Genitourinary Quality-of-Life Comparison Between Urethral Sparing Prostate Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Monotherapy and Virtual High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy Boost.

PURPOSE: Although radiation dose escalation improves prostate cancer disease control, it can cause increased toxicity. Genitourinary (GU) symptoms after prostate radiation therapy affect patient health-related quality of life (QoL). We compared patient-reported GU QoL outcomes following 2 alternative urethral sparing stereotactic body radiation therapy regimens. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC)-26 GU scores were compared between 2 urethral sparing stereotactic body radiation therapy trials. The SPARK trial prescribed a "Monotherapy" dose of 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions to the prostate. The PROMETHEUS trial prescribed 2 phases: a 19- to 21-Gy in 2 fractions "Boost" to the prostate, followed by 46 Gy in 23 fractions or 36 Gy in 12 fractions. The biological effective dose (BED) for urethral toxicity was 123.9 Gy for Monotherapy and 155.8 to 171.2 Gy for Boost. Mixed effects logistic regression models were utilized to estimate the difference in the odds of a minimal clinically important change from baseline EPIC-26 GU score between regimens at each follow-up. RESULTS: 46 Monotherapy and 149 Boost patients completed baseline EPIC-26 scoring. Mean EPIC-26 GU scores revealed statistically superior urinary incontinence outcomes for Monotherapy at 12 months (mean difference, 6.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6-12.1; P = .01) and 36 months (mean difference, 9.6; 95% CI, 4.1-15.1; P < .01). Monotherapy also revealed superior mean urinary irritative/obstructive outcomes at 12 months (mean difference, 6.9; 95% CI, 2.0-12.9; P < .01) and 36 months (mean difference, 6.3; 95% CI, 1.9-10.8; P < .01). For both domains and at all time points, the absolute differences were <10%. There were no significant differences in the odds of reporting a minimal clinically important change between regimens at any time point. CONCLUSIONS: Even in the presence of urethral sparing, the higher BED delivered in the Boost schedule may have a small adverse effect on GU QoL compared with Monotherapy. However, this did not translate to statistically significant differences in minimal clinically important changes. Whether the higher BED of the boost arm offers an efficacy advantage is being investigated in the Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group 18.01 NINJA randomized trial.

The dosimetric error due to uncorrected tumor rotation during real-time adaptive prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy.

BACKGROUND: During prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), prostate tumor translational motion may deteriorate the planned dose distribution. Most of the major advances in motion management to date have focused on correcting this one aspect of the tumor motion, translation. However, large prostate rotation up to 30° has been measured. As the technological innovation evolves toward delivering increasingly precise radiotherapy, it is important to quantify the clinical benefit of translational and rotational motion correction over translational motion correction alone. PURPOSE: The purpose of this work was to quantify the dosimetric impact of intrafractional dynamic rotation of the prostate measured with a six degrees-of-freedom tumor motion monitoring technology. METHODS: The delivered dose was reconstructed including (a) translational and rotational motion and (b) only translational motion of the tumor for 32 prostate cancer patients recruited on a 5-fraction prostate SBRT clinical trial. Patients on the trial received 7.25 Gy in a treatment fraction. A 5 mm clinical target volume (CTV) to planning target volume (PTV) margin was applied in all directions except the posterior direction where a 3 mm expansion was used. Prostate intrafractional translational motion was managed using a gating strategy, and any translation above the gating threshold was corrected by applying an equivalent couch shift. The residual translational motion is denoted as T r e s $T_{res}$ . Prostate intrafractional rotational motion R u n c o r r $R_{uncorr}$ was recorded but not corrected. The dose differences from the planned dose due to T r e s $T_{res}$ + R u n c o r r $R_{uncorr}$ , ΔD( T r e s $T_{res}$ + R u n c o r r $R_{uncorr}$ ) and due to T r e s $T_{res}$ alone, ΔD( T r e s $T_{res}$ ), were then determined for CTV D98, PTV D95, bladder V6Gy, and rectum V6Gy. The residual dose error due to uncorrected rotation, R u n c o r r $R_{uncorr}$ was then quantified: Δ D R e s i d u a l $\Delta D_{Residual}$ = ΔD( T r e s $T_{res}$ + R u n c o r r $R_{uncorr}$ ) - ΔD( T res ${T}_{\textit{res}}$ ). RESULTS: Fractional data analysis shows that the dose differences from the plan (both ΔD( T r e s $T_{res}$ + R u n c o r r $R_{uncorr}$ ) and ΔD( T r e s $T_{res}$ )) for CTV D98 was less than 5% in all treatment fractions. ΔD( T r e s $T_{res}$ + R u n c o r r $R_{uncorr}$ ) was larger than 5% in one fraction for PTV D95, in one fraction for bladder V6Gy, and in five fractions for rectum V6Gy. Uncorrected rotation, R u n c o r r $R_{uncorr}$ induced residual dose error, Δ D R e s i d u a l $\Delta D_{Residual}$ , resulted in less dose to CTV and PTV in 43% and 59% treatment fractions, respectively, and more dose to bladder and rectum in 51% and 53% treatment fractions, respectively. The cumulative dose over five fractions, ∑D( T r e s $T_{res}$ + R u n c o r r $R_{uncorr}$ ) and ∑D( T r e s $T_{res}$ ), was always within 5% of the planned dose for all four structures for every patient. CONCLUSIONS: The dosimetric impact of tumor rotation on a large prostate cancer patient cohort was quantified in this study. These results suggest that the standard 3-5 mm CTV-PTV margin was sufficient to account for the intrafraction prostate rotation observed for this cohort of patients, provided an appropriate gating threshold was applied to correct for translational motion. Residual dose errors due to uncorrected prostate rotation were small in magnitude, which may be corrected using different treatment adaptation strategies to further improve the dosimetric accuracy.

Patterns of care and outcomes of men with germ cell tumors in a high-volume Australian center.

AIM: To evaluate disease presentation, treatment practices, and outcomes of patients with germ cell tumor (GCT) treated in a high-volume cancer center in Australia. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of 609 patients diagnosed with GCT in the Sydney West Cancer Network between 1990 and 2013. Cause and date of death, and second malignancy information was sourced from The Centre for Health Record Linkage. RESULTS: The median age was 33 years (range, 14-85). Primary site was testis in 590 (96.9%), mediastinum in nine (1.5%), and retroperitoneum in nine (1.5%). History of undescended testis was present in 48 (7.9%). Pure seminoma was seen in 334 (54.8%), with 274 (82.0%) being stage I. There was a decline in use of adjuvant radiotherapy from 83% in 1990-1997 to 29% in 2006-2013. Nonseminoma GCT (NSGCT) was diagnosed in 275 (45.2%), with 162 (58.9%) being stage 1. Active surveillance has increased as the initial treatment, from 58% between 1990 and 1997 to 89% between 2006 and 2013. Metastatic disease at presentation was seen in 162 (26.6%): 55 (34.0%) seminoma and 107 (66.0%) NSGCT. With median of 15-year follow-up, 18 (3.0%) have died from GCT and 70 (11.5%) from all causes. Ten-year overall survival was 93% and GCT-specific survival was 97%. Forty patients developed a secondary malignancy, with 38 receiving chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or both. CONCLUSIONS: This large Australian series illustrates a changing pattern of care and outcomes and compares them favorably with other series. This serves as a basis for future comparison of outcomes for this malignancy.

Evaluation of Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy Use and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Men With Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer in Australia and New Zealand.

Importance: Randomized clinical trials in prostate cancer have reported noninferior outcomes for hypofractionated radiation therapy (HRT) compared with conventional RT (CRT); however, uptake of HRT across jurisdictions is variable. Objective: To evaluate the use of HRT vs CRT in men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer and compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at a population level. Design, Setting, and Participants: Registry-based cohort study from the Australian and New Zealand Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry (PCOR-ANZ). Participants were men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer treated with primary RT (excluding brachytherapy) from January 2016 to December 2019. Data were analyzed in March 2021. Exposures: HRT defined as 2.5 to 3.3 Gy and CRT defined as 1.7 to 2.3 Gy per fraction. Main Outcomes and Measures: Temporal trends and institutional, clinicopathological, and sociodemographic factors associated with use of HRT were analyzed. PROs were assessed 12 months following RT using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC)-26 Short Form questionnaire. Differences in PROs were analyzed by adjusting for age and National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk category. Results: Of 8305 men identified as receiving primary RT, 6368 met the inclusion criteria for CRT (n = 4482) and HRT (n = 1886). The median age was 73.1 years (IQR, 68.2-77.3 years), 2.6% (168) had low risk, 45.7% (2911) had intermediate risk, 44.5% (2836) had high-/very high-risk, and 7.1% (453) had regional nodal disease. Use of HRT increased from 2.1% (9 of 435) in the first half of 2016 to 52.7% (539 of 1023) in the second half of 2019, with lower uptake in the high-/very high-risk (1.9% [4 of 215] to 42.4% [181 of 427]) compared with the intermediate-risk group (2.2% [4 of 185] to 67.6% [325 of 481]) (odds ratio, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.15-0.45). Substantial variability in the use of HRT for intermediate-risk disease remained at the institutional level (median 53.3%; range, 0%-100%) and clinician level (median 57.9%; range, 0%-100%) in the last 2 years of the study period. There were no clinically significant differences across EPIC-26 urinary and bowel functional domains or bother scores. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, use of HRT for prostate cancer increased substantially from 2016. This population-level data demonstrated clinically equivalent PROs and supports the continued implementation of HRT into routine practice. The wide variation in practice observed at the jurisdictional, institutional, and clinician level provides stakeholders with information that may be useful in targeting implementation strategies and benchmarking services.

Artificial intelligence and imaging biomarkers for prostate radiation therapy during and after treatment.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly used in the management of prostate cancer (PCa). Quantitative MRI (qMRI) parameters, derived from multi-parametric MRI, provide indirect measures of tumour characteristics such as cellularity, angiogenesis and hypoxia. Using Artificial Intelligence (AI), relevant information and patterns can be efficiently identified in these complex data to develop quantitative imaging biomarkers (QIBs) of tumour function and biology. Such QIBs have already demonstrated potential in the diagnosis and staging of PCa. In this review, we explore the role of these QIBs in monitoring treatment response during and after PCa radiotherapy (RT). Recurrence of PCa after RT is not uncommon, and early detection prior to development of metastases provides an opportunity for salvage treatments with curative intent. However, the current method of monitoring treatment response using prostate-specific antigen levels lacks specificity. QIBs, derived from qMRI and developed using AI techniques, can be used to monitor biological changes post-RT providing the potential for accurate and early diagnosis of recurrent disease.

Is multileaf collimator tracking or gating a better intrafraction motion adaptation strategy? An analysis of the TROG 15.01 stereotactic prostate ablative radiotherapy with KIM (SPARK) trial.

PURPOSE: Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy (SABR) has recently emerged as a favourable treatment option for prostate cancer patients. With higher doses delivered over fewer fractions, motion adaptation is a requirement for accurate delivery of SABR. This study compared the efficacy of multileaf collimator (MLC) tracking vs. gating as a real-time motion adaptation strategy for prostate SABR patients enrolled in a clinical trial. METHODS: Forty-four prostate cancer patients treated over five fractions in the TROG 15.01 SPARK trial were analysed in this study. Forty-nine fractions were treated using MLC tracking and 166 fractions were treated using beam gating and couch shifts. A time-resolved motion-encoded dose reconstruction method was used to evaluate the dose delivered using each motion adaptation strategy and compared to an estimation of what would have been delivered with no motion adaptation strategy implemented. RESULTS: MLC tracking and gating both delivered doses closer to the plan compared to when no motion adaptation strategy was used. Differences between MLC tracking and gating were small with differences in the mean discrepancy from the plan of -0.3% (CTV D98%), 1.4% (CTV D2%), 0.4% (PTV D95%), 0.2% (rectum V30Gy) and 0.0% (bladder V30Gy). On average, 0.5 couch shifts were required per gated fractions with a mean interruption duration of 1.8 ± 2.6 min per fraction treated using gating. CONCLUSION: Both MLC tracking and gating were effective strategies at improving the accuracy of the dose delivered to the target and organs at risk. While dosimetric performance was comparable, gating resulted in interruptions to treatment. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02397317.

The accuracy and precision of the KIM motion monitoring system used in the multi-institutional TROG 15.01 Stereotactic Prostate Ablative Radiotherapy with KIM (SPARK) trial.

PURPOSE: Kilovoltage intrafraction monitoring (KIM) allows for real-time image guidance for tracking tumor motion in six-degrees-of-freedom (6DoF) on a standard linear accelerator. This study assessed the geometric accuracy and precision of KIM used to guide patient treatments in the TROG 15.01 multi-institutional Stereotactic Prostate Ablative Radiotherapy with KIM trial and investigated factors affecting accuracy and precision. METHODS: Fractions from 44 patients with prostate cancer treated using KIM-guided SBRT were analyzed across four institutions, on two different linear accelerator models and two different beam models (6 MV and 10 MV FFF). The geometric accuracy and precision of KIM was assessed from over 33 000 images (translation) and over 9000 images (rotation) by comparing the real-time measured motion to retrospective kV/MV triangulation. Factors potentially affecting accuracy, including contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of kV images and incorrect marker segmentation, were also investigated. RESULTS: The geometric accuracy and precision did not depend on treatment institution, beam model or motion magnitude, but was correlated with gantry angle. The centroid geometric accuracy and precision of the KIM system for SABR prostate treatments was 0.0 ± 0.5, 0.0 ± 0.4 and 0.1 ± 0.3 mm for translation, and -0.1 ± 0.6°, -0.1 ± 1.4° and -0.1 ± 1.0° for rotation in the AP, LR and SI directions respectively. Centroid geometric error exceeded 2 mm for 0.05% of this dataset. No significant relationship was found between large geometric error and CNR or marker segmentation correlation. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the ability of KIM to locate the prostate with accuracy below other uncertainties in radiotherapy treatments, and the feasibility for KIM to be implemented across multiple institutions.

Radiotherapy for node-positive prostate cancer: 2019 Recommendations of the Australian and New Zealand Radiation Oncology Genito-Urinary group.

The management of node-positive prostate cancer is highly variable, with both locoregional and systemic treatment options available. With the increasing use of novel imaging techniques such as PSMA-PET and MRI, combined with the increasing use of surgery for high-risk prostate cancer, clinical and pathological regional nodal disease is being detected at a higher rate and at an earlier stage than previously. This creates a window for a potentially curative management approach. The role of radiotherapy including optimal radiation target volumes and dose, as well as the timing and duration of accompanying systemic therapy remains uncertain. At a workshop in 2017, the Australian and New Zealand Faculty of Radiation Oncology Genito-Urinary Group (FROGG) identified variations in the management of node-positive prostate cancer identified on primary staging or on histopathology at radical prostatectomy. FROGG reviewed the literature and developed a set of evidence-based recommendations on the appropriate investigation and management of clinically and pathologically node-positive prostate cancer. These recommendations encompass imaging techniques, radiation treatment target volumes and doses, as well as the use of androgen deprivation therapy.

Radiotherapy for recurrent prostate cancer: 2018 Recommendations of the Australian and New Zealand Radiation Oncology Genito-Urinary group.

The management of patients with biochemical, local, nodal, or oligometastatic relapsed prostate cancer has become more challenging and controversial. Novel imaging modalities designed to detect recurrence are increasingly used, particularly PSMA-PET scans in Australia, New Zealand and some European countries. Imaging techniques such as MRI and PET scans using other prostate cancer-specific tracers are also being utilised across the world. The optimal timing for commencing salvage treatment, and the role of local and/or systemic therapies remains controversial. Through surveys of the membership, the Australian and New Zealand Faculty of Radiation Oncology Genito-Urinary Group (FROGG) identified wide variation in the management of recurrent prostate cancer. Following a workshop conducted in April 2017, the FROGG management committee reviewed the literature and developed a set of recommendations based on available evidence and expert opinion, for the appropriate investigation and management of recurrent prostate cancer. These recommendations cover the role and timing of post-prostatectomy radiotherapy, the management of regional nodal metastases and oligometastases, as well as the management of local prostate recurrence after definitive radiotherapy.

Dosimetric comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy and linear accelerator-based radiosurgery for the treatment of one to four brain metastases.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study is to compare and evaluate volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and linear accelerator-based radiosurgery (Linac RS) for the treatment of one to four brain metastases. METHODS: Radiotherapy plans for 10 patients with 1 to 4 brain metastases that were planned and treated using conventional Linac RS were replanned using a mono-isocentric VMAT technique using two to four arcs. The same doses, target volumes and organs at risk (OAR) were used in both plans. The plans were evaluated for target volume coverage, dose conformity, homogeneity and dose to OAR. RESULTS: For VMAT plans, 18/19 brain metastases met acceptable Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) radiosurgery dose coverage, homogeneity and conformity criteria. There was no observed difference between the mean homogeneity indices for VMAT and Linac RS plans. VMAT plans had a lower mean RTOG conformity index compared with the Linac RS plans (1.10 ± 0.06 versus 2.06 ± 1.02). For the OAR, there was no difference in maximal doses to the brain stem, optic chiasm or optic nerves. The volume of normal brain receiving 12 Gy was lower in the VMAT plans (13.3 cm(3) versus 23.1 cm(3) ) compared with the Linac RS plans. The mean total number of monitor units (MUs) was 31.3% less in the VMAT plans (5231.2 MU versus 3593.5 MU). CONCLUSIONS: Mono-isocentric VMAT plans using two to four arcs meet RTOG radiosurgery quality criteria in patients with one to four brain metastases, with an improvement in conformity and 12-Gy normal brain volume when compared with patients treated with Linac RS at our institution.

FROGG high-risk prostate cancer workshop: patterns of practice and literature review. Part II post-radical prostatectomy.

Australian and New Zealand radiation oncologists with an interest in uro-oncology were invited to undertake a pattern of practice survey dealing with issues encountered in the management of high-risk prostate cancer in the post-prostatectomy setting. Responses from practitioners revealed a lack of consensus regarding the optimal timing of radiation therapy, the use of whole pelvic radiation therapy and the use of androgen deprivation therapy. A review of the literature outlining the current body of knowledge and the clinical studies that will inform future practice is presented.

FROGG high-risk prostate cancer workshop: patterns of practice and literature review: part I: intact prostate.

Australian and New Zealand radiation oncologists with an interest in uro-oncology were invited to participate in a pattern-of-practice survey dealing with the management of intact high-risk prostate cancer. Responses from 46 practitioners (representing 73% of all potential respondents) revealed that high-dose radiation therapy is the standard of care. However, there is variability in practice with regard to the methods used to achieve dose escalation, the use of whole-pelvic radiation therapy and the optimal duration of androgen deprivation therapy employed. A review of the literature outlining the current body of knowledge and the planned and ongoing studies in intact high-risk prostate cancer is presented.

Deep inspiration breath hold technique reduces heart dose from radiotherapy for left-sided breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Adjuvant left breast radiotherapy (ALBR) for breast cancer can result in significant radiation dose to the heart. Current evidence suggests a dose-response relationship between the risk of cardiac morbidity and radiation dose to cardiac volumes. This study explores the potential benefit of utilising a deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) technique to reduce cardiac doses. METHODS: Thirty patients with left-sided breast cancer underwent CT-simulation scans in free breathing (FB) and DIBH. Treatment plans were generated using a hybrid intensity-modulated radiation therapy technique with simultaneous integrated boost. A dosimetric comparison was made between the two techniques for the heart, left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD), left lung and contralateral breast. RESULTS: Compared with FB, DIBH resulted in a significant reduction in heart V30 (7.1 vs. 2.4%, P < 0.0001), mean heart dose (6.9 vs. 3.9 Gy, P < 0.001), maximum LAD planning risk volume (PRV) dose, (51.6 vs. 45.6 Gy, P = 0.0032) and the mean LAD PRV dose (31.7 vs. 21.9 Gy, P < 0.001). No significant difference was noted for lung V20, mean lung dose or mean dose to the contralateral breast. The DIBH plans demonstrated significantly larger total lung volumes (1126 vs. 2051 cc, P < 0.0001), smaller maximum heart depth (2.08 vs. 1.17 cm, P < 0.0001) and irradiated heart volume (36.9 vs. 12.1 cc, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: DIBH resulted in a significant reduction in radiation dose to the heart and LAD compared with an FB technique for ALBR. Ongoing research is required to determine optimal cardiac dose constraints and methods of predicting which patients will derive the most benefit from a DIBH technique.