Rectal Toxicity After Extremely Hypofractionated Radiotherapy Using a Non-Isocentric Robotic Radiosurgery System for Early Stage Prostate Cancer

Photon vs proton hypofractionation in prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

High-level evidence on hypofractionated proton therapy (PT) for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) patients is currently missing. The aim of this study is to provide a systematic literature review to compare the toxicity and effectiveness of curative radiotherapy with photon therapy (XRT) or PT in PCa.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched up to April 2022. Men with a diagnosis of PCa who underwent curative hypofractionated RT treatment (PT or XRT) were included. Risk of grade (G) ≥ 2 acute and late genitourinary (GU) OR gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity were the primary outcomes of interest. Secondary outcomes were five-year biochemical relapse-free survival (b-RFS), clinical relapse-free, distant metastasis-free, and prostate cancer-specific survival. Heterogeneity between study-specific estimates was assessed using Chi-square statistics and measured with the I2 index (heterogeneity measure across studies).

RESULTS

A total of 230 studies matched inclusion criteria and, due to overlapped populations, 160 were included in the present analysis. Significant lower rates of G ≥ 2 acute GI incidence (2 % vs 7 %) and improved 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival (95 % vs 91 %) were observed in the PT arm compared to XRT. PT benefits in 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival were maintained for the moderate hypofractionated arm (p-value 0.0122) and among patients in intermediate and low-risk classes (p-values < 0.0001 and 0.0368, respectively). No statistically relevant differences were found for the other considered outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The present study supports that PT is safe and effective for localized PCa treatment, however, more data from RCTs are needed to draw solid evidence in this setting and further effort must be made to identify the patient subgroups that could benefit the most from PT.

Application of Hydrogel Spacer SpaceOAR Vue for Prostate Radiotherapy

Damage in the surrounding structures, including the rectum, due to unintended exposure to radiation is a large burden to bear for patients who undergo radiation therapy for prostate cancer. The use of injectable rectal spacers to distance the anterior rectum from the prostate is a potential strategy to reduce the dose of unintended radiation to the rectum. Hydrogel spacers are gaining increasing popularity in the treatment regimen for prostate cancer. After FDA approval of SpaceOAR, specialists are receiving an increasing number of referrals for hydrogel placements. In this paper, we review hydrogel spacers, the supporting clinical data, the best practices for hydrogel placement, and the risk of adverse events.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective trials

Background: Despite the increasing worldwide utilization of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer, there are no known summative data regarding its safety and efficacy. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a PRISMA-guided systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective prostate SBRT trials. Results: Fourteen trials with a total of 2,038 patients were included. Median follow-up was 37 months (range 6-55 months). Most patients had cT1-T2a, Gleason ≤7 disease with median pre-treatment PSAs of 5-10; 1,042 (51%) were low-risk, 744 (37%) were intermediate-risk, 158 (8%) were high-risk, and the remainder were unreported. Doses ranged from 33.5-50.0 Gy, most typically in 5 fractions, with nearly all studies delivering nondaily fractionation with some type of daily image guidance. Outcomes were converted into counts at the end of one year. The pooled rate of FFBF was 98% [95% confidence interval, 97-98%]. The pooled rate of late grade ≥3 gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicities were 1% [0-5%] and 2% [1-3%], respectively. Methods: PubMed and Google Scholar were queried for prospective studies evaluating survival and/or toxicity outcomes in SBRT (≤5 fractions) for localized prostate cancer. Pooled rates of freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) and late grades ≥3 gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities were assessed. Meta-analysis of proportions was logit transformed and pooled using generalized linear mixed models (both fixed and random effects) and subsequently back transformed to standard proportions. Conclusions: Despite the lack of long-term follow-up and heterogeneity of the available evidence, prostate SBRT affords appropriate biochemical control with few high-grade toxicities. These data have implications for ongoing worldwide utilization of prostate SBRT as well as ongoing prospective investigations.

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Over 6,000 Patients Treated On Prospective Studies

PURPOSE

Utilization of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for treatment of localized prostate cancer is increasing. Guidelines and payers variably support the use of prostate SBRT. We therefore sought to systematically analyze biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS), physician-reported toxicity, and patient-reported outcomes after prostate SBRT.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A systematic search leveraging Medline via PubMed and EMBASE for original articles published between January 1990 and January 2018 was performed. This was supplemented by abstracts with sufficient extractable data from January 2013 to March 2018. All prospective series assessing curative-intent prostate SBRT for localized prostate cancer reporting bRFS, physician-reported toxicity, and patient-reported quality of life with a minimum of 1-year follow-up were included. The study was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Meta-analyses were performed with random-effect modeling. Extent of heterogeneity between studies was determined by the I2 and Cochran's Q tests. Meta-regression was performed using Hartung-Knapp methods.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight unique prospective series were identified comprising 6116 patients. Median follow-up was 39 months across all patients (range, 12-115 months). Ninety-two percent, 78%, and 38% of studies included low, intermediate, and high-risk patients. Overall, 5- and 7-year bRFS rates were 95.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.3%-97.5%) and 93.7% (95% CI, 91.4%-95.5%), respectively. Estimated late grade ≥3 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity rates were 2.0% (95% CI, 1.4%-2.8%) and 1.1% (95% CI, 0.6%-2.0%), respectively. By 2 years post-SBRT, Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite urinary and bowel domain scores returned to baseline. Increasing dose of SBRT was associated with improved biochemical control (P = .018) but worse late grade ≥3 GU toxicity (P = .014).

CONCLUSIONS

Prostate SBRT has substantial prospective evidence supporting its use, with favorable tumor control, patient-reported quality of life, and levels of toxicity demonstrated. SBRT has sufficient evidence to be supported as a standard treatment option for localized prostate cancer while ongoing trials assess its potential superiority.

Lower urinary tract symptoms in patients with prostate cancer under and after intensity-modulated radiation therapy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to collect data on the characteristics, degree, and natural course of urinary complications, as well as self-care for such complications, in patients during and after prostate intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT).

METHODS

Quality of life data were collected retrospectively for all eligible patients who underwent IMRT. In all eligible patients, urinary symptoms were evaluated using questionnaires and face-to-face interview. Participants were asked to respond to a self-administered questionnaire concerning the core lower urinary tract symptom score during the course of IMRT and up to 12 months after the completion of IMRT.

RESULTS

In all, 29 eligible patients were included in the study. The frequency of urinary symptoms increased over of the course of IMRT, decreased at ≥3 months after completion of IMRT, and disappeared 6 months after IMRT. Responses to the questionnaire revealed a variety of approaches to self-care and adaptations by patients to manage urinary symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

During and after IMRT for localized prostate cancer, patients often developed more frequent urination and urgency than at the start of IMRT, and recovered 3-6 months after the completion of IMRT. Based on the present study, clinicians and nurses could help convey this information to patients and thus offer better support.