PURPOSE: This study investigates whether focal boosting of the macroscopic visible tumor with external beam radiotherapy increases biochemical disease-free survival (bDFS) in patients with localized prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the phase III, multicenter, randomized controlled Focal Lesion Ablative Microboost in Prostate Cancer trial, 571 patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer were enrolled between 2009 and 2015. Patients assigned to standard treatment received 77 Gy (fractions of 2.2 Gy) to the entire prostate. The focal boost arm received an additional simultaneous integrated focal boost up to 95 Gy (fractions up to 2.7 Gy) to the intraprostatic lesion visible on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Organ at risk constraints were prioritized over the focal boost dose. The primary end point was 5-year bDFS. Secondary end points were disease-free survival (DFS), distant metastases-free survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, overall survival, toxicity, and health-related quality of life. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 72 months. Biochemical DFS was significantly higher in the focal boost compared with the standard arm (hazard ratio 0.45, 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.71, P < .001). At 5-year follow-up bDFS was 92% and 85%, respectively. We did not observe differences in prostate cancer-specific survival (P = .49) and overall survival (P = .50). The cumulative incidence of late genitourinary and GI toxicity grade ≥ 2 was 23% and 12% in the standard arm versus 28% and 13% in the focal boost arm, respectively. Both for late toxicity as health-related quality of life, differences were small and not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The addition of a focal boost to the intraprostatic lesion improved bDFS for patients with localized intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer without impacting toxicity and quality of life. The Focal Lesion Ablative Microboost in Prostate Cancer study shows that a high focal boost strategy to improve tumor control while respecting organ at risk dose constraints is effective and safe.
PURPOSE: This study investigates whether focal boosting of the macroscopic visible tumor with external beam radiotherapy increases biochemical disease-free survival (bDFS) in patients with localized prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the phase III, multicenter, randomized controlled Focal Lesion Ablative Microboost in Prostate Cancer trial, 571 patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer were enrolled between 2009 and 2015. Patients assigned to standard treatment received 77 Gy (fractions of 2.2 Gy) to the entire prostate. The focal boost arm received an additional simultaneous integrated focal boost up to 95 Gy (fractions up to 2.7 Gy) to the intraprostatic lesion visible on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Organ at risk constraints were prioritized over the focal boost dose. The primary end point was 5-year bDFS. Secondary end points were disease-free survival (DFS), distant metastases-free survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, overall survival, toxicity, and health-related quality of life. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 72 months. Biochemical DFS was significantly higher in the focal boost compared with the standard arm (hazard ratio 0.45, 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.71, P < .001). At 5-year follow-up bDFS was 92% and 85%, respectively. We did not observe differences in prostate cancer-specific survival (P = .49) and overall survival (P = .50). The cumulative incidence of late genitourinary and GI toxicity grade ≥ 2 was 23% and 12% in the standard arm versus 28% and 13% in the focal boost arm, respectively. Both for late toxicity as health-related quality of life, differences were small and not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The addition of a focal boost to the intraprostatic lesion improved bDFS for patients with localized intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer without impacting toxicity and quality of life. The Focal Lesion Ablative Microboost in Prostate Cancer study shows that a high focal boost strategy to improve tumor control while respecting organ at risk dose constraints is effective and safe.
Authors: William A Hall; Eric Paulson; X Allen Li; Beth Erickson; Christopher Schultz; Alison Tree; Musaddiq Awan; Daniel A Low; Brigid A McDonald; Travis Salzillo; Carri K Glide-Hurst; Amar U Kishan; Clifton D Fuller Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2021-11-18 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Almudena Zapatero; Maria Roch; Pablo Castro Tejero; David Büchser; Carmen Martin de Vidales; Saturnino González; Pablo Rodríguez; Luis Alberto San Jose; Guillermo Celada; Maria Teresa Murillo Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-09-19 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Tatsuya J Arai; Donghan M Yang; James W Campbell; Tsuicheng Chiu; Xinyi Cheng; Strahinja Stojadinovic; Peter Peschke; Ralph P Mason Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2021-03-26 Impact factor: 8.013
Authors: Constantin Lapa; Ursula Nestle; Nathalie L Albert; Christian Baues; Ambros Beer; Andreas Buck; Volker Budach; Rebecca Bütof; Stephanie E Combs; Thorsten Derlin; Matthias Eiber; Wolfgang P Fendler; Christian Furth; Cihan Gani; Eleni Gkika; Anca-L Grosu; Christoph Henkenberens; Harun Ilhan; Steffen Löck; Simone Marnitz-Schulze; Matthias Miederer; Michael Mix; Nils H Nicolay; Maximilian Niyazi; Christoph Pöttgen; Claus M Rödel; Imke Schatka; Sarah M Schwarzenboeck; Andrei S Todica; Wolfgang Weber; Simone Wegen; Thomas Wiegel; Constantinos Zamboglou; Daniel Zips; Klaus Zöphel; Sebastian Zschaeck; Daniela Thorwarth; Esther G C Troost Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2021-07-14 Impact factor: 3.621