Long-term decision regret after post-prostatectomy image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: Decision regret (DR) may occur when a patient believes their outcome would have been better if they had decided differently about their management. Although some studies investigate DR after treatment for localised prostate cancer, none report DR in patients undergoing surgery and post-prostatectomy radiotherapy. We evaluated DR in this group of patients overall, and for specific components of therapy. METHODS: We surveyed 83 patients, with minimum 5 years follow-up, treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) and post-prostatectomy image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IG-IMRT) to 64-66 Gy following www.EviQ.org.au protocols. A validated questionnaire identified DR if men either indicated that they would have been better off had they chosen another treatment, or they wished they could change their mind about treatment. RESULTS: There was an 85.5% response rate, with median follow-up post-IMRT 78 months. Adjuvant IG-IMRT was used in 28% of patients, salvage in 72% and ADT in 48%. A total of 70% of patients remained disease-free. Overall, 16.9% of patients expressed DR for treatment, with fourfold more regret for the RP component of treatment compared to radiotherapy (16.9% vs 4.2%, P = 0.01). DR for androgen deprivation was 14.3%. Patients were regretful of surgery due to toxicity, not being adequately informed about radiotherapy as an alternative, positive margins and surgery costs (83%, 33%, 25% and 8% of regretful patients respectively). Toxicity caused DR in the three radiotherapy-regretful and four ADT-regretful patients. Patients were twice as regretful overall, and of surgery, for salvage vs adjuvant approaches (both 19.6% vs 10.0%). CONCLUSION: Decision regret after RP and post-prostatectomy IG-IMRT is uncommon, although patients regret RP more than post-operative IG-IMRT. This should reassure urologists referring patients for post-prostatectomy IG-IMRT, particularly in the immediate adjuvant setting. Other implications include appropriate patient selection for RP (and obtaining clear margins), and ensuring adequately discussing definitive radiotherapy as an alternative to surgery.

Can we avoid high levels of dose escalation for high-risk prostate cancer in the setting of androgen deprivation?

AIM: Both dose-escalated external beam radiotherapy (DE-EBRT) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improve outcomes in patients with high-risk prostate cancer. However, there is little evidence specifically evaluating DE-EBRT for patients with high-risk prostate cancer receiving ADT, particularly for EBRT doses >74 Gy. We aimed to determine whether DE-EBRT >74 Gy improves outcomes for patients with high-risk prostate cancer receiving long-term ADT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with high-risk prostate cancer were treated on an institutional protocol prescribing 3-6 months neoadjuvant ADT and DE-EBRT, followed by 2 years of adjuvant ADT. Between 2006 and 2012, EBRT doses were escalated from 74 Gy to 76 Gy and then to 78 Gy. We interrogated our electronic medical record to identify these patients and analyzed our results by comparing dose levels. RESULTS: In all, 479 patients were treated with a 68-month median follow-up. The 5-year biochemical disease-free survivals for the 74 Gy, 76 Gy, and 78 Gy groups were 87.8%, 86.9%, and 91.6%, respectively. The metastasis-free survivals were 95.5%, 94.5%, and 93.9%, respectively, and the prostate cancer-specific survivals were 100%, 94.4%, and 98.1%, respectively. Dose escalation had no impact on any outcome in either univariate or multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: There was no benefit of DE-EBRT >74 Gy in our cohort of high-risk prostate patients treated with long-term ADT. As dose escalation has higher risks of radiotherapy-induced toxicity, it may be feasible to omit dose escalation beyond 74 Gy in this group of patients. Randomized studies evaluating dose escalation for high-risk patients receiving ADT should be considered.

Can we avoid dose escalation for intermediate-risk prostate cancer in the setting of short-course neoadjuvant androgen deprivation?

BACKGROUND: Both dose-escalated external beam radiotherapy (DE-EBRT) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improve the outcomes in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Despite this, there are only few reports evaluating DE-EBRT for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer receiving neoadjuvant ADT, and virtually no studies investigating dose escalation >74 Gy in this setting. We aimed to determine whether DE-EBRT >74 Gy improved the outcomes for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer who received neoadjuvant ADT. FINDINGS: In our institution, patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer were treated with neoadjuvant ADT and DE-EBRT, with doses sequentially increasing from 74 Gy to 76 Gy and then to 78 Gy between 2006 and 2012. We identified 435 patients treated with DE-EBRT and ADT, with a median follow-up of 70 months. For the 74 Gy, 76 Gy, and 78 Gy groups, five-year biochemical disease-free survival rates were 95.0%, 97.8%, and 95.3%, respectively; metastasis-free survival rates were 99.1%, 100.0%, and 98.6%, respectively; and prostate cancer-specific survival rate was 100% for all three dose levels. There was no significant benefit for dose escalation either on univariate or multivariate analysis for any outcome. CONCLUSION: There was no benefit for DE-EBRT >74 Gy in our cohort of intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant ADT. Given the higher risks of toxicity associated with dose escalation, it may be feasible to omit dose escalation in this group of patients. Randomized studies evaluating dose de-escalation should be considered.

Is modern external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy still a viable alternative for prostate cancer in an era of robotic surgery and brachytherapy: a comparison of Australian series.

INTRODUCTION: We compare the results of modern external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT), using combined androgen deprivation and dose-escalated intensity-modulated radiotherapy with MRI-CT fusion and daily image guidance with fiducial markers (DE-IG-IMRT), with recently published Australian series of brachytherapy and surgery. METHODS: Five-year actuarial biochemical disease-free survival (bDFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS) and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCaSS) were calculated for 675 patients treated with DE-IG-IMRT and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Patients had intermediate-risk (IR) and high-risk (HR) disease. A search was conducted identifying Australian reports from 2005 onwards of IR and HR patients treated with surgery or brachytherapy, reporting actuarial outcomes at 3 years or later. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 59 months, our 5-year bDFS was 93.3% overall: 95.5% for IR and 91.3% for HR disease. MFS was 96.9% overall (99.0% IR, 94.9% HR), and PCaSS was 98.8% overall (100% IR, 97.7% HR). Prevalence of Grade 2 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity at 5 years was 1.3% and 1.6%, with 0.3% Grade 3 genitourinary toxicity and no Grade 3 gastrointestinal toxicity. Eight reports of brachytherapy and surgery were identified. The HDR brachytherapy series' median 5-year bDFS was 82.5%, MFS 90.0% and PCaSS 97.9%. One surgical series reported 5-year bDFS of 65.5% for HR patients. One LDR series reported 5-year bDFS of 85% for IR patients. CONCLUSIONS: Modern EBRT is at least as effective as modern Australian surgical and brachytherapy techniques. All patients considering treatment for localised prostate cancer should be referred to a radiation oncologist to discuss EBRT as an equivalent option.

Planning magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer intensity-modulated radiation therapy: Impact on target volumes, radiotherapy dose and androgen deprivation administration.

AIMS: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans are increasingly utilized for radiotherapy planning to contour the primary tumors of patients undergoing intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). These scans may also demonstrate cancer extent and may affect the treatment plan. We assessed the impact of planning MRI detection of extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion, or adjacent organ invasion on the staging, target volume delineation, doses, and hormonal therapy of patients with prostate cancer undergoing IMRT. METHODS: The records of 509 consecutive patients with planning MRI scans being treated with IMRT for prostate cancer between January 2010 and July 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. Tumor staging and treatment plans before and after MRI were compared. RESULTS: Of the 509 patients, 103 (20%) were upstaged and 44 (9%) were migrated to a higher risk category as a result of findings at MRI. In 94 of 509 patients (18%), the MRI findings altered management. Ninety-four of 509 patients (18%) had a change to their clinical target volume (CTV) or treatment technique, and in 41 of 509 patients (8%) the duration of hormone therapy was changed because of MRI findings. CONCLUSION: The use of radiotherapy planning MRI altered CTV design, dose and/or duration of androgen deprivation in 18% of patients in this large, single institution series of men planned for dose-escalated prostate IMRT. This has substantial implications for radiotherapy target volumes and doses, as well as duration of androgen deprivation. Further research is required to investigate whether newer MRI techniques can simultaneously fulfill staging and radiotherapy contouring roles.

Long-term outcomes from dose-escalated image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy with androgen deprivation: encouraging results for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Dose-escalated (DE) radiotherapy in the setting of localized prostate cancer has been shown to improve biochemical disease-free survival (bDFS) in several studies. In the same group of patients, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been shown to confer a survival benefit when combined with radiotherapy doses of up to 70 Gy; however, there is currently little long-term data on patients who have received high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with ADT. We report the long-term outcomes in a large cohort of patients treated with the combination of DE image-guided IMRT (IG-IMRT) and ADT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with localized prostate cancer were identified from a centralized database across an integrated cancer center. All patients received DE IG-IMRT, combined with ADT, and had a minimum follow up of 12 months post-radiotherapy. All relapse and toxicity data were collected prospectively. Actuarial bDFS, metastasis-free survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, and multivariate analyses were calculated using the SPSS v20.0 statistical package. RESULTS: Seven hundred and eighty-two eligible patients were identified with a median follow up of 46 months. Overall, 4.3% of patients relapsed, 2.0% developed distant metastases, and 0.6% died from metastatic prostate cancer. At 5-years, bDFS was 88%, metastasis-free survival was 95%, and prostate cancer-specific survival was 98%. Five-year grade 2 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity was 2.1% and 3.4%, respectively. No grade 3 or 4 late toxicities were reported. Pretreatment prostate specific antigen (P=0.001) and Gleason score (P=0.03) were significant in predicting biochemical failure on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: There is a high probability of tumor control with DE IG-IMRT combined with androgen deprivation, and this is a technique with a low probability of significant late toxicity. Our long term results corroborate the safety and efficacy of treating with IG-IMRT to high doses and compares favorably with published series for the treatment of prostate cancer.

Improved outcomes with intensity modulated radiation therapy combined with temozolomide for newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme.

Purpose. Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is optimally treated by maximal debulking followed by combined chemoradiation. Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is gaining widespread acceptance in other tumour sites, although evidence to support its use over three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) in the treatment of gliomas is currently lacking. We examined the survival outcomes for patients with GBM treated with IMRT and Temozolomide. Methods and Materials. In all, 31 patients with GBM were treated with IMRT and 23 of these received chemoradiation with Temozolomide. We correlated survival outcomes with patient functional status, extent of surgery, radiation dose, and use of chemotherapy. Results. Median survival for all patients was 11.3 months, with a median survival of 7.2 months for patients receiving 40.05 Gray (Gy) and a median survival of 17.4 months for patients receiving 60 Gy. Conclusions. We report one of the few series of IMRT in patients with GBM. In our group, median survival for those receiving 60 Gy with Temozolomide compared favourably to the combined therapy arm of the largest randomised trial of chemoradiation versus radiation to date (17.4 months versus 14.6 months). We propose that IMRT should be considered as an alternative to 3DCRT for patients with GBM.