R.C. Nichols

Five-year outcomes from 3 prospective trials of image-guided proton therapy for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE To report 5-year clinical outcomes of 3 prospective trials of image-guided proton therapy for prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS A total of 211 prostate cancer patients (89 low-risk, 82 intermediate-risk, and 40 high-risk) were treated in institutional review board-approved trials of 78 cobalt gray equivalent (CGE) in 39 fractions for low-risk disease, 78 to 82 CGE for intermediate-risk disease, and 78 CGE with concomitant docetaxel therapy followed by androgen deprivation therapy for high-risk disease. Toxicities were graded according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 3.0. Median follow-up was 5.2 years. RESULTS Five-year rates of biochemical and clinical freedom from disease progression were 99%, 99%, and 76% in low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients, respectively. Actuarial 5-year rates of late CTCAE, version 3.0 (or version 4.0) grade 3 gastrointestinal and urologic toxicity were 1.0% (0.5%) and 5.4% (1.0%), respectively. Median pretreatment scores and International Prostate Symptom Scores at >4 years posttreatment were 8 and 7, 6 and 6, and 9 and 8, respectively, among the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients. There were no significant changes between median pretreatment summary scores and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite scores at >4 years for bowel, urinary irritative and/or obstructive, and urinary continence. CONCLUSIONS Five-year clinical outcomes with image-guided proton therapy included extremely high efficacy, minimal physician-assessed toxicity, and excellent patient-reported outcomes. Further follow-up and a larger patient experience are necessary to confirm these favorable outcomes.

Erectile function, incontinence, and other quality of life outcomes following proton therapy for prostate cancer in men 60 years old and younger

This study sought to evaluate patient‐reported health‐related quality of life following proton therapy for prostate cancer in men ≤60 years old.

Double-scattered proton-based stereotactic body radiotherapy for stage I lung cancer: a dosimetric comparison with photon-based stereotactic body radiotherapy.

PURPOSE Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) has gained popularity in the treatment of early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) because of its ability to deliver conformal radiation doses to small targets. However, photon-based SBRT (xSBRT) is associated with significant grade 3+ toxicities. In this study, we compare xSBRT treatment plans with proton-based SBRT (pSBRT) to determine whether dose to normal structures could be reduced if SBRT was delivered with protons. MATERIALS AND METHODS Eight patients with medically inoperable, peripherally located stage I NSCLC were treated with xSBRT to 48 Gy in 4 12-Gy fractions. These patients were retrospectively re-planned using the same treatment volumes with 3-dimensional conformal double-scatter proton therapy. A Wilcoxon paired test compared dosimetric parameters between the plans for each patient. RESULTS Compared with xSBRT there was a dosimetric improvement with pSBRT for these volumes: lung V5 (median difference [MD]=10.4%, p=0.01); V10 (MD=6.4%, p=0.01); V20 (MD=2.1%, p=0.01); V40 (MD=1.5%, p=0.05); and mean lung dose (MD=2.17 Gy, p=0.01). There were also benefits (p=<0.05) in D0.1cm3 and D5cm3 with pSBRT to the heart, esophagus, and bronchus. CONCLUSIONS In a dosimetric comparison between photon and proton-based SBRT, protons resulted in lower doses to critical organs at risk and a smaller volume of non-targeted normal lung exposed to radiation (V5, V10, V20, and V40). The clinical significance and relevance of these dosimetric improvements remain unknown.

Comparative effectiveness study of patient-reported outcomes after proton therapy or intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

Data continue to emerge on the relative merits of different treatment modalities for prostate cancer. The objective of this study was to compare patient‐reported quality‐of‐life (QOL) outcomes after proton therapy (PT) and intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer.

Management of radiation proctitis.

The optimal management of radiation proctitis is ill defined. A variety of alternatives are available and include topical agents (ie, sucralfate enemas, formalin), oral agents (ie, pentoxyfylline, vitamin A), hyperbaric oxygen, and endoscopic interventions (ie, argon plasma coagulation). It is prudent to manage patients conservatively and to intervene only when necessary with the option least likely to exacerbate the proctitis. Rectal biopsies should be avoided as they may precipitate a complication. More aggressive measures, such as argon laser coagulation, should be employed only when more conservative approaches fail.

Rectal Toxicity After Proton Therapy For Prostate Cancer: An Analysis of Outcomes of Prospective Studies Conducted at the University of Florida Proton Therapy Institute

PURPOSE Study goals were to characterize gastrointestinal effects of proton therapy (PT) in a large cohort of patients treated for prostate cancer, identify factors associated with rectal bleeding (RB), and compare RB between patients receiving investigational protocols versus those in outcome-tracking protocols. METHODS AND MATERIALS A total of 1285 consecutive patients were treated with PT between August 2006 and May 2010. Potential pre-existing clinical and treatment-related risk factors for rectal toxicity were recorded. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0 was used to score toxicity. RESULTS Transient RB was the predominant grade 2 or higher (GR2+) toxicity after PT, accounting for 95% of gastrointestinal events. GR1 RB occurred in 217 patients (16.9%), GR2 RB in 187 patients (14.5%), and GR3 in 11 (0.9%) patients. There were no GR4 or GR5 events. Univariate analyses showed correlations between GR2+ RB and anticoagulation therapy (P=.008) and rectal and rectal wall dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters (P<.001). On multivariate analysis, anticoagulation therapy (P=.0034), relative volume of rectum receiving 75 Gy (V75; P=.0102), and relative rectal wall V75 (P=.0017) were significant predictors for G2+ RB. Patients treated with investigational protocols had toxicity rates similar to those receiving outcome-tracking protocols. CONCLUSIONS PT was associated with a low rate of GR2+ gastrointestinal toxicity, predominantly transient RB, which was highly correlated with anticoagulation and rectal DVH parameters. Techniques that limit rectal exposure should be used when possible.

Protons safely allow coverage of high-risk nodes for patients with regionally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

Our objective was to determine if protons allow for the expansion of treatment volumes to cover high-risk nodes in patients with regionally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. In this study, 5 consecutive patients underwent external-beam radiotherapy treatment planning. Four treatment plans were generated for each patient: 1) photons (x-rays) to treat positron emission tomography (PET)-positive gross disease only to 74 Gy (XG); 2) photons (x-rays) to treat high-risk nodes to 44 Gy and PET-positive gross disease to 74 Gy (XNG); 3) protons to treat PET-positive gross disease only to 74 cobalt gray equivalent (PG); and 4) protons to treat high-risk nodes to 44 CGE and PET-positive gross disease to 74 CGE (PNG). We defined high-risk nodes as mediastinal, hilar, and supraclavicular lymph nodal stations anatomically adjacent to the foci of PET-positive gross disease. Four-dimensional computed tomography was utilized for all patients to account for tumor motion. Standard normal-tissue constraints were utilized. Our results showed that proton plans for all patients were isoeffective with the corresponding photon (x-ray) plans in that they achieved the desired target doses while respecting normal-tissue constraints. In spite of the larger volumes covered, median volume of normal lung receiving 10 CGE or greater (V10Gy/CGE), median V20Gy/CGE, and mean lung dose were lower in the proton plans (PNG) targeting gross disease and nodes when compared with the photon (x-ray) plans (XG) treating gross disease alone. In conclusion, proton plans demonstrated the potential to safely include high-risk nodes without increasing the volume of normal lung irradiated when compared to photon (x-ray) plans, which only targeted gross disease.

Protons offer reduced bone marrow, small bowel, and urinary bladder exposure for patients receiving neoadjuvant radiotherapy for resectable rectal cancer

BACKGROUND To assess the potential benefit of proton therapy (PT) over photon therapy, we compared 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), and PT plans in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation for resectable rectal cancer at our institution. METHODS Eight consecutive patients with resectable (T2-T3) rectal cancers underwent 3DCRT, IMRT, and 3-dimensional conformal PT treatment planning. Initial target volumes (PTV1) were contoured using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group anorectal atlas guidelines. Boost target volumes (PTV2) consisted of the gross rectal tumor plus a uniform 2-cm expansion. Plans delivered 45 Gray (Gy) or Cobalt Gray Equivalent (CGE) to the PTV1 and a 5.4-Gy (CGE) boost to the PTV2. Ninety-five percent of the PTVs received 100% of the target dose and 100% of the PTVs received 95% of the target dose. Standard normal-tissue constraints were utilized. Wilcoxon paired t-tests were performed to compare various dosimetric points between the 3 plans for each patient. RESULTS All plans met all normal-tissue constraints and were isoeffective in terms of PTV coverage. The proton plans offered significantly reduced median normal-tissue exposure over the 3DCRT and IMRT plans with respect to pelvic bone marrow at the V5Gy, V10Gy, V15Gy, and V20Gy levels and the small bowel space at the V10Gy and V20Gy levels. The proton plans also offered significantly reduced median normal-tissue exposure over the 3DCRT plans with respect to the small bowel at the V30Gy and V40Gy levels and the urinary bladder at the V40Gy level. CONCLUSIONS By reducing bone marrow exposure, PT may reduce the acute hematologic toxicity of neoadjuvant chemoradiation and increase the likelihood of uninterrupted chemotherapy delivery. Bone marrow sparing may also facilitate the delivery of salvage chemotherapy for patients who subsequently develop hematogenous metastasis. Reduced small bowel exposure using PT may also reduce toxicity and possibly facilitate the use of more-aggressive chemotherapy with radiotherapy.

A Phase 2 Trial of Concurrent Chemotherapy and Proton Therapy for Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Results and Reflections Following Early Closure of a Single-Institution Study

PURPOSE Proton therapy has been shown to reduce radiation dose to organs at risk (OAR) and could be used to safely escalate the radiation dose. We analyzed outcomes in a group of phase 2 study patients treated with dose-escalated proton therapy with concurrent chemotherapy for stage 3 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS AND MATERIALS From 2009 through 2013, LU02, a phase 2 trial of proton therapy delivering 74 to 80 Gy at 2 Gy/fraction with concurrent chemotherapy for stage 3 NSCLC, was opened to accrual at our institution. Due to slow accrual and competing trials, the study was closed after just 14 patients (stage IIIA, 9 patients; stage IIIB, 5 patients) were accrued over 4 years. During that same time period, 55 additional stage III patients were treated with high-dose proton therapy, including 7 in multi-institutional proton clinical trials, 4 not enrolled due to physician preference, and 44 who were ineligible based on strict entry criteria. An unknown number of patients were ineligible for enrollment due to insurance coverage issues and thus were treated with photon radiation. Median follow-up of surviving patients was 52 months. RESULTS Two-year overall survival and progression-free survival rates were 57% and 25%, respectively. Median lengths of overall survival and progression-free survival were 33 months and 14 months, respectively. There were no acute grade 3 toxicities related to proton therapy. Late grade 3 gastrointestinal toxicity and pulmonary toxicity each occurred in 1 patient. CONCLUSIONS Dose-escalated proton therapy with concurrent chemotherapy was well tolerated with encouraging results among a small cohort of patients. Unfortunately, single-institution proton studies may be difficult to accrue and consideration for pragmatic and/or multicenter trial design should be considered when developing future proton clinical trials.

PROTON RADIOTHERAPY FOR PROSTATE CANCER IS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH POST-TREATMENT TESTOSTERONE SUPPRESSION

PURPOSE Three independent studies of photon (x-ray) radiotherapy (RT) for prostate cancer have demonstrated evidence of testosterone suppression after treatment. The present study was undertaken to determine whether this would also be the case with conformal protons. METHODS AND MATERIALS Between August 2006 and October 2007, 171 patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer were enrolled and underwent treatment according to the University of Florida Proton Therapy Institute institutional review board-approved PR01 and PR02 protocols. Of the 171 patients, 18 were excluded because they had received androgen deprivation therapy either before (n = 17) or after (n = 1) RT. The pretreatment serum testosterone level was available for 150 of the remaining 153 patients. These 150 patients were included in the present study. The post-treatment levels were compared with the pretreatment levels. RESULTS The median baseline pretreatment serum testosterone level was 357.9 ng/dL. The median post-treatment testosterone value was 375.5 ng/dL at treatment completion (p = .1935) and 369.9 ng/dL (p = .1336), 348.7 ng/dL (p = .7317), 353.4 ng/dL (p = .6996), and 340.9 ng/dL (p = .1669) at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after proton therapy, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Conformal proton therapy to the prostate, as delivered using the University of Florida Proton Therapy Institute PR01 and PR02 protocols, did not appear to significantly affect the serum testosterone levels within 24 months after RT.