Search

Purpose: To determine the effect of daily shifts based on rigid registration to intraprostatic markers on coverage of boost doses delivered to gross nodal disease for prostate cancer. Methods and Materials: Seventy-five cone beam computed tomographies (CBCTs) from 15 patients treated with definitive radiation for clinically node-positive prostate cancer underwent fiducial-based and pelvic bony-based registration to the initial planning scans. Gross tumor volumes of nodal boost targets were contoured directly on each CBCT registration. The nodal displacement (3-dimensional translation from the node centroid on planning CT to node centroid on registered CBCT) and dose coverage (minimum dose [Dmin], mean dose [Dmean], dose delivered to 95% of the gross tumor volumes [D95]) were calculated for each registration on all nodal targets. All doses for each node were normalized to its intended prescription dose (dose covering 95% of a 3 mm planning target volume [PTV] expansion). Results: Forty-one gross nodal targets were analyzed. Most boosted nodes (80.5%, 33/41) were treated with conventional fractionation using volumetric-arc radiation therapy, and 19.5% (8/41) underwent stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Dmin, Dmean, and D95 were all significantly lower with fiducial-based registration compared with bony-based registration (P < .0001). Nodal displacement was significantly higher for fiducial-based registrations (P < .0001). The 3-dimensional translation between the fiducial-based and bony-based registrations (bony-to-fiducial vector) was the most significant predictor of nodal displacement (P < .0001). On fiducial-based registrations, a 3 to 5 mm gross nodal PTV margin is sufficient in most directions; however, superior and posterior margins of 8 to 9 mm are required as a result of asymmetrical prostatic motion. Conclusions: Large and anisotropic PTV margins are likely needed to adequately dose gross nodal targets when patient setup is based on rigid registration to intraprostatic markers. Alternative approaches such as adaptive replanning may be required to overcome these limitations.

Purpose: During a global pandemic, the benefit of routine visits and treatment of patients with cancer must be weighed against the risks to patients, staff, and society. Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers radiation oncology departments treat, and efficient resource utilization is essential in the setting of a pandemic. Herein, we aim to establish recommendations and a framework by which to evaluate prostate radiation therapy management decisions. Methods and Materials: Radiation oncologists from the United States and the United Kingdom rapidly conducted a systematic review and agreed upon recommendations to safely manage patients with prostate cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. A RADS framework was created: remote visits, and avoidance, deferment, and shortening of radiation therapy was applied to determine appropriate approaches. Results: Recommendations were provided by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group regarding clinical node-positive, postprostatectomy, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1 disease. Across all prostate cancer stages, telemedicine consultations and return visits were recommended when resources/staff available. Delays in consultations and return visits of between 1 and 6 months were deemed safe based on stage of disease. Treatment can be avoided or delayed until safe for very low, low, and favorable intermediate-risk disease. Unfavorable intermediate-risk, high-risk, clinical node-positive, recurrence postsurgery, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1 disease can receive neoadjuvant hormone therapy for 4 to 6 months as necessary. Ultrahypofractionation is preferred for localized, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1, and moderate hypofractionation is preferred for postprostatectomy and clinical node positive disease. Salvage is preferred to adjuvant radiation. Conclusions: Resources can be reduced for all identified stages of prostate cancer. The RADS (remote visits, and avoidance, deferment, and shortening of radiation therapy) framework can be applied to other disease sites to help with decision making in a global pandemic.

Purpose: To establish the safety and efficacy of gantry-mounted linear accelerator-based stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Methods: We pooled 921 patients enrolled on 7 single-institution prospective phase II trials of gantry-based SBRT from 2006 to 2017. The cumulative incidences of biochemical recurrence (defined by the Phoenix definition) and physician-scored genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities (defined per the original trials using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events) were estimated using a competing risk framework. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the relationship between late toxicity and prespecified covariates: biologically effective dose, every other day versus weekly fractionation, intrafractional motion monitoring, and acute toxicity. Results: Median follow-up was 3.1 years (range, 0.5-10.8 years). In addition, 505 (54.8%) patients had low-risk disease, 236 (25.6%) had favorable intermediate-risk disease, and 180 (19.5%) had unfavorable intermediate-risk disease. Intrafractional motion monitoring was performed in 78.0% of patients. The 3-year cumulative incidence of biochemical recurrence was 0.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0-1.7%), 2.2% (95% CI, 0-4.3%), and 5.1% (95% CI, 1.0-9.2%) for low-, favorable intermediate-, and unfavorable intermediate-risk disease. Acute grade ≥2 GU and GI toxicity occurred in 14.5% and 4.6% of patients, respectively. Three-year cumulative incidence estimates of late grade 2 GU and GI toxicity were 4.1% (95% CI, 2.6-5.5%) and 1.3% (95% CI, 0.5-2.1%), respectively, with late grade ≥3 GU and GI toxicity estimates of 0.7% (95% CI, 0.1-1.3%) and 0.4% (95% CI, 0-0.8%), respectively. The only identified significant predictors of late grade ≥2 toxicity were acute grade ≥2 toxicity (P < .001) and weekly fractionation (P < .01), although only 12.4% of patients were treated weekly. Conclusions: Gantry-based SBRT for prostate cancer is associated with a favorable safety and efficacy profile, despite variable intrafractional motion management techniques. These findings suggest that multiple treatment platforms can be used to safely deliver prostate SBRT.

Purpose: To evaluate the safety of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer in men with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Methods and Materials: We queried a consortium database for patients with IBD receiving SBRT for prostate cancer between 2006 and 2012. Identified patients were matched with patients without a history of IBD in a 3:1 fashion based on dose, fractionation, use of androgen deprivation therapy, and age distribution. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between having IBD and experiencing acute and late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities as scored on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events scale. Time to late toxicity was evaluated using proportional hazard Cox models. Our study was limited by absence of data on prostate size, baseline International Prostate Symptom Score, and rectal dose-volume histogram parameters. Results: Thirty-nine patients with flare-free IBD at time of treatment (median follow-up 83.9 months) and 117 matched controls (median follow-up 88.7 months) were identified. A diagnosis of IBD was associated with increased odds of developing any late grade GI toxicity (odds ratio [OR] 6.11, P

Purpose: Second malignancies (SMs) after radiation therapy are rare but serious sequelae of treatment. This study investigates whether radiation therapy use is associated with changes in baseline SM risk. Methods and Materials: We extracted all patients with cancer, with or without SM, in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database from 1973 to 2014. Cumulative incidence of SM for patients stratified by radiation therapy status was calculated using a competing risk model, both for the entire cohort and for subgroups based on the primary tumor's anatomic location. Results: We identified 2,872,063 patients with cancer, including 761,289 patients who received radiation therapy and 2,110,774 who did not. The SM rate at 20 years for patients receiving radiation therapy versus no radiation therapy was 21.4% versus 18.8%. The relative risk for SM associated with radiation therapy for the overall group was 1.138 at 20 years. The relative risks for SM associated with radiation therapy to malignancies arising from central nervous system and orbits, head and neck, thorax, abdomen, and pelvis at 20 years were 0.704, 1.011, 0.559, 0.646, and 1.106 for men and 0.792, 1.298, 1.265, 0.780, and 0.988 for women, respectively. Conclusions: The association between SM and radiation therapy varies with both sex and disease anatomic location, with the largest increase in SM seen in females irradiated to the head and neck region. Overall, the absolute change in SM rates associated with radiation therapy remains small, with differences in various clinical contexts.