RESUMO
BACKGROUND: We sought to characterize and compare late patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after moderately hypofractionated intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) for localized prostate cancer (PC). METHODS: This multi-institutional analysis included low- or intermediate-risk group PC patients treated with moderately hypofractionated radiation to an intact prostate stratified by treatment modality: IMRT or PBT. The primary outcomes were prospectively collected patient-reported late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity assessed by International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and Expanded PC Index Composite (EPIC). Multivariable regression analysis (MVA) controlling for age, race, and risk group tested the effect of time, treatment, and their interaction. RESULTS: 287 IMRT and 485 PBT patients were included. Intermediate risk group (81.2 vs. 68.2%; p < 0.001) and median age at diagnosis (70 vs. 67 years; p < 0.001) were higher in the IMRT group. On MVA, there was no significant difference between modalities. PBT IPSS did not differ from IMRT IPSS at 12 months (odds ratio [OR], 1.19; p = 0.08) or 24 months (OR, 0.99; p = 0.94). PBT EPIC overall GI function at 12 months (OR, 3.68; p = 0.085) and 24 months (OR 2.78; p = 0.26) did not differ from IMRT EPIC overall GI function. At 24 months, urinary frequency was no different between PBT and IMRT groups (OR 0.35; p = 0.096). CONCLUSIONS: This multi-institutional analysis of low- or intermediate-risk PC treated with moderately hypofractionated PBT and IMRT demonstrated low rates of late patient-reported GI and GU toxicities. After covariate adjustment, late GI and GU PROs were not significantly different between PBT or IMRT cohorts.
Assuntos
Neoplasias da Próstata , Terapia com Prótons , Radioterapia de Intensidade Modulada , Masculino , Humanos , Radioterapia de Intensidade Modulada/efeitos adversos , Terapia com Prótons/efeitos adversos , Neoplasias da Próstata/radioterapia , Próstata/efeitos da radiação , Medidas de Resultados Relatados pelo PacienteRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Locally recurrent prostate cancer following primary external beam radiotherapy without distant metastasis is a challenging problem, with no current consensus on the optimal management of these patients. Traditional whole-gland salvage treatments offered up to a 50% 5-year disease-free survival rate but with troubling levels of risk for significant complications. Recent progress in advanced imaging techniques has allowed a more accurate selection of patients with local-only recurrence and a selection of patients that may be suitable for newer partial-gland salvage treatments that may reduce late complications. METHODS: This article reviews advances in patient selection and provides an overview of whole- and partial-gland salvage results from selected recent meta-analyses, multi-institutional series, and studies from centers of excellence for these treatment approaches. RESULTS: Salvage radical prostatectomy produces 5-year relapse-free survival (RFS) rates in the 50%-60% range with severe gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity in < 2% but severe genitourinary (GU) toxicity in 15%-23% of patients. The whole-gland options of high and low dose rate brachytherapy and stereotactic body radiation therapy appear to offer similar 5-year control rates, with low severe GU and GI toxicity rates of 4%-8% and <2%, respectively. Cryotherapy and high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) offer similar 5-year RFS rates but carry significant risks for severe GU and GI toxicity in the range of 10%-27% and <2%, respectively. Early results of partial-gland salvage techniques in selected patients appear promising, with 3-year RFS rates of 48%-72% and rare grade 3 toxicity. CONCLUSION: It is important to understand the relative effectiveness and risks of the various treatment options to effectively counsel patients who face this distressing clinical situation. Whole-gland salvage options offer the possibility of long-term control but with significant risks of severe toxicity. Emerging data for the partial-gland salvage options in appropriately selected patients may offer hope of reasonable control rates with reduced severe toxicity.
Assuntos
Braquiterapia , Neoplasias da Próstata , Masculino , Humanos , Recidiva Local de Neoplasia/terapia , Neoplasias da Próstata/radioterapia , Neoplasias da Próstata/cirurgia , Neoplasias da Próstata/tratamento farmacológico , Braquiterapia/efeitos adversos , Braquiterapia/métodos , Próstata/patologia , Prostatectomia , Terapia de Salvação/métodosRESUMO
Purpose: When treating esophageal cancer with radiation therapy, it is critical to limit the dose to surrounding structures, such as the lung and/or heart, as much as possible. Proton radiation therapy allows a reduced radiation dose to both the heart and lungs, potentially reducing the risk of cardiopulmonary toxicity. Here, we report disease control, survival, and toxicity outcomes among patients with esophageal cancer treated with proton radiation therapy and concurrent chemotherapy (chemoradiation therapy; CRT) with or without surgery. Materials and Methods: We enrolled 17 patients with thoracic esophageal carcinoma on a prospective registry between 2010 and 2021. Patients received proton therapy to a median dose of 50.4-GyRBE (range, 50.4-64.8) in 1.8-Gy fractions.Acute and late toxicities were graded per the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0 (US National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland). In addition, disease control, patterns of failure, and survival outcomes were collected. Results: Nine patients received preoperative CRT, and 8 received definitive CRT. Overall, 88% of patients had adenocarcinoma, and 12% had squamous cell carcinoma. With a median follow-up of 2.1 years (range, 0.5-9.4), the 3-year local progression-free, disease-free, and overall survival rates were 85%, 66%, and 55%, respectively. Two patients (1 with adenocarcinoma and 1 with squamous cell carcinoma) recurred at the primary site after refusing surgery after a complete clinical response to CRT. The most common acute nonhematologic and hematologic toxicities, respectively, were grades 1 to 3 esophagitis and grades 1 to 4 leukopenia, both affecting 82% of patients. No acute cardiopulmonary toxicities were observed in the absence of surgical resection. Reagarding surgical complications, 3 postoperative cardiopulmonary complications occurred as follows: 1 grade 1 pleural effusion, 1 grade 3 pleural effusion, and 1 grade 2 anastomotic leak. Two severe late CRT toxicities occurred: 1 grade 5 tracheoesophageal fistula and 1 grade 3 esophageal stenosis requiring a feeding tube. Conclusion: Proton radiation therapy is a safe, effective treatment for esophageal cancer with increasing evidence supporting its role in reducing cardiopulmonary toxicity.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The role of multiparametric MRI (mp-MRI) for postproton radiation evaluation is unclear. In this pilot study, we characterize the mp-MRI features using the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) for recurrent prostate cancer (PCa) following proton radiation therapy. METHODS: After obtaining IRB approval, we identified 163 consecutive cases who underwent MRI-fusion prostate biopsy at our institution from November 2017 to May 2020. This study evaluated patients with prostate cancer (PCa) with biochemical recurrence following proton radiation. Patients were excluded if they had grossly metastatic disease, metal fragments, implanted devices, or with surgically removed prostates. The mpMRI studies were reviewed in depth and scored by 2 fellowship-trained radiologists. Following MRI-fusion biopsy of lesions of interest (LOI), slides were read by fellowship-trained pathologists. RESULTS: We found 14 patients with 16 lesions who met the study inclusion criteria. The median age was 69 years (range 57-79) and median time to biochemical recurrence was 7.3 years (range 3-13). On post-treatment imaging, decreases in prostate size and diffusely decreased T2 signal intensity were observed, making the use of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and early enhancement at dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) imaging often necessary for diagnosis of disease recurrence. We identified a total of 16 lesions with PIRADS scores of 3 or higher. Of these lesions, there were 5 PIRADS 3 lesions (4/5 (80%) without prostate cancer), 7 PIRADS 4-5 lesions (6 (86%) had high risk Pca), and 4 lesions with unassigned PIRADS scores (100% had high risk cancers). Among the MRI variables, diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) heterogeneity had the strongest association with recurrence of PCa (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Results of our pilot study showed that the PIRADS scoring system in the postproton radiation therapy setting has some correlations with prostate cancer recurrence; However, the clinical value of these findings are unclear. While definitive PIRADS categorization of lesions demonstrated expected frequency of cancer consistent with the scoring system, all unassigned lesions also harbored malignancy suggesting a cautious approach to PIRADS scoring system in postproton radiation setting. The findings from this study may be validated using a larger cohort.
Assuntos
Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética , Neoplasias da Próstata , Masculino , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Idoso , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética/métodos , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Projetos Piloto , Prótons , Recidiva Local de Neoplasia , Imagem de Difusão por Ressonância Magnética/métodos , Biópsia Guiada por Imagem/métodos , Estudos RetrospectivosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: After radiation therapy (RT), circulating plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA) released in response to RT damage to tissue can be measured within hours. We examined for a correlation between cfDNA measured during the first week of therapy and early and late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients were eligible for enrollment if they planned to receive proton or photon RT for nonmetastatic prostate cancer in the setting of an intact prostate or after prostatectomy. Blood was collected before treatment and on sequential treatment days for the first full week of therapy. Toxicity assessments were performed at baseline, weekly during RT, and 6 months and 12 months after RT. Data were analyzed to examine correlations among patient-reported GI and GU toxicities. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were evaluable for this study. Four (7%) and 3 (6%) patients experienced acute and late grade 2 GI toxicity, respectively. Twenty-two (41%) and 18 (35%) patients experienced acute and late grade 2 GU toxicity, respectively. No patients developed grade 3 or higher toxicity. Grade 2 acute GI toxicity, but not grade 2 acute GU toxicity, was significantly correlated with pre-RT cfDNA levels and on all days 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of RT (P < .005). Grade 2 late GI toxicity, but not GU toxicity, was significantly correlated with pre-RT cfDNA levels (P = .021). CONCLUSIONS: Based on this preliminary study, cfDNA levels can potentially predict the subset of patients destined to develop GI toxicity during prostate cancer treatment. Given that the toxicity profiles of the various fractionations and modalities are highly similar, the data support the expectation that cfDNA could provide a biological estimate to complement the dose-volume histogram. A test of this hypothesis is under evaluation in a National Cancer Institute-funded multi-institutional study.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: To determine factors that influence insurance approval for definitive proton therapy (PT) for prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2014 and 2018, 1592 insured patients with localized prostate cancer were evaluated and recommended to undergo definitive PT; 547 patients (34.4%) had commercial insurance, whereas 1045 patients (65.6%) had Medicare/Medicaid. Of those with Medicare, 164 patients (15.7%) had Medicare alone; 677 (64.8%) had supplemental plans; and 204 (19.5%) had secondary commercial insurance. Insurance that "covered" PT for prostate cancer implied that it was an indication designated in the coverage policy. "Not covered" means that the insurance policy did not list prostate cancer as an indication for PT. Of all 1592 patients, 1263 (79.3%) belonged to plans that covered PT per policy. However, approval for PT was still required via medical review for 619 patients (38.9%), comparative dosimetry for 56 patients (3.5%), peer-to-peer discussion for 234 patients (14.7%), and administrative law judge hearings for 3 patients (<0.1%). Multivariate analyses of factors affecting approval were conducted, including risk group (low/intermediate versus high), insurance type (commercial versus Medicare/Medicaid), whether PT was included as a covered benefit under the plan (covered versus not covered), and time period (2014-16 versus 2017 versus 2018). RESULTS: On multivariate analysis, factors affecting PT approval for prostate treatment included coverage of PT per policy (97.1% had approval with insurance that covered PT versus 48.6% whose insurance did not cover PT; P < .001); insurance type (32.5% had approval with commercial insurance versus 97.4% with Medicare; P < .001); and time, with 877/987 patients (88.9%) approved between 2014 and 2016, 255/312 patients (81.7%) approved during 2017, and 255/293 patients (87.0%) approved thereafter (P = .02). Clinical factors, including risk group, had no bearing on insurance approval (P = .44). CONCLUSION: Proton insurance approval for prostate cancer has decreased, is most influenced by the type of insurance a patient belongs to, and is unrelated to clinical factors (risk group) in this study. More work is needed to help navigate appropriate access to care and to assist patients seeking definitive PT for prostate cancer treatment.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) may provide useful data to inform management decisions depending on the robustness of a model's input parameters. We sought to determine the level of heterogeneity in health state utility values, transition probabilities, and cost estimates across published CEAs assessing primarily radiotherapeutic management strategies in prostate cancer. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of prostate cancer CEAs indexed in MEDLINE between 2000 and 2018 comparing accepted treatment modalities across all cancer stages. Search terms included "cost effectiveness prostate," "prostate cancer cost model," "cost utility prostate," and "Markov AND prostate AND (cancer OR adenocarcinoma)." Included studies were agreed upon. A Markov model was designed using the parameter estimates from the systematic review to evaluate the effect of estimate heterogeneity on strategy cost acceptability. RESULTS: Of 199 abstracts identified, 47 publications were reviewed and 37 were included; 508 model estimates were compared. Estimates varied widely across variables, including gastrointestinal toxicity risk (0%-49.5%), utility of metastatic disease (0.25-0.855), intensity-modulated radiotherapy cost ($21 193-$61 996), and recurrence after external-beam radiotherapy (1.5%-59%). Multiple studies assumed that different radiotherapy modalities delivering the same dose yielded varying cancer control rates. When using base estimates for similar parameters from included studies, the designed model resulted in 3 separate acceptability determinations. CONCLUSIONS: Significant heterogeneity exists across parameter estimates used to perform CEAs evaluating treatment for prostate cancer. Heterogeneity across model inputs yields variable conclusions with respect to the favorability and cost-effectiveness of treatment options. Decision makers are cautioned to review estimates in CEAs to ensure they are up to date and relevant to setting and population.
Assuntos
Neoplasias da Próstata/economia , Neoplasias da Próstata/radioterapia , Adenocarcinoma/economia , Adenocarcinoma/radioterapia , Idoso , Análise Custo-Benefício , Humanos , Masculino , Modelos Teóricos , Estadiamento de Neoplasias , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de VidaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: To report 5- and 7-year outcomes after image-guided moderately accelerated hypofractionated proton therapy (AHPT) for prostate cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We reviewed the first 582 prostate cancer patients enrolled on prospective outcomes tracking trial and treated with double-scattered moderately AHPT between 2008 and 2015. 269 patients had low-risk (LR) and 313 had intermediate-risk (IR) disease, including 149 with favorable intermediate-risk (FIR) and 164 with unfavorable intermediate-risk (UIR) disease. LR patients received a median 70.0GyRBE (2.5GyRBE/fraction) and IR patients received a median of 72.5 GyRBE. Seventeen patients (UIR, n = 12) received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for a median of 6 months. Toxicities were graded per the CTCAE, v4.0, and patient-reported quality-of-life data were reviewed. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 8.0 years (0.9-12.2). The 5- and 7-year rates of freedom from biochemical progression (FFBP) overall and in the LR and IR subsets, respectively, were 96.8/95.2%, 98.8/98.8%, and 95.0/91.9%. For the FIR and UIR subsets, they were 97.2/95.2% and 93.1/88.8%. Actuarial 5- and 7-year rates of late CTCAE, v4.0, grade 2 gastrointestinal (GI), grade 3 GI, and grade 3 genitourinary (GU) toxicities were 9.9%/11.2%, 1.4/1.4% and 1.3/2.1%, respectively. No grade ≥4 GI or GU toxicities occurred. The mean (standard deviation, SD) IPSS and EPIC Composite bowel function and bother scores were 7 (SD = 5), 97 (SD = 7), and 94 (SD = 6), respectively at baseline, 7 (SD = 5), 92 (SD = 13), and 92 (SD = 9) at the 5-year follow-up, and 7 (SD = 5), 93 (SD = 12), and 92 (SD = 10) at the 7-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: Image-guided AHPT 5- and 7-year outcomes show high efficacy, minimal physician-assessed toxicity, and excellent patient-reported outcomes in this cohort.
Assuntos
Neoplasias da Próstata , Terapia com Prótons , Radioterapia Guiada por Imagem , Radioterapia de Intensidade Modulada , Antagonistas de Androgênios , Humanos , Masculino , Estudos Prospectivos , Neoplasias da Próstata/terapia , Terapia com Prótons/efeitos adversos , Radioterapia Guiada por Imagem/efeitos adversos , Sistema UrogenitalRESUMO
Proton therapy is a promising but controversial treatment in the management of prostate cancer. Despite its dosimetric advantages when compared with photon radiation therapy, its increased cost to patients and insurers has raised questions regarding its value. Multiple prospective and retrospective studies have been published documenting the efficacy and safety of proton therapy for patients with localized prostate cancer and for patients requiring adjuvant or salvage pelvic radiation after surgery. The Particle Therapy Co-Operative Group (PTCOG) Genitourinary Subcommittee intends to address current proton therapy indications, advantages, disadvantages, and cost effectiveness. We will also discuss the current landscape of clinical trials. This consensus report can be used to guide clinical practice and research directions.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Postprostatectomy radiation improves disease control, but limited data exist regarding outcomes, toxicities, and patient-reported quality of life with proton therapy. METHOD AND MATERIALS: The first 102 patients who were enrolled on an outcome tracking protocol between 2006 and 2017 and treated with double-scattered proton therapy after prostatectomy were retrospectively reviewed. Eleven (11%) received adjuvant radiation, while 91 (89%) received salvage radiation. Seventy-four received double-scattered proton therapy to the prostate bed only. Twenty-eight received a double-scattered proton therapy prostate-bed boost after prostate-bed and pelvic-node treatment. Eleven adjuvant patients received a median dose of 66.6 GyRBE (range, 66.0-70.2). Ninety-one salvage patients received a median dose of 70.2 GyRBE (range, 66.0-78.0). Forty-five patients received androgen deprivation therapy for a median 9 months (range, 1-30). Toxicities were scored using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0 criteria, and patient-reported quality-of-life data were reviewed. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 5.5 years (range, 0.8-11.4 years). Five-year biochemical relapse-free and distant metastases-free survival rates were 72% and 91% for adjuvant patients, 57% and 97% for salvage patients, and 57% and 97% overall. Acute and late grade 3 or higher genitourinary toxicity rates were 1% and 7%. No patients had grade 3 or higher gastrointestinal toxicity. Acute and late grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicities were 5% and 2%. The mean values and SDs of the International Prostate Symptom Score, International Index of Erectile Function, and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite bowel function and bother were 7.5 (SD = 5.9), 10.2 (SD = 8.3), 92.8 (SD = 11.1), and 91.2 (SD = 6.4), respectively, at baseline, and 12.1 (SD = 9.1), 10.1 (SD = 6.7), 87.3 (SD = 18), and 86.7 (SD = 13.8) at the 5-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: High-dose postprostatectomy proton therapy provides effective long-term biochemical control and freedom from metastasis, with low acute and long-term gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Data comparing moderately hypofractionated intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) are lacking. We aim to compare late toxicity profiles of patients with early-stage prostate cancer treated with moderately hypofractionated PBT and IMRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This multi-institutional analysis included patients with low- or intermediate-risk biopsy-proven prostate adenocarcinoma from 7 tertiary referral centers treated from 1998 to 2018. All patients were treated with moderately hypofractionated radiation, defined as 250 to 300 cGy per daily fraction given for 4 to 6 weeks, and stratified by use of IMRT or PBT. Primary outcomes were late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. Adjusted toxicity rates were calculated using inverse probability of treatment weighting, accounting for race, National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group, age, pretreatment International Prostate Symptom Score (GU only), and anticoagulant use (GI only). RESULTS: A total of 1850 patients were included: 1282 IMRT (median follow-up 80.0 months) and 568 PBT (median follow-up 43.9 months). Overall toxicity rates were low, with the majority of patients experiencing no late GU (56.6%, n = 1048) or late GI (74.4%, n = 1377) toxicity. No difference was seen in the rates of late toxicity between the groups, with late grade 3+ GU toxicity of 2.0% versus 3.9% (odds ratio [OR] 0.47; 95% confidence interval 0.17-1.28) and late grade 2+ GI toxicity of 14.6% versus 4.7% (OR 2.69; confidence interval 0.80-9.05) for the PBT and IMRT cohorts, respectively. On multivariable analysis, no factors were significantly predictive of GU toxicity, and only anticoagulant use was significantly predictive of GI toxicity (OR 1.90; P = .008). CONCLUSIONS: In this large, multi-institutional analysis of 1850 patients with early-stage prostate cancer, treatment with moderately hypofractionated IMRT and PBT resulted in low rates of toxicity. No difference was seen in late GI and GU toxicity between the modalities during long-term follow-up. Both treatments are safe and well tolerated.
Assuntos
Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Neoplasias da Próstata/radioterapia , Terapia com Prótons/efeitos adversos , Radioterapia de Intensidade Modulada/efeitos adversos , Idoso , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estadiamento de Neoplasias , Órgãos em Risco/efeitos da radiação , Hipofracionamento da Dose de Radiação , Reto/efeitos da radiação , Fatores de RiscoRESUMO
PURPOSE: To compare the planning target volume (PTV) margins needed for prostate patients who have used hydrogel spacer or rectal balloon during proton treatments. METHOD: Total of 190 prostate patients treated with proton therapy during 2017 were selected for this study. Of these patients, 96 had hydrogel spacer injection and 94 patients had only rectal balloons insertion. All patients had implanted gold markers inside the prostate for daily target alignment. Post-treatment radigraphs were obtained to evaluate prostate intrafraction motion. The systematic and random components of patient setup residual error and prostate intrafraction motion error were obtained. PTV margins were calculated using the van Herk formula for both patient groups. RESULTS: For setup residual error, the mean values in the superior-inferior (SI) direction and the variances in the left-right (LR) direction were statistically different between the two groups. For intrafraction motion, there were significant differences of the mean values in the SI direction and of the variances in both LR and anterior-posterior (AP) directions. The population PTV margins for hydrogel spacer group were 2.6 mm, 3.3 mm, and 1.6 mm in LR, SI, AP directions, respectively. For the rectal balloon group, the PTV margins were 2.1 mm, 3.1 mm, and 2.0 mm in LR, SI, AP directions, respectively. CONCLUSION: Statistically significant differences were observed in the patient setup and prostate intrafraction motion errors of the two patient groups. However, under the current protocol of bladder preparation and daily marker-based x-ray image-guidance, population PTV margins were comparable between the two patient groups.
Assuntos
Neoplasias da Próstata , Terapia com Prótons , Humanos , Hidrogéis , Masculino , Neoplasias da Próstata/radioterapia , Planejamento da Radioterapia Assistida por ComputadorRESUMO
PURPOSE: Due to the excellent outcomes with image-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy for patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and the low treatment-related toxicities using proton therapy (PT), we investigated treatment outcomes and toxicities when delivering hypofractionated PT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2009 and 2018, 22 patients with T1 to T2 N0M0 NSCLC (45% T1, 55% T2) received image-guided hypofractionated PT. The median age at diagnosis was 72 years (range, 58-90). Patients underwent 4-dimensional computed tomography simulation following fiducial marker placement, and daily image guidance was performed. Nine patients (41%) were treated with 48 GyRBE in 4 fractions for peripheral lesions, and 13 patients (59%) were treated with 60 GyRBE in 10 fractions for central lesions. Patients were assessed for CTCAEv4 toxicities with computed tomography imaging for tumor assessment. The primary endpoint was grade 3 to 5 toxicity at 1 year. RESULTS: The median follow-up for all patients was 3.5 years (range, 0.2-8.8 years). The overall survival rates at 3 and 5 years were 81% and 49%, respectively. Cause-specific survival rates at 3 and 5 years were 100% and 75%, respectively. The 3-year local, regional, and distant control rates were 86%, 85%, and 95%, respectively. Four patients experienced in-field recurrences between 18 and 45 months after treatment. One patient (5%) developed a late grade 3 bronchial stricture requiring hospitalization and stent. CONCLUSION: Image-guided hypofractionated PT for early-stage NSCLC provides promising local control and long-term survival with a low likelihood of toxicity. Regional nodal and distant relapses remain a problem.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: The RadTox assay measures circulating cell-free DNA released in response to radiotherapy (RT)-induced tissue damage. The primary objectives for this clinical trial were to determine whether cell-free DNA numbers measured by the RadTox assay are (1) correlated with body integral dose, (2) lower with proton RT compared with photon RT, and (3) higher with larger prostate cancer RT fields. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients planned to receive proton or photon RT for nonmetastatic prostate cancer in the setting of an intact prostate or postprostatectomy were eligible for the trial. Plasma was collected pre-RT and at 5 additional daily collection points beginning 24 hours after the initiation of RT. Data from 54 evaluable patients were analyzed to examine any correlations among RadTox scores with body-integral dose, RT modality (photon versus proton), and RT field size (prostate or prostate bed versus whole pelvis). RESULTS: Body integral dose was significantly associated with the peak post-RT RadTox score (P = .04). Patients who received photon RT had a significant increase in peak post-RT RadTox score (P = .04), average post-RT RadTox score (P = .04), and day-2 RadTox score (all minus the pre-RT values for each patient) as compared with patients who received proton RT. Field size was not significantly associated with RadTox score. CONCLUSION: RadTox is correlated with body integral dose and correctly predicts which patients receive proton versus photon RT. Data collection remains ongoing for patient-reported RT toxicity outcomes to determine whether RadTox scores are correlated with toxicity.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The treatment of centrally-located early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with image-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is challenging due to the proximity of critical normal structures to the tumor target. The purpose of this study was to report the results of our experience in treating centrally-located early-stage NSCLC with hypofractionated proton therapy (PT). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between 2009 and 2018, 23 patients with T1-T2N0M0 NSCLC (T1, 46%; T2, 54%) were treated with image-guided hypofractionated double-scattering PT. The median age at the time of treatment was 74 years (range, 58-88). Patients underwent 4-dimensional computed tomography (CT) simulation following fiducial marker placement, and daily image guidance was performed. All patients were treated with 60 GyRBE in 10 fractions. Patients were assessed for CTCAEv4 toxicities weekly during treatment, and at regular follow-up intervals with CT imaging for tumor assessment. Overall survival, cause-specific survival, local control, regional control, and metastases-free survival were evaluated using cumulative incidence with competing risks. RESULTS: Median follow-up for all patients was 3.2 years (range, 0.2-9.2 years). Overall survival rates at 3 and 5 years were 81% and 50% (95% CI, 27-79%), respectively. Cause-specific survival rates at 3 and 5 years were 81% and 71% (95% CI, 46-92%). The 3-year local, regional, and distant control rates were 90%, 81%, and 87%, respectively. Three patients (13%) experienced local recurrences as their first recurrence, at a median time of 28 months from completion of radiation (range, 18-61 months). Two patients (9%) experienced late grade 3 toxicities, including 1 patient who developed a bronchial stricture that required stent placement. CONCLUSION: Image-guided hypofractionated PT for centrally-located early-stage NSCLC provides excellent local control with low rates of grade ≥3 toxicities. For tumors in sensitive locations, PT may provide safer treatment than photon-based treatments due to its dosimetric advantages.
Assuntos
Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/radioterapia , Neoplasias Pulmonares/radioterapia , Terapia com Prótons , Radiocirurgia , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/patologia , Seguimentos , Humanos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/patologia , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Recidiva Local de Neoplasia/patologia , Estadiamento de Neoplasias , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To help guide individualized treatment, we sought to identify baseline predictive factors that impact long-term erectile function following high-dose image-guided radiotherapy (HD-IGRT). METHODS: Potent men with localized prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy alone were enrolled in an institutional review board-approved prospective cohort study. Men received HD-IGRT as primary treatment of prostate cancer. Patient-reported inventories were used to assess erectile function at baseline, 6â¯months, 2â¯years, and 5â¯years after treatment. Long-term potency rates were compared to validated models, and baseline factors were used to create a novel, internally validated nomogram for predicting long-term function. RESULTS: 1,159 men were treated with HD-IGRT. Among 676 men who were potent at baseline and did not receive hormone therapy, the potency rates at 6â¯months, 2â¯years, and 5â¯years were 81%, 68%, and 61%. Recursive partitioning categorized patients into 3 groups based on two factors: baseline response to EPIC Q57 (ability to have an erection) and pre-existing heart disease. At 5â¯years, the most favorable group reported "very good" on Q57 and had an 80% potency rate (nâ¯=â¯137; pâ¯=â¯0.83); the intermediate group reported "good" on Q57 and had no baseline cardiac disease with a 62% potency rate (nâ¯=â¯145; pâ¯=â¯0.86); and the remaining poor risk group had a 37% potency rate (nâ¯=â¯117; pâ¯=â¯0.19). CONCLUSIONS: Patient-reported pretreatment sexual function and comorbidities enables stratification and prediction of erectile function. EPIC subset questions with baseline comorbidities may potentially serve as a quick and practical clinical tool for predicting sexual survivorship.
Assuntos
Neoplasias da Próstata/epidemiologia , Neoplasias da Próstata/radioterapia , Terapia com Prótons/estatística & dados numéricos , Disfunções Sexuais Fisiológicas/epidemiologia , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Florida/epidemiologia , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Medidas de Resultados Relatados pelo Paciente , Ereção Peniana/fisiologia , Ereção Peniana/efeitos da radiação , Estudos Prospectivos , Neoplasias da Próstata/fisiopatologia , Terapia com Prótons/efeitos adversos , Terapia com Prótons/métodos , Qualidade de Vida , Radioterapia Guiada por Imagem , Disfunções Sexuais Fisiológicas/etiologiaRESUMO
Studies demonstrate a decline of â¼10% in serum testosterone (ST) level after X-ray radiotherapy for prostate cancer. We evaluated changes in ST for patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer receiving 70-82Gy(RBE) using passive-scatter proton therapy (PT). ST was checked at baseline (n = 358) and at 60+ months after PT (n = 166). The median baseline ST was 363.3 ng/dl (range, 82.0-974.0). The median ST 5 years after PT was 391.5 ng/dl (range, 108.0-1061.0). The difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.9341). Passive-scatter PT was not associated with testosterone suppression at 5 years, suggesting that protons may cause less out-of-field scatter radiation than X-rays.
Assuntos
Neoplasias da Próstata/sangue , Neoplasias da Próstata/radioterapia , Testosterona/sangue , Humanos , Masculino , Próstata/metabolismo , Próstata/efeitos da radiação , Terapia com Prótons/métodosRESUMO
Objective: Thymic malignancies (TM) are rare tumors with long-term survivorship, causing concerns for radiotherapy-related late side effects. Proton therapy (PT) reduces the radiation dose to organs at risk, potentially decreasing long-term toxicities while preserving disease control. We report patterns-of-care and early clinical outcomes after PT for thymoma and thymic carcinoma. Methods: Between January 2008 and March 2017, 30 patients with TMs enrolled on one of two IRB-approved prospective protocols and received postoperative or definitive PT. Clinical outcomes, pathology, treatment dose, toxicities, and follow-up information were analyzed. Results: Twenty-two thymoma patients with a median age of 52.1 years (range, 23-72) received a median RT dose of 54 Gy (RBE) (range, 45-70) either postoperatively (91%) or definitively (9%); 23% received adjuvant chemotherapy. Among eight thymic carcinoma patients, the median age was 65.5 years (range, 38-88) and median RT dose was 60 Gy (RBE) (range, 42-70) delivered postoperatively (75%) or definitively (25%); 50% received chemotherapy. Median follow-up for all patients was 13 months (range, 2-59 months). Five patients relapsed, one locally (3%). Three patients died of disease progression, including two thymomas and one thymic carcinoma patient; a fourth died of intercurrent disease. One patient with thymic carcinoma and 1 with thymoma are alive with disease. No patients treated with PT for their initial disease (de novo) experienced grade ≥3 toxicities. The most common grade 2 toxicities were dermatitis (37%), cough (13%), and esophagitis (10%). Conclusion: Adjuvant and definitive PT are being used in the treatment of TMs. Early results of the largest such cohort reported to date demonstrates an acceptable rate of recurrence with a favorable toxicity profile. Longer follow-up and a larger patient cohort are needed to confirm these findings.
Assuntos
Recidiva Local de Neoplasia/epidemiologia , Padrões de Prática Médica/estatística & dados numéricos , Terapia com Prótons/estatística & dados numéricos , Lesões por Radiação/epidemiologia , Neoplasias do Timo/terapia , Adulto , Idoso , Quimioterapia Adjuvante/estatística & dados numéricos , Feminino , Florida/epidemiologia , Seguimentos , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Recidiva Local de Neoplasia/prevenção & controle , Estudos Prospectivos , Terapia com Prótons/efeitos adversos , Lesões por Radiação/etiologia , Dosagem Radioterapêutica , Radioterapia Adjuvante/efeitos adversos , Radioterapia Adjuvante/estatística & dados numéricos , Sistema de Registros/estatística & dados numéricos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Timectomia , Neoplasias do Timo/mortalidade , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do Tratamento , Adulto JovemRESUMO
PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of unfavorable risk factors among patients with locally advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) treated with proton therapy (PT). MATERIAL AND METHODS: From May 2008 through July 2015, 90 consecutive patients with unresectable stage II-IV (oligometastatic) NSCLC were treated with PT. Unfavorable factors including age ≥80 years, stage IV, weight loss >10% in 3 months, performance status (PS) ≥2, FEV1 < 1.0 or O2 dependency, prior lung cancer, prior lung surgery, prior 2nd cancer in the past 3 years, and prior chest irradiation were evaluated. All patients received standard fractionation of 1.8-2 Gy(RBE) (median dose, 70 Gy[RBE]). Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method. The impact of unfavorable factors was analyzed in Cox regression models. RESULTS: Twenty-six percent were favorable-risk, while 42%, 22%, and 10% had 1-, 2-, or ≥3 unfavorable factors. The 2-year OS was 52% and 45% (p = .8522), and 2-year PFS was 21% and 44% (p = .0207), for favorable and unfavorable risk patients, respectively. Among patients with stage III-IV, only PS ≥2 adversely impacted OS (p = .0015). CONCLUSION: Most patients treated with PT for LA-NSCLC have unfavorable risk factors. These patients had similar outcomes to favorable-risk patients. Enrollment in future clinical trials may improve if eligibility is less restrictive.
Assuntos
Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/radioterapia , Neoplasias Pulmonares/radioterapia , Terapia com Prótons/métodos , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Antineoplásicos/efeitos adversos , Antineoplásicos/uso terapêutico , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/tratamento farmacológico , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/mortalidade , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/cirurgia , Intervalo Livre de Doença , Fracionamento da Dose de Radiação , Feminino , Humanos , Estimativa de Kaplan-Meier , Neoplasias Pulmonares/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias Pulmonares/mortalidade , Neoplasias Pulmonares/cirurgia , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Terapia com Prótons/efeitos adversos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
To evaluate the planning target volume (PTV) margins for prostate cancer patients treated with initial intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to pelvic lymph nodes and a proton boost to the prostate using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and radiographs as image guidance. We analyzed data from prostate patients (n = 15) treated with initial pelvic IMRT and a proton boost to the prostate. CBCT and 2-dimensional (2D) radiographs were used for IMRT and proton pre-treatment alignments, respectively. Translations from bony-matching, implanted marker seed matching, and seed-bony differences were obtained from CBCTs. Pretreatment and post-treatment 2D radiographs were analyzed for residual setup errors and intrafractional organ motion. PTV margins of prostate and pelvic lymph nodes for seed-matching, bony-matching and the skin mark-matching approach were obtained using 2.5 * Σ + 0.7 * σ formula, where Σ is the systematic error and σ is the random error summed in quadrature of various error components. For the seed-matching approach, the prostate margins were 1.5 mm, 3.5 mm, and 2.7 mm for the left-right (LR), superior-inferior (SI), and anterior-posterior (AP) directions, respectively; pelvic lymph node margins were 2.3 mm, 7.1 mm, and 7.0 mm. For the bony-matching approach, the prostate margins were 2.7 mm, 7.8 mm, and 7.5 mm for the LR, SI, and AP directions, respectively; pelvic lymph node margins were 0.7 mm, 1.5 mm, and 1.4 mm. For the skin mark-matching approach, the prostate margins were 7.6 mm, 13.4 mm, and 11.4 mm for the LR, SI, and AP directions, respectively; pelvic lymph node margins were 8.2 mm, 12.6 mm, and 12.3 mm. The seed-matching approach, as compared to the bony-matching approach, reduced prostate margins, which may in turn reduce dose to the bladder and rectum at the expense of increased but acceptable margins for the pelvic lymph nodes.