A comparison of robotic arm versus gantry linear accelerator stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer

Vladimir Avkshtol, Yanqun Dong, Shelly B Hayes, Mark A Hallman, Robert A Price, Mark L Sobczak, Eric M Horwitz,* Nicholas G Zaorsky* Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA *These authors contributed equally to this work Abstract: Prostate cancer is the most prevalent cancer diagnosed in men in the United States besides skin cancer. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT; 6–15 Gy per fraction, up to 45 minutes per fraction, delivered in five fractions or less, over the course of approximately 2 weeks) is emerging as a popular treatment option for prostate cancer. The American Society for Radiation Oncology now recognizes SBRT for select low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. SBRT grew from the notion that high doses of radiation typical of brachytherapy could be delivered noninvasively using modern external-beam radiation therapy planning and delivery methods. SBRT is most commonly delivered using either a traditional gantry-mounted linear accelerator or a robotic arm-mounted linear accelerator. In this systematic review article, we compare and contrast the current clinical evidence supporting a gantry vs robotic arm SBRT for prostate cancer. The data for SBRT show encouraging and comparable results in terms of freedom from biochemical failure (>90% for low and intermediate risk at 5–7 years) and acute and late toxicity (<6% grade 3–4 late toxicities). Other outcomes (eg, overall and cancer-specific mortality) cannot be compared, given the indolent course of low-risk prostate cancer. At this time, neither SBRT device is recommended over the other for all patients; however, gantry-based SBRT machines have the abilities of treating larger volumes with conventional fractionation, shorter treatment time per fraction (~15 minutes for gantry vs ~45 minutes for robotic arm), and the ability to achieve better plans among obese patients (since they are able to use energies >6 MV). Finally, SBRT (particularly on a gantry) may also be more cost-effective than conventionally fractionated external-beam radiation therapy. Randomized controlled trials of SBRT using both technologies are underway. Keywords: prostate cancer, stereotactic body radiation therapy, technology, quality of lif

Ten-Year Update of a Randomized, Prospective Trial of Conventional Fractionated Versus Moderate Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE The previously published single institution randomized prospective trial failed to show superiority in the 5-year biochemical and/or clinical disease failure (BCDF) rate with moderate hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (H-IMRT) versus conventionally fractionated IMRT (C-IMRT). We now present 10-year disease outcomes using updated risk groups and definitions of biochemical failure. METHODS Men with protocol-defined intermediate- and high-risk prostate adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned to receive C-IMRT (76 Gy in 38 fractions) or H-IMRT (70.2 Gy in 26 fractions). Men with high-risk disease were all prescribed 24 months of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and had lymph node irradiation. Men with intermediate risk were prescribed 4 months of ADT at the discretion of the treating physician. The primary endpoint was cumulative incidence of BCDF. We compared disease outcomes and overall mortality by treatment arm, with sensitivity analyses for National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group adjustment. RESULTS Overall, 303 assessable men were randomly assigned to C-IMRT or H-IMRT. The median follow-up was 122.9 months. Per updated NCCN risk classification, there were 28 patients (9.2%) with low-risk, 189 (62.4%) with intermediate-risk, and 86 (28.4%) with high-risk prostate cancer. The arms were equally balanced for clinicopathologic factors, except that there were more black patients in the C-IMRT arm (17.8% v 7.3%; P = .02). There was no difference in ADT use ( P = .56). The 10-year cumulative incidence of BCDF was 25.9% in the C-IMRT arm and was 30.6% in the H-IMRT arm (hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.82 to 2.11). The two arms also had similar cumulative 10-year rates of biochemical failure, prostate cancer–specific mortality, and overall mortality; however, the 10-year cumulative incidence of distant metastases was higher in the H-IMRT arm (rate difference, 7.8%; 95% CI, 0.7% to 15.1%). CONCLUSION H-IMRT failed to demonstrate superiority compared with C-IMRT in long-term disease outcomes