Dataset Information

Proton therapy- the modality of choice for future radiation therapy management of Prostate Cancer?

ABSTRACT: Background:Proton Therapy (PR) is an emerging treatment for prostate cancer (Pca) patients. However, limited and conflicting data exists regarding its ability to result in fewer bladder and rectal toxicities compared to Photon Therapy (PT), as well as its cost efficiency and plan robustness. Materials and Methods:An electronic literature search was performed to acquire eligible studies published between 2007 and 2018. Studies comparing bladder and rectal dosimetry or Gastrointestinal (GI) and Genitourinary (GU) toxicities between PR and PT, the plan robustness of PR relative to motion and its cost efficiency for Pca patients were assessed. Results:28 studies were eligible for inclusion in this review. PR resulted in improved bladder and rectal dosimetry but did not manifest as improved GI/GU toxicities clinically compared to PT. PR plans were considered robust when specific corrections, techniques, positioning or immobilisation devices were applied. PR is not cost effective for intermediate risk Pca patients; however PR may be cost effective for younger or high risk Pca patients. Conclusion:PR offers improved bladder and rectal dosimetry compared to PT but this does not specifically translate to improved GI/GU toxicities clinically. The robustness of PR plans is acceptable under specific conditions. PR is not cost effective for all Pca patients.

SUBMITTER: Mangan S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7033803 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Proton therapy- the modality of choice for future radiation therapy management of Prostate Cancer?

Mangan Sophie S Leech Michelle M

Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology 20190901

<h4>Background</h4>Proton Therapy (PR) is an emerging treatment for prostate cancer (Pca) patients. However, limited and conflicting data exists regarding its ability to result in fewer bladder and rectal toxicities compared to Photon Therapy (PT), as well as its cost efficiency and plan robustness.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>An electronic literature search was performed to acquire eligible studies published between 2007 and 2018. Studies comparing bladder and rectal dosimetry or Gastrointesti ...[more]

PMID: 32095544

Similar Datasets

Project description:There has been rapid adoption of newer radiation treatments such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton therapy despite greater cost and limited demonstrated benefit compared with previous technologies.To determine the comparative morbidity and disease control of IMRT, proton therapy, and conformal radiation therapy for primary prostate cancer treatment.Population-based study using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare-linked data from 2000 through 2009 for patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer.Rates of gastrointestinal and urinary morbidity, erectile dysfunction, hip fractures, and additional cancer therapy.Use of IMRT vs conformal radiation therapy increased from 0.15% in 2000 to 95.9% in 2008. In propensity score-adjusted analyses (N = 12,976), men who received IMRT vs conformal radiation therapy were less likely to receive a diagnosis of gastrointestinal morbidities (absolute risk, 13.4 vs 14.7 per 100 person-years; relative risk [RR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.86-0.96) and hip fractures (absolute risk, 0.8 vs 1.0 per 100 person-years; RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.93) but more likely to receive a diagnosis of erectile dysfunction (absolute risk, 5.9 vs 5.3 per 100 person-years; RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03-1.20). Intensity-modulated radiation therapy patients were less likely to receive additional cancer therapy (absolute risk, 2.5 vs 3.1 per 100 person-years; RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.73-0.89). In a propensity score-matched comparison between IMRT and proton therapy (n = 1368), IMRT patients had a lower rate of gastrointestinal morbidity (absolute risk, 12.2 vs 17.8 per 100 person-years; RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55-0.79). There were no significant differences in rates of other morbidities or additional therapies between IMRT and proton therapy.Among patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer, the use of IMRT compared with conformal radiation therapy was associated with less gastrointestinal morbidity and fewer hip fractures but more erectile dysfunction; IMRT compared with proton therapy was associated with less gastrointestinal morbidity.

Project description:Radiation therapy (RT) techniques for prostate cancer are evolving rapidly, but the impact of these changes on risk of second cancers, which are an uncommon but serious consequence of RT, are uncertain. We conducted a comprehensive assessment of risks of second cancer according to RT technique (>10 MV vs ?10 MV and 3-dimensional [3D] vs 2D RT) and modality (external beam RT, brachytherapy, and combined modes) in a large cohort of prostate cancer patients.The cohort was constructed using the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare database. We included cases of prostate cancer diagnosed in patients 66 to 84 years of age from 1992 to 2004 and followed through 2009. We used Poisson regression analysis to compare rates of second cancer across RT groups with adjustment for age, follow-up, chemotherapy, hormone therapy, and comorbidities. Analyses of second solid cancers were based on the number of 5-year survivors (n=38,733), and analyses of leukemia were based on number of 2-year survivors (n=52,515) to account for the minimum latency period for radiation-related cancer.During an average of 4.4 years' follow-up among 5-year prostate cancer survivors (2DRT = 5.5 years; 3DRT = 3.9 years; and brachytherapy = 2.7 years), 2933 second solid cancers were diagnosed. There were no significant differences in second solid cancer rates overall between 3DRT and 2DRT patients (relative risk [RR] = 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91-1.09), but second rectal cancer rates were significantly lower after 3DRT (RR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.40-0.88). Rates of second solid cancers for higher- and lower-energy RT were similar overall (RR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.89-1.06), as were rates for site-specific cancers. There were significant reductions in colon cancer and leukemia rates in the first decade after brachytherapy compared to those after external beam RT.Advanced treatment planning may have reduced rectal cancer risks in prostate cancer survivors by approximately 3 cases per 1000 after 15 years. Despite concerns about the neutron doses, we did not find evidence that higher energy therapy was associated with increased second cancer risks.

Project description:PurposeAlthough both intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) offer effective long-term disease control for localized prostate cancer (PCa), there are limited data directly comparing the 2 modalities.MethodsThe data from 334 patients treated with conventionally fractionated (79.2 GyRBE in 44 fractions) PBT or IMRT were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity score matching was used to balance factors associated with biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS). Age, race, and comorbidities (not BFFS associates) remained imbalanced after matching. Univariable and covariate-adjusted multivariable (MVA) Cox regression models were used to determine if modality affected BFFS.ResultsOf 334 patients, 176 (52.7%) were included in the matched cohort with exact matching to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group. With a median follow-up time of 9.0 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 7.8-10.2 years), long-term BFFS was similar between the IMRT and PBT matched arms with 8-year estimates of 85% (95% CI: 76%-91%) and 91% (95% CI: 82%-96%, P = .39), respectively. On MVA, modality was not significantly associated with BFFS in both the unmatched (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.35-1.63, P = .47) and matched (HR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.33-2.33, P = .78) cohorts. Prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) and overall survival (OS) were also similar (P > .05). However, in an unmatched analysis, the PBT arm had significantly fewer incidences of secondary cancers within the irradiated field (0.6%, 95% CI: 0.0%-3.1% versus 4.5%, 95% CI: 1.8%-9.0%, P = .028).ConclusionsBoth PBT and IMRT offer excellent long-term disease control for PCa, with no significant differences between the 2 modalities in BFFS, PCSS, and OS in matched patients. In the unmatched cohort, fewer incidences of secondary malignancy were noted in the PBT group; however, owing to overall low incidence of secondary cancer and imbalanced patient characteristics between the 2 groups, these data are strictly hypothesis generating and require further investigation.

Project description:PurposeThe use of radiation therapy (RT) in consolidating oligometastatic prostate cancer (OPCa) is a rapidly evolving treatment paradigm. We review our institutional experience using metastasis-directed therapy in the definitive management of men with OPCa.Methods and materialsPatients with OPCa treated with definitive RT were included. The Kaplan-Meier method and multivariable Cox regression analysis were performed to assess biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS) and time to next intervention. Cumulative incidence functions were used to calculate rates of local failure. Toxicity was assessed using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4).ResultsThis study analyzed 156 patients with OPCa and 354 metastatic lesions with median follow-up of 24.6 months. Of 150 patients with toxicity data, 53 (35%) experienced acute grade 1 toxicity, 8 (5%) had grade 2, and none had grade 3 toxicity. Only 13 patients (9%) had late toxicities. At 24 months, the cumulative incidence of local failure was 7.4%. Median bPFS for the entire cohort was 12.9 months and 52% at 1 year. On multivariable analysis, factors associated with prolonged bPFS were peri-RT androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), lower gross tumor volume, and hormone-sensitive (HS) OPCa. Median time to next intervention, including repeat RT, was 21.6 months. Median bPFS for men with HS prostate cancer was 17.2 months compared with 7.2 months in men with castrate-resistant OPCa (P < .0001), and cumulative incidence of local failure at 24 months was lower with HS OPCa (4.8% vs 12.1%; P = .034). We analyzed 28 men with HS OPCa treated with a course of peri-RT ADT (median, 4.3 months) with recovery of testosterone. At a median follow-up of 33.5 months, 20 patients had not developed bPFS, median bPFS had not been reached, and 24-month bPFS was 77%.ConclusionsMetastasis-directed therapy can be effective across a wide range of OPCa subtypes, but with differential efficacy. Further study is warranted to investigate the use of RT across the wide range of patients with OPCa.

Dataset Information

Proton therapy- the modality of choice for future radiation therapy management of Prostate Cancer?

Publications

Proton therapy- the modality of choice for future radiation therapy management of Prostate Cancer?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets