Amar U Kishan1, Pin-Chieh Wang2, Shrinivasa K Upadhyaya3, Henrik Hauswald4, D Jeffrey Demanes2, Nicholas G Nickols5, Mitchell Kamrava2, Ahmad Sadeghi6, Patrick A Kupelian2, Michael L Steinberg2, Nicolas D Prionas7, Mark K Buyyounouski7, Christopher R King2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Electronic address: aukishan@gmail.com. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 3. Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, University of California, Davis, Davis, California. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology and Radiation Therapy, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Veteran Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare patterns of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response following stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy, and conventionally fractionated intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer (CaP). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eligible study patients included 439 patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer who were treated with radiation therapy (RT) alone between 2003 and 2013, remained free of biochemical recurrence, and had at least 2 PSA values within the first year following RT. Of these, 130 were treated with SBRT, 220 with HDR brachytherapy, and 89 with IMRT. Multivariate regression analysis was used to compare PSA nadirs (nPSA), time to nPSA, and PSA bounce parameters among the 3 modalities. Indicator variable analysis was used to develop empirical models of PSA decay using the treatment modalities as indicator variables. RESULTS: Significantly more patients treated with SBRT or HDR brachytherapy achieved raw nPSAs of <0.5 ng/mL compared with patients treated with IMRT (76.2% and 75.9% vs 44.9%, respectively; P < .0001 for SBRT or HDR brachytherapy vs IMRT). On multivariate analysis, nPSA was significantly lower with SBRT and HDR compared with IMRT (P < .0001). Time to nPSA and bounce parameters was not significantly different among IMRT, SBRT, and HDR. Overall, SBRT and HDR brachytherapy caused significantly larger PSA decay rates (P < .001). When truncating follow-up at 1000 days, the corresponding decay rates were larger for all 3 modalities, with no significant differences between them. CONCLUSIONS: Stereotactic body radiation therapy and HDR brachytherapy produce lower nPSAs than IMRT. Within 1000 days of follow-up, the modalities produce similar rates of PSA decay; subsequently, decay continues (albeit at a slower pace) after SBRT and HDR brachytherapy but plateaus with IMRT. Because nPSA is a validated predictor of long-term outcome, these data not only suggest a distinct radiobiological effect with SBRT and HDR brachytherapy, but also predict for clinical outcomes that might equal or surpass those of IMRT.
PURPOSE: To compare patterns of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response following stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy, and conventionally fractionated intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer (CaP). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eligible study patients included 439 patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer who were treated with radiation therapy (RT) alone between 2003 and 2013, remained free of biochemical recurrence, and had at least 2 PSA values within the first year following RT. Of these, 130 were treated with SBRT, 220 with HDR brachytherapy, and 89 with IMRT. Multivariate regression analysis was used to compare PSA nadirs (nPSA), time to nPSA, and PSA bounce parameters among the 3 modalities. Indicator variable analysis was used to develop empirical models of PSA decay using the treatment modalities as indicator variables. RESULTS: Significantly more patients treated with SBRT or HDR brachytherapy achieved raw nPSAs of <0.5 ng/mL compared with patients treated with IMRT (76.2% and 75.9% vs 44.9%, respectively; P < .0001 for SBRT or HDR brachytherapy vs IMRT). On multivariate analysis, nPSA was significantly lower with SBRT and HDR compared with IMRT (P < .0001). Time to nPSA and bounce parameters was not significantly different among IMRT, SBRT, and HDR. Overall, SBRT and HDR brachytherapy caused significantly larger PSA decay rates (P < .001). When truncating follow-up at 1000 days, the corresponding decay rates were larger for all 3 modalities, with no significant differences between them. CONCLUSIONS: Stereotactic body radiation therapy and HDR brachytherapy produce lower nPSAs than IMRT. Within 1000 days of follow-up, the modalities produce similar rates of PSA decay; subsequently, decay continues (albeit at a slower pace) after SBRT and HDR brachytherapy but plateaus with IMRT. Because nPSA is a validated predictor of long-term outcome, these data not only suggest a distinct radiobiological effect with SBRT and HDR brachytherapy, but also predict for clinical outcomes that might equal or surpass those of IMRT.
Authors: Rebecca G Levin-Epstein; Naomi Y Jiang; Xiaoyan Wang; Shrinivasa K Upadhyaya; Sean P Collins; Simeng Suy; Nima Aghdam; Constantine Mantz; Alan J Katz; Leszek Miszczyk; Aleksandra Napieralska; Agnieszka Namysl-Kaletka; Nicholas Prionas; Hilary Bagshaw; Mark K Buyyounouski; Minsong Cao; Nzhde Agazaryan; Audrey Dang; Ye Yuan; Patrick A Kupelian; Nicholas G Zaorsky; Daniel E Spratt; Osama Mohamad; Felix Y Feng; Brandon A Mahal; Paul C Boutros; Arun U Kishan; Jesus Juarez; David Shabsovich; Tommy Jiang; Sartajdeep Kahlon; Ankur Patel; Jay Patel; Nicholas G Nickols; Michael L Steinberg; Donald B Fuller; Amar U Kishan Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2020-10-07 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Shaan Kataria; Harsha Koneru; Shan Guleria; Malika Danner; Marilyn Ayoob; Thomas Yung; Siyuan Lei; Brian T Collins; Simeng Suy; John H Lynch; Thomas Kole; Sean P Collins Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2017-07-24 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Malika Danner; Ming-Yang Hung; Thomas M Yung; Marilyn Ayoob; Siyuan Lei; Brian T Collins; Simeng Suy; Sean P Collins Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2017-10-16 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Thomas Leroy; Thomas Lacornerie; Emilie Bogart; Philippe Nickers; Eric Lartigau; David Pasquier Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-06-09 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Gargi Kothari; Andrew Loblaw; Alison C Tree; Nicholas J van As; Drew Moghanaki; Simon S Lo; Piet Ost; Shankar Siva Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-01-01