Prostate Cancer Treatment with Pencil Beam Proton Therapy Using Rectal Spacers sans Endorectal Balloons
Author:
Forsthoefel Matthew1, Hankins Ryan2, Ballew Elizabeth1, Frame Cara1, DeBlois David1, Pang Dalong1, Krishnan Pranay3, Unger Keith1, Kowalczyk Keith2, Lynch John2, Dritschilo Anatoly1, Collins Sean P.1, Lischalk Jonathan W.4
Affiliation:
1. 1 Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA. 2. 2 Department of Urology, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA. 3. 3 Department of Radiology, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA. 4. 4 Department of Radiation Oncology, Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University Langone Hospital – Long Island, New York, NY, USA
Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
Proton beam radiotherapy (PBT) has been used for the definitive treatment of localized prostate cancer with low rates of high-grade toxicity and excellent patient-reported quality-of-life metrics. Technological advances such as pencil beam scanning (PBS), Monte Carlo dose calculations, and polyethylene glycol gel rectal spacers have optimized prostate proton therapy. Here, we report the early clinical outcomes of patients treated for localized prostate cancer using modern PBS–PBT with hydrogel rectal spacing and fiducial tracking without the use of endorectal balloons.
Materials and Methods
This is a single institutional review of consecutive patients treated with histologically confirmed localized prostate cancer. Prior to treatment, all patients underwent placement of fiducials into the prostate and insertion of a hydrogel rectal spacer. Patients were typically given a prescription dose of 7920 cGy at 180 cGy per fraction using a Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm. Acute and late toxicity were evaluated using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 5. Biochemical failure was defined using the Phoenix definition.
Results
From July 2018 to April 2020, 33 patients were treated (median age, 75 years). No severe acute toxicities were observed. The most common acute toxicity was urinary frequency. With a median follow-up of 18 months, there were no high-grade genitourinary late toxicities; however, one grade 3 gastrointestinal toxicity was observed. Late erectile dysfunction was common. One treatment failure was observed at 21 months in a patient treated for high-risk prostate cancer.
Conclusion
Early clinical outcomes of patients treated with PBS–PBT using Monte Carlo–based planning, fiducial placement, and rectal spacers sans endorectal balloons demonstrate minimal treatment-related toxicity with good oncologic outcomes. Rectal spacer stabilization without the use of endorectal balloons is feasible for the use of PBS–PBT.
Publisher
International Journal of Particle Therapy
Subject
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging,Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics
Reference42 articles.
1. Shipley
WU,
Tepper
JE,
Prout
GR,
Verhey
LJ,
Mendiondo
OA,
Goitein
M,
Koehler
AM,
Suit
HD.
Proton radiation as boost therapy for localized prostatic carcinoma.
JAMA.
1979;
241:1912–5. 2. Zietman
AL,
Bae
K,
Slater
JD,
Shipley
WU,
Efstathiou
JA,
Coen
JJ,
Bush
DA,
Lunt
M,
Spiegel
DY,
Skowronski
R,
Jabola
BR,
Rossi
CJ.
Randomized trial comparing conventional-dose with high-dose conformal radiation therapy in early-stage adenocarcinoma of the prostate: long-term results from proton radiation oncology group/American college of radiology 95-09.
J Clin Oncol.
2010;
28:
1106–
11. 3. Bryant
C,
Smith
TL,
Henderson
RH,
Hoppe
BS,
Mendenhall
WM,
Nichols
RC,
Morris
CG,
Williams
CR,
Su
Z,
Li
Z,
Lee
D,
Mendenhall
NP.
Five-year biochemical results, toxicity, and patient-reported quality of life after delivery of dose-escalated image guided proton therapy for prostate cancer.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.
2016;
95:
422–
34. 4. Efstathiou
J.
Prostate advanced radiation technologies investigating quality of life (PARTIQoL): a phase III randomized clinical trial of proton therapy vs IMRT for low or intermediate risk prostate cancer.
ClinicalTrials.gov.identifier
: NCT01617161. Accessed
October
2021.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01617161 5. Kirk
ML,
Tang
S,
Zhai
H,
Vapiwala
N,
Deville
C,
James
P,
Bekelman
JE,
Christodouleas
JP,
Tochner
Z,
Both
S.
Comparison of prostate proton treatment planning technique, interfraction robustness, and analysis of single-field treatment feasibility.
Pract Radiat Oncol.
2015;
5:
99–
105.
|
|