Stereotactic body radiotherapy for low-risk prostate cancer: five-year outcomes

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Purpose</p> <p>Hypofractionated, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is an emerging treatment approach for prostate cancer. We present the outcomes for low-risk prostate cancer patients with a median follow-up of 5 years after SBRT.</p> <p>Method and Materials</p> <p>Between Dec. 2003 and Dec. 2005, a pooled cohort of 41 consecutive patients from Stanford, CA and Naples, FL received SBRT with CyberKnife for clinically localized, low-risk prostate cancer. Prescribed dose was 35-36.25 Gy in five fractions. No patient received hormone therapy. Kaplan-Meier biochemical progression-free survival (defined using the Phoenix method) and RTOG toxicity outcomes were assessed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>At a median follow-up of 5 years, the biochemical progression-free survival was 93% (95% CI = 84.7% to 100%). Acute side effects resolved within 1-3 months of treatment completion. There were no grade 4 toxicities. No late grade 3 rectal toxicity occurred, and only one late grade 3 genitourinary toxicity occurred following repeated urologic instrumentation.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Five-year results of SBRT for localized prostate cancer demonstrate the efficacy and safety of shorter courses of high dose per fraction radiation delivered with SBRT technique. Ongoing clinical trials are underway to further explore this treatment approach.</p

Hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer

In the last few years, hypofractionated external beam radiotherapy has gained increasing popularity for prostate cancer treatment, since sufficient evidence exists that prostate cancer has a low alpha/beta ratio, lower than the one of the surrounding organs at risk and thus there is a potential therapeutic benefit of using larger fractionated single doses. Apart from the therapeutic rationale there are advantages such as saving treatment time and medical resources and thereby improving patient's convenience. While older trials showed unsatisfactory results in both standard and hypofractionated arm due to insufficient radiation doses and non-standard contouring of target volumes, contemporary randomized studies have reported on encouraging results of tumor control mostly without an increase of relevant side effects, especially late toxicity. Aim of this review is to give a detailed analysis of relevant, recently published clinical trials with special focus on rationale for hypofractionation and different therapy settings

Intrafraction motion of the prostate during an IMRT session: a fiducial-based 3D measurement with Cone-beam CT

Background: Image-guidance systems allow accurate interfractional repositioning of IMRT treatments, however, these may require up to 15 minutes. Therefore intrafraction motion might have an impact on treatment precision. 3D geometric data regarding intrafraction prostate motion are rare; we therefore assessed its magnitude with pre- and post-treatment fiducial-based imaging with cone-beam-CT (CBCT). Methods: 39 IMRT fractions in 5 prostate cancer patients after (125)I-seed implantation were evaluated. Patient position was corrected based on the (125)I-seeds after pre-treatment CBCT. Immediately after treatment delivery, a second CBCT was performed. Differences in bone- and fiducial position were measured by seed-based grey-value matching. Results: Fraction time was 13.6 +/- 1.6 minutes. Median overall displacement vector length of (125)Iseeds was 3 mm (M = 3 mm, Sigma = 0.9 mm, sigma = 1.7 mm; M: group systematic error, Sigma: SD of systematic error, sigma: SD of random error). Median displacement vector of bony structures was 1.84 mm (M = 2.9 mm, Sigma = 1 mm, sigma = 3.2 mm). Median displacement vector length of the prostate relative to bony structures was 1.9 mm (M = 3 mm, Sigma = 1.3 mm, sigma = 2.6 mm). Conclusion: a) Overall displacement vector length during an IMRT session is &lt; 3 mm. b) Positioning devices reducing intrafraction bony displacements can further reduce overall intrafraction motion. c) Intrafraction prostate motion relative to bony structures is &lt; 2 mm and may be further reduced by institutional protocols and reduction of IMRT duration

IMRT of Prostate Cancer: A Comparison of Fluence Optimization with Sequential Segmentation and Direct-Step-and-Shoot Optimization

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has shown its superiority to three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy in the treatment of prostate cancer. Different optimization algorithms are available: algorithms which first optimize the fluence followed by a sequencing (IM), and algorithms which involve the machine parameters directly in the optimization process (DSS). The aim of this treatment-planning study is to compare both of them regarding dose distribution and treatment time. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ten consecutive patients with localized prostate cancer were enrolled for the planning study. The planning target volume and the rectum volume, urinary bladder and femoral heads as organs at risk were delineated. Average doses, the target dose homogeneity H, D(5), D(95), monitor units per fraction, and the number of segments were evaluated. RESULTS: While there is only a small difference in the mean doses at rectum and bladder, there is a significant advantage for the target dose homogeneity in the DSS-optimized plans compared to the IM-optimized ones. Differences in the monitor units (nearly 10% less for DSS) and the number of segments are also statistically significant and reduce the treatment time. CONCLUSION: Particularly with regard to the tumor control probability, the better homogeneity of the DSS-optimized plans is more profitable. The shorter treatment time is an improvement regarding intrafractional organ motion. The DSS optimizer results in a higher target dose homogeneity and, simultaneously, in a lower number of monitor units. Therefore, it should be preferred for IMRT of prostate cancer