Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:To improve on the existing risk-stratification systems for prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS:This was a retrospective investigation including 2 248 patients undergoing dose-escalated external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) at a single institution. We separated National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) intermediate-risk prostate cancer into 'favourable' and 'unfavourable' groups based on primary Gleason pattern, percentage of positive biopsy cores (PPBC), and number of NCCN intermediate-risk factors. Similarly, NCCN high-risk prostate cancer was stratified into 'standard' and 'very high-risk' groups based on primary Gleason pattern, PPBC, number of NCCN high-risk factors, and stage T3b-T4 disease. Patients with unfavourable-intermediate-risk (UIR) prostate cancer had significantly inferior prostate-specific antigen relapse-free survival (PSA-RFS, P < 0.001), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS, P < 0.001), prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM, P < 0.001), and overall survival (OS, P < 0.001) compared with patients with favourable-intermediate-risk (FIR) prostate cancer. Similarly, patients with very high-risk (VHR) prostate cancer had significantly worse PSA-RFS (P < 0.001), DMFS (P < 0.001), and PCSM (P = 0.001) compared with patients with standard high-risk (SHR) prostate cancer. Moreover, patients with FIR and low-risk prostate cancer had similar outcomes, as did patients with UIR and SHR prostate cancer. RESULTS:Consequently, we propose the following risk-stratification system: Group 1, low risk and FIR; Group 2, UIR and SHR; and Group 3, VHR. These groups have markedly different outcomes, with 8-year distant metastasis rates of 3%, 9%, and 29% (P < 0.001) for Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively, and 8-year PCSM of 1%, 4%, and 13% (P < 0.001) after EBRT. This modified stratification system was significantly more accurate than the three-tiered NCCN system currently in clinical use for all outcomes. CONCLUSION:Modifying the NCCN risk-stratification system to group FIR with low-risk patients and UIR with SHR patients, results in modestly improved prediction of outcomes, potentially allowing better personalisation of therapeutic recommendations.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To describe the details and experience of implementing a MR-only workflow in the clinic for simulation and planning of prostate cancer patients. METHODS:Forty-eight prostate cancer patients from June 2016 - Dec 2016 receiving external beam radiotherapy were scheduled to undergo MR-only simulation. MR images were acquired for contouring (T2w axial, coronal, sagittal), synthetic-CT generation (3D FFE-based) and fiducial identification (3D bFFE-based). The total acquisition time was 25 min. Syn-CT was generated at the console using commercial software called MRCAT. As part of acceptance testing of the MRCAT package, external laser positioning system QA (< 2 mm) and geometric fidelity QA (< 2 mm within 50 cm LR and 30 cm AP) were performed and baseline values were set. Our current combined CT + MR simulation process was modified to accommodate a MRCAT-based MR-only simulation workflow. An automated step-by-step process using a MIM™ workflow was created for contouring on the MR images. Patient setup for treatment was achieved by matching the MRCAT DRRs with the orthogonal KV radiographs based on either fiducial ROIs or bones. 3-D CBCTs were acquired and compared with the MR/syn-CT to assess the rectum and bladder filling compared to simulation conditions. RESULTS:Forty-two patients successfully underwent MR-only simulation and met all of our institutional dosimetric objectives that were developed based on a CT + MR-based workflow. The remaining six patients either had a hip prosthesis or their large body size fell outside of the geometric fidelity QA criteria and thus they were not candidates for MR-only simulation. A total time saving of ~15 min was achieved with MR-based simulation as compared to CT + MR-based simulation. An automated and organized MIM workflow made contouring on MR much easier, quicker and more accurate compared with combined CT + MR images because the temporal variations in normal structure was minimal. 2D and 3D treatment setup localization based on bones/fiducials using a MRCAT reference image was successfully achieved for all cases. CONCLUSIONS:MR-only simulation and planning with equivalent or superior target delineation, planning and treatment setup localization accuracy is feasible in a clinical setting. Future work will focus on implementing a robust 3D isotropic acquisition for contouring.

To evaluate a commercial synthetic CT (syn-CT) software for use in prostate radiotherapy. Twenty-five prostate patients underwent CT and MR simulation scans in treatment position on a 3T MR scanner. A commercially available MR protocol was used that included a T2w turbo spin-echo sequence for soft-tissue contrast and a dual echo 3D mDIXON fast field echo (FFE) sequence for generating syn-CT. A dual-echo 3D FFE B ₀ map was used for patient-induced susceptibility distortion analysis and a new 3D balanced-FFE sequence was evaluated for identification of implanted gold fiducial markers and subsequent image-guidance during radiotherapy delivery. Tissues were classified as air, adipose, water, trabecular/spongy bone and compact/cortical bone and assigned bulk HU values. The accuracy of syn-CT for treatment planning was analyzed by transferring the structures and plan from planning CT to syn-CT and recalculating the dose. Accuracy of localization at the treatment machine was evaluated by comparing registration of kV radiographs to either digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) generated from syn-CT or traditional DRRs generated from the planning CT. Similarly, accuracy of setup using CBCT and syn-CT was compared to that using the planning CT. Finally, a MR-only simulation workflow was established and end-to-end testing was completed on five patients undergoing MR-only simulation. Dosimetric comparison between the original CT and syn-CT plans was within 0.5% on average for all structures. The de-novo optimized plans on the syn-CT met institutional clinical objectives for target and normal structures. Patient-induced susceptibility distortion based on B ₀ maps was within 1 mm and 0.5 mm in the body and prostate respectively. DRR and CBCT localization based on MR-localized fiducials showed a standard deviation of  <1 mm. End-to-end testing and MR simulation workflow was successfully validated. MRI derived synthetic CT can be successfully used for a MR-only planning and treatment for prostate radiotherapy.

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate a multimodal strategy aimed at treating all sites of disease that provides a rapid readout of success or failure in men presenting with non-castrate metastatic prostate cancers that are incurable with single modality therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Twenty selected men with oligometastatic M1a (extrapelvic nodal disease) or M1b (bone disease) at diagnosis were treated using a multimodal approach that included androgen deprivation, radical prostatectomy plus pelvic lymphadenectomy (retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy in the presence of clinically positive retroperitoneal nodes), and stereotactic body radiotherapy to osseous disease or the primary site. Outcomes of each treatment were assessed sequentially. Androgen deprivation was discontinued in responding patients. The primary end point was an undetectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) after testosterone recovery. The goal was to eliminate all detectable disease. RESULTS:Each treatment modality contributed to the outcome: 95% of the cohort achieved an undetectable PSA with multimodal treatment, including 25% of patients after androgen deprivation alone and an additional 50% and 20% after surgery and radiotherapy, respectively. Overall, 20% of patients (95% confidence interval: 3%-38%) achieved the primary end point, which persisted for 5, 6, 27+ , and 46+ months. All patients meeting the primary end point had been classified with M1b disease at presentation. CONCLUSION:A sequentially applied multimodal treatment strategy can eliminate detectable disease in selected patients with metastatic spread at diagnosis. The end point of undetectable PSA after testosterone recovery should be considered when evaluating new approaches to rapidly set priorities for large-scale testing in early metastatic disease states and to shift the paradigm from palliation to cure.