Prostate cancer and elective nodal radiation therapy for cN0 and pN0-a never ending story? : Recommendations from the prostate cancer expert panel of the German Society of Radiation Oncology (DEGRO)

For prostate cancer, the role of elective nodal irradiation (ENI) for cN0 or pN0 patients has been under discussion for years. Considering the recent publications of randomized controlled trials, the prostate cancer expert panel of the German Society of Radiation Oncology (DEGRO) aimed to discuss and summarize the current literature. Modern trials have been recently published for both treatment-naïve patients (POP-RT trial) and patients after surgery (SPPORT trial). Although there are more reliable data to date, we identified several limitations currently complicating the definitions of general recommendations. For patients with cN0 (conventional or PSMA-PET staging) undergoing definitive radiotherapy, only men with high-risk factors for nodal involvement (e.g., cT3a, GS ≥ 8, PSA ≥ 20 ng/ml) seem to benefit from ENI. For biochemical relapse in the postoperative situation (pN0) and no PSMA imaging, ENI may be added to patients with risk factors according to the SPPORT trial (e.g., GS ≥ 8; PSA > 0.7 ng/ml). If PSMA-PET/CT is negative, ENI may be offered for selected men with high-risk factors as an individual treatment approach.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS AND MATERIALS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Safety of Radiation Therapy in Patients With Prostate Cancer and Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has historically been considered a relative contraindication for pelvic radiation therapy (RT). To date, no systematic review has summarized the toxicity profile of RT for patients with prostate cancer and comorbid IBD.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A PRISMA-guided systematic search was conducted on PubMed/Embase for original investigations that reported gastrointestinal (GI; rectal/bowel) toxicity in patients with IBD undergoing RT for prostate cancer. The substantial heterogeneity in patient population, follow-up, and toxicity reporting practices precluded a formal meta-analysis; however, a summary of the individual study-level data and crude pooled rates was described.

RESULTS

Twelve retrospective studies with 194 patients were included: 5 examined predominantly low-dose-rate brachytherapy (BT) monotherapy, 1 predominantly high-dose-rate BT monotherapy, 3 mixed external beam RT (3-dimensional conformal or intensity modulated RT [IMRT]) + low-dose-rate BT, 1 IMRT + high-dose-rate BT, and 2 stereotactic RT. Among these studies, patients with active IBD, patients receiving pelvic RT, and patients with prior abdominopelvic surgery were underrepresented. In all but 1 publication, the rate of late grade 3+ GI toxicities was <5%. The crude pooled rate of acute and late grade 2+ GI events was 15.3% (n = 27/177 evaluable patients; range, 0%-100%) and 11.3% (n = 20/177 evaluable patients; range, 0%-38.5%), respectively. Crude rates of acute and late grade 3+ GI events were 3.4% (6 cases; range, 0%-23%) and 2.3% (4 cases; range, 0%-15%).

CONCLUSIONS

Prostate RT in patients with comorbid IBD appears to be associated with low rates of grade 3+ GI toxicity; however, patients must be counseled regarding the possibility for lower-grade toxicities. These data cannot be generalized to the underrepresented subpopulations mentioned above, and individualize decision-making is recommended for those high-risk cases. Several strategies should be considered to minimize the probability of toxicity in this susceptible population, including careful patient selection, minimizing elective (nodal) treatment volumes, using rectal sparing techniques, and employing contemporary RT advancements to minimize exposure to GI organs at risk (eg, IMRT, magnetic resonance imaging-based target delineation, and high-quality daily image guidance).

Management of high-risk and post-operative non-metastatic prostate cancer in Catalonia: an expert Delphi consensus

BACKGROUND

To reach a consensus on recommendations for the management of high-risk and post-operative non-metastatic prostate cancer by a group of Radiation Oncologists in Catalonia dedicated to prostate cancer.

METHODS

A modified Delphi approach was employed to reach consensus on controversial topics in Radiation Oncology on high-risk non-metastatic (eight questions) and post-operative (eight questions) prostate cancer. An agreement of at least 75% was considered as consensus. The survey was electronically sent 6 weeks before an expert meeting where topics were reviewed and discussed. A second-round survey for the controversial questions only was sent and answered by participants after the meeting.

RESULTS

After the first round of the survey, 19 experienced Radiation Oncologists attended the meeting and 74% fulfilled the second-round online questionnaire. An agreement of 9 of the 16 questions was accounted for the first round. After the meeting, an additional agreement was reached in 3 questions leading to a final consensus on 12 of the 16 questions. There are still controversial topics like the use of PET for staging of high-risk and post-operative non-metastatic prostate cancer and the optimal dose to the prostate bed in the salvage setting.

CONCLUSION

This consensus contributes to establish recommendations and a framework to help in prostate cancer radiation therapy and pharmacological management in daily clinical practice of high-risk and post-operative non-metastatic prostate cancer.

Sentinel Node Procedure to Select Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Patients with Occult Nodal Metastases for Whole Pelvis Radiotherapy

Background

Accurate identification of men who harbor nodal metastases is necessary to select patients who most likely benefit from whole pelvis radiotherapy (WPRT). Limited sensitivity of diagnostic imaging approaches for the detection of nodal micrometastases has led to the exploration of the sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB).

Objective

To evaluate whether SLNB can be used as a tool to select pathologically node-positive patients who likely benefit from WPRT.

Design setting and participants

We included 528 clinically node-negative primary prostate cancer (PCa) patients with an estimated nodal risk of >5% treated between 2007 and 2018.

Intervention

A total of 267 patients were directly treated with prostate-only radiotherapy (PORT; non-SLNB group), while 261 patients underwent SLNB to remove lymph nodes directly draining from the primary tumor prior to radiotherapy (SLNB group); pN0 patients were treated with PORT, while pN1 patients were offered WPRT.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

Biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS) and radiological recurrence-free survival (RRFS) were compared using propensity score weighted (PSW) Cox proportional hazard models.

Results and limitations

The median follow-up was 71 mo. Occult nodal metastases were found in 97 (37%) SLNB patients (median metastasis size: 2 mm). Adjusted 7-yr BCRFS rates were 81% (95% confidence interval [CI] 77-86%) in the SLNB group and 49% (95% CI 43-56%) in the non-SLNB group. The corresponding adjusted 7-yr RRFS rates were 83% (95% CI 78-87%) and 52% (95% CI 46-59%), respectively. In the PSW multivariable Cox regression analysis, SLNB was associated with improved BCRFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.38, 95% CI 0.25-0.59, p < 0.001) and RRFS (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28-0.69, p < 0.001). Limitations include the bias inherent to the study's retrospective nature.

Conclusions

SLNB-based selection of pN1 PCa patients for WPRT was associated with significantly improved BCRFS and RRFS compared with (conventional) imaging-based PORT.

Patient summary

Sentinel node biopsy can be used to select patients who will benefit from the addition of pelvis radiotherapy. This strategy results in a longer duration of prostate-specific antigen control and a lower risk of radiological recurrence.

DNA-methylation and genomic copy number in primary tumors and corresponding lymph node metastases in prostate cancer from patients with low and high Gleason score

Purpose

In prostate cancer, the indication to irradiate the pelvic lymphatic pathways in clinical node-negative patients is solely based on clinical nomograms. To define biological risk patterns of lymphatic spread, we studied DNA-methylation and genomic copy number in primary tumors and corresponding lymph nodes metastases.

Methods/Patients

DNA-methylation and genomic copy number profiles of primary tumors (PT) and paired synchronous lymph node metastases (LN) from Gleason Score (GS)-6/7a (n = 20 LN-positive, n = 20 LN-negative) and GS-9/10 patients (LN-positive n = 20) after prostatectomy and lymphonodectomy were analyzed.

Results

GS-6/7a pN0 PTs and GS-6/7a pN1 PTs differed in histone H3K27me3/H3K9me3 mediated methylation. PTs compared to LNs, in both, GS-6/7a pN1 and GS-9/10 pN1 patients showed large differences in DNA-methylation mediated by histones H3K4me1/2, in addition to copy number changes of chromosomal regions 11q13.1, 14q11.2 and 15q26.1. Between GS-6/7a pN1 and GS-9/10 pN1 patients, methylation levels differed more when comparing LNs than PTs. 16q21-22.1 was specifically lost in GS-9/10 pN0 PTs. Immune system-related pathways characterized the differences between PTs and LNs in both GS-6/7a pN1 and GS-9/10 pN1 patients. Comparing PTs and LKs between GS-6/7a pN1 and GS-9/10 pN1 patients revealed altered transmembrane and G-protein-coupled receptor signaling.

Conclusions

Our data suggest that progression of prostate cancer, including lymphatic spread, is associated with histone-mediated DNA-methylation and we hypothesize a methylation signature predicting lymphatic spread in GS-6/7a patients from primary tumors. Lymphatic spread in GS-6/7a patients, flanked by DNA-methylation and CNA alterations, appears to be more complex than in GS-9/10 patients, in whom the primary tumors already appear to bear lymph node metastasis-enabling alterations.

Ten‐year outcomes of whole‐pelvic intensity‐modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer with regional lymph node metastasis

BACKGROUND

Management of pelvic node-positive prostate cancer has been challenging and controversial. We conducted a study to evaluate the outcomes of whole-pelvic (WP) simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT).

METHODS

A total of 67 consecutive patients with cT1c-4N1M0 prostate cancer were definitively treated by WP SIB-IMRT. Neoadjuvant ADT (median: 8.3 months) was administered in all cases. WP SIB-IMRT was designed to simultaneously deliver 78, 66.3, and 58.5 Gy in 39 fractions to the prostate plus seminal vesicles, metastatic lymph nodes (LNs), and the pelvic LN region, respectively. Adjuvant ADT (median: 24.7 months) was administered in 66 patients.

RESULTS

The median follow-up period was 81.6 months (range: 30.5-160.7). Biochemical relapse-free, overall, and prostate cancer-specific survival rates at 10 years were 59.8%, 79.6%, and 86.3%, respectively. Loco-regional recurrence was not observed. Being in International Society of Urological Pathology grade group 5 and having a posttreatment detectable nadir prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level (≥0.010 ng/ml) were significantly associated with worse prostate cancer-specific survival and progression of castration resistance. The 10-year cumulative incidence rates of grade 2 and 3 late toxicities were, respectively, 1.5% and 0% for genitourinary, 0% and 1.5% for gastrointestinal events. No grade 4 acute or late toxicities were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

WP SIB-IMRT can be safely administered to patients with pelvic node-positive prostate cancer. Since grade group 5 and detectable nadir PSA levels are risks for castration resistance, we may need to increase the intensity of treatment for such cases.

The cost of elective nodal coverage in prostate cancer: Late quality of life outcomes and dosimetric analysis with 0, 45 or 54 Gy to the pelvis

•

Pelvic nodal radiation to 54 Gy correlates with worse urinary quality of life.

•

Pelvic nodal radiation to 45 Gy does not correlate with urinary quality of life.

•

Post-operative radiation resulted in greater urinary quality of life decline.

•

Pelvic nodal radiation did not correlate with bowel quality of life.

Purpose

Elective pelvic lymph node radiotherapy (PLNRT) in prostate cancer is often omitted from definitive (n = 267) and post prostatectomy (n = 160) radiotherapy (RT) due to concerns regarding toxicity and efficacy. Data comparing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) with or without PLNRT is limited. Our long-term supposition is that PLNRT, particularly to higher doses afforded by IMRT, will decrease pelvic failure rate in select patients. We aim to establish the impact of two different PLNRT doses on long term quality of life (QOL).

Methods and materials

Prostate cancer patients (n = 428) recorded baseline scores using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), prior to definitive or post-prostatectomy RT. PLNRT, if given, was prescribed to 45 or 54 Gy at 1.8 Gy per fraction. New EPIC scores were recorded 20–36 months after radiotherapy. Absolute change in each domain subscale and summary score was recorded, along with if these changes met minimally important difference (MID) criteria. A separate multivariate analysis (MVA) was performed for each measure. Subsequent dosimetric analysis was performed.

Results

Frequency of a MID decline was significantly greater with PLNRT to 54 Gy for urinary function, incontinence, and overall. No urinary decline was correlated with PLNRT to 45 Gy. PLNRT to 54 Gy was significant for decline in urinary function, bother, irritative, incontinence, and overall score in one or both MVA models while 45 Gy was not. Postoperative status was significant for decline in urinary function, incontinence, and overall. Amongst postoperative patients, there was significantly greater decline in urinary function score in the salvage setting. Neither 54 nor 45 Gy significantly affected bowel subscale or overall score decline.

Conclusions

Using conventional fractionation, adding PLNRT to 54 Gy, but not 45 Gy, correlates with worse urinary QOL, with postoperative patients experiencing a steeper decline. PLNRT had no significant impact on bowel QOL with either dose.

Second malignancy probabilities in patients with prostate cancer treated with whole pelvis radiation therapy versus prostate only radiation therapy

BACKGROUND

Whole pelvic radiation therapy (WPRT) may improve outcomes compared with prostate only radiation therapy (PORT) in some subsets of men with prostate cancer, as in the POP-RT trial. However, there is concern about increased risk of adverse effects with WPRT, including the development of radiation-induced second malignancies (SM). Given the rarity of SM, little is known about relative rates of SM between WPRT and PORT.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort analysis was performed of men with nonmetastatic, node-negative prostate cancer with at least 60 months of follow-up using a national database. SM probabilities were compared in men receiving either WPRT or PORT using multivariable logistic models adjusting for clinical and sociodemographic factors. Temporal sensitivity analyses stratified by year of diagnosis and length of follow-up were also conducted.

RESULTS

Of 50,237 patients in the study, 39,338 (78.4%) received PORT, and 10,899 (21.7%) received WPRT. Median follow-up was 106.2 months (interquartile range 82.32-132.25). Crude probabilities of SM were 9.16% for WPRT and 8.88% for PORT. The adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for development of SM with PORT versus WPRT was 1.046 (95% confidence interval 0.968-1.130). Temporal sensitivity analyses by stratifying by year of diagnosis and follow-up length also did not demonstrate any significant difference in rates of SM between WPRT and PORT using AORs with WPRT as the referent.

CONCLUSIONS

Retrospective analysis of over 50,000 patients did not demonstrate an association between WPRT and an increased probability of SM compared to PORT. Given the findings of POP-RT, the use of WPRT may become widespread for certain subsets of men. Thus, our findings could help guide how we counsel patients deciding between WPRT and PORT and suggest the need for prospective assessment of SM risk with WPRT and PORT.

Treatment outcomes in high-risk prostate cancer: a single-centre experience

Aim: The aim of that study was to evaluate the treatment results of patients with high-risk prostate cancer who received image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy with curative intent. Material and Method: Patients who underwent curative radiotherapy (RT) for high-risk prostate cancer were evaluated retrospectively in our clinic from April 2010 to April 2021. Demographics, prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels, gleason score (GS), the TNM stage of the tumor, and the success of treatment and complications were noted. Results: Eighty-two patients were evaluated. The mean follow-up time was 39.1 months. The mean age was 71.2±6.2 (range 50-84 years) years. The mean PSA levels of the patients was 41.1±33.8, and the median was 27 ng/ml (range 8-129 ng/ml). The mean GS of the patients was 8.3±0.6, and the median was 8 (range 7-10). The mean overall survival (OS) rate was 75.6%; survival rates for 24 months and 36 months were 91.1% and 80.4% respectively. The progression-free survival (PFS) was found to be 62.8%. Moreover, the PFS time was found to be 66,6 months. Twenty-four months and 36 months PFS rates were 83.6% and 65.4%, respectively. Conclusion: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) combined with androgen deprivation therapy is a safe and effective treatment modality for elderly patients with high-risk prostate cancer.

Comparison of Estimated Late Toxicities between IMPT and IMRT Based on Multivariable NTCP Models for High-Risk Prostate Cancers Treated with Pelvic Nodal Radiation

Purpose

To compare the late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary toxicities (GU) estimated using multivariable normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models, between pencil-beam scanning proton beam therapy (PBT) and helical tomotherapy (HT) in patients of high-risk prostate cancers requiring pelvic nodal irradiation (PNI) using moderately hypofractionated regimen.

Materials and Methods

Twelve consecutive patients treated with PBT at our center were replanned with HT using the same planning goals. Six late GI and GU toxicity domains (stool frequency, rectal bleeding, fecal incontinence, dysuria, urinary incontinence, and hematuria) were estimated based on the published multivariable NTCP models. The ΔNTCP (difference in absolute NTCP between HT and PBT plans) for each of the toxicity domains was calculated. A one-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to analyze distribution of data, and either a paired t test or a Wilcoxon matched-pair signed rank test was used to test statistical significance.

Results

Proton beam therapy and HT plans achieved adequate target coverage. Proton beam therapy plans led to significantly better sparing of bladder, rectum, and bowel bag especially in the intermediate range of 15 to 40 Gy, whereas doses to penile bulb and femoral heads were higher with PBT plans. The average ΔNTCP for grade (G)2 rectal bleeding, fecal incontinence, stool frequency, dysuria, urinary incontinence, and G1 hematuria was 12.17%, 1.67%, 2%, 5.83%, 2.42%, and 3.91%, respectively, favoring PBT plans. The average cumulative ΔNTCP for GI and GU toxicities (ΣΔNTCP) was 16.58% and 11.41%, respectively, favoring PBT. Using a model-based selection threshold of any G2 ΔNTCP >10%, 67% (8 patients) would be eligible for PBT.

Conclusion

Proton beam therapy plans led to superior sparing of organs at risk compared with HT, which translated to lower NTCP for late moderate GI and GU toxicities in patients of prostate cancer treated with PNI. For two-thirds of our patients, the difference in estimated absolute NTCP values between PBT and HT crossed the accepted threshold for minimal clinically important difference.

Effects of Whole Pelvic Radiotherapy on the Distribution of Lymphocyte Subpopulations in Prostate Cancer Patients

INTRODUCTION

In the current study, we have investigated the effects of the different modalities of treatment (volume of radiotherapy [RT], previous surgery) as well as the Gleason score of prostate cancer (PC) on the lymphocyte composition of PC patients undergoing RT.

METHODS

This is a monoinstitutional study that prospectively included PC patients that underwent RT from January 2016 until December 2017. To compare the different evaluations, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used among 2 times (Timepoint 0 to Timepoint 1). Percentage variation was calculated for all the lymphocyte subpopulation and was correlated with clinical parameters (previous surgery, Gleason score, and pelvic irradiation) with the χ2 test. The statistical analysis was repeated also on the stratified dataset according to the above parameters (previous surgery, Gleason score, and whole pelvic radiotherapy [WPRT]).

RESULTS

One hundred and eleven patients were included in the present analysis. All the lymphocyte subpopulations resulted significantly lower after RT. The modifications of several lymphocyte subpopulations correlated with previous surgery, Gleason score, and WPRT, although stratified analysis demonstrated that WPRT showed the greatest correlation.

CONCLUSION

Our results could be used to design a prospective trial in order to study the use of WPRT on the lymphocyte subpopulations.

Efficacy and Toxicity of Whole Pelvic Radiotherapy Versus Prostate-Only Radiotherapy in Localized Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

There is little level 1 evidence regarding the relative efficacy and toxicity of whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) compared with prostate-only radiotherapy (PORT) for localized prostate cancer.

Methods

We used Cochrane, PubMed, Embase, Medline databases, and ClinicalTrials.gov to systematically search for all relevant clinical studies. The data on efficacy and toxicity were extracted for quality assessment and meta-analysis to quantify the effect of WPRT on biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS), progression-free survival (PFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), overall survival (OS), gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, and genitourinary (GU) toxicity compared with PORT. The review is registered on PROSPERO, number: CRD42021254752.

Results

The results revealed that compared with PORT, WPRT significantly improved 5-year BFFS and PFS, and it was irrelevant to whether the patients had undergone radical prostatectomy (RP). In addition, for the patients who did not receive RP, the 5-year DMFS of WPRT was better than that of PORT. However, WPRT significantly increased not only the grade 2 or worse (G2+) acute GI toxicity of non-RP studies and RP studies, but also the G2+ late GI toxicity of non-RP studies. Subgroup analysis of non-RP studies found that, when the pelvic radiation dose was >49 Gy (equivalent-doses-in-2-Gy-fractions, EQD-2), WPRT was more beneficial to PFS than PORT, but significantly increased the risk of G2+ acute and late GU toxicity.

Conclusions

Meta-analysis demonstrates that WPRT can significantly improve BFFS and PFS for localized prostate cancer than PORT, but the increased risk of G2+ acute and late GI toxicity must be considered.

Systematic Review Registration

PROSPERO CRD42021254752.

Association between pelvic nodal radiotherapy and patient-reported functional outcomes through 5 years among men undergoing external-beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer: An assessment of the comparative effectiveness analysis of surgery and radiation (CEASAR) cohort

BACKGROUND

The role of pelvic irradiation in men receiving external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for prostate cancer is unclear, in part due to a lack of data on patient-reported outcomes. We sought to compare functional outcomes for men receiving prostate and pelvic versus prostate-only radiotherapy, longitudinally over 5 years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a population-based, prospective cohort study of men with clinically-localized prostate cancer undergoing EBRT. We examined the effect of prostate and pelvic (n = 102) versus prostate-only (n = 485) radiotherapy on patient-reported disease-specific (using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite[EPIC]-26) and general health-related (using the SF-36) function, over 5 years. Regression models were adjusted for outcome-specific baseline function, clinicopathologic characteristics, and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT).

RESULTS

587 men (median [quartiles] age 69 [64-73] years) met inclusion criteria and completed ≥1 post-treatment survey. More men treated with prostate and pelvic radiotherapy had high-risk disease (58% vs. 18%, P < 0.01) and received ADT (75% vs. 41%, P < 0.01). These men reported worse sexual (6 months-5 years), hormonal (at 6 months), and physical (6 months-5 years) function. Accounting for baseline function, patient and tumor characteristics, and use of ADT, pelvic irradiation was not associated with statistically or clinically significant differences in bowel function, urinary incontinence, irritative voiding symptoms or sexual function through 5-years (all P > 0.05). Marginally clinically important differences were noted in hormonal function at 3-years (adjusted mean difference 4.7, 95% confidence interval [1.2-8.3]; minimally clinically important difference (MCID) 4 to 6) and 5-years (4.2, [0.4-8.0]) following treatment. After adjustment, there was a transient statistically significant, but not clinically important, difference in emotional well-being at 6 months (3.0, [0.19-5.8]; MCID 6) that resolved by 1 year and no differences in physical functioning or energy and fatigue.

CONCLUSION

This prospective, population-based cohort study of men with localized prostate cancer treated with EBRT, showed no clinically important differences in disease-specific or general health-related quality of life with the addition of pelvic irradiation to prostate radiotherapy, supporting the use of pelvic radiotherapy when it may be of clinical benefit, such as men with increased risk of nodal involvement.

Mapping of Recurrence Sites Following Adjuvant or Salvage Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer Patients

Introduction

Although salvage and adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) are effective in prostate cancer (PC) patients, 30%–40% of men will have disease progression. The objective was to describe the pattern of recurrence in PC patients with biochemical failure (BF) following postoperative RT.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 935 PC patients treated from 2009 to 2019 with adjuvant or salvage RT at the Institut de Cancérologie de l’Ouest. Of these, 205 (22%) developed BF of whom 166 underwent imaging. Patients with identified radiologic failure prior any specific treatment were included to determine the site of relapse categorized as local (L)-only, locoregional (LR), or metastatic (M) recurrence. Main disease characteristics and RT fields were examined in relation to sites of recurrence.

Results

One hundred forty-one patients were identified with 244 sites of failure on imaging. Of these, 108 patients had received RT to the PB alone and 33 RT to the PB and pelvic lymph nodes (PB+PLN). Androgen-deprivation therapy was used concomitantly in 50 patients (35%). The median PSA at imaging was 1.6 ng/ml (range, 0–86.7). In all, 74 patients (52%) had M disease (44% in the PB group and 79% in the PB+PLN group), 61 (43%) had LR failure (52% in the PB alone group and 15% in the PB+PLN group), and six (4%) had L-only failure, at a median of 26.7 months (range, 5–110.3) from RT. Metastases were in extra-pelvic LN (37 (15%)), bones (66 (27%)), and visceral organs (eight (3%)). Fifty-three (48%) of the pelvic LN failures in the PB group would have been encompassed by standard PLN RT volume.

Conclusion

We found that most patients evaluated for BF after postoperative RT recurred outside the RT field. Isolated pelvic nodal failure was rare in those receiving RT to the PB+PLN but accounted for half of failures in those receiving PB alone RT. Imaging directed salvage treatment could be helpful to personalize radiation therapy plan.

External radiotherapy for prostatic cancers

We present the update of the recommendations of the French society of oncological radiotherapy on external radiotherapy of prostate cancer. External radiotherapy is intended for all localized prostate cancers, and more recently for oligometastatic prostate cancers. The irradiation techniques are detailed. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy combined with prostate image-guided radiotherapy is the recommended technique. A total dose of 74 to 80Gy is recommended in case of standard fractionation (2Gy per fraction). Moderate hypofractionation (total dose of 60Gy at a rate of 3Gy per fraction over 4 weeks) in the prostate has become a standard of therapy. Simultaneous integrated boost techniques can be used to treat lymph node areas. Extreme hypofractionation (35 to 40Gy in five fractions) using stereotactic body radiotherapy can be considered a therapeutic option to treat exclusively the prostate. The postoperative irradiation technique, indicated mainly in case of biological recurrence and lymph node involvement, is detailed.

Pelvic lymph node recurrence in high-risk prostate cancer following prostate-only radiotherapy

Introduction:

High-risk prostate cancer is the most common presentation at our institute among patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer. Traditionally, pelvic lymph nodes were given a prophylactic dose of radiotherapy while the prostate was given a curative dose of radiation. This study aims to evaluate patterns of failure in patients who had prostate-only radiation at our centre.

Materials and Methods:

All high-risk prostate cancer patients who underwent radical radiotherapy to prostate only since 2014 were retrospectively analysed. Local T stage, baseline prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and Gleason score were recorded. Bone scan and staging CT scan data were collected. Various dose levels prescribed to prostate were analysed. The follow-up records of these patients were assessed. Patients who failed in pelvic lymph nodes were recorded separately. Overall survival and failure-free survival were calculated using Kaplan–Meier curve.

Results:

One-hundred five patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were analysed. Only three patients developed recurrence in pelvic lymph node following prostate-only radiotherapy (PORT). Five year overall survival was 77% while failure-free survival was 64%. Forty patients had a PSA failure after a median follow-up of 62 months.

Conclusions:

Most high-risk prostate cancer patients who progress following hormone therapy and PORT have metastases outside pelvis. Till further conclusive evidence is available PORT can be considered as a safe option.

Dose-escalated pelvic radiotherapy for prostate cancer in definitive or postoperative setting

PURPOSE

Given the absence of standardized planning approach for clinically node-positive (cN1) prostate cancer (PCa), we collected data about the use of prophylactic pelvic irradiation and nodal boost. The aim of the present series is to retrospectively assess clinical outcomes after this approach to compare different multimodal treatment strategies in this scenario.

METHODS

Data from clinical records of patients affected by cN1 PCa and treated in six different Italian institutes with prophylactic pelvic irradiation and boost on pathologic pelvic lymph nodes detected with CT, MRI or choline PET/CT were retrospectively reviewed and collected. Clinical outcomes in terms of overall survival (OS) and biochemical relapse-free survival (b-RFS) were explored. The correlation between outcomes and baseline features (International Society of Urological Pathology-ISUP pattern, total dose to positive pelvic nodes ≤ / > 60 Gy, sequential or simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) administration and definitive vs postoperative treatment) was explored.

RESULTS

ISUP pattern < 2 was a significant predictor of improved b-RFS (HR = 0.3, 95% CI 0.1220-0.7647, P = 0.0113), while total dose < 60 Gy to positive pelvic nodes was associated with worse b-RFS (HR = 3.59, 95% CI 1.3245-9.741, P = 0.01). Conversely, treatment setting (postoperative vs definitive) and treatment delivery technique (SIB vs sequential boost) were not associated with significant differences in terms of b-RFS (HR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.338-2.169, P = 0.743, and HR = 2.39, 95% CI 0.93-6.111, P = 0.067, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Results from the current analysis are in keeping with data from literature showing that pelvic irradiation and boost on positive nodes are effective approaches. Upfront surgical approach was not associated with better clinical outcomes.

Elective nodal ultra hypofractionated radiation for prostate cancer: Safety and efficacy from four prospective clinical trials

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The role of elective nodal irradiation (ENI) in localized prostate cancer (PCa) is controversial. With increasing use of SBRT to the prostate, data is needed regarding the safety and efficacy of ENI using ultra-hypofractionated radiation (UHRT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 2013-2020, 4 prospective clinical trials of intermediate or high-risk PCa receiving dose-escalated RT to the prostate (via HDR brachytherapy or SBRT boost) and ENI using UHRT (25 Gy in 5 weekly fractions) were conducted. Primary endpoints included acute genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities (CTCAE v3.0/4.0), and secondary endpoints included late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities, patient-reported quality of life (EPIC) and biochemical failure (Phoenix definition).

RESULTS

One-hundred sixty-five patients were enrolled, of whom 98 (59%) had high-risk disease. ADT was used in 141 (85%). Median follow-up was 38 months (IQR 10-63). The worst acute genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities respectively were 48% and 7.5% for grade 2, and 2.7% and 0% for grade 3. Cumulative incidence of late grade 2+ genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities at 36 months were 58% and 11.3% and for late grade 3+ toxicities were 1% and 0%, respectively. No grade 4+ acute or late toxicities were observed. Bowel and sexual toxicity significantly worsened up to 1-year compared to baseline. Over time, urinary (p < 0.0001), bowel (p = 0.0018) and sexual (p < 0.0001) scores significantly improved. The 3-year biochemical recurrence-free survival was 98%.

CONCLUSION

ENI using UHRT is associated with low incidence of grade 3+ toxicity, while grade 1-2 acute genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity is common. Randomized phase 3 trials are needed.

Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy with Simultaneous Integrated Boost for Clinically Node-Positive Prostate Cancer: A Single-Institutional Retrospective Study

Simple Summary

Recently, it has been shown that radiation therapy (RT) together with androgen-depletion therapy (ADT) might be more beneficial compared with ADT alone for clinically node-positive (cN1) prostate cancer. However, there are a limited number of studies that have addressed specific RT techniques and analyzed their clinical results. The present study was a retrospective analysis of cN1 prostate cancer patients treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB-IMRT), in addition to ADT, in our hospital. The present study suggests that ADT plus SIB-IMRT for cN1 prostate cancer treatment was safe and effective, was well tolerated, and had acceptable rates of late toxicity. Further prospective multicenter studies would be required to confirm the robustness of the present results.

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate clinical outcomes and the toxicity of intensity-modulated radiation therapy with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB-IMRT) combined with androgen-deprivation therapy for clinically node-positive (cN1) prostate cancer. We retrospectively analyzed 97 patients with cN1 prostate cancer who received SIB-IMRT between June 2008 and October 2017 at our hospital. The prescribed dosages delivered to the prostate and seminal vesicle, elective node area, and residual lymph nodes were 69, 54, and 60 Gy in 30 fractions, respectively. Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to determine 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS), relapse-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS), and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS). Toxicity was evaluated using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events ver. 4.0. Over a median follow-up duration of 60 months, the 5-year bRFS, RFS, OS, and PCSS were 85.1%, 88.1%, 92.7% and 95.0%, respectively. Acute Grade 2 genito-urinary (GU) and gastro-intestinal (GI) toxicities were observed in 10.2% and 2.1%, respectively, with no grade ≥3 toxicities being detected. The cumulative incidence rates of 5-year Grade ≥2 late GU and GI toxicities were 4.7% and 7.4%, respectively, with no Grade 4 toxicities being detected. SIB-IMRT for cN1 prostate cancer demonstrated favorable 5-year outcomes with low incidences of toxicity.

OLIGOPELVIS GETUG P07, a Multicenter Phase II Trial of Combined High-dose Salvage Radiotherapy and Hormone Therapy in Oligorecurrent Pelvic Node Relapses in Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Oligorecurrent pelvic nodal relapse in prostatic cancer is a challenge for regional salvage treatments. Androgen depriving therapies (ADTs) are a mainstay in metastatic prostate cancer, and salvage pelvic radiotherapy may offer long ADT-free intervals for patients harboring regional nodal relapses.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy of the combination of ADT and salvage radiotherapy in men with oligorecurrent pelvic node relapses of prostate cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

We performed an open-label, phase II trial of combined high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy and ADT (6 mo) in oligorecurrent (five or fewer) pelvic node relapses in prostate cancer, detected by fluorocholine positron-emission tomography computed tomography imaging.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The primary endpoint was 2-yr progression-free survival defined as two consecutive prostate-specific antigen levels above the level at inclusion and/or clinical evidence of progression as per RECIST 1.1 and/or death from any cause.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Between August 2014 and July 2016, 67 patients were recruited in 15 centers. Half of the patients had received prior prostatic irradiation. The median age was 67.7 yr. After a median follow-up of 49.4 mo, 2- and 3-yr progression-free survival rates were 81% and 58%, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 45.3 mo. The median biochemical relapse-free survival (BRFS) was 25.9 mo. At 2 and 3 yr, the BRFS rates were 58% and 46%, respectively. Grade 2 + 2-yr genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were 10% and 2%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined high-dose salvage pelvic radiotherapy and ADT appeared to prolong tumor control in oligorecurrent pelvic node relapses in prostate cancer with limited toxicity. After 3 yr, nearly half of patients were in complete remission. Our study showed initial evidence of benefit, but a randomized trial is required to confirm this result.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this report, we looked at the outcomes of combined high-dose salvage pelvic radiotherapy and 6-mo-long hormone therapy in oligorecurrent pelvic nodal relapse in prostatic cancer. We found that 46% of patients presenting with oligorecurrent pelvic node relapses in prostate cancer were in complete remission after 3 yr following combined treatment at the cost of limited toxicity.

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.

Clinical Outcomes of the CHIRP Trial: A Phase II Prospective Randomized Trial of Conventionally Fractionated Versus Moderately Hypofractionated Prostate and Pelvic Nodal Radiation Therapy in Patients With High-Risk Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Hypofractionated radiation therapy (HFRT) may offer treatment advantages for patients with prostate cancer. However, HFRT may also increase the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) or genitourinary (GU) toxicity compared with conventionally fractionated radiation therapy (CFRT). Several large trials have found that HFRT is well tolerated in mixed risk population studies. Here, we report on a phase II, randomized controlled study conducted to evaluate these endpoints in exclusively high-risk patients with prostate cancer treated with prostate and pelvic nodal radiation.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

After giving informed consent, patients with high-risk prostate cancer were randomly assigned to prostate plus pelvic nodal radiation therapy with either HFRT (68 Gy in 25 fractions) or CFRT (78 Gy in 39 fractions) and 18 months of androgen suppression therapy. Toxicity was scored using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.0). Biochemical failure was determined by the Phoenix definition. Patients were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis.

RESULTS

From 2012 to 2018, 111 patients with high-risk prostate cancer were enrolled and 109 patients were treated. The cumulative incidence of grade 2 or higher acute GI toxicity was not significantly different between the arms (HFRT 18.9% vs CFRT 21.8%; P = .812). Similarly, acute GU (HFRT 30.2% vs CFRT 30.9%; P = 1.00), late GI (HFRT 16.0% vs CFRT 10.0%; P = .554), and late GU (HFRT 16.0% vs CFRT 6.0%; P = .200) were not significantly different between the arms. Median follow-up was 38.0 months (4.8-77.8 months). The 3-year biochemical recurrence-free survival was not significantly different between the 2 arms (97.3% for HFRT vs 91.0% for CFRT; P = .606). The 3-year overall survival was 94.8% in the HFRT arm and 100.0% in the CFRT arm (P = .116).

CONCLUSIONS

HFRT and CFRT using intensity modulated radiation therapy were both well tolerated for patients with high-risk prostate cancer and resulted in similar 3-year biochemical recurrence-free survival and overall survival.

Patterns of care for prostate cancer radiotherapy-results from a survey among German-speaking radiation oncologists

Background

Emerging moderately hypofractionated and ultra-hypofractionated schemes for radiotherapy (RT) of prostate cancer (PC) have resulted in various treatment options. The aim of this survey was to evaluate recent patterns of care of German-speaking radiation oncologists for RT of PC.

Methods

We developed an online survey which we distributed via e‑mail to all registered members of the German Society of Radiation Oncology (DEGRO). The survey was completed by 109 participants between March 3 and April 3, 2020. For evaluation of radiation dose, we used the equivalent dose at fractionation of 2 Gy with α/β = 1.5 Gy, equivalent dose (EQD2 [1.5 Gy]).

Results

Median EQD2(1.5 Gy) for definitive RT of the prostate is 77.60 Gy (range: 64.49–84.00) with median single doses (SD) of 2.00 Gy (range: 1.80–3.00), while for postoperative RT of the prostate bed, median EQD2(1.5 Gy) is 66.00 Gy (range: 60.00–74.00) with median SD of 2.00 Gy (range: 1.80–2.00). For definitive RT, the pelvic lymph nodes (LNs) are treated in case of suspect findings in imaging (82.6%) and/or according to risk formulas/tables (78.0%). In the postoperative setting, 78.9% use imaging and 78.0% use the postoperative tumor stage for LN irradiation. In the definitive and postoperative situation, LNs are irradiated with a median EQD2(1.5 Gy) of 47.52 Gy with a range of 42.43–66.00 and 41.76–62.79, respectively.

Conclusion

German-speaking radiation oncologists’ patterns of care for patients with PC are mainly in line with the published data and treatment recommendation guidelines. However, dose prescription is highly heterogenous for RT of the prostate/prostate bed, while the dose to the pelvic LNs is mainly consistent.

Supplementary Information

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00066-020-01738-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The Distribution of Pelvic Nodal Metastases in Prostate Cancer Reveals Potential to Advance and Personalize Pelvic Radiotherapy

Background

Traditional clinical target volume (CTV) definition for pelvic radiotherapy in prostate cancer consists of large volumes being treated with homogeneous doses without fully utilizing information on the probability of microscopic involvement to guide target volume design and prescription dose distribution.

Methods

We analyzed patterns of nodal involvement in 75 patients that received RT for pelvic and paraaortic lymph node metastases (LNs) from prostate cancer in regard to the new NRG-CTV recommendation. Non-rigid registration-based LN mapping and weighted three-dimensional kernel density estimation were used to visualize the average probability distribution for nodal metastases. As independent approach, the mean relative proportion of LNs observed for each level was determined manually and NRG and non-NRG levels were evaluated for frequency of involvement. Computer-automated distance measurements were used to compare LN distances in individual patients to the spatial proximity of nodal metastases at a cohort level.

Results

34.7% of patients had pelvic LNs outside NRG-consensus, of which perirectal was most common (25.3% of all patients) followed by left common iliac nodes near the left psoas major (6.7%). A substantial portion of patients (13.3%) had nodes at the posterior edge of the NRG obturator level. Observer-independent mapping consistently visualized high-probability hotspots outside NRG-consensus in the perirectal and left common iliac regions. Affected nodes in individual patients occurred in highly significantly closer proximity than at cohort-level (mean distance, 6.6 cm vs. 8.7 cm, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Based on this analysis, the common iliac level should extend to the left psoas major and obturator levels should extend posteriorly 5 mm beyond the obturator internus. Incomplete coverage by the NRG-consensus was mostly because of perirectal involvement. We introduce three-dimensional kernel density estimation after non-rigid registration-based mapping for the analysis of recurrence data in radiotherapy. This technique provides an estimate of the underlying probability distribution of nodal involvement and may help in addressing institution- or subgroup-specific differences. Nodal metastases in individual patients occurred in highly significantly closer proximity than at a cohort-level, which supports that personalized target volumes could be reduced in size compared to a “one-size-fits-all” approach and is an important basis for further investigation into individualized field designs.

Association between incidental dose outside the prostate and tumor control after modern image-guided radiotherapy

Background and purpose

External beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer deposits incidental dose to a region surrounding the target volume. Previously, an association was identified between tumor control and incidental dose for patients treated with conventional radiotherapy. We investigated whether such an association exists for patients treated using intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and tighter margins.

Materials and methods

Computed tomography scans and three-dimensional treatment planning dose distributions were available from the Dutch randomized HYPRO trial for 397 patients in the standard fractionation arm (39 × 2 Gy) and 407 patients in the hypofractionation arm (19 × 3.4 Gy), mainly delivered using online image-guided IMRT. Endpoint was any treatment failure within 5 years. A mapping of 3D dose distributions between anatomies was performed based on distance to the surface of the prostate delineation. Mean mapped dose distributions were computed for patient groups with and without failure, obtaining dose difference distributions. Random patient permutations were performed to derive p values and to identify relevant regions.

Results

For high-risk patients treated in the conventional arm, higher incidental dose was significantly associated with a higher probability of tumor control in both univariate and multivariate analysis. The locations of the excess dose mainly overlapped with the position of obturator internus muscles at about 2.5 cm from the prostate surface. No such relationship could be established for intermediate-risk patients.

Conclusions

An association was established between reduced treatment failure and the delivery of incidental dose outside the prostate for high-risk patients treated using conventionally fractionated IMRT.

Radiation oncology in times of COVID-2019: A review article for those in the eye of the storm - An Indian perspective

The global COVID-2019 pandemic has presented to the field of radiation oncology a management dilemma in providing evidence-based treatments to all cancer patients. There is a need for appropriate measures to be taken to reduce infectious spread between the medical healthcare providers and the patient population. Such times warrant resource prioritization and to continue treatment with best available evidence, thereby reducing the risk of COVID-2019 transmission in times where the workforce is reduced. There has been literature presented in different aspects related to providing safety measures, running of a radiation department and for the management of various cancer subsites. In this article, we present a comprehensive review for sustaining a radiation oncology department in times of the COVID-2019 pandemic.

Toxicity of Pelvic Lymph Node Irradiation With Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for High-Risk and Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer: A National Population-Based Study Using Patient-Reported Outcomes

PURPOSE

Little is known about the toxicity of additional pelvic lymph node irradiation in men receiving intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer. The aim of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes after IMRT to the prostate only (PO-IMRT) versus the prostate and pelvic lymph nodes (PPLN-IMRT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients who received a diagnosis of high-risk or locally advanced prostate cancer in the English National Health Service between April 2014 and September 2016 who were treated with IMRT were mailed a questionnaire at least 18 months after diagnosis. Patient-reported urinary, sexual, bowel, and hormonal functional domains on a scale from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better outcomes, and generic health-related quality of life were collected using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite 26-item version and EQ-5D-5L. We used linear regression to compare PPLN-IMRT versus PO-IMRT with adjustment for patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics.

RESULTS

Of the 7017 men who received a questionnaire, 5468 (77.9%) responded; 4196 (76.7%) had received PO-IMRT and 1272 (23.3%) PPLN-IMRT. Adjusted differences in the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite 26-item version domain scores were smaller than 1 (P always >.2), except for sexual function, with men who had PPNL-IMRT reporting a lower mean score (adjusted difference, 2.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-3.7; P = .002). This did not represent a clinically relevant difference. There was no significant difference in health-related quality of life (P = .5).

CONCLUSIONS

Additional pelvic lymph node irradiation does not lead to clinically meaningful increases in the toxicity of IMRT for prostate cancer according to patient-reported functional outcomes and health-related quality of life.

Recent Advances in the Management of High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer: Local Therapy, Systemic Therapy, and Biomarkers to Guide Treatment Decisions

High-risk prostate cancer accounts for approximately 15% of all prostate cancer diagnoses. Patients with high-risk disease have an increased risk of developing biochemical recurrence, metastases, and death from prostate cancer. As the optimal management of high-risk disease in patients with prostate cancer continues to evolve, the contemporary treatment paradigm is moving toward a multidisciplinary integrated approach of systemic and local therapy for patients with high-risk disease. The strategies for definitive, adjuvant, and salvage local treatment, including radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy, serve as the backbone of therapy for patients with localized disease. Systemic therapy decisions regarding use in combination with surgery, choice of therapy (hormone therapy, chemotherapy), and treatment duration continue to be refined. As more effective hormonal agents populate the treatment landscape for advanced prostate cancer, including abiraterone and next-generation antiandrogens, an opportunity is provided to explore these treatments in patients with localized disease in the hope of improving the long-term outcome for patients. Integration of innovative blood and tissue-based biomarkers to guide therapy selection for patients with high-risk disease is an area of active research. Contemporary studies are using such biomarkers to stratify patients and select therapies. In this review, we summarize contemporary evidence for local treatment strategies, systemic therapy options, and biomarkers in development for the management of high-risk prostate cancer in patients.

Haute Couture or Ready-to-Wear? Tailored Pelvic Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer Based on Individualized Sentinel Lymph Node Detection

Prostate cancer (PCa) pelvic radiotherapy fields are defined by guidelines that do not consider individual variations in lymphatic drainage. We examined the feasibility of personalized sentinel lymph node (SLN)-based pelvic irradiation in PCa. Among a SLN study of 202 patients, we retrospectively selected 57 patients with a high risk of lymph node involvement. Each single SLN clinical target volume (CTV) was individually segmented and pelvic CTVs were contoured according to Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) guidelines. We simulated a radiotherapy plan delivering 46 Gy and calculated the dose received by each SLN. Among a total of 332 abdominal SLNs, 305 pelvic SLNs (beyond the aortic bifurcation) were contoured (mean 5.4/patient). Based on standard guidelines, CTV missed 67 SLNs (22%), mostly at the common iliac level (40 SLNs). The mean distance between iliac vessels and the SLN was 11mm, and despite a 15mm margin around the iliac vessels, 9% of SLNs were not encompassed by the CTV. Moreover, 42 SLNs (63%) did not receive 95% of the prescribed dose. Despite a consensus on contouring guidelines, a significant proportion of SLNs were not included in the pelvic CTV and did not receive the prescribed dose. A tailored approach based on individual SLN detection would avoid underdosing pelvic lymph nodes that potentially contain tumor cells.

First statement on preparation for the COVID-19 pandemic in large German Speaking University-based radiation oncology departments

The COVID-19 pandemic is challenging modern radiation oncology. At University Hospitals, we have a mandate to offer high-end treatments to all cancer patients. However, in times of crisis we must learn to prioritize resources, especially personnel. Compromising oncological outcome will blur all statistics, therefore all measures must be taken with great caution. Communication with our neighboring countries, within societies and between departments can help meet the challenge. Here, we report on our learning system and preparation measures to effectively tackle the COVID-19 challenge in University-Based Radiation Oncology Departments.

[Indications and outlooks of radiohormonal therapy of high-risk prostate cancers]

Prostate cancer is a sensitive adenocarcinoma, in more than 80% of cases, to chemical castration, due to its hormone dependence. Locally advanced and/or high-risk cancer is defined based on clinical stage, initial prostate specific antigen serum concentration value or high Gleason score. Hormone therapy associated with radiation therapy is the standard of management and improves local control, reduces the risk of distant metastasis and improves specific and overall survival. Duration of hormone therapy, dose level of radiation therapy alone or associated with brachytherapy are controversial data in the literature. The therapeutic choice, multidisciplinary, depends on the age and comorbidity of the patient, the prognostic criteria of the pathology and the urinary function of the patient. Current research focuses on optimizing local and distant control of these aggressive forms and incorporates neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy and also new hormone therapies.

Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy for Intermediate- or High-Risk Prostate Cancer

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is a relatively novel form of high precision radiotherapy. For low- and intermediate risk patients, ultrahypofractionation (UHF - more than 5 Gy per day) has been compared to conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy in two large randomized studies. A third smaller randomized study examined the question of the optimal frequency of treatments. The results of these studies will be reviewed. SABR for high risk prostate cancer has been shown to be feasible and is well tolerated with careful planning and setup techniques. However, there is currently insufficient data supporting its use for high-risk patients to offer SABR outside of a clinical trial. SABR costs less to the radiotherapydepartments and, the patient, as well as increasing system capacity. Therefore, it has the potential to be widely adopted in the next few years.

Role of Para-aortic Radiotherapy in the Management of Prostate Cancer

Recent studies assessing the patterns of failure following locoregional definitive therapy suggest that recurrences do happen in the adjacent most proximal drainage sites, not infrequently occurring within the common iliac and para-aortic regions. This pattern of recurrence and identification at initial presentation is being increasingly recognised using novel imaging techniques and there is limited evidence on how to manage these patients. We are awaiting definitive evidence regarding the clinical benefit of whole pelvic radiotherapy, and currently there is no consensus as to the optimal superior border. There is some acknowledgement that the superior border should encompass the common iliac nodal region. However, whether it should be extended even more proximally is currently unknown. Prospective randomised trials are required to determine if there is a role for extending the radiotherapy field in patients with or at high risk of para-aortic metastases.

Acute and late toxicity and preliminary outcomes report of moderately hypofractionated helical tomotherapy for localized prostate cancer: a mono-institutional analysis

AIMS

To assess toxicity and clinical outcomes of moderately hypofractionated helical tomotherapy (HT) for the curative treatment of localized prostate cancer (PC).

METHODS

From December 2012 to May 2018, 170 patients were treated with definitive intent for PC. Thirty-four percent were low risk, 30% intermediate risk (IR) and 36% high risk (HR). All patients received 70 Gy in 28 fractions to the prostate; 61.6 Gy were delivered to the seminal vesicles for IR; pelvic lymph nodes irradiation for a total dose of 50.4 Gy was added in the HR subgroup. Toxicity was assessed using CTCAE V4.0, and biochemical failure was defined following Phoenix criteria. Time-to-event data were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 36 months (range 12-78); acute toxicity was as follows: G1 and G2 in 27.6% and 19.4% for GI; 53% and 24% for GU. No G ≥ 3 event was observed. For late toxicity, G ≥ 3 GI and GU rates were, respectively, 3% and 2.4% at 3 years and 3% and 4.8% at 4 years; no G4 occurred. A statistical correlation between acute or late G3 incidence and clinical or dosimetric parameters was not found. At the time of analysis, 2- and 3-year biochemical relapse-free survival rates were 90% and 87.5% and 2- and 3-year overall survival rates were 96.4% and 90%, respectively. The log-rank test revealed no difference between the risk groups in terms of biochemical control (p = 0.16).

CONCLUSIONS

Moderately hypofractionated RT with HT for localized prostate cancer reported excellent outcomes with mild acute and late toxicity incidence, with promising biochemical control rates.

Elective Node Irradiation With Integrated Boost to the Prostate Using Helical IMRT-Clinical Outcome of the Prospective PLATIN-1 Trial

Introduction: This prospective, non-randomized phase II trial aimed to investigate the role of additional irradiation of the pelvic nodes for patients with prostate cancer and a high risk for nodal metastases using helical intensity-modulated radiotherapy with daily image guidance (IMRT/IGRT). Methods and materials: Between 2009 and 2012, 40 men with treatment-naïve prostate cancer and a risk of lymph node involvement of more than 20% were enrolled in the PLATIN-1 trial. All patients received definitive, helical IMRT of the pelvic nodes (total dose of 51.0 Gy) with a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) to the prostate (total dose of 76.5 Gy) in 34 fractions. Antihormonal therapy (AHT) was administered for a minimum of 2 months before radiotherapy continuing for at least 24 months. Results: After a median follow-up of 71 months (range: 5-95 months), pelvic irradiation was associated with a 5-year overall survival (OS) and biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS) of 94.3% and 83.6%, respectively. For our cohort, no grade 4 gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity was observed. Quality of life (QoL) assessed by EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire was comparable to EORTC reference values without significant changes. Conclusion: The current trial demonstrates that elective IMRT/IGRT of the pelvic nodes with SIB to the prostate for patients with a high-risk of lymphatic spread is safe and shows an excellent clinical outcome without compromising the quality of life. The PLATIN-1 trial delivers eminent baseline data for future studies using modern irradiation techniques.

Clinical outcomes of external beam radiotherapy in patients with localized prostate cancer: Does dose escalation matter?

BACKGROUND

To report outcomes of localized prostate cancer treated with radical external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) in our institution over a 14-year period, and to determine the impact of dose escalation of prostate cancer outcomes.

METHODS

Patients with T1-T4 N0 M0 prostate cancer who received radical EBRT between January 2002 and December 2015 were reviewed retrospectively. Clinical data were obtained via the institutional electronic medical records. The primary endpoint was 5-year overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were 5-year freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) and treatment toxicities.

RESULTS

A total of 200 eligible patients were identified. Median follow-up duration was 48 months. 13%, 36% and 51% of patients had low-, intermediate- and high-risk disease. Median dose was 79.2 Gy. The 5-year OS were 90%, 87% and 78% and FFBF were 94%, 100% and 81% for low-, intermediate- and high-risk patients, respectively. Multivariable analysis showed that Eastern Cooperate Oncology Group performance status 2 and Gleason grade group 5 were independent predictors of worse OS. The incidence of grade ≥2 proctitis was 24.5%. Dose escalation was significantly associated with increased incidence of grade ≥2 proctitis (odd ratio, 4.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.95-10.08; P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Men with localized prostate cancer treated with EBRT in our population had excellent 5-year OS and biochemical outcomes. Dose escalation did not significantly improve these outcomes but was associated with significantly increased risk of grade ≥2 proctitis in our population. Future studies should be performed to identify patients who will benefit the most from dose-escalated EBRT.

[Optimizing local control of high-risk prostate cancers through multimodal treatments]

Prostate cancer is a sensitive adenocarcinoma, in more than 80 % of cases, to chemical castration, due to its hormone dependence. Locally advanced and/or high-risk cancer is defined based on clinical stage, initial PSA value or high Gleason score. Hormone therapy associated with radiation therapy is the standard of management and improves local control, reduces the risk of distant metastasis and improves specific and overall survival. Duration of hormone therapy, dose level of radiation therapy alone or associated with brachytherapy are controversial data in the literature. Radical prostatectomy surgery is a therapeutic option that must be performed with extensive lymph node dissection and is often part of a multimodal care sequence. The therapeutic choice, multidisciplinary, depends on the age and co-morbidity of the patient, the prognostic criteria of the pathology and the urinary function of the patient. Current research focuses on optimizing local and distant control of these aggressive forms and incorporates neo-adjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy and also new hormone therapies.

11C-Choline PET Guided Salvage Radiation Therapy for Isolated Pelvic and Paraortic Nodal Recurrence of Prostate Cancer After Radical Prostatectomy: Rationale and Early Genitourinary or Gastrointestinal Toxicities

Purpose

To assess gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) adverse events (AEs) of ¹¹C-choline-positron emission tomography (CholPET) guided lymph node (LN) radiation therapy (RT) in patients who experience biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy.

Methods and Materials

From 2013 to 2016, 107 patients experienced biochemical failure of prostate cancer, had CholPET-detected pelvic and/or paraortic LN recurrence, and were referred for RT. Patients received androgen suppression and CholPET guided LN RT (median dose, 45 Gy) with a simultaneous integrated boost to CholPET-avid sites (median dose, 56.25 Gy), all in 25 fractions. RT-naïve patients had the prostatic fossa included in the initial treatment volumes followed by a sequential boost (median dose, 68 Gy). GI and GU AEs were reported per Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.0) with data gathered retrospectively. Differences in maximum GI and GU AEs at baseline, immediately post-RT, and at early (median, 4 months) and late (median, 14 months) follow-up were assessed.

Results

Median follow-up was 16 months (interquartile range [IQR], 11-25). Median prostate-specific antigen at time of positive CholPET was 2.3 ng/mL (IQR, 1.3-4.8), with a median of 2 (IQR, 1-4) choline-avid LNs per patient. Most recurrences were within the pelvis (53%) or pelvis + paraortic (40%). Baseline rates of grade 1 to 2 GI AEs were 8.4% compared with 51.9% (4.7% grade 2) of patients post-RT (P < .01). These differences resolved by 4-month (12.2%, P = .65) and 14-month AE assessments (9.1%, P = .87). There was no significant change in grade 1 to 2 GU AEs post-RT (64.1%) relative to baseline (56.0%, P = .21), although differences did arise at 4-month (72.2%, P = .01) and 14-month (74.3%, P = .01) AE assessments.

Conclusions

Salvage CholPET guided nodal RT has acceptably low rates of acute GI and GU AEs and no significant detriment in 14-month GI AEs. These data are of value in counseling patients and designing prospective trials evaluating the oncologic efficacy of this treatment strategy.

Postoperative elective pelvic nodal irradiation compared to prostate bed irradiation in locally advanced prostate cancer - a retrospective analysis of dose-escalated patients

Background

It is uncertain if whole-pelvic irradiation (WPRT) in addition to dose-escalated prostate bed irradiation (PBRT) improves biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS) after prostatectomy for locally advanced tumors. This study was initiated to analyze if WPRT is associated with bPFS in a patient cohort with dose-escalated (> 70 Gy) PBRT.

Methods

Patients with locally advanced, node-negative prostate carcinoma who had PBRT with or without WPRT after prostatectomy between 2009 and 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. A simultaneous integrated boost with equivalent-doses-in-2-Gy-fractions (EQD-2) of 79.29 Gy or 71.43 Gy to the prostate bed was applied in patients with margin-positive (or detectable) and margin-negative/undetectable tumors, respectively. WPRT (44 Gy) was offered to patients at an increased risk of lymph node metastases.

Results

Forty-three patients with PBRT/WPRT and 77 with PBRT-only were identified. Baseline imbalances included shorter surgery-radiotherapy intervals (S-RT-Intervals) and fewer resected lymph nodes in the WPRT group. WPRT was significantly associated with better bPFS in univariate (p = 0.032) and multivariate models (HR = 0.484, p = 0.015). Subgroup analysis indicated a benefit of WPRT (p = 0.029) in patients treated with rising PSA values who mostly had negative margins (74.1%); WPRT was not associated with a longer bPFS in the postoperative setting with almost exclusively positive margins (96.8%).

Conclusion

We observed a longer bPFS after WPRT compared to PBRT in patients with locally advanced prostate carcinoma who underwent dose-escalated radiotherapy. In subset analyses, the association was only observed in patients with rising PSA values but not in patients with non-salvage postoperative radiotherapy for positive margins.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13014-019-1301-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.