Evolution of advanced technologies in prostate cancer radiotherapy

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

Purpose

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

Materials and Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Radiological evaluation of an iodised hydrogel for prostate radiotherapy applications

PURPOSE

Physical separation of healthy tissue and target volumes in prostate radiotherapy through the insertion of hydrogel can improve patient toxicity rates. An iodised hydrogel may provide anatomical separation of prostate and rectum while being easily visualised through radio-opacity. The aim of this study was to characterise SpaceOAR Vue™ in kilovoltage (kV) images and megavoltage (MV) radiotherapy treatment planning.

METHODS

Two cassettes were 3D-printed, one filled with water and the other with SpaceOAR Vue™. Transmission dose through each cassette was measured in slab phantom geometry and compared for 6MV and 10MV photon energies. The SpaceOAR Vue™ slab phantom setup was simulated using computed tomography (CT) and a treatment plan created. The plan was calculated with the hydrogel segmented and material assignment set to water, and the resultant dose compared to corresponding measurement doses. The first 5 patients treated with SpaceOAR Vue™ were assessed with the volume and Hounsfield units (HU) of the hydrogel evaluated in CT and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging.

RESULTS

Transmission through Water and SpaceOAR Vue™ agreed to within 0.5% for both photon energies. Furthermore, the segmentation of SpaceOAR Vue™ and material assignment to water, resulted in a plan dose that agreed to measurement to within 0.5%. Clinically, the SpaceOAR Vue™ volume and HU did not vary over patient treatment course, however was found to display differently on different kV imaging modalities.

CONCLUSIONS

SpaceOAR Vue™ was found to be radio-opaque on kV images, but dosimetrically behaved similarly to water in MV treatment beams, making it suitable for clinical use.

The Current Trend of Radiation Therapy for Patients with Localized Prostate Cancer

A recent approach to radiotherapy for prostate cancer is the administration of high doses of radiation to the prostate while minimizing the risk of side effects. Thus, image-guided radiotherapy utilizes advanced imaging techniques and is a feasible strategy for increasing the radiation dose. New radioactive particles are another approach to achieving high doses and safe procedures. Prostate brachytherapy is currently considered as a combination therapy. Spacers are useful to protect adjacent organs, specifically the rectum, from excessive radiation exposure.

Impact of dose distribution on rotational setup errors in radiotherapy for prostate cancer

This study aimed to assess the impact of rotational setup errors on the target volume's dose distribution during radiotherapy for prostate cancer. A 6D robotic couch was used to describe the rotational setup error, and the dosage change in the target volume was analyzed using the planning evaluation factors. Treatment plans for three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), and volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) were established after contouring the target volume and surrounding normal tissues on tomography obtained from the humanoid phantom. A 6D robotic couch was employed in the radiation room to describe the rotational setup errors of ±1° to ±5° in roll, yaw, and pitch, and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images were obtained. Furthermore, the dose distribution was extracted from the 3DCRT, IMRT, and VMAT treatment plans, dose mapping was performed on CBCT that depicts the rotational setup error. Target coverage(TC) decreased by 0.39% to 2.17% in roll, 0.43% to 2.59% in yaw, and 0.70% to 4.12% in pitch, respectively. In the comparison using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) protocol criteria, when the rotational setup error of VMAT pitch was -2° or more, more than +1°, a target coverage of 95% or lower was shown, indicating the greatest effect among rotational setup errors. Furthermore, in 3DCRT, IMRT, and VMAT, the rotational setup error showed the greatest effect in pitch, and the dose change was larger in VMAT than in 3DCRT and IMRT. Therefore, specific rotational error due to pitch during radiotherapy for prostate cancer requires special consideration. Moreover, the more sophisticated and complex algorithms, such as VMAT, applied, the greater the dose change of target coverage due to rotational error; therefore, caution is required.

Cone-beam CT delta-radiomics to predict genitourinary toxicities and international prostate symptom of prostate cancer patients: a pilot study

For prostate cancer (PCa) patients treated with definitive radiotherapy (RT), acute and late RT-related genitourinary (GU) toxicities adversely impact disease-specific quality of life. Early warning of potential RT toxicities can prompt interventions that may prevent or mitigate future adverse events. During intensity modulated RT (IMRT) of PCa, daily cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images are used to improve treatment accuracy through image guidance. This work investigated the performance of CBCT-based delta-radiomic features (DRF) models to predict acute and sub-acute International Prostate Symptom Scores (IPSS) and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5 GU toxicity grades for 50 PCa patients treated with definitive RT. Delta-radiomics models were built using logistic regression, random forest for feature selection, and a 1000 iteration bootstrapping leave one analysis for cross validation. To our knowledge, no prior studies of PCa have used DRF models based on daily CBCT images. AUC of 0.83 for IPSS and greater than 0.7 for CTCAE grades were achieved as early as week 1 of treatment. DRF extracted from CBCT images showed promise for the development of models predictive of RT outcomes. Future studies will include using artificial intelligence and machine learning to expand CBCT sample sizes available for radiomics analysis.

A Cu-based nanoplatform for near-infrared light amplified multi-mode prostate cancer specific therapy

Chemodynamic therapy (CDT), as a new method for oncotherapy, can convert less reactive hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) into highly toxic hydroxyl radicals (˙OH) in the tumor microenvironment (TME) to kill tumor cells and inhibit tumor growth. However, the TME usually presents a low content of endogenous H₂O₂ and weak acidity, which weakens the therapeutic effect of CDT to a certain extent. Here, we developed a multifunctional nanoplatform based on Cu-doped mesoporous carbon nanospheres loaded with free radical generator 2'-azobis[2-(2-imidazolin-2-yl)propane]-dihydrochloride (AIPH) and polyacrylic acid (Cu-MNCS-AIPH@PAA). Cu-MNCS-AIPH@PAA exhibited high photothermal conversion efficiency, and could not only act as a good photothermal agent for photothermal therapy (PTT) but also trigger AIPH to produce alkyl radicals. In response to the specificity of the TME, Cu-MNCS-AIPH@PAA could generate ˙OH through a Fenton-like reaction for CDT and enhance the efficacy of CDT by a photothermal effect. The excellent anticancer efficiency by the synergistic effect of CDT, PTT and free radicals, high biocompatibility and low adverse effects of Cu-MNCS-AIPH@PAA make it an ideal nanoplatform for tumor therapy.

Adenoviral Vector for Enhanced Prostate Cancer Specific Transferrin Conjugated Drug Targeted Therapy

Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the leading causes of death for men worldwide. Unlike some other types of cancer, there is a lack of targeted therapy for prostate cancer patients that can kill cancer cells but do much less damage to the normal tissue. In this paper, we report on an adenoviral vector enhanced prostate cancer specific transferrin conjugated drug targeted therapy. In particular, a functional PCa-specific gene probe is introduced to drive and up-regulate the transferrin receptor expression on the PCa via adenoviral vector. As a result, significantly enhanced accumulation of nanoscale transferrin-doxorubicin (Tf-DOX) protein drug conjugates and concomitant notably elevated PCa tumor inhibition are observed. This conceptual strategy provides the proof-of-concept for the targeted therapy of PCa that is highly desired but not yet developed.

Demystifying radiation oncology clinical trial concerns for protocol scientific review and institutional review board committee members

Clinical trials are essential for evaluating advanced technologies and treatment approaches involving radiation therapy to improve outcomes for cancer patients. Clinical trials at cancer centers with designation from the National Cancer Institute must undergo scientific review in additional to Institutional Review Board approval. Given the highly specialized nature and rapidly advancing technologies of radiation therapy, and the small number of radiation oncology investigators at some centers, a lack of radiation oncology expertise among reviewers may present challenges at some cancer centers. This commentary aims to provide an overview of radiation therapy and special considerations for radiation oncology research that will serve as a helpful resource in the scientific review of clinical trials involving cancer patients.

Effective Combinations of Immunotherapy and Radiotherapy for Cancer Treatment

Though single tumor immunotherapy and radiotherapy have significantly improved the survival rate of tumor patients, there are certain limitations in overcoming tumor metastasis, recurrence, and reducing side effects. Therefore, it is urgent to explore new tumor treatment methods. The new combination of radiotherapy and immunotherapy shows promise in improving therapeutic efficacy and reducing recurrence by enhancing the ability of the immune system to recognize and eradicate tumor cells, to overcome tumor immune tolerance mechanisms. Nanomaterials, as new drug-delivery-system materials of the 21st century, can maintain the activity of drugs, improve drug targeting, and reduce side effects in tumor immunotherapy. Additionally, nanomaterials, as radiosensitizers, have shown great potential in tumor radiotherapy due to their unique properties, such as light, heat, electromagnetic effects. Here, we review the mechanisms of tumor immunotherapy and radiotherapy and the synergy of radiotherapy with multiple types of immunotherapies, including immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), tumor vaccines, adoptive cell therapy, and cytokine therapy. Finally, we propose the potential for nanomaterials in tumor radiotherapy and immunotherapy.

Landscape of Carbon Ion Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer: Clinical Application and Translational Research

Carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT) is a useful and advanced technique for prostate cancer. This study sought to investigate the clinical efficacy and translational research for prostate cancer with carbon ion radiotherapy. We integrated the data from published articles, clinical trials websites, and our data. The efficacy of CIRT for prostate cancer was assessed in terms of overall survival, biochemical recurrence-free survival, and toxicity response. Up to now, clinical treatment of carbon ion radiotherapy has been carried in only five countries. We found that carbon ion radiotherapy induced little genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity when used for prostate cancer treatment. To some extent, it led to improved outcomes in overall survival, biochemical recurrence-free survival than conventional radiotherapy, especially for high-risk prostate cancer. Carbon ion radiotherapy brought clinical benefits for prostate cancer patients, and quality of life assessment indicated that CIRT affected patients to a lesser extent. Potential biomarkers from our omics-based study could be used to predict the efficacy of prostate cancer with CIRT. Carbon ion radiotherapy brought clinical benefits for prostate cancer patients. The omics-based translational research may provide insights into individualized therapy.

Salvage therapy for prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy

More than 40% of men with intermediate-risk or high-risk prostate cancer will experience a biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Clinical guidelines for the management of these patients largely focus on the use of salvage radiotherapy with or without systemic therapy. However, not all patients with biochemical recurrence will go on to develop metastases or die from their disease. The optimal pre-salvage therapy investigational workup for patients who experience biochemical recurrence should, therefore, include novel techniques such as PET imaging and genomic analysis of radical prostatectomy specimen tissue, as well as consideration of more traditional clinical variables such as PSA value, PSA kinetics, Gleason score and pathological stage of disease. In patients without metastatic disease, the only known curative intervention is salvage radiotherapy but, given the therapeutic burden of this treatment, importance must be placed on accurate timing of treatment, radiation dose, fractionation and field size. Systemic therapy also has a role in the salvage setting, both concurrently with radiotherapy and as salvage monotherapy.

Trends and variations in utilization and costs of radiotherapy for prostate cancer: A SEER medicare analysis from 2007 through 2016

OBJECTIVE

To assess recent changes and disparities in utilization and costs of radiotherapy in Medicare beneficiaries with prostate cancer.

METHODS

Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) -Medicare linked data from 2006-2016 were used to identify continuously enrolled Medicare beneficiaries with a first-time diagnosis of prostate cancer who, within 12 months of diagnosis, underwent at least one radiotherapy related service. Trends in the utilization of different radiotherapy techniques over time, yearly changes in per-patient costs of radiotherapy, and effect of socio-demographic and clinical characteristics on total cost were measured. Per patient annual costs, annual incidence of prostate cancer, and utilization of radiotherapy were used to estimate total costs of radiotherapy to the Medicare program.

RESULTS

For Medicare beneficiaries with a first-time diagnosis of prostate cancer, the utilization of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), proton therapy, and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) increased 23.62%, 0.74% and 1.61% respectively (p <0.0001) while brachytherapy decreased 17.04% (p <0.0001). Cost per beneficiary decreased $340.24 (95% CI: $136.05 - $544.43) annually (p = 0.0065). Age, registry region, and Gleason score were all associated with expenditures. The total cost to the Medicare program was estimated at US $1.16 billion in the year 2016.

DISCUSSION

In Medicare beneficiaries with prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy, IMRT is the primary mode of treatment. Utilization of brachytherapy decreased significantly despite the efficacy and cost-effectiveness. Although per patient costs have decreased, the share of patient responsibility remained unaltered across years. The current costs to Medicare of radiotherapy for newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients is substantial.

3D-QSAR and Molecular Docking Studies on Design Anti-Prostate Cancer Curcumin Analogues

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is one of the most common tumors in the world and the fifth leading cause of male cancer death. Although the treatment of localized androgen-dependent prostate cancer has been successful, the efficacy of androgen-independent metastatic disease is limited. Curcumin, a natural product, has been found to inhibit the proliferation of prostate cancer cells.

OBJECTIVE

To design curcumin analogs with higher biological activity and lower toxicity and side effects for the treatment of prostate cancer.

METHODS

In this study, the three dimensional-quantitative structure activity relationship (3DQSAR) and molecular docking studies were performed on 34 curcumin analogs as anti-prostate cancer compounds. We introduced OSIRIS Property Explorer to predict drug-related properties of newly designed compounds.

RESULTS

The optimum CoMSIA model exhibited statistically significant results: the cross-validated correlation coefficient q2 is 0.540 and non-cross-validated R2 value is 0.984. The external predictive correlation coefficient Rext 2 is 0.792. The information of structure-activity relationship can be obtained from the CoMSIA contour maps. In addition, the molecular docking study of the compounds for 3ZK6 as the protein target revealed important interactions between active compounds and amino acids.

CONCLUSION

Compound 28i may be a new type of anti-prostate cancer drug with higher biological activity and more promising development.

Volumetric-Modulated Arc Radiotherapy with Daily Image-Guidance Carries Better Toxicity Profile for Higher Risk Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

To compare radiotherapy-induced toxicity for localized prostate-cancer (PCa) treated with versus without daily image-guidance.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We identified consecutive intermediate and high-risk localized PCa patients treated with definitive radiotherapy using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with variable duration of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) within 2015-2016 (Arm-A) and 2005-2007 (Arm-B). Arm-A cases received daily online imaging guidance (IGRT) using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) unlike Arm-B candidates with no daily IGRT. After reporting demographic, clinico-pathological features and treatment details, we compared acute (within 3 months post-therapy) and late RT-induced toxicities between study groups graded by RTOG/CTCAE criteria. Uni/multivariate analyses (UVA/MVA) were performed to identify independent predictors for RT-related side-effects.

RESULTS

We were able to identify 257 cases who met our inclusion criteria. Overall, median age was 73 years (48-85), 67% had intermediate-risk and 47% received ADT. Arm-A included 72 patients who received IMRT delivered using volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), whereas, Arm-B was formed of 185 cases who utilized step-and-shoot static IMRT. Clinico-pathological features and treatment details were non-different across study arms except that Arm-A had more Grade Group 3, higher median total dose (79.2 vs. 74 Gy) and more pelvic lymph-nodes RT (p <0.05). Although acute toxicity was similar across groups, Arm-B encountered higher late toxicity score, more intense late genitourinary side-effects (P=0.008), with non-different late lower-gastrointestinal toxicities. On MVA, lack of daily CBCT, African-American race and higher comorbidities were independently predictive for late toxicities.  Conclusion: IMRT with daily CBCT permitted safe delivery of dose-escalated IMRT with improved toxicity profile for higher-risk prostate cancer.

Mini review: Personalization of the radiation therapy management of prostate cancer using MRI-based radiomics

Decisions on how to treat prostate cancer with radiation therapy are guideline-based but as such guidelines have been developed for populations of patients, this invariably leads to overly aggressive treatment in some patients and insufficient treatment in others. Heterogeneity within prostate tumors and in metastatic sites, even within the same patient, is believed to be a major cause of treatment failure. Radiomics biomarkers, more commonly referred to as radiomics 'features", provide readily available, cost-effective, non-invasive tools for screening, detecting tumors and serial monitoring of patients, including assessments of response to therapy and identification of therapeutic complications. Radiomics offers the potential to analyse whole tumors in 3D, as well as sub-regions or 'habitats' within tumors. Combining quantitative information from imaging with pathology, demographic details and other biomarkers will pave the way for personalised treatment selection and monitoring in prostate cancer. The aim of this review is to consider if MRI-based radiomics can bridge the gap between population-based management and personalised management of prostate cancer.

A Comparative Study on the Effects of Postoperative 125I Brachytherapy and Irradiation After Surgical Decompression and Stabilization for Metastatic Spinal Cancers

Purpose

The study aims to investigate and compare the efficacy and safety of intraoperative ¹²⁵I implantation and postoperative irradiation after surgical decompression and stabilization in the treatment of patients with metastatic epidural spinal cord compression (MESCC).

Methods

The study retrospectively enrolled 122 MESCC patients treated with surgical decompression and pedicle stabilization combined with ¹²⁵I brachytherapy (the brachytherapy group) or postoperative radiotherapy (the irradiation group). Operation time, intraoperative blood loss, pain relief, postoperative ambulatory status, postoperative survival outcome, complications, and length of hospitalization were collected and compared between the two groups. Ten potential risk factors were analyzed for postoperative survival outcome.

Results

No significant difference was found in baseline characteristics between the two groups (P>0.05). Postoperative VAS score was significantly decreased, as compared with preoperative scores in both groups (P˂0.001). The VAS in the brachytherapy group was significantly lower than that in the irradiation group at postoperative 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months (P˂0.05). The postoperative ambulatory rates were 90.0% (54/60) in the brachytherapy group and 83.9% (52/62) in the irradiation group (P=0.32). The median overall survival time was similar between the two groups (7.43 months vs 7.27 months, P=0.37). Of all patients in the brachytherapy group, 25.0% (15/60) of patients suffered from complications, while 46.8% (29/62) of patients had complications in the irradiation group (P=0.0086). According to the multiple Cox regression, primary sites (P=0.038), ECOG performance status (P=0.014), and visceral metastases (P=0.0016) showed significance for postoperative survival outcome.

Conclusion

Surgical decompression and spine stabilization combined with ¹²⁵I brachytherapy is a relatively safe and useful method in MESCC patients.

Effect of external beam radiotherapy on second primary cancer risk after radical prostatectomy

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to investigate the effect of radiotherapy (RT) in contemporary patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) compared to RP alone for non-metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) on the incidence of second primary cancers (SPCs).

METHODS

Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2004-2015), we identified patients with PCa as the only or first primary cancer, who underwent RP and RT or RP alone. Cumulative incidence plots and multivariable Cox regression models tested for SPC rate differences according to treatment type: RP and RT vs. RP alone. Subgroup analyses focused on pelvic, primary pelvic, and non-pelvic SPCs, as well as on late SPCs (>5 years after PCa diagnosis).

RESULTS

Of 152 161 patients, 7.1% (n=10 870) received RP and RT. Overall, 6.6 vs. 5.0% developed SPCs after RP and RT vs. RP alone, respectively (p<0.001). Cumulative incidence rates at 10 years after PCa diagnosis for RP and RT vs. RP were 12.0 vs. 8.7% (p<0.001), 2.0 vs. 1.2% (p<0.001), 2.1 vs. 1.3% (p<0.001), and 9.9 vs. 7.4% (p<0.001) for overall SPCs, primary pelvic SPCs, overall pelvic SPCs, and non-pelvic SPCs, respectively. Multivariable Cox regression models revealed an increased risk after RP and RT vs. RP alone for overall (hazard ratio [HR] 1.2; p<0.001), primary pelvic (HR 1.5; p<0.01), pelvic (HR1.4; p<0.001), non-pelvic (HR1.1; p<0.01), late overall (HR 1.2; p=0.01), and late non-pelvic SPCs (HR1.2; p=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

RP with RT was associated with moderately increased risk of SPCs compared to RP alone. This observation should be thoroughly discussed at informed consent and considered during followup.

Impact of Radiation Therapy Dose Escalation on Prostate Cancer Outcomes and Toxicities

OBJECTIVES

Freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) is a common primary outcome of randomized-controlled trials of prostate cancer (PCa). We aimed to determine how increasing the PCa biologically equivalent dose (BED) of external radiation therapy (RT) is correlated with FFBF and overall patient outcomes: overall survival (OS), distant metastasis (DM), and cancer-specific mortality (CSM); as well as genitourinary (GU), and gastrointestinal toxicities.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of 6884 PCa patients from 12 randomized-controlled trials of external beam RT. Mixed effects regression models were used to estimate weighted linear relationships between BED and observed percentages of 5- and 10-year outcomes. For toxicities, a subset analysis of using 3-dimensional conformal RT (3D-CRT) versus intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) was performed.

RESULTS

Increasing BED correlated with improved FFBF: 10-year absolute improvement of 9.6% and 7.2% for low-risk and intermediate-risk patients, respectively (P<0.05); but not with improvement of OS, DM, or CSM at either time point. BED escalation was not correlated with increased acute toxicities; it was correlated with increased late gastrointestinal toxicities in patients treated with 3D-CRT (1.5% increase over BED range, P<0.01). IMRT patients had significantly fewer late toxicities, despite being treated at higher BED.

CONCLUSIONS

RT BED escalation has resulted in significantly improved PCa FFBF at up to 10 years; but not with improvement in OS, DM, or CSM. Thus, FFBF is a poor surrogate of overall patient outcomes for trials of RT. Late toxicities were less frequent with IMRT than with 3D-CRT, even at higher BED.

Rectal radiation dose-reduction techniques in prostate cancer: a focus on the rectal spacer

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men. External beam radiotherapy by a variety of methods is a standard treatment option with excellent disease control. However, acute and late rectal side effects remain a limiting concern in intensification of therapy in higher-risk patients and in efforts to reduce treatment burden in others. A number of techniques have emerged that allow for high-radiation dose delivery to the prostate with reduced risk of rectal toxicity, including image-guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy, endorectal balloons and various forms of rectal spacers. Image-guided radiation therapy, either intensity-modulated radiation therapy or stereotactic ablative radiation therapy, in conjunction with a rectal spacer, is an efficacious means to reduce acute and long-term rectal toxicity.

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer

Radiation therapy (RT) is a curative treatment modality for localized prostate cancer. Over the past two decades, advances in technology and imaging have considerably changed RT in prostate cancer treatment. Treatment has evolved from 2-dimensional (2D) planning using X-ray fields based on pelvic bony landmarks to 3-dimensional (3D) conformal RT (CRT) which uses computed tomography (CT) based planning. Despite improvements with 3D-CRT, dose distributions often remained suboptimal with portions of the rectum and bladder receiving unacceptably high doses. In more recent years, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has become the standard of care to deliver external beam RT. IMRT uses multiple radiation beams of different shapes and intensities delivered from a wide range of angles to ‘paint’ the radiation dose onto the tumor. IMRT allows for a higher dose of radiation to be delivered to the prostate while reducing dose to surrounding organs. Multiple clinical trials have demonstrated improved cancer outcomes with dose escalation, but toxicities using 3D-CRT and escalated doses have been problematic. IMRT is a method to deliver dose escalated RT with more conformal dose distributions than 3D-CRT and has been associated with improved toxicity profiles. IMRT also appears to be the safest method to deliver hypofractionated RT and pelvic lymph node radiation. The purpose of this review is to summarize the technical aspects of IMRT planning and delivery, and to review the literature supporting the use of IMRT for prostate cancer.

Is prostate specific antigen (PSA) density necessary in selecting prostate cancer patients for active surveillance and what should be the cutoff in the Asian population?

Background

To investigate the role of Prostate Specific Antigen density (PSAD) in selecting prostate cancer patients for active surveillance (AS) and to determine a cutoff PSAD in identifying adverse pathological outcomes.

Methods

Data from 287 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer were retrospectively reviewed. Six different AS protocols, the University of Toronto; Royal Marsden; John Hopkins; University of California San Francisco (UCSF); Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) and Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS), were applied to the cohort. Pre-operative demographics and pathological outcomes were analysed. Statistical analyses on the predictive factors of adverse pathological outcomes and significance of PSAD were performed. A cutoff PSAD with best balance between sensitivity and specificity in identifying adverse pathological outcome was determined.

Results

PSAD predicted adverse pathological outcomes better than Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) level alone. The PSAD was significantly lower (0.12-0.13 ng/dl/ml) in protocols including PSAD (the John Hopkins and PRIAS) compared with the other four protocols not including PSAD as a selection criteria (0.21-0.25 ng/dl/dl, P = 0.00). PSAD predicted adverse pathological outcomes in all protocols not incorporating PSAD as an inclusion criteria (P = 0.00-0.02). By the receiver operator characteristics curve analysis, it was found that a PSAD level of 0.19 ng/ml/ml had the best balance between sensitivity and specificity in predicting pathological adverse disease (Area under curve = 0.63, P = 0.004).

Conclusion

PSAD is necessary in selecting prostate cancer patients for active surveillance. It predicts adverse pathological outcomes in patients eligible for active surveillance better than PSA level alone. A PSAD cutoff at 0.19 ng/ml/ml has the best balance between sensitivity and specificity in predicting pathological adverse disease. We recommend using AS protocol incorporating PSAD as a selection criteria (in particular the PRIAS protocol with a cutoff PSAD at 0.2 ng/ml/ml) when recruiting prostate cancer patients for AS.

Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline. Part II: Recommended Approaches and Details of Specific Care Options

PURPOSE

This guideline is structured to provide a clinical framework stratified by cancer severity to facilitate care decisions and guide the specifics of implementing the selected management options. The summary presented herein represents Part II of the two-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline discussing risk stratification and care options by cancer severity. Please refer to Part I for discussion of specific care options and outcome expectations and management.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The systematic review utilized in the creation of this guideline was completed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and through additional supplementation by ECRI Institute. This review included articles published between January 2007 and March 2014 with an update search conducted through August 2016. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence for a particular treatment was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. Additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions (table 2 in supplementary unabridged guideline, http://jurology.com/).

RESULTS

The AUA (American Urological Association), ASTRO, and SUO (Society of Urologic Oncology) formulated an evidence-based guideline based on a risk stratified clinical framework for the management of localized prostate cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

This guideline attempts to improve a clinician's ability to treat patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, but higher quality evidence in future trials will be essential to improve the level of care for these patients. In all cases, patient preferences should be considered when choosing a management strategy.

The evolution of proton beam therapy: Current and future status

Proton beam therapy (PBT) has been increasingly used in a variety of cancers due to its excellent physical properties and superior dosimetric parameters. PBT may improve patient survival by improving the local tumor treatment rate while reducing injury to normal organs, which may result in fewer radiation-induced adverse effects. However, the significant cost of establishing and maintaining proton facilities cannot be overlooked. In addition, there has been significant controversy regarding routine application of this treatment in certain types of cancer. The challenges of PBT in the future mainly include the lack of basic clinical trials, unclear biological effects, immature imaging technology and miniaturization of imaging guidance. Overcoming these limitations may promote the rapid development of PBT. We herein provide an overview of the existing literature on the efficacy and toxicity of common oncological applications of proton beam therapy.

The Missing Pieces in Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials of External Beam Radiation Therapy Dose Escalation for Prostate Cancer

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the most rigorous way of determining whether a cause-effect relation exists between treatment and outcome and for assessing the cost-effectiveness of a treatment. For many patients, cancer is a chronic illness; RCTs evaluating treatments for indolent cancers must evolve to facilitate medical decision-making, as "concrete" patient outcomes (eg, survival) will likely be excellent independent of the intervention, and detecting a difference between trial arms may be impossible. In this commentary, we articulate 9 recommendations that we hope future clinical trialists and funding agencies (including those under the National Cancer Institute) will take into consideration when planning RCTs to help guide subsequent interpretation of results and clinical decision making, based on RCTs of external beam radiation therapy dose escalation for the most common indolent cancer in men, that is, prostate cancer. We recommend routinely reporting: (1) race; (2) medical comorbidities; (3) psychiatric comorbidities; (4) insurance status; (5) education; (6) marital status; (7) income; (8) sexual orientation; and (9) facility-related characteristics (eg, number of centers involved, type of facilities, yearly hospital volumes). We discuss how these factors independently affect patient outcomes and toxicities; future clinicians and governing organizations should consider this information to plan RCTs accordingly (to maximize patient accrual and total n), select appropriate endpoints (eg, toxicity, quality of life, sexual function), actively monitor RCTs, and report results so as to identify the optimal treatment among subpopulations.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria for external beam radiation therapy treatment planning for clinically localized prostate cancer, part II of II

PURPOSE

To present the most updated American College of Radiology (ACR) Appropriateness Criteria formed by an expert panel on the appropriate delivery of external beam radiation to manage stage T1 and T2 prostate cancer (in the definitive setting and post-prostatectomy) and to provide clinical variants with expert recommendations based on accompanying Appropriateness Criteria for target volumes and treatment planning.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a panel of multidisciplinary experts. The guideline development and revision process includes an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In instances in which evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

RESULTS

The panel summarizes the most recent and relevant literature on the topic, including organ motion and localization methods, image guidance, and delivery techniques (eg, 3-dimensional conformal intensity modulation). The panel presents 7 clinical variants, including (1) a standard case and cases with (2) a distended rectum, (3) a large-volume prostate, (4) bilateral hip implants, (5) inflammatory bowel disease, (6) prior prostatectomy, and (7) a pannus extending into the radiation field. Each case outlines the appropriate techniques for simulation, treatment planning, image guidance, dose, and fractionation. Numerical rating and commentary is given for each treatment approach in each variant.

CONCLUSIONS

External beam radiation is a key component of the curative management of T1 and T2 prostate cancer. By combining the most recent medical literature, these Appropriateness Criteria can aid clinicians in determining the appropriate treatment delivery and personalized approaches for individual patients.

The evolution of brachytherapy for prostate cancer

Brachytherapy (BT), using low-dose-rate (LDR) permanent seed implantation or high-dose-rate (HDR) temporary source implantation, is an acceptable treatment option for select patients with prostate cancer of any risk group. The benefits of HDR-BT over LDR-BT include the ability to use the same source for other cancers, lower operator dependence, and - typically - fewer acute irritative symptoms. By contrast, the benefits of LDR-BT include more favourable scheduling logistics, lower initial capital equipment costs, no need for a shielded room, completion in a single implant, and more robust data from clinical trials. Prospective reports comparing HDR-BT and LDR-BT to each other or to other treatment options (such as external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or surgery) suggest similar outcomes. The 5-year freedom from biochemical failure rates for patients with low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk disease are >85%, 69-97%, and 63-80%, respectively. Brachytherapy with EBRT (versus brachytherapy alone) is an appropriate approach in select patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk disease. The 10-year rates of overall survival, distant metastasis, and cancer-specific mortality are >85%, <10%, and <5%, respectively. Grade 3-4 toxicities associated with HDR-BT and LDR-BT are rare, at <4% in most series, and quality of life is improved in patients who receive brachytherapy compared with those who undergo surgery.

Men's health supplement use and outcomes in men receiving definitive intensity-modulated radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Approximately 50% of newly diagnosed cancer patients start taking dietary supplements. Men's health supplements (MHSs), which we define as supplements that are specifically marketed with the terms men's health and prostate health (or similar permutations), are often mislabeled as having potential anticancer benefits.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the effects of MHSs on patient outcomes and toxicities in patients who were undergoing definitive intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for localized prostate cancer.

DESIGN

This retrospective analysis included patients who were being treated at a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center and consented to have information stored in a prospective database. MHSs were queried online. Outcome measures were freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) (biochemical failure was defined with the use of the prostate-specific antigen nadir + 2-ng/mL definition), freedom from distant metastasis (FFDM), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS) as well as toxicities. Kaplan-Meier analysis, log-rank tests, Fine and Gray competing-risk regression (to adjust for patient and lifestyle factors), and Cox models were used.

RESULTS

From 2001 to 2012, 2207 patients were treated with IMRT with a median dose of 78 Gy, and a median follow-up of 46 mo. Of these patients, 43% were low risk, 37% were intermediate risk, and 20% were high risk; 10% used MHSs. MHSs contained a median of 3 identifiable ingredients (range: 0-78 ingredients). Patients who were taking an MHS compared with those who were not had improved 5-y OS (97% compared with 92%, respectively; P = 0.01), but there were no differences in the FFBF (94% compared with 89%, respectively; P = 0.12), FFDM (96% compared with 97%, respectively; P = 0.32), or CSS (100% compared with 99%, respectively; P = 0.22). The unadjusted association between MHS use and improved OS was attenuated after adjustment for patient lifestyle factors and comorbidities. There was no difference in toxicities between the 2 groups (late-grade 3-4 genitourinary <3%; gastrointestinal <4%).

CONCLUSION

The use of MHSs is not associated with outcomes or toxicities.

Early Postoperative Radiotherapy is Associated with Worse Functional Outcomes in Patients with Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

The effect of time between radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy on postoperative functional outcomes is still unclear in patients with surgically managed prostate cancer. We hypothesized that a shorter time between radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy might be associated with worse functional recovery rates after radical prostatectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 2,190 patients treated with radical prostatectomy and stratified according to radiotherapy schedule (adjuvant radiotherapy, salvage radiotherapy, no radiotherapy). We examined recovery rates for erectile function and urinary function according to adjuvant radiotherapy, salvage radiotherapy and no radiotherapy, and according to time from surgery to radiotherapy. Cox regression analyses were used to evaluate the impact of these predictors on functional outcomes.

RESULTS

Median followup was 48 months. The 3-year erectile function recovery rates were 35.0%, 29.0% and 11.6% in patients who received no radiotherapy, salvage radiotherapy and adjuvant radiotherapy, respectively (p <0.001), and differed significantly according to time to radiotherapy (11.7% vs 34.7% for less than 1 year vs 1 year or more, respectively, p <0.001). The 3-year urinary continence recovery rates were 70.7%, 59.0% and 42.2% in patients who received no radiotherapy, salvage radiotherapy and adjuvant radiotherapy, respectively (p <0.001), and differed according to time to radiotherapy (43.5% vs 62.7% for less than 1 year vs 1 year or more, respectively, p <0.001). Cox regression analyses confirmed the negative impact of early radiotherapy on recovery rates for erectile function and urinary continence.

CONCLUSIONS

Time from radical prostatectomy to radiotherapy has an important role in the recovery of erectile function and urinary continence. Delayed radiotherapy is preferred to improve functional outcomes after surgery.

Prostate Cancer Patients With Unmanaged Diabetes or Receiving Insulin Experience Inferior Outcomes and Toxicities After Treatment With Radiation Therapy

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the study was to determine the effect of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) on outcomes and toxicities among men with localized prostate cancer receiving definitive radiation therapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of 3217 patients, from 1998 to 2013, subdivided into 5 subgroups: (I) no T2DM; (II) T2DM receiving oral antihyperglycemic agent that contains metformin, no insulin; (III) T2DM receiving nonmetformin oral agent alone, no insulin; (IV) T2DM receiving any insulin; and (V) T2DM not receiving medication. Outcome measures were overall survival, freedom from biochemical failure (BF), freedom from distant metastasis, cancer-specific survival, and toxicities. Kaplan-Meier analysis, log rank tests, Fine and Gray competing risk regression (to adjust for patient and lifestyle factors), Cox models, and subdistribution hazard ratios (sHRs) were used.

RESULTS

Of the 3217 patients, 1295 (40%) were low-risk, 1192 (37%) were intermediate-risk, and 652 (20%) were high risk. The group I to V distribution was 81%, 8%, 5%, 3%, and 4%. The median dose was 78 Gy, and the median follow-up time was 50 (range, 1-190) months. Group V had increased mortality (sHR, 2.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66-1.54), BF (sHR, 2.14; 0.88-1.83), and cause-specific mortality (sHR, 3.87; 95% CI, 1.31-11). Acute toxicities were higher in group IV versus group I (genitourinary: 38% vs. 26%; P = .01; gastrointestinal: 21% vs. 5%; P = 001). Late toxicities were higher in groups IV and V versus group I (12%-14% vs. 2%-6%; P < .01).

CONCLUSION

Men with T2DM not receiving medication and men with T2DM receiving insulin had worse outcomes and toxicities compared to other patients.

A comparison of robotic arm versus gantry linear accelerator stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is the most prevalent cancer diagnosed in men in the United States besides skin cancer. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT; 6–15 Gy per fraction, up to 45 minutes per fraction, delivered in five fractions or less, over the course of approximately 2 weeks) is emerging as a popular treatment option for prostate cancer. The American Society for Radiation Oncology now recognizes SBRT for select low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. SBRT grew from the notion that high doses of radiation typical of brachytherapy could be delivered noninvasively using modern external-beam radiation therapy planning and delivery methods. SBRT is most commonly delivered using either a traditional gantry-mounted linear accelerator or a robotic arm-mounted linear accelerator. In this systematic review article, we compare and contrast the current clinical evidence supporting a gantry vs robotic arm SBRT for prostate cancer. The data for SBRT show encouraging and comparable results in terms of freedom from biochemical failure (>90% for low and intermediate risk at 5–7 years) and acute and late toxicity (<6% grade 3–4 late toxicities). Other outcomes (eg, overall and cancer-specific mortality) cannot be compared, given the indolent course of low-risk prostate cancer. At this time, neither SBRT device is recommended over the other for all patients; however, gantry-based SBRT machines have the abilities of treating larger volumes with conventional fractionation, shorter treatment time per fraction (~15 minutes for gantry vs ~45 minutes for robotic arm), and the ability to achieve better plans among obese patients (since they are able to use energies >6 MV). Finally, SBRT (particularly on a gantry) may also be more cost-effective than conventionally fractionated external-beam radiation therapy. Randomized controlled trials of SBRT using both technologies are underway.

Proton beam therapy in Japan: current and future status

The number of patients treated by proton beam therapy in Japan since 2000 has increased; in 2016, 11 proton facilities were available to treat patients. Notably, proton beam therapy is very useful for pediatric cancer; since the pediatric radiation dose to normal tissues should be reduced as much as possible because of the effect of radiation on growth, intellectual development, endocrine organ function and secondary cancer development. Hepatocellular carcinoma is common in Asia, and most of the studies of proton beam therapy for liver cancer have been reported by Japanese investigators. Proton beam therapy is also a standard treatment for nasal and paranasal lesions and lesions at the base of the skull, because the radiation dose to critical organs such as the eyes, optic nerves and central nervous system can be reduced with proton beam therapy. For prostate cancer, comparative studies that address adverse effects, safety, patient quality of life and socioeconomic issues should be performed to determine the appropriate use of proton beam therapy for prostate cancer. Regarding new proton beam therapy applications, experience with proton beam therapy combined with chemotherapy is limited, although favorable outcomes have been recently reported for locally advanced lung cancer, esophageal cancer and pancreatic cancer. Therefore, 'chemoproton' therapy appears to be a very attractive field for further clinical investigations. In conclusion, there are cost issues and considerations regarding national insurance for the use of proton beam therapy in Japan. Further studies and discussions are needed to address the use of proton beam therapy for several types of cancers, and for maintaining the quality of life of patients while retaining a high cure rate.

Comparison of outcomes and toxicities among radiation therapy treatment options for prostate cancer

We review radiation therapy (RT) options available for prostate cancer, including external beam (EBRT; with conventional fractionation, hypofractionation, stereotactic body RT [SBRT]) and brachytherapy (BT), with an emphasis on the outcomes, toxicities, and contraindications for therapies. PICOS/PRISMA methods were used to identify published English-language comparative studies on PubMed (from 1980 to 2015) that included men treated on prospective studies with a primary endpoint of patient outcomes, with ⩾70 patients, and ⩾5year median follow up. Twenty-six studies met inclusion criteria; of these, 16 used EBRT, and 10 used BT. Long-term freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) rates were roughly equivalent between conventional and hypofractionated RT with intensity modulation (evidence level 1B), with 10-year FFBF rates of 45-90%, 40-60%, and 20-50% (for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively). SBRT had promising rates of BF, with shorter follow-up (5-year FFBF of >90% for low-risk patients). Similarly, BT (5-year FFBF for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients have generally been >85%, 69-97%, 63-80%, respectively) and BT+EBRT were appropriate in select patients (evidence level 1B). Differences in overall survival, distant metastasis, and cancer specific mortality (5-year rates: 82-97%, 1-14%, 0-8%, respectively) have not been detected in randomized trials of dose escalation or in studies comparing RT modalities. Studies did not use patient-reported outcomes, through Grade 3-4 toxicities were rare (<5%) among all modalities. There was limited evidence available to compare proton therapy to other modalities. The treatment decision for a man is usually based on his risk group, ability to tolerate the procedure, convenience for the patient, and the anticipated impact on quality of life. To further personalize therapy, future trials should report (1) race; (2) medical comorbidities; (3) psychiatric comorbidities; (4) insurance status; (5) education status; (6) marital status; (7) income; (8) sexual orientation; and (9) facility-related characteristics.

SBRT for prostate cancer: Challenges and features from a physicist prospective

Emerging data are showing the safety and the efficacy of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) in prostate cancer management. In this context, the medical physicists are regularly involved to review the appropriateness of the adopted technology and to proactively study new solutions. From the physics point of view there are two major challenges in prostate SBRT: (1) mitigation of geometrical uncertainty and (2) generation of highly conformal dose distributions that maximally spare the OARs. Geometrical uncertainties have to be limited as much as possible in order to avoid the use of large PTV margins. Furthermore, advanced planning and delivery techniques are needed to generate maximally conformal dose distributions. In this non-systematic review the technology and the physics aspects of SBRT for prostate cancer were analyzed. In details, the aims were: (i) to describe the rationale of reducing the number of fractions (i.e. increasing the dose per fraction), (ii) to analyze the features to be accounted for performing an extreme hypo-fractionation scheme (>6-7Gy), and (iii) to describe technological solutions for treating in a safe way. The analysis of outcomes, toxicities, and other clinical aspects are not object of the present evaluation.

Mechanistic Insights into Molecular Targeting and Combined Modality Therapy for Aggressive, Localized Prostate Cancer

Radiation therapy (RT) is one of the mainstay treatments for prostate cancer (PCa). The potentially curative approaches can provide satisfactory results for many patients with non-metastatic PCa; however, a considerable number of individuals may present disease recurrence and die from the disease. Exploiting the rich molecular biology of PCa will provide insights into how the most resistant tumor cells can be eradicated to improve treatment outcomes. Important for this biology-driven individualized treatment is a robust selection procedure. The development of predictive biomarkers for RT efficacy is therefore of utmost importance for a clinically exploitable strategy to achieve tumor-specific radiosensitization. This review highlights the current status and possible opportunities in the modulation of four key processes to enhance radiation response in PCa by targeting the: (1) androgen signaling pathway; (2) hypoxic tumor cells and regions; (3) DNA damage response (DDR) pathway; and (4) abnormal extra-/intracell signaling pathways. In addition, we discuss how and which patients should be selected for biomarker-based clinical trials exploiting and validating these targeted treatment strategies with precision RT to improve cure rates in non-indolent, localized PCa.

Clinical trials of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for prostate cancer: updates and future direction

Stereotactic body radiotherapy, also known as stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR), is an emerging treatment option for lung, prostate, liver and other tumors. Key factors in SABR are delivery of a high-dose radiation per fraction, proper patient positioning and target localization. Our review details the various radiotherapy techniques, dose fractionation schedules and toxicities for prostate SABR. Ongoing Phase II/III SABR studies across various risk groups have been included. It also discusses the role of conscientious focal dose escalation of the dominant intraprostatic nodule, integrating multiparametric MRI into radiotherapy protocols and finally cost-effectiveness of SABR.

Comparative Oncologic and Toxicity Outcomes of Salvage Radical Prostatectomy Versus Nonsurgical Therapies for Radiorecurrent Prostate Cancer: A Meta-Regression Analysis

CONTEXT

In the absence of randomised controlled trials comparing the oncologic, toxicity, and functional outcomes of salvage radical prostatectomy (SRP), salvage high-intensity focused ultrasound (SHIFU), salvage brachytherapy (SBT), and salvage cryotherapy (SCT), controversy exists as to the optimal salvage modality in radiorecurrent prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE

We carried out a meta-regression analysis to determine whether there is a difference in oncologic, toxicity, and functional outcomes using data from original publications of salvage modalities in the postradiation setting.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We performed a systematic review of PubMed/Medline citations according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. We included 63 articles in the analysis (25 on SRP, 8 on SHIFU, 16 on SCT, 14 on SBT).

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Median values of the following variables were extracted from each study: patient age, length of follow-up, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) before radiotherapy (RT), PSA before salvage therapy, Gleason score before RT, and time interval between RT and salvage therapy. Functional, toxicity, and oncologic outcomes were measured according to rates of impotence, incontinence, fistula formation, urethral strictures, and biochemical recurrence. Meta-regression adjusting for confounders found no significant difference in oncologic outcomes between SRP and nonsurgical salvage modalities. SBT, SCT, and SHIFU appeared to have better continence outcomes than SRP. No significant difference in toxicity outcomes between modalities was found, although limitations such as reporting, selection, and publication bias and between-study heterogeneity must also be considered with these conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

Oncologic outcomes are comparable for SRP and all three nonsurgical salvage modalities. We found no significant differences in toxicity outcomes among modalities; however, SRP appears to be associated with worse rates of urinary incontinence than SBT, SCT, and SHIFU.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We performed a meta-regression analysis to compare oncologic, functional, and toxicity outcomes between salvage radical prostatectomy and nonsurgical salvage modalities. Oncologic and toxicity outcomes appear to be similar; however, all nonsurgical salvage modalities may be associated with better continence outcomes.

Consensus and differences in primary radiotherapy for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer in Switzerland: A survey on patterns of practice

INTRODUCTION

External beam radiotherapy (EBRT), with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), is an established treatment option for nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Despite high-level evidence from several randomized trials, risk group stratification and treatment recommendations vary due to contradictory or inconclusive data, particularly with regard to EBRT dose prescription and ADT duration. Our aim was to investigate current patterns of practice in primary EBRT for prostate cancer in Switzerland.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Treatment recommendations on EBRT and ADT for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer were collected from 23 Swiss radiation oncology centers. Written recommendations were converted into center-specific decision trees, and analyzed for consensus and differences using a dedicated software tool. Additionally, specific radiotherapy planning and delivery techniques from the participating centers were assessed.

RESULTS

The most commonly prescribed radiation dose was 78 Gy (range 70-80 Gy) across all risk groups. ADT was recommended for intermediate-risk patients for 6 months in over 80 % of the centers, and for high-risk patients for 2 or 3 years in over 90 % of centers. For recommendations on combined EBRT and ADT treatment, consensus levels did not exceed 39 % in any clinical scenario. Arc-based intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is implemented for routine prostate cancer radiotherapy by 96 % of the centers.

CONCLUSION

Among Swiss radiation oncology centers, considerable ranges of radiotherapy dose and ADT duration are routinely offered for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer. In the vast majority of cases, doses and durations are within the range of those described in current evidence-based guidelines.

Neuroendocrine differentiation in prostate cancer: a mechanism of radioresistance and treatment failure

Neuroendocrine differentiation (NED) in prostate cancer is a well-recognized phenotypic change by which prostate cancer cells transdifferentiate into neuroendocrine-like (NE-like) cells. NE-like cells lack the expression of androgen receptor and prostate specific antigen, and are resistant to treatments. In addition, NE-like cells secrete peptide hormones and growth factors to support the growth of surrounding tumor cells in a paracrine manner. Accumulated evidence has suggested that NED is associated with disease progression and poor prognosis. The importance of NED in prostate cancer progression and therapeutic response is further supported by the fact that therapeutic agents, including androgen-deprivation therapy, chemotherapeutic agents, and radiotherapy, also induce NED. We will review the work supporting the overall hypothesis that therapy-induced NED is a mechanism of resistance to treatments, as well as discuss the relationship between therapy-induced NED and therapy-induced senescence, epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition, and cancer stem cells. Furthermore, we will use radiation-induced NED as a model to explore several NED-based targeting strategies for development of novel therapeutics. Finally, we propose future studies that will specifically address therapy-induced NED in the hope that a better treatment regimen for prostate cancer can be developed.

Synergistic action of image-guided radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy

The combined use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) can improve overall survival in aggressive, localized prostate cancer. However, owing to the adverse effects of prolonged ADT, it is imperative to identify the patients who would benefit from this combined-modality therapy relative to the use of IGRT alone. Opportunities exist for more personalized approaches in treating aggressive, locally advanced prostate cancer. Biomarkers--such as disseminated tumour cells, circulating tumour cells, genomic signatures and molecular imaging techniques--could identify the patients who are at greatest risk for systemic metastases and who would benefit from the addition of systemic ADT. By contrast, when biomarkers of systemic disease are not present, treatment could proceed using local IGRT alone. The choice of drug, treatment duration and timing of ADT relative to IGRT could be predicated on these personalized approaches to prostate cancer medicine. These novel treatment intensification and reduction strategies could result in improved prostate-cancer-specific survival and overall survival, without incurring the added expense of metabolic syndrome and other adverse effects of ADT in all patients.