Proton beam therapy and localised prostate cancer: current status and controversies

Proton therapy is a promising, but costly, treatment for prostate cancer. Theoretical physical advantages exist; yet to date, it has been shown only to be comparably safe and effective when compared with the alternatives and not necessarily superior. If clinically meaningful benefits do exist for patients, more rigorous study will be needed to detect them and society will require this to justify the investment of time and money. New technical advances in proton beam delivery coupled with shortened overall treatment times and declining device costs have the potential to make this a more cost-effective therapy in the years ahead

Patient‐reported outcomes after 3‐dimensional conformal, intensity‐modulated, or proton beam radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have suggested differing toxicity patterns for patients with prostate cancer who receive treatment with 3‐dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), or proton beam therapy (PBT). METHODS: The authors reviewed patient‐reported outcomes data collected prospectively using validated instruments that assessed bowel and urinary quality of life (QOL) for patients with localized prostate cancer who received 3DCRT (n = 123), IMRT (n = 153) or PBT (n = 95). Clinically meaningful differences in mean QOL scores were defined as those exceeding half the standard deviation of the baseline mean value. Changes from baseline were compared within groups at the first post‐treatment follow‐up (2‐3 months from the start of treatment) and at 12 months and 24 months. RESULTS: At the first post‐treatment follow‐up, patients who received 3DCRT and IMRT, but not those who received PBT, reported a clinically meaningful decrement in bowel QOL. At 12 months and 24 months, all 3 cohorts reported clinically meaningful decrements in bowel QOL. Patients who received IMRT reported clinically meaningful decrements in the domains of urinary irritation/obstruction and incontinence at the first post‐treatment follow‐up. At 12 months, patients who received PBT, but not those who received IMRT or 3DCRT, reported a clinically meaningful decrement in the urinary irritation/obstruction domain. At 24 months, none of the 3 cohorts reported clinically meaningful changes in urinary QOL. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received 3DCRT, IMRT, or PBT reported distinct patterns of treatment‐related QOL. Although the timing of toxicity varied between the cohorts, patients reported similar modest QOL decrements in the bowel domain and minimal QOL decrements in the urinary domains at 24 months. Prospective randomized trials are needed to further examine these differences. Cancer 2013. © 2013 American Cancer Society. Prostate cancer patients who receive 3‐dimensional conformal radiotherapy, intensity‐modulated radiotherapy, or proton beam therapy report distinct patterns of treatment‐related quality of life. Although the timing of toxicity varies between cohorts, patients report similar modest quality‐of‐life decrements in the bowel domain and minimal QOL decrements in the urinary domains at 24 months.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/97476/1/27956_ftp.pd

Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening and 15-year Prostate Cancer Mortality:A Secondary Analysis of the CAP Randomized Clinical Trial

Key PointsQuestion  In men aged 50 to 69 years, does a single invitation for a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening test reduce prostate cancer mortality at 15-year follow-up compared with no invitation for testing?Findings  In this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial of 415 357 men aged 50 to 69 years randomized to a single invitation for PSA screening (n = 195 912) or a control group without PSA screening (n = 219 445) and followed up for a median of 15 years, risk of death from prostate cancer was lower in the group invited to screening (0.69% vs 0.78%; mean difference, 0.09%) compared with the control group.Meaning  Compared with no invitation for routine PSA testing, a single invitation for a PSA screening test reduced prostate cancer mortality at a median follow-up of 15 years, but the absolute mortality benefit was small.AbstractIMPORTANCE The Cluster randomized trial of PSA testing for Prostate cancer (CAP) reported no effect of prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening on prostate cancer mortality at median 10-year follow-up (primary outcome), but the long-term effects of PSA screening on prostate cancer mortality remain unclear.OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effect of a single invitation for PSA screening on the pre-specified secondary outcome of prostate cancer-specific mortality at a median of 15 years’ follow-up, compared to a control group not invited for screening. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS Cluster randomized trial of men aged 50-69 identified from 573 primary-care practices in England and Wales. Primary-care practices were randomized between 09/25/2001 and 08/24/2007 and men were enrolled between 01/08/2002 and 01/20/2009. Follow-up was completed on 03/31/2021. INTERVENTION A single invitation for a PSA screening test with subsequent diagnostic tests if PSA≥3.0ng/ml, compared to standard practice (control). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was reported previously. Of eight prespecified secondary outcomes, results of four were reported previously. The four remaining pre-specified secondary outcomes at 15-year follow-up were prostate cancer-specific mortality, all-cause mortality, and prostate cancer stage and Gleason grade at diagnosis.RESULTS Of 415,357 randomized men (mean [SD] age: 59.0 [5.6] years), 98% were analyzed in these analyses. Overall, 12,013 and 12,958 men with prostate cancers were diagnosed in the intervention and control groups (15-year cumulative risks 7.1% and 6.9% respectively). At a median 15-year follow-up, 1,199 (0.69%) men in the intervention group and 1,451 (0.78%) men in the control group died of prostate cancer (rate ratio [RR] 0.92 [95% CI 0.85, 0.99]; p=0.03). Compared to the control group, the PSA screening intervention increased detection of low-grade (Gleason score [GS]≤6; 2.2% versus 1.6%;p&lt;0.001) and localized (T1/T2; 3.6% versus 3.1%;p&lt;0.001) disease, but not intermediate (GS=7), high-grade (GS≥8), locally-advanced (T3) or distally-advanced (T4/N1/M1) tumors. There were 45,084 all-cause deaths (23.2%) in the intervention group and 50,336 deaths (23.3%) in the control group respectively (RR 0.97 [95% CI 0.94, 1.01]; p=0.11). Eight deaths in the intervention and seven deaths in the control group were related to a diagnostic biopsy or prostate cancer treatment.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE A single invitation for PSA screening, compared to standard practice without routine screening, reduced the secondary outcome of prostate cancer deaths at a median follow-up of 15-years. However, the absolute reduction in deaths was small.<br/

Dosimetric impacts of endorectal balloon in CyberKnife stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for early‐stage prostate cancer

Abstract Purpose In SBRT for prostate cancer, higher fractional dose to the rectum is a major toxicity concern due to using smaller PTV margin and hypofractionation. We investigate the dosimetric impact on rectum using endorectal balloon (ERB) in prostate SBRT. Materials and Methods Twenty prostate cancer patients were included in a retrospective study, ten with ERB and 10 without ERB. Optimized SBRT plans were generated on CyberKnife MultiPlan for 5 × 7.25 Gy to PTV under RTOG‐0938 protocol for early‐stage prostate cancer. For the rectum and the anterior half rectum, mean dose and percentage of volumes receiving 50%, 80%, 90%, and 100% prescription dose were compared. Results: Using ERB, mean dose to the rectum was 62 cGy (P = 0.001) lower per fraction, and 50 cGy (P = 0.024) lower per fraction for the anterior half rectum. The average V50%, V80%, V90%, and V100% were lower by 9.9% (P = 0.001), 5.3% (P = 0.0002), 3.4% (P = 0.0002), and 1.2% (P = 0.005) for the rectum, and lower by 10.4% (P = 0.009), 8.3% (P = 0.0004), 5.4% (P = 0.0003), and 2.1% (P = 0.003) for the anterior half rectum. Conclusions: Significant reductions of dose to the rectum using ERB were observed. This may lead to improvement of the rectal toxicity profiles in prostate SBRT

Tri-Modality therapy with I-125 brachytherapy, external beam radiation therapy, and short- or long-term hormone therapy for high-risk localized prostate cancer (TRIP): study protocol for a phase III, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Patients with high Gleason score, elevated prostate specific antigen (PSA) level, and advanced clinical stage are at increased risk for both local and systemic relapse. Recent data suggests higher radiation doses decrease local recurrence and may ultimately benefit biochemical, metastasis-free and disease-specific survival. No randomized data is available on the benefits of long-term hormonal therapy (HT) in these patients. A prospective study on the efficacy and safety of trimodality treatment consisting of HT, external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), and brachytherapy (BT) for high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) is strongly required.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>This is a phase III, multicenter, randomized controlled trial (RCT) of trimodality with BT, EBRT, and HT for high-risk PCa (TRIP) that will investigate the impact of adjuvant HT following BT using iodine-125 (¹²⁵I-BT) and supplemental EBRT with neoadjuvant and concurrent HT. Prior to the end of September 2012, a total of 340 patients with high-risk PCa will be enrolled and randomized to one of two treatment arms. These patients will be recruited from more than 41 institutions, all of which have broad experience with ¹²⁵I-BT. Pathological slides will be centrally reviewed to confirm patient eligibility. The patients will commonly undergo 6-month HT with combined androgen blockade (CAB) before and during ¹²⁵I-BT and supplemental EBRT. Those randomly assigned to the long-term HT group will subsequently undergo 2 years of adjuvant HT with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist. All participants will be assessed at baseline and every 3 months for the first 30 months, then every 6 months until 84 months from the beginning of CAB.</p> <p>The primary endpoint is biochemical progression-free survival. Secondary endpoints are overall survival, clinical progression-free survival, disease-specific survival, salvage therapy non-adaptive interval, and adverse events.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>To our knowledge, there have been no prospective studies documenting the efficacy and safety of trimodality therapy for high-risk PCa. The present RCT is expected to provide additional insight regarding the potency and limitations of the addition of 2 years of adjuvant HT to this trimodality approach, and to establish an appropriate treatment strategy for high-risk PCa.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>UMIN000003992</p

Contemporary accuracy of death certificates for coding prostate cancer as a cause of death : Is reliance on death certification good enough? A comparison with blinded review by an independent cause of death evaluation committee

BACKGROUND: Accurate cause of death assignment is crucial for prostate cancer epidemiology and trials reporting prostate cancer-specific mortality outcomes. METHODS: We compared death certificate information with independent cause of death evaluation by an expert committee within a prostate cancer trial (2002-2015). RESULTS: Of 1236 deaths assessed, expert committee evaluation attributed 523 (42%) to prostate cancer, agreeing with death certificate cause of death in 1134 cases (92%, 95% CI: 90%, 93%). The sensitivity of death certificates in identifying prostate cancer deaths as classified by the committee was 91% (95% CI: 89%, 94%); specificity was 92% (95% CI: 90%, 94%). Sensitivity and specificity were lower where death occurred within 1 year of diagnosis, and where there was another primary cancer diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: UK death certificates accurately identify cause of death in men with prostate cancer, supporting their use in routine statistics. Possible differential misattribution by trial arm supports independent evaluation in randomised trials