RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To identify risk factors for the long-term persistent genitourinary toxicity (GUT) after stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for localized prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: A total of 306 patients who underwent SBRT at our institution between March 2017 and April 2022 were retrospectively evaluated. SBRT was performed at 35 Gy in five fractions over 5 or 10 days. Factors related to the long-term persistence of acute GUT after SBRT were analyzed. RESULTS: During the median follow-up period of 39.1 months, 203 (66%) patients experienced any grade of acute GUT, which remained in 78 (26%) patients 6 months after SBRT. Multivariate analysis revealed that age ≥75 years was consistently a significant independent risk factor for any grade of acute GUT 6, 12, and 24 months after SBRT (hazard ratio [HR] 2.31, p = 0.010; HR 2.84, p = 0001; and HR 3.05, p = 0.009, respectively). Older age was not a significant risk factor for the development of grade ≥2 acute GUT. The duration of acute GUT was significantly longer in the older group than in the nonolder group (median duration = 234 vs. 61 days, p < 0.001), and the incidence of persistent GUT was significantly more frequent in the older group beyond 6 months after SBRT. CONCLUSIONS: Older age is a significant independent risk factor for the long-term persistent GUT after SBRT for localized PCa.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of daily fraction doses on late genitourinary (GU) toxicity after salvage radiotherapy (SRT) for prostate cancer. METHODS: This multi-institutional retrospective study included 212 patients who underwent SRT between 2008 and 2018. All patients received image-guided intensity-modulated SRT at a median dose of 67.2 Gy in 1.8-2.3 Gy/fraction. The cumulative rates of late grade ≥2 GU and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities were compared using Gray test, stratified by the ≤2.0 Gy/fraction (n = 137) and ≥2.1 Gy/fraction groups (n = 75), followed by multivariate analyses. The total dose was represented as an equivalent dose in 2-Gy fractions (EQD2) with α/ß = 3 Gy. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 63 months, the cumulative rates of 5-year late grade ≥2 GU and GI toxicities were 14% and 2.5%, respectively. The cumulative rates of 5-year late grade ≥2 GU toxicity in the ≥2.1 Gy/fraction and ≤2.0 Gy/fraction groups were 22% and 10%, respectively (P = .020). In the multivariate analysis, ≥2.1 Gy/fraction was still associated with an increased risk of late grade ≥2 GU toxicity (hazard ratio, 2.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-4.99; P = .023), while the total dose was not significant. CONCLUSION: The present results showed that ≥2.1 Gy/fraction resulted in a higher incidence of late grade ≥2 GU toxicity in SRT. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The impact of fraction doses on late GU toxicity after SRT remains unknown. The results suggest that higher fraction doses may increase the risk of late GU toxicity in SRT.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: When compared with conventional external beam radiotherapy, hypofractionated radiotherapy has led to less treatment sessions and improved quality of life without compromising oncological outcomes for men with prostate cancer. Evidence has shown transurethral prostatic resection prior to brachytherapy and external beam radiotherapy is associated with worsening genitourinary toxicity. However, there is no review of genitourinary toxicity when TURP occurs prior to definitive hypofractionated radiotherapy. In this review, we seek to illustrate the genitourinary outcomes for men with localized prostate cancer who underwent transurethral resection of the prostate prior to receiving definitive hypofractionated radiotherapy. Genitourinary outcomes are explored, and any predictive risk factors for increased genitourinary toxicity are described. METHODS: PubMed, Medline (Ovid), EMBASE and Cochrane Library were all searched for relevant articles published in English within the last 25 years. This scoping review identified a total of 579 articles. Following screening by authors, 11 articles were included for analysis. RESULTS: Five studies reported on acute and late toxicity. One article reported only acute toxicity while 5 documented late toxicity only. While most articles found no increased risk of acute toxicity, the risk of late toxicity, particularly hematuria was noted to be significant. Risk factors including poor baseline urinary function, prostate volume, number of prior transurethral prostatic resections, timing of radiotherapy following transurethral prostatic resection, volume of the intraprostatic resection cavity and mean dose delivered to the cavity were all found to influence genitourinary outcomes. CONCLUSION: For those who have undergone prior TURP hypofractionated radiotherapy may increase the risk of late urinary toxicity, particularly hematuria. Those with persisting bladder dysfunction following TURP are at greatest risk and careful management of these men is required. Close collaboration between urologists and radiation oncologists is recommended to discuss the management of patients with residual baseline bladder dysfunction prior to commencing hypofractionated radiotherapy.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Introduction: Prostate cancer is the fourth most commonly diagnosed cancer among men worldwide. Various tools are used to manage disease such as conventional radiotherapy. However, it has been demonstrated that large prostate volumes were often associated with higher rates of genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities. Currently, the improvements in radiotherapy technology have led to the development of stereotactic body radiotherapy, which delivers higher and much more accurate radiation doses. In order to complete literature data about short-term outcome and short-term toxic effects of stereotactic body radiotherapy, we aimed to share our experience about gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicities associated with stereotactic body radiotherapy in prostate cancer in patients over 70 years old. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of elderly patients with prostate cancer treated between 2021 and 2022. The elderly patients were treated with a non-coplanar robotic stereotactic body radiotherapy platform using real-time tracking of implanted fiducials. The prostate, with or without part of the seminal vesicles, was treated with a total dose of 36.25 Gy delivered in five fractions, each fraction being administered every other day. Results: We analyzed a total of 80 elderly patients, comprising 38 low-, 37 intermediate- and 5 high-risk patients. The median follow-up duration was 12 months. We did not observe biochemical/clinical recurrence, distant metastasis, or death. Grade 2 acute genitourinary toxicity was observed in 9 patients (11.25%) and Grade 2 acute gastrointestinal toxicity in 4 patients (5.0%). We did not observe any grade 3 or more acute or late toxicities. Conclusion: Over the follow-up period, we noted a low frequency of gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicities induced by stereotactic body radiotherapy in the context of prostate cancer in elderly patients. Therefore, stereotactic body radiotherapy seems to represent a promising treatment option for elderly patients, with acceptable acute toxicity.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Platinum-based chemoradiotherapy and brachytherapy are the standard treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer. Reported long-term outcomes for treated with both IMRT and 3D-Image-guided-adaptive brachytherapy are lacking. METHODS: This retrospective study included 165 patients with FIGO Stage IB-IVB cervical cancer, treated with chemoradiotherapy in combination with brachytherapy. External beam radiotherapy was delivered as IMRT/VMAT/TOMO helical or 3DCRT. The intracavitary brachytherapy treatment (ICBT) was performed using two different planning system (with or without optimization). RESULTS: Among the patient subgroups, comprising those who received IMRT/VMAT/Tomo helical and 3DCRT, as well as those who underwent ICBT planning optimization and those who did not, homogeneity was observed in terms of age, performance status, T stage, N status, TNM stage, and histology. With a median follow-up time of 60.5 months, the 5-year overall survival (OS) in the 3DCRT and IMRT groups was 74.9% and 92.8%, respectively (p = 0.033). The 5-year OS in the ICBT planning optimization group was 93.7%, compared to 75% in the non-optimization group (p = 0.014). Regarding late radiation toxicities, patients in the IMRT group had a lower incidence of chronic rectal toxicity compared to those in the 3DCRT group (6.5% vs. 34.1%, p = 0.001). The group with ICBT planning optimization had a lower incidence of late urinary toxicities (10.4%) compared to the non-optimized ICBT planning group (18.2%, p = 0.012). Similarly, the ICBT planning optimization group had a lower incidence of late rectal toxicity (6.5% with 80% grade 1 and 20% grade 2) compared to the non-optimized ICBT planning group (34.1%, p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: In this series, the group of patients receiving optimized ICBT had an advantage in terms of OS and CSS suggesting that the use of new Treatment Planning Systems associated with 3D imaging, improves the long-term survival. Additionally, a significant reduction in late rectal and urinary toxicity has been observed.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background: The relationship between the grading of toxicities based on toxicity criteria and longitudinal changes in quality of life (QOL) scores after permanent prostate brachytherapy (PPB) for localized prostate cancer remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate these relationships. Materials and methods: We assessed 107 patients treated with PPB using Iodine-125 alone from May 2007 to April 2010. Disease-specific QOL scores before PPB and at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after PPB were retrospectively evaluated with the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), focusing on urinary domains. Toxicities were graded using the Radiation therapy oncology group and the European organization for research and treatment of cancer toxicity criteria. Results: The median follow-up duration was 116 (range 18-148) months. Thirty-four patients (31.8%) developed grade ≥ 2 acute genitourinary (GU) toxicities; six (5.6%) developed grade ≥ 2 late GU toxicities. The general urinary domain score dropped significantly at 1 month (77.1 ± 14.1) post-PPB compared to the baseline score (92.2 ± 8.2), and then gradually returned to the baseline level by 12 months (93.7 ± 8.3) post-PPB. Reductions in the general urinary domain scores, including its subscale scores at 1, 3, and 6-months post-PPB were significantly greater among patients with grade ≥ 2 GU toxicity than among those with grade 0-1 GU toxicity. Changes in urinary domain scores demonstrated a close relationship with acute GU toxicity grades after PPB. Conclusions: Longitudinal assessments of the EPIC QOL scores provided additional information regarding time-course changes in GU toxicities after PPB.

RESUMEN

The indications for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer have increased. However, the relationships between adverse events and risk factors remain unclear. This study aimed to clarify associations between adverse events and dose index for prostate SBRT. Participants comprised 145 patients irradiated with 32-36 Gy in 4 fractions. Radiotherapy-related risk factors such as dose-volume histogram parameters and patient-related risk factors such as T stage and Gleason score were evaluated in a competing risk analysis. Median follow-up duration was 42.9 months. A total of 9.7% had acute Grade ≥ 2 GU toxicities and 4.8% had acute Grade ≥ 2 GI toxicities. A total of 11.1% had late Grade ≥ 2 GU toxicities and 7.6% had late Grade ≥ 2 GI toxicities. Two (1.4%) patients suffered from late Grade 3 GU toxicities. Similarly, two (1.4%) patients suffered from late Grade 3 GI toxicities. Acute GU and GI events correlated with prostate volume and dose to the hottest 10 cc volume (D10cc)/volumes receiving a minimum of 30 Gy (V30 Gy) of rectum, respectively. Late GI toxicity, frequency, and rectal hemorrhage correlated with rectal D0.1 cc/D1 cc, maximum dose to the bladder, and rectal D0.1 cc, respectively. Toxicities after prostate SBRT using 32-36 Gy/4 fractions were acceptable. Our analysis showed that acute toxicities correlated with volume receiving a medium dose level, and late toxicities correlated with highest point dose of organs at risk.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Purpose There is debate about the effectiveness and toxicity of pelvic lymph node (PLN) irradiation in addition to prostate bed radiotherapy when used to treat disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy. We compared toxicity from radiation therapy (RT) to the prostate bed and pelvic lymph nodes (PBPLN-RT) with prostatebed only radiation therapy (PBO-RT) following radical prostatectomy. Methods and Materials Patients with prostate cancer who underwent post-prostatectomy RT between 2010 and 2016 were identified by using the National Prostate Cancer Audit (NPCA) database. Follow-up data was available up to December 31, 2018. Validated outcome measures, based on a framework of procedural and diagnostic codes, were used to capture ≥Grade 2 gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity. An adjusted competing-risks regression analysis estimated subdistribution hazard ratios (sHR). A sHR > 1 indicated a higher incidence of toxicity with PBPLN-RT than with PBO-RT. Results 5-year cumulative incidences in the PBO-RT (n = 5,087) and PBPLNRT (n = 593) groups was 18.2% and 15.9% for GI toxicity, respectively. For GU toxicity it was 19.1% and 20.7%, respectively. There was no evidence of difference in GI or GU toxicity after adjustment between PBO-RT and PBPLN-RT (GI: adjusted sHR, 0.90, 95% CI, 0.67-1.19; P = 0.45); (GU: adjusted sHR, 1.19, 95% CI, 0.99-1.44; P = 0.09). Conclusions This national population-based study found that including PLNs in the radiation field following radical prostatectomy is not associated with a significant increase in rates of ≥Grade 2 GI or GU toxicity at 5 years.

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: The outcome of radiotherapy (RT) for prostate cancer (PCA) depends on the delivered dose. While the evidence for dose-escalated RT up to 80 gray (Gy) is well established, there have been only few studies examining dose escalation above 80 Gy. We initiated the present study to assess the safety of dose escalation up to 84 Gy. METHODS: In our retrospective analysis, we included patients who received dose-escalated RT for PCA at our institution between 2016 and 2021. We evaluated acute genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity as well as late GU and GI toxicity. RESULTS: A total of 86 patients could be evaluated, of whom 24 patients had received 80 Gy and 62 patients 84 Gy (35 without pelvic and 27 with pelvic radiotherapy). Regarding acute toxicities, no > grade 2 adverse events occurred. Acute GU/GI toxicity of grade 2 occurred in 12.5%/12.5% of patients treated with 80 Gy, in 25.7%/14.3% of patients treated with 84 Gy to the prostate only, and in 51.9%/12.9% of patients treated with 84 Gy and the pelvis included. Late GU/GI toxicity of grade ≥ 2 occurred in 4.2%/8.3% of patients treated with 80 Gy, in 7.1%/3.6% of patients treated with 84 Gy prostate only, and in 18.2%/0% of patients treated with 84 Gy pelvis included (log-rank test p = 0.358). CONCLUSION: We demonstrated that dose-escalated RT for PCA up to 84 Gy is feasible and safe without a significant increase in acute toxicity. Further follow-up is needed to assess late toxicity and survival.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background and purpose: Significant deviations between bladder dose planned (DP) and dose accumulated (DA) have been reported in patients receiving radiotherapy for prostate cancer. This study aimed to construct multivariate analysis (MVA) models to predict the risk of late genitourinary (GU) toxicity with clinical and DP or DA as dose-volume (DV) variables. Materials and methods: Bladder DA obtained from 150 patients were compared with DP. MVA models were built from significant clinical and DV variables (p < 0.05) at univariate analysis. Previously developed dose-based-region-of-interest (DB-ROI) metrics using expanded ring structures from the prostate were included. Goodness-of-fit test and calibration plots were generated to determine model performance. Internal validation was accomplished using Bootstrapping. Results: Intermediate-high DA (V30-65 Gy and DB-ROI-20-50 mm) for bladder increased compared to DP. However, at the very high dose region, DA (D0.003 cc, V75 Gy, and DB-ROI-5-10 mm) were significantly lower. In MVA, single variable models were generated with odds ratio (OR) < 1. DB-ROI-50 mm was predictive of Grade ≥ 1 GU toxicity for DA and DP (DA and DP; OR: 0.96, p: 0.04) and achieved an area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) of > 0.6. Prostate volume (OR: 0.87, p: 0.01) was significant in predicting Grade 2 GU toxicity with a high AUC of 0.81. Conclusions: Higher DA (V30-65 Gy) received by the bladder were not translated to higher late GU toxicity. DB-ROIs demonstrated higher predictive power than standard DV metrics in associating Grade ≥ 1 toxicity. Smaller prostate volumes have a minor protective effect on late Grade 2 GU toxicity.

RESUMEN

Background: Image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) has gradually been widely promoted in clinical procedure. However, there has been no consensus on the effects of IGRT on toxicity and survival, and no clear level 1 evidence has even been promulgated. Methods: Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane databases and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for studies comparing IGRT vs non-IGRT or higher frequency IGRT vs lower frequency IGRT during prostate radiotherapy, indexed from database inception to April 2022. Results: The review included 18 studies (3 randomized clinical trial and 15 cohort studies) involving 6521 men, with a median duration of patient follow-up of 46.2 months in the IGRT group vs 52.7 months in the control group. The meta-analysis demonstrated that IGRT significantly reduced acute GU (risk ratio [RR], 0.78; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.69-0.88; P < 0.001 [9 studies]) and GI toxicity (RR, 0.49; 95 % CI, 0.35-0.68; P < 0.001 [4 studies]) and late GI toxicity (HR, 0.25; 95 % CI, 0.07-0.87; P = 0.03 [3 studies]) compared with non-IGRT. Meanwhile, compared with prospective studies, retrospective studies showed that IGRT had a more significant effect in reducing the late GI toxicity. Compared with non-daily IGRT, daily IGRT significantly improved 3-year PRFS (HR, 0.45; 95 % CI, 0.28-0.72; P = 0.001 [2 studies]) and BFFS (HR, 0.57; 95 % CI, 0.39-0.83; P = 0.003 [3 studies]). Furthermore, high-frequency daily IGRT could lead to greater 3-year BFFS benefit in prostate cancer patients than weekly IGRT. However, no significant effects of IGRT on acute rectal toxicity, late GU toxicity, 5-year OS and SCM were found. Conclusions: For men receiving prostate radiotherapy, IGRT was associated with an improvement in biochemical tumor control and a reduction in GI and acute GU toxicity, but did not significantly improve 5-year OS or increase 5-year SCM.

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To describe a local radio-oncological treatment for patients with prostate cancer that metastasized to either the lymph nodes or distant regions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We included 133 patients with prostate cancer that displayed either distant metastases (DM) or lymph node metastases alone (NM) and were treated between 2004 and 2019. All patients underwent computed tomography and a bone scan or 18F- or prostate-specific membrane antigen-targeted positron emission tomography. Patients received local external beam radiation therapy to the prostate to achieve local control (60-81.4 Gy to the prostate, and 45-50.4 Gy to pelvic lymph nodes), with either the 3D conformal (4-field box) or volumetric modulated arc therapy technique. A urologist prescribed additional therapy. RESULTS: We included 51 patients with DM and 82 patients with NM. The mean follow-up was 42 months for all patients. The groups were similar in T stage, initial prostate-specific antigen, histology, androgen deprivation therapy, age, treatment techniques, and prescribed doses, but different in lymph node inclusion and follow-up times. In the NM and DM groups, the 5­year biochemical recurrence-free rates were 52% and 24%, respectively (p < 0.0001); the 5­year disease-specific survival rates were 92% and 61%, respectively (p = 0.001); and the 5­year OS rates were 77% and 48%, respectively (p = 0.01). The groups had similar acute and late gastrointestinal and genitourinary side effects, except that late genitourinary side effects occurred significantly more frequently in the NM group (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: DM was associated with significantly worse outcomes than NM. The long-term survival of patients with metastatic prostate cancer was low.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: The risk of treatment-related toxicity is important for patients with localised prostate cancer to consider when deciding between treatment options. We developed a model to predict hospitalisation for radiation-induced genitourinary toxicity based on patient characteristics. METHODS: The prospective South Australian Prostate Cancer Clinical Outcomes registry was used to identify men with localised prostate cancer who underwent curative intent external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) between 1998 and 2019. Multivariable Cox proportional regression was performed. Model discrimination, calibration, internal validation and utility were assessed using C-statistics and area under ROC, calibration plots, bootstrapping, and decision curve analysis, respectively. RESULTS: There were 3,243 patients treated with EBRT included, of which 644 (20%) patients had a treated-related admission. In multivariable analysis, diabetes (HR 1.35, 95% CI 1.13-1.60, p < 0.001), smoking (HR 1.78, 95% CI 1.40-2.12, p < 0.001), and bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) without transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) (HR 7.49, 95% CI 6.18-9.08 p < 0.001) followed by BOO with TURP (HR 4.96, 95% CI 4.10-5.99 p < 0.001) were strong independent predictors of hospitalisation (censor-adjusted c-statistic = 0.80). The model was well-calibrated (AUC = 0.76). The global proportional hazards were met. In internal validation through bootstrapping, the model was reasonably discriminate at five (AUC 0.75) years after radiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to develop a predictive model for genitourinary toxicity requiring hospitalisation amongst men with prostate cancer treated with EBRT. Patients with localised prostate cancer and concurrent BOO may benefit from TURP before EBRT.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to evaluate the development of treatment of primary high-risk prostate cancer in regards to biochemical no evidence of disease (bNED), acute and late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) side effects. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Primary high-risk prostate cancer patients treated between 1994 and 2016 were included. Applied doses ranged from 60 to 80 Gy, with a dose of 1.8 or 2 Gy per fraction. Techniques were either 3D conformal or intensity modulated radiotherapy and volumetric intensity modulated arc therapy. RESULTS: 142 patients were treated with doses up to 70 Gy (median dose 66 Gy; 66 Gy group), 282 with doses between 70 and 76 Gy (median dose 74 Gy; 74 Gy group), and 141 with doses >76 Gy (median dose 78 Gy; 78 Gy group). The median follow-up was 48 months. The bNED rates were 50% after 5 years and 44% after 9 years in the 66 Gy group; 65% and 54%, respectively, in the 74 Gy group; and 83% and 66%, respectively, in the 78 Gy group (p = 0.03 vs. 74 Gy and p < 0.0001 vs. 66 Gy). We found a higher rate of acute GI side effects in the 78 Gy group compared to the other groups, but not in maximum acute GU side effects and late maximum GI and GU effects. CONCLUSIONS: High-risk prostate cancer patients treated with doses of 78 Gy had significantly better bNED rates. Compared to the historical 66 Gy group, 50% more patients achieved bNED after a follow-up of 9 years.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer is well established for definitive treatment, but not well defined in the postoperative setting. The purpose of this analysis was to assess oncologic outcomes and toxicity in a large cohort of patients treated with conventionally fractionated three-dimensional (3D) conformal radiotherapy (CF) and hypofractionated volumetric modulated arc therapy (HF) after radical prostatectomy. METHODS: Between 1994 and 2019, a total of 855 patients with prostate carcinoma were treated by postoperative radiotherapy using CF (total dose 65-72 Gy, single fraction 1.8-2 Gy) in 572 patients and HF (total dose 62.5-63.75 Gy, single fraction 2.5-2.55 Gy) in 283 patients. The association of treatment modality with biochemical control, overall survival (OS), and gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity was assessed using logistic and Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: There was no difference between the two modalities regarding biochemical control rates (77% versus 81%, respectively, for HF and CF at 24 months and 58% and 64% at 60 months; p = 0.20). OS estimates after 5 years: 95% versus 93% (p = 0.72). Patients undergoing HF had less frequent grade 2 or higher acute GI or GU side effects (p = 0.03 and p = 0.005, respectively). There were no differences in late GI side effects between modalities (hazard ratio 0.99). Median follow-up was 23 months for HF and 72 months for CF (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: For radiation therapy of resected prostate cancer, our analysis of this largest single-centre cohort (n = 283) treated with hypofractionation with advanced treatment techniques compared with conventional fractionation did not yield different outcomes in terms of biochemical control and toxicities. Prospective investigating of HF is merited.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE OR OBJECTIVES: The FLAME trial (NCT01168479) showed that by adding a focal boost to conventional fractionated EBRT in the treatment of localized prostate cancer, the five-year biochemical disease-free survival increased, without significantly increasing toxicity. The aim of the present study was to investigate the association between radiation dose to the bladder and urethra and genitourinary (GU) toxicity grade ≥2 in the entire cohort. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The dose-effect relations of the urethra and bladder dose, separately, and GU toxicity grade ≥2 (CTCAE 3.0) up to five years after treatment were assessed. A mixed model analysis for repeated measurements was used, adjusting for age, diabetes mellitus, T-stage, baseline GU toxicity grade ≥1 and institute. Additionally, the association between the dose and separate GU toxicity subdomains were investigated. RESULTS: Dose-effect relations were observed for the dose (Gy) to the bladder D2 cm3 and urethra D0.1 cm3, with adjusted odds ratios of 1.14 (95% CI 1.12-1.16, p < 0.0001) and 1.12 (95% CI 1.11-1.14, p < 0.0001), respectively. Additionally, associations between the dose to the urethra and bladder and the subdomains urinary frequency, urinary retention and urinary incontinence were observed. CONCLUSION: Further increasing the dose to the bladder and urethra will result in a significant increase in GU toxicity following EBRT. Focal boost treatment plans should incorporate a urethral dose-constraint. Further treatment optimization to increase the focal boost dose without increasing the dose to the urethra and other organs at risk should be a focus for future research, as we have shown that a focal boost is beneficial in the treatment of prostate cancer.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) used for prostate cancer (PCa) management is associated with metabolic and anthropometric toxicity. Metformin given concurrent to ADT is hypothesized to counteract these changes. This planned interim analysis reports the gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity profiles of PCa patients receiving ADT and prostate/pelvic radiotherapy plus metformin versus placebo as part of a phase 2 randomized controlled trial. Men with intermediate or high-risk PCa were randomized 1:1 to metformin versus placebo. Both groups were given ADT for 18-36 months with minimum 2-month neoadjuvant phase prior to radiotherapy. Acute gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicities were quantified using CTCAE v4.0. Differences in ≥ grade 2 toxicities by treatment were assessed by chi-squared test. 83 patients were enrolled with 44 patients randomized to placebo and 39 randomized to metformin. There were no significant differences at any time point in ≥ grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicities or overall gastrointestinal toxicity. Overall ≥ grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicity was low prior to radiotherapy (7.9% (placebo) vs. 3.1% (metformin), p = 0.39) and at the end of radiotherapy (2.8% (placebo) vs 3.1% (metformin), p = 0.64). There were no differences in overall ≥ grade 2 genitourinary toxicity between treatment arms (19.0% (placebo) vs. 9.4% (metformin), p = 0.30). Metformin added to radiotherapy and ADT did not increase rates of ≥ grade 2 gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicity and is generally safe and well-tolerated.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: There is little level 1 evidence regarding the relative efficacy and toxicity of whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) compared with prostate-only radiotherapy (PORT) for localized prostate cancer. METHODS: We used Cochrane, PubMed, Embase, Medline databases, and ClinicalTrials.gov to systematically search for all relevant clinical studies. The data on efficacy and toxicity were extracted for quality assessment and meta-analysis to quantify the effect of WPRT on biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS), progression-free survival (PFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), overall survival (OS), gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, and genitourinary (GU) toxicity compared with PORT. The review is registered on PROSPERO, number: CRD42021254752. RESULTS: The results revealed that compared with PORT, WPRT significantly improved 5-year BFFS and PFS, and it was irrelevant to whether the patients had undergone radical prostatectomy (RP). In addition, for the patients who did not receive RP, the 5-year DMFS of WPRT was better than that of PORT. However, WPRT significantly increased not only the grade 2 or worse (G2+) acute GI toxicity of non-RP studies and RP studies, but also the G2+ late GI toxicity of non-RP studies. Subgroup analysis of non-RP studies found that, when the pelvic radiation dose was >49 Gy (equivalent-doses-in-2-Gy-fractions, EQD-2), WPRT was more beneficial to PFS than PORT, but significantly increased the risk of G2+ acute and late GU toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysis demonstrates that WPRT can significantly improve BFFS and PFS for localized prostate cancer than PORT, but the increased risk of G2+ acute and late GI toxicity must be considered. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021254752.

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: A potential late side effect of high-dose-rate (HDR) prostate brachytherapy combined with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) is urethral stricture. The purpose of this study was to evaluate dosimetric parameters possibly contributing to stricture development, including dose to bladder base and D2cc(Gy) within 10 mm of prostatic urethra (D2cc 10 mm), which has, so far, not been reported in the literature. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients developing urethral stricture, and matched controls, were identified from a prospective database of those receiving 46 Gy in 23 fractions of EBRT, followed by a single 15 Gy HDR brachytherapy dose. Patients had locally advanced, high- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Brachytherapy treatment planning parameters (planning target volume (PTV) size (cm 3), V110(%) bladder base, D2cc 10mm, number of HDR catheters, number of source dwell positions, and total source dwell time within 10 mm of the prostatic urethra) were analyzed to determine potential risk factors for urethral stricture. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients were treated, 22 of whom developed a urethral stricture. Univariate logistic regression performed on the planning parameters identified increased PTV size and D2cc 10 mm, with decreased V110(%) bladder base as risk factors for stricture formation. CONCLUSIONS: It is suggested that PTV size, V110(%) bladder base, and D2cc 10mm are predictive of urethral stricture formation following EBRT and brachytherapy to the prostate. This study demonstrates the importance of minimizing high dwell times and hot spots close to organs at risk and also the correction of any craniocaudal movement of catheters to avoid potential hot spots in the bulbomembranous urethra where there may be increased dose sensitivity.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: In this phase I/II trial, 5-year physician-assessed toxicity and patient reported quality of life data is reported for patients undergoing moderately hypofractionated intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer using a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) and pelvic lymph node (LN) coverage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with T1-T2 localized prostate cancer were prospectively enrolled, receiving risk group based coverage of prostate ± seminal vesicles (SVs) ± pelvic lymph nodes (LNs). Low risk (LR) received 69.6 Gy/29 fractions to the prostate, while intermediate risk (IR) and high risk (HR) patients received 72 Gy/30fx to the prostate and 54Gy/30fx to the SVs. If predicted risk of LN involvement >15%, 50.4 Gy/30fx was delivered to pelvic LNs. Androgen deprivation therapy was given to IR and HR patients. RESULTS: There were 55 patients enrolled and 49 patients evaluable at a median follow up of 60 months. Included were 11 (20%) LR, 23 (41.8%) IR, and 21 (38.2%) HR patients. Pelvic LN treatment was given in 25 patients (51%). Prevalence rates of late grade 2 GI toxicity at 1, 3, and 5 years was 5.8, 3.9, and 5.8%, respectively, with no permanent grade 3 events. Prevalence rates of late grade 2 GU toxicity at 1, 3, and 5 years rates were 15.4, 7.7, and 13.5%, respectively, with three grade 3 events (5.8%). The biochemical relapse free survival at 5 years was 88.3%. There were no local, regional, or distant failures, with all patients still alive at last follow up. CONCLUSION: Moderate hypofractionation of localized prostate cancer utilizing a SIB technique and LN coverage produces tolerable acute/late toxicity. Given equivalent efficacy between moderate hypofractionation schedules, the optimal regimen will be determined by long-term toxicity reported from both the physician and patient perspective. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT01117935, Date of Registration: 5/6/2010.