PURPOSE: High dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy has been established as an excellent monotherapy or after external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) boost treatment for prostate cancer (PCa). Recently, dosimetric studies have demonstrated the potential for achieving similar dosimetry with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) compared with HDR brachytherapy. Here, we report our technique, PSA nadir, and acute and late toxicity with SBRT as monotherapy and post-EBRT boost for PCa using HDR brachytherapy fractionation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: To date, 38 patients have been treated with SBRT at the University of California-San Francisco with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Twenty of 38 patients were treated with SBRT monotherapy (9.5 Gy × 4 fractions), and 18 were treated with SBRT boost (9.5 Gy × 2 fractions) post-EBRT and androgen deprivation therapy. PSA nadir to date for 44 HDR brachytherapy boost patients with disease characteristics similar to the SBRT boost cohort was also analyzed as a descriptive comparison. RESULTS: SBRT was well tolerated. With a median follow-up of 18.3 months (range, 12.6-43.5), 42% and 11% of patients had acute Grade 2 gastrourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity, respectively, with no Grade 3 or higher acute toxicity to date. Two patients experienced late Grade 3 GU toxicity. All patients are without evidence of biochemical or clinical progression to date, and favorably low PSA nadirs have been observed with a current median PSA nadir of 0.35 ng/mL (range, <0.01-2.1) for all patients (0.47 ng/mL, range, 0.2-2.1 for the monotherapy cohort; 0.10 ng/mL, range, 0.01-0.5 for the boost cohort). With a median follow-up of 48.6 months (range, 16.4-87.8), the comparable HDR brachytherapy boost cohort has achieved a median PSA nadir of 0.09 ng/mL (range, 0.0-3.3). CONCLUSIONS: Early results with SBRT monotherapy and post-EBRT boost for PCa demonstrate acceptable PSA response and minimal toxicity. PSA nadir with SBRT boost appears comparable to those achieved with HDR brachytherapy boost.
PURPOSE: High dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy has been established as an excellent monotherapy or after external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) boost treatment for prostate cancer (PCa). Recently, dosimetric studies have demonstrated the potential for achieving similar dosimetry with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) compared with HDR brachytherapy. Here, we report our technique, PSA nadir, and acute and late toxicity with SBRT as monotherapy and post-EBRT boost for PCa using HDR brachytherapy fractionation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: To date, 38 patients have been treated with SBRT at the University of California-San Francisco with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Twenty of 38 patients were treated with SBRT monotherapy (9.5 Gy × 4 fractions), and 18 were treated with SBRT boost (9.5 Gy × 2 fractions) post-EBRT and androgen deprivation therapy. PSA nadir to date for 44 HDR brachytherapy boost patients with disease characteristics similar to the SBRT boost cohort was also analyzed as a descriptive comparison. RESULTS: SBRT was well tolerated. With a median follow-up of 18.3 months (range, 12.6-43.5), 42% and 11% of patients had acute Grade 2 gastrourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity, respectively, with no Grade 3 or higher acute toxicity to date. Two patients experienced late Grade 3 GU toxicity. All patients are without evidence of biochemical or clinical progression to date, and favorably low PSA nadirs have been observed with a current median PSA nadir of 0.35 ng/mL (range, <0.01-2.1) for all patients (0.47 ng/mL, range, 0.2-2.1 for the monotherapy cohort; 0.10 ng/mL, range, 0.01-0.5 for the boost cohort). With a median follow-up of 48.6 months (range, 16.4-87.8), the comparable HDR brachytherapy boost cohort has achieved a median PSA nadir of 0.09 ng/mL (range, 0.0-3.3). CONCLUSIONS: Early results with SBRT monotherapy and post-EBRT boost for PCa demonstrate acceptable PSA response and minimal toxicity. PSA nadir with SBRT boost appears comparable to those achieved with HDR brachytherapy boost.
Authors: Carlos Enrique Vargas; William Fred Hartsell; Megan Dunn; Sameer Ramchandra Keole; Lucius Doh; John Chang; Gary Lynn Larson Journal: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Date: 2016-03-04
Authors: William C Jackson; Jessica Silva; Holly E Hartman; Robert T Dess; Amar U Kishan; Whitney H Beeler; Laila A Gharzai; Elizabeth M Jaworski; Rohit Mehra; Jason W D Hearn; Todd M Morgan; Simpa S Salami; Matthew R Cooperberg; Brandon A Mahal; Payal D Soni; Samuel Kaffenberger; Paul L Nguyen; Neil Desai; Felix Y Feng; Zachary S Zumsteg; Daniel E Spratt Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2019-04-06 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Michael Wahl; Martina Descovich; Erin Shugard; Dilini Pinnaduwage; Atchar Sudhyadhom; Albert Chang; Mack Roach; Alexander Gottschalk; Josephine Chen Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-07-08
Authors: Joseph C Hodges; Yair Lotan; Thomas P Boike; Rhonda Benton; Alyson Barrier; Robert D Timmerman Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Anju Parthan; Narin Pruttivarasin; Diane Davies; Douglas C A Taylor; Vivek Pawar; Akash Bijlani; Kristen Hassmiller Lich; Ronald C Chen Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2012-08-20 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Siyuan Lei; Nathaniel Piel; Eric K Oermann; Viola Chen; Andrew W Ju; Kedar N Dahal; Heather N Hanscom; Joy S Kim; Xia Yu; Guowei Zhang; Brian T Collins; Reena Jha; Anatoly Dritschilo; Simeng Suy; Sean P Collins Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2011-12-08 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Andrew W Ju; Hongkun Wang; Eric K Oermann; Benjamin A Sherer; Sunghae Uhm; Viola J Chen; Arjun V Pendharkar; Heather N Hanscom; Joy S Kim; Siyuan Lei; Simeng Suy; John H Lynch; Anatoly Dritschilo; Sean P Collins Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2013-01-31 Impact factor: 3.481