First Experience and Prospective Evaluation on Feasibility and Acute Toxicity of Online Adaptive Radiotherapy of the Prostate Bed as Salvage Treatment in Patients with Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer on a 1.5T MR-Linac

Abstract

Introduction: Novel MRI-linear accelerator hybrids (MR-Linacs, MRL) promise an optimization of radiotherapy (RT) through daily MRI imaging with enhanced soft tissue contrast and plan adaptation on the anatomy of the day. These features might potentially improve salvage RT of prostate cancer (SRT), where the clinical target volume is confined by the mobile organs at risk (OAR) rectum and bladder. So far, no data exist about the feasibility of the MRL technology for SRT. In this study, we prospectively examined patients treated with SRT on a 1.5 T MRL and report on workflow, feasibility and acute toxicity. Patients and Methods: Sixteen patients were prospectively enrolled within the MRL-01 study (NCT: NCT04172753). All patients were staged and had an indication for SRT after radical prostatectomy according to national guidelines. RT consisted of 66 Gy in 33 fractions or 66.5/70 Gy in 35 fractions in case of a defined high-risk region. On the 1.5 T MRL, daily plan adaption was performed using one of two workflows: adapt to shape (ATS, using contour adaptation and replanning) or adapt to position (ATP, rigid replanning onto the online anatomy with virtual couch shift). Duration of treatment steps, choice of workflow and treatment failure were recorded for each fraction of each patient. Patient-reported questionnaires about patient comfort were evaluated as well as extensive reporting of acute toxicity (patient reported and clinician scored). Results: A total of 524/554 (94.6%) of fractions were successfully treated on the MRL. No patient-sided treatment failures occurred. In total, ATP was chosen in 45.7% and ATS in 54.3% of fractions. In eight cases, ATP was performed on top of the initial ATS workflow. Mean (range) duration of all fractions (on-table time until end of treatment) was 25.1 (17.6–44.8) minutes. Mean duration of the ATP workflow was 20.60 (17.6–25.2) minutes and of the ATS workflow 31.3 (28.2–34.1) minutes. Patient-reported treatment experience questionnaires revealed high rates of tolerability of the treatment procedure. Acute toxicity (RTOG, CTC as well as patient-reported CTC, IPSS and ICIQ) during RT and 3 months after was mild to moderate with a tendency of recovery to baseline levels at 3 months post RT. No G3+ toxicity was scored for any item. Conclusions: In this first report on SRT of prostate cancer patients on a 1.5 T MRL, we could demonstrate the feasibility of both available workflows. Daily MR-guided adaptive SRT of mean 25.1 min per fraction was well tolerated in this pretreated collective, and we report low rates of acute toxicity for this treatment. This study suggests that SRT on a 1.5 T MRL can be performed in clinical routine and it serves as a benchmark for future analyses.