Early Outcome of Prostate Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) Incorporating a Simultaneous Intra-Prostatic MRI Directed Boost

Long-term outcomes of prostate intensity-modulated radiation therapy incorporating a simultaneous intra-prostatic MRI-directed boost

Purpose/objectives

This retrospective study demonstrates the long-term outcomes of treating prostate cancer using intensity modulated (IMRT) with incorporation of MRI-directed boost.

Materials/methods

From February 2009 to February 2013, 78 men received image-guided IMRT delivering 77.4 Gy in 44 fractions with simultaneously integrated boost to 81–83 Gy to an MRI-identified lesion. Patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk prostate cancer were recommended to receive 6 and 24–36 months of adjuvant hormonal therapy, respectively.

Results

Median follow-up was 113 months (11–147). There were 18 low-risk, 43 intermediate-risk, and 17 high-risk patients per NCCN risk stratification included in this study. Adjuvant hormonal therapy was utilized in 32 patients (41%). The 10-year biochemical control rate for all patients was 77%. The 10-year biochemical control rates for low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk diseases were 94%, 81%, and 88%, respectively (p = 0.35). The 10-year rates of local control, distant control, and survival were 99%, 88%, and 66%, respectively. Of 25 patients who died, only four (5%) died of prostate cancer. On univariate analysis, T-category and pretreatment PSA level were associated with distant failure rate (p = 0.02). There was no grade =3 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities that persisted at the last follow-up.

Conclusions

This study demonstrated the long-term efficacy of using MRI to define an intra-prostatic lesion for SIB to 81–83Gy while treating the entire prostate gland to 77.4 Gy with IMRT. Our study confirms that modern MRI can be used to locally intensify dose to prostate tumors providing high long-term disease control while maintaining favorable long-term toxicity.

Tumor-targeted dose escalation for localized prostate cancer using MR-guided HDR brachytherapy (HDR) or integrated VMAT (IB-VMAT) boost: Dosimetry, toxicity and health related quality of life

PURPOSE

To report dosimetry, preliminary toxicity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes of tumor-targeted dose-escalation delivered by integrated boost volumetric arc therapy (IB-VMAT) or MR-guided HDR brachytherapy (HDR) boost for prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, with at least 1 identifiable intraprostatic lesion on multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) were enrolled in a prospective non-randomized phase II study. All patients received VMAT to the prostate alone (76 Gy in 38 fractions) plus a GTV boost: IB-VMAT (95 Gy in 38 fractions) or MR-guided HDR (10 Gy single fraction). GTV was delineated on mpMRI and deformably registered to planning CT scans. Comparative dosimetry using EQD2 assuming α/β 3 Gy was performed. Toxicity and health-related quality of life data (HRQoL) data were collected using CTCAE v.4.0, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and the Expanded Prostate Index Composite (EPIC).

RESULTS

Forty patients received IB-VMAT and 40 HDR boost. Organs at risk and target minimal doses were comparable between the two arms. HDR achieved higher mean and maximal tumor doses (p < 0.05). Median follow-up was 31 months (range 25-48); Acute grade G2 genitourinary (GU) toxicity was 30% and 37.5% in IB-VMAT and HDR boost, while gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity was 7.5% and 10%, respectively. Three patients developed acute G3 events, two GU toxicity (one IB-VMAT and one HDR boost) and one GI (IB-VMAT). Late G2 GU toxicity was 25% and 17.5% in the IB-VMAT and HDR boost arm and G2 GI was 5% and 7.5%, respectively. Two patients, both on the IB-VMAT arm, developed late G3 toxicity: one GI and one GU. No statistically significant difference was found in HRQoL between radiotherapy techniques (p > 0.2). Urinary and bowel HRQoL domains in both groups declined significantly by week 6 of treatment in both arms (p < 0.05) and recovered baseline scores at 6 months.

CONCLUSION

Intraprostatic tumor dose escalation using IB-VMAT or MR-guided HDR boost achieved comparable OAR dosimetry, toxicity and HRQOL outcomes, but higher mean and maximal tumor dose were achieved with the HDR technique. Further follow-up will determine long-term outcomes including disease control.

Volumetric and Voxel-Wise Analysis of Dominant Intraprostatic Lesions on Multiparametric MRI

Introduction: Multiparametric MR imaging (mpMRI) has shown promising results in the diagnosis and localization of prostate cancer. Furthermore, mpMRI may play an important role in identifying the dominant intraprostatic lesion (DIL) for radiotherapy boost. We sought to investigate the level of correlation between dominant tumor foci contoured on various mpMRI sequences. Methods: mpMRI data from 90 patients with MR-guided biopsy-proven prostate cancer were obtained from the SPIE-AAPM-NCI Prostate MR Classification Challenge. Each case consisted of T2-weighted (T2W), apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), and K^trans images computed from dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences. All image sets were rigidly co-registered, and the dominant tumor foci were identified and contoured for each MRI sequence. Hausdorff distance (HD), mean distance to agreement (MDA), and Dice and Jaccard coefficients were calculated between the contours for each pair of MRI sequences (i.e., T2 vs. ADC, T2 vs. K^trans, and ADC vs. K^trans). The voxel wise spearman correlation was also obtained between these image pairs. Results: The DILs were located in the anterior fibromuscular stroma, central zone, peripheral zone, and transition zone in 35.2, 5.6, 32.4, and 25.4% of patients, respectively. Gleason grade groups 1-5 represented 29.6, 40.8, 15.5, and 14.1% of the study population, respectively (with group grades 4 and 5 analyzed together). The mean contour volumes for the T2W images, and the ADC and K^trans maps were 2.14 ± 2.1, 2.22 ± 2.2, and 1.84 ± 1.5 mL, respectively. K^trans values were indistinguishable between cancerous regions and the rest of prostatic regions for 19 patients. The Dice coefficient and Jaccard index were 0.74 ± 0.13, 0.60 ± 0.15 for T2W-ADC and 0.61 ± 0.16, 0.46 ± 0.16 for T2W-K^trans. The voxel-based Spearman correlations were 0.20 ± 0.20 for T2W-ADC and 0.13 ± 0.25 for T2W-K^trans. Conclusions: The DIL contoured on T2W images had a high level of agreement with those contoured on ADC maps, but there was little to no quantitative correlation of these results with tumor location and Gleason grade group. Technical hurdles are yet to be solved for precision radiotherapy to target the DILs based on physiological imaging. A Boolean sum volume (BSV) incorporating all available MR sequences may be reasonable in delineating the DIL boost volume.

Modeling of Acute Rectal Toxicity to Compare Two Patient Positioning Methods for Prostate Cancer Radiotherapy: Can Toxicity Modeling be Used for Quality Assurance?

Purpose:

Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) allows for significant dose reductions to organs at risk in prostate cancer patients. However, the accurate delivery of IMRT plans can be compromised by patient positioning errors. The purpose of this study was to determine if the modeling of grade ≥ 2 acute rectal toxicity could be used to monitor the quality of IMRT protocols.

Materials and Methods:

79 patients treated with Image and Fiducial Markers Guided IMRT (FMIGRT) and 302 patients treated with trans-abdominal ultrasound guided IMRT (USGRT) was selected for this study. Treatment plans were available for the FMIGRT group, and hand recorded dosimetric indices were available for both groups. We modeled toxicity in the FMIGRT group using the Lyman Kutcher Burman (LKB) and Univariate Logistic Regression (ULR) models, and we modeled toxicity in USGRT group using the ULR model. We performed Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) analysis on all of the models and compared the Area under the ROC curve (AUC) for the FMIGRT and the USGRT groups.

Results:

The observed Incidence of grade ≥ 2 rectal toxicity was 20% in FMIGRT patients and 54% in USGRT patients. LKB model parameters in the FMIGRT group were TD₅₀=56.8 Gy, slope m=0.093, and exponent n=0.131. The most predictive indices in the ULR model for the FMIGRT group were D_25% and V_{50 Gy}. AUC for both models in the FMIGRT group was similar (AUC=0.67). The FMIGRT URL model predicted less than a 37% incidence of grade ≥ 2 acute rectal toxicity in the USGRT group. A fit of the ULR model to USGRT data did not yield a predictive model (AUC=0.5).

Conclusion:

Modeling of acute rectal toxicity provided a quantitative measure of the correlation between planning dosimetry and this clinical endpoint. Our study suggests that an unusually weak correlation may indicate a persistent patient positioning error.

Prostate irradiation with focal dose escalation to the intraprostatic dominant nodule: a systematic review

Radiation therapy (RT) is a curative treatment option for localized prostate cancer. Prostate irradiation with focal dose escalation to the intraprostatic dominant nodule (IDN) is an emerging treatment option that involves the prophylactic irradiation of the whole prostate while increasing RT doses to the visible prostatic tumor. Because of the lack of large multicentre trials, a systematic review was performed in an attempt to get an overview on the feasibility and efficacy of focal dose escalation to the IDN.

A bibliographic search for articles in English, which were listed in MEDLINE from 2000 to 2016 to identify publications on RT with focal directed boost to the IDN, was performed. The review was completed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines.

Twenty-two articles describing 1,378 patients treated with RT using focal boost were identified and fulfilled the selection criteria. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) was used in 720 patients (52.3%), volumetric modulated arc therapy was used in 45 patients (3.3%), stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in 113 patients (8.2%), and low–dose rate and high–dose rate brachytherapy (BT) were used in 305 patients (22.1%) and 195 patients (14.1%), respectively. Use of androgen deprivation therapy varied substantially among series. Biochemical disease-free survival at 5 years was reported for a cohort of 812 (58.9%) patients. The combined median biochemical disease-free survival for this group of patients was 85% (range: 78.8–100%; 95% confidence interval: 77.1–82.7%).

The average occurrence of grade III or worse gastrointestinal and genitourinary late toxicity was, respectively, 2.5% and 3.1% for intensity-modulated RT boost, 10% and 6% for stereotactic body RT, 6% and 2% for low–dose rate BT, and 4% and 4.3% for high–dose rate BT.

This review shows encouraging results for focal dose escalation to the IDN with acceptable short- to medium-term side effects and biochemical disease control rates. However, owing to the heterogeneity of patient population and the short follow-up, the results should be interpreted with caution. Considering that the clinical endpoint in the studies was biochemical recurrence, the use and duration of androgen deprivation therapy administration should be carefully considered before driving definitive conclusions. Randomized trials with long-term follow-up are needed before this technique can be generally recommended.

Effect of modern, high-quality prostate intensity-modulated radiation therapy on outcome: Evidence from a community radiation oncology program

Radiation technique for prostate cancer has continuously evolved over the past several decades. The aim of the present study was to describe the effects of implementing modern prostate intensity-modulated radiation therapy (M-IMRT) on dosimetry and outcome. Between January 2010 and April 2012, 48 consecutive patients were treated with conventional prostate IMRT (C-IMRT) to a dose of 81 Gy. Between May 2012 and April 2015, 50 consecutive patients were treated with M-IMRT to the entire prostate to a dose of 75.6-79.2 Gy, while using prostate magnetic resonance imaging fusion, dose-volume constraints prioritizing normal tissue avoidance above planning target volume coverage, and boosting any dominant intraprostatic masses to 79.2-81 Gy. Rectal Dmax, V75, V60, V65 and V50, bladder Dmax, V75, V70 and V65, and acute and late toxicities were compared between the C-IMRT and M-IMRT groups. The median follow-up for the C-IMRT and M-IMRT groups was 61 vs. 26 months, respectively (P<0.001). M-IMRT resulted in a significant reduction in median rectal Dmax, rectal V75, rectal V70, rectal V65, bladder Dmax, bladder V75, bladder V70 and bladder V65 (P<0.01 for all). There was no significant difference in rectal V50. The 2-year rate of late grade ≥2 rectal bleeding was 13% with C-IMRT vs. 3% with M-IMRT (P=0.03). The 2-year rate of late grade ≥2 genitourinary toxicity was 11% for C-IMRT vs. 5% for M-IMRT (P=0.21). There were no significant differences in acute toxicity, biochemical control or overall survival. Therefore, compared with C-IMRT, M-IMRT was associated with reduced rectal toxicity without compromising disease control.

Multiparametric [11C]Acetate positron emission tomography-magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment and staging of prostate cancer

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether MP [¹¹C]Acetate PET-MRI enables an accurate differentiation of benign and malignant prostate tumors as well as local and distant staging.

Materials and methods

Fifty-six consecutive patients fulfilling the following criteria were included in this IRB-approved prospective study: elevated PSA levels or suspicious findings at digital rectal examination or TRUS; and histopathological verification. All patients underwent MP [¹¹C]Acetate PET-MRI of the prostate performed on separate scanners with PET/CT using [¹¹C]Acetate and 3T MP MR imaging. Appropriate statistical tests were used to determine diagnostic accuracy, local and distant staging.

Results

MP imaging with two MRI parameters (T2w and DWI) achieved the highest sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of 95%, 68.8%, and 88%, with an AUC of 0.82 for primary PCa detection. Neither assessments with a single parameter (AUC, 0.54–0.79), nor different combinations with up to five parameters (AUC, 0.67–0.79) achieved equally good results. MP [¹¹C]Acetate PET-MRI improved local staging with a sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of 100%, 96%, and 97% compared to MRI alone with 72.2%, 100%, and 95.5%. MP [¹¹C]Acetate PET-MRI correctly detected osseous and liver metastases in five patients.

Conclusions

MP [¹¹C]Acetate PET-MRI merges morphologic with functional information, and allows insights into tumor biology. MP [¹¹C]Acetate PET-MRI with two MRI-derived parameters (T2 and DWI) yields the highest diagnostic accuracy. The addition of more parameters does not improve diagnostic accuracy of primary PCa detection. MP [¹¹C]Acetate PET-MRI facilitates improved local and distant staging, providing “one-stop” staging in patients with primary PCa, and therefore has the potential to improve therapy.

Patient summary

In this report we investigated MP [¹¹C]Acetate PET-MRI for detection, local and distant staging of prostate cancer. We demonstrate that MP [¹¹C]Acetate PET-MRI with two MRI-derived parameters (T2 and DWI) achieves the best diagnostic accuracy for primary prostate cancer detection and that MP [¹¹C]Acetate PET-MRI enables an improved local and distant staging.

Statins and Metformin Use Is Associated with Lower PSA Levels in Prostate Cancer Patients Presenting for Radiation Therapy

Background

A possible association between the level of prostate specific antigen (PSA) and the use of some commonly prescribed medications has been reported in recent studies. Most of these studies were carried out in general populations of men who were screened for prostate cancer using the PSA test. We reported on the association between the initial PSA level and the use of statins, metformin and alpha-blockers in patients who were diagnosed with prostate cancer and presented for radiation therapy.

Methods

Three hundred and eighty one patients treated between the years of 2000-2005 and 2009-2012 were included in this retrospective study. The information about statin, metformin and alpha-blockers use was recorded immediately prior to treatment. Differences in PSA levels prior to treatment by medication status were estimated using univa-riate and multivariate linear regression on log PSA values.

Results

Compared with men who were not on these medications, the PSA level at presentation was 20% lower for statin users (p = 0.002) and 33% lower for metformin users (p = 0.004). We did not observe statistically significant associations between the use of statins or metformin and cancer stage, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk score, or therapy outcome. A statistically significant association between the NCCN risk score and the use of alpha-blockers was observed (p = 0.002).

Conclusions

We found that statins and metformin were associated with lower PSA levels in prostate cancer patients to an extent that could influence management decisions. We found no statistically significant associations between the use of these medications and treatment outcomes.

Patient Specific Characteristics Are an Important Factor That Determines the Risk of Acute Grade ≥ 2 Rectal Toxicity in Patients Treated for Prostate Cancer with IMRT and Daily Image Guidance Based on Implanted Gold Markers

AIM

To model acute rectal toxicity in Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer using dosimetry and patient specific characteristics.

METHODS

A database of 79 prostate cancer patients treated with image guided IMRT was used to fit parameters of Lyman-Kutcher-Burman (LKB) and logistic regression Normal Tissue Complications Probability (NTCP) models to acute grade ≥ 2 rectal toxicities. We used a univariate regression model to find the dosimetric index which was most correlated with toxicity and a multivariate logistic regression model with machine learning algorithm to integrate dosimetry with patient specific characteristics. We used Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) analysis and the area under the ROC curve (AUC) to quantify the predictive power of models.

RESULTS

Sixteen patients (20.3%) developed acute grade≥2 rectal toxicity. Our best estimate (95% confidence interval) of LKB model parameters for acute rectal toxicity are exponent n=0.13 (0.1-0.16), slope m=0.09 (0.08-0.11), and threshold dose TD50=56.8 (53.7-59.9) Gy. The best dosimetric indices in the univariate logistic regression NTCP model were D25% and V50Gy. The best AUC of dosimetry only modeling was 0.67 (0.54, 0.8). In the multivariate logistic regression two patient specific variables were particularly strongly correlated with acute rectal toxicity, the use of statin drugs and PSA level prior to IMRT, while two additional variables, age and diabetes were weakly correlated. The AUC of the logistic regression NTCP model improved to 0.88 (0.8, 0.96) when patient specific characteristics were included. In a group of 79 patients, 40 took Statins and 39 did not. Among patients who took statins, (4/40)=10% developed acute grade ≥2 rectal toxicity, compared to (12/39)=30.8% who did not take statins (p=0.03). The average and standard deviation of PSA distribution for patients with acute rectal toxicity was PSA_tox = 5.77 ± 2.27 and it was PSA_notox = 9.5 ± 7.8 for the remainder (p=0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Patient specific characteristics strongly influence the likelihood of acute grade ≥ 2 rectal toxicity in radiation therapy for prostate cancer.