Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S): Historically, caution has been warranted when irradiating large target volumes particularly those in close proximity to organs at risk. Prior literature has demonstrated an increased incidence of GI and GU toxicity when men with large prostates were treated with conventionally fractionated radiation therapy. However, there is very limited data regarding the clinical outcomes when SBRT is used as a definitive treatment modality. We explore the long term oncologic, toxicity, and patient reported outcomes of men treated with definitive SBRT with ultra-large prostate glands (>= 100 cc.) MATERIALS/METHODS: From 2006 to 2020, a total of 3,393 patients with low and intermediate risk prostate cancer were treated with definitive robotic-SBRT. We performed a retrospective review to identify all patients in this cohort with pre-treatment prostate volumes >= 100 cc. Prostate volume was measured at the time of treatment regardless of ADT incorporation. All patients were treated to a total dose of 35-36.25 Gy in 5 fractions. All patients had a minimum of 2 years follow-up and were given pre- and post-treatment EPIC questionnaires at defined intervals. Biochemical control was assessed using the Phoenix definition. Late toxicity was defined using CTCAE version 5.0 and was characterized as occurring >= 6 months post treatment.
RESULT(S): A total of 67 patients were identified with >= 100 cc prostate glands. Of these, 18 patients received ADT prior to treatment. Overall, the median prostate volume was 139.37 cc (range 100.1 - 227 cc). The D'Amico risk classification was low (n=19) and intermediate (n=48). The median age was 70 years (range 54 - 87 years) and the median pretreatment PSA was 8.7 ng/ml. The mean pre-treatment EPIC bowel and urinary scores were 87.8 and 79.7, respectively. One-month following SBRT, mean EPIC bowel and urinary scores worsened to 83.6 and 76.5, respectively. Three months following SBRT, mean epic bowel and urinary scores continued to decline to 83.2 and 77.1, respectively. However, bowel and bladder symptomatology improved by 1 year to 86.16 and 77.19, and by 2 years improved above baseline to 90.00 and 85.78, respectively. There were no high grade (3+) GI toxicities observed, though one grade 3 urinary retention was identified. Excellent oncologic outcomes were observed with a 5-year median PSA nadir of 0.6 ng/mL and a biochemical relapse free survival (bRFS) of 100% at 5 years.
CONCLUSION(S): SBRT has been demonstrated to be oncologically effective with minimal toxicity, and has become a more ubiquitous radiation option in men with localized prostate cancer. Although there is a historical reticence for treatment of men with large glands, we report excellent clinical outcomes. Five-year bRFS was 100% and grade 3+ urinary toxicity was 2%. Although EPIC scores transiently dropped at 1 and 3 months following SBRT, resolution was seen by 1 year following treatment. The use of SBRT for the treatment of localized prostate cancer in men with ultra-large prostate gland is feasible with minimal toxicity.
Copyright

BACKGROUND:Historically, IBD has been thought to increase the underlying risk of radiation related toxicity in the treatment of prostate cancer. In the modern era, contemporary radiation planning and delivery may mitigate radiation-related toxicity in this theoretically high-risk cohort. This is the first manuscript to report clinical outcomes for men diagnosed with prostate cancer and underlying IBD curatively treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). METHODS:A large institutional database of patients (n = 4245) treated with SBRT for adenocarcinoma of the prostate was interrogated to identify patients who were diagnosed with underlying IBD prior to treatment. All patients were treated with SBRT over five treatment fractions using a robotic radiosurgical platform and fiducial tracking. Baseline IBD characteristics including IBD subtype, pre-SBRT IBD medications, and EPIC bowel questionnaires were reviewed for the IBD cohort. Acute and late toxicity was evaluated using the CTCAE version 5.0. RESULTS:A total of 31 patients were identified who had underlying IBD prior to SBRT for the curative treatment of prostate cancer. The majority (n = 18) were diagnosed with ulcerative colitis and were being treated with local steroid suppositories for IBD. No biochemical relapses were observed in the IBD cohort with early follow up. High-grade acute and late toxicities were rare (n = 1, grade 3 proctitis) with a median time to any GI toxicity of 22 months. Hemorrhoidal flare was the most common low-grade toxicity observed (n = 3). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:To date, this is one of the largest groups of patients with IBD treated safely and effectively with radiation for prostate cancer and the only review of patients treated with SBRT. Caution is warranted when delivering therapeutic radiation to patients with IBD, however modern radiation techniques appear to have mitigated the risk of GI side effects.

Background and Purpose: Fiducial marker placement is required in patients undergoing robotic-based Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) or image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) for prostate cancer. Many patients take antiplatelet or anticoagulant medication due to other medical comorbidities. They are often required to temporarily discontinue these medications prior to invasive medical procedures as they are prone to bleed. Some patients are unable to discontinue therapy due to an elevated risk of thromboembolic events. The purpose of this study is to report this institution's experience placing fiducial markers in prostate cancer patients who are on chronic antiplatelet or anticoagulant medication. Materials and Methods: From August 2015-March 2019 57 patients on chronic antiplatelet or anticoagulation therapy who were not cleared to stop these medications underwent transrectal ultrasound guided (TRUS) fiducial marker placement for SBRT/IGRT. All patients were monitored by a registered nurse during the procedure for prolonged bleeding that required staff to hold pressure to the area with a 4 × 4 gauze until it resolved. All patients were also called the following day to assess for ongoing bleeding events. Treatment planning CT scan confirmed the ideal geometry of the marker placement. Results: All 57 patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant medication who underwent fiducial marker placement were discharged home the same day of the procedure. Four patients experienced persistent bleeding that required a nurse to hold prolonged pressure to the area. No patient experienced significant bleeding the following day or any untoward cardiovascular event. Conclusions: This series suggests the use of antiplatelet or anticoagulant medication is not an absolute contraindication to fiducial marker placement in patients undergoing SBRT or IGRT for prostate cancer. These patients should be closely monitored after the procedure for bleeding complications. Practitioners may consider the patient's medical comorbidities, risk factors for thromboembolism, and overall functional status as there is no standardized protocol for discontinuing anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy for fiducial marker placement.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for spinal metastases from hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) compared with other radioresistant histologies (renal cell carcinoma [RCC], melanoma, and sarcoma) in terms of local control (LC) and pain control. METHODS AND MATERIALS/METHODS:We performed a retrospective review of patients treated with SRS to the spine for metastatic HCC, RCC, melanoma, and sarcoma between January 2007 and May 2014. Radiographic assessments of LC, overall survival, and patient-reported pain control were analyzed as univariable analyses and with various patient- and treatment-related parameters as multivariable analyses (MVA). RESULTS:Of the 96 patients treated with SRS, 41 patients had radioresistant histologies, including 18 HCC, 1 mixed HCC and cholangiocarcinoma, 15 RCC, 6 melanoma, and 1 leiomyosarcoma. Extraosseous disease was present in 63% of patients (74% in HCC; 55% in non-HCC; P = not significant). Spinal cord compression was present in 29% of patients (32% in HCC; 27% in non-HCC; P = not significant), and 24% of patients had decompressive surgery before SRS (26% in HCC; 23% in non-HCC; P = not significant). With a median follow-up time of 8.7 months, the actuarial 3-, 6-, and 12-month LC rates were 71%, 61%, 41%, respectively, for HCC, and 94%, 94%, and 85%, respectively, for non-HCC. The median time to local failure was 3 months for HCC and 11 months for non-HCC. On MVA, there was a strong trend toward inferior LC with HCC (P = .059). Of the 28 patients with pretreatment pain, pain relief was achieved in 93% of patients, but the 2 patients who did not experience pain relief both had HCC. The actuarial 3-, 6-, and 12-month pain control rates were 68%, 51%, 17%, respectively, for HCC, and 100%, 89%, and 89%, respectively, for non-HCC (P = .023), and remained significant on MVA (P = .034). CONCLUSIONS:Compared with other radioresistant histologies, HCC has inferior LC and pain relief after SRS. Whether HCC may benefit from further dose escalation or combined treatment with new therapies is an area of future research.