Bladder trigone sparing radiotherapy in prostate cancer treatment

INTRODUCTION

Evidence suggests the bladder trigone to be a potential organ at risk (OAR) in predicting acute and late genitourinary (GU) side effects when treating prostate cancer with radiotherapy.

METHODS

A search of MEDLINE, Cinahl, EMBASE, PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and OpenGrey was conducted and no current or underway systematic reviews or scoping reviews on the topic were identified. A systematic literature review was carried out assessing the quality of this evidence. All evidence that prospectively or retrospectively reviewed radiotherapy or modelled radiotherapy dose to the bladder trigone were included. The search was conducted on the 8th July 2021 with 32 studies included in this review. This was repeated 10th June 2023 and two additional studies were identified. Any evidence published since this date have not been included and are a limitation of this review.

RESULTS

MRI imaging is recommended to assist in delineating the trigone which has been shown to have a high amount of inter-observer variability and the use of specific training may reduce this. Across all radiotherapy treatment modalities, trigone dose contributed to GU acute and late toxicity symptoms. Trigone motion is relative to prostate motion but further research is required to confirm if the prostate can be used as a reliable surrogate for trigone position. The dose tolerance given for specific trigone related toxicities is debated within the literature, and on analysis the authors of this review suggest bladder trigone dose limits: Dmean < 45.8 Gy, V61.0Gy < 40%, V59.8Gy < 25%, V42.5Gy-V41.0Gy < 91% and V47.4Gy-V43.2Gy < 91% with α/β of 3 Gy to reduce acute and late GU toxicities.

CONCLUSION

There is evidence to support further research into bladder trigone sparing radiotherapy to improve patient outcomes.

IMPLICATION FOR PRACTICE

Using the bladder trigone as an organ at risk is possible and the authors are currently seeking funding for a feasibility trial to further investigate this.

Dose-volume relationships of planned versus estimated delivered radiation doses to pelvic organs at risk and side effects in patients treated with salvage radiotherapy for recurrent prostate cancer

Purpose

To investigate estimated delivered dose distributions using weekly cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans for pelvic organs at risk (OARs) in salvage radiotherapy (SRT) after radical prostatectomy. Furthermore, to compare them with the originally planned dose distributions and analyse associations with gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) side effects.

Methods

This study is part of a phase II trial involving SRT for recurrent prostate cancer. Treatment was personalised based on PSA response during SRT, classifying patients as PSA responders or non-responders. Estimated radiation dose distributions were obtained using deformable image registration from weekly CBCT scans. GI and GU toxicities were assessed using the RTOG toxicity scale, while patient-reported symptoms were monitored through self-assessment questionnaires.

Results

The study included 100 patients, with similar treatment-related side effects observed in both responders and non-responders. Differences in dose-volume metrics between the planned and estimated delivered doses for the examined OARs were mostly modest, although generally statistically significant. We identified statistically significant associations between QUANTEC-recommended dose-volume constraints and acute bowel toxicity, as well as late urinary patient-reported symptoms, for both the estimated delivered and planned dose distributions.

Conclusion

We found small but statistically significant differences between estimated delivered and planned doses to OARs. These differences showed trends toward improved associations for estimated delivered dose distributions with side effects. Enhanced registration methods and imaging techniques could potentially further enhance the assessment of truly delivered doses and yield more reliable dose-volume constraints for future therapies.

Multiscale spatial relationship-based model for predicting bladder wall dose in pelvic radiotherapy

PURPOSE

This research aimed to develop a prediction model to assess bladder wall dosimetry during radiotherapy for patients with pelvic tumors, thereby facilitating the refinement and evaluation of radiotherapy treatment plans to mitigate bladder toxicity.

METHODS

Radiotherapy treatment plans of 49 rectal cancer patients and 45 gynecologic cancer patients were collected, and multiple linear regression analyses were used to generate prediction models for bladder wall dose parameters (V 10 - 45 G y ( c m 3 ) ${V_{10 - 45Gy\ }}( {{\mathrm{c}}{{\mathrm{m}}^3}} )$ ,D m e a n ( Gy ) ${D_{mean}}( {{\mathrm{Gy}}} )$ ). These models were based on the multiscale spatial relationship between the planning target volume (PTV) and the bladder or bladder wall. The proportion of bladder or bladder wall volume overlapped by the different distance expansions of the PTV was used as an indicator of the multiscale spatial relationship. The accuracy of these models was verified in a cohort of 12 new patients, with further refinement of radiotherapy treatment plans using the predicted values as optimization parameters. Model accuracy was assessed using root mean square error (RMSE) and mean percentage error (MPE).

RESULTS

Models derived from individual disease data outperformed those derived from combined datasets. Predicted bladder wall dose parameters were accurate, with the majority of initial calculated values for new patients falling within the 95% confidence interval of the model predictions. There was a robust correlation between the predicted and actual dose metrics, with a correlation coefficient of 0.943. Using the predicted values to optimize treatment plans significantly reduced bladder wall dose (p< $\ < \ $ 0.001), with bladder wallD mean ( G y ) ${D_{{\mathrm{mean}}}}( {Gy} )$ andV 10 - 45 G y ( c m 3 ) ${V_{10 - 45Gy\ }}( {{\mathrm{c}}{{\mathrm{m}}^3}} )$ decreasing by 2.27±0.80 Gy (5.8%±1.8%) and 2.96±2.05 cm3 (7.9%±5.4%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The formulated prediction model provides a valuable tool for predicting and minimizing bladder wall dose and for optimizing and evaluating radiotherapy treatment plans for pelvic tumor patients. This approach holds promise for reducing bladder toxicity and potentially improving patient outcomes.

Organs at risk radiation dose constraints

Dose constraints are essential for performing dosimetry, especially for intensity modulation and for radiotherapy under stereotaxic conditions. We present the update of the recommendations of the French society of oncological radiotherapy for the use of these doses in classical current practice but also for reirradiation.

The association between clinician-based common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) and patient-reported outcomes (PRO): a systematic review

PURPOSE

Symptomatic adverse events (AEs) are monitored by clinicians as part of all US-based clinical trials in cancer via the U.S. National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) for the purposes of ensuring patient safety. Recently, there has been a charge toward capturing the patient perspective for those AEs amenable to patient self-reporting via patient-reported outcomes (PRO). The aim of this review was to summarize the empirically reported association between analogous CTCAE and PRO ratings.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases through July 2015. From a total of 5658 articles retrieved, 28 studies met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Across studies, patients were of mixed cancer types, including anal, breast, cervical, chronic myeloid leukemia, endometrial, hematological, lung, ovarian, pelvic, pharyngeal, prostate, and rectal. Given this mixture, the AEs captured were variable, with many common across studies (e.g., dyspnea, fatigue, nausea, neuropathy, pain, vomiting), as well as several that were disease-specific (e.g., erectile dysfunction, hemoptysis). Overall, the quantified association between CTCAE and PRO ratings fell in the fair to moderate range and had a large variation across the majority of studies (n = 21).

CONCLUSIONS

The range of measures used and symptoms captured varied greatly across the reviewed studies. Regardless of concordance metric employed, reported agreement between CTCAE and PRO ratings was moderate at best. To assist with reconciliation and interpretation of these differences toward ultimately improving patient care, an important next step is to explore approaches to integrate PROs with clinician reporting of AEs.