Cargando…

Randomized phase II trial of urethral sparing intensity modulated radiation therapy in low-risk prostate cancer: implications for focal therapy

BACKGROUND: Low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients have excellent outcomes, with treatment modality often selected by perceived effects on quality of life. Acute urinary symptoms are common during external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), while chronic symptoms have been linked to urethral dose. Since mos...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vainshtein, Jeffrey, Abu-Isa, Eyad, Olson, Karin B, Ray, Michael E, Sandler, Howard M, Normolle, Dan, Litzenberg, Dale W, Masi, Kathryn, Pan, Charlie, Hamstra, Daniel A
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3408353/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22681643
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-7-82
_version_ 1782239442781601792
author Vainshtein, Jeffrey
Abu-Isa, Eyad
Olson, Karin B
Ray, Michael E
Sandler, Howard M
Normolle, Dan
Litzenberg, Dale W
Masi, Kathryn
Pan, Charlie
Hamstra, Daniel A
author_facet Vainshtein, Jeffrey
Abu-Isa, Eyad
Olson, Karin B
Ray, Michael E
Sandler, Howard M
Normolle, Dan
Litzenberg, Dale W
Masi, Kathryn
Pan, Charlie
Hamstra, Daniel A
author_sort Vainshtein, Jeffrey
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients have excellent outcomes, with treatment modality often selected by perceived effects on quality of life. Acute urinary symptoms are common during external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), while chronic symptoms have been linked to urethral dose. Since most low-risk PCa occurs in the peripheral zone (PZ), we hypothesized that EBRT using urethral sparing intensity modulated radiation therapy (US-IMRT) could improve urinary health-related quality of life (HRQOL) while maintaining high rates of PCa control. METHODS: Patients with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) defined low-risk PCa with no visible lesion within 5 mm of the prostatic urethra on MRI were randomized to US-IMRT or standard (S-) IMRT. Prescription dose was 75.6 Gy in 41 fractions to the PZ + 3–5 mm for US-IMRT and to the prostate + 3 mm for S-IMRT. For US-IMRT, mean proximal and distal urethral doses were limited to 65 Gy and 74 Gy, respectively. HRQOL was assessed using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index (EPIC) Quality of Life questionnaire. The primary endpoint was change in urinary HRQOL at 3 months. RESULTS: From June 2004 to November 2006, 16 patients were randomized, after which a futility analysis concluded that continued accrual was unlikely to demonstrate a difference in the primary endpoint. Mean change in EPIC urinary HRQOL at 3 months was −0.5 ± 11.2 in the US-IMRT arm and +3.9 ± 15.3 in the S-IMRT arm (p = 0.52). Median PSA nadir was higher in the US-IMRT arm (1.46 vs. 0.78, p = 0.05). At 4.7 years median follow-up, three US-IMRT and no S-IMRT patients experienced PSA failure (p = 0.06; HR 8.8, 95% CI 0.9–86). Two out of 3 patients with PSA failure had biopsy-proven local failure, both located contralateral to the original site of disease. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with S-IMRT, US-IMRT failed to improve urinary HRQOL and resulted in higher PSA nadir and inferior biochemical control. The high rate of PSA failure and contralateral local failures in US-IMRT patients, despite careful selection of MRI-screened low-risk patients, serve as a cautionary tale for focal PCa treatments.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3408353
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-34083532012-07-31 Randomized phase II trial of urethral sparing intensity modulated radiation therapy in low-risk prostate cancer: implications for focal therapy Vainshtein, Jeffrey Abu-Isa, Eyad Olson, Karin B Ray, Michael E Sandler, Howard M Normolle, Dan Litzenberg, Dale W Masi, Kathryn Pan, Charlie Hamstra, Daniel A Radiat Oncol Research BACKGROUND: Low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients have excellent outcomes, with treatment modality often selected by perceived effects on quality of life. Acute urinary symptoms are common during external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), while chronic symptoms have been linked to urethral dose. Since most low-risk PCa occurs in the peripheral zone (PZ), we hypothesized that EBRT using urethral sparing intensity modulated radiation therapy (US-IMRT) could improve urinary health-related quality of life (HRQOL) while maintaining high rates of PCa control. METHODS: Patients with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) defined low-risk PCa with no visible lesion within 5 mm of the prostatic urethra on MRI were randomized to US-IMRT or standard (S-) IMRT. Prescription dose was 75.6 Gy in 41 fractions to the PZ + 3–5 mm for US-IMRT and to the prostate + 3 mm for S-IMRT. For US-IMRT, mean proximal and distal urethral doses were limited to 65 Gy and 74 Gy, respectively. HRQOL was assessed using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index (EPIC) Quality of Life questionnaire. The primary endpoint was change in urinary HRQOL at 3 months. RESULTS: From June 2004 to November 2006, 16 patients were randomized, after which a futility analysis concluded that continued accrual was unlikely to demonstrate a difference in the primary endpoint. Mean change in EPIC urinary HRQOL at 3 months was −0.5 ± 11.2 in the US-IMRT arm and +3.9 ± 15.3 in the S-IMRT arm (p = 0.52). Median PSA nadir was higher in the US-IMRT arm (1.46 vs. 0.78, p = 0.05). At 4.7 years median follow-up, three US-IMRT and no S-IMRT patients experienced PSA failure (p = 0.06; HR 8.8, 95% CI 0.9–86). Two out of 3 patients with PSA failure had biopsy-proven local failure, both located contralateral to the original site of disease. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with S-IMRT, US-IMRT failed to improve urinary HRQOL and resulted in higher PSA nadir and inferior biochemical control. The high rate of PSA failure and contralateral local failures in US-IMRT patients, despite careful selection of MRI-screened low-risk patients, serve as a cautionary tale for focal PCa treatments. BioMed Central 2012-06-09 /pmc/articles/PMC3408353/ /pubmed/22681643 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-7-82 Text en Copyright ©2012 Vainshtein et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Vainshtein, Jeffrey
Abu-Isa, Eyad
Olson, Karin B
Ray, Michael E
Sandler, Howard M
Normolle, Dan
Litzenberg, Dale W
Masi, Kathryn
Pan, Charlie
Hamstra, Daniel A
Randomized phase II trial of urethral sparing intensity modulated radiation therapy in low-risk prostate cancer: implications for focal therapy
title Randomized phase II trial of urethral sparing intensity modulated radiation therapy in low-risk prostate cancer: implications for focal therapy
title_full Randomized phase II trial of urethral sparing intensity modulated radiation therapy in low-risk prostate cancer: implications for focal therapy
title_fullStr Randomized phase II trial of urethral sparing intensity modulated radiation therapy in low-risk prostate cancer: implications for focal therapy
title_full_unstemmed Randomized phase II trial of urethral sparing intensity modulated radiation therapy in low-risk prostate cancer: implications for focal therapy
title_short Randomized phase II trial of urethral sparing intensity modulated radiation therapy in low-risk prostate cancer: implications for focal therapy
title_sort randomized phase ii trial of urethral sparing intensity modulated radiation therapy in low-risk prostate cancer: implications for focal therapy
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3408353/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22681643
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-7-82
work_keys_str_mv AT vainshteinjeffrey randomizedphaseiitrialofurethralsparingintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyinlowriskprostatecancerimplicationsforfocaltherapy
AT abuisaeyad randomizedphaseiitrialofurethralsparingintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyinlowriskprostatecancerimplicationsforfocaltherapy
AT olsonkarinb randomizedphaseiitrialofurethralsparingintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyinlowriskprostatecancerimplicationsforfocaltherapy
AT raymichaele randomizedphaseiitrialofurethralsparingintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyinlowriskprostatecancerimplicationsforfocaltherapy
AT sandlerhowardm randomizedphaseiitrialofurethralsparingintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyinlowriskprostatecancerimplicationsforfocaltherapy
AT normolledan randomizedphaseiitrialofurethralsparingintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyinlowriskprostatecancerimplicationsforfocaltherapy
AT litzenbergdalew randomizedphaseiitrialofurethralsparingintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyinlowriskprostatecancerimplicationsforfocaltherapy
AT masikathryn randomizedphaseiitrialofurethralsparingintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyinlowriskprostatecancerimplicationsforfocaltherapy
AT pancharlie randomizedphaseiitrialofurethralsparingintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyinlowriskprostatecancerimplicationsforfocaltherapy
AT hamstradaniela randomizedphaseiitrialofurethralsparingintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyinlowriskprostatecancerimplicationsforfocaltherapy