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

Longitudinal analysis of T2 relaxation time variations following radiotherapy for prostate cancer

Aim of this paper is to evaluate short and long-term changes in T 2 relaxation times after radiotherapy in patients with low and intermediate risk localized prostate cancer. A total of 24 patients were selected for this retrospective study. Each participant underwent 1.5T magnetic resonance imaging on seven separate occasions: initially after the implantation of gold fiducials, the required step for Cyberknife therapy guidance, followed by MRI scans two weeks post-therapy and monthly thereafter. As part of each MRI scan, the prostate region was manually delineated, and the T 2 relaxation times were calculated for quantitative analysis. The T 2 relaxation times between individual follow-ups were analyzed using Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance that revealed a significant difference across all measurements (F (6, 120) = 0.611, p << 0.001). A Bonferroni post hoc test revealed significant differences in median T 2 values between the baseline and subsequent measurements, particularly between pre-therapy (M 0 ) and two weeks post-therapy (M 1 ), as well as during the monthly interval checks (M 2 - M 6 ). Some cases showed a delayed decrease in relaxation times, indicating the prolonged effects of therapy. The changes in T 2 values during the course of radiotherapy can help in monitoring radiotherapy response in unconfirmed patients, quantifying the scarring process, and recognizing the therapy failure.

Good clinical practice and the use of hypofractionation radiation schedules as weapons to reduce the risk of COVID-19 infections in radiation oncology unit: A mono-institutional experience

BACKGROUND

After coronavirus disease outbreak emerged in 2019, radiotherapy departments had to adapt quickly their health system and establish new organizations and priorities. The purpose of this work is to report our experience in dealing with COVID-19 emergency, how we have reorganized our clinical activity, changed our priorities, and stressed the use of hypofractionation in the treatment of oncological diseases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The patients' circuit of first medical examinations and follow-up was reorganized; a more extensive use of hypofractionated schedules was applied; a daily triage of the patients and staff, use of personal protective equipment, hand washing, environment sanitization, social distancing and limitations for the patients' caregivers in the department, unless absolutely essential, were performed; patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were treated at the end of the day. In addition, the total number of radiotherapy treatment courses, patients and sessions, in the period from February 15 to April 30, 2020, comparing the same time period in 2018 were retrospectively investigated. In particular, changes in hypofractionated schedules adopted for the treatment of breast and prostate cancer and palliative bone metastasis were analyzed.

RESULTS

Between February 15, and April 30, 2020, an increased number of treatments was carried out: Patients treated were overall 299 compared to 284 of the same period of 2018. Stressing the use of hypofractionation, 2036 RT sessions were performed, with a mean number of fractions per course of 6.8, compared to 3566 and 12.6, respectively, in 2018. For breast cancer, the schedule in 18 fractions has been abandoned and treatment course of 13 fractions has been introduced; a 27% reduction in the use of 40.5 Gy in 15 fractions, (67 treatments in 2018-49 in 2020) was reported. An increase of 13% of stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer was showed. The use of the 20 Gy in 4 or 5 sessions for the treatment of symptomatic bone metastasis decreased of 17.5% in favor of 8 Gy-single fraction. Three patients results COVID-19 positive swab: 1 during, 2 after treatment. Only one staff member developed an asymptomatic infection.

CONCLUSIONS

The careful application of triage, anti-contagion and protective measures, a more extensive use of hypofractionation allowed us to maintain an effective and continuous RT service with no delayed/deferred treatment as evidenced by the very low number of patients developing COVID-19 infection during or in the short period after radiotherapy. Our experience has shown how the reorganization of the ward priority, the identification of risk factors with the relative containment measures can guarantee the care of oncological patients, who are potentially at greater risk of contracting the infection.

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer. Part I: Intermediate-/High-risk and Locally Advanced Disease, Biochemical Relapse, and Side Effects of Hormonal Treatment: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2022

BACKGROUND

Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management.

OBJECTIVE

To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members ("panellists") who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1-3.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions.

Is the CyberKnife radiosurgery system effective and safe for patients? An umbrella review of the evidence

Background: The CyberKnife system combines real-time image guidance and a dynamic tracking system to implement frameless radiotherapy. This umbrella review is aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of CyberKnife. Methods: A comprehensive search of health technology assessments and systematic reviews was performed among the Embase, PubMed and other grey databases until July 2020. Treatment outcomes were extracted, and the quality of included studies were assessed using AMSTAR-2. Results: Nineteen studies were eligible. CyberKnife not only had a wide range of applications, long overall survival and great local control, but also had a limited toxicity and good cost-effectiveness compared with other radiotherapy equipment. Conclusion: Despite the relatively low quality of the evidence, our findings can still provide a decision reference for policymakers.

The Journey of Radiotherapy Dose Escalation in High Risk Prostate Cancer; Conventional Dose Escalation to Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) Boost Treatments

High risk prostate cancer (HR-PrCa) is a subset of localized PrCa with significant potential for morbidity and mortality associated with disease recurrence and metastasis. Radiotherapy combined with Androgen Deprivation Therapy has been the standard of care for many years in HR-PrCa. In recent years, dose escalation, hypo-fractionation and high precision delivery with immobilization and image-guidance have substantially changed the face of modern PrCa radiotherapy, improving treatment convenience and outcomes. Ultra-hypo-fractionated radiotherapy delivered with high precision in the form of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) combines delivery of high biologically equivalent dose radiotherapy with the convenience of a shorter treatment schedule, as well as the promise of similar efficacy and reduced toxicity compared to conventional radiotherapy. However, rigorous investigation of SBRT in HR-PrCa remains limited. Here, we review the changes in HR-PrCa radiotherapy through dose escalation, hypo- and ultra-hypo-fractionated radiotherapy boost treatments, and the radiobiological basis of these treatments. We focus on completed and on-going trials in this disease utilizing SBRT as a sole radiation modality or as boost therapy following pelvic radiation.

Extreme Hypofractionation with SBRT in Localized Prostate Cancer

Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among men around the world. Radiotherapy is a standard of care treatment option for men with localized prostate cancer. Over the years, radiation delivery modalities have contributed to increased precision of treatment, employing radiobiological insights to shorten the overall treatment time, improving the control of the disease without increasing toxicities. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) represents an extreme form of hypofractionated radiotherapy in which treatment is usually delivered in 1–5 fractions. This review assesses the main efficacy and toxicity data of SBRT in non-metastatic prostate cancer and discusses the potential to implement this scheme in routine clinical practice.

Stereotactic radiotherapy with focal boost for intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer: Initial results of the SPARC trial

INTRODUCTION

Dose escalation to dominant intraprostatic lesions (DILs) is a novel method to increase the therapeutic ratio in localised prostate cancer. The Stereotactic Prostate Augmented Radiotherapy with Cyberknife (SPARC) trial was designed to determine the feasibility of a focal boost defined with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) using stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients were included with newly diagnosed intermediate to high risk prostate cancer with at least one of: Gleason score 4 + 3, stage T3a, or PSA > 20 ng/ml. Visible disease on mpMRI was mandatory and up to 2 separate nodules were allowed. All patients received androgen deprivation. Patients received 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions using CyberKnife® and the DIL received a simultaneous boost to a maximum of 47.5 Gy, as allowed by OAR constraints. Genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity was reported using the RTOG scoring criteria. International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) and EQ-5D global health scores were regularly captured.

RESULTS

An interim safety analysis was performed on the first 8 patients, recruited between July 2013 and December 2015. Median follow up was 56 months (range 50-74). Median D95 values for the prostate PTV and boost volume were 36.55 Gy (range 35.87-36.99) and 46.62 Gy (range 44.85-48.25) respectively. Of the dose constraints, 10/80 were not achieved but all were minor dose variations. Grade 2+ acute GU and GI toxicities were 37.5% respectively while grade 2+ late GU and GI toxicities were 12.5% and 0% respectively. IIEF and quality of life scores recovered over time and all patients remain in biochemical remission.

CONCLUSION

The first patients have been successfully treated with prostate SABR and focal boost on the SPARC trial, with excellent adherence to the planning protocol. Toxicity and efficacy results are promising and further recruitment is underway.

Favorable Biochemical Freedom From Recurrence With Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Intermediate and High-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Single Institutional Experience With Long-Term Follow-Up

Purpose/Objective(s): The current study reports long-term overall survival (OS) and biochemical freedom from recurrence (BFFR) after stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for men with intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer in a single community hospital setting with early adoption.

Materials/Methods: Ninety-seven consecutive men with intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer treated with SBRT between 2007 and 2015 were retrospectively studied. Categorical variables for analysis included National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group, race, Gleason grade group, T stage, use of androgen deprivation therapy, and planning target volume dose. Continuous variables for analysis included pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA), percent cores positive, age at diagnosis, PSA nadir, prostate volume, percent prostate that received 40 Gy, and minimum dose to 0.03 cc of prostate (Dmin). BFFR was assessed using the Phoenix nadir +2 definition. OS and BFFR were estimated using Kaplan–Meier (KM) methodology with comparisons accomplished using log-rank statistics. Multivariable analysis (MVA) was accomplished with a backwards selection Cox proportional-hazards model with statistical significance taken at the p < 0.05 level.

Results: Median FU is 78.4 months. Five- and ten-year OS KM estimates are 90.9 and 73.2%, respectively, with 19 deaths recorded. MVA reveals pretreatment PSA (p = 0.032), percent prostate 40 Gy (p = 0.003), and race (p = 0.031) were predictive of OS. Five- and nine-year BFFR KM estimates are 92.1 and 87.5%, respectively, with 10 biochemical failures recorded. MVA revealed PSA nadir (p < 0.001) was the only factor predictive of BFFR. Specifically, for every one-unit increase in PSA nadir, there was a 4.2-fold increased odds of biochemical failure (HR = 4.248). No significant differences in BFFR were found between favorable intermediate, unfavorable intermediate, and high-risk prostate cancer (p = 0.054) with 7-year KM estimates of 96.6, 81.0, and 85.7%, respectively.

Conclusions: Favorable OS and BFFR can be expected after SBRT for intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer with non-significant differences seen for BFFR between favorable intermediate, unfavorable intermediate, and high-risk groups. Our 5-year BFFR compares favorably with the HYPO-RT-PC trial of 84%. PSA nadir was predictive of biochemical failure. This study is ultimately limited by the small absolute number of high-risk patients included.