RESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This prospective study aimed to investigate adaptive magnetic resonance (MR)-guided stereotactic body radiation therapy (MRgSBRT) with rectal spacer for localized prostate cancer (PC) and report 1-year clinical outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-four consecutive patients with low- to high-risk localized PC that underwent 5-fraction adaptive MRgSBRT with rectal spacer were enrolled. The dosimetric comparison was performed on a risk- and age-matched cohort treated with MRgSBRT but without a spacer at a similar timepoint. Clinician-reported outcomes were based on Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Patient-reported outcomes were based on the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) questionnaire at baseline, acute (1-3 months), subacute (4-12 months), and late (> 12 months) phases. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 390 days (range 28-823) and the median age was 70 years (range 58-82). One patient experienced rectal bleeding soon after spacer insertion that subsided before MRgSBRT. The median distance between the midline of the prostate midgland and the rectum after spacer insertion measured 7.8 mm (range 2.6-15.3), and the median length of the spacer was 45.9 mm (range 16.8-62.9) based on T2-weighted MR imaging. The use of spacer resulted in significant improvements in target coverage (V100% > 95% = 98.6% [range 93.4-99.8] for spacer vs. 97.8% [range 69.6-99.7] for non-spacer) and rectal sparing (V95% < 3 cc = 0.7 cc [range 0-4.6] for spacer vs. 4.9 cc [range 0-12.5] for non-spacer). Nine patients (26.5%) experienced grade 1 gastrointestinal toxicities, and no grade ≥ 2 toxicities were observed. During the 1-year follow-up period, EPIC scores for the bowel domain remained stable and were the highest among all other domains. CONCLUSIONS: MRgSBRT with rectal spacer for localized PC showed exceptional tolerability with minimal gastrointestinal toxicities and satisfactory patient-reported outcomes. Improvements in dosimetry, rectal sparing, and target coverage were achieved with a rectal spacer. Randomized trials are warranted for further validation.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Próstata , Recto , Masculino , Humanos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Estudios Prospectivos , Dosificación Radioterapéutica , Neoplasias de la Próstata/radioterapia , Neoplasias de la Próstata/cirugía , Neoplasias de la Próstata/patología , Imagen por Resonancia Magnética , Espectroscopía de Resonancia MagnéticaRESUMEN
Background: Muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) with nodal involvement is associated with poor prognosis and high mortality. Treatment of node-positive MIBC is complex due to disease heterogeneity and a lack of evidence-based treatment options, especially alternatives to radical cystectomy. We describe a bladder-sparing management approach involving systemic therapy followed by maintenance therapy, illustrated with two cases of node-positive MIBC. Case presentation: Two patients with node-positive MIBC received upfront gemcitabine/cisplatin chemotherapy, concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT), and avelumab (immune checkpoint inhibitor) maintenance therapy. Both patients achieved complete remission without recurrence or distant metastasis post-avelumab maintenance therapy. At the last follow-up, Patient 1 (45-year-old male) was in remission for over two years, and Patient 2 (57-year-old male) was in complete remission for over one year post-chemotherapy. Avelumab treatment was well-tolerated, with no immune-related adverse events, and quality of life (QoL) was maintained. Conclusion: Both cases showed a good response and extended remission on avelumab maintenance, supporting its use in conjunction with local consolidation therapy as a bladder-preserving approach in node-positive MIBC. Further research, such as the ongoing INSPIRE trial, is required to refine treatment strategies for this patient group.