Passive proton therapy vs. IMRT planning study with focal boost for prostate cancer

Proton Versus CyberKnife Therapy Planning for Hypofractionated Treatment of Prostate With Focal Boost

Purpose

To compare intensity-modulated proton therapy with CyberKnife (CK) therapy for hypo-fractionated treatments of prostate with focal boost, as a first planning study for prostate with dose escalation to a dominant intraprostatic lesion (DIL).

Materials and Methods

Ten patients who possess one DIL in their prostate and their CK plans that were used to treat the planning target volume of prostate were chosen. Six of the plans were further escalated to DIL. Intensity-modulated proton therapy plans were created for the patients with robust optimization, accounting for setup and range uncertainties for the clinical target volume (CTV) of prostate. The CK plans were then compared with the proton plans.

Results

In the worst scenario of the robust evaluation, the proton plans reasonably met all objectives and constraints used in CK planning for both CTV coverage and organs-at-risk (OAR) sparing. Under the nominal scenario of the robust optimization, the proton plans produced dosimetric values comparable to those by the CK plans for both CTV and DIL coverage. The average dose to CTV, outside DIL and urethra, was found lower in the proton plans than in the CK plans due to the uncertainties. A similar trend was observed for the dose conformity to CTV. These two findings, however, were not planning objectives. Regarding organs-at-risk sparing, the proton plans in the nominal scenario were comparable to the CK plans for doses >18.125 Gy; for doses below it, the proton performed better. This study offers a basis for a clinical trial of treatment of prostate cancer by proton that may be transferred from the CK system in our center.

Conclusion

The dosimetric objectives and constraints used in the CK plans were achieved with the proton plans.

Focal Boost in Prostate Cancer Radiotherapy: A Review of Planning Studies and Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Focal boost radiotherapy was developed to deliver elevated doses to functional sub-volumes within a target. Such a technique was hypothesized to improve treatment outcomes without increasing toxicity in prostate cancer treatment.

PURPOSE

To summarize and evaluate the efficacy and variability of focal boost radiotherapy by reviewing focal boost planning studies and clinical trials that have been published in the last ten years.

METHODS

Published reports of focal boost radiotherapy, that specifically incorporate dose escalation to intra-prostatic lesions (IPLs), were reviewed and summarized. Correlations between acute/late ≥G2 genitourinary (GU) or gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity and clinical factors were determined by a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

By reviewing and summarizing 34 planning studies and 35 trials, a significant dose escalation to the GTV and thus higher tumor control of focal boost radiotherapy were reported consistently by all reviewed studies. Reviewed trials reported a not significant difference in toxicity between focal boost and conventional radiotherapy. Acute ≥G2 GU and late ≥G2 GI toxicities were reported the most and least prevalent, respectively, and a negative correlation was found between the rate of toxicity and proportion of low-risk or intermediate-risk patients in the cohort.

CONCLUSION

Focal boost prostate cancer radiotherapy has the potential to be a new standard of care.

A treatment planning study of urethra-sparing intensity-modulated proton therapy for localized prostate cancer

•

US-IMPT can potentially reduce the risk of genitourinary toxicities.

•

The urethral NTCP value in US-IMPT is significantly lower than in the clinical plan.

•

TCP for CTV did not differ significantly between the clinical and US-IMPT plans.

Background and Purpose

Urethra-sparing radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer can reduce the risk of radiation-induced genitourinary toxicity by intentionally underdosing the periurethral transitional zone. We aimed to compare the clinical impact of a urethra-sparing intensity-modulated proton therapy (US-IMPT) plan with that of conventional clinical plans without urethral dose reduction.

Materials and Methods

This study included 13 patients who had undergone proton beam therapy. The prescribed dose was 63 GyE in 21 fractions for 99% of the clinical target volume. To compare the clinical impact of the US-IMPT plan with that of the conventional clinical plan, tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) were calculated with a generalized equivalent uniform dose-based Lyman–Kutcher model using dose volume histograms. The endpoints of these model parameters for the rectum, bladder, and urethra were fistula, contraction, and urethral stricture, respectively.

Results

The mean NTCP value for the urethra in US-IMPT was significantly lower than that in the conventional clinical plan (0.6% vs. 1.2%, p < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between the conventional and US-IMPT plans regarding the mean minimum dose for the urethra with a 3-mm margin, TCP value, and NTCP value for the rectum and bladder. Additionally, the target dose coverage of all plans in the robustness analysis was within the clinically acceptable range.

Conclusions

Compared with the conventional clinically applied plans, US-IMPT plans have potential clinical advantages and may reduce the risk of genitourinary toxicities, while maintaining the same TCP and NTCP in the rectum and bladder.

Proton vs. photon radiotherapy for MR-guided dose escalation of intraprostatic lesions

BACKGROUND

Dose escalation has been associated with improved biochemical control for prostate cancer. Focusing the high dose on the MRI-defined intraprostatic lesions (IL) could spare the surrounding organs at risk and hence allow further escalation. We compare treatment efficacy between state-of-the-art focally-boosted proton and photon-based radiotherapy, and investigate possible predictive guidelines regarding individualized treatment prescriptions.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Ten prostate cancer patients with well-defined ILs were selected. Multiparametric MRI was used to delineate ILs, which were transferred to the planning CT via image registration. Pencil beam scanning proton therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy treatment plans, were created for each patient. Each modality featured 6 plans: (1) moderately hypofractionated dose: 70 Gy to the prostate in 28 fractions, (2)-(6) plan 1 plus additional simultaneous-integrated-boost to ILs to 75.6, 81.2, 86.6, 98 and 112 Gy in 28 fractions. Equivalent dose to 2 Gy-per-fraction (EqD2) was used to calculate tumor control (TCP) and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) for ILs and organs-at-risk.

RESULTS

For both modalities, the maximum necessary dose to achieve TCP > 99% was 98 Gy for very high-risk ILs. For lower risk ILs lower doses were sufficient. NTCP was <25% and 35% for protons and photons at the maximum dose escalation, respectively. For the cases and beam characteristics considered, proton therapy was dosimetrically superior when IL was >4 cc or located <2.5 mm from the rectum.

CONCLUSION

This work demonstrated the potential role for proton therapy in the setting of prostate focal dose escalation. We propose that anatomical characteristic could be used as criteria to identify patients who would benefit from proton treatment.

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

PURPOSE

Although proton therapy is controversial, it has been used to treat localized prostate cancer over the past 2 decades. The purpose of this study is to examine the long-term efficacy and toxicity of proton therapy for localized prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This was a retrospective observational study of 2021 patients from 2003 to 2014 at a single institution. Patients were classified using the risk groups defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, version 4.2019. Ninety-eight percent of the patients received 74 Gy (relative biological effectiveness) in 37 fractions. Fifty-one and 6% of the patients received neoadjuvant and adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy, respectively. The outcomes were the time of freedom from biochemical relapse and the time to late toxicity by the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0. The outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and were analyzed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

The median follow-up period was 84 months (interquartile range, 60-110). The 5- and 10-year freedom from biochemical relapse rates were 100% and 100%, 99% and 88%, 93% and 86%, 90% and 79%, 88% and 68%, and 76% and 63% for the very low, low, favorable intermediate, unfavorable intermediate, high, and very high-risk groups, respectively. Patients with higher risk experienced biochemical relapse after shorter periods. The 5-year rates of grade 2 or higher late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity were 2.2% and 4.0%, respectively. The results of multivariable analyses indicate that younger patients more often experienced biochemical relapse.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the favorable biochemical controls of proton therapy even in advanced localized prostate cancer patients with a low incidence of late toxicities, supporting the feasibility of conducting prospective clinical trials. The risk groups defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, version 4.2019, are useful to classify patients with localized prostate cancer. Our findings might suggest the necessity to develop a treatment strategy that accounts for the patient's age.

Stability of daily rectal movement and effectiveness of replanning protocols for sparing rectal doses based on the daily CT images during proton treatment for prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To evaluate the optimal period of replanning to spare the rectal dose by investigating daily rectal movements during computed tomography (CT) image-guided proton therapy for prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To evaluate the optimum reference period for replanning, we analyzed 1483 sets of daily CT (dCT) images acquired from 40 prostate cancer patients and measured the daily rectal movement along the anterior-posterior direction based on the simulator CT (sCT) images and dCT images. We calculated daily dose distributions based on initial plans on the sCT images and replans on the dCT images for 13 representative patients, and evaluated daily dose volume histograms (DVHs) for the prostate, seminal vesicles, and rectum.

RESULTS

The rectal anterior side on the dCT images around the seminal vesicles largely deviated toward the anterior side relative to the position on the reference sCT images, but the deviation decreased by referring to the dCT images and became nearly zero when we referred to the dCT images after 10-day treatment. The daily DVH values for the prostate showed good dose coverage. For six patients showing rectal movement toward the anterior side, the daily rectal DVH (V_77% ) showed a 3.0 ± 1.7 cc excess from the initial plan and this excess was correlated with 9.9 ± 6.8 mm rectal movement. To identify the patients (37.5% in total) for whom the replanning on the 10th-day and 20th-day CT images reduced the V_77% excess to 0.4 ± 1.5 cc and -0.2 ± 1.3 cc, respectively, we evaluated the accumulated mean doses with a 1.2 cc criterion.

CONCLUSION

Our data demonstrate that the daily movement of the rectal anterior side tends to move toward the anterior side, which results in a rectal overdose, and the mean of the movement gradually decreases with the passage of days. In such cases, replanning with the reference CT after 10 days is effective to spare the rectal dose.

A planning study of focal dose escalations to multiparametric MRI-defined dominant intraprostatic lesions in prostate proton radiation therapy

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study is to investigate the dosimetric effect and clinical impact of delivering a focal radiotherapy boost dose to multiparametric MRI (mp-MRI)-defined dominant intraprostatic lesions (DILs) in prostate cancer using proton therapy.

METHODS

We retrospectively investigated 36 patients with pre-treatment mp-MRI and CT images who were treated using pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton radiation therapy to the whole prostate. DILs were contoured on co-registered mp-MRIs. Simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) plans using intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) were created based on conventional whole-prostate-irradiation for each patient and optimized with additional DIL coverage goals and urethral constraints. DIL dose coverage and organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing were compared between conventional and SIB plans. Tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) were estimated to evaluate the clinical impact of the SIB plans.

RESULTS

Optimized SIB plans significantly escalated the dose to DILs while meeting OAR constraints. SIB plans were able to achieve 125, 150 and 175% of prescription dose coverage in 74, 54 and 17% of 36 patients, respectively. This was modeled to result in an increase in DIL TCP by 7.3-13.3% depending on α / β and DIL risk level.

CONCLUSION

The proposed mp-MRI-guided DIL boost using proton radiation therapy is feasible without violating OAR constraints and demonstrates a potential clinical benefit by improving DIL TCP. This retrospective study suggested the use of IMPT-based DIL SIB may represent a strategy to improve tumor control.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

This study investigated the planning of mp-MRI-guided DIL boost in prostate proton radiation therapy and estimated its clinical impact with respect to TCP and NTCP.

A biological modelling based comparison of radiotherapy plan robustness using photons vs protons for focal prostate boosting

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Focal tumour boosting is currently explored in radiotherapy of prostate cancer to increase tumour control. In this study we applied dose response models for both tumour control and normal tissue complications to explore the benefit of proton therapy (PT) combined with focal tumour boosting, also when accounting for inter-fractional motion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

CT scans of seven patients fused with MRI-based index volumes were used. Two volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were created for each patient; one with conventional dose (77 Gy) to the entire prostate, and one with an additional integrated boost (total dose of 95 Gy) to the index lesion. Two corresponding intensity modulated PT (IMPT) plans were created using two lateral opposing spot scanning beams. All plans were evaluated using an MRI-based tumour control probability (TCP) model and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models for the rectum and bladder. Plan robustness was evaluated using dose re-calculations on repeat cone-beam CTs.

RESULTS

Across all plans, median TCP increased from 86% (range: 59-98%) without boost to 97% (range: 96-99%) with boost. IMPT plans had lower rectum NTCPs (e.g. 3% vs. 4% for boost plans) but higher bladder NTCPs (20% vs. 18% for boost plans), yet only the bladder NTCPs remained different in the cone beam CT-based re-calculations.

CONCLUSIONS

Focal tumour boosting can be delivered with either VMAT or protons, and increases the predicted TCP. The small benefit of IMPT when assessing the planned dose distributions was lost when accounting for inter-fractional motion.

Long-term outcomes of proton therapy for prostate cancer in Japan: a multi-institutional survey of the Japanese Radiation Oncology Study Group

This is the first multi‐institutional retrospective survey of the long‐term outcomes of proton therapy (PT) for prostate cancer in Japan. This retrospective analysis comprised prostate cancer patients treated with PT at seven centers between January 2008 and December 2011 and was approved by each Institutional Review Board. The NCCN classification was used. Biochemical relapse was based on the Phoenix definition (nadir + 2.0 ng/mL). Toxicities were evaluated with the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. There were 215, 520, and 556 patients in the low‐risk, intermediate‐risk, and high‐risk groups, respectively. The median follow‐up period of surviving patients was 69 months (range: 7–107). Among all patients, 98.8% were treated using a conventional fractionation schedule and 1.2% with a hypofractionation schedule; 58.5% and 21.5% received neoadjuvant and adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy, respectively. The 5‐year biochemical relapse‐free survival (bRFS) and overall survival rates in the low‐risk, intermediate‐risk, and high‐risk groups were 97.0%, 91.1%, and 83.1%, and 98.4%, 96.8%, and 95.2%, respectively. In the multivariate analysis, the NCCN classification was a significant prognostic factor for bRFS, but not overall survival. The incidence rates of grade 2 or more severe late gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicities were 4.1% and 4.0%, retrospectively. This retrospective analysis of a multi‐institutional survey suggested that PT is effective and well‐tolerated for prostate cancer. Based on this result, a multi‐institutional prospective clinical trial (UMIN000025453) on PT for prostate cancer has just been initiated in order to define its role in Japan.

Rectal dose to prostate cancer patients treated with proton therapy with or without rectal spacer

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether a spacer inserted in the prerectal space could reduce modeled rectal dose and toxicity rates for patients with prostate cancer treated in silico with pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy. A total of 20 patients were included in this study who received photon therapy (12 with rectal spacer (DuraSeal™ gel) and 8 without). Two PBS treatment plans were retrospectively created for each patient using the following beam arrangements: (1) lateral-opposed (LAT) fields and (2) left and right anterior oblique (LAO/RAO) fields. Dose volume histograms (DVH) were generated for the prostate, rectum, bladder, and right and left femoral heads. The normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for ≥grade 2 rectal toxicity was calculated using the Lyman-Kutcher-Burman model and compared between patients with and without the rectal spacer. A significantly lower mean rectal DVH was achieved in patients with rectal spacer compared to those without. For LAT plans, the mean rectal V70 with and without rectal spacer was 4.19 and 13.5%, respectively. For LAO/RAO plans, the mean rectal V70 with and without rectal spacer was 5.07 and 13.5%, respectively. No significant differences were found in any rectal dosimetric parameters between the LAT and the LAO/RAO plans generated with the rectal spacers. We found that ≥ 9 mm space resulted in a significant decrease in NTCP modeled for ≥grade 2 rectal toxicity. Rectal spacers can significantly decrease modeled rectal dose and predicted ≥grade 2 rectal toxicity in prostate cancer patients treated in silico with PBS. A minimum of 9 mm separation between the prostate and anterior rectal wall yields the largest benefit.