Search

Background Prostate cancer is the second most common malignancy worldwide, and the majority of patients are diagnosed with localized disease. We examined patients’ quality of life after stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer. Methods We included patients who were treated between 2016 and 2020. Inclusion criteria were adenocarcinoma of the prostate; class risk of low, intermediate, and high; and a World Health Organization performance status of 0–2. Quality of life was measured using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P). Results A total of 439 patients were treated with SBRT, with a median age of 73 years old. The median follow-up period was 34 months. FACT-P Trial Outcome Index (p p = 0.0003), and FACT-P-Total (p Conclusions This study showed longitudinal changes in quality of life by FACT-P after SBRT for prostate cancer. Overall, prostate SBRT was well tolerated.

Background The aim of this study was to clarify the association between intrafractional prostate shift and hydrogel spacer. Methods Thirty-eight patients who received definitive volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT)-stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer with prostate motion monitoring in our institution in 2018–2019 were retrospectively evaluated. In order to move the rectum away from the prostate, hydrogel spacer (SpaceOAR system, Boston Scientific, Marlborough, the United States) injection was proposed to the patients as an option in case of meeting the indication of use. We monitored intrafractional prostate motion by using a 4-dimensional (4D) transperineal ultrasound device: the Clarity 4D ultrasound system (Elekta AB). The deviation of the prostate was monitored in each direction: superior-inferior, left–right, and anterior–posterior. We also calculated the vector length. The maximum intrafractional displacement (MID) per fraction for each direction was detected and mean of MIDs was calculated per patient. The MIDs in the non-spacer group and the spacer group were compared using the unpaired t-test. Results We reviewed 33 fractions in eight patients as the spacer group and 148 fractions in 30 patients as the non-spacer group. The superior MID was 0.47 ± 0.07 (mean ± SE) mm versus 0.97 ± 0.24 mm (P = 0.014), the inferior MID was 1.07 ± 0.11 mm versus 1.03 ± 0.25 mm (P = 0.88), the left MID was 0.74 ± 0.08 mm versus 0.87 ± 0.27 mm (P = 0.55), the right MID was 0.67 ± 0.08 mm versus 0.92 ± 0.21 mm (P = 0.17), the anterior MID was 0.45 ± 0.06 mm versus 1.16 ± 0.35 mm (P = 0.0023), and the posterior MID was 1.57 ± 0.17 mm versus 1.37 ± 0.22 mm (P = 0.56) in the non-spacer group and the spacer group, respectively. The max of VL was 2.24 ± 0.19 mm versus 2.89 ± 0.62 mm (P = 0.19), respectively. Conclusions Our findings suggest that maximum intrafractional prostate motion during VMAT-SBRT was larger in patients with hydrogel spacer injection in the superior and anterior directions. Since this difference seemed not to disturb the dosimetric advantage of the hydrogel spacer, we do not recommend routine avoidance of the hydrogel spacer use.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) leads to recurrence in approximately 18% of patients. We aimed to extract the radiomic features, with which we predicted clinical outcomes and to establish predictive models. Patients with primary non-metastatic NSCLC who were treated with SBRT between 2002 and 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. The 358 primary tumors were randomly divided into a training cohort of 250 tumors and a validation cohort of 108 tumors. Clinical features and 744 radiomic features derived from primary tumor delineation on pre-treatment computed tomography were examined as prognostic factors of survival outcomes by univariate and multivariate analyses in the training cohort. Predictive models of survival outcomes were established from the results of the multivariate analysis in the training cohort. The selected radiomic features and prediction models were tested in a validation cohort. We found that one radiomic feature showed a significant difference in overall survival (OS) in the validation cohort (p = 0.044) and one predicting model could estimate OS time (mean: 37.8 months) similar to the real OS time (33.7 months). In this study, we identified one radiomic factor and one prediction model that can be widely used.

Prostate cancer represents the second most common malignancy in the world and majority of patients have diagnosis of localized disease. We examined quality of life after stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer. We included patients treated between 2016 and 2020. Inclusion criteria were: adenocarcinoma of the prostate; class risks low, intermediate, and high; WHO performance status 0-2. QoL was measured using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Prostate (FACT-P). 439 patients were included, treated with SBRT. Median age was 73. Median follow-up was 34 months. FACT P-TOI (p < 0.0001), FACT G Total (p = 0.0003), and FACT P-total (p < 0.0001) declined at 1 month after the last SBRT, then recovered, and returned to the same level as before treatment at 3-4 month. The decrease in QoL at the first month was particularly remarkable in patients who received long-term hormone injections (36% patients). One month after the end of SBRT, about 22% patients were "quite a bit” or more in trouble with any side effect. We showed the longitudinal changes of quality of life by FACT-P after SBRT for prostate cancer. Prostate SBRT appears to be overall well tolerated.

Background The efficacy of a hydrogel spacer in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) has not been clarified. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of SBRT in combination with a hydrogel spacer for prostate cancer. Methods This is a prospective single-center, single-arm phase II study. Prostate cancer patients without lymph node or distant metastasis were eligible. All patients received a hydrogel spacer insertion, followed by SBRT of 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions with volumetric modulated arc therapy. The primary endpoint was physician-assessed acute gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity within 3 months. The secondary endpoints were physician-assessed acute genitourinary (GU) toxicity, patient-reported outcomes evaluated by the EPIC and FACT-P questionnaires, and dosimetric comparison. We used propensity score-matched analyses to compare patients with the hydrogel spacer with those without the spacer. The historical data of the control without a hydrogel spacer was obtained from our hospital’s electronic records. Results Forty patients were enrolled between February 2017 and July 2018. A hydrogel spacer significantly reduced the dose to the rectum. Grade 2 acute GI and GU toxicity occurred in seven (18%) and 17 (44%) patients. The EPIC bowel and urinary summary score declined from the baseline to the first month (P Conclusions SBRT with a hydrogel spacer had the dosimetric benefits of reducing the rectal doses. The use of the hydrogel spacer did not reduce physician-assessed acute toxicity, but it improved patient-reported acute bowel toxicity. Trial registration: Trial registration: UMIN-CTR, UMIN000026213. Registered 19 February 2017, https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000029385.

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to clarify the association between intrafractional prostate shift and hydrogel spacer.MethodsThirty-eight patients who received definitive volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT)-stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer with prostate motion monitoring in our institution in 2018–2019 were retrospectively evaluated. In order to move the rectum away from the prostate, hydrogel spacer (SpaceOAR system, Boston Scientific, Marlborough, the United States) injection was proposed to the patients as an option in case of meeting the indication of use. We monitored intrafractional prostate motion by using a 4-dimensional (4D) transperineal ultrasound (US) device: the Clarity 4D ultrasound system (Elekta AB). The deviation of the prostate was monitored in each direction: superior-inferior (SI), left-right (LR), and anterior-posterior (AP). We also calculated the vector length (VL). The maximum intrafractional displacement (MID) per fraction for each direction was detected and mean of MIDs was calculated per patient. The MIDs in the non-spacer group and the spacer group were compared using the unpaired t-test.ResultsWe reviewed 33 fractions in eight patients as the spacer group and 148 fractions in 30 patients as the non-spacer group. The superior MID was 0.47 ± 0.07 (mean ± SE) mm vs. 0.97 ± 0.24 mm (P = 0.014), the inferior MID was 1.07 ± 0.11 mm vs. 1.03 ± 0.25 mm (P = 0.88), the left MID was 0.74 ± 0.08 mm vs. 0.87 ± 0.27 mm (P = 0.55), the right MID was 0.67 ± 0.08 mm vs. 0.92 ± 0.21 mm (P = 0.17), the anterior MID was 0.45 ± 0.06 mm vs. 1.16 ± 0.35 mm (P = 0.0023), and the posterior MID was 1.57 ± 0.17 mm vs. 1.37 ± 0.22 mm (P = 0.56) in the non-spacer group and the spacer group, respectively. The max of VL was 2.24 ± 0.19 mm vs. 2.89 ± 0.62 mm (P = 0.19), respectively.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that intrafractional prostate motion during VMAT-SBRT was larger in patients with hydrogel spacer injection in the superior and anterior directions.

Objectives We aimed to compare the dose constraints fulfillment rate of the three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy treatment plan before and after a hydrogel spacer insertion. Methods The planning computed tomography scans of 39 patients who received stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer were used. All patients inserted a hydrogel spacer and underwent computed tomography scans before and after spacer insertion. The three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy plans according to NCCN classification, low-, intermediate- and high-risk, were made for each patient. Clinical target volume included prostate and seminal vesicle 2 cm for high risk, prostate and seminal vesicle 1 cm for intermediate risk and prostate only for low risk. Three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy including a seven-field conformal technique with 76 Gy in 38 fractions. Dose constraints for rectum and bladder were V70 Gy ≤ 15%, V65 Gy ≤ 30% and V40 Gy ≤ 60%. Results Among 39 patients, 35 (90%), 19 (49%) and 13 (33%) and 38 (97%), 38 (97%) and 34 (87%) patients before and after the spacer insertion fulfilled rectum dose constraints for low-, intermediate- and high-risk plans, respectively. A hydrogel spacer significantly reduced rectum dose and improved the rectum dose constraints fulfillment rate in intermediate (P Conclusions A hydrogel spacer reduced rectum dose and improved the dose constraints fulfillment rate in three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy plan. Although IMRT is the standard treatment, 3D-CRT using a hydrogel spacer may be a treatment option.