Intensity modulated radiation therapy with stereotactic body radiation therapy boost for unfavorable prostate cancer: five-year outcomes.

Purpose: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with brachytherapy boost for unfavorable prostate cancer has been shown to improve biochemical relapse-free survival compared to IMRT alone. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is a less-invasive alternative to brachytherapy. Early outcomes utilizing SBRT boost suggest low rates of high-grade toxicity with a maintained patient-reported quality of life. Here, we report the 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) of patients treated with IMRT plus SBRT boost. Materials and methods: Between 2008 and 2020, 255 patients with unfavorable prostate cancer were treated with robotic SBRT (19.5 Gy in three fractions) followed by fiducial-guided IMRT (45-50.4 Gy) according to an institutional protocol. For the first year, the patient's PSA level was monitored every 3 months, biannually for 2 years, and annually thereafter. Failure was defined as nadir + 2 ng/mL or a rising PSA with imaging suggestive of recurrence. Detection of recurrence also included digital rectal examination and imaging studies, such as MRI, CT, PET/CT, and/or bone scans. PFS and PCSS were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: The median follow-up period was 71 months. According to the NCCN risk classification, 5% (13/255) of the patients had favorable intermediate-risk disease, 23% (57/255) had unfavorable intermediate-risk disease, 40% (102/255) had high-risk disease, and 32% (83/255) had very high-risk disease. Androgen deprivation therapy was administered to 80% (204/255) of the patients. Elective pelvic lymph node IMRT was performed in 28 (10%) patients. The PFS for all patients at 5 years was 81% (favorable intermediate risk, 91%; unfavorable intermediate risk, 89%; high-risk, 78%; and very-high risk, 72%). The PCSS for all patients at 5 years was 97% (favorable intermediate risk, 100%; unfavorable intermediate risk, 100%; high risk, 100%; and very high risk, 89%). Conclusion: The incidence of failure following IMRT plus SBRT for unfavorable prostate cancer remains low at 5 years.

Treatment Interruptions During Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: During the course of radiation treatment for prostate cancer, patients may have unintentional interruptions in their treatment course due to a wide variety of factors. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) decreases the number of treatments compared to conventionally fractionated radiation; hence, it has the potential to decrease treatment delays and non-completion. This study sought to determine the incidence of treatment delay and characterize the etiology and length in a large cohort of men treated with SBRT for their prostate cancer. METHODS: One thousand three hundred and thirty-six patients treated with SBRT from 2008 to 2021 at the Georgetown University Hospital for prostate cancer were included in this retrospective study. A treatment delay was defined as a patient requiring longer than 14 days to complete 5 fractions of SBRT. Non-completion was defined as patients treated with less than 5 fractions. In the patients who experienced delays, chart review was performed to characterize the length and etiology of each delay. Multivariate analysis was performed via binary logistic regression modeling on PSPP. RESULTS: All individuals in the cohort eventually completed the planned 5-fraction regimen. Thirty-three patients experienced a treatment delay. Median length of time to complete treatment was 11 days (range 5-155 days). In patients who experienced a delay, nearly half (45.5%) experienced only a one-day delay. The most common reason for a delay was a technical issue (48.5%), including the machine maintenance, fiducial misalignment, or inadequate pretreatment bowel preparation. Other reasons included unplanned breaks due to acute side effects (21.2%), logistical issues (18.2%), non-treatment related health issues (9.1%), and inclement weather (3.0%). There were no significant sociodemographic, oncologic, or treatment variables that predicted treatment interruption on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of treatment interruptions in patients undergoing SBRT for their prostate cancer was low. Most treatment delays were short.

Utilization of Iodinated SpaceOAR Vue™ During Robotic Prostate Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) to Identify the Rectal-Prostate Interface and Spare the Rectum: A Case Report.

We describe the utilization of SpaceOAR Vue™, a new iodinated rectal spacer, during Robotic Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) for a Prostate Cancer Patient with a contraindication to Magnetic Resonance Imaging. A 69-year-old Caucasian male presented with unfavorable intermediate risk prostate cancer and elected to undergo SBRT. His medical history was significant for atrial fibrillation on Rivaroxaban with a pacemaker. He was felt to be at increased risk of radiation proctitis following SBRT due to the inability to accurately contour the anterior rectal wall at the prostate apex without a treatment planning MRI and an increased risk of late rectal bleeding due to prescribed anticoagulants. In this case report, we discuss the technical aspects of appropriate placement and treatment planning for utilizing SpaceOAR Vue™ with Robotic SBRT.

Ten-Year Single Institutional Analysis of Geographic and Demographic Characteristics of Patients Treated With Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) offers definitive treatment for localized prostate cancer with comparable efficacy and toxicity to conventionally fractionated radiotherapy. Decreasing the number of treatment visits from over 40 to five may ease treatment burden and increase accessibility for logistically challenged patients. Travel distance is one factor that affects a patient's access to treatment and is often related to geographic location and socioeconomic status. In this study, we review the demographic and geographic factors of patients treated with SBRT for prostate cancer for a single institution with over a decade of experience. METHODS: Patient zip codes from one thousand and thirty-five patients were derived from a large, prospectively maintained quality of life database for patients treated for prostate cancer with SBRT from 2008 to 2017. The geospatial distance between the centroid of each zip code to our institution was calculated using the R package Geosphere. Characteristics for seven hundred and twenty-one patients were evaluated at the time of analysis including: race, age, and insurance status. To assess the geographic reach of our institution, we evaluated the demographic features of each zip code using US Census data. Statistical comparisons for these features and their relation to distance traveled for treatment was performed using the Mann-Whitney U test. Finally, an unsupervised learning algorithm was performed to identify distinct clusters of patients with respect to median income, racial makeup, educational level, and rural residency. RESULTS: Patients traveled from 246 distinct zip codes at a median distance of 11.35 miles. Forty percent of patients were African American, 6.9% resided in a rural region, and 22% were over the age of 75. Using K-means cluster analysis, four distinct patient zip-code groups were identified based on the aforementioned demographic features: Suburban/high-income (45%), Urban (30%), Suburban/low-income (17%), and Rural (8%). For each of the clusters, the average travel distance for SBRT was significantly different at 11.17, 9.26, 11.75, and 40.2 miles, respectively (p-value: <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Distinct demographic features are related to travel distance for prostate SBRT. In our large cohort, travel distance did not prevent uptake of prostate SBRT in African American, elderly or rural patient populations. Prostate SBRT offers a diverse population modern treatment for their localized prostate cancer and particularly for those who live significant distances from a treatment center.

Rationale for Involved Field Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy-Enhanced Intermittent Androgen Deprivation Therapy in Hormone-Sensitive Nodal Oligo-Recurrent Prostate Cancer Following Prostate Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy.

Lymph node recurrent prostate cancer is a common clinical scenario that is likely to increase significantly with the widespread adoption of novel positron emission tomography (PET) agents. Despite increasing evidence that localized therapy is disease modifying, most men with lymph node recurrent prostate cancer receive only systemic therapy with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). For men who receive localized therapy the intent is often to delay receipt of systemic therapy. Little evidence exists on the optimal combination of local and systemic therapy in this patient population. In this hypothesis generating review, we will outline the rationale and propose a framework for combining involved field SBRT with risk adapted intermittent ADT for hormone sensitive nodal recurrent prostate cancer. In patients with a limited number of nodal metastases, involved field stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) may have a role in eliminating castrate-resistant clones and possibly prolonging the response to intermittent ADT. We hypothesize that in a small percentage of patients, such a treatment approach may lead to long term remission or cure.

Management of Isolated Local Failures Following Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Low to Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer.

Background: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is a safe and effective treatment option for patients with low to intermediate risk prostate cancer (1). SBRT results in very low PSA nadirs secondary to the delivery of high biologically effective doses. Studies reporting on the diagnosis, confirmation, and management of salvageable isolated local failures (ILF) are limited. This study aims to determine the incidence and management approach of ILF after SBRT in a large single institution cohort. Method: All patients with low or intermediate risk localized prostate cancer treated with SBRT at Georgetown University Hospital were eligible for this study. Treatment was delivered using robotic SBRT with doses of 35-36.25 Gy in five fractions. ILF were diagnosed using multiparametric MRI and/or biopsy prompted by rising PSA levels after achieving long-term nadir. Patient's characteristics were extracted from a prospective institutional quality of life trial (IRB 2009-510). Type of salvage therapy and post-salvage PSA were determined on subsequent follow-up and chart review. Results: Between December 2008 to August 2018, 998 men with low to intermediate risk prostate cancer were eligible for inclusion in this analysis. Twenty-four patients (low risk, n = 5; intermediate risk, n = 19) were found to have ILF within the prostate on either MRI (n = 19) and/or biopsy (n = 20). Median pre-treatment PSA was 7.55 ng/ml. Median time to diagnosis of ILF was 72 months (24-110 months) with median PSA at the time of ILF of 2.8 ng/ml (0.7-33 ng/ml). Median PSA doubling time was 17 months (5-47 months). Thirteen patients with biopsy proven ILF proceeded with salvage therapy (cryotherapy n = 12, HIFU n = 1). Of 12 patients who underwent cryotherapy, 7 had a post-treatment PSA of <0.1 ng/ml. One patient experienced a urethral-cutaneous fistula (grade 3 toxicity). Conclusion: The incidence of isolated local recurrence is rare in our cohort. Diagnosis and management of isolated local failures post-SBRT continues to evolve. Our report highlights the importance of early utilization of MRI and confirmatory biopsy at relatively low PSA levels and long PSA doubling time (1). Additionally, undetectable PSA levels after salvage therapy supports the role of early treatment in ILF (1). Further research is needed to determine appropriate patient selection and salvage modality in this population.