Kyle Wang1, Panayiotis Mavroidis1, Trevor J Royce1, Aaron D Falchook2, Sean P Collins3, Stephen Sapareto4, Nathan C Sheets1, Donald B Fuller5, Issam El Naqa6, Ellen Yorke7, Jimm Grimm8, Andrew Jackson7, Ronald C Chen9. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 2. Memorial Healthcare System, Pembroke Pines, Florida. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC. 4. Department of Medical Physics, Banner Health System, Phoenix, Arizona. 5. Genesis Healthcare Partners, San Diego, California. 6. Department of Machine Learning, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida. 7. Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 8. Department of Radiation Oncology, Geisinger Health System, Danville, Pennsylvania; Department of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 9. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Kansas, Kansas City, Kansas. Electronic address: rchen2@kumc.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Ultrahypofractionationed radiation therapy for prostate cancer is increasingly studied and adopted. The American Association of Physicists in Medicine Working Group on Biological Effects of Hypofractionated Radiotherapy therefore aimed to review studies examining toxicity and quality of life after stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer and model its effect. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We performed a systematic PubMed search of prostate SBRT studies published between 2001 and 2018. Those that analyzed factors associated with late urinary, bowel, or sexual toxicity and/or quality of life were included and reviewed. Normal tissue complication probability modelling was performed on studies that contained detailed dose/volume and outcome data. RESULTS: We found 13 studies that examined urinary effects, 6 that examined bowel effects, and 4 that examined sexual effects. Most studies included patients with low-intermediate risk prostate cancer treated to 35-40 Gy. Most patients were treated with 5 fractions, with several centers using 4 fractions. Endpoints were heterogeneous and included both physician-scored toxicity and patient-reported quality of life. Most toxicities were mild-moderate (eg, grade 1-2) with a very low overall incidence of severe toxicity (eg, grade 3 or higher, usually <3%). Side effects were associated with both dosimetric and non-dosimetric factors. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate SBRT appears to be overall well tolerated, with determinants of toxicity that include dosimetric factors and patient factors. Suggested dose constraints include bladder V(Rx Dose)Gy <5-10 cc, urethra Dmax <38-42 Gy, and rectum Dmax <35-38 Gy, though current data do not offer firm guidance on tolerance doses. Several areas for future research are suggested.
PURPOSE: Ultrahypofractionationed radiation therapy for prostate cancer is increasingly studied and adopted. The American Association of Physicists in Medicine Working Group on Biological Effects of Hypofractionated Radiotherapy therefore aimed to review studies examining toxicity and quality of life after stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer and model its effect. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We performed a systematic PubMed search of prostate SBRT studies published between 2001 and 2018. Those that analyzed factors associated with late urinary, bowel, or sexual toxicity and/or quality of life were included and reviewed. Normal tissue complication probability modelling was performed on studies that contained detailed dose/volume and outcome data. RESULTS: We found 13 studies that examined urinary effects, 6 that examined bowel effects, and 4 that examined sexual effects. Most studies included patients with low-intermediate risk prostate cancer treated to 35-40 Gy. Most patients were treated with 5 fractions, with several centers using 4 fractions. Endpoints were heterogeneous and included both physician-scored toxicity and patient-reported quality of life. Most toxicities were mild-moderate (eg, grade 1-2) with a very low overall incidence of severe toxicity (eg, grade 3 or higher, usually <3%). Side effects were associated with both dosimetric and non-dosimetric factors. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate SBRT appears to be overall well tolerated, with determinants of toxicity that include dosimetric factors and patient factors. Suggested dose constraints include bladder V(Rx Dose)Gy <5-10 cc, urethra Dmax <38-42 Gy, and rectum Dmax <35-38 Gy, though current data do not offer firm guidance on tolerance doses. Several areas for future research are suggested.
Authors: Akila N Viswanathan; Ellen D Yorke; Lawrence B Marks; Patricia J Eifel; William U Shipley Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Andrew Jackson; Lawrence B Marks; Søren M Bentzen; Avraham Eisbruch; Ellen D Yorke; Randal K Ten Haken; Louis S Constine; Joseph O Deasy Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
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: Carl Salembier; Geert Villeirs; Berardino De Bari; Peter Hoskin; Bradley R Pieters; Marco Van Vulpen; Vincent Khoo; Ann Henry; Alberto Bossi; Gert De Meerleer; Valérie Fonteyne Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Jean L Wright; Jeffrey H Newhouse; Joseph L Laguna; Darleen Vecchio; Ronald D Ennis Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Andrew Loblaw; Patrick Cheung; Laura D'Alimonte; Andrea Deabreu; Alexandre Mamedov; Liying Zhang; Colin Tang; Harvey Quon; Suneil Jain; Geordi Pang; Robert Nam Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2013-05-03 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Catherine Mercado; Marie-Adele Kress; Robyn A Cyr; Leonard N Chen; Thomas M Yung; Elizabeth G Bullock; Siyuan Lei; Brian T Collins; Andrew N Satinsky; K William Harter; Simeng Suy; Anatoly Dritschilo; John H Lynch; Sean P Collins Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2016-05-06 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Jonathan E Leeman; Daniel N Cagney; Raymond H Mak; Mai Anh Huynh; Shyam K Tanguturi; Lisa Singer; Paul Catalano; Neil E Martin; Anthony V D'Amico; Kent W Mouw; Paul L Nguyen; Martin T King; Zhaohui Han; Christopher Williams; Elizabeth Huynh Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-03-06
Authors: Hao Gao; Jiulong Liu; Yuting Lin; Gregory N Gan; Guillem Pratx; Fen Wang; Katja Langen; Jeffrey D Bradley; Ronny L Rotondo; Harold H Li; Ronald C Chen Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-12-07 Impact factor: 4.506
Authors: Christina Schröder; Hongjian Tang; Paul Windisch; Daniel Rudolf Zwahlen; André Buchali; Erwin Vu; Tilman Bostel; Tanja Sprave; Thomas Zilli; Vedang Murthy; Robert Förster Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-01-29 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Katherine Amarell; Anna Jaysing; Christopher Mendez; Jonathan A Haas; Seth R Blacksburg; Aaron E Katz; Astrid Sanchez; Angela Tong; Todd Carpenter; Matthew Witten; Sean P Collins; Jonathan W Lischalk Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-04-02 Impact factor: 3.481