Gantry-Based 5-Fraction Elective Nodal Irradiation in Unfavorable-Risk Prostate Cancer: Outcomes From 2 Prospective Studies Comparing SABR Boost With MR Dose-Painted HDR Brachytherapy Boost.

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and Cancer Care Ontario recommend brachytherapy boost for patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk prostate cancer. SABR is an emerging technique for prostate cancer, but its use in high-risk disease is limited. Efficacy, toxic effects, and quality of life (QoL) were compared in patients treated on 2 prospective protocols that used SABR boost or magnetic resonance-guided high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) boost with 6 to 18 months of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). METHODS AND MATERIALS In SATURN study (study 1), patients received 40 Gy to the prostate and 25 Gy to the pelvis in 5 weekly fractions. In SPARE (study 2), patients received HDR-BT (15 Gy × 1) to the prostate and ≤22.5 Gy to the magnetic resonance imaging nodule, followed by 25 Gy in 5 weekly fractions to the pelvis. All patients received between 6 and 18 months of ADT. RESULTS: Thirty patients (7% unfavorable intermediate risk and 93% high risk, per National Comprehensive Cancer Network [NCCN] criteria) completed study 1, and 31 patients (3% favorable intermediate risk, 47% unfavorable intermediate risk, and 50% high risk) completed treatment as per study 2. The median follow-up times were 72 and 62 months, respectively. In study 2, 6 patients had biochemical failure, and all 6 developed metastatic disease. Actuarial 5-year biochemical failure was 0% for study 1 and 18.2% for study 2 (P = .005). There was no significant difference in the worst acute or late gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicity. Grade 3 late genitourinary toxicity was noted in 3% of the patients in study 2 (HDR-BT boost). There was either no significant difference or minimal clinically important change in QoL. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of 5-fraction pelvic radiation therapy and ADT, there did not appear to be a significant difference in toxicity or QoL between SABR and HDR-BT boost. Although efficacy favored the SABR boost cohort, this should be viewed in the context of limitations and biases associated with comparing 2 sequential phase 2 studies.