Pelvic Node Irradiation Research Articles

Clinical Outcomes of the CHIRP Trial: A Phase II Prospective Randomized Trial of Conventionally Fractionated Versus Moderately Hypofractionated Prostate and Pelvic Nodal Radiation Therapy in Patients With High-Risk Prostate Cancer

PurposeHypofractionated radiation therapy (HFRT) may offer treatment advantages for patients with prostate cancer. However, HFRT may also increase the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) or genitourinary (GU) toxicity compared with conventionally fractionated radiation therapy (CFRT). Several large trials have found that HFRT is well tolerated in mixed risk population studies. Here, we report on a phase II, randomized controlled study conducted to evaluate these endpoints in exclusively high-risk patients with prostate cancer treated with prostate and pelvic nodal radiation. Methods and MaterialsAfter giving informed consent, patients with high-risk prostate cancer were randomly assigned to prostate plus pelvic nodal radiation therapy with either HFRT (68 Gy in 25 fractions) or CFRT (78 Gy in 39 fractions) and 18 months of androgen suppression therapy. Toxicity was scored using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.0). Biochemical failure was determined by the Phoenix definition. Patients were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. ResultsFrom 2012 to 2018, 111 patients with high-risk prostate cancer were enrolled and 109 patients were treated. The cumulative incidence of grade 2 or higher acute GI toxicity was not significantly different between the arms (HFRT 18.9% vs CFRT 21.8%; P = .812). Similarly, acute GU (HFRT 30.2% vs CFRT 30.9%; P = 1.00), late GI (HFRT 16.0% vs CFRT 10.0%; P = .554), and late GU (HFRT 16.0% vs CFRT 6.0%; P = .200) were not significantly different between the arms. Median follow-up was 38.0 months (4.8-77.8 months). The 3-year biochemical recurrence-free survival was not significantly different between the 2 arms (97.3% for HFRT vs 91.0% for CFRT; P = .606). The 3-year overall survival was 94.8% in the HFRT arm and 100.0% in the CFRT arm (P = .116). ConclusionsHFRT and CFRT using intensity modulated radiation therapy were both well tolerated for patients with high-risk prostate cancer and resulted in similar 3-year biochemical recurrence-free survival and overall survival.

The stereotactic prostate radiotherapy (SPORT) trial: A randomized feasibility study comparing prostate SABR to prostate and pelvic nodal SABR.

248 Background: Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy (SABR) is increasingly used to treat low/intermediate risk localised prostate cancer (PCa). However, data on SABR +/- pelvic nodal irradiation (PNI) in high-risk disease is limited to single institution, single-arm studies. The Stereotactic Prostate Radiotherapy (SPORT) trial examined the feasibility of delivering a randomised trial of SABR ± PNI. The composite primary endpoint to determine feasibility comprised: recruitment rate, technical feasibility, acute toxicity (CTCAE v4.0) and quality of life (QoL)(EPIC). Secondary and exploratory endpoints including late toxicity (RTOG) and QoL and potential biomarkers of toxicity (plasma citrulline and DNA damage in circulating lymphocytes) are also presented. Methods: Men with localised PCa demonstrating one of T3a, Gleason score ≥4+3 or PSA>20 were eligible. T3b and T4 disease were excluded. 30 participants were randomised 1:1 to prostate SABR (P-SABR) or prostate and pelvis SABR (PPN-SABR). The prostate and proximal 1-2cm seminal vesicles received 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions over 29 days (prostate CTV 40Gy). The PPN-SABR arm also received 25 Gy in 5 fractions to the pelvic nodes. All patients had fiducial markers and a rectal spacer gel in-situ. As initial toxicity rates were low, the final 10 men received an additional integrated boost to the dominant intraprostatic lesion of up to 50 Gy, irrespective of randomisation. Results: Feasibility was demonstrated. The target recruitment of 30 men was met (83% high risk). Treatment, including an integrated boost plus PNI, was achievable using strict normal tissue constraints. Acute toxicity and QoL were acceptable (Table: Grade≥2 GU 7%, 27% and GI 0%, 7%; minimal clinically important change (MCIC) in EPIC urinary 40%, 60% and bowel score 33%, 47% in P and PPN arms respectively). At median follow up of 30 months (range 18-42 months), late toxicity and QoL were acceptable (Grade≥2 GU 7%, 20% and GI 0%, 13%; MCIC in EPIC urinary 33%, 67% and bowel score 33%, 67% in P and PPN arms respectively). All toxicity was ≤ grade 2 with the exception of one late grade 3 GU toxicity occurring in the PPN arm. Serum citrulline, a marker of small bowel function, trended towards lower levels in the PPN arm, in keeping with a significantly higher dose delivered to the small bowel in this arm. DNA damage foci in circulating lymphocytes increased at 1 hour after radiation. Foci count and repair correlated to toxicity measures will be presented. Conclusions: A randomised clinical trial comparing P-SABR to PPN-SABR is feasible. There was a suggestion of increased toxicity with PPN-SABR, but this remained acceptable. This data will inform a UK multi-centre phase 2 study. Clinical trial information: NCT03253978 . [Table: see text]

Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for High-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Simple SummaryStereotactic body radiotherapy, i.e., high-precision radiotherapy delivering high doses within a few treatment sessions, is a very convenient treatment option, which has been shown to be effective and well tolerated in prostate cancer patients with low- or intermediate-risk profiles. This review summarizes the available data and analyzes, whether this modern treatment may routinely be offered to prostate cancer patients with a high-risk profile.Background: Radiotherapy (RT) is an established, potentially curative treatment option for all risk constellations of localized prostate cancer (PCA). Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and dose-escalated RT can further improve outcome in high-risk (HR) PCA. In recent years, shorter RT schedules based on hypofractionated RT have shown equal outcome. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is a highly conformal RT technique enabling ultra-hypofractionation which has been shown to be safe and efficient in patients with low- and intermediate-risk PCA. There is a paucity of data on the role of SBRT in HR PCA. In particular, the need for pelvic elective nodal irradiation (ENI) needs to be addressed. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to analyze the available data on observed toxicities, ADT prescription practice, and oncological outcome to shed more light on the value of SBRT in HR PCA. Methods: We searched the PubMed and Embase electronic databases for the terms “prostate cancer” AND “stereotactic” AND “radiotherapy” in June 2020. We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. Results: After a rigorous selection process, we identified 18 individual studies meeting all selection criteria for further analyses. Five additional studies were included because their content was judged as relevant. Three trials have reported on prostate SBRT including pelvic nodes; 2 with ENI and 1 with positive pelvic nodes only. The remaining studies investigated SBRT of the prostate only. Grade 2+ acute genitourinary (GU) toxicity was between 12% and 46.7% in the studies investigating pelvic nodes irradiation and ranged from 0% to 89% in the prostate only studies. Grade 2+ chronic GU toxicity was between 7% and 60% vs. 2% and 56.7%. Acute gastrointestinal (GI) grade 2+ toxicity was between 0% to 4% and 0% to 18% for studies with and without pelvic nodes irradiation, respectively. Chronic GI grade 2+ toxicity rates were between 4% and 50.1% vs. 0% and 40%. SBRT of prostate and positive pelvic nodes only showed similar toxicity rates as SBRT for the prostate only. Among the trials that reported on ADT use, the majority of HR PCA patients underwent ADT for at least 2 months; mostly neoadjuvant and concurrent. Biochemical control rates ranged from 82% to 100% after 2 years and 56% to 100% after 3 years. Only a few studies reported longer follow-up data. Conclusion: At this point, SBRT with or without pelvic ENI cannot be considered the standard of care in HR PCA, due to missing level 1 evidence. Treatment may be offered to selected patients at specialized centers with access to high-precision RT. While concomitant ADT is the current standard of care, the necessary duration of ADT in combination with SBRT remains unclear. Ideally, all eligible patients should be enrolled in clinical trials.

Additional Treatments to the Local tumour for metastatic prostate cancer-Assessment of Novel Treatment Algorithms (IP2-ATLANTA): protocol for a multicentre, phase II randomised controlled trial

IntroductionSurvival in men diagnosed with de novo synchronous metastatic prostate cancer has increased following the use of upfront systemic treatment, using chemotherapy and other novel androgen receptor targeted agents, in...

PO-1192: Elective Pelvic Nodes Irradiation in Patients with Prostate Cancer (PRO-EPI Study)

PO-1192: Elective Pelvic Nodes Irradiation in Patients with Prostate Cancer (PRO-EPI Study)

Hematological Changes Associated With Prostate Radiotherapy And Androgen Deprivation Therapy

Prostate cancer (PCa) is often managed with prostate radiotherapy (PRT), pelvic nodal radiotherapy (PNRT), and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Both PNRT and ADT are thought to place patients at risk for myelosuppression. The interaction and duration of PRT, PNRT, ADT, and RT technique (3D-CRT versus IMRT) on myelosuppression is not well characterized in PCa patients. This study sought to address this uncertainty. A single-institution retrospective analysis of 600 PCa patients treated with PRT (between 2007-2017) was conducted. Patients were stratified into four groups: PRT alone (group-1), PRT and PNRT (group-2), PRT and ADT (group-3), and PRT, PNRT, and ADT (group-4). Hemoglobin (HGB), white blood cells (WBC), neutrophils, and platelets (PLTs) were extracted from baseline (prior to RT), mid-RT, at RT end, one-month post-RT, and one-year post-RT. Chi-Square tests were performed to test differences between groups. Additionally, hematologic values were stratified by the RT technique. A total of 600 patients were identified in this study for the final analysis. Although bone marrow suppression (BMS) was associated with Group 2, 3, and 4. Only Group 4 (N = 321) showed persistent decreased HGB one-month post-treatment. The addition of ADT was associated with an Odds-Ratio (OR) of 2.43 (CI:1.33-4.35, P<0.004) and that of PNRT with an OR of 3.24 (CI:1.76-5.74, P<0.001). Decreased WBCs were observed in all groups, with PNRT carrying the highest impact with an OR of 2.23 (CI:1.12-4.50, P<0.023). Neutrophil counts were decreased in all groups, with PNRT carrying an OR of 4.69 (CI:3.02-7.27, P<0.001). Both WBC and neutrophil recuperated at four weeks post-PRT in all groups. IMRT was associated with lower BMS than 3DCRT. Our analysis did not identify a statistically significant decrease in platelet count in all groups. Importantly, no patient required intervention for the myelosuppression. Our study suggests that prostate RT, ADT, and the use of 3D-CRT vs. IMRT is associated with mild myelosuppression. The myelosuppression is mild and transient with most patients recuperating to their baseline at four weeks post-radiation therapy. Longer follow up, and patient-reported outcomes should be considered in future studies to determine if these changes are clinically significant.

Development of an automated radiotherapy dose accumulation workflow for locally advanced high-risk prostate cancer - A technical report.

An automated dose accumulation and contour propagation workflow using daily cone beam computed tomography (CBCTs) images for prostate cases that require pelvic lymph nodes irradiation (PLNs) was developed. This workflow was constructed using MIM® software with the intention to provide accurate dose transformations for plans with two different isocentres, whereby two sequential treatment phases were prescribed. The pre‐processing steps for data extractions from treatment plans, CBCTs, determination of couch shift information and management of missing CBCTs are described. To ensure that the imported translational couch shifts were in the correct orientation and readable in MIM, phantom commissioning was performed. For dose transformation, rigid registration with corrected setup shifts and scaled fractional dose was performed for pCT to daily CBCTs, which were then deformed onto CBCT1. Fractional dose summation resulted in the final accumulated dose for the patient allowing differences in dosimetry between the planned and accumulated dose to be analysed. Contour propagations of the prostate, bladder and rectum were performed within the same workflow. Transformed contours were then deformed onto daily CBCTs to generate trending reports for analysis, including Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) and Mean Distance to Agreement (MDA). Results obtained from phantom commissioning (DSC = 0.96, MDA = 0.89 mm) and geometrical analysis of the propagated contours for twenty patients; prostate (DSC: 0.9 ± 0.0, MDA: 1.0 ± 0.3 mm), rectum (DSC: 0.8 ± 0.1, mm, MDA: 1.7 ± 0.6 mm) and bladder (DSC: 0.8 ± 0.1, MDA: 2.8 ± 1.0 mm) were within clinically accepted tolerances for both DSC (>0.8) and MDA (< 0.3 mm). The developed workflow is being performed on a larger patient cohort for predictive model building, with the goal of correlating observed toxicity with the actual accumulated dose received by the patient.

Clinical Implementation of Knowledge-Based Automatic Plan Optimization for Helical Tomotherapy

PurposeTo implement knowledge-based (KB) automatic planning for helical TomoTherapy (HTT). The focus of the first clinical implementation was the case of high-risk prostate cancer, including pelvic node irradiation. Methods and MaterialsOne hundred two HTT clinical plans were selected to train a KB model using the RapidPlan tool incorporated in the Eclipse system (v13.6, Varian Inc). The individually optimized KB-based templates were converted into HTT-like templates and sent automatically to the HTT treatment planning system through scripting. The full dose calculation was set after 300 iterations without any additional planner intervention. Internal (20 patients in the training cohort) and external (28 new patients) validation were performed to assess the performance of the model: Automatic HTT plans (KB-TP) were compared against the original plans (TP) in terms of organs at risk and planning target volume (PTV) dose–volume parameters and by blinded clinical evaluation of 3 expert clinicians. ResultsKB-TP plans were generally better than or equivalent to TP plans in both validation cohorts. A significant improvement in PTVs and rectum–PTV overlap dosimetry parameters were observed for both sets. Organ-at-risk sparing for KB-TP was slightly improved, which was more evident in the external validation group and for bladder and bowel. Clinical evaluation reported KB-TP to be better in 60% of cases and worse in 10% compared with TP (P < .05). ConclusionsThe fully KB-based automatic planning workflow was successfully implemented for HTT planning optimization in the case of high-risk patients with prostate cancer.

Pelvic nodal radiotherapy in Gleason grade group 5 prostate cancer.

Pelvic nodal radiotherapy in Gleason grade group 5 prostate cancer.

Long-Term Results of a Prospective Phase 2 Study on Volume De-Escalation in Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy of Rectal Cancer

PurposeIn the current study, we evaluated whether neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with reduced treatment volumes due to the exclusion of elective pelvic nodal irradiation is a feasible strategy for selected patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Methods and MaterialsPatients with T2 low-lying/T3, N0-N1 rectal lesions without evidence of disease in the lateral lymph nodes were prospectively recruited. All patients underwent pretreatment testing, including computed tomography imaging of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis with intravenous contrast, pelvic magnetic resonance imaging with intravenous contrast, and 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission/computed tomography. The clinical target volume included the primary tumor and the mesorectum with vascular supply containing the perirectal and presacral nodes, with the upper border at the S2/S3 interspace. The total radiation dose was 50.4 Gy, and fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy was associated concomitantly. The primary endpoint of the study was the reduction of gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, and the secondary endpoints were pathologic complete response, local control, overall survival, and disease-free survival. ResultsFifty-two patients (30 men, 22 women) with a median age of 67 years (range, 45-85 years) were enrolled in the study. Acute grade 3 GI toxicity was 7.6%, and there were no cases of grade 4 toxicity. Three patients (5.7%) developed a local recurrence. No relapse occurred in the lateral lymph nodes. The local control rate at 5 years was 96.1%. With a median follow-up time of 72.9 months (range, 2.5-127.6 months), the 3- and 5-year overall survival rates were 89.4% and 87%, respectively. The 3- and 5-year disease-free survival rates were 82.4% and 82.4%, respectively. ConclusionsDe-escalation of radiation therapy target volume reduces GI side effects without compromising efficacy in patients with rectal cancer. These results cannot be clearly extended to high-risk disease and need further evaluation in future randomized trials.

Adjuvant Treatment of Early Ovarian Clear Cell Carcinoma: A Population-Based Study of Whole Abdominal Versus Pelvic Nodal Radiotherapy.

Adjuvant treatment in early ovarian clear cell carcinoma (OCCC) is not yet standardized. The objective of this population-based study was to compare the outcome of patients with early OCCC treated with adjuvant chemotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy (chemoRT) and evaluate the association of adjuvant radiotherapy regimens (whole abdominal radiotherapy [WART] versus pelvic nodal radiotherapy [PRT]) with outcome. Chart review was conducted to identify patients with stage I and II OCCC with complete information on staging. Patients with stage IA, IB, or IC OCCC purely resulting from capsular rupture were excluded because the provincial protocol does not recommend adjuvant treatment. Overall, 403 patients were identified and 343 received adjuvant treatment, of whom 255 had stage IC or II OCCC and 153 were eligible for final analysis. On Cox multivariable regression, receipt of chemoRT (n=90) was associated with an improvement in failure-free survival (FFS) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; 95% CI, 0.34-0.94) compared with chemotherapy alone (n=63). Use of chemoRT also resulted in 54% reduction in the cumulative incidence of cancer-specific mortality (subdistribution HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24-0.89). However, there was no significant difference in the HR for overall survival (OS) between the chemoRT (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.43-1.13) and chemotherapy group. Relative to chemotherapy + WART (chemo-WART), chemotherapy + PRT (chemo-PRT) was not associated with any significant difference in HR for FFS (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.40-4.44) or OS (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.37-3.46). Adjuvant chemoRT was associated with a lower risk of failure compared with chemotherapy alone. However, there was no difference in OS between the adjuvant chemotherapy and chemoRT regimens. Additionally, no significant difference in terms of FFS or OS was found between the chemo-WART and chemo-PRT groups.

Toxicity of Pelvic Lymph Node Irradiation With Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for High-Risk and Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer: A National Population-Based Study Using Patient-Reported Outcomes

Little is known about the toxicity of additional pelvic lymph node irradiation in men receiving intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer. The aim of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes after IMRT to the prostate only (PO-IMRT) versus the prostate and pelvic lymph nodes (PPLN-IMRT). Patients who received a diagnosis of high-risk or locally advanced prostate cancer in the English National Health Service between April 2014 and September 2016 who were treated with IMRT were mailed a questionnaire at least 18 months after diagnosis. Patient-reported urinary, sexual, bowel, and hormonal functional domains on a scale from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better outcomes, and generic health-related quality of life were collected using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite 26-item version and EQ-5D-5L. We used linear regression to compare PPLN-IMRT versus PO-IMRT with adjustment for patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics. Of the 7017 men who received a questionnaire, 5468 (77.9%) responded; 4196 (76.7%) had received PO-IMRT and 1272 (23.3%) PPLN-IMRT. Adjusted differences in the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite 26-item version domain scores were smaller than 1 (P always >.2), except for sexual function, with men who had PPNL-IMRT reporting a lower mean score (adjusted difference, 2.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-3.7; P = .002). This did not represent a clinically relevant difference. There was no significant difference in health-related quality of life (P = .5). Additional pelvic lymph node irradiation does not lead to clinically meaningful increases in the toxicity of IMRT for prostate cancer according to patient-reported functional outcomes and health-related quality of life.

Pelvic radiation therapy with volumetric modulated arc therapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy after renal transplant: A report of 3 cases.

Describe characteristics and outcomes of three patients treated with pelvic radiation therapy after kidney transplant. The incidence of pelvic cancers in kidney transplant (KT) recipients is rising. Currently it is the leading cause of death. Moreover, treatment is challenging because anatomical variants, comorbidities, and associated treatments, which raises the concern of using radiotherapy (RT). RT has been discouraged due to the increased risk of urethral/ureteral stricture and KT dysfunction. We reviewed the electronic health records and digital planning system of patients treated with pelvic RT between December 2013 and December 2018 to identify patients with previous KT. We describe three successful cases of KT patients in which modern techniques allowed full standard RT for pelvic malignances (2 prostate and 1 vaginal cancer) with or without elective pelvic nodal RT, without allograft toxicity at short and long follow-up (up to 60 months). When needed, RT modern techniques remain a valid option with excellent oncologic results and acceptable toxicity. Physicians should give special considerations to accomplish all OAR dose constraints in the patient's specific setting. Recent publications recommend KT mean dose <4 Gy, but graft proximity to CTV makes this unfeasible. We present 2 cases where dose constraint was not achieved, and to a short follow-up of 20 months renal toxicity has not been documented. We recommend the lowest possible mean dose to the KT, but never compromising the CTV coverage, since morbimortality from recurrent or progressive cancer disease outweighs the risk of graft injury.

The Role of Pelvic Node Irradiation in Node Positive Prostate Cancer; the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital (NNUH) Experience 2011–2015

The Role of Pelvic Node Irradiation in Node Positive Prostate Cancer; the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital (NNUH) Experience 2011–2015

Combined Long-Term Androgen Deprivation and Pelvic Radiotherapy in the Post-operative Management of Pathologically Defined High-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients: Results of the Prospective Phase II McGill 0913 Study.

Purpose: Following radical prostatectomy, prostate bed radiotherapy (PBRT) has been combined with either long-term androgen deprivation therapy (LT-ADT) or short-term ADT with pelvic lymph node radiotherapy (PLNRT) to provide an oncological benefit in randomized trials. McGill 0913 was designed to characterize the efficacy of combining PBRT, PLNRT, and LT-ADT. It is the first study to do so prospectively.Methods: In a single arm phase II trial conduced from 2010 to 2016, 46 post-prostatectomy prostate cancer patients at a high-risk for relapse (pathological Gleason 8+ or T3) were assessed for treatment with combined LT-ADT (24 months), PBRT, and PLNRT. Patients received PLNRT and PBRT (44 Gy in 22 fractions) followed by a PBRT boost (22 Gy in 11 fractions). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Toxicity and quality of life (QoL) were evaluated using CTCAE V3.0 and EQ-5D-3L questionnaires, respectively.Results: Among the 43 patients were treated as per protocol, median PSA was 0.30 μg/L. On surgical pathology, 51% had positive margins, 40% had Gleason 8+ disease, 42% had seminal vesicle involvement, and 19% had lymph node involvement. At a median follow-up of 5.2 years, there were no deaths or clinical progression. At 5 years, PFS was 78.0% (95% Confidence Interval 63.7–95.5%). Not including erectile dysfunction, patients experienced: 14% grade 2 endocrine toxicity while on ADT, one incident of long-term gynecomastia, 5% grade 2 acute urinary toxicity, 5% grade 2 late Urinary toxicity, and 24% long-term hypogonadism. No comparison between the average or minimum self-reported QoL at baseline, during ADT, nor after ADT demonstrated a statistically significant difference.Conclusions: Combining PBRT, PLNRT, and LT-ADT had an acceptable PFS in patients with significant post-operative risk factors for recurrence. While therapy was well-tolerated, long-term hypogonadism was a substantial risk. Further investigations are needed to determine if this combination is beneficial.Trial registration: NCT01255891.

Elective Pelvic Nodal Irradiation With a Simultaneous Hypofractionated Integrated Prostate Boost for Localised Prostate Cancer: Ready for Prime Time?

External beam radiotherapy is a standard treatment option for localised prostate cancer and hypofractionation has become an alternative to conventionally fractionated radiotherapy. In patients who receive external beam radiotherapy, elective pelvic nodal irradiation is sometimes delivered, especially in patients with unfavourable disease who are at risk of micrometastatic spread of cancer into the regional nodes. One elegant approach to combine prostate hypofractionation with elective pelvic nodal irradiation is with a simultaneous integrated boost technique, where a radical hypofractionated dose is delivered to the prostate while the regional pelvic nodes receive a lower microscopic dose simultaneously in a single radiotherapy plan over the same number of treatment fractions. This article reviews the existing published literature evaluating such an approach.

Acute and late toxicity and preliminary outcomes report of moderately hypofractionated helical tomotherapy for localized prostate cancer: a mono-institutional analysis.

To assess toxicity and clinical outcomes of moderately hypofractionated helical tomotherapy (HT) for the curative treatment of localized prostate cancer (PC). From December 2012 to May 2018, 170 patients were treated with definitive intent for PC. Thirty-four percent were low risk, 30% intermediate risk (IR) and 36% high risk (HR). All patients received 70Gy in 28 fractions to the prostate; 61.6Gy were delivered to the seminal vesicles for IR; pelvic lymph nodes irradiation for a total dose of 50.4Gy was added in the HR subgroup. Toxicity was assessed using CTCAE V4.0, and biochemical failure was defined following Phoenix criteria. Time-to-event data were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. The median follow-up was 36months (range 12-78); acute toxicity was as follows: G1 and G2 in 27.6% and 19.4% for GI; 53% and 24% for GU. No G ≥ 3 event was observed. For late toxicity, G ≥ 3 GI and GU rates were, respectively, 3% and 2.4% at 3years and 3% and 4.8% at 4years; no G4 occurred. A statistical correlation between acute or late G3 incidence and clinical or dosimetric parameters was not found. At the time of analysis, 2- and 3-year biochemical relapse-free survival rates were 90% and 87.5% and 2- and 3-year overall survival rates were 96.4% and 90%, respectively. The log-rank test revealed no difference between the risk groups in terms of biochemical control (p = 0.16). Moderately hypofractionated RT with HT for localized prostate cancer reported excellent outcomes with mild acute and late toxicity incidence, with promising biochemical control rates.

11 Prostate Bed Treatment Intensification with Long Term Androgen Deprivation and Pelvic Nodal Radiotherapy is Effective and Well Tolerated: Results from the McGill 0913 Phase II Clinical Trial

11 Prostate Bed Treatment Intensification with Long Term Androgen Deprivation and Pelvic Nodal Radiotherapy is Effective and Well Tolerated: Results from the McGill 0913 Phase II Clinical Trial

Prostate Bed Radiotherapy Intensification with Long Term Androgen Deprivation and Pelvic Nodal Radiotherapy Is Effective and Well Tolerated: Results from the McGill 0913 Phase II Clinical Trial

Prostate Bed Radiotherapy Intensification with Long Term Androgen Deprivation and Pelvic Nodal Radiotherapy Is Effective and Well Tolerated: Results from the McGill 0913 Phase II Clinical Trial

Quality of Life and Decision Regret After Postoperative Radiation Therapy to the Prostatic Bed Region With or Without Elective Pelvic Nodal Radiation Therapy

PurposeTo evaluate patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and decision regret (DR surgery or DR radiation therapy) after radiation therapy to the prostatic bed (PBRT) with or without whole pelvic radiation therapy (WPRT). Methods and MaterialsPatients received 79.29 Gy (n = 78; R1/detectable tumors) or 71.43 Gy (n = 56; R0/undetectable tumors) equivalent dose in 2-Gy fractions (EQD-2). Out of 134 patients, 51 had received additional WPRT with 44 Gy.Decision regret was reported using a 5-item instrument (best/worst scores: 0-100); European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-PR25 questionnaires were used for HRQOL evaluation. ResultsAt a median follow-up of 53 months, 134 valid questionnaires were returned. Most patients had locally advanced, node-positive (T3-4/N0 = 54.5%; N1 = 17.2%) or high-risk tumors (27.6%). Mean DR surgery was 17.61 and not associated with positive margins, salvage strategy, or radiation therapy regimen. Mean DR radiation therapy was 18.64 and better in patients who had PBRT compared with WPRT (P = .034; 24.39 vs. 15.24). Patient-reported bowel and urinary symptoms were worse after WPRT compared with PBRT (both P < .05); general HRQOL was numerically but not significantly better after PBRT without WPRT (P = .055). Subset analyses identified increased bowel and urinary symptom scores after WPRT irrespective of higher or lower dose cohorts (all P < .05). ConclusionsWPRT was associated with increased symptom burden and decision regret compared with PBRT. It is uncertain if the results can be extrapolated to lower-dose (<70 Gy) regimens. Further research is required to evaluate if specific decision support tools or treatment modifications according to the individual risk situation may be beneficial in this setting.