31
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Potential Applications of Image-Guided Radiotherapy for Radiation Dose Escalation in Patients with Early Stage High-Risk Prostate Cancer

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Patients with early stage high-risk prostate cancer (prostate specific antigen > 20, Gleason score > 7) are at high risk of recurrence following prostate cancer irradiation. Radiation dose escalation to the prostate may improve biochemical-free survival for these patients. However, high rectal and bladder dose with conventional three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy may lead to excessive gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity. Image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT), by virtue of combining the steep dose gradient of intensity-modulated radiotherapy and daily pretreatment imaging, may allow for radiation dose escalation and decreased treatment morbidity. Reduced treatment time is feasible with hypo-fractionated IGRT and it may improve patient quality of life.

          Related collections

          Most cited references64

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Long-term results of the M. D. Anderson randomized dose-escalation trial for prostate cancer.

          To report the long-term results of a randomized radiotherapy dose escalation trial for prostate cancer. From 1993 to 1998, a total of 301 patients with stage T1b to T3 prostate cancer were accrued to a randomized external beam dose escalation trial using 70 Gy versus 78 Gy. The median follow-up is now 8.7 years. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to compute rates of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure (nadir + 2), clinical failure, distant metastasis, disease-specific, and overall survival as well as complication rates at 8 years post-treatment. For all patients, freedom from biochemical or clinical failure (FFF) was superior for the 78-Gy arm, 78%, as compared with 59% for the 70-Gy arm (p = 0.004, and an even greater benefit was seen in patients with initial PSA >10 ng/ml (78% vs. 39%, p = 0.001). The clinical failure rate was significantly reduced in the 78-Gy arm as well (7% vs. 15%, p = 0.014). Twice as many patients either died of prostate cancer or are currently alive with cancer in the 70-Gy arm. Gastrointestinal toxicity of grade 2 or greater occurred twice as often in the high dose patients (26% vs. 13%), although genitourinary toxicity of grade 2 or greater was less (13% vs. 8%) and not statistically significantly different. Dose-volume histogram analysis showed that the complication rate could be significantly decreased by reducing the amount of treated rectum. Modest escalation in radiotherapy dose improved freedom from biochemical and clinical progression with the largest benefit in prostate cancer patients with PSA >10 ng/ml.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Improved clinical outcomes with high-dose image guided radiotherapy compared with non-IGRT for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer.

            To compare toxicity profiles and biochemical tumor control outcomes between patients treated with high-dose image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) and high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for clinically localized prostate cancer. Between 2008 and 2009, 186 patients with prostate cancer were treated with IGRT to a dose of 86.4 Gy with daily correction of the target position based on kilovoltage imaging of implanted prostatic fiducial markers. This group of patients was retrospectively compared with a similar cohort of 190 patients who were treated between 2006 and 2007 with IMRT to the same prescription dose without, however, implanted fiducial markers in place (non-IGRT). The median follow-up time was 2.8 years (range, 2-6 years). A significant reduction in late urinary toxicity was observed for IGRT patients compared with the non-IGRT patients. The 3-year likelihood of grade 2 and higher urinary toxicity for the IGRT and non-IGRT cohorts were 10.4% and 20.0%, respectively (p = 0.02). Multivariate analysis identifying predictors for grade 2 or higher late urinary toxicity demonstrated that, in addition to the baseline Internatinoal Prostate Symptom Score, IGRT was associated with significantly less late urinary toxicity compared with non-IGRT. The incidence of grade 2 and higher rectal toxicity was low for both treatment groups (1.0% and 1.6%, respectively; p = 0.81). No differences in prostate-specific antigen relapse-free survival outcomes were observed for low- and intermediate-risk patients when treated with IGRT and non-IGRT. For high-risk patients, a significant improvement was observed at 3 years for patients treated with IGRT compared with non-IGRT. IGRT is associated with an improvement in biochemical tumor control among high-risk patients and a lower rate of late urinary toxicity compared with high-dose IMRT. These data suggest that, for definitive radiotherapy, the placement of fiducial markers and daily tracking of target positioning may represent the preferred mode of external-beam radiotherapy delivery for the treatment of prostate cancer. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Long-term outcomes from a prospective trial of stereotactic body radiotherapy for low-risk prostate cancer.

              Hypofractionated radiotherapy has an intrinsically different normal tissue and tumor radiobiology. The results of a prospective trial of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer with long-term patient-reported toxicity and tumor control rates are presented. From 2003 through 2009, 67 patients with clinically localized low-risk prostate cancer were enrolled. Treatment consisted of 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions using SBRT with the CyberKnife as the delivery technology. No patient received hormone therapy. Patient self-reported bladder and rectal toxicities were graded on the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group scale (RTOG). Median follow-up was 2.7 years. There were no grade 4 toxicities. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Grade 3, 2, and 1 bladder toxicities were seen in 3% (2 patients), 5% (3 patients), and 23% (13 patients) respectively. Dysuria exacerbated by urologic instrumentation accounted for both patients with Grade 3 toxicity. Urinary incontinence, complete obstruction, or persistent hematuria was not observed. Rectal Grade 3, 2, and 1 toxicities were seen in 0, 2% (1 patient), and 12.5% (7 patients), respectively. Persistent rectal bleeding was not observed. Low-grade toxicities were substantially less frequent with QOD vs. QD dose regimen (p = 0.001 for gastrointestinal and p = 0.007 for genitourinary). There were two prostate-specific antigen (PSA), biopsy-proven failures with negative metastatic workup. Median PSA at follow-up was 0.5 ± 0.72 ng/mL. The 4-year Kaplan-Meier PSA relapse-free survival was 94% (95% confidence interval, 85%-102%). Significant late bladder and rectal toxicities from SBRT for prostate cancer are infrequent. PSA relapse-free survival compares favorably with other definitive treatments. The current evidence supports consideration of stereotactic body radiotherapy among the therapeutic options for localized prostate cancer. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Oncol
                Front Oncol
                Front. Oncol.
                Frontiers in Oncology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2234-943X
                02 February 2015
                2015
                : 5
                : 18
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Department of Radiation Oncology, Howard University , Washington, DC, USA
                [2] 2Department of Radiation Oncology, Michael D. Wachtel Cancer Center , Oskosh, WI, USA
                [3] 3Department of Radiation Oncology, Medicine and Radiation Oncology PA , San Antonio, TX, USA
                [4] 4Department of Radiation Oncology, Martinique University Hospital , Martinique, France
                [5] 5Department of Radiation Oncology, University of West Virginia , Morgantown, WV, USA
                [6] 6Department of Radiation Oncology, Rochester Radiation Oncology Group , Rochester, NY, USA
                [7] 7Department of Radiation Oncology, Akron City Hospital , Akron, OH, USA
                [8] 8Department of Radiation Oncology, Richard A. Henson Institute , Salisbury, ML, USA
                [9] 9Department of Radiation Oncology, Camden Clark Cancer Center , Parkersburg, WV, USA
                [10] 10Department of Radiation Oncology, University Cancer Centers , Houston, TX, USA
                [11] 11Department of Radiation Oncology, Marshfield Clinic , Marshfield, WI, USA
                [12] 12University of Galveston School of Medicine , Galveston, TX, USA
                [13] 13Department of Radiation Oncology, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Dartmouth College , Hanover, NH, USA
                Author notes

                Edited by: John Varlotto, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, USA

                Reviewed by: Joshua Silverman, New York University Medical Center, USA; Wenyin Shi, Thomas Jefferson University, USA

                *Correspondence: Nam P. Nguyen, Department of Radiation Oncology, Howard University Hospital, 2401 Georgia Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20060, USA e-mail: namphong.nguyen@ 123456yahoo.com

                This article was submitted to Radiation Oncology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Oncology.

                Article
                10.3389/fonc.2015.00018
                4313771
                25699239
                be55f92b-51da-4290-9e18-eb8009d484b0
                Copyright © 2015 Nguyen, Davis, Bose, Dutta, Vinh-Hung, Chi, Godinez, Desai, Woods, Altdorfer, D’Andrea, Karlsson, Vo, Sroka and the International Geriatric Radiotherapy Group.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 01 August 2014
                : 15 January 2015
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 67, Pages: 7, Words: 6767
                Categories
                Oncology
                Review Article

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                prostate cancer,high-risk,image-guided radiotherapy,hypofractionation
                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                prostate cancer, high-risk, image-guided radiotherapy, hypofractionation

                Comments

                Comment on this article