RESUMEN
Background: Proton therapy (PT) has unique biologic properties with excellent clinical outcomes for the management of localized prostate cancer. Here, we aim to characterize the toxicity of PT for patients with localized prostate cancer and propose mitigation strategies using a large institutional database. Methods: We reviewed medical records of 2772 patients with localized prostate cancer treated with definitive PT between May 2006 through January 2020. Disease risk was stratified according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines as low [LR, n = 640]; favorable-intermediate [F-IR, n = 849]; unfavorable-intermediate [U-IR, n = 851]; high [HR, n = 315]; or very high [VHR, n = 117]. Descriptive statistics and Kaplan-Meier estimates assessed toxicity and freedom from biochemical relapse (FFBR). Results: Median follow-up was 7.0 years. The median dose was 78 Gy(RBE)(range: 72-79.2 Gy) in 2.0 Gy(RBE) fractions; 63 % of patients received 78 Gy(RBE) in 39 fractions, and 29 % received 76 Gy(RBE) in 38 fractions. Overall rates of late grade ≥3 GU and GI toxicity were 0.87 % and 1.01 %, respectively. Two patients developed grade 4 late GU toxicity and seven patients with grade 4 late GI toxicity. All patients experiencing severe late grade 4 toxicities were treated to 78 Gy(RBE) in 39 fractions with 80 Gy(RBE) dose to the anterior rectal wall and/or bladder neck. The 10-year FFBR rates for patients with LR to U-IR disease were compared between those treated with 76 and 78 Gy(RBE); the rates were 94.5 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 92.4-96.0 %) and 93.2 % (95 % CI 91.3-95.7 %), respectively (log-rank p = 0.22). Conclusions: Proton therapy is associated with low rates of late grade ≥3 GU and GI toxicity. While rare, late grade 4 toxicities occurred in nine (0.3 %) patients. De-escalation to a total dose of 76 Gy(RBE) yields excellent clinical outcomes for patients with LR to U-IR disease with the potential for significant reductions in grade ≥3 late toxicity.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Proton therapy (PT) has emerged as a standard-of-care treatment option for localized prostate cancer at our comprehensive cancer center. However, there are few large-scale analyses examining the long-term clinical outcomes. Therefore, this article aims to evaluate the long-term effectiveness and toxicity of PT in patients with localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Review of 2772 patients treated from May 2006 through January 2020. Disease risk was stratified according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines as low [LR, n = 640]; favorable-intermediate [F-IR, n = 850]; unfavorable-intermediate [U-IR, n = 851]; high [HR, n = 315]; or very high [VHR, n = 116]. Biochemical failure and toxicity were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimates and multivariate models. RESULTS: The median patient age was 66 years; the median follow-up time was 7.0 years. Pelvic lymph node irradiation was prescribed to 28 patients (1%) (2 [0.2%] U-IR, 11 [3.5%] HR, and 15 [12.9%] VHR). The median dose was 78 Gy in 1.8-2.0 Gy(RBE) fractions. Freedom from biochemical relapse (FFBR) rates at 5 years and 10 years were 98.2% and 96.8% for the LR group; 98.3% and 93.6%, F-IR; 94.2% and 90.2%, U-IR; 94.3% and 85.2%, HR; and 86.1% and 68.5%, VHR. Two patients died of prostate cancer. Overall rates of late grade ≥ 3 GU and GI toxicity were 0.87% and 1.01%. CONCLUSIONS: Proton therapy for localized prostate cancer demonstrated excellent clinical outcomes in this large cohort, even among higher-risk groups with historically poor outcomes despite aggressive therapy.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To describe the range of potential side effects associated with modern brain metastasis treatment and provide evidenced-based guidance on the effective management of these side effects. BACKGROUND: Brain metastases are the most commonly diagnosed malignant intracranial tumor and have historically been associated with very poor prognosis. The standard treatment for brain metastases until the 1990s was whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) alone. Since then, however, numerous advances have established the role of neurosurgical resection, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), targeted systemic therapy, and immunotherapy in the multidisciplinary management of brain metastases and led to improvements in intracranial control, survival, and neurocognitive preservation among patients with brain metastases. As a result, however, brain metastasis treatment is associated with a wider range of potential side effects than ever before, and clinicians are tasked with the challenge of effectively managing these side effects without compromising cancer outcomes. METHODS: We performed a narrative review of peer-reviewed articles related to the management of side effects from multidisciplinary brain metastasis treatment and synthesized the data in the context of our clinical experience and practice. CONCLUSIONS: In this review, we summarize the major complications from intracranial radiotherapy, neurosurgical resection, and brain metastasis directed systemic therapy with corresponding evidenced-based, modern management principles to guide the practicing oncologist.