Mark K. Buyyounouski

Randomized Trial of Hypofractionated External-Beam Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE To determine if escalated radiation dose using hypofractionation significantly reduces biochemical and/or clinical disease failure (BCDF) in men treated primarily for prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Between June 2002 and May 2006, men with favorable- to high-risk prostate cancer were randomly allocated to receive 76 Gy in 38 fractions at 2.0 Gy per fraction (conventional fractionation intensity-modulated radiation therapy [CIMRT]) versus 70.2 Gy in 26 fractions at 2.7 Gy per fraction (hypofractionated IMRT [HIMRT]); the latter was estimated to be equivalent to 84.4 Gy in 2.0 Gy fractions. High-risk patients received long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), and some intermediate-risk patients received short-term ADT. The primary end point was the cumulative incidence of BCDF. Secondarily, toxicity was assessed. RESULTS There were 303 assessable patients with a median follow-up of 68.4 months. No significant differences were seen between the treatment arms in terms of the distribution of patients by clinicopathologic or treatment-related (ADT use and length) factors. The 5-year rates of BCDF were 21.4% (95% CI, 14.8% to 28.7%) for CIMRT and 23.3% (95% CI, 16.4% to 31.0%) for HIMRT (P = .745). There were no statistically significant differences in late toxicity between the arms; however, in subgroup analysis, patients with compromised urinary function before enrollment had significantly worse urinary function after HIMRT. CONCLUSION The hypofractionation regimen did not result in a significant reduction in BCDF; however, it is delivered in 2.5 fewer weeks. Men with compromised urinary function before treatment may not be ideal candidates for this approach.

Long-term survival after radical prostatectomy versus external-beam radiotherapy for patients with high-risk prostate cancer.

The long‐term survival of patients with high‐risk prostate cancer was compared after radical prostatectomy (RRP) and after external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with or without adjuvant androgen‐deprivation therapy (ADT).

A Phase 3 Trial of Whole Brain Radiation Therapy and Stereotactic Radiosurgery Alone Versus WBRT and SRS With Temozolomide or Erlotinib for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and 1 to 3 Brain Metastases: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0320.

BACKGROUND A phase 3 Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) study subset analysis demonstrated improved overall survival (OS) with the addition of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) to whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with 1 to 3 brain metastases. Because temozolomide (TMZ) and erlotinib (ETN) cross the blood-brain barrier and have documented activity in NSCLC, a phase 3 study was designed to test whether these drugs would improve the OS associated with WBRT + SRS. METHODS AND MATERIALS NSCLC patients with 1 to 3 brain metastases were randomized to receive WBRT (2.5 Gy × 15 to 37.5 Gy) and SRS alone, versus WBRT + SRS + TMZ (75 mg/m(2)/day × 21 days) or ETN (150 mg/day). ETN (150 mg/day) or TMZ (150-200 mg/m(2)/day × 5 days/month) could be continued for as long as 6 months after WBRT + SRS. The primary endpoint was OS. RESULTS After 126 patients were enrolled, the study closed because of accrual limitations. The median survival times (MST) for WBRT + SRS, WBRT + SRS + TMZ, and WBRT + SRS + ETN were qualitatively different (13.4, 6.3, and 6.1 months, respectively), although the differences were not statistically significant. Time to central nervous system progression and performance status at 6 months were better in the WBRT + SRS arm. Grade 3 to 5 toxicity was 11%, 41%, and 49% in arms 1, 2, and 3, respectively (P<.001). CONCLUSION The addition of TMZ or ETN to WBRT + SRS in NSCLC patients with 1 to 3 brain metastases did not improve survival and possibly had a deleterious effect. Because the analysis is underpowered, these data suggest but do not prove that increased toxicity was the cause of inferior survival in the drug arms.

An evidence based review of proton beam therapy: The report of ASTRO’s emerging technology committee

Proton beam therapy (PBT) is a novel method for treating malignant disease with radiotherapy. The purpose of this work was to evaluate the state of the science of PBT and arrive at a recommendation for the use of PBT. The emerging technology committee of the American Society of Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) routinely evaluates new modalities in radiotherapy and assesses the published evidence to determine recommendations for the society as a whole. In 2007, a Proton Task Force was assembled to evaluate the state of the art of PBT. This report reflects evidence collected up to November 2009. Data was reviewed for PBT in central nervous system tumors, gastrointestinal malignancies, lung, head and neck, prostate, and pediatric tumors. Current data do not provide sufficient evidence to recommend PBT in lung cancer, head and neck cancer, GI malignancies, and pediatric non-CNS malignancies. In hepatocellular carcinoma and prostate cancer and there is evidence for the efficacy of PBT but no suggestion that it is superior to photon based approaches. In pediatric CNS malignancies PBT appears superior to photon approaches but more data is needed. In large ocular melanomas and chordomas, we believe that there is evidence for a benefit of PBT over photon approaches. PBT is an important new technology in radiotherapy. Current evidence provides a limited indication for PBT. More robust prospective clinical trials are needed to determine the appropriate clinical setting for PBT.

The Phoenix definition of biochemical failure predicts for overall survival in patients with prostate cancer

The American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) definition of biochemical failure (BF) incorporates backdating, resulting in an artificial flattening of Kaplan‐Meier curves and overly favorable estimates when follow‐up is short. The nadir + 2 ng/mL (Nadir + 2; Phoenix) definition reduces these artifacts. The objective of the current study was to compare ASTRO and Phoenix BF estimates as determinants of distant metastasis (DM), cause‐specific mortality (CSM), and overall mortality (OM).

A COMPARISON OF ACUTE AND CHRONIC TOXICITY FOR MEN WITH LOW-RISK PROSTATE CANCER TREATED WITH INTENSITY-MODULATED RADIATION THERAPY OR 125I PERMANENT IMPLANT

PURPOSE To compare the toxicity and biochemical outcomes of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and (125)I transperineal permanent prostate seed implant ((125)I) for patients with low-risk prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS Between 1998 and 2004, a total of 374 low-risk patients (prostate-specific antigen < 10 ng/ml, T1c-T2b, Gleason score of 6 or less, and no neoadjuvant hormones) were treated at Fox Chase Cancer Center (216 IMRT and 158 (125)I patients). Median follow-up was 43 months for IMRT and 48 months for (125)I. The IMRT prescription dose ranged from 74-78 Gy, and (125)I prescription was 145 Gy. Acute and late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity was recorded by using a modified Radiation Therapy Oncology Group scale. Freedom from biochemical failure was defined by using the Phoenix definition (prostate-specific antigen nadir + 2.0 ng/ml). RESULTS Patients treated by using IMRT were more likely to be older and have a higher baseline American Urological Association symptom index score, history of previous transurethral resection of the prostate, and larger prostate volumes. On multivariate analysis, IMRT was an independent predictor of lower acute and late Grade 2 or higher GU toxicity and late Grade 2 or higher GI toxicity. Three-year actuarial estimates of late Grade 2 or higher toxicity were 2.4% for GI and 3.5% for GU by using IMRT compared with 7.7% for GI and 19.2% for GU for (125)I, respectively. Four-year actuarial estimates of freedom from biochemical failure were 99.5% for IMRT and 93.5% for (125)I (p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS The IMRT and (125)I produce similar outcomes, although IMRT appears to have less acute and late toxicity.

Transurethral surgery and twice-daily radiation plus paclitaxel-cisplatin or fluorouracil-cisplatin with selective bladder preservation and adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer (RTOG 0233): a randomised multicentre phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND We assessed effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of paclitaxel or fluorouracil when added to radiation plus cisplatin followed by adjuvant chemotherapy in a programme of selected bladder preservation for patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer. METHODS In our randomised phase 2 trial, we enrolled patients with T2-4a transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder at 24 medical centres in the USA. We randomly allocated patients to receive paclitaxel plus cisplatin (paclitaxel group) or fluorouracil plus cisplatin (fluorouracil group) with twice-daily radiation in random block sizes per site on the basis of clinical T-stage (T2 vs T3-4). Patients and physicians were aware of treatment assignment. All patients had transurethral resection of bladder tumour and twice-daily radiotherapy to 40·3 Gy, along with allocated chemotherapy, followed by cystoscopic and biopsy assessment of response. Patients who had a tumour response with downstaging to T0, Tcis, or Ta received consolidation chemoradiotherapy to 64·3 Gy, with the same chemotherapy regimen as in the induction phase. Patients received adjuvant cisplatin-gemcitabine-paclitaxel after the end of chemoradiotherapy. If, after induction, persistent disease was graded as T1 or worse, we recommended patients undergo cystectomy and adjuvant chemotherapy. We assessed the primary endpoints of rates of treatment completion and toxic effects in all randomly allocated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00055601. FINDINGS Between Dec 13, 2002, and Jan 11, 2008, we enrolled 97 patients, of whom 93 were eligible for analysis. Median follow-up was 5·0 years (IQR 5·0-6·2). Of 46 patients in the paclitaxel group, 45 (98%) completed induction (16 [35%] with grade 3-4 toxicity), 39 (85%) completed induction and consolidation (11 [24%] with grade 3-4 toxicity due to consolidation), and 31 (67%) completed the entire protocol with adjuvant chemotherapy. 34 (85%) of 40 assessable patients in the paclitaxel group had grade 3-4 toxicity during adjuvant chemotherapy. Of 47 patients in the fluorouracil group, 45 (96%) completed induction (nine [19%] with grade 3-4 toxicity), 39 (83%) completed induction and consolidation (12 [26%] had grade 3-4 toxicity due to consolidation), and 25 (53%) completed the entire protocol with adjuvant chemotherapy. 31 (76%) of 41 assessable patients in the fluorouracil group had grade 3-4 toxicity during adjuvant chemotherapy. Five (11%) patients treated with the paclitaxel regimen and three (6%) patients treated with the fluorouracil regimen developed late grade 3-4 radiotherapy toxicities. 11 (24%) patients treated with the paclitaxel regimen and 16 (34%) patients treated with the fluorouracil regimen developed late grade 3-4 toxicities unrelated to radiotherapy. One patient (in the fluorouracil group) died during follow-up. Six (13%) patients in the paclitaxel group and in three (6%) patients in the fluorouracil group discontinued due to treatment-related toxicity. INTERPRETATION In the absence of phase 3 data, our findings could inform selection of a bladder-sparing trimodality chemotherapy regimen for patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer. FUNDING US National Cancer Institute.

Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy Reduces Gastrointestinal Toxicity in Patients Treated With Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE Androgen deprivation therapy (AD) has been shown to increase late Grade 2 or greater rectal toxicity when used concurrently with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT). Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) has the potential to reduce toxicity by limiting the radiation dose received by the bowel and bladder. The present study compared the genitourinary and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity in men treated with 3D-CRT+AD vs. IMRT+AD. METHODS AND MATERIALS Between July 1992 and July 2004, 293 men underwent 3D-CRT (n = 170) or IMRT (n = 123) with concurrent AD (<6 months, n = 123; ≥6 months, n = 170). The median radiation dose was 76 Gy for 3D-CRT (International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements) and 76 Gy for IMRT (95% to the planning target volume). Toxicity was assessed by a patient symptom questionnaire that was completed at each visit and recorded using a Fox Chase Modified Late Effects Normal Tissue Task radiation morbidity scale. RESULTS The mean follow-up was 86 months (standard deviation, 29.3) for the 3D-CRT group and 40 months (standard deviation, 9.7) for the IMRT group. Acute GI toxicity (odds ratio, 4; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-11.7; p = .005) was significantly greater with 3D-CRT than with IMRT and was independent of the AD duration (i.e., <6 vs. ≥6 months). The interval to the development of late GI toxicity was significantly longer in the IMRT group. The 5-year Kaplan-Meier estimate for Grade 2 or greater GI toxicity was 20% for 3D-CRT and 8% for IMRT (p = .01). On multivariate analysis, Grade 2 or greater late GI toxicity (hazard ratio, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-4.3; p = .04) was more prevalent in the 3D-CRT patients. CONCLUSION Compared with 3D-CRT, IMRT significantly decreased the acute and late GI toxicity in patients treated with AD.

Prostate-specific antigen nadir within 12 months of prostate cancer radiotherapy predicts metastasis and death†

The nadir prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) at 1 year (nPSA12) was investigated as an early estimate of biochemical and clinical outcome after radiotherapy (RT) alone for localized prostate cancer.

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy with mri simulation to reduce doses received by erectile tissue during prostate cancer treatment

PURPOSE The radiation doses received by erectile tissue may contribute to erectile dysfunction after treatment of prostate cancer. This is the first description of the ability to limit the dose received by the penile bulb (PB) and corporal bodies (CB) using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS Twenty-three patients with palpation Stage T1c-T2bN0M0 prostate cancer received IMRT alone. The dose prescribed to the planning target volume was 74-78 Gy. All patients underwent CT and MRI simulation to define the target and normal structures. Three plans with identical beam arrangements and energy were generated for each patient, with varying dose constraints for the PB and CB: no dose constraint, intermediate-dose constraint (20 Gy and 15 Gy, respectively) and low-dose constraint (15 Gy and 7 Gy, respectively). All plans were normalized, such that 95% of the planning target volume received at least 100% of the prescribed dose. For each plan, the ability to meet prostate dose homogeneity criteria (PHC; prostate maximal dose </=120% prescribed dose) and rectal tolerance dose-volume histogram criteria (RTC; </=35% and </=17% of rectal volume received 40 Gy and 65 Gy, respectively) was determined. The D(90), V(50), and V(75) were determined for both PB and the CB, where D(i) was the dose received by i% of the target volume and V(i) was the target volume receiving i% of the prescribed dose. RESULTS The median PB D(90), V(50), and V(75) for the plans with no dose, intermediate-dose, and low-dose constraints was 20.8 Gy, 33.8%, and 9.9%; 8.0 Gy, 1.7%, and 0%; and 7.1 Gy, 0.1%, and 0%, respectively. The median CB D(90), V(50), and V(75) for plans with no dose, intermediate-dose, and low-dose constraints was 10.2 Gy, 3.8%, and 0%; 6.0 Gy, 0%, and 0%; and 4.9 Gy, 0%, and 0%, respectively. Overall differences in the D(90), V(50), and V(75) among the groups were significant for both the PB and the CB (p <0.0001). All plans with no dose constraint met the PHC and RTC. Twenty plans with an intermediate-dose constraint met the PHC and 21 met the RTC. Eighteen plans with a low-dose constraint met the PHC and 19 met the RTC. No statistically significant difference was found in the number of beam segments for the three groups (median of 51, 55, and 53; p = 0.8). CONCLUSION In the vast majority of cases, it is possible to limit the dose to erectile tissue with IMRT, usually by >/=50% without significantly compromising the PHC, RTC, or treatment duration. A Phase III randomized trial has been designed to test the clinical significance of the erectile tissue-sparing technique described here.