Clinical Outcomes of Prostate SBRT Using Non-adaptive MR-Guided Radiotherapy

Objectives Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is widely used for localized prostate cancer and implementation of MR-guided radiotherapy has the advantage of tighter margins and improved sparing of organs at risk. Here we evaluate outcomes and time required to treat using non-adaptive MR-guided SBRT (MRgSBRT) for localized prostate cancer at our institution. Methods From 9/2019 to 11/2021 we conducted a retrospective review of 80 consecutive patients who were treated with MRgSBRT to the prostate. Patients included low (LR) (5%), favorable intermediate (FIR) (40%), unfavorable intermediate (UIR) (49%), and high risk (HR) (6%). Short-term androgen deprivation therapy was used in 32% of patients. Target volumes included prostate gland and proximal seminal vesicles with an isotropic 3 mm margin. Treatment was prescribed to 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions every other day with urethral sparing. Hydrogel spacer was used in 18% of patients. Time on the linac was recorded as beam on time (BOT) plus total treatment time (TTT) including gating. Analyzed outcomes included PSA response and patient reported outcomes scored by the American Urological Association (AUA) questionnaire and toxicity per CTCAE v5. General linear regression model was used to analyze factors affecting PSA and AUA in longitudinal follow up, and chi-square test was used to assess factors affecting toxicity. Results Median follow up was 19.3 months (3.8 – 36.6). Median BOT was 4.6 min (2.6 – 7.2) with a median TTT of 11 min (7.6 – 15.8). Pre-treatment vs post-RT median PSA was 6.36 (2.20 – 19.6) vs 0.85 (0.19 – 3.6), respectively ( P < 0.001). PSA decrease differed significantly when patients were stratified by risk category, favoring LR/FIR vs UIF/HR group ( P = 0.019). Four (5%) patients experienced a biochemical failure (BCF), with a median time to BCF of 20.4 months (7.9 – 34.5). Median biochemical failure free survival (BCFFS) was not reached, with 2-yr and 4-yr BCFFS of 97.1% and 72.1%, respectively. Patients with LR/FIR disease had 100% 2-yr and 4-yr BCFFS, whereas patients with UIF/HR had 95% and 41% 2-yr and 4-yr BCFFS ( P = 0.05). Mean pre-treatment AUA was 7.3 (1 - 25) vs 11.3 (1 - 26) at first follow-up; however, AUA normalized to baseline over time. Urethral Dmax ≥35 Gy trended to lower AUA score at all follow-ups ( P = 0.07). Forty-one (51%) patients reported grade 1-2 genitourinary toxicities at the 1 month follow up. Grade 3 toxicity (proctitis) was noted in 1 patient. There was no decrease in any grade rectal toxicity with use of hydrogel spacer (3 vs 6, P = 0.2). No grade ≥4 toxicities was observed. Conclusions MRgSBRT has the potential for treatment adaptation but this comes at the cost of increased resource utilization. Our experience with non-adaptive MRgSBRT of the prostate highlights its short treatment times as well as efficacy with good PSA control and low toxicity profile.