SBRT for Localized Prostate Cancer: CyberKnife vs. VMAT-FFF, a Dosimetric Study

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

In recent years, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has gained popularity among clinical methods for the treatment of medium and low risk prostate cancer (PCa), mainly as an alternative to surgery. The hypo-fractionated regimen allows the administration of high doses of radiation in a small number of fractions; such a fractionation is possible by exploiting the different intrinsic prostate radiosensitivity compared with the surrounding healthy tissues. In addition, SBRT treatment guaranteed a better quality of life compared with surgery, avoiding risks, aftermaths, and possible complications. At present, most stereotactic prostate treatments are performed with the CyberKnife (CK) system, which is an accelerator exclusively dedicated for stereotaxis and it is not widely spread in every radiotherapy centre like a classic linear accelerator (LINAC). To be fair, a stereotactic treatment is achievable also by using a LINAC through Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT), but some precautions must be taken. The aim of this work is to carry out a dosimetric comparison between these two methodologies. In order to pursue such a goal, two groups of patients were selected at Instituto Nazionale Tumori—IRCCS Fondazione G. Pascale: the first group consisting of ten patients previously treated with a SBRT performed with CK; the second one was composed of ten patients who received a hypo-fractionated VMAT treatment and replanned in VMAT-SBRT flattening filter free mode (FFF). The two SBRT techniques were rescaled at the same target coverage and compared by normal tissue sparing, dose distribution parameters and delivery time. All organs at risk (OAR) constraints were achieved by both platforms. CK exhibits higher performances in terms of dose delivery; nevertheless, the general satisfying dosimetric results and the significantly shorter delivery time make VMAT-FFF an attractive and reasonable alternative SBRT technique for the treatment of localized prostate cancer.

Related collections

Most cited references 41

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Epidemiology of Prostate Cancer

Prashanth Rawla (2019)

Prostate cancer is the second most frequent cancer diagnosis made in men and the fifth leading cause of death worldwide. Prostate cancer may be asymptomatic at the early stage and often has an indolent course that may require only active surveillance. Based on GLOBOCAN 2018 estimates, 1,276,106 new cases of prostate cancer were reported worldwide in 2018, with higher prevalence in the developed countries. Differences in the incidence rates worldwide reflect differences in the use of diagnostic testing. Prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates are strongly related to the age with the highest incidence being seen in elderly men (> 65 years of age). African-American men have the highest incidence rates and more aggressive type of prostate cancer compared to White men. There is no evidence yet on how to prevent prostate cancer; however, it is possible to lower the risk by limiting high-fat foods, increasing the intake of vegetables and fruits and performing more exercise. Screening is highly recommended at age 45 for men with familial history and African-American men. Up-to-date statistics on prostate cancer occurrence and outcomes along with a better understanding of the etiology and causative risk factors are essential for the primary prevention of this disease.

0 comments Cited 714 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Prostate cancer

Richard J Rebello, Christoph Oing, Karen Knudsen … (2021)

Prostate cancer is a complex disease that affects millions of men globally, predominantly in high human development index regions. Patients with localized disease at a low to intermediate risk of recurrence generally have a favourable outcome of 99% overall survival for 10 years if the disease is detected and treated at an early stage. Key genetic alterations include fusions of TMPRSS2 with ETS family genes, amplification of the MYC oncogene, deletion and/or mutation of PTEN and TP53 and, in advanced disease, amplification and/or mutation of the androgen receptor (AR). Prostate cancer is usually diagnosed by prostate biopsy prompted by a blood test to measure prostate-specific antigen levels and/or digital rectal examination. Treatment for localized disease includes active surveillance, radical prostatectomy or ablative radiotherapy as curative approaches. Men whose disease relapses after prostatectomy are treated with salvage radiotherapy and/or androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for local relapse, or with ADT combined with chemotherapy or novel androgen signalling-targeted agents for systemic relapse. Advanced prostate cancer often progresses despite androgen ablation and is then considered castration-resistant and incurable. Current treatment options include AR-targeted agents, chemotherapy, radionuclides and the poly(ADP-ribose) inhibitor olaparib. Current research aims to improve prostate cancer detection, management and outcomes, including understanding the fundamental biology at all stages of the disease.

0 comments Cited 246 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Intensity-modulated fractionated radiotherapy versus stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer (PACE-B): acute toxicity findings from an international, randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority trial

Douglas Brand, Alison C. Tree, Peter Ostler … (2019)

Summary Background Localised prostate cancer is commonly treated with external-beam radiotherapy. Moderate hypofractionation has been shown to be non-inferior to conventional fractionation. Ultra-hypofractionated stereotactic body radiotherapy would allow shorter treatment courses but could increase acute toxicity compared with conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy. We report the acute toxicity findings from a randomised trial of standard-of-care conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy versus five-fraction stereotactic body radiotherapy for low-risk to intermediate-risk localised prostate cancer. Methods PACE is an international, phase 3, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial. In PACE-B, eligible men aged 18 years and older, with WHO performance status 0–2, low-risk or intermediate-risk prostate adenocarcinoma (Gleason 4 + 3 excluded), and scheduled to receive radiotherapy were recruited from 37 centres in three countries (UK, Ireland, and Canada). Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) by computerised central randomisation with permuted blocks (size four and six), stratified by centre and risk group, to conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (78 Gy in 39 fractions over 7·8 weeks or 62 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks, respectively) or stereotactic body radiotherapy (36·25 Gy in five fractions over 1–2 weeks). Neither participants nor investigators were masked to allocation. Androgen deprivation was not permitted. The primary endpoint of PACE-B is freedom from biochemical or clinical failure. The coprimary outcomes for this acute toxicity substudy were worst grade 2 or more severe Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxic effects score up to 12 weeks after radiotherapy. Analysis was per protocol. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01584258. PACE-B recruitment is complete and follow-up is ongoing. Findings Between Aug 7, 2012, and Jan 4, 2018, we randomly assigned 874 men to conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (n=441) or stereotactic body radiotherapy (n=433). 432 (98%) of 441 patients allocated to conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy and 415 (96%) of 433 patients allocated to stereotactic body radiotherapy received at least one fraction of allocated treatment. Worst acute RTOG gastrointestinal toxic effect proportions were as follows: grade 2 or more severe toxic events in 53 (12%) of 432 patients in the conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy group versus 43 (10%) of 415 patients in the stereotactic body radiotherapy group (difference −1·9 percentage points, 95% CI −6·2 to 2·4; p=0·38). Worst acute RTOG genitourinary toxicity proportions were as follows: grade 2 or worse toxicity in 118 (27%) of 432 patients in the conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy group versus 96 (23%) of 415 patients in the stereotactic body radiotherapy group (difference −4·2 percentage points, 95% CI −10·0 to 1·7; p=0·16). No treatment-related deaths occurred. Interpretation Previous evidence (from the HYPO-RT-PC trial) suggested higher patient-reported toxicity with ultrahypofractionation. By contrast, our results suggest that substantially shortening treatment courses with stereotactic body radiotherapy does not increase either gastrointestinal or genitourinary acute toxicity. Funding Accuray and National Institute of Health Research.