The consortium consisted of
1 Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
2 Department of Urology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
3 Flushing Radiation Oncology Services, Flushing, NY, USA
4 21st Century Oncology, Fort Myers, FL, USA
5 Department of Radiation Oncology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC., USA
6 Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
7 Division of Genesis Healthcare Partners Inc., CyberKnife Centers of San Diego Inc., San Diego, CA, USA
8 Swedish Radiosurgery Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
9 Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON,
Canada.
10 Section of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA
11 Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
12 Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan
13 Scripps Health, 11025 North Torrey Pines Road, La Jolla, CA, USA
14 Virginia Hospital Center, 1701 N. George Mason Dr, Arlington, VA, USA
The meta-analysis covers 2,142 low (n=1,185) and intermediate-risk men treated with SBRT between 2003 and 2012. Intermediate risk men were further subdivided into "favorable intermediate risk" (n=692) and "unfavorable intermediate risk" (n=265) per the NCCN definition.
After a median follow-up of 6.9 years, the 7-year biochemical recurrence-free survival was:
- low risk: 95.5%
- favorable intermediate risk: 91.4%
- unfavorable intermediate risk: 85.1%
- all intermediate risk: 89.8%
Low risk patients and some of the favorable intermediate risk patients would probably be diverted to active surveillance today. The 7-year intermediate risk biochemical recurrence-free survival compares favorably with (note: this is not a randomized comparison, which is the only valid way of comparing):
- Surgery: favorable intermediate risk (PSA=6.0, T1c, GS 3+4, 33% cancerous cores): 79% (mean of 5 and 10-yr Progression-free survival) (1)
- Surgery: unfavorable intermediate risk (PSA=6.0, T1c, GS 4+3, 67% cancerous cores): 46% (mean of 5 and 10-yr Progression-free survival) (1)
- Hypofractionated IMRT (5 year): 85% (2)
- Conventional IMRT (5 year): 85% (2)
- Low dose rate brachytherapy: favorable intermediate risk (avg of 5 and 10-yr): 87% (3)
- Low dose rate brachytherapy: unfavorable intermediate risk (5-year): 81% (3)
- Brachy boost therapy: unfavorable intermediate risk (10 year): 92% (4)
7-year metastasis-free survival was:
- low risk: 99.9%
- favorable intermediate risk: 98.3%
- unfavorable intermediate risk: 97.0%
- all intermediate risk: 98.0%
There were no prostate cancer-related deaths.
Use of ADT and higher doses (doses ranged from 33 Gy to 40 Gy in 4 or 5 treatments) did not affect recurrence.
Acute (within 3 months of treatment) toxicity was low:
- Urinary toxicity Grade 2: 8.8% Grade 3: 0.6%
- Rectal toxicity Grade 2: 3.2% Grade 3: 0.1%
Late-term cumulative toxicity was low:
- Urinary toxicity Grade 2: 9.4% Grade 3+: 2.1%
- Rectal toxicity Grade 2: 3.9% Grade 3+: 0.4%
Late-term grade 3 or greater urinary toxicity of 2.1% compares favorably to other radiation monotherapies reported in other studies. For example:
- Low dose rate brachytherapy: 7.6% (5)
- High dose rate brachytherapy (3 fractions):11% (6)
- Hypofractionated IMRT (70 Gy/28 fx): 3.5% (7)
- Conventionally fractionated IMRT: 2.3% (7)
- Brachy boost therapy: 19% (8)
- Low dose rate brachytherapy: 0.8% (5)
- High dose rate brachytherapy (3 fractions):1% (6)
- Hypofractionated IMRT (70 Gy/28 fx): 4.1% (7)
- Conventionally IMRT: 2.6% (7)
- Brachy boost therapy: 9% (8)
This 7-year analysis on a large group of patients from multiple sites, should make intermediate risk patients comfortable in choosing SBRT, especially if they are favorable intermediate risk. For patients who are unfavorable intermediate risk, brachy boost therapy affords incomparable oncological control, but at the risk of much higher late term urinary and rectal toxicity.
How is ProtonTherapy compare with others?
ReplyDeleteWe await comparative trials. So far, it seems to be about the same - no better, no worse: https://www.prostatecancer.news/2016/08/proton-therapy-at-university-of-florida.html
ReplyDeleteHello Tall Allen,
ReplyDeleteThis is an excellent summary of SBRT compared with other options. I was reading all the references that you have links to and wanted to get your opinion on one of the references. Reference 6 for late term grade 3 or greater GU toxicity for HDR, the article does say 11%, however the last sentence of the Results paragraph states "Prevalence of GU-3 was ≤4% in the 3 groups at all times". So I'm a bit confused by that and wanted to get your opinion as to the apparent discrepancy. That's quite a big difference. Thanks, Mike
Thanks, Mike. !!% is the cumulative incidence across all time, while at any one time, only ≤ 4% had Grade 3 GU. So serious side effects occurred but were relieved after being addressed.
Delete