A dosimetric comparison of ultra-hypofractionated passively scattered proton radiotherapy and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in the definitive treatment of localized prostate cancer

Dosimetric comparison of utilizing saline or air-filled endorectal balloons in MR linac-based prostate SBRT

In prostate cancer Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT), endorectal balloons are commonly used to reduce rectal exposure to excessive radiation. This study investigates the magnetic field-induced dose effects associated with air-filled endorectal balloons in MR-linac treatments and compares the dosimetric metrics and radiobiological outcomes between air-filled and saline-filled balloons. A retrospective analysis was conducted on 20 prostate cancer patients treated with a 1.5-Tesla MR-linac using a saline-filled rectal balloon. Each patient received a total prescription dose of 36.25 Gy to the Planning Target Volume (PTV) over 5 fractions. The simulation scans and treatments were performed with an 80 mL saline-filled balloon in place. To simulate the use of air-filled balloons, Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) plans were generated, adjusting the balloon density to represent air, followed by re-optimization to preserve the target dose. Dosimetric and radiobiological metrics for targets and organs at risk (OARs) were compared between the 2 scenarios. Rectal wall toxicity was assessed using the Lyman-Kutcher-Burman (LKB) normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) model. The introduction of air-filled endorectal balloons during MR-linac treatments intensifies material heterogeneity, leading to dose perturbations within the treatment field. Specifically, the V40 Gy hot spot on the rectal wall increased from 0.55% to 1.51% due to the electron return effect (ERE). A more pronounced impact was observed in patients receiving prostate-only irradiation compared to those with pelvic lymph node involvement, likely due to the reduced number of beam angles. Additionally, undesired dose deposition on the rectal wall outside the treatment field was noted, attributed to increased scatter and the electron streaming effect (ESE), where secondary electrons deflected by the transverse magnetic field deposited energy on the surfaces they encountered. The mean maximal out-of-field rectal wall dose was 4 Gy, ranging from 2 to 7.4 Gy. Consequently, the cohort's rectal wall NTCP increased with the use of air-filled balloons. This study highlights that the use of air-filled endorectal balloons can introduce hot spots to the rectal wall and cause unwanted ESE-related dose depositions outside the treatment field. In contrast, saline-filled balloons provide superior dosimetric performance and better protect the rectum from radiobiological damage in prostate SBRT delivered with MR-linac. These findings suggest that saline-filled balloons may be preferable for this type of therapy to minimize potential adverse effects on the rectum.

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

Purpose

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

Materials and Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

5-Years Analysis of Effectivity and Toxicity of Ultra-Hypofractionated Proton Radiotherapy in the Treatment of Low- and Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer-A Retrospective Analysis

BACKGROUND

We retrospectively analyzed the 5-year biochemical disease-free survival (bDFS) and occurrence of late toxicity in prostate cancer patients treated with pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton radiotherapy.

METHODOLOGY

In the period from January 2013 to June 2018, 853 patients with prostate cancer were treated with an ultra-hypofractionated schedule (36.25 GyE/five fractions). The mean PSA value was 6.7 (0.7-19.7) µg/L. There were 318 (37.3%), 314 (36.8%), and 221 (25.9%) patients at low (LR), favorable intermediate (F-IR), and unfavorable intermediate risk (U-IR), respectively. Neoadjuvant hormonal therapy was administered to 197 (23.1%) patients, and 7 (0.8%) patients had adjuvant hormonal therapy. The whole group of patients reached median follow-up time at 62.7 months, and their mean age was 64.8 (40.0-85.7) years. The bDFS rates and late toxicity profile were evaluated.

RESULTS

Median treatment time was 10 (7-38) days. Estimated 5-year bDFS rates were 96.5%, 93.7%, and 91.2% for low-, favorable intermediate-, and unfavorable intermediate-risk groups, respectively. Cumulative late toxicity (CTCAE v4.0) of G2+ was as follows: gastrointestinal (GI)-G2: 9.1%; G3: 0.5%; genitourinary (GU)-G2: 4.3%, and no G3 toxicity was observed. PSA relapse was observed in 58 (6.8%) patients: 16 local, 22 lymph node, 4 bone recurrences, and 10 combined sites of relapse were detected. Throughout the follow-up period, 40 patients (4.7%) died, though none due to prostate cancer.

CONCLUSION

Ultra-hypofractionated proton beam radiotherapy is an effective treatment for low- and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer, with long-term bDFS rates comparable to other techniques. It is promising for unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer and has acceptable long-term GI and favorable GU toxicity.

Better preservation of erectile function in localized prostate cancer patients with modern proton therapy: Is it cost-effective?

BACKGROUND

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has gradually been recognized as favorable curative treatment for localized prostate cancer (PC). However, the high rate of erectile dysfunction (ED) after traditional photon-based SBRT remains an ongoing challenge that greatly impacts the quality of life of PC survivors. Modern proton therapy allows higher conformal SBRT delivery and has the potential to reduce ED occurrence but its cost-effectiveness remains uninvestigated.

METHODS

A Markov decision model was designed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of proton SBRT versus photon SBRT in reducing irradiation-related ED. Base-case evaluation was performed on a 66-year-old (median age of PC) localized PC patient with normal pretreatment erectile function. Further, stratified analyses were performed for different age groups (50, 55, 60, 65, 70, and 75 years) and threshold analyses were conducted to estimate cost-effective scenarios. A Chinese societal willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold (37,653 US dollars [$])/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) was adopted.

RESULTS

For the base case, protons provided an additional 0.152 QALY at an additional cost of $7233.4, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $47,456.5/QALY. Protons was cost-effective for patients ≤62-year-old at the WTP of China (≤66-year-old at a WTP of $50,000/QALY; ≤73-year-old at a WTP of $100,000/QALY). For patients at median age, once the current proton cost ($18,000) was reduced to ≤$16,505.7 or the patient had a life expectancy ≥88 years, protons were cost-effective at the WTP of China.

CONCLUSIONS

Upon assumption-based modeling, the results of current study support the use of proton SBRT in younger localized PC patients who are previously potent, for better preservation of erectile function. The findings await further validation using data from future comparative clinical trials.

Ultra-Hypofractionated Proton Therapy in Localized Prostate Cancer: Passive Scattering versus Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy

Few studies have directly compared passive scattering (PS) to intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) in the delivery of ultra-hypofractionated proton beams to the localized prostate cancer (PCa). In this preliminary study involving five patients previously treated with CyberKnife, treatment plans were created for PS and IMPT (36.25 CGE in five fractions with two opposing fields) to compare the dosimetric parameters to the planning target volume (PTV) and organs-at-risk (OAR: rectum, bladder, femoral heads). Both plans met the acceptance criteria. Significant differences were observed in the minimum and maximum doses to the PTV. The mean dose to the PTV was lower for PS (35.62 ± 0.26 vs. 37.18 ± 0.14; p = 0.002). Target coverage (D98%) was better for IMPT (96.79% vs. 99.10%; p = 0.004). IMPT resulted in significantly lower mean doses to the rectum (16.75 CGE vs. 6.88 CGE; p = 0.004) and bladder (17.69 CGE vs. 5.98 CGE p = 0.002). High dose to the rectum (V36.25 CGE) were lower with PS, but not significantly opposite to high dose to the bladder. No significant differences were observed in mean conformity index values, with a non-significant trend towards higher mean homogeneity index values for PS. Non-significant differences in the gamma index for both fields were observed. These findings suggest that both PS and IMPT ultra-hypofractionated proton therapy for PCa are highly precise, offering good target coverage and sparing of normal tissues and OARs.

Ultrahypofractionated Proton Radiation Therapy in the Treatment of Low and Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer-5-Year Outcomes

PURPOSE

To analyze the 5-year biochemical disease-free survival (bDFS) and late toxicity profile in patients with prostate cancer treated with pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton radiation therapy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Between January 2013 and March 2016, 284 patients with prostate cancer were treated using intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT), with an ultrahypofractionated schedule (36.25 GyE in 5 fractions). Five patients were immediately lost from follow-up and thus were excluded from analysis. Data for 279 patients were prospectively collected and analyzed with a median follow-up time of 56.5 (range, 3.4-87.5) months. The mean age at time of treatment was 64.5 (40.1-85.7) years, and the median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) value was 6.35 μg/L (0.67-17.3 μg/L). A total of 121 (43.4%) patients had low-risk, 125 patients (44.8%) had favorable, and 33 (11.8%) unfavorable intermediate-risk cancer. In addition, 49 (17.6%) patients underwent neoadjuvant hormonal therapy, and no patients had adjuvant hormonal therapy. bDFS and late toxicity profiles were evaluated.

RESULTS

The median treatment time was 9 days (range, 7-18 days). The 5-year bDFS was 96.9%, 91.7%, and 83.5% for the low-, favorable, and unfavorable intermediate-risk group, respectively. Late toxicity (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v.4) was as follows: gastrointestinal: grade 1, 62 patients (22%), grade 2, 20 patients (7.2%), and grade 3, 1 patient (0.36%); genitourinary: grade 1, 80 patients (28.7%), grade 2, 14 patients (5%), and grade 3, 0 patients. PSA relapse was observed in 17 patients (6.1%), and lymph node or bone recurrence was detected in 11 patients. Four (1.4%) local recurrences were detected. Nine patients (3.2%) died of causes unrelated to prostate cancer. No deaths related to prostate cancer were reported.

CONCLUSION

Ultrahypofractionated proton beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer is effective with long-term bDFS comparable with other fractionation schedules and with minimal serious long-term GI and GU toxicity.

Ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer with simultaneous boost to the dominant intraprostatic lesion: a plan comparison

OBJECTIVE

To compare different stereotactic body techniques-intensity-modulated radiotherapy with photons and protons, applied to radiotherapy of prostatic cancer-with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) on the dominant intraprostatic lesion (DIL).

METHODS

Ten patients were selected for this planning study. Dosimetric results were compared between volumetric modulated arc therapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and intensity-modulated proton therapy both with two (IMPT 2F) and five fields (IMPT 5F) planning while applying the prescription schemes of 7.25 Gy/fraction to the prostate gland and 7.5 Gy/fraction to the DIL in 5 fractions.

RESULTS

Comparison of the coverages of the planning target volumes showed that small differences exist. The IMPT-2F-5F techniques allowed higher doses in the targets; conformal indexes resulted similar; homogeneity was better in the photon techniques (2%-5%). Regarding the organs at risk, all the techniques were able to maintain the dose well below the prescribed constraints: in the rectum, the IMPT-2F-5F and IMRT were more efficient in lowering the intermediate doses; in the bladder, the median dose was significantly better in the case of IMPT (2F-5F). In the urethra, the best sparing was achieved only by IMPT-5F.

CONCLUSIONS

Stereotactic radiotherapy with SIB for localized prostate cancer is feasible with all the investigated techniques. Concerning IMPT, the two-beam technique does not seem to have a greater advantage compared to the standard techniques; the 5-beam technique seems more promising also accounting for the range uncertainty.

Extreme hypofractionated proton radiotherapy for prostate cancer using pencil beam scanning: Dosimetry, acute toxicity and preliminary results

INTRODUCTION

Extreme hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer is a common modality in photon therapy. Pencil beam scanning (PBS) in similar fractionation allows better dose distribution and makes proton therapy more available for such patients. The purpose of this study is the feasibility of extreme proton hypofractionated radiotherapy and publication of early clinical results.

METHODS

Two hundred patients with early-stage prostate cancer were treated with IMPT (intensity-modulated proton therapy), extreme hypofractionated schedule (36.25 GyE in five fractions) between February 2013 and December 2015. Mean age of the patients was 64.3 years, and the mean value of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) before treatment was 6.83 μg/L (0.6-17.3 μg/L). Ninety-three patients (46.5%) were in the low-risk group. One hundred and seven patients (53.5%) were in the intermediate-risk group. Twenty-nine patients (14.5%) had neoadjuvant hormonal therapy, and no patients had adjuvant hormonal therapy. Acute toxicity, late toxicity and short-term results were evaluated.

RESULTS

All patients finished radiotherapy without interruptions. The median follow-up time was 36 months. The mean treatment time was 9.5 days (median 9 days). Acute toxicity according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v 4.0 was (gastrointestinal toxicity) GI (grade) G1-17%, G2-3.5%; (genitourinary toxicity) GU G1-40%, G2-19%; and no G3 toxicity was observed. Late toxicity was GI G1-19%, G2-5.5%; GU G1-17%, G2-4%; and no G3 toxicity was observed. PSA relapse was observed in one patient (1.08%) in the low-risk group (pelvic lymph node involvement was detected) and in seven patients (6.5%) in the intermediate-risk group (three lymph node metastases, two lymph node and bone metastases, two PSA relapses). No patient died of prostate cancer, and three patients died from other reasons. No local recurrence of cancer in the prostate was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Proton beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer is feasible with a low rate of acute toxicity and promising late toxicity and effectivity.

Proton therapy- the modality of choice for future radiation therapy management of Prostate Cancer?

BACKGROUND

Proton Therapy (PR) is an emerging treatment for prostate cancer (Pca) patients. However, limited and conflicting data exists regarding its ability to result in fewer bladder and rectal toxicities compared to Photon Therapy (PT), as well as its cost efficiency and plan robustness.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic literature search was performed to acquire eligible studies published between 2007 and 2018. Studies comparing bladder and rectal dosimetry or Gastrointestinal (GI) and Genitourinary (GU) toxicities between PR and PT, the plan robustness of PR relative to motion and its cost efficiency for Pca patients were assessed.

RESULTS

28 studies were eligible for inclusion in this review. PR resulted in improved bladder and rectal dosimetry but did not manifest as improved GI/GU toxicities clinically compared to PT. PR plans were considered robust when specific corrections, techniques, positioning or immobilisation devices were applied. PR is not cost effective for intermediate risk Pca patients; however PR may be cost effective for younger or high risk Pca patients.

CONCLUSION

PR offers improved bladder and rectal dosimetry compared to PT but this does not specifically translate to improved GI/GU toxicities clinically. The robustness of PR plans is acceptable under specific conditions. PR is not cost effective for all Pca patients.

Proton versus photon-based radiation therapy for prostate cancer: emerging evidence and considerations in the era of value-based cancer care

BACKGROUND

Advances in radiation technology have transformed treatment options for patients with localized prostate cancer. The evolution of three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) have allowed physicians to spare surrounding normal organs and reduce adverse effects. The introduction of proton beam technology and its physical advantage of depositing its energy in tissue at the end-of-range maximum may potentially spare critical organs such as the bladder and rectum in prostate cancer patients. Data thus far are limited to large, observational studies that have not yet demonstrated a definite benefit of protons over conventional treatment with IMRT. The cost of proton beam treatment adds to the controversy within the field.

METHODS

We performed an extensive literature review for all proton treatment-related prostate cancer studies. We discuss the history of proton beam technology, as well as its role in the treatment of prostate cancer, associated controversies, novel technology trends, a discussion of cost-effectiveness, and an overview of the ongoing modern large prospective studies that aim to resolve the debate between protons and photons for prostate cancer.

RESULTS

Present data have demonstrated that proton beam therapy is safe and effective compared with the standard treatment options for prostate cancer. While dosimetric studies suggest lower whole-body radiation dose and a theoretically higher relative biological effectiveness in prostate cancer compared with photons, no studies have demonstrated a clear benefit with protons.

CONCLUSIONS

Evolving trends in proton treatment delivery and proton center business models are helping to reduce costs. Introduction of existing technology into proton delivery allows further control of organ motion and addressing organs-at-risk. Finally, the much-awaited contemporary studies comparing photon with proton-based treatments, with primary endpoints of patient-reported quality-of-life, will help us understand the differences between proton and photon-based treatments for prostate cancer in the modern era.

Comparing photon and proton-based hypofractioned SBRT for prostate cancer accounting for robustness and realistic treatment deliverability

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether photon or proton-based stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT is the preferred modality for high dose hypofractionation prostate cancer treatment. Achievable dose distributions were compared when uncertainties in target positioning and range uncertainties were appropriately accounted for.

METHODS

10 patients with prostate cancer previously treated at our institution (Montefiore Medical Center) with photon SBRT using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) were identified. MRI images fused to the treatment planning CT allowed for accurate target and organ at risk (OAR) delineation. The clinical target volume was defined as the prostate gland plus the proximal seminal vesicles. Critical OARs include the bladder wall, bowel, femoral heads, neurovascular bundle, penile bulb, rectal wall, urethra and urogenital diaphragm. Photon plan robustness was evaluated by simulating 2 mm isotropic setup variations. Comparative proton SBRT plans employing intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) were generated using robust optimization. Plan robustness was evaluated by simulating 2 mm setup variations and 3% or 1% Hounsfield unit (HU) calibration uncertainties.

RESULTS

Comparable maximum OAR doses are achievable between photon and proton SBRT, however, robust optimization results in higher maximum doses for proton SBRT. Rectal maximum doses are significantly higher for Robust proton SBRT with 1% HU uncertainty compared to photon SBRT (p = 0.03), whereas maximum doses were comparable for bladder wall (p = 0.43), urethra (p = 0.82) and urogenital diaphragm (p = 0.50). Mean doses to bladder and rectal wall are lower for proton SBRT, but higher for neurovascular bundle, urethra and urogenital diaphragm due to increased lateral scatter. Similar target conformality is achieved, albeit with slightly larger treated volume ratios for proton SBRT, >1.4 compared to 1.2 for photon SBRT.

CONCLUSION

Similar treatment plans can be generated with IMPT compared to VMAT in terms of target coverage, target conformality, and OAR sparing when range and HU uncertainties are neglected. However, when accounting for these uncertainties during robust optimization, VMAT outperforms IMPT in terms of achievable target conformity and OAR sparing. Advances in knowledge: Comparison between achievable dose distributions using modern, robust optimization of IMPT for high dose per fraction SBRT regimens for the prostate has not been previously investigated.

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has become a viable treatment option for the many patients who receive a diagnosis of localized prostate cancer each year. Technological advancements have led to tight target conformality, allowing for high-dose-per-fraction delivery without untoward normal tissue toxicity. Biochemical control, now reported up to 5 years, appears to compare favorably with dose-escalated conventionally fractionated radiotherapy. Moreover, toxicity and quality of life follow-up data indicate genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities are likewise comparable to conventional radiation therapy. Nevertheless, because of the long natural history of prostate cancer, extended follow-up will be necessary to confirm these impressive initial results. Within this prostate SBRT review, we explore the detailed rationale for SBRT treatment, the diverse SBRT techniques utilized and their unique technical considerations, and finally data for SBRT clinical efficacy and treatment-related toxicity.

SBRT for prostate cancer: Challenges and features from a physicist prospective

Emerging data are showing the safety and the efficacy of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) in prostate cancer management. In this context, the medical physicists are regularly involved to review the appropriateness of the adopted technology and to proactively study new solutions. From the physics point of view there are two major challenges in prostate SBRT: (1) mitigation of geometrical uncertainty and (2) generation of highly conformal dose distributions that maximally spare the OARs. Geometrical uncertainties have to be limited as much as possible in order to avoid the use of large PTV margins. Furthermore, advanced planning and delivery techniques are needed to generate maximally conformal dose distributions. In this non-systematic review the technology and the physics aspects of SBRT for prostate cancer were analyzed. In details, the aims were: (i) to describe the rationale of reducing the number of fractions (i.e. increasing the dose per fraction), (ii) to analyze the features to be accounted for performing an extreme hypo-fractionation scheme (>6-7Gy), and (iii) to describe technological solutions for treating in a safe way. The analysis of outcomes, toxicities, and other clinical aspects are not object of the present evaluation.