William C Chen1, Yun Li1, Ann Lazar2, Aysu Altun1, Martina Descovich1, Tomi Nano1, Benjamin Ziemer1, Atchar Sudhyadhom1, Adam Cunha1, Horatio Thomas1, Alexander Gottschalk1, I-Chow Hsu1, Mack Roach3. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 2. Division of Oral Epidemiology and Dental Public Health, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Division of Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California. Electronic address: mack.roach@ucsf.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To perform a propensity-score matched analysis comparing stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) boost and high-dose-rate (HDR) boost for localized prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A single-institution retrospective chart review was conducted of men treated with pelvic external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and SBRT boost (21 Gy and 19 Gy in 2 fractions) to the prostate for prostate cancer. A cohort treated at the same institution with HDR brachytherapy boost (19 Gy in 2 fractions) was compared. Propensity-score (PS) matching and multivariable Cox regression were used for analysis. Outcomes were biochemical recurrence freedom (BCRF) and metastasis freedom (MF). RESULTS: One hundred thirty-one men were treated with SBRT boost and 101 with HDR boost with median follow-up of 73.4 and 186.0 months, respectively. In addition, 68.8% of men had high-risk and 26.0% had unfavorable-intermediate disease, and 94.3% received androgen deprivation therapy. Five- and 10-year unadjusted BCRF was 88.8% and 85.3% for SBRT and 91.8% and 74.6% for HDR boost (log-rank P = .3), and 5- and 10-year unadjusted MF was 91.7% and 84.3% for SBRT and 95.8% and 82.0% for HDR (log-rank P = .8). After adjusting for covariates, there was no statistically significant difference in BCRF (hazard ratio [HR] 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-1.79; P = .6) or MF (HR 1.07; 95% CI, 0.44-2.57; P = .9) between SBRT and HDR boost. Similarly, after PS matching, there was no statistically significant difference between SBRT and HDR (BCRF: HR 0.66, 0.27-1.62, P = .4; MF: HR 0.84, 0.31-2.26, P = .7). Grade 3+ genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity in the SBRT cohort were 4.6% and 1.5%, and 3.0% and 0.0% in the HDR cohorts (P = .4, Fisher exact test). CONCLUSIONS: SBRT boost plus pelvic EBRT for prostate cancer resulted in similar BCRF and MF to HDR boost in this single institution, PS matched retrospective analysis. Toxicity was modest. Prospective evaluation of SBRT boost for the treatment of unfavorable-intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer is warranted.
PURPOSE: To perform a propensity-score matched analysis comparing stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) boost and high-dose-rate (HDR) boost for localized prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A single-institution retrospective chart review was conducted of men treated with pelvic external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and SBRT boost (21 Gy and 19 Gy in 2 fractions) to the prostate for prostate cancer. A cohort treated at the same institution with HDR brachytherapy boost (19 Gy in 2 fractions) was compared. Propensity-score (PS) matching and multivariable Cox regression were used for analysis. Outcomes were biochemical recurrence freedom (BCRF) and metastasis freedom (MF). RESULTS: One hundred thirty-one men were treated with SBRT boost and 101 with HDR boost with median follow-up of 73.4 and 186.0 months, respectively. In addition, 68.8% of men had high-risk and 26.0% had unfavorable-intermediate disease, and 94.3% received androgen deprivation therapy. Five- and 10-year unadjusted BCRF was 88.8% and 85.3% for SBRT and 91.8% and 74.6% for HDR boost (log-rank P = .3), and 5- and 10-year unadjusted MF was 91.7% and 84.3% for SBRT and 95.8% and 82.0% for HDR (log-rank P = .8). After adjusting for covariates, there was no statistically significant difference in BCRF (hazard ratio [HR] 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-1.79; P = .6) or MF (HR 1.07; 95% CI, 0.44-2.57; P = .9) between SBRT and HDR boost. Similarly, after PS matching, there was no statistically significant difference between SBRT and HDR (BCRF: HR 0.66, 0.27-1.62, P = .4; MF: HR 0.84, 0.31-2.26, P = .7). Grade 3+ genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity in the SBRT cohort were 4.6% and 1.5%, and 3.0% and 0.0% in the HDR cohorts (P = .4, Fisher exact test). CONCLUSIONS: SBRT boost plus pelvic EBRT for prostate cancer resulted in similar BCRF and MF to HDR boost in this single institution, PS matched retrospective analysis. Toxicity was modest. Prospective evaluation of SBRT boost for the treatment of unfavorable-intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer is warranted.
Authors: Randall J Brenneman; S Murty Goddu; Neal Andruska; Amit Roy; Walter R Bosch; Benjamin Fischer-Valuck; Jason A Efstathiou; Hiram A Gay; Jeff M Michalski; Brian C Baumann Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-10-22