Neal Andruska1, Benjamin W Fischer-Valuck2, Temitope Agabalogun3, Ruben Carmona4, Randall J Brenneman3, Yi Huang5, Hiram A Gay3, Jeff M Michalski3, Brian C Baumann6. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO. Electronic address: andruska.neal@wustl.edu. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Sylvester Cancer Center, University of Miami, FL. 5. Biostatistics, Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO; Department of Radiation Oncology, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA. Electronic address: brian.baumann@wustl.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), which delivers high-dose precision treatment in ≤5 fractions, is a shorter, more convenient, and less expensive alternative to conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (CRFT; ∼44 fractions) or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (MFRT; 20-28 fractions). SBRT has not been widely adopted but may have radiobiologic advantages over CFRT/MFRT. We hypothesized that SBRT would be associated with improved overall survival (OS) versus CFRT or MFRT ± androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for unfavorable-intermediate-risk prostate cancer (UIR-PCa). METHODS: Men with UIR-PCa treated with SBRT (35-40Gy in ≤5 fractions) or biologically equivalent doses of CFRT (72-86.4Gy in 1.8-2.0Gy/fraction) or MRFT (≥60Gy in 2.4-3.2Gy/fraction; biologically effective doses ≥120) were identified in the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Unweighted and propensity-weighted multivariable Cox analysis (MVA) was used to compare OS hazard ratios. RESULTS: Of 28,028 men with UIR-PCa who received CFRT with (n = 12,872) or without ADT (n = 12,984); MFRT with (n = 251) or without ADT (n = 281); and SBRT with (n = 212) or without ADT (n = 1,428) were identified. Relative to CFRT without ADT, CFRT+ ADT (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87-0.97, P = .002) and SBRT without ADT (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.61-0.89, P = .002) were both associated with improved OS on MVA. Relative to CFRT+ADT, SBRT without ADT correlated with improved OS on MVA (HR:0.81, 95% CI 0.67-0.99, P = .04). Propensity-weighted MVA demonstrated that SBRT (HR:0.80, 95% CI 0.65-0.98, P = .036) and ADT (HR:0.91, 95% CI 0.86-0.97, P = .002) correlated with improved OS. SBRT was not associated with improved OS versus MFRT. CONCLUSION: SBRT, which offers a cheaper and shorter treatment course that mitigates COVID-19 exposure, was associated with improved OS versus CFRT for UIR-PCa. These results confirm guideline-based recommendations that SBRT is a viable option for UIR prostate cancer. The results from this large retrospective study require further validation in clinical trials.
BACKGROUND: Prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), which delivers high-dose precision treatment in ≤5 fractions, is a shorter, more convenient, and less expensive alternative to conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (CRFT; ∼44 fractions) or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (MFRT; 20-28 fractions). SBRT has not been widely adopted but may have radiobiologic advantages over CFRT/MFRT. We hypothesized that SBRT would be associated with improved overall survival (OS) versus CFRT or MFRT ± androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for unfavorable-intermediate-risk prostate cancer (UIR-PCa). METHODS: Men with UIR-PCa treated with SBRT (35-40Gy in ≤5 fractions) or biologically equivalent doses of CFRT (72-86.4Gy in 1.8-2.0Gy/fraction) or MRFT (≥60Gy in 2.4-3.2Gy/fraction; biologically effective doses ≥120) were identified in the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Unweighted and propensity-weighted multivariable Cox analysis (MVA) was used to compare OS hazard ratios. RESULTS: Of 28,028 men with UIR-PCa who received CFRT with (n = 12,872) or without ADT (n = 12,984); MFRT with (n = 251) or without ADT (n = 281); and SBRT with (n = 212) or without ADT (n = 1,428) were identified. Relative to CFRT without ADT, CFRT+ ADT (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87-0.97, P = .002) and SBRT without ADT (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.61-0.89, P = .002) were both associated with improved OS on MVA. Relative to CFRT+ADT, SBRT without ADT correlated with improved OS on MVA (HR:0.81, 95% CI 0.67-0.99, P = .04). Propensity-weighted MVA demonstrated that SBRT (HR:0.80, 95% CI 0.65-0.98, P = .036) and ADT (HR:0.91, 95% CI 0.86-0.97, P = .002) correlated with improved OS. SBRT was not associated with improved OS versus MFRT. CONCLUSION: SBRT, which offers a cheaper and shorter treatment course that mitigates COVID-19 exposure, was associated with improved OS versus CFRT for UIR-PCa. These results confirm guideline-based recommendations that SBRT is a viable option for UIR prostate cancer. The results from this large retrospective study require further validation in clinical trials.
Authors: William C Jackson; Jessica Silva; Holly E Hartman; Robert T Dess; Amar U Kishan; Whitney H Beeler; Laila A Gharzai; Elizabeth M Jaworski; Rohit Mehra; Jason W D Hearn; Todd M Morgan; Simpa S Salami; Matthew R Cooperberg; Brandon A Mahal; Payal D Soni; Samuel Kaffenberger; Paul L Nguyen; Neil Desai; Felix Y Feng; Zachary S Zumsteg; Daniel E Spratt Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2019-04-06 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Christopher R King; Debra Freeman; Irving Kaplan; Donald Fuller; Giampaolo Bolzicco; Sean Collins; Robert Meier; Jason Wang; Patrick Kupelian; Michael Steinberg; Alan Katz Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2013-09-20 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Ritchell van Dams; Naomi Y Jiang; Donald B Fuller; Andrew Loblaw; Tommy Jiang; Alan J Katz; Sean P Collins; Nima Aghdam; Simeng Suy; Kevin L Stephans; Ye Yuan; Nicholas G Nickols; Vedang Murthy; Tejshri P Telkhade; Patrick A Kupelian; Michael L Steinberg; Tahmineh Romero; Amar U Kishan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2021-01-23 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Amar U Kishan; Audrey Dang; Alan J Katz; Constantine A Mantz; Sean P Collins; Nima Aghdam; Fang-I Chu; Irving D Kaplan; Limor Appelbaum; Donald B Fuller; Robert M Meier; D Andrew Loblaw; Patrick Cheung; Huong T Pham; Narek Shaverdian; Naomi Jiang; Ye Yuan; Hilary Bagshaw; Nicolas Prionas; Mark K Buyyounouski; Daniel E Spratt; Patrick W Linson; Robert L Hong; Nicholas G Nickols; Michael L Steinberg; Patrick A Kupelian; Christopher R King Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2019-02-01
Authors: Katie Spencer; Christopher M Jones; Rebecca Girdler; Catherine Roe; Michael Sharpe; Sarah Lawton; Louise Miller; Philippa Lewis; Mererid Evans; David Sebag-Montefiore; Tom Roques; Rebecca Smittenaar; Eva Morris Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2021-01-22 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Sanford L Meeks; Amish P Shah; Gaurav Sood; Tomas Dvorak; Omar A Zeidan; Dylan T Meeks; Patrick Kelly Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2020-11-10