Stereotactic body radiotherapy with periprostatic hydrogel spacer for localized prostate cancer: toxicity profile and early oncologic outcomes.
Dosimetry
Prostate cancer
Rectal toxicity
SpaceOAR hydrogel
Stereotactic body radiotherapy
Journal
Radiation oncology (London, England)
ISSN: 1748-717X
Titre abrégé: Radiat Oncol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101265111
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 Aug 2019
02 Aug 2019
Historique:
received:
24
03
2019
accepted:
24
07
2019
entrez:
4
8
2019
pubmed:
4
8
2019
medline:
10
1
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Multiple phase I-II clinical trials have reported on the efficacy and safety of prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for the treatment of prostate cancer. However, few have reported outcomes for prostate SBRT using periprostatic hydrogel spacer (SpaceOAR; Augmenix). Herein, we report safety and efficacy outcomes from our institutional prostate SBRT experience with SpaceOAR placement. Fifty men with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated at a single institution with linear accelerator-based SBRT to 3625 cGy in 5 fractions, with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) were included. All patients underwent SpaceOAR and fiducial marker placement followed by pre-treatment MRI. Toxicity assessments were conducted at least weekly while on treatment, 1 month after treatment, and every follow-up visit thereafter. Post-treatment PSA measurements were obtained 4 months after SBRT, followed by every 3-6 months thereafter. Acute toxicity was documented per RTOG criteria. Median follow up time was 20 (range 4-44) months. Median PSA at time of diagnosis was 7.4 (2.7-19.5) ng/ml. Eighteen men received 6 months of ADT for unfavorable intermediate risk disease. No PSA failures were recorded. Median PSA was 0.9 ng/mL at 20 months; 0.08 and 1.32 ng/mL in men who did and did not receive ADT, respectively. Mean prostate-rectum separation achieved with SpaceOAR was 9.6 ± 4 mm at the prostate midgland. No grade ≥ 3 GU or GI toxicity was recorded. During treatment, 30% of men developed new grade 2 GU toxicity (urgency or dysuria). These symptoms were present in 30% of men at 1 month and in 12% of men at 1 year post-treatment. During treatment, GI toxicity was limited to grade 1 symptoms (16%), although 4% of men developed grade 2 symptoms during the first 4 weeks after SBRT. All GI symptoms were resolving by the 1 month post-treatment assessment and no acute or late rectal toxicity was reported > 1 month after treatment. Periprostatic hydrogel placement followed by prostate SBRT resulted in minimal GI toxicity, and favorable early oncologic outcomes. These results indicate that SBRT with periprostatic spacer is a well-tolerated, safe, and convenient treatment option for localized prostate cancer.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Multiple phase I-II clinical trials have reported on the efficacy and safety of prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for the treatment of prostate cancer. However, few have reported outcomes for prostate SBRT using periprostatic hydrogel spacer (SpaceOAR; Augmenix). Herein, we report safety and efficacy outcomes from our institutional prostate SBRT experience with SpaceOAR placement.
METHODS
METHODS
Fifty men with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated at a single institution with linear accelerator-based SBRT to 3625 cGy in 5 fractions, with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) were included. All patients underwent SpaceOAR and fiducial marker placement followed by pre-treatment MRI. Toxicity assessments were conducted at least weekly while on treatment, 1 month after treatment, and every follow-up visit thereafter. Post-treatment PSA measurements were obtained 4 months after SBRT, followed by every 3-6 months thereafter. Acute toxicity was documented per RTOG criteria.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Median follow up time was 20 (range 4-44) months. Median PSA at time of diagnosis was 7.4 (2.7-19.5) ng/ml. Eighteen men received 6 months of ADT for unfavorable intermediate risk disease. No PSA failures were recorded. Median PSA was 0.9 ng/mL at 20 months; 0.08 and 1.32 ng/mL in men who did and did not receive ADT, respectively. Mean prostate-rectum separation achieved with SpaceOAR was 9.6 ± 4 mm at the prostate midgland. No grade ≥ 3 GU or GI toxicity was recorded. During treatment, 30% of men developed new grade 2 GU toxicity (urgency or dysuria). These symptoms were present in 30% of men at 1 month and in 12% of men at 1 year post-treatment. During treatment, GI toxicity was limited to grade 1 symptoms (16%), although 4% of men developed grade 2 symptoms during the first 4 weeks after SBRT. All GI symptoms were resolving by the 1 month post-treatment assessment and no acute or late rectal toxicity was reported > 1 month after treatment.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Periprostatic hydrogel placement followed by prostate SBRT resulted in minimal GI toxicity, and favorable early oncologic outcomes. These results indicate that SBRT with periprostatic spacer is a well-tolerated, safe, and convenient treatment option for localized prostate cancer.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31375119
doi: 10.1186/s13014-019-1346-5
pii: 10.1186/s13014-019-1346-5
pmc: PMC6679492
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers, Tumor
0
Hydrogels
0
Prostate-Specific Antigen
EC 3.4.21.77
Types de publication
Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
136Références
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999 Mar 15;43(5):1095-101
pubmed: 10192361
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001 Sep 1;51(1):31-40
pubmed: 11516848
Urology. 2007 Jan;69(1):129-33
pubmed: 17270634
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Mar 15;67(4):1099-105
pubmed: 17336216
Ann Oncol. 2010 Apr;21(4):808-14
pubmed: 19825885
BMC Urol. 2010 Feb 01;10:1
pubmed: 20122161
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 1991 May;3(3):127-32
pubmed: 2069876
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Feb 1;82(2):877-82
pubmed: 21300474
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Feb 1;82(2):883-8
pubmed: 21300477
Cancer. 2012 Aug 1;118(15):3681-90
pubmed: 22170628
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013 Feb 1;85(2):385-92
pubmed: 22652112
Radiat Oncol. 2013 Mar 13;8:58
pubmed: 23497695
Eur Urol. 2013 Dec;64(6):895-902
pubmed: 23541457
Radiother Oncol. 2013 May;107(2):153-8
pubmed: 23647750
Radiother Oncol. 2013 Nov;109(2):217-21
pubmed: 24060175
BMC Urol. 2013 Oct 17;13:49
pubmed: 24134138
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Apr 20;32(12):1195-201
pubmed: 24616315
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014 Jul 1;89(3):509-17
pubmed: 24929162
Front Oncol. 2015 Apr 07;5:48
pubmed: 25905037
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015 Jul 15;92(4):856-62
pubmed: 25936597
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015 Aug 1;92(5):971-977
pubmed: 26054865
Br J Radiol. 2015 Oct;88(1054):20140736
pubmed: 26235142
Radiother Oncol. 2015 Aug;116(2):179-84
pubmed: 26276528
Eur J Cancer. 2016 May;59:142-151
pubmed: 27035363
Urol Oncol. 2016 Jul;34(7):291.e19-26
pubmed: 27038698
Cancer. 2016 Jul 15;122(14):2234-41
pubmed: 27171855
Cancer. 2016 Aug 15;122(16):2496-504
pubmed: 27224858
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2016 Oct;28(10):e148-54
pubmed: 27298241
Radiother Oncol. 2016 Nov;121(2):294-298
pubmed: 27890426
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Apr 1;97(5):976-985
pubmed: 28209443
Med Dosim. 2017 Winter;42(4):341-347
pubmed: 28774760
Front Oncol. 2017 Jul 24;7:157
pubmed: 28791252
Chin Clin Oncol. 2017 Sep;6(Suppl 2):S10
pubmed: 28917248
World J Clin Oncol. 2017 Oct 10;8(5):389-397
pubmed: 29067275
Cureus. 2017 Sep 9;9(9):e1668
pubmed: 29152425
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018 Jan 1;100(1):59-67
pubmed: 29254782
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2018 Jul;30(7):442-447
pubmed: 29571936
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018 Dec 1;102(5):1438-1447
pubmed: 30071295
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018 Oct 1;102(2):296-303
pubmed: 30191864
Radiat Oncol. 2018 Oct 1;13(1):192
pubmed: 30285812
Radiat Oncol. 2018 Nov 23;13(1):230
pubmed: 30470253
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019 May 1;104(1):42-49
pubmed: 30611838
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Feb 1;2(2):e188006
pubmed: 30735235
Eur Urol Oncol. 2018 Dec;1(6):540-547
pubmed: 31158102