Advertisement

International Journal of Clinical Oncology

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 353–360 | Cite as

Acute toxicity of image-guided hypofractionated proton therapy for localized prostate cancer

  • Koichiro Nakajima
  • Hiromitsu Iwata
  • Hiroyuki Ogino
  • Yukiko Hattori
  • Shingo Hashimoto
  • Mikiko Nakanishi
  • Toshiyuki Toshito
  • Yukihiro Umemoto
  • Shoichiro Iwatsuki
  • Yuta Shibamoto
  • Jun-etsu Mizoe
Original Article
  • 165 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Hypofractionated proton therapy (HFPT) is expected to become an effective treatment approach for localized prostate cancer (PCa). The purpose of this study was to evaluate differences in acute toxicity among patients with localized PCa treated with either conventional fractionated proton therapy (CFPT) or HFPT.

Methods

A total of 526 eligible patients treated with proton therapy between February 2013 and May 2016 in three phase II trials were analyzed. We prescribed 74 gray relative biological effectiveness equivalents [Gy (RBE)]/37 fractions for low-risk patients and 78 Gy (RBE)/39 fractions for intermediate- and high-risk patients in the CFPT group (n = 254) and 60 Gy (RBE)/20 fractions for low-risk and 63 Gy (RBE)/21 fractions for intermediate- and high-risk patients in the HFPT group (n = 272). Patients were evaluated for acute toxicity with the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0, and urinary quality-of-life change using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS).

Results

No grade ≥3 acute toxicity was observed in either group. Among acute genitourinary toxicities, grade 2 rates were 15% (n = 38) in CFPT and 5.9% (n = 16) in HFPT (P ≤ 0.001). The median baseline IPSSs of the CFPT and HFPT groups were 7 (0–29) and 6 (0–31), respectively (P = 0.70). One-month post-treatment scores were 9 (0–32) and 11 (0–32), respectively (P = 0.036), and 6-month post-treatment scores were 7 (0–30) and 7 (0–33), respectively (P = 0.88). There were no significant differences in acute gastrointestinal toxicity between the two groups.

Conclusion

Our results demonstrated the safety of HFPT for localized PCa patients in terms of acute toxicity.

Keywords

Prostate cancer Proton therapy Hypofractionation Acute toxicity International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Dr. Chihiro Omachi as a member of proton therapy physics, and Dr. Keisuke Yasui and Mr. Kensuke Hayashi as a member of proton therapy technology, for their valuable help in this research.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors have read the journal’s policy on conflicts of interest and have none to declare.

Funding

No specific funding was disclosed.

Ethics approval

The data of this study were extracted from ongoing prospective phase II clinical trials based on protocols approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Nagoya City Hospital. The IRB numbers are 14-02-17 (14) and 14-02-18 (15) and 14-02-19 (16).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from each participant.

References

  1. 1.
    NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN guidelines) for prostate cancer. http://www.nccn.org. Accessed 30 June 2017
  2. 2.
    Hoppe B, Henderson R, Mendenhall WM et al (2011) Proton therapy for prostate cancer. Oncology (Williston Park) 25:644–650, 652Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pugh TJ, Munsell MF, Choi S et al (2013) Quality of life and toxicity from passively scattered and spot-scanning proton beam therapy for localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 87:946–953CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mendenhall NP, Hoppe BS, Nichols RC et al (2014) Five-year outcomes from 3 prospective trials of image-guided proton therapy for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 88:596–602CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brenner DJ, Martinez AA, Edmundson GK et al (2002) Direct evidence that prostate tumors show high sensitivity to fractionation (low alpha/beta ratio), similar to late-responding normal tissue. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 52:6–13CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fowler J, Chappell R, Ritter M (2001) Is alpha/beta for prostate tumors really low? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 50:1021–1031CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Koontz BF, Bossi A, Cozzarini C et al (2015) A systematic review of hypofractionation for primary management of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 68:683–691CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zietman AL (2016) Making radiation therapy for prostate cancer more economical and more convenient. J Clin Oncol 34:2323–2324CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dearnaley D, Syndikus I, Mossop HK et al (2016) Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial. Lancet Oncol 17:1047–1060CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Incrocci L, Wortel RC, Alemayehu WG et al (2016) Hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for patients with localised prostate cancer (HYPRO): final efficacy results from a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 17:1061–1069CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Manabe Y, Shibamoto Y, Sugie C et al (2014) Toxicity and efficacy of three dose-fractionation regimens of intensity-modulated radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer. J Radiat Res 55:494–501CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mendenhall NP, Li Z, Hoppe BS et al (2012) Early outcomes from three prospective trials of image-guided proton therapy for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 82:213–221CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bryant C, Smith TL, Henderson RH et al (2016) Five-year biochemical results, toxicity, and patient-reported quality of life after delivery of dose-escalated image guided proton therapy for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 95:422–434CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fang P, Mick R, Deville C et al (2015) A case-matched study of toxicity outcomes after proton therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Cancer (Phila) 121:1118–1127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kim YJ, Cho KH, Pyo HR et al (2013) A phase II study of hypofractionated proton therapy for prostate cancer. Acta Oncol 52:477–485CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vargas CE, Hartsell WF, Dunn M, et al (2015) Hypofractionated versus standard fractionated proton-beam therapy for low-risk prostate cancer: interim results of a randomized trial PCG GU 002. Am J Clin Oncol (Epub ahead of print, Oct. 29, 2015)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Toshito T, Omachi C, Kibe Y et al (2016) A proton therapy system in Nagoya Proton Therapy Center. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 39:645–654CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hashimoto S, Shibamoto Y, Iwata H et al (2016) Whole-pelvic radiotherapy with spot-scanning proton beams for uterine cervical cancer: a planning study. J Radiat Res 57:524–532CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Moyers MF, Miller DW, Bush DA et al (2001) Methodologies and tools for proton beam design for lung tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 49:1429–1438CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Park PC, Zhu XR, Lee AK et al (2012) A beam-specific planning target volume (PTV) design for proton therapy to account for setup and range uncertainties. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 82:329–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hynds S, McGarry CK, Mitchell DM et al (2011) Assessing the daily consistency of bladder filling using an ultrasonic Bladderscan device in men receiving radical conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Br J Radiol 84:813–818CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Barry MJ, Fowler FJ, O’Leary MP et al (1992) The American Urological Association symptom index for benign prostatic hyperplasia. The Measurement Committee of the American Urological Association. J Urol 148:1549–1557CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kanda Y (2013) Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software “EZR” for medical statistics. Bone Marrow Transplant 48:452–458CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Catton CN, Lukka H, Gu CS et al (2017) Randomized trial of a hypofractionated radiation regimen for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 35:1884–1890CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hopewell JW, Nyman J, Turesson I (2003) Time factor for acute tissue reactions following fractionated irradiation: a balance between repopulation and enhanced radiosensitivity. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol 79:513–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Benjamin LC, Tree AC, Dearnaley DP (2017) The role of hypofractionated radiotherapy in prostate cancer. Curr Oncol Rep 19:30CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pollack A, Walker G, Horwitz EM et al (2013) Randomized trial of hypofractionated external-beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 31:3860–3868CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tomita N, Oze I, Shimizu H et al (2015) International prostate symptom score (IPSS) change and changing factor in intensity-modulated radiotherapy combined with androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. Nagoya J Med Sci 77:637–646PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Norkus D, Karklelyte A, Engels B et al (2013) A randomized hypofractionation dose escalation trial for high risk prostate cancer patients: interim analysis of acute toxicity and quality of life in 124 patients. Radiat Oncol 8:206CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Haustermans KM, Hofland I, Van Poppel H et al (1997) Cell kinetic measurements in prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 37:1067–1070CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Paganetti H (2014) Relative biological effectiveness (RBE) values for proton beam therapy. Variations as a function of biological endpoint, dose, and linear energy transfer. Phys Med Biol 59:R419–R472CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Girdhani S, Sachs R, Hlatky L (2013) Biological effects of proton radiation: what we know and don’t know. Radiat Res 79:257–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Iwata H, Ogino H, Hashimoto S et al (2016) Spot scanning and passive scattering proton therapy: relative biological effectiveness and oxygen enhancement ratio in cultured cells. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 95:95–102CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Society of Clinical Oncology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Koichiro Nakajima
    • 1
  • Hiromitsu Iwata
    • 1
    • 2
  • Hiroyuki Ogino
    • 1
  • Yukiko Hattori
    • 1
    • 2
  • Shingo Hashimoto
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mikiko Nakanishi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Toshiyuki Toshito
    • 3
  • Yukihiro Umemoto
    • 4
  • Shoichiro Iwatsuki
    • 4
  • Yuta Shibamoto
    • 2
  • Jun-etsu Mizoe
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Radiation OncologyNagoya Proton Therapy Center, Nagoya City West Medical CenterNagoyaJapan
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyNagoya City University Graduate School of Medical SciencesNagoyaJapan
  3. 3.Proton Therapy Physics, Nagoya Proton Therapy CenterNagoyaJapan
  4. 4.Department of Nephro-UrologyNagoya City West Medical CenterNagoyaJapan

Personalised recommendations