Cargando…

Feasibility and Outcome of PSMA-PET-Based Dose-Escalated Salvage Radiotherapy Versus Conventional Salvage Radiotherapy for Patients With Recurrent Prostate Cancer

INTRODUCTION: Prostate-specific membrane antigen-positron emission tomography-(PSMA-PET) imaging facilitates dose-escalated salvage radiotherapy (DE-SRT) with simultaneous-integrated boost (SIB) for PET-positive lesions in patients with prostate cancer (PC). Therefore, we aimed to compare toxicity r...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vogel, Marco M. E., Dewes, Sabrina, Sage, Eva K., Devecka, Michal, Eitz, Kerstin A., Gschwend, Jürgen E., Eiber, Matthias, Combs, Stephanie E., Schiller, Kilian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8362325/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34395288
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.715020
_version_ 1783738139332837376
author Vogel, Marco M. E.
Dewes, Sabrina
Sage, Eva K.
Devecka, Michal
Eitz, Kerstin A.
Gschwend, Jürgen E.
Eiber, Matthias
Combs, Stephanie E.
Schiller, Kilian
author_facet Vogel, Marco M. E.
Dewes, Sabrina
Sage, Eva K.
Devecka, Michal
Eitz, Kerstin A.
Gschwend, Jürgen E.
Eiber, Matthias
Combs, Stephanie E.
Schiller, Kilian
author_sort Vogel, Marco M. E.
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Prostate-specific membrane antigen-positron emission tomography-(PSMA-PET) imaging facilitates dose-escalated salvage radiotherapy (DE-SRT) with simultaneous-integrated boost (SIB) for PET-positive lesions in patients with prostate cancer (PC). Therefore, we aimed to compare toxicity rates of DE-SRT with SIB to conventional SRT (C-SRT) without SIB and to report outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated 199 patients who were treated with SRT between June 2014 and June 2020. 101 patients received DE-SRT with SIB for PET-positive local recurrence and/or PET-positive lymph nodes. 98 patients were treated with C-SRT to the prostate bed +/− elective pelvic lymphatic pathways without SIB. All patients received PSMA-PET imaging prior to DE-SRT ([68Ga]PSMA-11: 45.5%; [18F]-labeled PSMA: 54.5%). Toxicity rates for early (<6 months) and late (>6 months) gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities rectal bleeding, proctitis, stool incontinence, and genitourinary (GU) toxicities hematuria, cystitis, urine incontinence, urinary obstruction, and erectile dysfunction were assessed. Further, we analyzed the outcome with disease-free survival (DFS) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response. RESULTS: The overall toxicity rates for early GI (C-SRT: 2.1%, DE-SRT: 1.0%) and late GI (C-SRT: 1.4%, DE-SRT: 5.3%) toxicities ≥ grade 2 were similar. Early GU (C-SRT: 2.1%, DE-SRT: 3.0%) and late GU (C-SRT: 11.0%, DE-SRT: 14.7%) toxicities ≥ grade 2 were comparable, as well. Early and late toxicity rates did not differ significantly between DE-SRT versus C-SRT in all subcategories (p>0.05). PSA response (PSA ≤0.2 ng/ml) in the overall group of patients with DE-SRT was 75.0% and 86.4% at first and last follow-up, respectively. CONCLUSION: DE-SRT showed no significantly increased toxicity rates compared with C-SRT and thus is feasible. The outcome of DE-SRT showed good results. Therefore, DE-SRT with a PSMA-PET-based SIB can be considered for the personalized treatment in patients with recurrent PC.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8362325
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83623252021-08-14 Feasibility and Outcome of PSMA-PET-Based Dose-Escalated Salvage Radiotherapy Versus Conventional Salvage Radiotherapy for Patients With Recurrent Prostate Cancer Vogel, Marco M. E. Dewes, Sabrina Sage, Eva K. Devecka, Michal Eitz, Kerstin A. Gschwend, Jürgen E. Eiber, Matthias Combs, Stephanie E. Schiller, Kilian Front Oncol Oncology INTRODUCTION: Prostate-specific membrane antigen-positron emission tomography-(PSMA-PET) imaging facilitates dose-escalated salvage radiotherapy (DE-SRT) with simultaneous-integrated boost (SIB) for PET-positive lesions in patients with prostate cancer (PC). Therefore, we aimed to compare toxicity rates of DE-SRT with SIB to conventional SRT (C-SRT) without SIB and to report outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated 199 patients who were treated with SRT between June 2014 and June 2020. 101 patients received DE-SRT with SIB for PET-positive local recurrence and/or PET-positive lymph nodes. 98 patients were treated with C-SRT to the prostate bed +/− elective pelvic lymphatic pathways without SIB. All patients received PSMA-PET imaging prior to DE-SRT ([68Ga]PSMA-11: 45.5%; [18F]-labeled PSMA: 54.5%). Toxicity rates for early (<6 months) and late (>6 months) gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities rectal bleeding, proctitis, stool incontinence, and genitourinary (GU) toxicities hematuria, cystitis, urine incontinence, urinary obstruction, and erectile dysfunction were assessed. Further, we analyzed the outcome with disease-free survival (DFS) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response. RESULTS: The overall toxicity rates for early GI (C-SRT: 2.1%, DE-SRT: 1.0%) and late GI (C-SRT: 1.4%, DE-SRT: 5.3%) toxicities ≥ grade 2 were similar. Early GU (C-SRT: 2.1%, DE-SRT: 3.0%) and late GU (C-SRT: 11.0%, DE-SRT: 14.7%) toxicities ≥ grade 2 were comparable, as well. Early and late toxicity rates did not differ significantly between DE-SRT versus C-SRT in all subcategories (p>0.05). PSA response (PSA ≤0.2 ng/ml) in the overall group of patients with DE-SRT was 75.0% and 86.4% at first and last follow-up, respectively. CONCLUSION: DE-SRT showed no significantly increased toxicity rates compared with C-SRT and thus is feasible. The outcome of DE-SRT showed good results. Therefore, DE-SRT with a PSMA-PET-based SIB can be considered for the personalized treatment in patients with recurrent PC. Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-07-30 /pmc/articles/PMC8362325/ /pubmed/34395288 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.715020 Text en Copyright © 2021 Vogel, Dewes, Sage, Devecka, Eitz, Gschwend, Eiber, Combs and Schiller https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Oncology
Vogel, Marco M. E.
Dewes, Sabrina
Sage, Eva K.
Devecka, Michal
Eitz, Kerstin A.
Gschwend, Jürgen E.
Eiber, Matthias
Combs, Stephanie E.
Schiller, Kilian
Feasibility and Outcome of PSMA-PET-Based Dose-Escalated Salvage Radiotherapy Versus Conventional Salvage Radiotherapy for Patients With Recurrent Prostate Cancer
title Feasibility and Outcome of PSMA-PET-Based Dose-Escalated Salvage Radiotherapy Versus Conventional Salvage Radiotherapy for Patients With Recurrent Prostate Cancer
title_full Feasibility and Outcome of PSMA-PET-Based Dose-Escalated Salvage Radiotherapy Versus Conventional Salvage Radiotherapy for Patients With Recurrent Prostate Cancer
title_fullStr Feasibility and Outcome of PSMA-PET-Based Dose-Escalated Salvage Radiotherapy Versus Conventional Salvage Radiotherapy for Patients With Recurrent Prostate Cancer
title_full_unstemmed Feasibility and Outcome of PSMA-PET-Based Dose-Escalated Salvage Radiotherapy Versus Conventional Salvage Radiotherapy for Patients With Recurrent Prostate Cancer
title_short Feasibility and Outcome of PSMA-PET-Based Dose-Escalated Salvage Radiotherapy Versus Conventional Salvage Radiotherapy for Patients With Recurrent Prostate Cancer
title_sort feasibility and outcome of psma-pet-based dose-escalated salvage radiotherapy versus conventional salvage radiotherapy for patients with recurrent prostate cancer
topic Oncology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8362325/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34395288
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.715020
work_keys_str_mv AT vogelmarcome feasibilityandoutcomeofpsmapetbaseddoseescalatedsalvageradiotherapyversusconventionalsalvageradiotherapyforpatientswithrecurrentprostatecancer
AT dewessabrina feasibilityandoutcomeofpsmapetbaseddoseescalatedsalvageradiotherapyversusconventionalsalvageradiotherapyforpatientswithrecurrentprostatecancer
AT sageevak feasibilityandoutcomeofpsmapetbaseddoseescalatedsalvageradiotherapyversusconventionalsalvageradiotherapyforpatientswithrecurrentprostatecancer
AT deveckamichal feasibilityandoutcomeofpsmapetbaseddoseescalatedsalvageradiotherapyversusconventionalsalvageradiotherapyforpatientswithrecurrentprostatecancer
AT eitzkerstina feasibilityandoutcomeofpsmapetbaseddoseescalatedsalvageradiotherapyversusconventionalsalvageradiotherapyforpatientswithrecurrentprostatecancer
AT gschwendjurgene feasibilityandoutcomeofpsmapetbaseddoseescalatedsalvageradiotherapyversusconventionalsalvageradiotherapyforpatientswithrecurrentprostatecancer
AT eibermatthias feasibilityandoutcomeofpsmapetbaseddoseescalatedsalvageradiotherapyversusconventionalsalvageradiotherapyforpatientswithrecurrentprostatecancer
AT combsstephaniee feasibilityandoutcomeofpsmapetbaseddoseescalatedsalvageradiotherapyversusconventionalsalvageradiotherapyforpatientswithrecurrentprostatecancer
AT schillerkilian feasibilityandoutcomeofpsmapetbaseddoseescalatedsalvageradiotherapyversusconventionalsalvageradiotherapyforpatientswithrecurrentprostatecancer