Comparison of late gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity of prostate cancer patients undergoing intensity-modulated versus conventional radiotherapy using localized fields

Dose-Intensified Postoperative Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Long-Term Results From the PKUFH Randomized Phase 3 Trial

PURPOSE

In the randomized, single-center, PKUFH phase 3 trial, dose-intensified (72 Gy) radiation therapy was compared with conventional (66 Gy) radiation therapy. In a previous study, we found no significant difference in biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS) between the 2 cohorts at 4 years. In the current analysis, we provide 7-year outcomes.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients with stage pT3-4, positive surgical margins, or a prostate-specific antigen increase ≥0.2 ng/mL after radical prostatectomy were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either 72 Gy in 36 fractions or 66 Gy in 33 fractions. All the patients underwent image guided intensity modulated radiation therapy. The primary endpoint was bPFS. Secondary endpoints were distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS) as estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Between September 2011 and November 2016, 144 patients were enrolled with 73 and 71 in the 72- and 66-Gy cohorts, respectively. At a median follow-up of 89.5 months (range, 73-97 months), there was no difference in 7-year bPFS between the 72- and 66-Gy cohorts (70.3% vs 61.2%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.41-1.29; P = .274). However, in patients with a higher Gleason score (8-10), the 72-Gy cohort had statistically significant improvement in 7-year bPFS compared with the 66-Gy cohort (66.5% vs 30.2%; HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.17-0.82; P = .012). In addition, in patients with multiple positive surgical margins, the 72-Gy cohort had statistically significant improvement in 7-year bPFS compared with single positive surgical margin (82.5% vs 57.5%; HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.13-0.99; P = .037). The 7-year DMFS (88.4% vs 84.9%; HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.39-2.23; P = .867), CSS (94.1% vs 95.5%; HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.42-3.39; P = .745), and OS (92.8% vs 94.1%; HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.51-3.24; P = .594) had no statistical differences between the 72- and 66-Gy cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

The current 7-year bPFS results confirmed our previous findings that dose escalation (72 Gy) demonstrated no improvement in 7-year bPFS, DMFS, CSS, or OS compared with the 66-Gy regimen. However, patients with a higher Gleason score (8-10) or multiple positive surgical margins might benefit from the 72-Gy regimen, but this requires further prospective research.

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.

Comparison Between Dose-Escalated Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy and 3-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy for Salvage Radiation Therapy After Prostatectomy

Purpose

To compare long-term outcomes and late toxicity between patients treated with 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) and with dose-escalated intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) as salvage radiation therapy (SRT) after prostatectomy.

Methods and Materials

A total of 110 patients who had been treated at our institution between 2010 and 2018 with SRT for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy were included. The patients were treated either by 3D-CRT with 64 Gy (59 patients) or by IMRT with 70 Gy (51 patients). The irradiation target was the prostate bed only (106 patients) or the prostate bed and pelvic region (4 patients). Twelve patients (11%) received concurrent androgen deprivation therapy. The differences in clinical outcomes and late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity between the 3D-CRT and IMRT groups were retrospectively assessed. Toxicities were recorded using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5.0. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression after SRT was defined as an increase in the serum PSA level of 0.2 ng/mL from the PSA nadir after SRT and confirmed by a second PSA measurement that was higher than the first.

Results

The median follow-up time was 7.8 years for 3D-CRT (range:,0.3-9.2 years) and 3.1 years for IMRT (range, 0.4-7.2 years). There was no significant difference in the 4-year biochemical no-evidence-of-disease (bNED) rate between the 3D-CRT and IMRT groups (43.5% vs 52.1%; P = .20). Toxicity analysis showed no significant difference in late GI or GU toxicities of grade 2 or greater between the 3D-CRT and IMRT groups. The respective 4-year cumulative rates of toxicity in the 3D-CRT and IMRT groups were as follows: grade ≥2 GI toxicity, 8.8% and 4.4% (P = .42); grade ≥2 GU toxicity, 19.1% and 20.3% (P = .93); and grade ≥2 hematuria, 5.3% and 8.0% (P = .67). In the 3D-CRT group, the 8-year cumulative rates of GI toxicity, GU toxicity, and hematuria of grade 2 or greater were 8.8%, 28.4%, and 12.6%, respectively.

Conclusions

Dose-escalated IMRT showed no improvements in bNED or late toxicity compared with 3D-CRT. In addition, the results suggest that GU toxicity can occur after a long period (even after 6 years), whereas GI toxicity is seldom newly observed after 4 years.

High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy as Monotherapy for Low- and Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer. Oncological Outcomes After a Median 15-Year Follow-Up

Introduction

To evaluate the oncological outcome of high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy (BRT) as monotherapy for clinically localised prostate cancer (PCA).

Material and Methods

Between January 2002 and February 2004, 141 consecutive patients with clinically localised PCA were treated with HDR-BRT monotherapy. The cohort comprised 103 (73%) low-, 32 (22.7%) intermediate- and 6 (4.3%) high risk patients according to D’Amico classification or 104 (73.8%) low-, 24 (17.0%) intermediate favourable-, 12 (8.5%) intermediate unfavourable- and one (0.7%) very high risk patient according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) one. Patients received four fractions of 9.5 Gy delivered within a single implant up to a total physical dose of 38 Gy. Catheter-implantation was transrectal ultrasound-based whereas treatment planning CT-based. Thirty-three patients (23.4%) received ADT neoadjuvantly and continued concurrently with BRT. Biochemical relapse-free survival (BRFS) was defined according to the Phoenix Consensus Criteria and genitourinary (GU)/gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity evaluated using the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0.

Results

Median age at treatment and median follow-up time was 67.2 and 15.2 years, respectively. Twenty-three (16.3%) patients experienced a biochemical relapse and 5 (3.5%) developed distant metastases, with only one patient dying of PCA. The BRFS was 85.1% at 15 years and 78.7% at 18 years. The corresponding overall survival, metastases-free survival, and prostate cancer specific mortality at 15- and 18-years was 73.9%/59.1%, 98.3%/90.6%, and 100%/98.5% respectively. Late grade 3 GI and GU toxicity was 4.2% and 5.6% respectively. Erectile dysfunction grade 3 was reported by 27 (19%) patients. From the prognostic factors evaluated, tumor stage (≤T2b compared to ≥T2c) along with the risk group (low-intermediate vs. high) when using the D’Amico classification but not when the NCCN one was taken into account, correlated significantly with BRFS.

Conclusion

Our long-term results confirm HDR-BRT to be a safe and effective monotherapeutic treatment modality for low- and intermediate risk PCA.

Radiation Proctitis: The Potential Role of Hyaluronic Acid in the Prevention and Restoration of Any Damage to the Rectal Mucosa among Prostate Cancer Patients Submitted to Curative External Beam Radiotherapy

Aim: To evaluate if hyaluronic acid reduces proctitis episodes with respect to corticosteroids in prostate cancer patients submitted to radical or adjuvant radiotherapy. Methods: A consecutive series of eligible patients received hyaluronic acid enemas as supportive care (experimental group, from January 2013 to June 2015). A historical group (control group), treated from October 2011 to December 2012, received beclomethasone dipropionate suppositories. We registered each patient’s data regarding acute and chronic proctitis. All patients were treated with static-intensity-modulated radiotherapy coupled to a daily set-up verification with orthogonal anterior–posterior/lateral X-ray pairs. Results: A total of 269 patients, 175 in the experimental group and 94 in the control group, was evaluated; 2 Gy/day (up to a total median dose of 80 Gy) and 2.7 Gy/day (up to a total median dose of 67.5 Gy) fractionation schemes were used for 216 and 53 patients, respectively. All patients had a good tolerance to radiotherapy, reporting no G3 or greater proctitis. No significant difference was reported concerning the total rate of proctitis between the two groups but only with respect to its grade: a higher G2 rate within the control group. There was no correlation between daily dose fractionation and toxicity grade. Conclusions: Hyaluronic acid enemas might be effective in reducing the severity of radiation proctitis.

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

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

How Has Prostate Cancer Radiotherapy Changed in Italy between 2004 and 2011? An Analysis of the National Patterns-Of-Practice (POP) Database by the Uro-Oncology Study Group of the Italian Society of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology (AIRO)

Simple Summary

This is a safety and efficacy analysis from a very large dataset of patients affected by localized prostate cancer having received radiotherapy with or without concomitant androgen deprivation therapy in twelve academic and non-academic Italian Institutions. The aim of this retrospective "real life" study was to provide additional data on clinical presentation, diagnostic workup, radiation therapy management and toxicity as collected within the framework of POP III. Though the usual limitations for a retrospective analysis apply, it nevertheless may expand the current knowledge in this area showing the progress of radiation therapy techniques and clinical outcomes in the period between 2004 and 2011 after a significant period of follow up.

Abstract

Background and purpose: Two previous “Patterns Of Practice” surveys (POP I and POP II), including more than 4000 patients affected by prostate cancer treated with radical external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) between 1980 and 2003, established a “benchmark” Italian data source for prostate cancer radiotherapy. This report (POP III) updates the previous studies. Methods: Data on clinical management and outcome of 2525 prostate cancer patients treated by EBRT from 2004 to 2011 were collected and compared with POP II and, when feasible, also with POP I. This report provides data on clinical presentation, diagnostic workup, radiation therapy management, and toxicity as collected within the framework of POP III. Results: More than 50% of POP III patients were classified as low or intermediate risk using D’Amico risk categories as in POP II; 46% were classified as ISUP grade group 1. CT scan, bone scan, and endorectal ultrasound were less frequently prescribed. Dose-escalated radiotherapy (RT), intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), image guided radiotherapy (IGRT), and hypofractionated RT were more frequently offered during the study period. Treatment was commonly well tolerated. Acute toxicity improved compared to the previous series; late toxicity was influenced by prescribed dose and treatment technique. Five-year overall survival, biochemical relapse free survival (BRFS), and disease specific survival were similar to those of the previous series (POP II). BRFS was better in intermediate- and high-risk patients treated with ≥ 76 Gy. Conclusions: This report highlights the improvements in radiotherapy planning and dose delivery among Italian Centers in the 2004–2011 period. Dose-escalated treatments resulted in better biochemical control with a reduction in acute toxicity and higher but acceptable late toxicity, as not yet comprehensively associated with IMRT/IGRT. CTV-PTV margins >8 mm were associated with increased toxicity, again suggesting that IGRT—allowing for tighter margins—would reduce toxicity for dose escalated RT. These conclusions confirm the data obtained from randomized controlled studies.

Feeding the Controversy: When Pelvic Irradiation Improves Outcomes in High-Risk and Very High-Risk Prostate Cancer

The Oncology Grand Rounds series is designed to place original reports published in the Journal into clinical context. A case presentation is followed by a description of diagnostic and management challenges, a review of the relevant literature, and a summary of the authors' suggested management approaches. The goal of this series is to help readers better understand how to apply the results of key studies, including those published in Journal of Clinical Oncology, to patients seen in their own clinical practice.

Whole Pelvic Radiotherapy With Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy Boost vs. Conventionally Fractionated Radiotherapy for Patients With High or Very High-Risk Prostate Cancer

Background: Whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) boost has been shown to be effective in patients with high-risk prostate cancer (PC). However, no study has directly compared the efficacy of WPRT with SBRT boost with that of conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT). We compared the clinical outcomes between CFRT and WPRT with SBRT boost in patients with high or very high-risk PC (National Comprehensive Cancer Network definition).

Methods: In total, 132 patients treated with CFRT and 121 patients treated with WPRT followed by SBRT boost were retrospectively analyzed. For the CFRT group, the prescribed dose range was 74–79.2 Gray (Gy) administered at 1.8–2 Gy per fraction. For WPRT with SBRT boost, the prescribed doses were 45 Gy administered in 25 fractions to the whole pelvis followed by 21 Gy boost (3 fractions of 7 Gy each) to prostate and seminal vesicles. The overall survival (OS) and biochemical failure (Phoenix definition) free survival (bFFS) were assessed by using the Kaplan–Meier method or the Cox proportional hazards regression model. The gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) tract toxicity were assessed using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v3.0.

Results: The estimated 4-years overall survival in the CFRT and WPRT with SBRT boost groups was 91.6 and 97.7%, respectively (P = 0.18). The estimated 4-years biochemical failure-free survival in the CFRT and WPRT with SBRT boost groups was 89.1 and 93.9%, respectively (P = 0.41). No acute grade 3 or higher GI and GU toxicity was observed in both groups. Late grade 3 GI and GU toxicity occurred in 2.3 and 2.3% in the CFRT group, and in 1.7 and 0.8% in the WPRT with SBRT boost group, respectively. There was no significant between-group difference with respect to acute or late toxicity.

Conclusions: In patients with high or very high-risk localized PC, compared with CFRT, WPRT with SBRT boost resulted in similar biochemical-free and overall survival rate with minimal toxicity. WPRT with SBRT boost is a feasible option for patients with high or very high-risk PC.

Intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or conformational radiotherapy (3D-CRT) with conventional fractionation for prostate cancer: Is there any clinical difference?

Purpose:

To compare the treatment outcomes of a cohort of prostate cancer patients treated with conventional schedule using IMRT or 3DRT technique.

Materials and Methods:

Between 2010-2017, 485 men with localized prostate cancer were treated with conventional radiotherapy schedule with a total dose ≥74Gy using IMRT (231) or 3DCRT (254). Late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity were retrospectively evaluated according to modified RTOG criteria. The biochemical control was defined by the Phoenix criteria (nadir + 2ng/mL). The comparison between the groups included biochemical recurrence free survival (bRFS), overall survival (OS) and late toxicity.

Results:

With a median follow-up of 51 months (IMRT=49 and 3DRT=51 months), the maximal late GU for >=grade- 2 during the entire period of follow-up was 13.1% in the IMRT and 15.4% in the 3DRT (p=0.85). The maximal late GI ≥ grade- 2 in the IMRT was 10% and in the 3DRT 24% (p=0.0001). The 5-year bRFS for all risk groups with IMRT and 3D-CRT was 87.5% vs. 87.2% (p=0.415). Considering the risk-groups no significant difference for low-, intermediate- and high-risk groups between IMRT (low-95.3%, intermediate-86.2% and high-73%) and 3D-CRT (low-96.4%, intermediate-88.2% and high-76.6%, p=0.448) was observed. No significant differences for OS and DMFS were observed comparing treatment groups.

Conclusion:

IMRT reduces significantly the risk of late GI severe complication compared with 3D-CRT using conventional fractionation with a total dose ≥74Gy without any differences for bRFS and OS.

Dose escalation (81 Gy) with image-guided radiation therapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy for localized prostate cancer: A retrospective preliminary result

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study is to report the acute and late toxicity and preliminary results of localized prostate cancer treated with high-dose radiation therapy (RT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between March 2010 and October 2018, a total of 53 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer were treated with definitive RT at our institution. All patients were planned to receive a total dose of 81 Gy with the volumetric-modulated arc therapy technique. Patients were stratified by prognostic risk groups based on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk classification criteria. Acute and late toxicities were scored by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group morbidity grading scales. The definition of biochemical failure was using the 2005 ASTRO Phoenix consensus definition. Median follow-up time was 46.5 months (range: 4.7-81.0 months).

RESULTS

The 3-year biochemical failure-free survival rates for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk group patients were 100%, 87.5%, and 84%, respectively. The 3- and 5-year overall survival rates were 83% and 62%, respectively. Three (5.6%) patients developed Grade II acute gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. Four (7.5%) patients developed Grade II acute genitourinary (GU) toxicity, and none experienced Grade III or higher acute GI or GU symptoms. One (1.8%) patient developed Grade II or higher late GI toxicity. Six (11.3%) patients experienced Grade II late GU toxicity. No Grade III or higher late GI and GU complications have been observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Data from the current study demonstrated the feasibility of dose escalation with image-guided and volumetric-modulated arc therapy techniques for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Minimal acute and late toxicities were observed from patients in this study. Long-term prostate-specific antigen controls are comparable to previously published results of high-dose intensity-modulated RT for localized prostate cancer. Based on this favorable outcome, dose escalation (81 Gy) has become the standard treatment for localized prostate cancer at our institution.

Toxicity and Biochemical Outcomes of Dose-Intensified Postoperative Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Results of a Randomized Phase III Trial

PURPOSE

Our purpose was to compare toxicity and biochemical control in postprostatectomy patients treated with conventional (66 Gy) or dose-intensified (72 Gy) radiation therapy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients who had stage pT3-4, positive surgical margins, or rising prostate-specific antigen ≥ 0.2 ng/mL after radical prostatectomy were randomly assigned to receive either 66 Gy in 33 fractions or 72 Gy in 36 fractions. A primary endpoint was to assess the difference in biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS) between these 2 cohorts, and secondary endpoints were to assess differences in genitourinary (GU), gastrointestinal (GI), and hematologic toxicities between these 2 cohorts. bPFS was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and toxicities were compared using the χ² test.

RESULTS

Between September 2011 and November 2016, 144 patients were enrolled: 71 patients to the 66 Gy cohort and 73 patients to the 72 Gy cohort. The median follow-up time was 48.5 months (range, 14-79 months). There was no difference in 4-year bPFS between the 66 Gy and 72 Gy cohorts (75.9% vs 82.6%; P = .299). However, in patients with a higher Gleason score (8-10), the 72 Gy cohort had statistically significant improvement in bPFS compared with the 66 Gy cohort (79.7% vs 55.7%; P = .049). Toxicity analysis showed no difference in ≥2 acute or late GI or GU toxicities between these 2 cohorts. A total of 48 patients were scored as urinary incontinence before radiation therapy, of which 39 (81.3%) reported incontinence recovery or stable at 1-year follow-up, and only 9 (18.8%) patients reported worsening. There was no difference between the 2 cohorts in urinary incontinence either at baseline or at 1-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Dose escalation (72 Gy) demonstrated no improvement in 4-year bPFS compared with the 66 Gy regimen. However, the dose escalation was not associated with greater acute or late GU or GI toxicities and did not increase urinary incontinence.

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.

Hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy in patients with localized prostate cancer: a preliminary study

Purpose

The aim of this work was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in patients with localized prostate cancer.

Materials and Methods

Thirty-nine patients who received radical hypofractionated IMRT were retrospectively reviewed. Based on a pelvic lymph node involvement risk of 15% as the cutoff value, we decided whether to deliver treatment prostate and seminal vesicle only radiotherapy (PORT) or whole pelvis radiotherapy (WPRT). Sixteen patients (41%) received PORT with prostate receiving 45 Gy in 4.5 Gy per fraction in 2 weeks and the other 23 patients (59%) received WPRT with the prostate receiving 72 Gy in 2.4 Gy per fraction in 6 weeks. The median equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions to the prostate was 79.9 Gy based on the assumption that the α/β ratio is 1.5 Gy.

Results

The median follow-up time was 38 months (range, 4 to 101 months). The 3-year biochemical failure-free survival rate was 88.2%. The 3-year clinical failure-free and overall survival rates were 94.5% and 96.3%, respectively. The rates of grade 2 acute genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities were 20.5% and 12.8%, respectively. None of the patients experienced grade ≥3 acute GU and GI toxicities. The grade 2-3 late GU and GI toxicities were found in 8.1% and 5.4% of patients, respectively. No fatal late toxicity was observed.

Conclusion

Favorable biochemical control with low rates of toxicity was observed after hypofractionated IMRT, suggesting that our radiotherapy schedule can be an effective treatment option in the treatment of localized prostate cancer.

Intensity modulated radiation therapy for recurrent ovarian cancer refractory to chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate local control, survival outcomes, and toxicity after intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for recurrent chemorefractory ovarian cancer.

METHODS

Between 2006 and 2014, 33 patients were treated with IMRT for recurrent ovarian cancer. Patients received a median of 3 chemotherapy regimens prior to IMRT (range, 1-12) with 11 (33%) undergoing concurrent therapy. Local control (LC), recurrence free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS) were calculated via Kaplan-Meier method. Toxicity was assessed using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4.03. Impact of patient characteristics on outcomes was evaluated via Cox's proportional hazard model.

RESULTS

Median follow up was 23.7 months. Forty-nine sites were treated to a median dose of 5040cGy (range, 4500-7000). Nine (18%) of the 49 sites had in-field failures. Two year actuarial LC, RFS, and OS were 82%, 11%, and 63%, respectively. Seventeen patients had both a pre and post-treatment FDG-PET/CT; 6 (35%) had a complete metabolic response while 11 (65%) had a partial metabolic response. Acute ≥ grade 3 gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities occurred in 2 (6%) patients, late ≥ grade 3 GI toxicities occurred in 12 (36%), acute ≥ grade 3 hematological toxicities occurred in 5 (15%) and late ≥ grade 3 hematological toxicities occurred in 14 (42%).

CONCLUSIONS

IMRT for recurrent chemorefractory ovarian cancer is associated with excellent local control and limited radiation related toxicity. Future studies will be required to determine which subpopulation will benefit most from IMRT and whether alternative techniques such as stereotactic body radiotherapy may be feasible.

Sentinel lymph node imaging guided IMRT for prostate cancer: Individualized pelvic radiation therapy versus RTOG guidelines

Purpose/Objectives

Current Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) guidelines for pelvic radiation therapy are based on general anatomic boundaries. Sentinel lymph node (SLN) imaging can identify potential sites of lymph node involvement. We sought to determine how tailored radiation therapy fields for prostate cancer would compare to standard RTOG-based fields. Such individualized radiation therapy could prioritize the most important areas to irradiate while potentially avoiding coverage in areas where critical structures would be overdosed. Individualized radiation therapy could therefore increase the therapeutic index of pelvic radiation therapy.

Methods and materials

Ten intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer patients received androgen deprivation therapy with definitive radiation therapy, including an SLN imaging–tailored elective nodal volume (ENV). For dosimetric analyses, the ENV was recontoured using RTOG guidelines (RTOG_ENV) and on SLNs alone (SLN_ENV). Separate intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans were optimized using RTOG_ENV and SLN_ENV for each patient. Dosimetric comparisons for these IMRT plans were performed for each patient. Dose differences to targets and critical structures among the different IMRT plans were calculated. Distributions of dose parameters were analyzed using non-parametric methods.

Results

Sixty percent of patients had SLNs outside of the RTOG_ENV. The larger volume IMRT plans covering SLN imaging–tailored elective nodal volume exhibited no significant dose differences versus plans covering RTOG_ENV. IMRT plans covering only the SLNs had significantly lower doses to bowel and femoral heads.

Conclusions

SLN-guided pelvic radiation therapy can be used to either treat the most critical nodes only or as an addition to RTOG guided pelvic radiation therapy to ensure that the most important nodes are included.

Accumulated dose to the rectum, measured using dose-volume histograms and dose-surface maps, is different from planned dose in all patients treated with radiotherapy for prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

We sought to calculate accumulated dose (DA) to the rectum in patients treated with radiotherapy for prostate cancer. We were particularly interested in whether dose-surface maps (DSMs) provide additional information to dose-volume histograms (DVHs).

METHODS

Manual rectal contours were obtained for kilovoltage and daily megavoltage CT scans for 10 participants from the VoxTox study (380 scans). Daily delivered dose recalculation was performed using a ray-tracing algorithm. Delivered DVHs were summated to create accumulated DVHs. The rectum was considered as a cylinder, cut and unfolded to produce daily delivered DSMs; these were summated to produce accumulated DSMs.

RESULTS

Accumulated dose-volumes were different from planned in all participants. For one participant, all DA levels were higher and all volumes were larger than planned. For four participants, all DA levels were lower and all volumes were smaller than planned. For each of these four participants, ≥1% of pixels on the accumulated DSM received ≥5 Gy more than had been planned.

CONCLUSION

Differences between accumulated and planned dose-volumes were seen in all participants. DSMs were able to identify differences between DA and planned dose that could not be appreciated from the DVHs. Further work is needed to extract the dose data embedded in the DSMs. These will be correlated with toxicity as part of the VoxTox Programme.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

DSMs are able to identify differences between DA and planned dose that cannot be appreciated from DVHs alone and should be incorporated into future studies investigating links between DA and toxicity.

Accuracy of dose planning for prostate radiotherapy in the presence of metallic implants evaluated by electron spin resonance dosimetry

Radiotherapy is one of the main approaches to cure prostate cancer, and its success depends on the accuracy of dose planning. A complicating factor is the presence of a metallic prosthesis in the femur and pelvis, which is becoming more common in elderly populations. The goal of this work was to perform dose measurements to check the accuracy of radiotherapy treatment planning under these complicated conditions. To accomplish this, a scale phantom of an adult pelvic region was used with alanine dosimeters inserted in the prostate region. This phantom was irradiated according to the planned treatment under the following three conditions: with two metallic prostheses in the region of the femur head, with only one prosthesis, and without any prostheses. The combined relative standard uncertainty of dose measurement by electron spin resonance (ESR)/alanine was 5.05%, whereas the combined relative standard uncertainty of the applied dose was 3.35%, resulting in a combined relative standard uncertainty of the whole process of 6.06%. The ESR dosimetry indicated that there was no difference (P>0.05, ANOVA) in dosage between the planned dose and treatments. The results are in the range of the planned dose, within the combined relative uncertainty, demonstrating that the treatment-planning system compensates for the effects caused by the presence of femur and hip metal prostheses.

Patient-reported gastrointestinal symptoms among long-term survivors after radiation therapy for prostate cancer

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

With modern radiotherapy technology we have the means to substantially reduce late gastrointestinal toxicities after radiation therapy for prostate cancer. However, there is still a lack of knowledge regarding the spectrum of patient-reported gastrointestinal symptoms after such treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study using a study-specific questionnaire to survey gastrointestinal symptoms 2-14years after prostate cancer radiation therapy. We included 985 men treated between 1994 and 2006 with primary (EBRT) or salvage (POSTOP) external beam radiation therapy or EBRT and high-dose rate brachytherapy (EBRT BT). We also included 350 non-irradiated population-based controls randomly matched 1:3 for age and area of residence.

RESULTS

Survey participation rate was 89% (874/985) for survivors and 73% (243/332) for controls. We found significant increased prevalence ratios for 13/34 symptoms in the primary EBRT group, 10/34 symptoms in the EBRT BT group and 9/34 symptoms in the POSTOP group, several of which have not been described previously. Bother due to these symptoms increased with increasing symptom intensity and was highest for fecal leakage and defecation urgency.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results can be used to inform clinical evaluation and future studies of long-term gastrointestinal toxicity after radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

Outcomes of high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy alone with 1 cm planning target volume posterior margin for localized prostate cancer

Background

Clinically localized prostate cancer may be treated by different approaches of radiation therapy. The aim of this study was to report the results of disease control and toxicity in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer treated with high dose IMRT alone with 1 cm PTV posterior margin.

Methods

From September 2001 to April 2008, 140 patients with localized prostate cancer were treated with definitive IMRT (dose ≥ 74 Gy) without hormone therapy. Outcomes were measured from the conclusion of radiotherapy. Biochemical failure was defined as PSA nadir + 2.0 ng/dL. Toxicities were assessed using the NCI-CTCAE-version 3.0. Median follow-up was 58 months.

Results

Biochemical failure occurred in 13.6% of patients. Actuarial 5-year biochemical control rates were 91.7%, 82.5% and 85.9% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients, respectively. Stage T2 patients presented a risk of biochemical failure almost three times higher than stage T1 (RR = 2.91; 95% CI: 1.04; 8.17). Distant metastases occurred in 3 (2%) patients. Five-year metastasis-free and overall survivals were 96% and 97.5%, respectively. Late grade 3 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity rates were, respectively, 1.6% and 3%.

Conclusion

High-dose IMRT alone with 1 cm posterior PTV margin was effective and safe for patients with localized prostate cancer.

Preliminary toxicity analysis of 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy versus intensity modulated radiation therapy on the high-dose arm of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0126 prostate cancer trial

PURPOSE

To give a preliminary report of clinical and treatment factors associated with toxicity in men receiving high-dose radiation therapy (RT) on a phase 3 dose-escalation trial.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The trial was initiated with 3-dimensional conformal RT (3D-CRT) and amended after 1 year to allow intensity modulated RT (IMRT). Patients treated with 3D-CRT received 55.8 Gy to a planning target volume that included the prostate and seminal vesicles, then 23.4 Gy to prostate only. The IMRT patients were treated to the prostate and proximal seminal vesicles to 79.2 Gy. Common Toxicity Criteria, version 2.0, and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer late morbidity scores were used for acute and late effects.

RESULTS

Of 763 patients randomized to the 79.2-Gy arm of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0126 protocol, 748 were eligible and evaluable: 491 and 257 were treated with 3D-CRT and IMRT, respectively. For both bladder and rectum, the volumes receiving 65, 70, and 75 Gy were significantly lower with IMRT (all P<.0001). For grade (G) 2+ acute gastrointestinal/genitourinary (GI/GU) toxicity, both univariate and multivariate analyses showed a statistically significant decrease in G2+ acute collective GI/GU toxicity for IMRT. There were no significant differences with 3D-CRT or IMRT for acute or late G2+ or 3+ GU toxicities. Univariate analysis showed a statistically significant decrease in late G2+ GI toxicity for IMRT (P=.039). On multivariate analysis, IMRT showed a 26% reduction in G2+ late GI toxicity (P=.099). Acute G2+ toxicity was associated with late G3+ toxicity (P=.005). With dose-volume histogram data in the multivariate analysis, RT modality was not significant, whereas white race (P=.001) and rectal V70 ≥15% were associated with G2+ rectal toxicity (P=.034).

CONCLUSIONS

Intensity modulated RT is associated with a significant reduction in acute G2+ GI/GU toxicity. There is a trend for a clinically meaningful reduction in late G2+ GI toxicity with IMRT. The occurrence of acute GI toxicity and large (>15%) volumes of rectum >70 Gy are associated with late rectal toxicity.

Evidence based radiation oncology with existing technology

AIM

To assess the real contribution of modern radiation therapy (RT) technology in the more common tumoral types in Central America, Caribbean and South America.

BACKGROUND

RT is an essential tool in the management of cancer. RT can be either palliative or of curative intent. In general, for palliative radiotherapy, major technologies are not needed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed the contribution of RT technology based on published evidence for breast, lung, gastric, gallbladder, colorectal, prostate and cervix cancer in terms of disease control, survival or toxicity with especial focus on Latin America.

RESULTS

Findings indicate that three dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D RT) is the gold standard in most common type of cancer in the studied regions. Prostate cancer is probably the pathology that has more benefits when using new RT technology such as intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) versus 3DRT in terms of toxicity and biochemical progression-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

In light of the changes in technology, the ever-increasing access of developing countries to such technology, and its current coverage in Latin America, any efforts in this area should be aimed at improving the quality of the radiotherapy departments and centers that are already in place.

Certificate of need programs, intensity modulated radiation therapy use and the cost of prostate cancer care

PURPOSE

Certificate of need programs are a primary mechanism to regulate the use and cost of health care services at the state level. The effect of certificate of need programs on the use of intensity modulated radiation therapy and the increasing costs of prostate cancer care is unknown. We compared the use of intensity modulated radiation therapy and change in prostate cancer health care costs in regions with vs without active certificate of need programs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This population based, observational study using SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results)-Medicare linked data from 2002 through 2009 was comprised of 13,814 men treated for prostate cancer in 3 regions with active certificate of need programs (CON Yes) vs 44,541 men treated for prostate cancer in 9 regions without active certificate of need programs (CON No). We assessed intensity modulated radiation therapy use relative to other prostate cancer definitive therapies and overall prostate cancer health care costs with respect to certificate of need status.

RESULTS

In propensity score adjusted analyses, intensity modulated radiation therapy use increased from 2.3% to 46.4% of prostate cancer definitive therapies in CON Yes regions vs 11.3% to 41.7% in CON No regions from 2002 to 2009. Furthermore, we observed greater intensity modulated radiation therapy use with time in CON Yes vs No regions (p <0.001). Annual cost growth did not differ between CON Yes vs No regions (p = 0.396).

CONCLUSIONS

Certificate of need programs were not effective in limiting intensity modulated radiation therapy use or attenuating prostate cancer health care costs. There remains an unmet need to control the rapid adoption of new, more expensive therapies for prostate cancer that have limited cost and comparative effectiveness data.

Toxicity report of once weekly radiation therapy for low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma: preliminary results of a phase I/II trial

Background

Increasing clinical data supports a low α/β ratio for prostate adenocarcinoma, potentially lower than that of surrounding normal tissues. A hypofractionated, weekly radiation therapy (RT) schedule should result in improved tumour control, reduced acute toxicity, and similar or decreased late effects. We report the toxicity profile of such treatment.

Materials and Methods

We conducted a multi-institution phase I/II trial of three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) for favourable-risk prostate cancer (T1a-T2a, Gleason ≤ 6 and PSA < 10 ng/ml). RT consisted of 45 Gy in nine 5 Gy fractions, once weekly. Primary end-points were feasibility and late gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity (RTOG scale), while secondary end-points included acute GI toxicity, acute and late genitourinary (GU) toxicity, biochemical control, and survival.

Results

Between 2006 and 2008, 80 patients were treated. No treatment interruptions occurred. The median follow-up is 33 months (range: 20-51). Maximal grade 1, 2, and 3 acute (< 3 months) GU toxicity was 29%, 31% and 5% respectively (no grade 4). Acute GI grade 1 toxicity was reported in 30% while grade 2 occurred in 14% (no grade 3 or 4). Crude late grade ≥ 3 toxicity rates at 31 months were 2% for both GU and GI toxicity. Cumulative late grade ≥ 3 GI toxicity at 3 years was 11%. Two patients had PSA failure according to the Phoenix definition. The three-year actuarial biochemical control rate is 97%.

Conclusions

Weekly RT with 45 Gy in 9 fractions is feasible and results in comparable toxicity. Long term tumour control and survival remain to be assessed.

Improved toxicity profile following high-dose postprostatectomy salvage radiation therapy with intensity-modulated radiation therapy

BACKGROUND

With salvage radiation therapy (SRT) in the postprostatectomy setting, the need to deliver sufficient radiation doses to achieve a high probability of tumor control is balanced with the risk of increased toxicity. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in the postprostatectomy salvage setting is gaining interest as a treatment strategy.

OBJECTIVE

Compare acute and late toxicities in patients treated with IMRT and three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) in the postprostatectomy salvage setting.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A total of 285 patients who were treated at our institution between 1988 and 2007 with SRT after radical prostatectomy for biochemical recurrence were identified. All medical records were reviewed and toxicity recorded. Median follow-up was 60 mo.

INTERVENTION

All patients were treated with SRT with either 3D-CRT (n=109) or IMRT (n=176). A total of 205 patients (72%) were treated with doses ≥70Gy.

MEASUREMENTS

Late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities were recorded using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v. 3.0 definition.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The 5-yr actuarial rates of late grade ≥2 GI and GU toxicity were 5.2% and 17.0%, respectively. IMRT was independently associated with a reduction in grade ≥2 GI toxicity compared with 3D-CRT (5-yr IMRT, 1.9%; 5-yr 3D-CRT, 10.2%; p=0.02). IMRT was not associated with a reduction in risk of grade ≥2 GU toxicity (5-yr IMRT, 16.8%; 5-yr 3D-CRT, 15.8%; p=0.86), urinary incontinence (5-yr IMRT, 13.6%; 5-yr 3D-CRT, 7.9%; p=0.25), or grade 3 erectile dysfunction (5-yr IMRT, 26%; 5-yr 3D-CRT, 30%; p=0.82). Of patients who developed late grade ≥2 GI or GU toxicity, 38% and 44%, respectively, experienced resolution of their symptoms prior to the last follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience with high-dose IMRT in the postprostatectomy salvage setting demonstrates that the treatment can be delivered safely with an associated reduction in late GI toxicity.

Cost implications of the rapid adoption of newer technologies for treating prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and laparoscopic or robotic minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (MIRP) are costlier alternatives to three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) and open radical prostatectomy for treating prostate cancer. We assessed temporal trends in their utilization and their impact on national health care spending.

METHODS

Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked data, we determined treatment patterns for 45,636 men age ≥ 65 years who received definitive surgery or radiation for localized prostate cancer diagnosed from 2002 to 2005. Costs attributable to prostate cancer care were the difference in Medicare payments in the year after versus the year before diagnosis.

RESULTS

Patients received surgery (26%), external RT (38%), or brachytherapy with or without RT (36%). Among surgical patients, MIRP utilization increased substantially (1.5% among 2002 diagnoses v 28.7% among 2005 diagnoses, P < .001). For RT, IMRT utilization increased substantially (28.7% v 81.7%; P < .001) and for men receiving brachytherapy, supplemental IMRT increased significantly (8.5% v 31.1%; P < .001). The mean incremental cost of IMRT versus 3D-CRT was $10,986 (in 2008 dollars); of brachytherapy plus IMRT versus brachytherapy plus 3D-CRT was $10,789; of MIRP versus open RP was $293. Extrapolating these figures to the total US population results in excess spending of $282 million for IMRT, $59 million for brachytherapy plus IMRT, and $4 million for MIRP, compared to less costly alternatives for men diagnosed in 2005.

CONCLUSION

Costlier prostate cancer therapies were rapidly and widely adopted, resulting in additional national spending of more than $350 million among men diagnosed in 2005 and suggesting the need for comparative effectiveness research to weigh their costs against their benefits.

Late toxicity after intensity-modulated radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer: an exploration of dose-volume histogram parameters to limit genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity

PURPOSE

To characterize the late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity for prostate cancer patients treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and propose dose-volume histogram (DVH) guidelines to limit late treatment-related toxicity.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

In this study 296 consecutive men were treated with IMRT for adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Most patients received treatment to the prostate with or without proximal seminal vesicles (90%), to a median dose of 76 Gy. Concurrent androgen deprivation therapy was given to 150 men (51%) for a median of 4 months. Late toxicity was defined by Common Toxicity Criteria version 3.0 as greater than 3 months after radiation therapy completion. Four groupings of DVH parameters were defined, based on the percentage of rectal or bladder tissue receiving 70 Gy (V(70)), 65 Gy (V(65)), and 40 Gy (V(40)). These DVH groupings, as well as clinical and treatment characteristics, were correlated to maximal Grade 2+ GU and GI toxicity.

RESULTS

With a median follow-up of 41 months, the 4-year freedom from maximal Grade 2+ late toxicity was 81% and 91% for GU and GI systems, respectively, and by last follow-up, the rates of Grade 2+ GU and GI toxicity were 9% and 5%, respectively. On multivariate analysis, whole-pelvic IMRT was associated with Grade 2+ GU toxicity and age was associated with Grade 2+ GI toxicity. Freedom from Grade 2+ GI toxicity at 4 years was 100% for men with rectal V(70) ≤ 10%, V(65) ≤ 20%, and V(40) ≤ 40%; 92% for men with rectal V(70) ≤ 20%, V(65) ≤ 40%, and V(40) ≤ 80%; and 85% for men exceeding these criteria (p = 0.13). These criteria were more highly associated with GI toxicity in men aged ≥70 years (p = 0.07). No bladder dose-volume relationships were associated with the risk of GU toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

IMRT is associated with low rates of severe GU or GI toxicity after treatment for prostate cancer. Rectal dose constraints may help limit late GI morbidity.

Emerging Technologies in Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy: Improving the Therapeutic Window

Background

Radiation therapy is a standard of care in the treatment of prostate cancer. Relatively recent advances in technologies in the delivery of radiation therapy are altering our current approach to treatment of prostate cancer.

Methods

This review discusses the results of retrospective, prospective, and randomized clinical trials that have evaluated clinical outcomes in prostate cancer treated with newer radiation therapy technologies.

Results

Randomized trials have demonstrated that higher doses of radiation therapy improve clinical outcomes but with increased toxicity to normal tissue. The introduction of more conformal radiation therapy techniques such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy, proton therapy, stereotactic body radiotherapy, and brachytherapy have allowed for further dose escalation with simultaneous reduction in toxicity. However, use of more conformal treatments requires a better understanding of prostate motion and the ability to track prostate movements in real time.

Conclusions

Technological advancements have improved radiation dose delivery to the prostate and have reduced normal tissue toxicity. Randomized trials are warranted to ultimately evaluate clinical benefit and outcomes.

A review of the clinical evidence for intensity-modulated radiotherapy

AIMS

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is a development of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy that offers improvements in dosimetry in many clinical scenarios. Here we review the clinical evidence for IMRT and present ongoing or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

We identified randomised and non-randomised comparative studies of IMRT and conventional radiotherapy using MEDLINE, hand-searching Radiotherapy and Oncology and the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics and the proceedings of the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology and the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology annual meetings. The metaRegister of Controlled Trials was searched to identify completed-unpublished, ongoing and planned RCTs.

RESULTS

Sixty-one studies comparing IMRT and conventional radiotherapy were identified. These included three RCTs in head and neck cancer (205 patients) and three in breast cancer (664 patients) that had reported clinical outcomes; these were all powered for toxicity-related end points, which were significantly better with IMRT in each trial. There were 27 additional non-randomised studies in head and neck (1119 patients), 26 in prostate cancer (>5000 patients), four in breast cancer (875 patients) and nine in other tumour sites. The results of these studies supported those of the RCTs with benefits reported in acute and late toxicity, health-related quality of life and tumour control end points. Twenty-eight completed-unpublished, ongoing or planned RCTs incorporating IMRT were identified, including at least 12,310 patients, of which 15 compared conventional radiotherapy within IMRT as a randomisation or pre-planned stratification.

DISCUSSION

Inverse-planned IMRT maintains parotid saliva production and reduces acute and late xerostomia during radiotherapy for locally advanced head and neck cancer, reduces late rectal toxicity in prostate cancer patients allowing safe dose escalation and seems to reduce toxicity in several other tumour sites. Forward-planned IMRT reduces acute toxicity and improves late clinician-assessed cosmesis compared with conventional tangential breast radiotherapy.

Postoperative intensity modulated radiation therapy in high risk prostate cancer: a dosimetric comparison

The aim of this study was to compare intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with 3D conformal technique (3D-CRT), with respect to target coverage and irradiation of organs at risk for high dose postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) of the prostate fossa. 3D-CRT and IMRT treatment plans were compared with respect to dose to the rectum and bladder. The dosimetric comparison was carried out in 15 patients considering 2 different scenarios: (1) exclusive prostate fossa irradiation, and (2) pelvic node irradiation followed by a boost on the prostate fossa. In scenario (1), a 3D-CRT plan (box technique) and an IMRT plan were calculated and compared for each patient. In scenario (2), 3 treatment plans were calculated and compared for each patient: (a) 3D-CRT box technique for both pelvic (prophylactic nodal irradiation) and prostate fossa irradiation (3D-CRT only); (b) 3D-CRT box technique for pelvic irradiation followed by an IMRT boost to the prostatic fossa (hybrid 3D-CRT and IMRT); and (c) IMRT for both pelvic and prostate fossa irradiation (IMRT only). For exclusive prostate fossa irradiation, IMRT significantly reduced the dose to the rectum (lower Dmean, V50%, V75%, V90%, V100%, EUD, and NTCP) and the bladder (lower Dmean, V50%, V90%, EUD and NTCP). When prophylactic irradiation of the pelvis was also considered, plan C (IMRT only) performed better than plan B (hybrid 3D-CRT and IMRT) as respect to both rectum and bladder irradiation (reduction of Dmean, V50%, V75%, V90%, equivalent uniform dose [EUD], and normal tissue complication probability [NTCP]). Plan (b) (hybrid 3D-CRT and IMRT) performed better than plan (a) (3D-CRT only) with respect to dose to the rectum (lower Dmean, V75%, V90%, V100%, EUD, and NTCP) and the bladder (Dmean, EUD, and NTCP). Postoperative IMRT in prostate cancer significantly reduces rectum and bladder irradiation compared with 3D-CRT.

Toxicity analysis of postoperative image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To report on the acute and late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity associated with a unique technique of image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) in patients undergoing postprostatectomy irradiation.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Fifty patients were treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) after radical prostatectomy. Daily image guidance was performed to localize the prostate bed using kilovoltage imaging or cone-beam computed tomography. The median prescription dose was 68 Gy (range, 62-68 Gy). Toxicity was graded every 3 to 6 months according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 24 months (range, 13-38 months). Grade 2 acute GI and GU events occurred in 4 patients (8%) and 7 patients (14%), respectively. No Grade 3 or higher acute GI or GU toxicities were observed. Late Grade 2 GI and GU events occurred in 1 patient (2%) and 8 patients (16%), respectively. Only a single (2%) Grade 3 or higher late toxicity was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Image-guided IMRT in the postprostatectomy setting is associated with a low frequency of acute and late GI/GU toxicity. These results compare more favorably to radiotherapy techniques that do not use in-room image-guidance, suggesting that daily prostate bed localization may reduce the incidence of adverse events in patients undergoing postprostatectomy irradiation.

Evaluating the relationships between rectal normal tissue complication probability and the portion of seminal vesicles included in the clinical target volume in intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To compare dose-volume consequences of the inclusion of various portions of the seminal vesicles (SVs) in the clinical target volume (CTV) in intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for patients with prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

For 10 patients with prostate cancer, three matched IMRT plans were generated, including 1 cm, 2 cm, or the entire SVs (SV1, SV2, or SVtotal, respectively) in the CTV. Prescription dose (79.2 Gy) and IMRT planning were according to the high-dose arm of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0126 protocol. We compared plans for percentage of rectal volume receiving minimum doses of 60-80 Gy and for rectal normal tissue complication probability (NTCP[R]).

RESULTS

There was a detectable increase in rectal dose in SV2 and SVtotal compared with SV1. The magnitude of difference between plans was modest in the high-dose range. In 2 patients, there was underdosing of the planning target volume (PTV) because of constraints on rectal dose in the SVtotal plans. All other plans were compliant with RTOG 0126 protocol requirements. Mean NTCP increased from 14% to 17% and 18% for SV1, SV2, and SV total, respectively. The NTCP correlated with the size of PTV-rectum volume overlap (Pearson's r = 0.86; p < 0.0001), but not with SV volume.

CONCLUSIONS

Doubling (1 to 2 cm) or comprehensively increasing (1 cm to full SVs) SV volume included in the CTV for patients with prostate IMRT is achievable in the majority of cases without exceeding RTOG dose-volume limits or underdosing the PTV and results in only a moderate increase in NTCP.

Management of complications of prostate cancer treatment

Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed noncutaneous cancer in men in the United States. Treatment of men with prostate cancer commonly involves surgical, radiation, or hormone therapy. Most men with prostate cancer live for many years after diagnosis and may never suffer morbidity or mortality attributable to prostate cancer. The short-term and long-term adverse consequences of therapy are, therefore, of great importance. Adverse effects of radical prostatectomy include immediate postoperative complications and long-term urinary and sexual complications. External beam or interstitial radiation therapy in men with localized prostate cancer may lead to urinary, gastrointestinal, and sexual complications. Improvements in surgical and radiation techniques have reduced the incidence of many of these complications. Hormone treatment typically consists of androgen deprivation therapy, and consequences of such therapy may include vasomotor flushing, anemia, and bone density loss. Numerous clinical trials have studied the role of bone antiresorptive therapy for prevention of bone density loss and fractures. Other long-term consequences of androgen deprivation therapy may include adverse body composition changes and increased risk of insulin resistance, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Ongoing and planned clinical trials will continue to address strategies to prevent treatment-related side effects and improve quality of life for men with prostate cancer.

Evidence behind use of intensity-modulated radiotherapy: a systematic review of comparative clinical studies

Since its introduction more than a decade ago, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) has spread to most radiotherapy departments worldwide for a wide range of indications. The technique has been rapidly implemented, despite an incomplete understanding of its advantages and weaknesses, the challenges of IMRT planning, delivery, and quality assurance, and the substantially increased cost compared with non-IMRT. Many publications discuss the theoretical advantages of IMRT dose distributions. However, the key question is whether the use of IMRT can be exploited to obtain a clinically relevant advantage over non-modulated external-beam radiation techniques. To investigate which level of evidence supports the routine use of IMRT for various disease sites, we did a review of clinical studies that reported on overall survival, disease-specific survival, quality of life, treatment-induced toxicity, or surrogate endpoints. This review shows evidence of reduced toxicity for various tumour sites by use of IMRT. The findings regarding local control and overall survival are generally inconclusive.

Dose–Volume Comparison of Proton Therapy and Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

The contrast in dose distribution between proton radiotherapy (RT) and intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) is unclear, particularly in regard to critical structures such as the rectum and bladder.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Between August and November 2006, the first 10 consecutive patients treated in our Phase II low-risk prostate proton protocol (University of Florida Proton Therapy Institute protocol 0001) were reviewed. The double-scatter proton beam plans used in treatment were analyzed for various dosimetric endpoints. For all plans, each beam dose distribution, angle, smearing, and aperture margin were optimized. IMRT plans were created for all patients and simultaneously analyzed. The IMRT plans were optimized through multiple volume objectives, beam weighting, and individual leaf movement. The patients were treated to 78 Gray-equivalents (GE) in 2-GE fractions with a biologically equivalent dose of 1.1.

RESULTS

All rectal and rectal wall volumes treated to 10-80 GE (percentage of volume receiving 10-80 GE [V(10)-V(80)]) were significantly lower with proton therapy (p < 0.05). The rectal V(50) was reduced from 31.3% +/- 4.1% with IMRT to 14.6% +/- 3.0% with proton therapy for a relative improvement of 53.4% and an absolute benefit of 16.7% (p < 0.001). The mean rectal dose decreased 59% with proton therapy (p < 0.001). For the bladder and bladder wall, proton therapy produced significantly smaller volumes treated to doses of 10-35 GE (p < 0.05) with a nonsignificant advantage demonstrated for the volume receiving < or =60 GE. The bladder V(30) was reduced with proton therapy for a relative improvement of 35.3% and an absolute benefit of 15.1% (p = 0.02). The mean bladder dose decreased 35% with proton therapy (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Compared with IMRT, proton therapy reduced the dose to the dose-limiting normal structures while maintaining excellent planning target volume coverage.