Phase 1 Trial of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Neoadjuvant to Radical Prostatectomy for Patients With High-Risk Prostate Cancer
Neil R Parikh,Amar U Kishan,Nathanael Kane,Silvia Diaz-Perez,Ekambaram Ganapathy,Ramin Nazarian,Carol Felix,Colleen Mathis,Margaret Bradley,Ankush Sachdeva,Bashir Wyatt,Vince Basehart,Nazy Zomorodian,Lin Lin,Christopher R King,Patrick A Kupelian,Matthew B Rettig,Michael L Steinberg,Minsong Cao,Beatrice S Knudsen,David Elashoff,Dorthe Schaue,Robert E Reiter,Nicholas G Nickols
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.06.010
2020-11-15
Abstract:Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) neoadjuvant to radical prostatectomy (RP) in a phase 1 trial. The primary endpoint was treatment completion rate without severe acute surgical complications. Secondary endpoints included patient-reported quality of life and physician-reported toxicities. Methods and materials: Patients with nonmetastatic high-risk or locally advanced prostate cancer received 24 Gy in 3 fractions to the prostate and seminal vesicles over 5 days, completed 2 weeks before RP. Patients with pN1 disease were treated after multidisciplinary discussion and shared decision making. Patient-reported quality of life (International Prostate Symptom Score and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite 26-item version questionnaires) and physician-reported toxicity (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.03) were assessed before SBRT, immediately before surgery, and at 3-month intervals for 1 year. Results: Twelve patients were enrolled, and 11 completed treatment (1 patient had advanced disease on prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography after enrollment but before treatment). There were no significant surgical complications. After RP, 2 patients underwent additional radiation therapy to nodes with androgen suppression for pN1 disease. Median follow-up after completion of treatment was 20.1 months, with 9 of 11 patients having a follow-up period of >12 months. Two patients had biochemical recurrence (prostate-specific antigen ≥0.05) within the first 12 months, with an additional 2 patients found to have biochemical recurrence after the 12-month period. The highest Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events genitourinary grades were 0, 1, 2, and 3 (n = 1, 4, 4, and 2, respectively), and the highest gastrointestinal grades were 0, 1, and 2 (n = 9, 1, and 1, respectively). At 12 months, incontinence was the only grade ≥2 toxicity. One and 2 of 9 patients had grade 2 and 3 incontinence, respectively. On the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (26-item version), the mean/median changes in scores from baseline to 12 months were -32.8/-31.1 for urinary incontinence, -1.6/-6.2 for urinary irritative/obstructive, -2.1/0 for bowel, -34.4/-37.5 for sexual function, and -10.6/-2.5 for hormonal. The mean/median change in International Prostate Symptom Score from baseline to 12 months was 0.5/0.5. Conclusions: RP after neoadjuvant SBRT appears to be feasible and safe at the dose tested. The severity of urinary incontinence may be higher than RP alone.