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 alpha/beta 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

Estimates of Alpha/Beta (alpha/beta) Ratios for Individual Late Rectal Toxicity Endpoints: An Analysis of the CHHiP Trial

Purpose: Changes in fraction size of external beam radiation therapy exert nonlinear effects on subsequent toxicity. Commonly described by the linear-quadratic model, fraction size sensitivity of normal tissues is expressed by the α/β ratio. We sought to study individual α/β ratios for different late rectal effects after prostate external beam radiation therapy. Methods and Materials: The CHHiP trial (ISRCTN97182923) randomized men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer 1:1:1 to 74 Gy/37 fractions (Fr), 60 Gy/20 Fr, or 57 Gy/19 Fr. Patients in the study had full dosimetric data and zero baseline toxicity. Toxicity scales were amalgamated to 6 bowel endpoints: bleeding, diarrhea, pain, proctitis, sphincter control, and stricture. Lyman-Kutcher-Burman models with or without equivalent dose in 2 Gy/Fr correction were log-likelihood fitted by endpoint, estimating α/β ratios. The α/β ratio estimate sensitivity was assessed using sequential inclusion of dose modifying factors (DMFs): age, diabetes, hypertension, inflammatory bowel or diverticular disease (IBD/diverticular), and hemorrhoids. 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were bootstrapped. Likelihood ratio testing of 632 estimator log-likelihoods compared the models. Results: Late rectal α/β ratio estimates (without DMF) ranged from bleeding (G1 + α/β = 1.6 Gy; 95% CI, 0.9-2.5 Gy) to sphincter control (G1 + α/β = 3.1 Gy; 95% CI, 1.4-9.1 Gy). Bowel pain modelled poorly (α/β, 3.6 Gy; 95% CI, 0.0-840 Gy). Inclusion of IBD/diverticular disease as a DMF significantly improved fits for stool frequency G2+ (P = .00041) and proctitis G1+ (P = .00046). However, the α/β ratios were similar in these no-DMF versus DMF models for both stool frequency G2+ (α/β 2.7 Gy vs 2.5 Gy) and proctitis G1+ (α/β 2.7 Gy vs 2.6 Gy). Frequency-weighted averaging of endpoint α/β ratios produced: G1 + α/β ratio = 2.4 Gy; G2 + α/β ratio = 2.3 Gy. Conclusions: We estimated α/β ratios for several common late adverse effects of rectal radiation therapy. When comparing dose-fractionation schedules, we suggest using late a rectal α/β ratio ≤ 3 Gy

Stereotactic body radiotherapy for Ultra-Central lung Tumors: A systematic review and Meta-Analysis and International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society practice guidelines

BACKGROUND Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is an effective and safe modality for early-stage lung cancer and lung metastases. However, tumors in an ultra-central location pose unique safety considerations. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the current safety and efficacy data and provide practice recommendations on behalf of the International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society (ISRS). METHODS We performed a systematic review using PubMed and EMBASE databases of patients with ultra-central lung tumors treated with SBRT. Studies reporting local control (LC) and/or toxicity were included. Studies with <5 treated lesions, non-English language, re-irradiation, nodal tumors, or mixed outcomes in which ultra-central tumors could not be discerned were excluded. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed for studies reporting relevant endpoints. Meta-regression was conducted to determine the effect of various covariates on the primary outcomes. RESULTS 602 unique studies were identified of which 27 (one prospective observational, the remainder retrospective) were included, representing 1183 treated targets. All studies defined ultra-central as the planning target volume (PTV) overlapping the proximal bronchial tree (PBT). The most common dose fractionations were 50 Gy/5, 60 Gy/8, and 60 Gy/12 fractions. The pooled 1- and 2-year LC estimates were 92 % and 89 %, respectively. Meta-regression identified biological effective dose (BED10) as a significant predictor of 1-year LC. A total of 109 grade 3-4 toxicity events, with a pooled incidence of 6 %, were reported, most commonly pneumonitis. There were 73 treatment related deaths, with a pooled incidence of 4 %, with the most common being hemoptysis. Anticoagulation, interstitial lung disease, endobronchial tumor, and concomitant targeted therapies were observed risk factors for fatal toxicity events. CONCLUSION SBRT for ultra-central lung tumors results in acceptable rates of local control, albeit with risks of severe toxicity. Caution should be taken for appropriate patient selection, consideration of concomitant therapies, and radiotherapy plan design

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Association Between Radiation Therapy Treatment Volume and Patient Outcomes

PURPOSE: Evidence of a volume-outcome association in cancer surgery has shaped the centralization of cancer services; however, it is unknown whether a similar association exists for radiation therapy. The objective of this study was to determine the association between radiation therapy treatment volume and patient outcomes. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This systematic review and meta-analysis included studies that compared outcomes of patients who underwent definitive radiation therapy at high-volume radiation therapy facilities (HVRFs) versus low-volume facilities (LVRFs). The systematic review used Ovid MEDLINE and Embase. For the meta-analysis, a random effects model was used. Absolute effects and hazard ratios (HRs) were used to compare patient outcomes. RESULTS: The search identified 20 studies assessing the association between radiation therapy volume and patient outcomes. Seven of the studies looked at head and neck cancers (HNCs). The remaining studies covered cervical (4), prostate (4), bladder (3), lung (2), anal (2), esophageal (1), brain (2), liver (1), and pancreatic cancer (1). The meta-analysis demonstrated that HVRFs were associated with a lower chance of death compared with LVRFs (pooled HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.87- 0.94). HNCs had the strongest evidence of a volume-outcome association for both nasopharyngeal cancer (pooled HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.89) and nonnasopharyngeal HNC subsites (pooled HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75-0.84), followed by prostate cancer (pooled HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.98). The remaining cancer types showed weak evidence of an association. The results also demonstrate that some centers defined as HVRFs are undertaking very few procedures per annum (<5 radiation therapy cases per year). CONCLUSIONS: An association between radiation therapy treatment volume and patient outcomes exists for most cancer types. Centralization of radiation therapy services should be considered for cancer types with the strongest volume-outcome association, but the effect on equitable access to services needs to be explicitly considered

The need for multidisciplinarity in specialist training to optimize future patient care

Harmonious interactions between radiation, medical, interventional and surgical oncologists, as well as other members of multidisciplinary teams, are essential for the optimization of patient care in oncology. This multidisciplinary approach is particularly important in the current landscape, in which standard-of-care approaches to cancer treatment are evolving towards highly targeted treatments, precise image guidance and personalized cancer therapy. Herein, we highlight the importance of multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity at all levels of clinical oncology training. Potential deficits in the current career development pathways and suggested strategies to broaden clinical training and research are presented, with specific emphasis on the merits of trainee involvement in functional multidisciplinary teams. Finally, the importance of training in multidisciplinary research is discussed, with the expectation that this awareness will yield the most fertile ground for future discoveries. Our key message is for cancer professionals to fulfil their duty in ensuring that trainees appreciate the importance of multidisciplinary research and practice

Recommendations for radiation therapy in oligometastatic prostate cancer:An ESTRO-ACROP Delphi consensus

Background and purpose: Oligometastatic prostate cancer is a new and emerging treatment field with only few prospective randomized studies published so far. Despite the lack of strong level I evidence, metastasis-directed therapies (MDT) are widely used in clinical practice, mainly based on retrospective and small phase 2 studies and with a large difference across centers. Pending results of ongoing prospec-tive randomized trials, there is a clear need for more consistent treatment indications and radiotherapy practices.Material and methods: A European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) Guidelines Committee consisting of radiation oncologists' experts in prostate cancer was asked to answer a dedicated question-naire, including 41 questions on the main controversial issues with regard to oligometastatic prostate cancer.Results: The panel achieved consensus on patient selection and routine use of prostate-specific mem-brane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA PET) imaging as preferred staging and restaging imaging. MDT strategies are recommended in the de novo oligometastatic, oligorecurrent and oligopro-gressive disease setting for nodal, bone and visceral metastases. Radiation therapy doses, volumes and techniques were discussed and commented.Conclusion: These recommendations have the purpose of providing standardization and consensus to optimize the radiotherapy treatment of oligometastatic prostate cancer until mature results of random-ized trials are available.AT would like to acknowledge the support of Cancer Research UK (C33589/A28284 and C7224/A28724) . This project represents independent research supported by the National Institute for Health research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and the Institute of Cancer Research, London. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care

Sequencing of Androgen-Deprivation Therapy of Short Duration With Radiotherapy for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer (SANDSTORM): A Pooled Analysis of 12 Randomized Trials

PURPOSE: The sequencing of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) with radiotherapy (RT) may affect outcomes for prostate cancer in an RT-field size-dependent manner. Herein, we investigate the impact of ADT sequencing for men receiving ADT with prostate-only RT (PORT) or whole-pelvis RT (WPRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individual patient data from 12 randomized trials that included patients receiving neoadjuvant/concurrent or concurrent/adjuvant short-term ADT (4-6 months) with RT for localized disease were obtained from the Meta-Analysis of Randomized trials in Cancer of the Prostate consortium. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was performed with propensity scores derived from age, initial prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, T stage, RT dose, and mid-trial enrollment year. Metastasis-free survival (primary end point) and overall survival (OS) were assessed by IPTW-adjusted Cox regression models, analyzed independently for men receiving PORT versus WPRT. IPTW-adjusted Fine and Gray competing risk models were built to evaluate distant metastasis (DM) and prostate cancer-specific mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 7,409 patients were included (6,325 neoadjuvant/concurrent and 1,084 concurrent/adjuvant) with a median follow-up of 10.2 years (interquartile range, 7.2-14.9 years). A significant interaction between ADT sequencing and RT field size was observed for all end points (P interaction < .02 for all) except OS. With PORT (n = 4,355), compared with neoadjuvant/concurrent ADT, concurrent/adjuvant ADT was associated with improved metastasis-free survival (10-year benefit 8.0%, hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.79; P < .0001), DM (subdistribution HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.82; P = .0046), prostate cancer-specific mortality (subdistribution HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.54; P < .0001), and OS (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.83; P = .0001). However, in patients receiving WPRT (n = 3,049), no significant difference in any end point was observed in regard to ADT sequencing except for worse DM (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.20 to 2.05; P = .0009) with concurrent/adjuvant ADT. CONCLUSION: ADT sequencing exhibits a significant impact on clinical outcomes with a significant interaction with field size. Concurrent/adjuvant ADT should be the standard of care where short-term ADT is indicated in combination with PORT

Biochemical Recurrence Surrogacy for Clinical Outcomes After Radiotherapy for Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate

PURPOSE: The surrogacy of biochemical recurrence (BCR) for overall survival (OS) in localized prostate cancer remains controversial. Herein, we evaluate the surrogacy of BCR using different surrogacy analytic methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individual patient data from 11 trials evaluating radiotherapy dose escalation, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) use, and ADT prolongation were obtained. Surrogate candidacy was assessed using the Prentice criteria (including landmark analyses) and the two-stage meta-analytic approach (estimating Kendall's tau and the R2). Biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS, time from random assignment to BCR or any death) and time to BCR (TTBCR, time from random assignment to BCR or cancer-specific deaths censoring for noncancer-related deaths) were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 10,741 patients were included. Dose escalation, addition of short-term ADT, and prolongation of ADT duration significantly improved BCR (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.63 to 0.79]; HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.59]; and HR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.61], respectively). Adding short-term ADT (HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.84 to 0.99]) and prolonging ADT (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.78 to 0.94]) significantly improved OS, whereas dose escalation did not (HR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.87 to 1.11]). BCR at 48 months was associated with inferior OS in all three groups (HR, 2.46 [95% CI, 2.08 to 2.92]; HR, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.35 to 1.70]; and HR, 2.31 [95% CI, 2.04 to 2.61], respectively). However, after adjusting for BCR at 48 months, there was no significant treatment effect on OS (HR, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.96 to 1.27]; HR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.87 to 1.06] and 1.00 [95% CI, 0.90 to 1.12], respectively). The patient-level correlation (Kendall's tau) for BCRFS and OS ranged between 0.59 and 0.69, and that for TTBCR and OS ranged between 0.23 and 0.41. The R2 values for trial-level correlation of the treatment effect on BCRFS and TTBCR with that on OS were 0.563 and 0.160, respectively. CONCLUSION: BCRFS and TTBCR are prognostic but failed to satisfy all surrogacy criteria. Strength of correlation was greater when noncancer-related deaths were considered events.</p

Biochemical Recurrence Surrogacy for Clinical Outcomes After Radiotherapy for Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate

PURPOSE: The surrogacy of biochemical recurrence (BCR) for overall survival (OS) in localized prostate cancer remains controversial. Herein, we evaluate the surrogacy of BCR using different surrogacy analytic methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individual patient data from 11 trials evaluating radiotherapy dose escalation, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) use, and ADT prolongation were obtained. Surrogate candidacy was assessed using the Prentice criteria (including landmark analyses) and the two-stage meta-analytic approach (estimating Kendall's tau and the R2). Biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS, time from random assignment to BCR or any death) and time to BCR (TTBCR, time from random assignment to BCR or cancer-specific deaths censoring for noncancer-related deaths) were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 10,741 patients were included. Dose escalation, addition of short-term ADT, and prolongation of ADT duration significantly improved BCR (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.63 to 0.79]; HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.59]; and HR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.61], respectively). Adding short-term ADT (HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.84 to 0.99]) and prolonging ADT (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.78 to 0.94]) significantly improved OS, whereas dose escalation did not (HR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.87 to 1.11]). BCR at 48 months was associated with inferior OS in all three groups (HR, 2.46 [95% CI, 2.08 to 2.92]; HR, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.35 to 1.70]; and HR, 2.31 [95% CI, 2.04 to 2.61], respectively). However, after adjusting for BCR at 48 months, there was no significant treatment effect on OS (HR, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.96 to 1.27]; HR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.87 to 1.06] and 1.00 [95% CI, 0.90 to 1.12], respectively). The patient-level correlation (Kendall's tau) for BCRFS and OS ranged between 0.59 and 0.69, and that for TTBCR and OS ranged between 0.23 and 0.41. The R2 values for trial-level correlation of the treatment effect on BCRFS and TTBCR with that on OS were 0.563 and 0.160, respectively. CONCLUSION: BCRFS and TTBCR are prognostic but failed to satisfy all surrogacy criteria. Strength of correlation was greater when noncancer-related deaths were considered events

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer (PACE-B): 2-year toxicity results from an open-label, randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial

Background Localised prostate cancer is commonly treated with external beam radiotherapy and moderate hypofractionation is non-inferior to longer schedules. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) allows shorter treatment courses without impacting acute toxicity. We report 2-year toxicity findings from PACE-B, a randomised trial of conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy versus SBRT. Methods PACE is an open-label, multicohort, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial conducted at 35 hospitals in the UK, Ireland, and Canada. In PACE-B, men aged 18 years and older with a WHO performance status 0–2 and low-risk or intermediate-risk histologically-confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma (Gleason 4 + 3 excluded) were randomly allocated (1:1) by computerised central randomisation with permuted blocks (size four and six), stratified by centre and risk group to control radiotherapy (CRT; 78 Gy in 39 fractions over 7·8 weeks or, following protocol amendment on March 24, 2016, 62 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks) or SBRT (36·25 Gy in five fractions over 1–2 weeks). Androgen deprivation was not permitted. Co-primary outcomes for this toxicity analysis were Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grade 2 or worse gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity at 24 months after radiotherapy. Analysis was by treatment received and included all patients with at least one fraction of study treatment assessed for late toxicity. Recruitment is complete. Follow-up for oncological outcomes continues. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01584258. Findings We enrolled and randomly assigned 874 men between Aug 7, 2012, and Jan 4, 2018 (441 to CRT and 433 to SBRT). In this analysis, 430 patients were analysed in the CRT group and 414 in the SBRT group; a total of 844 (97%) of 874 randomly assigned patients. At 24 months, RTOG grade 2 or worse genitourinary toxicity was seen in eight (2%) of 381 participants assigned to CRT and 13 (3%) of 384 participants assigned to SBRT (absolute difference 1·3% [95% CI –1·3 to 4·0]; p=0·39); RTOG grade 2 or worse gastrointestinal toxicity was seen in 11 (3%) of 382 participants in the CRT group versus six (2%) of 384 participants in the SBRT group (absolute difference –1·3% [95% CI –3·9 to 1·1]; p=0·32). No serious adverse events (defined as RTOG grade 4 or worse) or treatment-related deaths were reported within the analysis timeframe. Interpretation In the PACE-B trial, 2-year RTOG toxicity rates were similar for five fraction SBRT and conventional schedules of radiotherapy. Prostate SBRT was found to be safe and associated with low rates of side-effects. Biochemical outcomes are awaited