Search

Background: In recent years, site-directed therapies (SDTs) targeting progressive lesions in patients with oligometastatic prostate cancer have attracted attention. However, whether they effectively treat oligoprogressive castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) remains unclear. Here, we investigated the efficacy of SDT in patients with oligoprogressive CRPC and identified prognostic factors. Methods: We reviewed 59 patients with oligoprogressive CRPC who underwent SDT targeting prostate or metastatic lesions between April 2014 and March 2022. We evaluated the associations between several pretreatment clinical variables and treatment procedures and a >50% prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response, progression-free survival (PFS), and time to next treatment (TTNT). Results: A PSA response of >50% was observed in 66% of patients. The median PFS and TTNT were 8.3 months and 9.9 months, respectively. Patients with PSA doubling time ≥6 months showed a higher >50% PSA response rate (87% vs. 45%; P 50% PSA response, favorable PFS, and TTNT (P = 0.037, 0.025, and 0.017, respectively). Conclusion: PSA doubling time of ≥6 months may be a key indicator of the favorable efficacy of SDT for oligoprogressive CRPC.

Abstract 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

Abstract 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.

Abstract 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

Abstract Background The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of patient positioning on the volume of organs at risk (OARs) in or near the planning target volume (PTV) and the dose distribution in adjuvant or salvage radiotherapy for prostate cancer after prostatectomy. Methods Seventeen patients who received intensity-modulated radiation therapy (66 Gy in 33 fractions) as adjuvant or salvage therapy after prostatectomy were evaluated. All patients underwent CT scans in both the prone (on a belly board) and supine positions. The target volumes and OARs were delineated on each CT series. The planning target volume (PTV) was extended in every direction to generate the PTV + 0.5 cm, PTV + 1 cm, PTV + 2 cm, PTV + 3 cm, and PTV + 4 cm values. The volumes of the OARs overlapping with the PTV and the extended target volumes in the prone and supine position were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters in the prone and supine position were compared using the paired t-test. Results The mean overlapping volumes of the small intestine for each of the PTV values were as follows (prone position vs. supine position [mean ± SD]): PTV, 1.5 ± 5.5 cm3 vs. 7.9 ± 15.7 cm3 (P = 0.028); PTV + 0.5 cm, 2.6 ± 8.9 cm3 vs. 12.1 ± 22.6 cm3 (P = 0.028); PTV + 1 cm, 3.5 ± 11.4 cm3 vs. 17.1 ± 29.8 cm3 (P = 0.028); PTV + 2 cm, 5.6 ± 14.5 cm3 vs. 26.8 ± 46.9 cm3 (P = 0.028); and PTV + 3 cm, 9.0 ± 17.4 cm3 vs. 36.5 ± 63.2 cm3 (P = 0.019), respectively. Some of the overlapping volumes of the rectum and bladder were significantly smaller in the prone position. On the other hand, when the target volume was extended by ≥2 cm, the overlapping volumes of the femurs were significantly larger in the prone position. V15 of the rectum and mean dose and V65 of the bladder were significantly lower in the prone position. Conclusions This study indicated that the volumes of the small intestine, rectum, and bladder in or near the PTV decreased when the patient was placed in the prone position on a belly board in postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer. The dose distribution seemed superior in the prone position to the supine position.

Background: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the prognostic value of radiomic features in patients who underwent chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer. Methods: In this retrospective study, two independent cohorts of esophageal cancer patients treated with chemoradiotherapy were included. Radiomics features of each patient were extracted from pre-treatment computed tomography (CT) images. Radiomic features were selected by employing univariate and multivariate analyses in the test cohort. Selected radiomic features were verified in the validation cohort. The endpoint of the present study was overall survival. Results: A total of 101 esophageal cancer patients were included in our study, with 71 patients in the test cohort and 30 patients in the validation cohort. Univariate analysis identified 158 radiomic features as prognostic factors for overall survival in the test cohort. A multivariate analysis revealed that root mean squared and Low-High-High (LHH) median were prognostic factors for overall survival with a hazard ratio of 2.23 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16-4.70, P = 0.017) and 0.26 (95% CI: 0.13-0.54, P < 0.001), respectively. In the validation cohort, root mean squared high/LHH median low group had the most preferable prognosis with a median overall survival of 73.30 months (95% CI: 32.13-NA), whereas root mean squared low/LHH median low group had the poorest prognosis with a median overall survival of 9.72 months (95% CI: 2.50-NA), with a P value of < 0.001. Conclusions: We identified two radiomic features that might be independent prognostic factors of overall survival of esophageal cancer patients treated with chemoradiotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Survival information for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and surgery for stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was examined. Methods: Stage I NSCLC patients who underwent surgery or SBRT between 2012 and 2016 were retrospectively enrolled in this single-institution study. Using the Kaplan--Meier method and Cox regression model, overall survival (OS) was estimated and compared. Results: Among 538 enrolled patients, compared to the surgery group (443), the SBRT group (95) had more complications (P = 0.01), worse performance status (P = 0.001), and were older (P < 0.001). Three-year OS was 70.5% post SBRT and 90.1% postsurgery. The 3-year cancer-specific survival (CSS) and disease-free survival (DFS) post SBRT and postsurgery were 92.7% vs. 92.3% and 61.1% vs 79.3%, respectively. Three-year locoregional and distant control rates post SBRT and postsurgery were 85.6% vs. 90.1% and 82.5% vs. 86.4%, respectively. Multivariate analysis using the Cox model, including age, T-stage, CCI, and C/T ratio and treatment, showed the surgery group's OS to be significantly superior to that of the SBRT group (HR of SBRT per surgery: 1.90, 95%CI: 1.12-3.21, P = 0.017). No significant differences were observed in rates of adverse events. Conclusion: Although OS was better in the surgery group, no differences in CSS existed. This analysis suggests the need for future studies that compare specific radical surgeries and SBRT in a prospective and randomized setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]