Top Banner
- Large patient cohort prospective study with more than 500 patients and more than 5 years follow up have shown that CyberKnife is equally effective as long coures RT - SBRT/ CyberKnife is now standard of care treatment for localized prostate cancer - Outcome of CyberKnife treatment is similar to long course RT - Side-effect after Cyberknife is less than 1% in prostate cancer - CyberKnife is safe, out patient, short course treatment in both primary and metastatic CyberKnife in prostate cancer
35
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Prostate

- Large patient cohort prospective study with more than 500 patients and more than 5

years follow up have shown that CyberKnife is equally effective as long coures RT

- SBRT/ CyberKnife is now standard of care treatment for localized prostate cancer

- Outcome of CyberKnife treatment is similar to long course RT

- Side-effect after Cyberknife is less than 1% in prostate cancer

- CyberKnife is safe, out patient, short course treatment in both primary and metastatic

diseases.

- High dose radiation may be effective in many of the ‘radioresistant’ disease.

CyberKnife in prostate cancer

Page 2: Prostate

• Most prevalent malignancy in males in western community

• 2nd MC cause of mortality in the west

• Uncommon in Asians, probably shorter lifespan

• In TMH, constitutes 2.4% of all registered pts in 2000

• In recent years, more early prostate cancer patients are diagnosed

with prostate cancer

• Prostate cancer is slow growing tumour, risk of bone metastasis is

high in ‘high risk’ group patient

Prostate cancer

Page 3: Prostate

Risk stratification

RISK STRATIFICATION

LOW RISK INTERMEDIATE HIGH

T1,2a, PSA < 10 ng/ml,GS</=6

T2b, GS=7

T3,4,PSA>20ng/ml,GS>7

Wait & watchSurgeryRadiation therapyHTRadiosurgery

Combination

SurgeryRadiation therapyHTRadiosurgery

Combination

SurgeryRadiation therapyHTRadiosurgery

Combination

Page 4: Prostate

Radiotherapy Radiation techniques: 2D Planning Conformal Radiation therapy - 3D-CRT - IMRT - SBRT

Target volume: CTV – prostate with capsule + SVT1 & small T2 with less PSA less GS only prostate is

sufficient.PTV – 1 cm margin.

Inclusion of pelvic lymph nodes still controversial.

Page 5: Prostate

Ca prostate Incidence of pelvic LN metastasis at diagnosis

Study T1a,b T1c T2a T2b,c T3Pisansky 12/457

(2.6%)15/456(3.3%)

130/1206 (10.8%)

81/320(25%)

-

Petros & Catalona

2/61 (3.3%)

33/425(7.8%)

0

Sands 6/127 (5%) 41/243(16.9%)

95/199(47.7%)

Van Poppel

2/40(5%) 18/199(9%)

25/46(54%)

Hanks 1/21(5%) 38/135(28%) 48/95(50%)

Page 6: Prostate

Radiotherapy Radiation therapy schedules Conventional fractionation: - 70Gy/ 35# / 7 wk - 2Gy/# - Acute rectal & bladder toxicity

Hypofractionation schedule: - High dose per fraction, short course treatment - Equivalent loco-regional control

Ultra-hypofractionation schedule: - Very short course, high dose per fraction - Usual treatment duration 5 to 7 days

Page 7: Prostate

Conformal Radiation therapy reduces toxicity

• RCT• Royal Marsden Tait et al.

Gr 2 or more 5 Vs 15%.• Rotterdam trial Koper et al.

Grade 2 GI toxicity (32% vs. 19%, p = 0.02).

• M.D. Anderson Storey et al.No dif but Dose 78 vs 70.

• Nonrandomized trials• 15/27 improvement • Most pronounced when dose

escalation was not used.• When dose escalation was used, no

increased toxicity was demonstrated, except when the dose to the rectum >75 Gy.

• No article suggested increased toxicity with 3D-CRT for similar doses delivered compared withconventional RT.

Page 8: Prostate

WPRT VS PORT:RTOG trial 9413

• WP RT NCHT improves PFS compared with PO RT and NCHT or PO RT and AHT, and compared with WPRT + AHT in patients with a risk of LN involvement of 15%.

•Median follow-up : 59.5 mnths

• No OS advantage JCO 2003

Page 9: Prostate

Subset analysis of RTOG 9413

•Median PFS was 5.2, 3.7, and 2.9 years ( p 0.02). •7-year PFS was 40%, 35%, and 27%•RT field size has a major impact on PFS, and it is advised thatnodal treatment should be done in patients with a risk of LN inv >15% .

Roach IJROBP 2006

Page 10: Prostate

Dose escalation: improve LC

Page 11: Prostate
Page 12: Prostate

Author Study type Patient criteria Study details ResultsKurban et al Prospective

multi-institutional

N= 48391986-95T1-2 low risk prostate cancer

No neo-adj HTRT dose 60-78 Gy3DCRT planmingMedian FU 6.3 yrs

8-year PSA control rates were 72 to 93%. Dose >72 Gy had lower PSA relapse rate.

Zietman MDACCRandomized

N= 393T1-2 diseasePSA < 105ng/dl

Arm 1: Conv RT 70.2 GyArm 2: Conv RT 79.2 GyMedian FU: 5.5 yrs

5-yr PSA rFS higher with dose escalation (61% vs 80%). 49% risk reduction in biochemical failure.

Pollack et al MDACCRandomized

N=301Low risk prostate cancer

Arm 1 (n=150): Conv RT 70 GyArm 2 (151): 3DCRT 78 Gy

PSA rFS higher with dose escalation (70% versus 64%; p=0.03)

Peeters et al RandomizedNetherland

N=669T1-4

Arm 1 (n=150): Conv RT 68 GyArm 2 (151): Conv RT 78 GyMedian FU: 51 months

5-yr PSA relapse-free survival superior with high dose (64% vs. 54%; p = .02).

Zelefsky et al RandomizedMSKCC

N=11001988-98

RT dose systematically increased from 64.8 to 86.4 Gy by increments of 5.4 Gy in consecutive groups of pts.

5-yr PSA rFS was higher with dose escalation in favorable, intermediate and unfavourable groups.

Zelefsky et al Single arm N=5611996-2000

RT dose: 81 Gy to PTV 8-yr PSA rFS for favorable-, intermediate-, and unfavorable-risk groups were 85%, 76%, 72%

Prostate Cancer: Dose escalation studies

Page 13: Prostate

Intensity modulated radiation therapy

76- 81 Gy at 2 Gy/# dose delivered

Dose to target higher

Rectal & Bladder dose is high

High acute reactions

Dose escalation methodsIMRT/ 3DCRT

Page 14: Prostate

Toxicities after Radiation therapy

Rectal toxicity - Telengectasia - Bleeding - Bladder toxicity - Incontinence - Bleeding - Thimble bladder- Urethral stricture -Erectile dysfunction- Quality of life

Page 15: Prostate

Toxicity depends upon dose

Page 16: Prostate

Author Study Patient criteria Study details ResultsMartin Prospect

ivePMH

N= 92June 2001- Mar 2004

60 Gy /20 fr/ 4 wksIMRT, FU: 38 mo

3 yr PSA relapse free was 76%.RTOG Gr ≥3 GI toxicity in 1 patient

Kupelian Cleveland Clinic

N= 7701998-2005

70 Gy; 2.5-Gy/fr/ 5 wks.FU: 45 mo

5 yr PSA relapse free of low, intermediate and high-risk disease was 95%, 85%, and 68%, respectively.

Livsey RetrospectiveManchester

N= 705 men T1-T4 disease 1995 -1998

Conformal RT (50 Gy/16fr/ 22 days)Median FU: 48 months

Favourable, intermediate, poor prognostic groups biochemical control was 82%, 56%, and 39%. RTOG Gr ≥2 GI and bowel toxicity was 5% and 9%.

Lukka RandomizedNCI Canada

N= 936Mar 1995- Dec1998

Long arm: 66 Gy/33 fr 45 days Short arm: 52.5 Gy/20 fr 28 days

5 yrs, PSA relapse free survival was 52.95% in long and 59.95% in short arm.GI toxicity higher with short arm (11% vs 7%)

Tsuji Chiba Japan

N=201June 1995-Feb 2004

Three clinical trials RTOG Gr ≥2 GI toxicity. 5-yr PSA relapse-free survival 83.2% without any local recurrence.

Prostate Cancer: Hypofractionation studies

Page 17: Prostate

Author Study Patient criteria Study details Results

King Prospective N=41Stanford

SBRT (CyberKnife)36.25 Gy/ 5 fr/ 1 weekMedian FU: 33 months

Biochemical control 100%At 12 months, 78% achieved PSA nadirRTOG Gr ≥3 rectal toxicity 4.8%

Friedland Prospective N=112NaplesFeb2005-Dec 2006

SBRT (CyberKnife)RT dose: 35-36 Gy/5 frMedian FU: 24 months

3 patients had failure (two local and one distant failure). 82% no erectile dysfunction

Brachytherapy

Galalae Three centre data

N=611Localized prostate cancer

HDR brachytherapy combined with EBRT

5-yr PSA relapse-free survival were 96%, 88%, and 69% for favorable-, intermediate-, and unfavorable-risk patients

Prostate Cancer: Ultra-hypofractionation studies

Page 18: Prostate

Fullar et al, IJROBP 2008

Radiosurgery mimicking brachytherapy

Page 19: Prostate

Fullar et al, IJROBP 2008

Radiosurgery mimicking brachytherapy

Page 20: Prostate

Fullar et al, IJROBP 2008

Radiosurgery vs brachytherapy: Dosimetry

Page 21: Prostate

Radiosurgery vs brachytherapy: Dosimetry

Fullar et al, IJROBP 2008

Page 22: Prostate

Hossain et al, IJROBP 2010

SBRT vs IMRT : Dosimetry

Page 23: Prostate

Hossain et al, IJROBP 2010

SBRT vs IMRT : Dose distribution

Page 24: Prostate

Hossain et al, IJROBP 2010

Page 25: Prostate

Hossain et al, IJROBP 2010

Page 26: Prostate

Hossain et al, IJROBP 2010

Page 27: Prostate

SBRT: Early outcome of Ph II study (n=45)

Page 28: Prostate

SBRT: Early outcome of Ph II study (n=45)

Page 29: Prostate

SBRT: Clinical outcome (n=112)

Frieland et al, IJROBP 2009

Page 30: Prostate

Probability of maintaining erectile function

Robinson et al IJROBP 2002

Page 31: Prostate

King et al. IJROBP 2010

QOL: Sexual function domains

5 yr FU data with biochemical control & QOL function

Page 32: Prostate

QOL: Sexual function domains

King et al. IJROBP 2010

Page 33: Prostate

Aluwin J of Endourology 2010

Experiences from new centres

Page 34: Prostate

Conclusions

- Large patient cohort prospective study with more than 500 patients and more than 5

years follow up have shown that CyberKnife is equally effective as long coures RT

- SBRT/ CyberKnife is now standard of care treatment for localized prostate cancer

- Outcome of CyberKnife treatment is similar to long course RT

- Side-effect after Cyberknife is less than 1% in prostate cancer

- CyberKnife is safe, out patient, short course treatment in both primary and metastatic

diseases.

- High dose radiation may be effective in many of the ‘radioresistant’ disease.

Page 35: Prostate

Thank you

Dr Debnarayan Dutta, MDCyberKnife Specialist

[email protected]