William C Jackson1, Jessica Silva1, Holly E Hartman2, Robert T Dess1, Amar U Kishan3, Whitney H Beeler1, Laila A Gharzai1, Elizabeth M Jaworski1, Rohit Mehra4, Jason W D Hearn1, Todd M Morgan5, Simpa S Salami5, Matthew R Cooperberg6, Brandon A Mahal7, Payal D Soni1, Samuel Kaffenberger5, Paul L Nguyen7, Neil Desai8, Felix Y Feng9, Zachary S Zumsteg10, Daniel E Spratt11. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 2. Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, California. 4. Department of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 5. Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 6. Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, California. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 8. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas. 9. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, California. 10. Department of Radiation Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. 11. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Electronic address: sprattda@med.umich.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Utilization of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for treatment of localized prostate cancer is increasing. Guidelines and payers variably support the use of prostate SBRT. We therefore sought to systematically analyze biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS), physician-reported toxicity, and patient-reported outcomes after prostate SBRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A systematic search leveraging Medline via PubMed and EMBASE for original articles published between January 1990 and January 2018 was performed. This was supplemented by abstracts with sufficient extractable data from January 2013 to March 2018. All prospective series assessing curative-intent prostate SBRT for localized prostate cancer reporting bRFS, physician-reported toxicity, and patient-reported quality of life with a minimum of 1-year follow-up were included. The study was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Meta-analyses were performed with random-effect modeling. Extent of heterogeneity between studies was determined by the I2 and Cochran's Q tests. Meta-regression was performed using Hartung-Knapp methods. RESULTS: Thirty-eight unique prospective series were identified comprising 6116 patients. Median follow-up was 39 months across all patients (range, 12-115 months). Ninety-two percent, 78%, and 38% of studies included low, intermediate, and high-risk patients. Overall, 5- and 7-year bRFS rates were 95.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.3%-97.5%) and 93.7% (95% CI, 91.4%-95.5%), respectively. Estimated late grade ≥3 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity rates were 2.0% (95% CI, 1.4%-2.8%) and 1.1% (95% CI, 0.6%-2.0%), respectively. By 2 years post-SBRT, Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite urinary and bowel domain scores returned to baseline. Increasing dose of SBRT was associated with improved biochemical control (P = .018) but worse late grade ≥3 GU toxicity (P = .014). CONCLUSIONS: Prostate SBRT has substantial prospective evidence supporting its use, with favorable tumor control, patient-reported quality of life, and levels of toxicity demonstrated. SBRT has sufficient evidence to be supported as a standard treatment option for localized prostate cancer while ongoing trials assess its potential superiority.
PURPOSE: Utilization of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for treatment of localized prostate cancer is increasing. Guidelines and payers variably support the use of prostate SBRT. We therefore sought to systematically analyze biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS), physician-reported toxicity, and patient-reported outcomes after prostate SBRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A systematic search leveraging Medline via PubMed and EMBASE for original articles published between January 1990 and January 2018 was performed. This was supplemented by abstracts with sufficient extractable data from January 2013 to March 2018. All prospective series assessing curative-intent prostate SBRT for localized prostate cancer reporting bRFS, physician-reported toxicity, and patient-reported quality of life with a minimum of 1-year follow-up were included. The study was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Meta-analyses were performed with random-effect modeling. Extent of heterogeneity between studies was determined by the I2 and Cochran's Q tests. Meta-regression was performed using Hartung-Knapp methods. RESULTS: Thirty-eight unique prospective series were identified comprising 6116 patients. Median follow-up was 39 months across all patients (range, 12-115 months). Ninety-two percent, 78%, and 38% of studies included low, intermediate, and high-risk patients. Overall, 5- and 7-year bRFS rates were 95.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.3%-97.5%) and 93.7% (95% CI, 91.4%-95.5%), respectively. Estimated late grade ≥3 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity rates were 2.0% (95% CI, 1.4%-2.8%) and 1.1% (95% CI, 0.6%-2.0%), respectively. By 2 years post-SBRT, Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite urinary and bowel domain scores returned to baseline. Increasing dose of SBRT was associated with improved biochemical control (P = .018) but worse late grade ≥3 GU toxicity (P = .014). CONCLUSIONS: Prostate SBRT has substantial prospective evidence supporting its use, with favorable tumor control, patient-reported quality of life, and levels of toxicity demonstrated. SBRT has sufficient evidence to be supported as a standard treatment option for localized prostate cancer while ongoing trials assess its potential superiority.
Authors: William C Jackson; Robert T Dess; Dale W Litzenberg; Pin Li; Matthew Schipper; Seth A Rosenthal; Garrick C Chang; Eric M Horwitz; Robert A Price; Jeff M Michalski; Hiram A Gay; John T Wei; Mary Feng; Felix Y Feng; Howard M Sandler; Robert E Wallace; Daniel E Spratt; Daniel A Hamstra Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-08-16
Authors: Peter J Hoskin; Ana M Rojas; Peter J Bownes; Gerry J Lowe; Peter J Ostler; Linda Bryant Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2012-02-16 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: G D'Agostino; C Franzese; F De Rose; D Franceschini; T Comito; E Villa; F Alongi; R Liardo; S Tomatis; P Navarria; P Mancosu; G Reggiori; L Cozzi; M Scorsetti Journal: Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) Date: 2016-07-04 Impact factor: 4.126
Authors: Sean M McBride; Douglas S Wong; John J Dombrowski; Bonnie Harkins; Patricia Tapella; Heather N Hanscom; Sean P Collins; Irving D Kaplan Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-12-13 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Carlos E Vargas; William F Hartsell; Megan Dunn; Sameer R Keole; Lucius Doh; Elaine Eisenbeisz; Gary L Larson Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 2.339
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