patients treated with doses of 78 Gy had significantly better bNED rates. Compared to the historical 66 Gy group, 50% more patients achieved bNED after a follow-up of 9 years.

A Prospective Study of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) with Concomitant Whole-Pelvic Radiotherapy (WPRT) for High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer Patients Using 1.5 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Guidance: The Preliminary Clinical Outcome

Background: Conventionally fractionated whole-pelvic nodal radiotherapy (WPRT) improves clinical outcome compared to prostate-only RT in high-risk prostate cancer (HR-PC). MR-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy (MRgSBRT) with concomitant WPRT represents a novel radiotherapy (RT) paradigm for HR-PC, potentially improving online image guidance and clinical outcomes. This study aims to report the preliminary clinical experiences and treatment outcome of 1.5 Tesla adaptive MRgSBRT with concomitant WPRT in HR-PC patients. Materials and methods: Forty-two consecutive HR-PC patients (72.5 ± 6.8 years) were prospectively enrolled, treated by online adaptive MRgSBRT (8 Gy(prostate)/5 Gy(WPRT) × 5 fractions) combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and followed up (median: 251 days, range: 20−609 days). Clinical outcomes were measured by gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Scale v. 5.0, patient-reported quality of life (QoL) with EPIC (Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite) questionnaire, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) responses. Results: All MRgSBRT fractions achieved planning objectives and dose specifications of the targets and organs at risk, and they were successfully delivered. The maximum cumulative acute GI/GU grade 1 and 2 toxicity rates were 19.0%/81.0% and 2.4%/7.1%, respectively. The subacute (>30 days) GI/GU grade 1 and 2 toxicity rates were 21.4%/64.3% and 2.4%/2.4%, respectively. No grade 3 toxicities were reported. QoL showed insignificant changes in urinary, bowel, sexual, and hormonal domain scores during the follow-up period. All patients had early post-MRgSBRT biochemical responses, while biochemical recurrence (PSA nadir + 2 ng/mL) occurred in one patient at month 18. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first prospective study that showed the clinical outcomes of MRgSBRT with concomitant WPRT in HR-PC patients. The early results suggested favorable treatment-related toxicities and encouraging patient-reported QoLs, but long-term follow-up is needed to confirm our early results.

Role of Brachytherapy Boost in Clinically Localized Intermediate and High-Risk Prostate Cancer: Lack of Benefit in Patients with Very High-Risk Factors T3b-4 and/or Gleason 9-10

Simple Summary

In general, brachytherapy (BT) improves biochemical control in intermediate-to high-risk prostate cancer. We previously reported that importance of very high-risk factors (VHR: T3b–4 or Gleason score 9–10) and patients with double VHR (VHR-2) showed the worst prognosis among high-risk groups. We explored the role of BT-boost in patients with VHR and compared it to intermediate- and other high-risk groups. We confirmed that BT-boost improved prostate-specific antigen (PSA) control but resulted in equivalent overall survival rates for the intermediate- and high-risk groups, except for the patients with VHR. In the VHR-1 group (single VHR), BT-boost showed superior PSA control to conventional-dose RT (EQD2 ≤ 72 Gy) but not to the dose-escalated radiotherapy group (EQD2 ≥ 74 Gy). In the VHR-2 group, BT-boost did not improve the biochemical control rate of either Conv RT or DeRT. BT-boost showed no benefit over modern DeRT in the patients with VHR.

Abstract

This study examined the role of brachytherapy boost (BT-boost) and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer, especially in patients with very high-risk factors (VHR: T3b–4 or Gleason score 9–10) as patients with double very high-risk factors (VHR-2: T3b–4 and Gleason score 9–10) previously showed worst prognosis in localized prostate cancer. We retrospectively reviewed multi-institutional data of 1961 patients that were administered radiotherapy (1091 BT-boost and 872 EBRT: 593 conventional-dose RT (Conv RT: equivalent to doses of 2 Gy per fraction = EQD2 ≤ 72 Gy) and 216 dose-escalating RT (DeRT = EQD2 ≥ 74 Gy). We found that BT-boost improved PSA control and provided an equivalent overall survival rate in the intermediate- and high-risk groups, except for patients within the VHR factor group. In the VHR-1 group (single VHR), BT-boost showed a superior biochemical control rate to the Conv RT group but not to the DeRT group. In the VHR-2 group, BT-boost did not improve outcomes of either Conv RT or DeRT groups. In conclusion, BT-boost showed no benefit to modern DeRT in the patients with VHR; therefore, they are not good candidates for BT-boost to improve outcome and may be amenable to clinical trials using multimodal intensified systemic treatments.

Propensity score-matched analysis comparing dose-escalated intensity-modulated radiation therapy versus external beam radiation therapy plus high-dose-rate brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer

Purpose

Dose-escalated external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and EBRT + high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) boost are guideline-recommended treatment options for localized prostate cancer. The purpose of this study was to compare long-term outcome and toxicity of dose-escalated EBRT versus EBRT + HDR-BT boost.

Methods

From 2002 to 2019, 744 consecutive patients received either EBRT or EBRT + HDR-BT boost, of whom 516 patients were propensity score matched. Median follow-up was 95.3 months. Cone beam CT image-guided EBRT consisted of 33 fractions of intensity-modulated radiation therapy with simultaneous integrated boost up to 76.23 Gy (D_Mean). Combined treatment was delivered as 46 Gy (D_Mean) EBRT, followed by two fractions HDR-BT boost with 9 Gy (D_90%). Propensity score matching was applied before analysis of the primary endpoint, estimated 10-year biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS), and the secondary endpoints metastasis-free survival (MFS) and overall survival (OS). Prognostic parameters were analyzed by Cox proportional hazard modelling. Genitourinary (GU)/gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity evaluation used the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events (v5.0).

Results

The estimated 10-year bRFS was 82.0% vs. 76.4% (p = 0.075) for EBRT alone versus combined treatment, respectively. The estimated 10-year MFS was 82.9% vs. 87.0% (p = 0.195) and the 10-year OS was 65.7% vs. 68.9% (p = 0.303), respectively. Cumulative 5‑year late GU ≥ grade 2 toxicities were seen in 23.6% vs. 19.2% (p = 0.086) and 5‑year late GI ≥ grade 2 toxicities in 11.1% vs. 5.0% of the patients (p = 0.002); cumulative 5‑year late grade 3 GU toxicity occurred in 4.2% vs. 3.6% (p = 0.401) and GI toxicity in 1.0% vs. 0.3% (p = 0.249), respectively.

Conclusion

Both treatment groups showed excellent long-term outcomes with low rates of severe toxicity.

Brachytherapy focal dose escalation using ultrasound based tissue characterization by patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer: Five-year results from single-center phase 2 trial

PURPOSE

This prospective trial investigates side effects and efficacy of focal dose escalation with brachytherapy for patients with prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

In the Phase II, monocentric prospective trial 101 patients with low-/intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer were enrolled between 2011 and 2013. Patients received either PDR-/HDR-brachytherapy alone with 86-90 Gy (EQD2, α/β = 3 Gy) or PDR-/HDR-brachytherapy as boost after external beam radiation therapy up to a total dose of 91-96 Gy (EQD2, α/β = 3 Gy). Taking place brachytherapy all patients received the simultaneous integrated focal boost to the intra-prostatic tumor lesions visible in computer-aided ultrasonography (HistoScanning™) - up to a total dose of 108-119 Gy (EQD2, α/β = 3 Gy). The primary endpoint was toxicity. Secondary endpoints were cumulative freedom from local recurrence, PSA-free survival, distant metastases-free survival, and overall survival. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01409876.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 65 months. Late toxicity was generally low with only four patients scoring urinary grade 3 toxicity (4/101, 4%). Occurrence of any grade of late rectal toxicities was very low. We did not register any grade ≥2 of late rectal toxicities. The cumulative 5 years local recurrence rate (LRR) for all patients was 1%. Five years- biochemical disease-free survival estimates according Kaplan-Meier were 98,1% and 81,3% for low-/intermediate-risk and high-risk patients, respectively. Five years metastases-free survival estimates according Kaplan-Meier were 98,0% and 83,3% for all patients, low-/intermediate-risk and high-risk patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The 5 years-results from this Phase II Trial show that focal dose escalation with computer-aided ultrasonography and brachytherapy for patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer is safe and effective.

Moderate hypofractionated helical tomotherapy for older patients with localized prostate cancer: long-term outcomes of a phase I-II trial

BACKGROUND

Our previous study showed that two different regimens of moderate hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT) delivered with helical tomotherapy (HT) are well tolerated in older prostate cancer patients. We provide a longterm efficacy and toxicity after > 7 years of follow-up.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study recruited 33 patients from February 2009 to July 2011 (76 Gy/34F; Group-1); and 34 from July 2011 to February 2014 (71.6 Gy/28F; 50.4 Gy/25F for the risk of pelvic lymph nodes involvement (LNI) >15%; Group-2). The primary outcomes were biochemical failure (BF), biochemical failure and clinical disease failure (BCDF), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity.

RESULTS

The average ages of two groups were 80 and 77 years and the proportions of patients with LNI > 15% were 69.7% and 73.5%, respectively. At the final follow-up in February 2020, 27.3% and 20.6% cases experienced BF, with a median time until BF of 3.3 years. A total of 38.8% patients reached primary endpoints, in which 18 deaths were reported BCDF events (45.5% vs. 32.4%, p = 0.271). There was no significant difference in 7-year PFS (68.6% vs. 74.8%, p = 0.591), BCDF (45.5% vs. 32.4%, p = 0.271) and OS (71.9% vs. 87.5%, p = 0.376) for full set analysis and for subgroup analysis (all p > 0.05). The incidence of grade ≥ 2 late GU (6.2% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.127) and GI toxicities (9.4% vs. 15.6%, p = 0.554) was comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

In older patients with localized prostate cancer, two moderate hypofractionated regimens were all well tolerated with similar, mild late toxicities and satisfactory survival, without necessity of prophylactic pelvic node irradiation.

Narrative review of local prostate and metastasis-directed radiotherapy in the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer

The role of local treatment in patients with de novo metastatic prostate cancer is controversial. In population-based retrospective studies, metastatic prostate cancer patients who received local treatment with prostate radiotherapy showed a better prognosis than those who did not. In addition, several prospective randomized studies demonstrated that prostate radiotherapy achieves a survival benefit for patients with oligo-metastasis. Moreover, the efficacy of metastasis-directed radiotherapy was evaluated, revealing a potential benefit for patients with oligo-metastasis. Importantly, these radiotherapies may reduce the occurrence of symptomatic local events. In this review, the rationale, efficacy and future perspectives for local prostate and metastasis-directed radiotherapy in the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer were described and summarized.

Patient-related risk factors for late rectal bleeding after hypofractionated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: a single-center retrospective study

Background

Several studies have reported patient-related risk factors for late rectal bleeding following conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer. We investigated patient-related risk factors for late rectal bleeding after hypofractionated radiotherapy.

Methods

A total of 231 patients with local or locally advanced prostate cancer treated with hypofractionated radiotherapy (70 or 67.2 Gy in 28 fractions) were evaluated retrospectively. All patients received intensity-modulated radiotherapy with daily image guidance. The relationships between late rectal bleeding and risk factors like diabetes, hypertension, cirrhosis, and anticoagulant use were analyzed.

Results

During a median follow-up of 23 months, the crude rates of grade ≥ 1, grade ≥ 2, and grade ≥ 3 late rectal bleeding were 23.8%, 16.9%, and 9.5%, respectively. Cirrhosis and anticoagulant use predicted an increased risk of grade ≥ 3 rectal bleeding in multivariable analyses (hazard ratio [HR] 14.37, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.09–66.87, P = 0.001, and HR 2.93, 95% CI 1.14–7.55, P = 0.026, respectively). The non-anticoagulant group had a significantly superior 5-year freedom from grade ≥ 3 bleeding compared to the anticoagulant group in a propensity-weighted log-rank analysis (88.0% vs. 76.7%, P = 0.041). A receiver operating characteristic curve analysis revealed that rectal bleeding was minimized in the anticoagulant group if the equivalent dose at fractionation of 2 Gy (EQD2) V77 Gy of the rectum was < 4.5% or if the EQD2 V8.2 Gy was < 71.0%.

Conclusions

Patients taking anticoagulants or those with cirrhosis had a significantly higher risk of severe late rectal bleeding than other patients after hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer in the present study. The bleeding risk could be lowered by minimizing hotspots in patients taking anticoagulants.

Outcomes of intensity-modulated radiation therapy for intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer: a single-institutional study

BACKGROUND

There are few reports from Japan about the outcomes of intensity-modulated radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer. This study was aimed at assessing the efficacy and toxicity of intensity-modulated radiation therapy in patients with intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a review of the data, retrieved from our institutional database, of patients who had received intensity-modulated radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer at a radiation dose of 78 Gy in 39 fractions. Data of 201 patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer and 311 patients with high-risk prostate cancer were analyzed.

RESULTS

The median follow-up period after the completion of intensity-modulated radiation therapy was 100 months (range, 24-154). The rates of cause-specific survival, overall survival, metastasis-free survival and biochemical recurrence-free survival in the intermediate-risk patients were 99, 95, 95 and 94% at 5 years and 99, 91, 90 and 86% at 8 years, respectively; the corresponding rates in the high-risk patients were 100, 97, 91 and 84% at 5 years and 96, 92, 84 and 76% at 8 years, respectively. The crude incidence of late grade 2-3 genitourinary toxicity was 28.1%, and that of late grade 3 genitourinary toxicity was 2.0%. The crude incidence of late grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicity was 5.1%, and there were no cases of late grade 3 gastrointestinal toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data demonstrated that intensity-modulated radiation therapy is effective for patients with localized intermediate-risk or high-risk prostate cancer while having minimal toxicity.

Adding Short-Term Androgen Deprivation Therapy to Radiation Therapy in Men With Localized Prostate Cancer: Long-Term Update of the NRG/RTOG 9408 Randomized Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

For men with localized prostate cancer, NRG Oncology/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 9408 demonstrated that adding short-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to radiation therapy (RT) improved the primary endpoint of overall survival (OS) and improved disease-specific mortality (DSM), biochemical failure (BF), local progression, and freedom from distant metastases (DM). This study was performed to determine whether the short-term ADT continued to improve OS, DSM, BF, and freedom from DM with longer follow-up.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

From 1994 to 2001, NRG/RTOG 9408 randomized 2028 men from 212 North American institutions with T1b-T2b, N0 prostate adenocarcinoma and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤20ng/mL to RT alone or RT plus short-term ADT. Patients were stratified by PSA, tumor grade, and surgical versus clinical nodal staging. ADT was flutamide with either goserelin or leuprolide for 4 months. Prostate RT (66.6 Gy) was started after 2 months. OS was calculated at the date of death from any cause or at last follow-up. Secondary endpoints were DSM, BF, local progression, and DM. Acute and late toxic effects were assessed using RTOG toxicity scales.

RESULTS

Median follow-up in surviving patients was 14.8 years (range, 0.16-21.98). The 10-year and 18-year OS was 56% and 23%, respectively, with RT alone versus 63% and 23% with combined therapy (HR 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-1.05; P = .94). The hazards were not proportional (P = .003). Estimated restricted mean survival time at 18 years was 11.8 years (95% CI, 11.4-12.1) with combined therapy versus 11.3 years with RT alone (95% CI, 10.9-11.6; P = .05). The 10-year and 18-year DSM was 7% and 14%, respectively, with RT alone versus 3% and 8% with combined therapy (HR 0.56; 95% CI, 0.41-0.75; P < .01). DM and BF favored combined therapy at 18 years. Rates of late grade ≥3 hepatic, gastrointestinal, and genitourinary toxicity were ≤1%, 3%, and 8%, respectively, with combined therapy versus ≤1%, 2%, and 5% with RT alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Further follow-up demonstrates that OS converges at approximately 15 years, by which point the administration of 4 months of ADT had conferred an estimated additional 6 months of life.

Quality of Life Implications of Dose-Escalated External Beam Radiation for Localized Prostate Cancer: Results of a Prospective Randomized Phase 3 Clinical Trial, NRG/RTOG 0126

PURPOSE

External beam radiation therapy (EBRT) dose escalation has been tested in multiple prospective trials. However, the impact on patient reported outcomes (PROs) associated with higher doses of EBRT remain poorly understood. We sought to assess the differences in PROs between men treated with a dose of 70.2 Gy versus 79.2 Gy of EBRT for prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The phase 3 clinical trial RTOG 0126 randomized 1532 patients with prostate cancer between March 2002 and August 2008 to 79.2 Gy over 44 fractions versus 70.2 Gy over 39 fractions. Eligible patients participated in the PRO data collection. PROs completed included the International Index of Erectile Function Questionnaire (IIEF), Functional Alterations due to Changes in Elimination (FACE), and the Spitzer Quality of Life Index (SQLI). The timepoints for the IIEF were collected pre-entry and at 6, 12, and 24 months. The FACE and SQLI were collected pre-entry and at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. The impact of EBRT dose to normal structures (penile bulb, rectum, and bladder) on PROs was also examined. Mixed effects models were used to analyze trends across time.

RESULTS

In total, 1144 patients completed baseline IIEF forms and of these, 56%, 64%, and 61% completed the IIEF at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively; 1123 patients completed the FACE score at baseline and 50%, 61%, 73%, 61%, and 65% completed all 15 items for the FACE metric at timepoints of 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, respectively. Erectile dysfunction at 12 months based on the single question was not significantly different between arms (38.1% for the standard dose radiation therapy arm vs 49.7% for the dose escalated radiation therapy arm; P = .051). Treatment arm (70.2 vs 79.2) had no significant impact on any PRO metrics measured across all collected domains. Comprehensive dosimetric analyses are presented and reveal multiple significant differences to regional organs at risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Compliance with PRO data collection was lower than anticipated in this phase 3 trial. Examining the available data, dose escalated EBRT did not appear to be associated with any detriment to PROs across numerous prospectively collected domains. These data, notwithstanding limitations, add to our understanding of the implications of EBRT dose escalation in prostate cancer. Furthermore, these results illustrate challenges associated with PRO data collection.