Elective nodal radiotherapy in prostate cancer.

In patients with prostate cancer who have a high risk of pelvic nodal disease, the use of elective whole pelvis radiotherapy is still controversial. Two large, randomised, controlled trials (RTOG 9413 and GETUG-01) did not show a benefit of elective whole pelvis radiotherapy over prostate-only radiotherapy. In 2020, the POP-RT trial established the role of elective whole pelvis radiotherapy in patients who have more than a 35% risk of lymph node invasion (known as the Roach formula). POP-RT stressed the importance of patient selection. In patients with cN1 (clinically node positive) disease or pN1 (pathologically node positive) disease, the addition of whole pelvis radiotherapy to androgen deprivation therapy significantly improved survival compared with androgen deprivation therapy alone, as shown in large, retrospective studies. This patient population might increase in the future because use of the more sensitive prostate-specific membrane antigen PET-CT will become the standard staging procedure. Additionally, the SPORTT trial suggested a benefit of whole pelvis radiotherapy in biochemical recurrence-free survival in the salvage setting. A correct definition of the upper field border, which should include the bifurcation of the abdominal aorta, is key in the use of pelvic radiotherapy. As a result of using modern radiotherapy technology, severe late urinary and intestinal toxic effects are rare and do not seem to increase compared with prostate-only radiotherapy.

Managing postoperative biochemical relapse in prostate cancer, from the perspective of the Francophone group of Urological radiotherapy (GFRU).

Up to 50% of patients treated with radical surgery for localized prostate cancer may experience biochemical recurrence that requires appropriate management. Definitions of biochemical relapse may vary, but, in all cases, consist of an increase in a PSA without clinical or radiological signs of disease. Molecular imaging through to positron emission tomography has taken a preponderant place in relapse diagnosis, progressively replacing bone scan and CT-scan. Prostate bed radiotherapy is currently a key treatment, the action of which should be potentiated by androgen deprivation therapy. Nowadays perspectives consist in determining the best combination therapies, particularly thanks to next-generation hormone therapies, but not exclusively. Several trials are ongoing and should address these issues. We present here a literature review aiming to discuss the current management of biochemical relapse in prostate cancer after radical surgery, in lights of recent findings, as well as future perspectives.

Prostate Bed Delineation Guidelines for Postoperative Radiation Therapy: On Behalf Of The Francophone Group of Urological Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: Prostate bed (PB) irradiation is considered the standard postoperative treatment after radical prostatectomy (RP) for tumors with high-risk features or persistent prostate-specific antigen, or for salvage treatment in case of biological relapse. Four consensus guidelines have been published to standardize practices and reduce the interobserver variability in PB delineation but with discordant recommendations. To improve the reproducibility in the PB delineation, the Francophone Group of Urological Radiotherapy (Groupe Francophone de Radiothérapie Urologique [GFRU]) worked to propose a new and more reproducible consensus guideline for PB clinical target volume (CTV) definition. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A 4-step procedure was used. First, a group of 10 GFRU prostate experts evaluated the 4 existing delineation guidelines for postoperative radiation therapy (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer; the Faculty of Radiation Oncology Genito-Urinary Group; the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group; and the Princess Margaret Hospital) to identify divergent issues. Second, data sets of 50 magnetic resonance imaging studies (25 after RP and 25 with an intact prostate gland) were analyzed to identify the relevant anatomic boundaries of the PB. Third, a literature review of surgical, anatomic, histologic, and imaging data was performed to identify the relevant PB boundaries. Fourth, a final consensus on PB CTV definition was reached among experts. RESULTS: Definitive limits of the PB CTV delineation were defined using easily visible landmarks on computed tomography scans (CT). The purpose was to ensure a better reproducibility of PB definition for any radiation oncologist even without experience in postoperative radiation therapy. CONCLUSIONS: New recommendations for PB delineation based on simple anatomic boundaries and available as a CT image atlas are proposed by the GFRU. Improvement in uniformity in PB CTV definition and treatment homogeneity in the context of clinical trials are expected.

Brachytherapy in Belgium in 2018. A national survey of the brachytherapy study group of the Belgian SocieTy for Radiotherapy and Oncology (BeSTRO).

PURPOSE: To explore the current practices patterns and evaluate the actual brachytherapy (BT) resources in Belgium. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In 2019, the Brachytherapy Study Group proposed to conduct a survey on behalf of the Belgian SocieTy of Radiation Oncology (BeSTRO) in order to identify current BT practice patterns. An electronic questionnaire was sent to all primary radiotherapy centers in Belgium. This questionnaire was based on the questionnaire that was used by the Italian Association of Radiation Oncology (AIRO) in 2016, asking for: (a) General information on the Radiation Oncology Centre; (b) BT equipment and human resources; (c) BT procedures; (d) BT assessment (number of patients treated annually, treated sites, and different modalities of treatments). RESULTS: All 24 radiation oncology centers (100% response rate) answered the questionnaire and gave also information on the performance of brachytherapy in their (eventual) satellite centers. Eighteen (18) BT afterloader units were installed and operational in 2018. Thirteen centers mentioned a prostate seed implant program, one center a prostate and eye plaque program and one center only an eye plaque program. Less than 50% of centers have the infrastructure to offer the full-range of BT in their own department. In 2018, 1486 patients received a BT-treatment, 28% of them were treated by prostate seed implant, 8% were treated by eye-(seed) BT and 64% by high dose rate (HDR)/pulsed dose rate (PDR) BT. Forty-five percent of HDR/PDR patients were treated by vaginal dome BT, 22% by intra-uterine BT, 11% by skin BT, 10% by breast BT (almost exclusively in one centre), 8% for benign pathology (keloid) and the remaining 4% were treated for prostate (as a boost or as salvage in one centre), anal, penile, lung or oesophageal cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Belgian radiotherapy departments often perform BT only in a (highly) selected group of pathologies, resulting in a limited number of patients treated by this technique despite the sufficient availability of BT equipment. Modern indications are often not covered, hence patients do not have regular access to recognized treatment options, possibly leading to inferior oncological outcome. BeSTRO will use the results of this survey to stimulate improvements in training, awareness, education, implementation, collaboration and cooperation in the field of brachytherapy.

Guidelines for equipment and staffing of radiotherapy facilities in the European countries: final results of the ESTRO-HERO survey.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In planning to meet evidence based needs for radiotherapy, guidelines for the provision of capital and human resources are central if access, quality and safety are not to be compromised. A component of the ESTRO-HERO (Health Economics in Radiation Oncology) project is to document the current availability and content of guidelines for radiotherapy in Europe. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An 84 part questionnaire was distributed to the European countries through their national scientific and professional radiotherapy societies with 30 items relating to the availability of guidelines for equipment and staffing and selected operational issues. Twenty-nine countries provided full or partial evaluable responses. RESULTS: The availability of guidelines across Europe is far from uniform. The metrics used for capital and human resources are variable. There seem to have been no major changes in the availability or specifics of guidelines over the ten-year period since the QUARTS study with the exception of the recent expansion of RTT staffing models. Where comparison is possible it appears that staffing for radiation oncologists, medical physicists and particularly RTTs tend to exceed guidelines suggesting developments in clinical radiotherapy are moving faster than guideline updating. CONCLUSION: The efficient provision of safe, high quality radiotherapy services would benefit from the availability of well-structured guidelines for capital and human resources, based on agreed upon metrics, which could be linked to detailed estimates of need.