Acute toxicity of image-guided hypofractionated proton therapy for localized prostate cancer
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.
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).
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.
Our results demonstrated the safety of HFPT for localized PCa patients in terms of acute toxicity.
KeywordsProstate cancer Proton therapy Hypofractionation Acute toxicity International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS)
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.
No specific funding was disclosed.
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 was obtained from each participant.
- 1.NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN guidelines) for prostate cancer. http://www.nccn.org. Accessed 30 June 2017
- 2.Hoppe B, Henderson R, Mendenhall WM et al (2011) Proton therapy for prostate cancer. Oncology (Williston Park) 25:644–650, 652Google Scholar
- 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
- 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