Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer in Men With Hip Prostheses: A Cautionary Note.
cyberknife
hip replacement
local recurrence
prostate cancer
sbrt
toxicities
Journal
Cureus
ISSN: 2168-8184
Titre abrégé: Cureus
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101596737
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2024
May 2024
Historique:
accepted:
31
05
2024
medline:
1
7
2024
pubmed:
1
7
2024
entrez:
1
7
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has been established as a safe and effective treatment for prostate cancer. SBRT requires high accuracy to reduce treatment margins. Metal hip prostheses create artifacts that distort pelvic imaging and potentially decrease the accuracy of target/organ at risk (OAR) identification and radiation dose calculations. Data on the safety and efficacy of SBRT after hip replacement is limited. This single-institution study sought to evaluate the safety and local control following SBRT for prostate cancer in men with hip replacements. 23 patients treated with localized prostate cancer and a history of pre-treatment hip replacement, treated with SBRT from 2007 to 2017 at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital were included in this retrospective analysis. Treatment was administered with the CyberKnife The median follow-up was seven years. The patients were elderly (median age = 71 years) with a high rate of comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index > 2 in 25%). Four patients had bilateral hip replacements. The majority of patients were low to intermediate risk per the D'Amico classification. Around 13% received upfront ADT. In total, 13 patients were treated with 35 Gy, and 10 were treated with 36.25 Gy. The rates of late > Grade 3 GU toxicity and > Grade 2 GI toxicity were 8.6% and 4.3%, respectively. There were no Grade 4 or 5 toxicities. Six patients (26%) developed a local recurrence at a median time of 7.5 years. Of these six patients, four had unilateral hip replacements and two had bilateral. Three underwent salvage cryotherapy and three received salvage ADT. In the general population, high-grade toxicities and local recurrences are uncommon following prostate SBRT. However, in this cohort of patients with prior hip replacements, prostate SBRT had higher than expected rates of late toxicity and local recurrence. In the opinion of the authors, such patients should be counseled regarding an elevated risk of late toxicity and local recurrence with prostate SBRT. With its ultrasound guidance, brachytherapy would have the advantage of circumventing the need for MRI/CT-based imaging and thus may represent a preferable radiation alternative in this patient population. If these patients are treated with SBRT, they should be monitored closely for local recurrence so early salvage can be performed. We hope that recent advances in metal artifact reduction techniques and dose-calculation algorithms will improve future outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38947568
doi: 10.7759/cureus.61432
pmc: PMC11214744
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e61432Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024, Shah et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Human subjects: Consent was obtained or waived by all participants in this study. Georgetown University Institutional Review Board issued approval 2009-510. Approval from the MedStar Georgetown University Institutional Review Board was obtained for retrospective review of prospectively collected data in our institutional database (IRB#: 2009-510). Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: This work was supported by the James and Theodore Pedas Family Foundation. Additionally, SP Collins serves as a clinical consultant to Accuray Inc. The Department of Radiation Medicine at Medstar Georgetown University Hospital recieves a grant from Accuray to support a research coordinator. The other authors declare they have no competing interests. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.