Single blind randomized Phase III trial to investigate the benefit of a focal lesion ablative microboost in prostate cancer (FLAME-trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: The treatment results of external beam radiotherapy for intermediate and high risk prostate cancer patients are insufficient with five-year biochemical relapse rates of approximately 35%. Several randomized trials have shown that dose escalation to the entire prostate improves biochemical disease free survival. However, further dose escalation to the whole gland is limited due to an unacceptable high risk of acute and late toxicity. Moreover, local recurrences often originate at the location of the macroscopic tumor, so boosting the radiation dose at the macroscopic tumor within the prostate might increase local control. A reduction of distant metastases and improved survival can be expected by reducing local failure. The aim of this study is to investigate the benefit of an ablative microboost to the macroscopic tumor within the prostate in patients treated with external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer.Methods/Design: The FLAME-trial (Focal Lesion Ablative Microboost in prostatE cancer) is a single blind randomized controlled phase III trial. We aim to include 566 patients (283 per treatment arm) with intermediate or high risk adenocarcinoma of the prostate who are scheduled for external beam radiotherapy using fiducial markers for position verification. With this number of patients, the expected increase in five-year freedom from biochemical failure rate of 10% can be detected with a power of 80%. Patients allocated to the standard arm receive a dose of 77 Gy in 35 fractions to the entire prostate and patients in the experimental arm receive 77 Gy to the entire prostate and an additional integrated microboost to the macroscopic tumor of 95 Gy in 35 fractions. The secondary outcome measures include treatment-related toxicity, quality of life and disease-specific survival. Furthermore, by localizing the recurrent tumors within the prostate during follow-up and correlating this with the delivered dose, we can obtain accurate dose-effect information for both the macroscopic tumor and subclinical disease in prostate cancer. The rationale, study design and the first 50 patients included are described.Biological, physical and clinical aspects of cancer treatment with ionising radiatio

ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012

The aim was to develop clinical guidelines for multi-parametric MRI of the prostate by a group of prostate MRI experts from the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR), based on literature evidence and consensus expert opinion. True evidence-based guidelines could not be formulated, but a compromise, reflected by “minimal” and “optimal” requirements has been made. The scope of these ESUR guidelines is to promulgate high quality MRI in acquisition and evaluation with the correct indications for prostate cancer across the whole of Europe and eventually outside Europe. The guidelines for the optimal technique and three protocols for “detection”, “staging” and “node and bone” are presented. The use of endorectal coil vs. pelvic phased array coil and 1.5 vs. 3 T is discussed. Clinical indications and a PI-RADS classification for structured reporting are presented

The oncologic role of local treatment in primary metastatic prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine the oncologic benefit or otherwise of local treatment of the prostate in patients with primary metastatic prostate cancer. METHODS: A review of the literature was performed in April 2014 using the Medline/PubMed database. Studies were identified using the search terms "prostate cancer," "metastatic," "metastasis," "high risk," "radiation therapy," "radiotherapy" and "prostatectomy" from 1990 until April, 2014. Articles were also identified through searches of references of these articles. RESULTS: Retrospective series and population-based data suggest that the use of local treatment of the prostate in patients with primary metastatic prostate cancer may improve cancer-specific survival and overall survival compared with treating these patients with androgen deprivation therapy alone. The clinical outcome in metastatic prostate cancer is largely determined by the extent of lymph node involvement and overall metastatic burden. Contemporary data are lacking to recommend one alternative of local therapy (radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy) over the other. The primary limitation of this literature review is the lack of published randomized trial assessing the role of local treatment in addition to systemic therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Local treatment appears to improve oncologic outcomes in metastatic prostate cancer patients. Nevertheless, due to the lack of high-quality evidence, its role needs to be confirmed in future prospective trials. The selection of ideal candidates and optimal treatment alternative (radiotherapy, radical prostatectomy or other) warrants further investigation