Stereotactic focal radiotherapy as an alternative treatment for low-risk prostate cancer: Results of a single-arm monocenter Phase-II trial.

Introduction: Since radical treatments in low risk prostate cancer do not improve overall survival in comparison to active surveillance, preserving quality of life (QOL) remains the key objective. Active surveillance of indolent prostate cancer avoids curative treatment side-effects but necessitates repeated biopsies. Focal stereotactic body radiation therapy (focal SBRT) may be an alternative. This non-randomized Phase-II trial examined the feasibility and safety of focal SBRT for low and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Methods: Patients were recruited in 2016-2019 if they had: localized CAPRA ≤ 3 prostate adenocarcinoma; an isolated PIRADS≥4 macroscopic tumor on MRI; WHO Performance Status 0-1; and no major urinary symptoms. 36.25 Gy (80% isodose prescription) were delivered in 5 fractions every other day. Primary outcome was delay between focal SBRT and salvage-treatment initiation. Secondary outcomes were: acute/late genitourinary/rectal toxicity; biological, clinical and MRI local control; and change in QOL measures. Results: Over a median follow-up of 36 months, salvage prostatectomy in the 24 eligible patients was never required. Three-year biochemical progression-free survival was 96%. The single biochemical recurrence was a small (2-mm) Gleason 6 (3 + 3) lesion in the non-irradiated lobe. All 19 patients with ≥1 post-treatment MRI evaluations demonstrated complete radiological response. Acute/late grade ≥3 toxicities did not occur: all acute toxicities were grade-1 genitourinary (38% patients), grade-2 genitourinary (8%), or grade-1 rectal (13%) toxicities. There was one (4%) late grade-1 genitourinary toxicity. QOL was unchanged at last follow-up, as shown by IPSS (2.86 to 3.29, p>0.05), U-QOL (0.71 to 0.67, p>0.05), and IIEF5 (the 14 initially potent patients maintained potency (IIEF5 > 16)). Conclusion: Focal SBRT is feasible, well-tolerated, and preserves QOL. This innovative robotized approach challenges active surveillance.

Dosimetric comparison of high-dose-rate brachytherapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy as a boost to the prostate.

PURPOSE: We compared the dose conformity of two radiation modalities: high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR BT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to deliver a boost to the prostate after external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ten successive patients with prostate adenocarcinoma treated with a single 10-Gy HDR BT boost after EBRT were investigated. Four theoretical IMRT plans were computed: (a) 32.85 Gy IMRT and (b) 26 Gy IMRT with CTV-PTV expansions, doses corresponding to the equivalent dose in 2-Gy fractions (EQD2) of one 10-Gy fraction calculated with a prostate alpha/beta ratio of respectively 1.5 and 3 Gy; and (c) 32.85 Gy IMRT and (d) 26 Gy IMRT without CTV-PTV expansions. The dose-volume histogram values converted in EQD2 with an alpha/beta ratio of 3 Gy for the organs at risk were compared. RESULTS: The HDR BT plan delivered higher mean doses to the PTV compared with IMRT plans. In all, 33% of the rectal volume received a mean dose of 5.32 +/- 0.65 Gy and 20% of bladder volume received 4.61 +/- 1.24 Gy with HDR BT. In comparison, doses delivered with IMRT were respectively 13.4 +/- 1.49 Gy and 10.81 +/- 4 Gy, even if only 26 Gy was prescribed to the PTV with no CTV-PTV expansion (p < 0.0001). The hot spots inside the urethra were greater with HDR BT but acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: Use of HDR BT produced a more conformal plan for the boost to the prostate than IMRT even without CTV-PTV expansions.

A dosimetric selectivity intercomparison of HDR brachytherapy, IMRT and helical tomotherapy in prostate cancer radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Dose escalation in order to improve the biochemical control in prostate cancer requires the application of irradiation techniques with high conformality. The dosimetric selectivity of three radiation modalities is compared: high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT), intensity-modulated radiation radiotherapy (IMRT), and helical tomotherapy (HT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ten patients with prostate adenocarcinoma treated by a 10-Gy HDR-BT boost after external-beam radiotherapy were investigated. For each patient, HDR-BT, IMRT and HT theoretical treatment plans were realized using common contour sets. A 10-Gy dose was prescribed to the planning target volume (PTV). The PTVs and critical organs' dose-volume histograms obtained were compared using Student's t-test. RESULTS: HDR-BT delivers spontaneously higher mean doses to the PTV with smaller cold spots compared to IMRT and HT. 33% of the rectal volume received a mean HDR-BT dose of 3.86 + or - 0.3 Gy in comparison with a mean IMRT dose of 6.57 + or - 0.68 Gy and a mean HT dose of 5.58 + or - 0.71 Gy (p < 0.0001). HDR-BT also enables to better spare the bladder. The hot spots inside the urethra are greater with HDR-BT. The volume of healthy tissue receiving 10% of the prescribed dose is reduced at least by a factor of 8 with HDR-BT (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: HDR-BT offers better conformality in comparison with HT and IMRT and reduces the volume of healthy tissue receiving a low dose.