Search

To evaluate patient choice of prostate cancer radiotherapy fractionation, using a decision aid. Recent ASTRO guidelines recommend patients with localised prostate cancer be offered moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy after discussing increased acute toxicity and uncertainty of long-term results compared to conventional fractionation. A decision aid was designed to outline the benefits and potential downsides of conventionally and moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy. The aid incorporated the ASTRO guideline to outline risks and benefits. In all, 124 patients with localised prostate cancer were seen from June-December 2018. Median age was 72 (range 50–90), 49.6 % were intermediate risk (50.4 % high risk). All except three patients made a choice using the aid; the three undecided patients were hypofractionated. In all, 33.9 % of patients chose hypofractionation: falling to 25.3 % for patients under 75 years, 24.3 % for patients living within 30 miles of the cancer centre, and 14.3 % for patients with baseline gastrointestinal symptoms. On multivariate analysis, younger age, proximity to the centre, and having baseline gastrointestinal symptoms significantly predicted for choosing conventional fractionation. Insurance status, attending clinician, baseline genitourinary symptoms, work/carer status, ECOG, cancer risk group and driving status did not impact choice. Reasons for choosing conventional fractionation were certainty of long-term results (84 %) and lower acute bowel toxicity (51 %). Most patients declined the convenience of moderate hypofractionation due to potentially increased acute toxicity, and the uncertainty of long-term outcomes. We advocate that no patient should be offered hypofractionation without a thorough discussion of uncertainty and acute toxicity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 intermediaterisk 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 cancerspecific 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Management of lymph node positive prostate cancer remains controversial. • There are no reports of PSMA PET-guided DE-IMRT with long-term ADT. • Dose-escalation to 81 Gy was delivered to the prostate and involved nodes. • We found 100% median 2-year failure-free survival, and excellent tolerability. • 37% of PET + LNs were outside contouring guidelines: the latter may require revision. There are no published reports of prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) guided dose-escalated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (DE-IMRT) in newly diagnosed lymph node (LN) positive prostate cancer. We report early toxicity and efficacy outcomes with this approach. Patients with newly diagnosed high-risk prostate cancer were staged using PSMA PET, computed tomography (CT) and bone scans. Patients with LN positive-only metastases were offered curative therapy using 3 months androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) followed by DE-IMRT (using volumetric arc therapy), and 3 years adjuvant ADT. All patients had fiducial marker insertion, with privately insured patients having spacer hydrogel insertion. PET and prostate magnetic resonance imaging were fused with the planning CT. We aimed to deliver 81 Gy in 45 fractions (Fx) to the prostate and PET-positive LNs, and 60 Gy in 45Fx to bilateral elective pelvic LNs. In all, 46 patients were treated, with 83% Gleason 8–10, 67% T3/T4, median number of LNs 2 (range 1–6), and median PET-positive LN volume 1.14 cc (range 0.15–4.14). LNs were outside of standard contouring guidelines in 37% of patients. The mean PET-positive LN clinical target volume dose ranged from 73.3 to 85.9 Gy (median 83.6 Gy). With 24 months median follow-up, two year failure-free survival was 100%, and 2 year overall survival 95.7%. Acute grade 1 and 2 GI toxicity occurred in 48 and 11% of patients, and GU toxicity in 72 and 24%. Late grade 1, 2 and 3 GI toxicity occurred in 13, 2 and 0%, and GU toxicity 28, 13 and 4%. No toxicity was attributable to the high dose LN boost. PSMA PET-guided DE-IMRT up to 81 Gy to the prostate and involved LNs, and long term ADT, is a promising approach for newly diagnosed LN positive prostate cancer. LN contouring guidelines require re-evaluation in the era of PSMA PET imaging. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Pelvic radiation disease (PRD) also widely known as “radiation proctopathy” is a well recognised late side-effect following conventional prostate radiotherapy. However, endoscopic evaluation and/or specialist referral for new or persistent post-prostate radiotherapy bowel symptoms is not routine and serious diagnoses may potentially be missed. Here we report a policy of endoscopic evaluation of bowel symptoms persisting >90days post radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Methods and materials: A consecutive series of 102 patients who had radical prostate intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT)/image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) and who had new or ongoing bowel symptoms or positive faecal occult blood tests (FOBT) on follow up visits more than three months after treatment, were referred for endoscopic examination. All but one (99%) had full colonoscopic investigation. Results: Endoscopic findings included gastric/colonic/rectal polyps (56%), diverticular disease (49%), haemorrhoids (38%), radiation proctopathy (29%), gastritis/oesophagitis (8%) and rarer diagnoses, including bowel cancer which was found in 3%. Only four patients (4%) had radiation proctopathy without associated pathology and 65 patients (63%) had more than one diagnosis. If flexible sigmoidoscopy alone were used, 36.6% of patients and 46.6% patients with polyp(s) would have had their diagnoses missed. Conclusions: Our study has shown that bowel symptoms following prostate IMRT/IGRT are due to numerous diagnoses other than PRD, including malignancy. Routine referral pathways should be developed for endoscopic evaluation/specialist review for patients with new or persistent bowel symptoms (or positive FOBT) following prostate radiotherapy. This recommendation should be considered for incorporation into national guidelines. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]