Dataset Information

Proton beam therapy for localized prostate cancer 101: basics, controversies, and facts.

ABSTRACT: Proton beam therapy for prostate cancer has become a source of controversy in the urologic community, and the rapid dissemination and marketing of this technology has led to many patients inquiring about this therapy. Yet the complexity of the technology, the cost, and the conflicting messages in the literature have left many urologists ill equipped to counsel their patients regarding this option. This article reviews the basic science of the proton beam, examines the reasons for both the hype and the controversy surrounding this therapy, and, most importantly, examines the literature so that every urologist is able to comfortably discuss this option with inquiring patients.

SUBMITTER: Wisenbaugh ES

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4080851 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Proton beam therapy for localized prostate cancer 101: basics, controversies, and facts.

Wisenbaugh Eric S ES Andrews Paul E PE Ferrigni Robert G RG Schild Steven E SE Keole Sameer R SR Wong William W WW Vora Sujay A SA

Reviews in urology 20140101 2

Proton beam therapy for prostate cancer has become a source of controversy in the urologic community, and the rapid dissemination and marketing of this technology has led to many patients inquiring about this therapy. Yet the complexity of the technology, the cost, and the conflicting messages in the literature have left many urologists ill equipped to counsel their patients regarding this option. This article reviews the basic science of the proton beam, examines the reasons for both the hype a ...[more]

PMID: 25009446

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo report prostate cancer outcomes, toxicity, and quality of life (QOL) in men treated with proton beam therapy (PBT).Patients and methodsPatients were enrolled in a prospective trial. All participants received 75.6 to 78 Gy (RBE). Up to 6 months of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist therapy was allowed. The Phoenix definition defined biochemical failure. Modified Radiation Therapy Oncology Group criteria defined toxicity. Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite questionnaires objectified QOL. Clinically significant QOL decrement was defined as ≥0.5 × baseline standard deviation.ResultsIn total, 423 men were analyzed. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk classification was used (low 43%; intermediate 56%; high 1%). At the 5.2-year median follow-up, overall and disease-specific survival rates were 99.8% and 100%, respectively. Cumulative biochemical failure rate was 5.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.0%-8.3%); acute grade 2 genitourinary (GU) toxicity was 46.3%; acute grade 2 gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity was 5.0% (95% CI = 3.1%-7.3%). There was no acute grade ≥3 GI or GU toxicity. Cumulative late grade 2 GU and GI toxicity was 15.9% (95% CI = 13%-20%) and 9.7% (95% CI = 6.5%-12%), respectively. There were 2 grade 3 late GI toxicities (rectal bleeding) and no late grade ≥3 GU toxicity. The 4-year mean Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite urinary, bowel, sexual, and hormonal summary scores (range; standard deviation) were 89.7 (43.8-100; 11), 91.3 (41.1-94.6; 10), 57.8 (0.0-96.2; 27.1), and 92.2 (25-95.5; 10.5), respectively. Compared with baseline, there was no clinically significant decrement in urinary, sexual, or hormonal QOL after treatment completion. A modest (<10 points), yet clinically significant, decrement in bowel QOL was appreciated throughout follow-up.ConclusionContemporary PBT resulted in excellent biochemical control, minimal risk of higher-grade toxicity, and modest QOL decrement. Further investigation comparing PBT with alternative prostate cancer treatment strategies are warranted.

Project description:PurposeProton beam radiotherapy (PBT) has been used for the definitive treatment of localized prostate cancer with low rates of high-grade toxicity and excellent patient-reported quality-of-life metrics. Technological advances such as pencil beam scanning (PBS), Monte Carlo dose calculations, and polyethylene glycol gel rectal spacers have optimized prostate proton therapy. Here, we report the early clinical outcomes of patients treated for localized prostate cancer using modern PBS-PBT with hydrogel rectal spacing and fiducial tracking without the use of endorectal balloons.Materials and methodsThis is a single institutional review of consecutive patients treated with histologically confirmed localized prostate cancer. Prior to treatment, all patients underwent placement of fiducials into the prostate and insertion of a hydrogel rectal spacer. Patients were typically given a prescription dose of 7920 cGy at 180 cGy per fraction using a Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm. Acute and late toxicity were evaluated using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 5. Biochemical failure was defined using the Phoenix definition.ResultsFrom July 2018 to April 2020, 33 patients were treated (median age, 75 years). No severe acute toxicities were observed. The most common acute toxicity was urinary frequency. With a median follow-up of 18 months, there were no high-grade genitourinary late toxicities; however, one grade 3 gastrointestinal toxicity was observed. Late erectile dysfunction was common. One treatment failure was observed at 21 months in a patient treated for high-risk prostate cancer.ConclusionEarly clinical outcomes of patients treated with PBS-PBT using Monte Carlo-based planning, fiducial placement, and rectal spacers sans endorectal balloons demonstrate minimal treatment-related toxicity with good oncologic outcomes. Rectal spacer stabilization without the use of endorectal balloons is feasible for the use of PBS-PBT.

Dataset Information

Proton beam therapy for localized prostate cancer 101: basics, controversies, and facts.

Publications

Proton beam therapy for localized prostate cancer 101: basics, controversies, and facts.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets