Is robotic arm stereotactic body radiation therapy “virtual high dose ratebrachytherapy” for prostate cancer? An analysis of comparative effectiveness using published data [corrected]

Industry Funding Is Correlated With Publication Productivity of US Academic Radiation Oncologists

PURPOSE

Industry payments to physicians are financial conflicts of interest and may influence research findings and medical decisions. We aim to (1) characterize industry payments within radiation oncology; and (2) explore the potential correlation between receiving disclosed industry payments and academic productivity.

MATERIALS/METHODS

CMS database was used to extract 2015 industry payments. For academic radiation oncologists, research productivity was characterized by h- and m-indices, as well as receipt of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, which is not an industry payment. Logistic regression models were used to determine whether publication metrics (m-index, h-index) and other study characteristics such as gender, PhD status, NIH institution funding status, were associated with the endpoints, research and general payments. Associations between the amount of payments (if any) and publication metrics were further studied using linear regression models.

RESULTS

A total of 22,543 individual payments totaling $25,532,482 to 2,995 radiation oncologists were included. Among the 1,189 academic radiation oncologists, 75% received less than $167; on the other hand, 10 (<1%) individuals received $6,425,728 (51%) of payments. On multiple logistic regression, research payments were significantly associated with the m-index, odds ratio 2.86 (95% confidence interval, 1.84-4.45, p-value <0.0001); as well as with the h-index, odds ratio 1.03 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.05, p-value <0.0001). The linear regression model shows that both m-index and h-index were significantly positively associated with the amount of general payments (p-values <0.0001).

CONCLUSION

There is an association between disclosed payment from the industry and increased individual research productivity metrics. Further research to find the cause behind this association is warranted.

Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Primary Prostate Cancer

Prostate cancer is the most common non-cutaneous cancer in males. There are a number of options for patients with localized early stage disease, including active surveillance for low-risk disease, surgery, brachytherapy, and external beam radiotherapy. Increasingly, external beam radiotherapy, in the form of dose-escalated and moderately hypofractionated regimens, is being utilized in prostate cancer, with randomized evidence to support their use. Stereotactic body radiotherapy, which is a form of extreme hypofractionation, delivered with high precision and conformality typically over 1 to 5 fractions, offers a more contemporary approach with several advantages including being non-invasive, cost-effective, convenient for patients, and potentially improving patient access. In fact, one study has estimated that if half of the patients currently eligible for conventional fractionated radiotherapy in the United States were treated instead with stereotactic body radiotherapy, this would result in a total cost savings of US$250 million per year. There is also a strong radiobiological rationale to support its use, with prostate cancer believed to have a low α/β ratio and therefore being preferentially sensitive to larger fraction sizes. To date, there are no published randomized trials reporting on the comparative efficacy of stereotactic body radiotherapy compared to alternative treatment modalities, although multiple randomized trials are currently accruing. Yet, early results from the randomized phase III study of HYPOfractionated RadioTherapy of intermediate risk localized Prostate Cancer (HYPO-RT-PC) trial, as well as multiple single-arm phase I/II trials, indicate low rates of late adverse effects with this approach. In patients with low- to intermediate-risk disease, excellent biochemical relapse-free survival outcomes have been reported, albeit with relatively short median follow-up times. These promising early results, coupled with the enormous potential cost savings and implications for resource availability, suggest that stereotactic body radiotherapy will take center stage in the treatment of prostate cancer in the years to come.

Comparison of patient-reported acute urinary and sexual toxicity scores in a 6- versus 2-fraction course of high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy monotherapy

INTRODUCTION

To identify differences in acute urinary and sexual toxicity between a 6-fraction and 2-fraction high-dose-rate brachytherapy monotherapy regimen and correlate dosimetric constraints to short-term toxicity.

METHODS

A single institution retrospective study of 116 men with prostate cancer treated with HDR monotherapy from 2010 to 2015 was conducted. Eighty-one men had 7.25 Gy × 6-fractions and 35 men had 13.5 Gy × 2-fractions. Patients had two CT-planned implants spaced 1-2 weeks apart. Patient baseline characteristics, International Prostate Symptom Scores (IPSS) and Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM) scores were collected pre-treatment and 3, 6 and 12 months post-implantation. Mixed effect modelling was undertaken to compare baseline, 1-6 month and 7-12 month scores between groups. Poisson regression analysis was performed to correlate dosimetric constraints with acute toxicity.

RESULTS

There was no difference between baseline and post-implantation IPSS scores between 6-fraction and 2-fraction groups. SHIM scores for men treated with 6-fractions had a steeper decline at 1-6 months, but resolved at 7-12 months. Pre-treatment alpha-blocker use correlated with worse short-term acute urinary toxicity. Worsened SHIM score correlated with increasing age, diabetes mellitus and androgen-deprivation therapy. In a dosimetric analysis of outcomes, prostate V150 dose and bladder wall (D01.cc, D1cc, D2cc) dose correlated with increased IPSS score.

CONCLUSION

No increased acute genitourinary or sexual dysfunction has been observed in men when transitioning from 6-fraction to 2-fraction HDR monotherapy. A dosimetric correlation was found between the V150 and bladder wall doses for acute urinary toxicity. Future research should continue to standardize and validate dose constraints for prostate HDR monotherapy patients.

The evolution of brachytherapy for prostate cancer

Brachytherapy (BT), using low-dose-rate (LDR) permanent seed implantation or high-dose-rate (HDR) temporary source implantation, is an acceptable treatment option for select patients with prostate cancer of any risk group. The benefits of HDR-BT over LDR-BT include the ability to use the same source for other cancers, lower operator dependence, and - typically - fewer acute irritative symptoms. By contrast, the benefits of LDR-BT include more favourable scheduling logistics, lower initial capital equipment costs, no need for a shielded room, completion in a single implant, and more robust data from clinical trials. Prospective reports comparing HDR-BT and LDR-BT to each other or to other treatment options (such as external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or surgery) suggest similar outcomes. The 5-year freedom from biochemical failure rates for patients with low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk disease are >85%, 69-97%, and 63-80%, respectively. Brachytherapy with EBRT (versus brachytherapy alone) is an appropriate approach in select patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk disease. The 10-year rates of overall survival, distant metastasis, and cancer-specific mortality are >85%, <10%, and <5%, respectively. Grade 3-4 toxicities associated with HDR-BT and LDR-BT are rare, at <4% in most series, and quality of life is improved in patients who receive brachytherapy compared with those who undergo surgery.

Prostate Cancer Patients With Unmanaged Diabetes or Receiving Insulin Experience Inferior Outcomes and Toxicities After Treatment With Radiation Therapy

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the study was to determine the effect of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) on outcomes and toxicities among men with localized prostate cancer receiving definitive radiation therapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of 3217 patients, from 1998 to 2013, subdivided into 5 subgroups: (I) no T2DM; (II) T2DM receiving oral antihyperglycemic agent that contains metformin, no insulin; (III) T2DM receiving nonmetformin oral agent alone, no insulin; (IV) T2DM receiving any insulin; and (V) T2DM not receiving medication. Outcome measures were overall survival, freedom from biochemical failure (BF), freedom from distant metastasis, cancer-specific survival, and toxicities. Kaplan-Meier analysis, log rank tests, Fine and Gray competing risk regression (to adjust for patient and lifestyle factors), Cox models, and subdistribution hazard ratios (sHRs) were used.

RESULTS

Of the 3217 patients, 1295 (40%) were low-risk, 1192 (37%) were intermediate-risk, and 652 (20%) were high risk. The group I to V distribution was 81%, 8%, 5%, 3%, and 4%. The median dose was 78 Gy, and the median follow-up time was 50 (range, 1-190) months. Group V had increased mortality (sHR, 2.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66-1.54), BF (sHR, 2.14; 0.88-1.83), and cause-specific mortality (sHR, 3.87; 95% CI, 1.31-11). Acute toxicities were higher in group IV versus group I (genitourinary: 38% vs. 26%; P = .01; gastrointestinal: 21% vs. 5%; P = 001). Late toxicities were higher in groups IV and V versus group I (12%-14% vs. 2%-6%; P < .01).

CONCLUSION

Men with T2DM not receiving medication and men with T2DM receiving insulin had worse outcomes and toxicities compared to other patients.

A comparison of robotic arm versus gantry linear accelerator stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is the most prevalent cancer diagnosed in men in the United States besides skin cancer. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT; 6–15 Gy per fraction, up to 45 minutes per fraction, delivered in five fractions or less, over the course of approximately 2 weeks) is emerging as a popular treatment option for prostate cancer. The American Society for Radiation Oncology now recognizes SBRT for select low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. SBRT grew from the notion that high doses of radiation typical of brachytherapy could be delivered noninvasively using modern external-beam radiation therapy planning and delivery methods. SBRT is most commonly delivered using either a traditional gantry-mounted linear accelerator or a robotic arm-mounted linear accelerator. In this systematic review article, we compare and contrast the current clinical evidence supporting a gantry vs robotic arm SBRT for prostate cancer. The data for SBRT show encouraging and comparable results in terms of freedom from biochemical failure (>90% for low and intermediate risk at 5–7 years) and acute and late toxicity (<6% grade 3–4 late toxicities). Other outcomes (eg, overall and cancer-specific mortality) cannot be compared, given the indolent course of low-risk prostate cancer. At this time, neither SBRT device is recommended over the other for all patients; however, gantry-based SBRT machines have the abilities of treating larger volumes with conventional fractionation, shorter treatment time per fraction (~15 minutes for gantry vs ~45 minutes for robotic arm), and the ability to achieve better plans among obese patients (since they are able to use energies >6 MV). Finally, SBRT (particularly on a gantry) may also be more cost-effective than conventionally fractionated external-beam radiation therapy. Randomized controlled trials of SBRT using both technologies are underway.

Comparison of outcomes and toxicities among radiation therapy treatment options for prostate cancer

We review radiation therapy (RT) options available for prostate cancer, including external beam (EBRT; with conventional fractionation, hypofractionation, stereotactic body RT [SBRT]) and brachytherapy (BT), with an emphasis on the outcomes, toxicities, and contraindications for therapies. PICOS/PRISMA methods were used to identify published English-language comparative studies on PubMed (from 1980 to 2015) that included men treated on prospective studies with a primary endpoint of patient outcomes, with ⩾70 patients, and ⩾5year median follow up. Twenty-six studies met inclusion criteria; of these, 16 used EBRT, and 10 used BT. Long-term freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) rates were roughly equivalent between conventional and hypofractionated RT with intensity modulation (evidence level 1B), with 10-year FFBF rates of 45-90%, 40-60%, and 20-50% (for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively). SBRT had promising rates of BF, with shorter follow-up (5-year FFBF of >90% for low-risk patients). Similarly, BT (5-year FFBF for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients have generally been >85%, 69-97%, 63-80%, respectively) and BT+EBRT were appropriate in select patients (evidence level 1B). Differences in overall survival, distant metastasis, and cancer specific mortality (5-year rates: 82-97%, 1-14%, 0-8%, respectively) have not been detected in randomized trials of dose escalation or in studies comparing RT modalities. Studies did not use patient-reported outcomes, through Grade 3-4 toxicities were rare (<5%) among all modalities. There was limited evidence available to compare proton therapy to other modalities. The treatment decision for a man is usually based on his risk group, ability to tolerate the procedure, convenience for the patient, and the anticipated impact on quality of life. To further personalize therapy, future trials should report (1) race; (2) medical comorbidities; (3) psychiatric comorbidities; (4) insurance status; (5) education status; (6) marital status; (7) income; (8) sexual orientation; and (9) facility-related characteristics.