Trevor J Royce1, Panayiotis Mavroidis2, Kyle Wang2, Aaron D Falchook3, Nathan C Sheets2, Donald B Fuller4, Sean P Collins5, Issam El Naqa6, Daniel Y Song7, George X Ding8, Alan E Nahum9, Andrew Jackson10, Jimm Grimm11, Ellen Yorke10, Ronald C Chen12. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Electronic address: trevor_royce@med.unc.edu. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 3. Memorial Healthcare System, Pembroke Pines, Florida. 4. Division of Genesis Healthcare Partners Inc, Genesis CyberKnife, San Diego, California. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC. 6. Machine Learning Department, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 8. Department of Radiation Oncology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee. 9. Department of Physics, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom and Henley-on-Thames, United Kingdom. 10. Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, New York. 11. Department of Radiation Oncology, Geisinger Health System, Danville, Pennsylvania; Department of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 12. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Kansas, Kansas City, Kansas.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Dose escalation improves localized prostate cancer disease control, and moderately hypofractionated external beam radiation is noninferior to conventional fractionation. The evolving treatment approach of ultrahypofractionation with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) allows possible further biological dose escalation (biologically equivalent dose [BED]) and shortened treatment time. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The American Association of Physicists in Medicine Working Group on Biological Effects of Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy/SBRT included a subgroup to study the prostate tumor control probability (TCP) with SBRT. We performed a systematic review of the available literature and created a dose-response TCP model for the endpoint of freedom from biochemical relapse. Results were stratified by prostate cancer risk group. RESULTS: Twenty-five published cohorts were identified for inclusion, with a total of 4821 patients (2235 with low-risk, 1894 with intermediate-risk, and 446 with high-risk disease, when reported) treated with a variety of dose/fractionation schemes, permitting dose-response modeling. Five studies had a median follow-up of more than 5 years. Dosing regimens ranged from 32 to 50 Gy in 4 to 5 fractions, with total BED (α/β = 1.5 Gy) between 183.1 and 383.3 Gy. At 5 years, we found that in patients with low-intermediate risk disease, an equivalent doses of 2 Gy per fraction (EQD2) of 71 Gy (31.7 Gy in 5 fractions) achieved a TCP of 90% and an EQD2 of 90 Gy (36.1 Gy in 5 fractions) achieved a TCP of 95%. In patients with high-risk disease, an EQD2 of 97 Gy (37.6 Gy in 5 fractions) can achieve a TCP of 90% and an EQD2 of 102 Gy (38.7 Gy in 5 fractions) can achieve a TCP of 95%. CONCLUSIONS: We found significant variation in the published literature on target delineation, margins used, dose/fractionation, and treatment schedule. Despite this variation, TCP was excellent. Most prescription doses range from 35 to 40 Gy, delivered in 4 to 5 fractions. The literature did not provide detailed dose-volume data, and our dosimetric analysis was constrained to prescription doses. There are many areas in need of continued research as SBRT continues to evolve as a treatment modality for prostate cancer, including the durability of local control with longer follow-up across risk groups, the efficacy and safety of SBRT as a boost to intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and the impact of incorporating novel imaging techniques into treatment planning.
PURPOSE: Dose escalation improves localized prostate cancer disease control, and moderately hypofractionated external beam radiation is noninferior to conventional fractionation. The evolving treatment approach of ultrahypofractionation with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) allows possible further biological dose escalation (biologically equivalent dose [BED]) and shortened treatment time. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The American Association of Physicists in Medicine Working Group on Biological Effects of Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy/SBRT included a subgroup to study the prostate tumor control probability (TCP) with SBRT. We performed a systematic review of the available literature and created a dose-response TCP model for the endpoint of freedom from biochemical relapse. Results were stratified by prostate cancer risk group. RESULTS: Twenty-five published cohorts were identified for inclusion, with a total of 4821 patients (2235 with low-risk, 1894 with intermediate-risk, and 446 with high-risk disease, when reported) treated with a variety of dose/fractionation schemes, permitting dose-response modeling. Five studies had a median follow-up of more than 5 years. Dosing regimens ranged from 32 to 50 Gy in 4 to 5 fractions, with total BED (α/β = 1.5 Gy) between 183.1 and 383.3 Gy. At 5 years, we found that in patients with low-intermediate risk disease, an equivalent doses of 2 Gy per fraction (EQD2) of 71 Gy (31.7 Gy in 5 fractions) achieved a TCP of 90% and an EQD2 of 90 Gy (36.1 Gy in 5 fractions) achieved a TCP of 95%. In patients with high-risk disease, an EQD2 of 97 Gy (37.6 Gy in 5 fractions) can achieve a TCP of 90% and an EQD2 of 102 Gy (38.7 Gy in 5 fractions) can achieve a TCP of 95%. CONCLUSIONS: We found significant variation in the published literature on target delineation, margins used, dose/fractionation, and treatment schedule. Despite this variation, TCP was excellent. Most prescription doses range from 35 to 40 Gy, delivered in 4 to 5 fractions. The literature did not provide detailed dose-volume data, and our dosimetric analysis was constrained to prescription doses. There are many areas in need of continued research as SBRT continues to evolve as a treatment modality for prostate cancer, including the durability of local control with longer follow-up across risk groups, the efficacy and safety of SBRT as a boost to intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and the impact of incorporating novel imaging techniques into treatment planning.
Authors: Nicholas R Paterson; Luke T Lavallée; Laura N Nguyen; Kelsey Witiuk; James Ross; Ranjeeta Mallick; Wael Shabana; Blair MacDonald; Nicola Scheida; Dean Fergusson; Franco Momoli; Sonya Cnossen; Christopher Morash; Ilias Cagiannos; Rodney H Breau Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Eric E Yeoh; Rochelle J Botten; Julie Butters; Addolorata C Di Matteo; Richard H Holloway; Jack Fowler Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-10-08 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Christopher R King; James D Brooks; Harcharan Gill; Joseph C Presti Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-02-06 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Anthony L Zietman; Kyounghwa Bae; Jerry D Slater; William U Shipley; Jason A Efstathiou; John J Coen; David A Bush; Margie Lunt; Daphna Y Spiegel; Rafi Skowronski; B Rodney Jabola; Carl J Rossi Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Charles J Rosser; Deborah A Kuban; Lawrence B Levy; Ramsey Chichakli; Alan Pollack; Andrew K Lee; Louis L Pisters Journal: J Urol Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: W Robert Lee; James J Dignam; Mahul B Amin; Deborah W Bruner; Daniel Low; Gregory P Swanson; Amit B Shah; David P D'Souza; Jeff M Michalski; Ian S Dayes; Samantha A Seaward; William A Hall; Paul L Nguyen; Thomas M Pisansky; Sergio L Faria; Yuhchyau Chen; Bridget F Koontz; Rebecca Paulus; Howard M Sandler Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-04-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: David P Dearnaley; Gordana Jovic; Isabel Syndikus; Vincent Khoo; Richard A Cowan; John D Graham; Edwin G Aird; David Bottomley; Robert A Huddart; Chakiath C Jose; John H L Matthews; Jeremy L Millar; Claire Murphy; J Martin Russell; Christopher D Scrase; Mahesh K B Parmar; Matthew R Sydes Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2014-02-26 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Sun Hyun Bae; Won Il Jang; Hyun-Cheol Kang; Young Il Kim; Yong Ho Kim; Woo Chul Kim; Hee Kwan Lee; Jin Ho Kim Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2021-08
Authors: Michael C Repka; Michael Creswell; Jonathan W Lischalk; Michael Carrasquilla; Matthew Forsthoefel; Jacqueline Lee; Siyuan Lei; Nima Aghdam; Shaan Kataria; Olusola Obayomi-Davies; Brian T Collins; Simeng Suy; Ryan A Hankins; Sean P Collins Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-03-31 Impact factor: 6.244