Advertisement

Ultrahypofractionated Proton Radiation Therapy in the Treatment of Low and Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer-5-Year Outcomes

Published:February 12, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.02.014

      Purpose

      To analyze the 5-year biochemical disease-free survival (bDFS) and late toxicity profile in patients with prostate cancer treated with pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton radiation therapy.

      Methods and Materials

      Between January 2013 and March 2016, 284 patients with prostate cancer were treated using intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT), with an ultrahypofractionated schedule (36.25 GyE in 5 fractions). Five patients were immediately lost from follow-up and thus were excluded from analysis. Data for 279 patients were prospectively collected and analyzed with a median follow-up time of 56.5 (range, 3.4-87.5) months. The mean age at time of treatment was 64.5 (40.1-85.7) years, and the median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) value was 6.35 μg/L (0.67-17.3 μg/L). A total of 121 (43.4%) patients had low-risk, 125 patients (44.8%) had favorable, and 33 (11.8%) unfavorable intermediate-risk cancer. In addition, 49 (17.6%) patients underwent neoadjuvant hormonal therapy, and no patients had adjuvant hormonal therapy. bDFS and late toxicity profiles were evaluated.

      Results

      The median treatment time was 9 days (range, 7-18 days). The 5-year bDFS was 96.9%, 91.7%, and 83.5% for the low-, favorable, and unfavorable intermediate-risk group, respectively. Late toxicity (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v.4) was as follows: gastrointestinal: grade 1, 62 patients (22%), grade 2, 20 patients (7.2%), and grade 3, 1 patient (0.36%); genitourinary: grade 1, 80 patients (28.7%), grade 2, 14 patients (5%), and grade 3, 0 patients. PSA relapse was observed in 17 patients (6.1%), and lymph node or bone recurrence was detected in 11 patients. Four (1.4%) local recurrences were detected. Nine patients (3.2%) died of causes unrelated to prostate cancer. No deaths related to prostate cancer were reported.

      Conclusion

      Ultrahypofractionated proton beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer is effective with long-term bDFS comparable with other fractionation schedules and with minimal serious long-term GI and GU toxicity.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
      ASTRO Member Login
      ASTRO Members, full access to the journal is a member benefit. Use your society credentials to access all journal content and features.
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Pan H.Y.
        • Jiang J.
        • Hoffman K.E.
        • et al.
        Comparative toxicities and cost of intensity-modulated radiotherapy, proton radiation, and stereotactic body radiotherapy among younger men with prostate cancer.
        J Clin Oncol. 2018; 36: 1823-1830
        • Bryant C.
        • Smith T.L.
        • Henderson R.H.
        • et al.
        Five-year biochemical results, toxicity, and patient-reported quality of life after delivery of dose-escalated image guided proton therapy for prostate cancer.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016; 95: 422-434
        • Takagi M.
        • Demizu Y.
        • Terashima K.
        • et al.
        Long-term outcomes in patients treated with proton therapy for localized prostate cancer.
        Cancer Med. 2017; 6: 2234-2243
        • Linney H.
        • Barrett S.
        Stereotactic body radiation therapy for patients with early-stage prostate cancer.
        Anticancer Res. 2018; 38: 1231-1240
        • Kishan A.U.
        • Dang A.
        • Katz A.J.
        • et al.
        Long-term outcomes of stereotactic body radiotherapy for low-risk and intermediate-risk prostate cancer.
        JAMA Netw Open. 2019; 2e188006
        • Grassberger C.
        • Paganetti H.
        Varying relative biological effectiveness in proton therapy: Knowledge gaps versus clinical significance.
        Acta Oncol. 2017; 56: 761-762
        • Giantsoudi D.
        • Adams J.
        • MacDonald S.
        • et al.
        Can differences in linear energy transfer and thus relative biological effectiveness compromise the dosimetric advantage of intensity-modulated proton therapy as compared to passively scattered proton therapy?.
        Acta Oncol. 2018; 57: 1259-1264
        • R
        The R project for statistical computing.
        (Available at:)
        https://www.R-project.org/
        Date accessed: February 26, 2021
        • King C.R.
        • Freeman D.
        • Kaplan I.
        • et al.
        Stereotactic body radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: Pooled analysis from a multi-institutional consortium of prospective phase II trials.
        Radiother Oncol. 2013; 109: 217-221
        • Katz A.J.
        • Kang J.
        Quality of life and toxicity after SBRT for organ-confined prostate cancer, a 7-year study.
        Front Oncol. 2014; 4: 301
        • Kishan A.U.
        • King C.R.
        Stereotactic body radiotherapy for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer.
        Semin Radiat Oncol. 2017; 27: 268-278
        • Iwata H.
        • Ishikawa H.
        • Takagi M.
        Long-term outcomes of proton therapy for prostate cancer in Japan: A multi-institutional survey of the Japanese Radiation Oncology Study Group.
        Cancer Med. 2018; 7: 677-689
        • Grewal A.S.
        • Schonewolf C.
        • Min E.J.
        • et al.
        Four-year outcomes from a prospective phase II clinical trial of moderately hypofractionated proton therapy for localized prostate cancer.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019; 105: 713-722
        • Henderson H.R.
        • Bryant C.
        • Hoppe B.S.
        • et al.
        Five-year outcomes from a prospective trial of image-guided accelerated hypofractionated proton therapy for prostate cancer.
        Acta Oncol. 2017; 56: 963-970
        • Vargas C.E.
        • Schmidt M.
        • Niska J.R.
        • et al.
        Initial toxicity, quality-of-life outcomes, and dosimetric impact in a randomized phase 3 trial of hypofractionated versus standard fractionated proton therapy for low-risk prostate cancer.
        Adv Radiat Oncol. 2018; 3: 322-330
        • Kirk M.L.
        • Tang S.
        • Zhai H.
        • et al.
        Comparison of prostate proton treatment planning technique, interfraction robustness, and analysis of single-field treatment feasibility.
        Pract Radiat Oncol. 2015; 5: 99-105
        • Chuong M.
        • Badiyan S.N.
        • Yam M.
        • et al.
        Pencil beam scanning versus passively scattered proton therapy for unresectable pancreatic cancer.
        J Gastrointest Oncol. 2018; 9: 687-693
        • Yoo G.S.
        • Yu J.I.
        • Cho S.
        • et al.
        Comparison of clinical outcomes between passive scattering versus pencil-beam scanning proton beam therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma.
        Radiother Oncol. 2020; 146: 187-193
        • Mishra M.V.
        • Khairnar R.
        • Bentzen S.M.
        • et al.
        Proton beam therapy delivered using pencil beam scanning vs. passive scattering/uniform scanning for localized prostate cancer: Comparative toxicity analysis of PCG 001-09.
        Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2019; 19: 80-86
        • Xie Y.
        • Djajaputra D.
        • King C.R.
        • et al.
        Intrafractional motion of the prostate during hypofractionated radiotherapy.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008; 72: 236-246
        • Curtis W.
        • Khan M.
        • Magnelli A.
        • et al.
        Relationship of imaging frequency and planning margin to account for intrafraction prostate motion: analysis based on real-time monitoring data.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013; 85: 700-706
        • Kole T.P.
        • Nichols R.C.
        • Lei S.
        • et al.
        A dosimetric comparison of ultra-hypofractionated passively scattered proton radiotherapy and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in the definitive treatment of localized prostate cancer.
        Acta Oncol. 2015; 54: 825-831
        • Bertolet A.
        • Carabe-Fernandez A.
        Clinical implications of variable relative biological effectiveness in proton therapy for prostate cancer.
        Acta Oncol. 2020; 59: 1171-1177

      Comments

      Commenting Guidelines

      To submit a comment for a journal article, please use the space above and note the following:

      • We will review submitted comments as soon as possible, striving for within two business days.
      • This forum is intended for constructive dialogue. Comments that are commercial or promotional in nature, pertain to specific medical cases, are not relevant to the article for which they have been submitted, or are otherwise inappropriate will not be posted.
      • We require that commenters identify themselves with names and affiliations.
      • Comments must be in compliance with our Terms & Conditions.
      • Comments are not peer-reviewed.