Showing posts with label SBRT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SBRT. Show all posts

Thursday, June 3, 2021

Brief, intense radiation and hormone therapy for very high risk prostate cancer

As we've seen, brachy boost therapy seems to have the best oncological results for men with very high-risk prostate cancer. But brachy boost therapy entails 20-25 external beam radiation treatments plus the invasive placement of radioactive seeds or needles plus at least 18 months of testosterone suppression. While the oncological results are excellent, with about 80% cure rates, there is significant risk of serious late-term urinary retention. In some men, testosterone never fully recovers.

McBride et al. reported the early results of the AASUR trial. The goal of the trial was to find a treatment with equivalent oncological outcomes, but one that is easier on the patient, with less risk of long-term toxicity. They recruited 64 patients at 4 top institutions (Memorial Sloan Kettering, Johns Hopkins, University of Michigan, and Thomas Jefferson University). All patients were "very high risk," defined as:

  • any Gleason score (GS) 9 or 10, or
  • 4 or more cores of GS 8, or
  • 2 high-risk features (stage T3/4, GS 8, or PSA>20)
  • No metastases (N0, M0)

Patients were treated with:

  • SBRT (7.5-8.0 Gy x 5 treatments)
  • 6 months of Lupron, Erleada, and Zytiga

After 30 months of follow-up:

  • 90% were free of biochemical failure
  • Median PSA at the last follow-up was 0.1
  • PSA remained undetectable in 40%
  • Testosterone rose to non-castrate levels at a median of 6.5 months after hormone therapy ended, and almost all rose to >150 ng/dl
  • 23% experienced transient serious toxicities, mostly hypertension
  • Quality of life scores at 1 year held for urinary and rectal domains but declined in sexual and hormone domains.

How do these results compare to other trials of radiation+ADT in high-risk patients?

Lin et al. used whole pelvic IMRT with an SBRT boost to the prostate and 2 years of ADT in 41 high- and very high-risk patients. With 4 years of follow-up, they reported 92% biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS).

Hoskin et al. used high dose rate brachytherapy as a monotherapy in 86 high-risk patients. Most (80%) had adjuvant ADT for a median of 6.3 months (range 1-40 months). With 4 years of follow-up, they report 87% biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS) among high-risk patients.

Zapatero et al. reported the results of the DART 01.03 GICOR trial of escalated dose IMRT with either short-term (4 months) or long-term (28 months) ADT. There were 185 high-risk patients with about half getting each ADT protocol. About a quarter received simultaneous radiation of their pelvic lymph nodes. With 5 years of follow-up, they report 76% bRFS among high-risk patients who got short-term ADT and 88% bRFS among high-risk patients who got long-term ADT.

Alan Pollack reported early results of the NRG Oncology 0534 or SPPORT randomized clinical trial at the ASTRO meeting in 2018.  Approximately 600 patients with a biochemical failure after prostatectomy were treated with whole pelvic salvage radiation. They all received 4-6 months of adjuvant ADT. With 5 years of follow-up, they reported 89% bRFS. (They defined this second bRFS as nadir +2.0, as in radiation trials.)

This table summarizes these trials:


AASUR

SBRT boost

(Lin)

HDR-BT

(Hoskin)

IMRT

DART 

GICOR

IMRT

DART 

GICOR

SRT

SPPORT 

follow-up

2.5 yrs

4 yrs

4 yrs

5 yrs

5 yrs

5 yrs

Radiation

SBRT

IMRT+

SBRT boost

HDR-BT 

monotherapy

IMRT 

(dose escalated)

IMRT 

(dose escalated)

RP+SRT

Coverage 

area over 

prostate

SV

Whole pelvic 

±SV (if MRI+)

• SV

• 27% 

whole pelvic

• SV

• 19%

 whole pelvic

Whole pelvic

Adjuvant 

hormone 

therapy

ADT+Zytiga+Erleada

93% ADT

80% ADT

ADT

ADT

ADT

Duration of 

hormone 

therapy

6 months

2 yrs

6.3 months

4 months

28 months

4-6 months

Risk

VHR

78% HR

22% VHR

HR

HR

HR

Recurrent

bRFS

90%

92%

87%

76%

88%

89%


HR=high risk VHR=very high risk SV=seminal vesicles bRFS=biochemical recurrence-free survival: PSA stayed lower than nadir+2.0 ng/ml

2.5 years of follow-up is too early to draw valid conclusions. We see that most of the trials had higher bRFS even with much longer follow-up; however, only AASUR recruited very high-risk patients exclusively. ICECAP has shown that only metastasis-free survival is a valid surrogate endpoint for overall survival. A trial on high-risk patients will have to run for 8-10 years to collect a sufficient number of metastases to draw valid conclusions, so we can only look at this as an early signal.

Treatment of Pelvic Lymph Nodes

We know that the time to be able to see the first few cancerous pelvic lymph nodes is often several years, so 2.5 years of follow-up tells us little. The newly approved PSMA PET scans will be able to rule out the larger metastases (>5 mm), but will never be able to find metastases smaller than that. Waiting for visibility to make the decision to treat is a bad idea. By the time some lymph nodes are large enough or rapidly growing, the risk of spread outside the pelvic lymph node drainage area increases, and the hope of a cure may vanish.

The PSMA PET/CT is nevertheless worthwhile. While a negative scan does not change the treatment decision, a positive scan may detect occult metastases or pelvic lymph nodes that may benefit from a higher spot dose and more intense or longer hormone therapy.

We rely on validated formulas to tell us the probability that there are microscopic pelvic lymph node metastases. Two of the popular formulas are the Roach Equation (discussed here) and the Yale Formula (discussed here).

There is a risk of overtreatment. Many high-risk patients will never require pelvic lymph node treatment, and we are awaiting evidence (RTOG 0924) that such treatment will improve survival. As we have seen, bRFS is improved.

However, the only risk is that toxicity will be higher when the whole pelvis is treated. Murthy et al. showed that even at higher doses of pelvic lymph node radiation, there was no increase in acute toxicity, late gastrointestinal toxicity, and no deterioration in patient-reported quality of life scores.

Arguably, 25 extra IMRT treatments to the pelvic lymph nodes represent a patient inconvenience over the 5 SBRT prostate-only treatments. In the UCLA and Sunnybrook high-risk SBRT trials (discussed here), the pelvic lymph nodes may be treated (to 25 Gy) within the same 5 treatments. So far, with limited follow-up, cancer control is high and toxicity is low.

Hormone therapy intensification

The DART 01.05 GICOR trial proved that long-term (28 months vs 4 months) ADT improves survival in high-risk patients even when treated with dose-escalated IMRT. Nabid et al. proved that 18 months is often as good as 36 months. AASUR suggests that by including both Zytiga and Erleada, the duration of hormone therapy can be shortened. But the sexual and hormone quality of life did diminish. This raises questions that can only be answered in an expanded randomized clinical trial:

  • Are all 3 medications (Zytiga, Erleada, and Lupron) necessary for the benefit? The ACIS trial found that adding Erleada increased radiographic progression-free survival in mCRPC patients. There was no such synergy found in adding Xtandi to Zytiga in this non-randomized trial.
  • Do they add much to Lupron alone if whole pelvic radiation is given?
  • Does Lupron alone for, say, 9 months, with whole-pelvic SBRT (as in the UCLA trial) afford the same benefit with less toxicity? And would Orgovyx instead of Lupron allow for earlier testosterone recovery?
  • Can genomics (Prolaris or Decipher of biopsy tissue) identify patients who might benefit from the combined hormone therapy?



Wednesday, March 17, 2021

Whole gland TULSA-PRO and HIFU outcomes: Is it time to give up on thermal ablation for prostate cancer?

 We have seen that there are many unanswered questions about focal thermal ablation (see this link), among them are:

  1. Is Index Tumor Theory valid?
  2. Can foci of cancer be precisely targeted using current imaging methods?
  3. Does thermal ablation completely ablate the cancer in the ablation zone?
  4. Will the Heat Sink Effect and biochemical protective mechanisms (e.g., heat shock proteins) always cause sub-lethal killing?
  5. Is toxicity and damage to organs at risk any better than radical (whole gland) radiation?
  6. How do the high "re-do" rates affect toxicity and costs?
  7. How do we track success?
  8. What are the best salvage therapies?
  9. Can it extend the time on active surveillance?
  10. What are the intra-operative risks?
  11. What is the learning curve like for therapists?
  12. Is it worth the cost?
Laurence Klotz et al. conducted a clinical trial of a new kind of high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU). He studied whole-gland ablation because current FDA rules only permit ablation for removal of prostate tissue (like a TURP), but not for treatment of prostate cancer. In fact, the FDA specifically rejected HIFU for the treatment of prostate cancer. 

TULSA-PRO utilizes a thermal feedback loop to assure that tissue temperature reaches the desired heating. It is done "in-bore" in an MRI by a team consisting of a urologist and an interventional radiologist, and an anesthesiologist (full anesthesia was required). It was hoped that the MRI precision and assured tissue heating (to 55°C) would afford higher cancer-killing with less toxicity.

115 patients were carefully selected:
  • 15% were low volume GS 3+3 (cancer in ≤2 cores, <50% in any core)
  • 23% were high-volume GS 3+3
  • 60% were GS 3+4
  • 3% were GS> 3+4
  • 94% were T1c or T2a
  • Median PSA=6.3
  • 67% were intermediate risk (predominantly favorable)
  • 33% were low-risk
  • Median prostate volume was 40 cc.
The operative procedure involved:
  • prophylactic antibiotics
  • general anesthesia
  • cystoscopy
  • transurethral US heating wand
  • pelvic tissue at apex avoided to avoid incontinence
  • endorectal cooling device
  • 243 minutes (4 hours), start to finish
  • suprapubic catheter (17 days)

Safety Outcomes/ Adverse Events:

Physician-reported outcomes:
  • Acute (immediate) Grade 2:
    • erectile dysfunction (29%)
    • UTI (25%)
    • bladder spasm (10%)
    • painful urination (10%)
    • urinary retension (8%)
    • pain (7%)
    • incontinence (6%)
    • epidydimitis (5%)
  • Acute (immediate) Grade 3 (severe, requiring intervention):
    • infection (4%)
    • urethral stricture (2%)
    • urinary retention (1.7%)
    • urethral calculus and pain (1%)
    • urinoma (1%)
  • long-lasting Grade 2 adverse events:
    • erectile dysfunction (23%)
    • incontinence (3%)
    • recurrent infections (2%)
Patient-reported outcomes at 12 months vs baseline on EPIC questionnaire (% reporting moderate decline/ % reporting moderate gain):
  • Sexual domain: 32%/ 1%
  • ED on IIEF-15 questionnaire: 35%/6%
  • 75% of previously potent men returned to erections sufficient for penetration with only ED meds.
  • Urinary incontinence:14%/7%
  • Urinary irritation/obstruction: 8%/5%
  • Bowel domain: 5%/2%

Oncologic Outcomes (at 12 months):

  • 35% had residual cancer at biopsy
  • 24% among low volume GS 6
  • 38% among high volume GS 6
  • 37% among GS 3+4
  • Median PSA reduced to 0.5 ng/ml
  • Median prostate volume reduced to 2.8 cc
  • PIRADS ≥3: 30%

There is little 12-month data available for other therapies, but recurrence rates almost always increase with time. There was a 2-year study of SBRT at Georgetown that may be roughly comparable:



TULSA-PRO (1 year)

115 patients

SBRT (2 years)

100 patients

Risk category

Low-risk

Intermediate-risk

High-risk


33%

67%


37%

55%

 8%

Biochemical recurrence-free survival

100%

99% (1 local recurrence in a high-risk patient)

Biopsy-proven local recurrence

35%

1% estimated in the high-risk patient

Nadir PSA

0.5 ng/ml

0.5 ng/ml

Acute urinary toxicity (grade 3)

8%

0%

Acute rectal toxicity (grade 3)

0%

0%

Late-term urinary toxicity (grade 2+)

5%

18% 

(1% Grade 3)

Late-term rectal toxicity (grade 2+)

0%

0%

Potency preservation among previously potent men

75%

79%


Full-gland TULSA-PRO seems to treat PSA without eradicating the cancer (see this link). In about a third of favorable-risk patients, the cancer remained viable in spite of the thermal ablation. We see that compared to whole-gland SBRT, it is less curative, Severe (requiring intervention) acute urinary toxicity is higher with TULSA-PRO, although late-term Grade 2 urinary toxicity is lower (not severe for either therapy). Rectal toxicity is not an issue for either therapy. Potency preservation is good and about equal for both.


15-year study suggests long-term inferiority

Br√ľndl et al. reported 15-year oncological outcomes of 674 patients treated with whole-gland HIFU at one university hospital in Regensberg, Germany. Notably, overall survival and prostate cancer-specific survival were high in all localized risk categories. However, comparing 15-year prostate cancer-specific survival to similar risk men who have undergone prostatectomy at Memorial Sloan Kettering, we see the survival is relatively poor:

15-yr Prostate Cancer-Specific Survival

Risk Group

HIFU

RP*

Low Risk

95%

99%

Intermediate Risk

89%

98%

High Risk

65%

88%

* from the MSK pre-prostatectomy nomogram for a 62 yo man. For low-risk, he had PSA=5, GS 3+3, stage T1c, and 25% positive cores; For intermediate-risk, he had PSA=15, GS 4+3, stage T2c, and 50% positive cores; for high risk, he had PSA=25, GS 4+5, stage T3a and 100% positive cores.

The longest follow-up study there is for SBRT is 12 years. For SBRT, Alan Katz reported rates of "local control" on SBRT - the percent of patients who had recurrences only in the prostate. These could all theoretically be cured with a re-do of SBRT, focal brachytherapy or focal ablation. We can look at long-term local control from SBRT next to the long-term reported rates of salvage therapy after whole-gland HIFU (either re-do of HIFU or other salvage). HIFU does not compare well:

% patients who do not require salvage treatment

Risk Group

HIFU

SBRT

Low Risk

77%

97%

Intermediate Risk

52%

92%

High Risk

28%

88%

It is hard to see why anyone would choose HIFU or TULSA-PRO over SBRT. While focal ablation may incur less toxicity, the local recurrence rate will be much higher. These trials suggest that  HIFU and TULSA-PRO are inferior, although only a direct randomized comparison could prove that definitively.


For an article discussing the use of focal ablation as an active surveillance "extender," see:

What should focal therapy be compared to and how does it compare?

For an article discussing salvage focal ablation after the failure of radiation therapy, see:

Focal salvage ablation for radio-recurrent prostate cancer



Sunday, January 24, 2021

SBRT for High-Risk Patients

As we have seen, SBRT is a preferred therapy for low and intermediate-risk patients (see this link). It is effective, safe, convenient, and relatively inexpensive. However, its use for high-risk patients remains controversial.

Amar Kishan has accumulated data from 8 institutions that have used SBRT for 344 high-risk patients. They were treated as follows:

  • They received from 35 Gy-40 Gy in 5 treatments (7-8 Gy per treatment)
  • 72% received adjuvant ADT for a median of 9 months
  • 19% received elective nodal radiation

After a median follow-up of 49.5 months:

  • 4-year biochemical recurrence-free survival  (bRFS)was 82%
    • Higher dose, longer ADT, and nodal radiation were associated with better bRFS
  • 4-year metastasis-free survival was 89%
  • Late grade 3 GU toxicity was 2.3%
  • Late grade 3 GI toxicity was 0.9%
    • Toxicity was associated with dose and ADT use

Although the results of different prospective trials aren't comparable, the following table gives an idea of 4-6 year outcomes of prospective trials of high-risk patients using various therapies.

 

Follow-up

bRFS

BED

ADT (median)

Late GU Toxicity Grade ≥3

SBRT (1)

4 yrs

82%

198-253 Gy

9 mos.

2.3%

Surgery+SRT (2)

5 yrs

78%

154 Gy

6 mos.

8% (3)

HDR-BT (4)

5 yrs

91%

227-252 Gy

6.3 mos.

3-16%

LDR- Brachy Boost (5)

5 yrs

86%

227 Gy

12 mos.

19%

HDR-Brachy Boost (6)

6 yrs

88%

267 Gy

12 mos.

2.5%

IMRT (7)

5 yrs

88%

174 Gy

28 mos.

2.5%


SBRT = stereotactic body radiation therapy,. External beam radiation (EBRT) concentrated in 5 treatments
bRFS= biochemical (PSA) recurrence-free survival
BED= biologically effective dose (comparable effectiveness)
ADT= androgen deprivation therapy used for a limited time to improve outcomes
late GU toxicity ≥3 = serious urinary side effects requiring intervention, occurring more than 3 months after therapy
HDR-BT = high dose rate brachytherapy (temporary implants)
LDR-BT = low dose rate brachytherapy (permanent implants/seeds)
Brachy Boost therapy - External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with a boost of radiation to the prostate using brachytherapy 
IMRT = intensity-modulated radiation therapy, usually given in about 40 treatments

(1) https://www.redjournal.org/article/S0360-3016(21)00068-7/pdf
(2) https://riskcalc.org/ProstateCancerAfterRadicalProstatectomyNew/ with GS 8
(3) https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(16)00111-X/fulltext
(4) https://www.redjournal.org/article/S0360-3016(11)00552-9/abstract
(5) https://www.redjournal.org/article/S0360-3016(16)33484-8/abstract
(6) https://www.thegreenjournal.com/article/S0167-8140(18)30238-X/fulltext
(7) https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(15)70045-8/fulltext

As we've seen (see this link), brachy boost therapy is the gold standard for long-term recurrence-free survival. At about 5 years, however, all therapies seem to be about equally effective, with biochemical recurrence-free survival in the range of 78-91%. However, they differ markedly in the incidence of serious late-term urinary side effects. For LDR Brachy Boost therapy, the risk of urinary retention is high, while the risk of incontinence and urinary retention is elevated among patients having salvage radiation (SRT). External beam monotherapy, using either IMRT or SBRT, had a low risk of serious late-term urinary side effects (and almost no risk of serious rectal side effects).

IMRT, as a primary therapy for high-risk patients, requires long-term use of ADT to be effective. The DART RADAR trial showed that for high-risk patients, 6 months of adjuvant ADT wasn't nearly enough. Nabid suggests that 18 months of adjuvant ADT may be optimal when paired with IMRT. SBRT seems to be equally effective with less adjuvant ADT, but the optimal duration is yet to be determined.

The question that will only be resolved with longer follow-up is whether the recurrence rates are stable after 4 years, or whether they will deteriorate with longer follow-up. In the ASCENDE-RT trial of brachy boost therapy vs external beam radiation only, biochemical recurrence rates were similar after 5 years. Recurrence increased at a rate of 5% per year among those treated with EBRT alone, but only at a rate of 1% per year if they got the brachy boost. There was similar stability of outcomes when HDR brachytherapy was used. Recurrence after salvage radiation increased from 22% at 5 years to 30% at 10 years. There is every reason to believe that SBRT, which uses biologically effective doses (BED) of radiation similar to brachy boost therapy, will follow a stable recurrence pattern over time, but that remains to be shown.

Ensuring the safety of patients is critical, and high-risk patients are usually treated with wider margins that can affect toxicity. As we saw, SBRT there are many factors that must be considered when giving radiation this intense (see this link).

The first randomized trial (see this link) of radiation delivered in 6 treatments compared to 39 treatments to intermediate to high-risk patients proved that the cancer control and toxicity were similar. Another randomized trial (PACE-B) has already shown that the toxicity is lower with SBRT. An ongoing arm of that trial (PACE-C) is focusing on high-risk patients.

NCCN has included SBRT as a reasonable standard-of-care option for high-risk patients (Table 1 Principles of Radiation Therapy PROS-E 3 of 5 in NCCN Physicians Guidelines 3.2020). Due to the pandemic, an international panel of radiation oncologists is recommending that high-risk patients consider its use (see this link).