kupelian 1st talk planning dose hyderabad 2013 (cancer ci 2013) patrick kupelian, m.d
TRANSCRIPT
Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer:Anatomy / Planning
Dose Escalation / Dose FractionationCompeting Treatment Modalities
Patrick Kupelian, M.D.Professor and Vice Chair
University of California Los AngelesDepartment of Radiation Oncology
February 2013
Disclosures
Research grants / Honoraria / Advisory Board / Royalties:
AccuraySiemens MedicalVarian MedicalViewray Inc.VisionTree
Outline
Anatomy: Prostate MRIPelvic LN - CT
Treatment options:SurveillanceSurgeryRadiotherapy
Radiotherapy PlanningImportance of Dose EscalationHypofractionation - SBRT
Prognosticators
Stage, PSA and Gleason scoreNumber of cores positive (proxy for disease volume)
Low risk: <T2A, Gleason <6, PSA <10 - (Single focus GS 7?)
Intermediate: Heterogeneous group
High risk: T3 or GS >8 or PSA >20Two factors: Stage >T2B, GS 7, PSA between 10 and 20 - (Single focus GS 8, low PSA?)
Prostate Anatomy: CT vs US vs MR
• CT: Widely available, cannot delineate full anatomy
• Ultrasound: Not routinely available for EBRT. Cannot distinguish benign from malignant tissue
• MRI: Not routinely available. Higher level detail. Multiparametric imaging allows additional detail.
?
?
Courtesy D. Margolis, UCLA, 2013
Basic Prostate Anatomy:Cross-Sectional Imaging
• Lengthwise (sagittal) cross-section:• Peripheral Zone (~70% of prostate cancer)• Central Zone (5-8% of prostate cancer)• Transitional Zone (~20% of prostate cancer) • Anterior Fibro-Muscular
Stroma (devoid of
glandular components)• Seminal Vesicle• Urethra and Bladder
Courtesy D. Margolis, UCLA, 2013
Basic Prostate Anatomy: Multiple Levels
• Peripheral Zone• Central Gland• Transitional Zone• Anterior Fibromuscular
Stroma• Urethra
Courtesy D. Margolis, UCLA, 2013
Prostate anatomy: Additional Views
• Sagittal image through the prostate: B: bladder, SV: seminal vesicles, FS: fibromuscular stroma, P: prostate
• Coronal Oblique image through the prostate: SV: seminal vesicles, P: prostate.
B
FS
P
SVRectal
Probe
SVSV
P
Membranous Urethra
Courtesy D. Margolis, UCLA, 2013
Criteria for Prostate Cancer on T2-Weighted MRI
• Round, ovoid, or irregular dark
regions on T2WI without
corresponding hemorrhage on T1WI
• Irregular shape, disruption, or
bowing of capsule (blue arrow)
• Penetration or disruption of the dark
band with invasion of neurovascular
bundle or seminal vesicle (orange
arrow)
• Obliteration of the rectoprostatic
angle (preserved, green arrow)
Courtesy D. Margolis, UCLA, 2013
Pelvic Nodal Consensus CTV ContoursRTOG CONSENSUS GUIDELINES
Colleen A F Lawton MDMedical College of Wisconsin
• Treatment of Presacral LNs (subaortic only)• 7 mm margin around iliac vessels, carving out bowel,
bladder and bone• Commence contouring at distal common iliac vessels at
L5/S1 interspace• Stop external iliac contours at top of femoral heads
(boney landmark for Ing. ligament)• Stop contours of obturator LNs at top of symphsis pubis
25/93
32
32/93
58
58/93
61
61/93
63
63/93
Localized Prostate Cancer:Competing Treatment Modalities
Surveillance (No Dose option)
Radiotherapy: - High dose EBRT- Hypofractionation (incuding SBRT)- Brachytherapy
Surgery: - Radical Retropubic- Laparoscopic / Robotic
CryosurgeryHIFU
No DosePIVOT TRIAL
Radical Prostatectomy vs Observationfor Localized Prostate Cancer: Toxicity
EXTERNAL BEAM RT COMPARISON WITH OTHER MODALITIES
Importance of DosePSA failure by Treatment modality
Kupelian, Potters et al. IJROBP 2004;58:25-33.
Effectiveness of High Dose RT
Intermediate risk prostate Ca: Clinical stage of T2b or T2cBiopsy Gleason score (bGS) 7, orPretreatment PSA between 10 and 20 ng/mL.
Treatment arms: RRP vs Lap RP vs EBRT vs PIN=979, median follow-up 65 monthsTreated between 1996 and 2005Minimum of 2 years of follow-upAt least 4 follow-up PSA levels
Vassil et al. Urology 76, 2010
Effectiveness
Lap RP EBRT
Vassil et al. Urology 76, 2010
Localized Prostate Cancer – Radiotherapy Today
Patient outcome improvements
Improved Cure Rates: Dose escalationDoses in the 75-85 Gy range
Decreased toxicityGrade 3 toxicities < 5%
ConvenienceHypofractionation / SBRT / Brachytherapy
BENEFIT FROM DOSE ESCALATION
Questions
Who benefits?
Magnitude of benefit?
Literature Review;Series reported up to 2008External beam RT, at least 2 dose groupsNo brachytherapyNo hypofractionation>200 patients
Data adapted from Diez et al. IJROBP 2010
Studies:5 retrospective4 randomized
BENEFIT FROM DOSE ESCALATION
BENEFIT - LOW RISK
Diez et al. IJROBP 2010
Diez et al. IJROBP 2010
BENEFIT - INTERMEDIATE-HIGH RISK
919 Stage T1-T3N0M0 - RT alone - treated between 1986 and 2000
RT dose N Median Dose Median FU (mos)All patients 919 97 <72 Gy 552 68 Gy 112 >72 <82 Gy 215 78 Gy 94>82 Gy 152 83 Gy 65
LOCAL FAILURE - DOSE GROUPS
Kupelian et al. IJROBP. 71, 6–22, 2008
DISTANT FAILURE - DOSE GROUPS
Kupelian et al. IJROBP. 71, 6–22, 2008
Dose Escalation for Localized Prostate Ca
Benefit of dose escalation is seen in all risk groups
The slope of the dose response curve is relatively shallow, as demonstrated by data from randomized studies
Need large dose increases to see differences in outcomes.
RT dose has an impact on clinical outcomes, most importantly distant metastasis rates.
PATIENT-REPORTED TOXICITY
Patient Reported Quality of Life
Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors.Sanda et al, N Engl J Med. 2008 Mar 20;358(12):1250-61.
1201 patients, 625 spouses or partners
Prostatectomy / Brachytherapy / External-beam RT
No deaths occurred.Rare serious adverse events.
Symptoms exacerbated by obesity, a large prostate size, a high PSA, and older age.
Patient Reported Toxicity
Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors.Sanda et al, N Engl J Med. 2008 Mar 20;358(12):1250-61.
“Each prostate-cancer treatment was associated with a distinct pattern of change in quality-of-life domains related to urinary, sexual, bowel, and
hormonal function“.
Patient Reported Quality of LifeSanda et al, N Engl J Med. 2008 Mar 20;358(12):1250-61.
Urinary Scores
Patient Reported Quality of LifeSanda et al, N Engl J Med. 2008 Mar 20;358(12):1250-61.
Bowel Scores
Patient Reported Quality of LifeSanda et al, N Engl J Med. 2008 Mar 20;358(12):1250-61.
Vitality-Hormonal Scores
Patient Reported Quality of LifeSanda et al, N Engl J Med. 2008 Mar 20;358(12):1250-61.
Sexual Scores
TECHNIQUE
TREATMENT PLANNING
Anatomy:Target:CTV: Low risk: Prostate only
Intermediate risk: Prostate + SV (proximal 1 cm) High risk: Prostate + SV +/- Pelvic Lymph nodes
(Postoperative Prostate Bed: RTOG guidelines) PTV: CTV+ 5 mm (except 3 mm posteriorly) – Daily Guidance OARs / Critical Structure Definitions:Rectum: Extends 1 cm sup + inf to PTVBladder: Entire organFemurs: To level of ischial tuberositiesLarge/Small Bowel: within the primary beam aperturePenile bulb: Entire organ
Planning:Target Goals: PTV: 95% of PTV volume to get 95-110% of Rx dose. IMRT fractionated (81 Gy in 45 fractions):OAR Dose Constraints: Rectum V50 < 50%
V80 < 20%V90 < 10%V100 < 5%
Bladder V50 < 40%V100 < 1.1%
Femurs V40 < 5%
Small Bowel V50 < 1%
External Beam Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer
DOSE ESCALATIONMETHODS
ESCALATION OF TOTAL DOSES
ESCALATION OF FRACTION SIZES
Conventional Hypofractionation
CONVENTIONAL FRACTIONATIONversus
HYPOFRACTIONATION versus
STEREOTACTIC BODY RADIOSURGERY (SBRT)
1 45
SBRT
5
Number of fractions
Fraction Size
>7 Gy 1.8-2.0 Gy
~35
ConventionalHypofractionation
Biological Rationale
Ablative?? N o r m a l t i s s u e s p a r i n g
Total Dose
~35-50 Gy ~75-85 Gy~50-75 Gy
bR
FS
0
.2
.4
.6
.8
1
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84Months
Low Risk
Intermediate Risk
High Risk
68%85%95%
p<0.010
.2
.4
.6
.8
1
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84
bR
FS
Months
Low Risk
Intermediate Risk
High Risk
72%83%94%
p<0.01
Biochemical Relapse Free Survival By Risk Group
ASTRO definition Phoenix definition
THE CLEVELAND CLINIC EXPERIENCE: FIRST 770 PATIENTS
Kupelian et al., IJROBP, 68(5):1424-30, 2007
Median follow-up: 45 months
Toxicity (RTOG scores)
Kupelian et al., IJROBP, 68(5):1424-30, 2007
HYPOFRACTIONATION TRIALS
LOW AND LOW / INTERMEDIATE RISK
HYPOFRACTIONATION PROTOCOLS: Phase III trials
MDACC (Pollack/Kuban): IMRT / Daily localization (Transabdominal US)N=204. Median follow-up 5.8 years
75.6 at 1.8 Gy vs 72.0 at 2.4 Gy 5 yr bRFS 94% 97%Late Gr <3 GI tox 5% 10% p=0.06
Late Gr <3 GU tox 15% 15% p=0.43
Kuban et al, IJROBP 78, S58 2010, Skinner et al, ASTRO 2012
Fox Chase (Pollack): IMRT / Daily localization (Transabdominal US)Median follow-up 55 mos
76.0 at 2.0 Gy vs 70.2 at 2.7 Gy No difference in biochemical failuresSlightly higher late GU effects with hypofracationation.Pre-RT urinary status: Important predictor of GU toxicity
Ontario Clinical Oncology Group (OCOG) : PROFIT – Prostate Fractionated Irradiation TrialN=120460.0 at 3.0 Gy vs 78.0 at 2.0 GyDaily localization
HYPOFRACTIONATION TRIALS
CHHiP Trial: N=30261st randomization: Dose: 60 Gy at 3 Gy vs 74 Gy at 2 Gy per fx2nd randomization: Image Guidance vs No Image Guidance3rd randomization: Margins
RTOG 04-15: N=1067 low risk patients70.0 at 2.5 Gy vs 73.8 at 1.8 GyIMRT or CRT / Daily localizationClosed Fall 2009
HYPOFRACTIONATION FOR HIGH RISK?
62 Gy/20 fractions / 5 weeks(3.1 Gy per fraction)
vs80 Gy/40 fractions / 8 weeks
(2 Gy per fraction)9 months ADTN=168
High-Risk:bGS of 8–10iPSA >20, or two of the following:iPSA 11–20, T>2c, GS=7
Arcangeli et al, IJROBP 78, 11-18, 2010
Italian Hypofractionation Randomized study for High Risk Cases
HYPOFRACTIONATED RT BETTER?
2.0 Gy x 40
3.1 Gy x 20
HYPOFRACTIONATION AND NODAL RT:Simultaneous prostate vs LN fraction size differences
Pervez et al. IJROBP. 76: 57-64, 2010
PROSTATE SBRT: 5 fractions or lessFaster, Better, Cheaper
SBRT for Prostate Cancer
Multiple reports, single arm studies: excellent control.Med follow-up still < 5 years
• Madsen IJROBP 2007• Fuller IJROBP 2008• King IJROBP 2009• King IJROBP 2011• Friedland TCRT 2009• Katz BMC Urol 2010• Wiegner IJROBP 2010• Bolzicco TCRT 2010
• Aluwini J Endourol 2010• Freeman RO 2010• Townsend AJCO 2011• Kang Tumori 2011• Jabbari IJROBP 2011• Mantz IJROBP 2011• Boike JCO 2011
Efficacy of SBRT
• Katz et al. ASTRO 2012Multi-institutional pooled data; 8 institutions35-40 Gy in 4-5 fractions1101 patients, ~ 3 yr median FU (6-72 mos)335 cases with a >4 years follow-up (median 53 mos)
Risk groups:Low: 639 59%Intermediate: 326 30%High: 124 11% Any androgen deprivation:No: 872 86%Yes: 146 14%
Dose groups:35 Gy: 385 35%36.25 Gy: 589 53%38-40 Gy: 127 12%
Katz et al. ASTRO 2012
0
.2
.4
.6
.8
1
Cum
. S
urv
ival
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80Time
Censor Times (LO)
Cum. Survival (LO)
Censor Times (INT)
Cum. Survival (INT)
Censor Times (HI)
Cum. Survival (HI)
Kaplan-Meier Cum. Survival Plot for True_Fail_TCensor Variable: True_FailGrouping Variable: Risk_G_dAmico
LowIntermediate
High
335 cases with >4 years of follow-up (median 53 months) 5-year bRFS rates: Low risk: 97%
Intermediate-risk: 89%
1101 SBRT cases
Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy forIntermediate-risk Organ-confined Prostate Cancer:
Interim Toxicity and Quality of Life Outcomes from a Multi-Institutional StudyRobert Meier, MD
Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle WA
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA
Central Baptist Hospital, Lexington, KY
St. Joseph Mercy Hospital System, Ypsilanti, MI
Community Cancer Center, Normal, IL
Capital Health System, Trenton, NJ
Northwest Community Hospital, Arlington Heights, IL
Jupiter Medical Center, Jupiter, FL
Meier et al., ASTRO 2012
Toxicity and Quality of Life
Treatment Planning• Prostate prescribed 8 Gy x 5 = 40 Gy
• Prostate + proximal 2 cm seminal vesicles + 3-5 mm:7.25 Gy x 5 = 36.25 Gy
Meier et al., ASTRO 2012
• 129 patients 2007- 2010, 21 centers• Follow up 2 – 4½ yrs Median 36 months
AUA Score after SBRT
0 6 12 18 24 30 360
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Months After Treatment
Mea
n A
UA
Sco
reSimilar to an implant
Multi-institutional prospective study PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOMES
Meier et al., ASTRO 2012
Late Urinary Toxicity: Gr 2+
Meier et al., ASTRO 2012
Late Bowel Toxicity: Gr 2+
Meier et al., ASTRO 2012
Planning SBRT (5 FRACTIONS):Target Goals: PTV: 95% of PTV volume to get 95-110% of Rx dose. SBRT: (8 Gy x 5)OAR Dose Constraints: Rectum V50 (20 Gy) < 50%
V80 (32 Gy) < 20%V90 (36 Gy) < 10%V100 (40 Gy) < 5%
Bladder V50 (20 Gy) < 40%V100 (40 Gy) < 1.1%
Femurs V40 (16 Gy) < 5%
Small Bowel V50 (20 Gy) < 1%
CONCLUSIONS
Hypofractionated approaches (including SBRT) have favorable toxicity and efficacy profiles with the available follow-up.
Late rectal toxicity with hypofractionated RT is minimal. Urinary toxicity is marginally more prominent: Avoid patients with poor pre-radiation urinary function (similar to implants).
Even if only equivalent to standard fractionated RT with respect to efficacy, hypofractionation should be adopted due to convenience and cost advantages.
Hypofractionation better for high risk cancers?
Phase I studies are still needed: Approaches with novel doses, margins, dose sculpting and timing of delivery should be investigated.
Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer:
Dose EscalationDose Fractionation
Patrick Kupelian, M.D.Professor and Vice Chair
University of California Los AngelesDepartment of Radiation Oncology
February 2013