Treatment planning comparison of high-dose-rate brachytherapy vs. robotic and conventional stereotactic body radiotherapy for ultrahypofractionated treatment of prostate cancer.

Background and purpose: Ultrahypofractionated radiation therapy is increasingly used in the treatment of prostate cancer. High-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) are representative methods of ultrahypofractionation. This study was performed to compare clinically applied treatment plans for patients who had been treated using HDR-BT vs. conventional or robotic SBRT. Materials and methods: Calculated dose-volume indices between HDR-BT without a perirectal spacer (n = 20), robotic SBRT without a spacer (n = 40), and conventional (non-robotic) SBRT with a spacer (n = 40) were compared. Percentages against the prescription dose regarding the planning target volume (PTV), bladder, rectum, and urethra were statistically compared. Results: The D50% of the PTV with HDR-BT (140.5% ± 4.9%) was significantly higher than that with robotic or conventional SBRT (116.2% ± 1.6%, 101.0% ± 0.4%, p < 0.01). The D2cm3 of the bladder with HDR-BT (65.6% ± 6.4%) was significantly lower than those with SBRT (105.3% ± 2.9%, 98.0% ± 1.3%, p < 0.01). The D2cm3 of the rectum with HDR-BT (60.6% ± 6.2%) was also significantly lower than those with SBRT (85.1% ± 8.8%, 70.4% ± 9.6%, p < 0.01). By contrast, the D0.1cm3 of the urethra with HDR-BT (117.1% ± 3.6%) was significantly higher than those with SBRT (100.2% ± 0.7%, 104.5% ± 0.6%, p < 0.01). Conclusions: HDR-BT could administer a higher dose to the PTV and a lower dose to the bladder and rectum, at the cost of a slightly higher dose to the urethra compared with SBRT.

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer: does ADT still have an impact in the dose-escalated external beam radiation therapy era?

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate the effect of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) on the survival of intermediate-risk prostate cancer (IR-PCA) patients treated with dose-escalated external beam radiation therapy (DE-EBRT), and to determine the group that will benefit from ADT. METHODS: We analysed 620 IR-PCA patients treated with DE-EBRT at two institutions. Variables were adjusted using the stabilised inverse probability of treatment weighting method (sIPTW) between radiation therapy (RT) and RT plus ADT groups. Biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) rate and overall survival (OS) rate were compared using Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank test. Cox proportional hazard analysis (CPH) was conducted to detect unfavorable risk factors. RESULTS: This study included 405 patients; with 217 and 188 patients in the RT and RT plus ADT groups, respectively. The prescribed radiation dose was 78 Gy in 39 fractions. The median follow-up time was 82.0 months. After sIPTW-adjustment, 214.3 and 189.7 patients were assigned to the RT and RT plus ADT groups, respectively. The 7-year bRFS and OS were 89.3% and 94.6% in RT group and 92.3% and 91.0% in RT plus ADT group, respectively. Before and after sIPTW adjustment, no statistically significant differences were found in these endpoints between treatment groups. Multivariate CPH for bRFS revealed Gleason score (GS) 4 + 3 as an unfavorable risk factor, and ADT improved biochemical control of them. CONCLUSION: ADT may not always be effective in all Japanese IR-PCA patients treated with DE-EBRT, but it can improve biochemical control in patients with GS 4 + 3.

Prediction of post-radiotherapy survival for bone metastases: a comparison of the 3-variable number of risk factors model with the new Katagiri scoring system.

We investigated patient survival after palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases while comparing the prognostic accuracies of the 3-variable number of risk factors (NRF) model and the new Katagiri scoring system (Katagiri score). Overall, 485 patients who received radiotherapy for bone metastases were grouped as per the NRF model (groups I, II and III) and Katagiri score (low-, intermediate- and high-risk). Survival was compared using the log-rank or log-rank trend test. Independent prognostic factors were identified using multivariate Cox regression analyses (MCRA). MCRA and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to compare both models' accuracy. For the 376 evaluable patients, the overall survival (OS) rates decreased significantly in the higher-tier groups of both models (P < 0.001). All evaluated factors except 'previous chemotherapy status' differed significantly between groups. Both models exhibited independent predictive power (P < 0.001). Per NRF model, hazard ratios (HRs) were 1.44 (P = 0.099) and 2.944 (P < 0.001), respectively, for groups II and III, relative to group I. Per Katagiri score, HRs for intermediate- and high-risk groups were 4.02 (P < 0.001) and 7.09 (P < 0.001), respectively, relative to the low-risk group. Areas under the curve (AUC) for predicting 6-, 18- and 24-month mortality were significantly higher when using the Katagiri score (P = 0.036, 0.039 and 0.022). Both models predict survival. Prognostic accuracy of the Katagiri score is superior, especially in patients with long-term survival potential; however, in patients with short prognosis, no difference occurred between both models; simplicity and patient burden should also be considered.

Comparison Between Dose-Escalated Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy and 3-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy for Salvage Radiation Therapy After Prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: To compare long-term outcomes and late toxicity between patients treated with 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) and with dose-escalated intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) as salvage radiation therapy (SRT) after prostatectomy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 110 patients who had been treated at our institution between 2010 and 2018 with SRT for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy were included. The patients were treated either by 3D-CRT with 64 Gy (59 patients) or by IMRT with 70 Gy (51 patients). The irradiation target was the prostate bed only (106 patients) or the prostate bed and pelvic region (4 patients). Twelve patients (11%) received concurrent androgen deprivation therapy. The differences in clinical outcomes and late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity between the 3D-CRT and IMRT groups were retrospectively assessed. Toxicities were recorded using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5.0. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression after SRT was defined as an increase in the serum PSA level of 0.2 ng/mL from the PSA nadir after SRT and confirmed by a second PSA measurement that was higher than the first. RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 7.8 years for 3D-CRT (range:,0.3-9.2 years) and 3.1 years for IMRT (range, 0.4-7.2 years). There was no significant difference in the 4-year biochemical no-evidence-of-disease (bNED) rate between the 3D-CRT and IMRT groups (43.5% vs 52.1%; P = .20). Toxicity analysis showed no significant difference in late GI or GU toxicities of grade 2 or greater between the 3D-CRT and IMRT groups. The respective 4-year cumulative rates of toxicity in the 3D-CRT and IMRT groups were as follows: grade ≥2 GI toxicity, 8.8% and 4.4% (P = .42); grade ≥2 GU toxicity, 19.1% and 20.3% (P = .93); and grade ≥2 hematuria, 5.3% and 8.0% (P = .67). In the 3D-CRT group, the 8-year cumulative rates of GI toxicity, GU toxicity, and hematuria of grade 2 or greater were 8.8%, 28.4%, and 12.6%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Dose-escalated IMRT showed no improvements in bNED or late toxicity compared with 3D-CRT. In addition, the results suggest that GU toxicity can occur after a long period (even after 6 years), whereas GI toxicity is seldom newly observed after 4 years.