A Multi-Institutional Phase 2 Trial of High-Dose SAbR for Prostate Cancer Using Rectal Spacer.

PURPOSE: High-dose SABR for prostate cancer offers the radiobiologic potency of the most intensified radiation therapy regimens but was associated with >90% rates of ulceration of the anterior rectal wall on endoscopic assessment; this infrequently progressed to severe rectal toxicity in prior prospective series. A multi-institutional phase 2 prospective trial was conducted to assess whether placement of a perirectal hydrogel spacer would reduce acute periprostatic rectal ulcer events after high-dose (>40 Gy) SABR. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eligible patients included men with stage ≤T2c localized grade group 1 to 3 prostate cancer, a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level ≤15 ng/mL, American Urological Association Symptom Index = AUA-SI scores ≤18, and a gland volume ≤80 cm3. Patients underwent perirectal hydrogel spacer placement, followed by SABR of 45 Gy in 5 fractions every other day to the prostate only. Androgen deprivation was not allowed except for cytoreduction. The rectal wall was directly assessed by serial anoscopy during follow-up to determine whether the spacer would reduce acute periprostatic rectal ulcer events from >90% to <70% within 9 months of treatment. RESULTS: Forty-four men were enrolled and 43 were eligible for protocol analysis. The median follow-up for surviving patients was 48 months. Acute periprostatic ulcers were observed in 6 of 42 patients (14.3%; 95% confidence interval, 6.0%-27%; P < .001) at a median of 2.9 months posttreatment (range, 1.7-5.6 months). All ulcers (grade 1, 5 ulcers; grade 2, 1 ulcer) resolved on repeat anoscopy within 8 months of incidence. There were no grade ≥3 late gastrointestinal toxicities; the incidence of late grade-2 gastrointestinal toxicities was 14.3%, with a prevalence at 3 years of 0%. No toxicities greater than grade 3 occurred in any domain. Four-year freedom from biochemical failure was 93.8% (95% CI, 85.2%-100.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Temporary hydrogel spacer placement before high-dose SABR treatment for localized prostate cancer and use of strict dose constraints are associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of rectal ulcer events compared with prior phase 1/2 trial results.

Natural history of 'second' biochemical failure after salvage radiation therapy for prostate cancer: a multi-institution study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the natural history of prostate cancer in men who experience a second biochemical recurrence (BCR) after salvage radiotherapy (SRT) after prostatectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: After undergoing SRT at one of two institutions between 1986 and 2013, 286 patients experienced a second BCR, defined as two rises in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of ≥0.2 ng/mL above nadir. Event rates for distant metastasis (DM) or freedom from DM (FFDM), castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS), and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox regression was used for comparative analyses. RESULTS: At a median of 6.1 years after second BCR, DM, CRPC, PCSS and OS rates were 41%, 27%, 83% and 73%, respectively. On multivariable analysis, interval to second BCR <1 year (hazard ratio [HR] 2.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.71-4.14; P < 0.001], Gleason score 8-10 (HR 1.65, 95% CI 1.07-2.54; P = 0.022), and concurrent ADT during SRT (HR 1.76, 95% CI 1.08-2.88; P = 0.024) were associated with FFDM, while PCSS was associated with interval to second BCR <1 year (HR 3.00, 95% CI 1.69-5.32; P < 0.001) and concurrent ADT during SRT (HR 2.15, CI 1.13-4.08; P = 0.019). These risk factors were used to stratify patients into three groups, with 6-year FFDM rates of 71%, 59% and 33%, and PCSS rates of 89%, 79%, and 65%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Following second BCR after SRT, clinical progression is enriched in a subgroup of patients with prostate cancer, while others remain without DM for long intervals. Stratifying patients into risk groups using prognostic factors may aid counselling and future trial design.

Dosimetric comparison of rectal-sparing capabilities of rectal balloon vs injectable spacer gel in stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer: lessons learned from prospective trials.

This study aimed to compare the rectal-sparing capabilities of rectal balloons vs absorbable injectable spacer gel in stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer. Patient samples included in this analysis were obtained from 2 multi-institutional prospective trials of SBRT for prostate cancer using a rectal balloon (n = 36 patients) and injectable spacer gel (n = 36). Treatment prescription dose was 45 Gy in 5 fractions in 42 patients; for equal comparison, the remaining 30 patients were rescaled to 45 Gy from 47.5 Gy prescription (n = 6) and 50 Gy prescription (n = 24). The median prostate volumes and body mass index in the 2 patient samples were not statistically significantly different (p= 0.67 and 0.45, respectively), supporting anatomic similarity between cohorts. The injectable spacer gel achieved dosimetric superiority over the rectal balloon with respect to the maximum dose to the rectum (42.3 vs 46.2 Gy, p < 0.001), dose delivered to 33% of the rectal circumference (28 vs 35.1 Gy, p < 0.001), and absolute volume of rectum receiving 45 Gy (V45Gy), V40Gy, and V30Gy (0.3 vs 1.7 cc, 1 vs 5.4 cc, and 4.1 vs 9.6 cc, respectively; p < 0.001 in all cases). There was no difference between the 2 groups with respect to the V50Gy of the rectum or the dose to 50% of the rectal circumference (p= 0.29 and 0.06, respectively). The V18.3Gy of the bladder was significantly larger with the rectal balloon (19.9 vs 14.5 cc, p= 0.003). In this analysis of patients enrolled on 2 consecutive multi-institutional prospective trials of SBRT for prostate cancer, the injectable spacer gel outperformed the rectal balloon in the majority of the examined and relevant dosimetric rectal-sparing parameters. The rectal balloon did not outperform the injectable spacer gel in any measured rectal dose parameter.

Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SAbR) for oligometastatic cancer.

The metastatic state of most solid cancers traditionally has been regarded as an incurable dissemination of disease, with treatment focused on delaying progression rather than eliminating all tumour burden. In this setting, local therapies including surgery and radiotherapy are directed at quality of life end points and not at improvement in survival. However, improvements in imaging and systemic therapy have highlighted populations of patients with lower burden of metastatic disease, termed "oligometastatic," who may present an exception. This condition is hypothesized to bridge the gap between incurable metastatic disease and locoregional disease, where miliary spread either has not occurred or remains eradicable. Consequently, elimination of such low-burden residual disease may "cure" some patients or delay further progression. Accordingly, use of local therapies with the intent of improving survival in oligometastatic disease has increased. Technological advances in radiation delivery with stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SAbR) in particular have provided a non-invasive and low-morbidity option. While observational studies have provided interesting preliminary data, significant work remains necessary to prove the merits of this treatment paradigm. This review discusses the data for the oligometastatic state and its treatment with SAbR, as well as challenges to its investigation.

Radiation therapy as a backbone of treatment of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) is a heterogeneous disease, encompassing stage IIIA, for which surgery in combination with chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy (RT) represents a potential treatment approach for select patients, and stage IIIB, for which chemoradiation represents the standard of care. Recent advances in systemic cytotoxic and molecularly targeted therapies coupled with technologic innovations in radiotherapy have the potential to improve outcomes for this patient population. Many ongoing clinical trials use specific genetic mutations or histologic status to determine the combination of targeted therapies and RT, as well as to determine the optimal chemoradiotherapy platforms. Additionally, use of modern RT techniques has improved outcomes for some patients with limited metastatic disease, thereby prompting further studies on how to best integrate aggressive management of oligometastases using RT with chemotherapeutic regimens.