Abstract
Purpose
Reirradiation (re-RT) using external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) is a novel salvage strategy for local failure in prostate cancer. We performed a systematic review describing oncologic and toxicity outcomes for salvage EBRT/stereotactic radiation therapy (SBRT) re-RT.
Methods and Materials
A International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews registered (#141466) systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression was conducted using preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. PubMed and EMBASE were searched from inception through September 2019. Outcome measures included local control (LC), biochemical relapse free survival (BRFS), and ≥grade 3 genitourinary (GU)/gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. EBRT and SBRT data were collected separately. Meta-regression explored disease and toxicity outcomes as a function of equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions (EQD2), length of follow-up, and partial versus whole prostate reirradiation.
Results
Nineteen studies representing 13 cohorts were included (428 patients). Weighted mean follow-up was 26.1 months. Median re-RT EQD2 was 77.1 Gy (α/β = 1.5), with 92% of patients receiving SBRT, 52.1% of patients receiving partial prostate re-RT, and 30.1% of patients receiving androgen deprivation therapy with re-RT. LC was 83.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 75.5%-90.9%) and BRFS was 59.3% (47.9%-70.7%). Reported late toxicity ≥grade 3 was 3.4% (95% CI, 1.0%-5.8%) for GU and 2.0% (95% CI, 0.1%-4.0%) for GI. Meta-regression found higher LC, BRFS, and reported GU/GI toxicity with increasing EQD2, with partial prostate re-RT associated with less reported GU/GI toxicity and no detriment to LC and BRFS.
Conclusions
Salvage re-RT using EBRT, particularly with SBRT, is an emerging technique to treat isolated local failure of prostate cancer. With short-term follow-up, LC, BRFS, and reported toxicities appear reasonable, although further follow-up is required before definitive statements on late toxicities can be made. Our review is limited by incomplete reporting of androgen deprivation therapy use in the primary literature. Further prospective studies and longer follow-up are needed before considering re-RT as standard practice.
Introduction
Patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer have numerous treatment options available to them. For those choosing external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), although dose escalation has resulted in improved biochemical control,1,2 the most common first site of recurrence is still locally in the prostate.3 Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is often the treatment of choice at biochemical recurrence, but is a noncurative treatment associated with a detriment to quality of life due to a wide range of side effects.4 Castrate resistance occurs after a median time of approximately 18 to 36 months,5,6 requiring many men to undergo further lines of systemic therapy for what may have first been an isolated local recurrence, with potential cure using local salvage therapy.
Traditional local salvage options after radiation therapy (RT) failure have included radical prostatectomy (RP), brachytherapy, cryotherapy, and high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), which are endorsed per National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.7 Salvage RP has the longest history of use, with 5-year biochemical relapse free survival (BRFS) results ranging from 47% to 82%,8 albeit with 41% of men suffering from varying degrees of incontinence, 24% having bladder neck strictures, and up to a 5% rectal injury rate.9, 10, 11 Brachytherapy, cryotherapy, and HIFU are possibly less invasive salvage options with similar disease control rates, but are still associated with potentially serious toxicity.12, 13, 14 Given the potential toxicity, variable outcomes, and limited access to these specialized salvage techniques, fewer than 2% of eligible patients undergo local salvage.15
A longstanding principle in radiation oncology is that after definitive EBRT has been delivered, reirradiation (re-RT) will exceed normal tissue tolerances, leading to concerns of futility or potentially serious toxicity.16 However, new imaging and RT platforms have been developed that could allow for safer re-RT. Re-RT with palliative intent is safe and effective in bone17 and brain18 metastases, and in carefully selected patients, is feasible with radical intent in previously radiated lung,19 breast,20 and head and neck cancers.21 Re-RT may also be less invasive, not requiring a general anesthetic or hospital admission, and it is more generalizable given the wide availability of image-guided RT platforms. In this context, our objective was to systematically review the literature for studies reporting outcomes or toxicity of re-RT for local failure of prostate cancer using EBRT or stereotactic radiation therapy (SBRT) after previous RT.
Methods and Materials
Search strategy
We conducted a International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews registered (#141466), preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses based22 systematic literature search of the PubMed and EMBASE databases from inception to September 6, 2019. Our search strategy is available in Appendix E1 and included keywords such as prostate cancer, external beam radiotherapy, salvage radiotherapy, stereotactic radiotherapy, and reirradiation.
Inclusion/exclusion criteria
English studies that reported oncologic or toxicity data of prostate re-RT using EBRT/SBRT were included. Re-RT after RP and prostate bed RT were both eligible and data were recorded separately where possible. Records were screened by title, then by abstract. Article review was conducted by 2 authors to confirm full-text eligibility. Reference lists of included studies were reviewed to identify additional studies. Studies using brachytherapy without EBRT/SBRT, palliative re-RT, or re-RT for a primary tumor other than prostate cancer were excluded. Reviews, case reports, and case series with fewer than 5 patients were excluded. To avoid duplication of study results, the most recently published data were included when duplicate study cohorts were encountered and >33% of the previous study cohort was included in a subsequent study.
Data abstraction
Data abstraction was performed with a standardized collection form by 2 study authors, with disagreements resolved through consensus and involvement of a third study author if necessary. The data collection form is available upon request. We used the definition of local control (LC) and BRFS as reported in each study. Data for EBRT/SBRT were recorded separately. SBRT was defined as per the description within each study, or RT using a limited number of fractions of ≥5 Gy per fraction. Partial prostate re-RT was defined as any RT omitting some component of the prostate from the clinical target volume (CTV) and included focal re-RT and hemi-prostate re-RT. Whole prostate re-RT included patients who received a simultaneous in-field boost in addition to whole prostate re-RT.
Statistical methods
The primary outcome was LC at the last follow-up as defined by each study. Secondary outcomes included BRFS, distant metastasis free survival, overall survival, and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) acute and late toxicity. Definitions of LC and BRFS were rarely explicitly reported. If actuarial outcomes were reported and discordant with outcomes at the last follow-up, the worse outcome was selected (ie, lower LC, BRFS; higher rate of GU/GI toxicity). When studies did not report outcomes separately (ie, whole vs partial prostate re-RT), the most commonly used feature was used for subgroup analysis.
Statistical analyses were performed using OpenMeta[Analyst].23 A random effects meta-analysis of proportions using the Dersimonian and Laird method was used.24 A correction factor of 0.5 was used when an event rate was 0%. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran Q test and the I2 statistic and considered significant when I2 was >50% and the P value of the Q test was <0.10. The effect of re-RT equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions (EQD2, α/β = 1.5), length of study follow-up in months, and partial versus whole prostate re-RT on LC, BRFS, and GU/GI late toxicity ≥grade 3 were evaluated using multivariate meta-regression using a random effects model.25 We conducted a subgroup analysis of studies that used SBRT using our meta-regression.
Results
Study characteristics
Our search strategy and supplemental literature search revealed 2658 records (Fig 1). Nineteen full text publications met our eligibility criteria, representing 13 patient data cohorts with 428 patients.26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 Nineteen studies were included in the qualitative portion of our systematic review, and the 13 separate patient data cohorts were included when reporting oncologic outcomes, toxicity, and the quantitative meta-analysis. Only 1 study was prospective,27 and the remainder were retrospective. Of the 6 articles meeting eligibility criteria but not included in the quantitative analysis, 5 studies contained a major amount of overlap with a larger and more recently published study population,39, 40, 41, 42, 43 and 1 study further detailed toxicity of re-RT44 of an otherwise included study.28
Figure 1.
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses diagram of study selection for our systematic review.
Patient demographics, treatment details, toxicity, and oncologic outcomes are summarized in Table 1. The weighted median follow-up of included studies was 26.1 months, with a range from 11.7 to 94 months. The median interval between initial RT and re-RT ranged from 4.1 to 8.4 years. The median initial RT dose was 74 Gy. The weighted median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) at re-RT was 3.75 ng/mL.
Table 1.
Summary table of studies reporting re-RT for prostate cancer
| First author, country | No. Pts | Follow-up, median | Age at re-RT, years | Previous treatment(s) (median dose, range) | PSA at re-RT (median, range) | Duration between RT and re-RT (median, range) | How was LR defined | PET before re-RT | Partial versus whole prostate re-RT | Treatment delivery | Most common re-RT dose (EQD2 range, α/β = 1.5) | Acute GU toxicity | Acute GI toxicity | Late GU toxicity | Late GI toxicity | LC | BRFS | OS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kaplan26 USA |
6 | 16.5 mo | NR | I-125 BT (dose NR) |
NR | 52.5 mo (24-72 mo) | Biopsy | 0/6 | Whole | EBRT system, delivery NR | 60 Gy/30 fx, 1 month break after 15 fx, 4/6 concurrent hyperthermia | Gr 1: 0% | Gr 1: 16.7% | Gr 1: 0% | Gr 1: 16.7% | 66.7% | NR | 66.7% |
| Gr 2: 0% | Gr 2: 0% | Gr 2: 0% | Gr 2: 0% | |||||||||||||||
| Gr 3: 0% | Gr 3: 0% | Gr 3: 0% | Gr 3: 0% | |||||||||||||||
| Gr 4: 0% | Gr 4: 0% | Gr 4: 0% | Gr 4: 0% | |||||||||||||||
| Fuller27 USA |
29 | 24 mo | Median 73 | EBRT (27/29): 73.8 Gy (68.4-81 Gy), other: SBRT, I-125 BT | 3.1 (0.1-48.6) | 88 mo (32-200 mo) | Biopsy | 0/29 | Whole | Cyberknife timing NR | 34 Gy/5 fx [80.6 Gy1.5] |
Gr 1: NR | Gr 1: NR | Gr 1: NR | Gr 1: NR | 100% | 82% | 100% |
| Gr 2: 0% | Gr 2: 0% | Gr 2: 10.3% | Gr 2: 0% | |||||||||||||||
| Gr 3: 3.5% | Gr 3: 0% | Gr 3: 3.5% | Gr 3: 0% | |||||||||||||||
| Gr 4: 0% | Gr 4: 0% | Gr 4: 3.5% | Gr 4: 0% | |||||||||||||||
| Zilli28 Switzerland |
14 | 94 mo | Median 68 | EBRT (12/14) EBRT + BT (2/14): 74 Gy (66-98.4 Gy) | 7.4 (3.3-27.4) | 73.2 mo (56.4-122.4 mo) | Biopsy, PET and/or MRI | 11/14 (78.6%) 18F-choline or 11C-acetate |
Whole | 10/14 3D-CRT, 4/14 IMRT10/14 BT boost | Standard fractionation, 10/14 BT boost. 85 Gy1.5 [70 - 93.4 Gy1.5] |
Gr 1: 14.3% | Gr 1: 42.9% | Gr 1: 21.4% | Gr 1: 7.1% | 42.9% | 28.6% | 76% |
| Gr 2: 71.4% | Gr 2: 14.3% | Gr 2: 21.4% | Gr 2: 21.4% | |||||||||||||||
| Gr 3: 0% | Gr 3: 0% | Gr 3: 29% | Gr 3:28.6% | |||||||||||||||
| Gr 4: 0% | Gr 4: 0% | Gr 4: 29% | Gr 4:36% | |||||||||||||||
| Janoray29 France | 21 | 11.7 mo | Mean 74.6 | RP + EBRT (10/21): 70 Gy (45-76 Gy) EBRT (11/21): 72 Gy (70-76.5 Gy) |
RP + EBRT: 3 (0.42-14.5) EBRT: 3.43 (1.65-24.1) |
98 mo (37.9-398 mo) | PET and MRI | 17/21 (81.0%) 18F-choline |
Partial | Cyberknife treatment EOD | 36.25 Gy/5 fx (15/21) [77.1 – 90.6 Gy1.5] |
Gr 1: 14.3% | Gr 1: 9.5% | Gr 1: 4.8% | Gr 1: 0% | 90.6% | 85.7% | NR |
| Gr 2: 4.8% | Gr 2: 0% | Gr 2: 0% | Gr 2: 0% | |||||||||||||||
| Gr 3: 0% | Gr 3: 0% | Gr 3: 0% | Gr 3: 0% | |||||||||||||||
| Gr 4: 0% | Gr 4: 0% | Gr 4: 0% | Gr 4: 0% | |||||||||||||||
| Rutenberg30 USA |
11 | 26.5 mo | Median 67 | BT (144-145 Gy) | 4.7 (3.6-15.3) | 49.2 mo (12.9-135.5 mo) | Biopsy | 0/11 | Whole | EBRT system, delivery NR | Standard fractionation, median 70.2 Gy, [64.8 - 75.6 Gy] | Gr 1: 54.6% | Gr 1: 27.3% | Gr 1: 9.1% | Gr 1: 18.2% | NR | 63.6% | 77% |
| Gr 2: 9.1% | Gr 2: 9.1% | Gr 2: 18.2% | Gr 2: 9.1% | |||||||||||||||
| Gr 3: 0% | Gr 3: 0% | Gr 3: 18.2% | Gr 3: 9.1% | |||||||||||||||
| Gr 4: 0% | Gr 4: 0% | Gr 4: 0% | Gr 4:0% | |||||||||||||||
| Mbeutcha31 France |
18 | 14.5 mo | Median 69 | BT (15/18) EBRT (3/18) (dose NR) | 4.5 (IQR: 3.0-6.3) | 77 mo (IQR: 64-92 mo) | Biopsy, PET and/or MRI | 18/18 (100%) 11C-acetate |
Partial | Cyberknife treatment daily | 35 Gy/5 fx [85 Gy1.5] |
Gr 1: 55.6% | Gr 1: 12.5% | Gr 1: 33.3% | Gr 1: 0% | NR | 55.6% | NR |
| Gr 2: 22.2% | Gr 2: 25% | Gr 2: 8.3% | Gr 2: 10% | |||||||||||||||
| Gr 3: 0% | Gr 3: 0% | Gr 3: 5.6% | Gr 3: 0% | |||||||||||||||
| Gr 4: 0% | Gr 4: 0% | Gr 4: 0% | Gr 4: 0% | |||||||||||||||
| Loi32 Italy |
50 | 21.3 mo | Median 76 | EBRT (28/50), RP + EBRT (22/50): 74 Gy (60-80 Gy) | 2.6 (1-30) | 76 mo (9-205 mo) | PET and MRI | 50/50 (100%) 18F-choline |
Partial | Cyberknife treatment EOD | 35 Gy/5 fx [85 Gy1.5] |
Gr 1: 18% | Gr 1: 8% | Gr 1: 18% | Gr 1: 2% | NR | 60% | 98% |
| Gr 2: 2% | Gr 2: 0% | Gr 2: 6% | Gr 2: 4% | |||||||||||||||
| Gr 3: 2% | Gr 3: 0% | Gr 3: 2% | Gr 3: 0% | |||||||||||||||
| Gr 4: 0% | Gr 4: 0% | Gr 4: 0% | Gr 4: 0% | |||||||||||||||
| Miszczyk33 Poland | 38 | 14.4 mo | Median 71.6 | EBRT (30/38), other: BT, EBRT + BT, RP + EBRT, RP + EBRT + BT: 76 Gy (45-138 Gy) | 4.3 (0.44-66) | 101 (22-179 mo) | Biopsy, PET and/or MRI | 12/38 (31.6%) 18F-choline or PSMA |
Whole (32/38) partial (6/38) |
Cyberknife timing NR | 36.25 Gy/5 fx (24/38) [38.6 – 98.6 Gy1.5] |
Gr 1: 18.5% | Gr 1: 4.5% | Gr 1: 4.8% | Gr 1: 9.5% | 86.8% | 68.4% | NR |
| Gr 2: 7.4% | Gr 2: 0% | Gr 2: 9.4% | Gr 2: 4.8% | |||||||||||||||
| Gr 3: 3.7% | Gr 3: 0% | Gr 3: 4.8% | Gr 3: 0% | |||||||||||||||
| Gr 4: 0% | Gr 4: 0% | Gr 4: 0% | Gr 4: 0% | |||||||||||||||
| Jereczek-Fossa34 Italy |
64 | 26.1 mo | Median 73.2 | EBRT (40/64), RP + EBRT (19/64), other: EBRT + BT, BT: 70.2 Gy (45-145 Gy) | 3.89 (0.17-51.8) | 99.7 mo (23-208.4 mo) | Biopsy, PET and/or MRI | 53/64 (82.8%) 11C-choline |
Whole (41/64) Partial (23/64) |
VERO (54/64), other: RapidArc, Cyberknife treatment EOD | 30 Gy/5 fx (31/64) 25 Gy/5 fx (27/64) [46.4 – 92.6 Gy1.5] |
Gr 1: 20% | Gr 1: 8% | Gr 1: 28% | Gr 1: 6% | 71.9% | 35.9% | 92% |
| Gr 2: 5% Gr 3: 1.5% Gr 4: 0% |
Gr 2: 1.5% | Gr 2: 9% | Gr 2: 1.5% | |||||||||||||||
| Gr 3: 1.5% Gr 3: 0% |
Gr 3: 0% Gr 4: 0% |
Gr 3: 1.5% Gr 4: 0% |
||||||||||||||||
| Gr 4: 0% | Gr 4: 0% | Gr 4: 0% | Gr 4: 0% | |||||||||||||||
| D'Agostino35 Italy |
23 | 33 mo | Median 78 | RP + EBRT (8/23), EBRT (15/23): 74 Gy (66-76 Gy) | 3.2 (1.2-13.5) | 90 mo (26-138 mo) | PET | 23/23 (100%) 11C-choline |
Whole | LINAC VMATRapidArcTiming NR | 25 Gy/5 fx (14/23) 0 Gy/5 fx (9/23) [46.4 – 64.3 Gy1.5] |
Gr 1: 43.5% | Gr 1: 0% | Gr 1: 17.4% | Gr 1: 0% | 60.9% | 34.8% | 100% |
| Gr 2: 13% | Gr 2: 0% | Gr 2: 0% | Gr 2: 0% | |||||||||||||||
| Gr 3: 4.4% | Gr 3: 0% | Gr 3: 4.4% | Gr 3: 0% | |||||||||||||||
| Gr 4: 0% | Gr 4: 0% | Gr 4: 0% | Gr 4: 0% | |||||||||||||||
| Olivier36 France |
12 | 34.2 mo | Median 58 | RP + EBRT: 66 Gy (66-72 Gy) | 1.13 (0.57-5.71) | 77.5 mo (21-161 mo) | Biopsy, PET and/or MRI | 12/12 (100%) 11C-choline or PSMA |
Partial | Cyberknife treatment EOD | 36 Gy/6 fx [77.1 Gy1.5] |
Gr 1: 25% | Gr 1: 8.3% | Gr 1: 8.3% | Gr 1: 0% | 66.7% | 50% | NR |
| Gr 2: 0% | Gr 2: 0% | Gr 2: 0% | Gr 2: 0% | |||||||||||||||
| Gr 3: 0% | Gr 3: 0% | Gr 3: 0% | Gr 3: 0% | |||||||||||||||
| Gr 4: 0% | Gr 4: 0% | Gr 4: 0% | Gr 4: 0% | |||||||||||||||
| Pasquier37 France/Italy |
100 | 29.3 mo | Median 71.2 | EBRT: 74 Gy (66.6-80 Gy) | 4.3 (2.0-38.3) | 90 mo (24-216 mo) | Biopsy | 94/100 (94%) Choline (not specified) |
Partial (51/100) Whole (49/100) |
Cyberknife (81/100), other: VERO, RapidArc | 36 Gy/6 fx (63/100) [46.4-90.6 Gy1.5] |
Gr 1: NR | Gr 1: NR | Gr 1: NR | 3-year ≥ grade 2 GI toxicity: 1% | 90% | 55% | 96% |
| Gr 2: 8% | Gr 2: 0% | Gr 2: 16% | ||||||||||||||||
| Gr 3: 1% | Gr 3: 0% | Gr 3: 1% | ||||||||||||||||
| Gr 4: 0% | Gr 4: 0% | Gr 4: 0% | ||||||||||||||||
| Scher38 France |
42 | 21 mo | Median 64 | EBRT (33/32): 74 Gy (70-76 Gy), RP + EBRT (9/42): 68 Gy (65-70 Gy) | 3.1 (0.01-23.7) | 82.5 mo (29-207 mo) | Biopsy, PET and/or MRI | 42/42 (100%) Choline (not specified) |
Partial | Cyberknife treatment 3 fractions/wk | 36 Gy/6 fx [77.1 Gy1.5] |
Gr 1: 42.9% | Gr 1: 4.8% | Gr 1: NR | Gr 1: NR | 100% | 81% | NR |
| Gr 2: 21.4% | Gr 2: 0% | Gr 2: 0% | Gr 2: 0% | |||||||||||||||
| Gr 3: 2.4% | Gr 3: 0% | Gr 3: 0% | Gr 3: 0% | |||||||||||||||
| Gr 4: 0% | Gr 4: 0% | Gr 4: 0% | Gr 4: 0% |
Abbreviations: 3D-CRT = 3D conformal radiation therapy; BRFS = biochemical relapse free survival; BT = brachytherapy; EBRT = external beam radiation therapy; EOD = every other day; EQD2 = equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions; GI = gastrointestinal; Gr = grade; GU = genitourinary; IMRT = intensity modulated radiation therapy; IQR = interquartile range; LC = local control; LR = local recurrence; MRI = magnetic resonance imaging; NR = not reported; OS = overall survival; PET = positron emission tomography; PSA = prostate-specific antigen; PSMA = prostate-specific membrane antigen; Pts = patients; re-RT = reirradiation radiation therapy; RP = radical prostatectomy; SBRT = stereotactic radiation therapy; VMAT = volumetric modulated arc therapy.
Four studies mandated a positive biopsy for entry, with the remainder diagnosing local recurrence with a combination of imaging (typically positron emission tomography [PET] or magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) with or without a biopsy. Of the 62.9% of patients who underwent biopsy before re-RT, 16 patients had a negative biopsy but a biochemical/radiographic local recurrence that was treated. One study included 9 patients with a limited number of oligometastatic sites treated with curative intent.33 Ten studies used PET imaging before re-RT, and 6 studies had ≥95% of patients undergoing PET.31,32,35, 36, 37, 38
The usage of ADT during initial RT, between initial RT and re-RT, and with re-RT is summarized in Appendix E2. ADT use was often not reported, particularly between initial RT and re-RT. Twelve of 13 studies reported ADT use with re-RT, with 30.1% (127 of 422) of patients receiving ADT with re-RT (with medians ranging from 6–17.8 months). No studies reported outcomes separately for those who received ADT and those who did not, nor did they publish their criteria for administering ADT. No studies mandated concurrent use of ADT with re-RT. No studies specified whether BRFS began after ADT was completed, and it was not possible to report outcomes separately for those who received ADT.
The median re-RT EQD2 was 77.1 Gy, using α/β = 1.5, corresponding to 36 Gy in 6 fractions. Most patients (92%) were treated with SBRT, with doses typically ranging between 25 to 36.25 Gy in 5 to 6 fractions. Cyberknife was the most commonly used re-RT platform in 68.7% of patients. Partial prostate re-RT or hemi-prostate re-RT was used in 52.1% of patients, with the remainder receiving whole prostate re-RT (with or without a boost).
Some, but not all studies used a CTV expansion on the gross target volume in partial prostate radiation up to 5 mm. Planning target volume (PTV) expansions ranged from 0 mm to 5 mm (3 mm posterior). Scher et al38 used a rectal spacer in 23 patients, and although significantly lower rectal doses were achieved, no differences in acute and late toxicities were found. Pasquier et al37 used a rectal spacer in 9 patients without reporting separate outcomes.
Oncologic outcomes
The random effects LC was 83.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 75.5%-90.9%; Fig 2a) with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 85%, Q test P < .001). Meta-regression found that increasing EQD2 (regression coefficient 0.006, P = .05) and decreasing length of follow-up (regression coefficient −0.006, P = .002) were associated with improved LC, but whole versus partial prostate re-RT was not associated with LC (P = .567). As highlighted previously, it was not possible to analyze oncologic outcomes by ADT utilization due to incomplete reporting of ADT in the included literature.
Figure 2.
(a) Forest plot of local control in included studies. (b) Forest plot of biochemical failure-free survival in included studies.
The random effects BRFS was 59.3% (95% CI, 47.9%-70.7%; Fig 2b) with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 83%, Q test P < .001). Meta-regression found that increasing EQD2 (regression coefficient 0.011, P = .001) and decreasing length of follow-up (regression coefficient −0.006, P = .001) were associated with improved BRFS, but not whole versus partial prostate re-RT (P = .484).
Meta-regression of studies using SBRT found increasing EQD2 was associated with LC (regression coefficient 0.009, P = .015) and BRFS (regression coefficient 0.012, P = .02), with no effect of length of follow-up (LC: P = .929; BRFS: P = .576) or whole versus partial prostate re-RT (LC: P = .866; BRFS: P = .498).
Distant metastasis free survival was infrequently reported and ranged from 70.6% to 100%. Overall survival ranged from 76% at 8 years follow-up to 100% with shorter follow-up.
Reported toxicities
Reported severe acute toxicity was rare, with only 6 episodes of acute grade 3 GU toxicity and no instances of acute grade 3 GI toxicity. Rates of acute ≥grade 2 toxicity were 10.5% (95% CI, 5.5%-15.4%) for GU and 1.1% (95% CI, 0.1%-2.0%) for GI.
Reported late toxicity (greater than 3 months after completion of re-RT) was rarely observed in most studies, noting that the majority of included studies had insufficient length of follow-up, which precludes definitive statements on rates of late toxicities. Reported late GU toxicity ≥grade 3 occurred in 3.4% of patients (95% CI, 1.0%-5.8%; Fig 3a), with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 49%, Q test P = .024). Meta-regression found increasing EQD2 (regression coefficient 0.004, P = .001), increasing length of follow-up in months (regression coefficient 0.003, P = .006), and whole prostate re-RT (regression coefficient −0.088, P < .001) were predictive of late GU toxicity ≥grade 3.
Figure 3.
(a) Forest plot of late genitourinary (GU) toxicity greater than or equal to grade 3 toxicity. (b) Forest plot of late gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity greater than or equal to grade 3 toxicity.
Late GI toxicity ≥grade 3 occurred in 2.0% of patients (95% CI, 0.1%-4.0%; Fig 3b), with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 57%, Q test P = .006). Meta-regression found increasing EQD2 (regression coefficient 0.002, P = .014), increasing length of follow-up in months (regression coefficient 0.003, P = .002), and whole prostate re-RT (regression coefficient –0.033, P = .04) were predictive of late GI toxicity ≥grade 3.
Meta-regression of studies using SBRT found no effect of EQD2 (GU: P = .343; GI: P = .857), length of follow-up (GU: P = .995; GI: P = .932), or whole versus partial prostate re-RT (GU: P = .243; GI: P = .952) on late ≥grade 3 toxicity.
Detailed information on ≥grade 3 GU/GI events is available in Appendix E3. No grade 5 toxicities occurred. Severe toxicity tended to be observed with EBRT rather than SBRT, with 50% (10 of 20) of late GU toxicities and 100% (10 of 10) of ≥grade 3 late GI toxicities observed with EBRT, despite only comprising 8% of patients. However, studies with EBRT had longer-term follow-up.
Intact prostate Re-RT
Twelve studies included a total of 344 patients who had an intact prostate (ie, had not received an RP) and had received salvage re-RT. Nine studies with 267 patients provided separate oncologic and toxicity outcomes. Among these patients, oncologic and toxicity profiles were similar to the entire cohort. LC was 88.0% (95% CI, 80.2%-95.8%) and BRFS was 61.6% (95% CI, 47.3%-76.0%). Acute grade 2 toxicity was observed in 30 patients (GU) and 6 patients (GI). Acute grade 3 GU toxicity was observed in 3 patients. Late GU toxicity ≥grade 3 occurred in 4.5% of patients (95% CI, 0.6%-8.5%) and late GI toxicity ≥grade 3 occurred in 3.8% of patients (95% CI, 0.0%-7.5%).
Prostate bed re-RT
Seven studies included a total of 84 patients who underwent RP, whole prostate bed RT, and subsequent partial prostate bed SBRT re-RT. Four studies with 50 patients provided separate oncologic and toxicity outcomes and found 24 episodes of biochemical failure (52% BRFS), of which 13 were within the prostate bed (74% LC). Treatment was well tolerated with no new acute or late grade ≥3 toxicity due to re-RT. Acute grade 2 toxicity was observed in 4 patients (GU) and 1 patient (GI). Late grade 2 toxicity was observed in 6 patients (GU) and 1 patient (GI).
Organs at risk
A summary of organs at risk (OAR) constraints used for bladder and rectum is presented in Appendix E4. Dose-volume histogram information in the cohort published by Zilli was analyzed by Dipasquale et al44 to predict GI toxicity. This identified increasing cumulative D1cc (minimum dose to 1 cm³ of the most irradiated volume) to the rectum was associated with grade 3/4 GI toxicity, and staying below a combined threshold of 130 Gy (α/β= 3) may be a reasonable target.
Discussion
Our review shows the emerging role of using EBRT and SBRT re-RT as local salvage in prostate cancer. With short-term follow-up, local and biochemical control appear reasonable, with the majority of studies achieving this through manageable acute and early reports of late toxicity. SBRT was the most common re-RT treatment strategy in the literature, and based on relatively low late GU and GI side effects in our review, appears to be the optimal EBRT re-RT strategy. However, considerable variation among the available series precludes a single preferred delivery and dose/fractionation scheme. Our study results are limited by the short-term outcomes reported in the included literature and incomplete reporting of ADT use, precluding definitive statements on long-term oncologic outcome and long-term toxicity.
As with any salvage treatment for prostate cancer, patient selection remains of the utmost importance. Patient characteristics can predict localized recurrence post-RT, such as low-risk disease at diagnosis, pretreatment PSA velocity <2.0 ng/mL per year, disease-free interval >3 years, and PSA doubling time >12 months.9 PSA doubling times of less than 3 or 6 months is a poor prognostic factor for distant metastatic disease and prostate cancer mortality.45,46 Improvements in prostate cancer imaging with multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and PET may help identify isolated local recurrence and exclude metastatic disease, particularly with PSA levels ≥2 ng/mL.47, 48, 49, 50 Previously proposed selection criteria for local salvage include (1) biopsy proven recurrence, (2) no metastatic disease, (3) reasonable urinary function (International Prostate Symptom score of less than 20), (4) greater than 5-year life expectancy, (5) disease-free interval >2 years, (6) PSA doubling time greater than 6 months, (7) Gleason score ≤6, and (8) PSA of less than 10 at recurrence.51 We propose modification to these criteria by carefully considering re-RT in those with Gleason scores greater than 6 (though caution should be used in those with initial high-risk disease). The emergence of metastasis-directed therapy for men with oligometastatic prostate cancer raises the possibility of SBRT +/- ADT as an investigational salvage strategy for both local and limited distant metastases.52,53
Our review included several studies that did not mandate confirmatory biopsies, and none specified whether mapping biopsies were performed. Transperineal prostate biopsies would be the ideal technique to confirm isolated local recurrence, allowing for both sampling of the suspicious local recurrence as well as mapping biopsies including the anterior zone. In de novo prostate cancer, the anterior zone contains disease and isolated disease 52.7% and 10% of the time, respectively.54 Although most recurrences occur at the dominant intraprostatic lesion, some men have radiorecurrent prostate cancer in areas previously biopsied as negative at their primary radiation.55 PET and mpMRI may be useful as guidance for targeted biopsies, but we are unaware of data to support omitting biopsies.
We found increasing EQD2 was associated with improvements in LC and BRFS in our meta-regression, mirroring results of dose escalation in primary prostate cancer.56 Two studies in our review also found improved BRFS when a BED of ≥130 Gy (α/β = 1.5, ≥30 Gy in 5 fractions, 85% vs 60%, P = .0006)34 and >120 Gy (α/β = 2, >30 Gy in 5 fractions, hazard ratio 0.41, 95% CI, 0.20–0.86, P = .018) was used.37 This supports the notion that a therapeutic dose of RT should be considered in re-RT. Decreasing length of follow-up was associated with improvements in LC and BRFS, in addition to decreased late toxicity rates, suggesting that outcomes reported in our review are not mature and longer follow-up is necessary before definitive statements can be made.
We found no improvement in LC or BRFS with whole prostate re-RT, and severe late toxicity was less frequent with partial prostate re-RT on meta-regression. Caution must be used in patient selection for partial prostate re-RT to confirm that all sites of disease in the prostate are appropriately identified and treated. Only 1 study has evaluated radiorecurrent prostate cancer with whole mount salvage RP and mpMRI,57 which found tumor extent was underestimated with mpMRI, and multifocal recurrence occurred in almost all patients. This supports adding a CTV margin to the mpMRI delineated gross target volume and using mapping biopsies before re-RT. Given that recurrences after brachytherapy were often smaller and involved the seminal vesicles, different primary RT techniques (EBRT, SBRT, or brachytherapy) may require different target delineation and salvage strategies.
In comparison to other salvage treatments for local failure of prostate cancer, re-RT appears to have infrequent short-term toxicity. Assessment of late severe GU/GI toxicity is limited by short-term follow-up, with increasing length of follow-up associated with an increased likelihood of late GU/GI toxicity (noting that older studies also used less sophisticated re-RT techniques). The rates of reported late GU and GI toxicity appear to be lower than reported in prospective randomized studies of initial definitive therapy,58,59 which may be due to misattribution of toxicity in retrospective studies as well as the limited follow-up. None of the included studies reported patient-reported outcomes. Although other salvage therapies for radiorecurrent prostate such as radical prostatectomy, cryotherapy, HIFU, and brachytherapy are better established with long-term follow-up, similar oncologic outcomes have been reported between surgical and nonsurgical approaches.60
One study stands out for having severe longer-term ≥grade 3 toxicity combined with poor local and biochemical control.28 These patients were often first treated with 2-dimensional RT, followed by re-RT with 3D-conformal RT, with many receiving a brachytherapy boost. Despite extremely high doses of reirradiation, the poor oncologic outcomes may ultimately be partly due to patient selection (median PSA at re-RT of 7.4 ng/mL), reflective of a high probability of subclinical metastatic disease despite 78.6% of patients undergoing PET before salvage. The toxicity may also reflect an interaction between high volumes of normal tissue undergoing re-RT with EBRT followed by a focal injury with brachytherapy in a majority of cases. These findings should be carefully considered before embarking on salvage re-RT, as this represents the only cohort with mature long-term follow-up, and late GU/GI toxicity was observed many years after treatment. By incorporating image guidance, fiducials, smaller PTV margins, and inverse planning with SBRT, the expectation is that longer term follow-up will confirm the encouraging early toxicity results with SBRT; however, this remains to be demonstrated.
Our review is limited by heterogeneous methodologies of the included studies. As the majority of studies were retrospective, toxicity may be underreported or misattributed. Of the 13 included studies, 6 had a median follow-up of fewer than 24 months, which is likely not sufficiently long to evaluate the full effect of late GU/GI toxicity. The usage of ADT during re-RT likely resulted in overestimation of oncologic outcomes in our review, as 30.1% of patients received ADT with re-RT. This limitation could not be accounted for statistically due to limitations of the primary literature, and we encourage future authors in this area to report outcomes separately by ADT utilization and duration. Our review was not able to assess re-RT plan quality and whether it is necessary to compromise target volume coverage for OAR.
To establish re-RT using SBRT as a standard salvage treatment for local failure in prostate cancer, prospective studies evaluating short- and long-term toxicity along with oncologic outcomes are needed. PET, mpMRI, and mapping biopsies to accurately define the extent of local recurrence should be incorporated. SBRT should be planned and delivered using a standardized approach incorporating fiducials for management of intra- and inter-fraction error and enabling small PTV margins, consistent dose-fractionation prescriptions, and strict adherence to OAR constraints. Although no definitive conclusions can be drawn, partial prostate reirradiation is increasingly being explored as a technique to minimize normal tissue reirradiation. Rectal sparing strategies such as endorectal balloons or gel tissue spacers could also be incorporated with either whole gland or focal re-RT as another toxicity reduction strategy. The recently published phase I/II Genitourinary Group, French Association of Urology 31 protocol appears to be incorporating many of these principles and is prospectively accruing patients for partial prostate re-RT using SBRT without ADT in appropriately selected patients.61 This study protocol mandates use of confirmatory biopsy, fiducials, MRI, PET, and a 2 mm PTV margin. These are similar principles to contemporary studies reporting favorable salvage outcomes with partial prostate high dose rate brachytherapy.62 It remains to be seen whether ADT should be incorporated in the locally radiorecurrent or oligometastatic setting. Finally, optimal patient selection for those men with isolated local recurrence using next generation imaging is recommended.63 In the interim, although salvage re-RT using EBRT, particularly using SBRT, appears to be a promising technique, we believe that this technique should be limited to clinical trials until long-term toxicity data are established, ideally through prospective trials comparing this approach against other salvage strategies.
Footnotes
Sources of support: No funding sources were used in this study.
Disclosures: The authors of this manuscript have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Research data are stored in an institutional repository and will be shared upon request to the corresponding author.
Supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2020.04.022.
Supplementary data
References
- 1.Michalski J.M., Moughan J., Purdy J. Effect of standard vs dose-escalated radiation therapy for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4 doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.0039. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Kuban D.A., Tucker S.L., Dong L. Long-term results of the M. D. Anderson randomized dose-escalation trial for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol. 2008;70:67–74. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.06.054. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Zumsteg Z.S., Spratt D.E., Romesser P.B. Anatomical patterns of recurrence following biochemical relapse in the dose escalation era of external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer. J Urol. 2015;194:1624–1630. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.06.100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Taylor L.G., Canfield S.E., Du X.L. Review of major adverse effects of androgen-deprivation therapy in men with prostate cancer. Cancer. 2009;115:2388–2399. doi: 10.1002/cncr.24283. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.James N.D., Sydes M.R., Clarke N.W. Addition of docetaxel, zoledronic acid, or both to first-line long-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): Survival results from an adaptive, multiarm, multistage, platform randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;387:1163–1177. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01037-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Cornford P., Bellmunt J., Bolla M. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II: Treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2017;71:630–642. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.National Comprehensive Cancer Network Prostate Cancer (Version 4.2019) https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate.pdf Available at: Accessed September 10, 2019.
- 8.Chade D.C., Eastham J., Graefen M. Cancer control and functional outcomes of salvage radical prostatectomy for radiation-recurrent prostate cancer: A systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol. 2012;61:961–971. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.01.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Nguyen P.L., D’Amico A.V., Lee A.K. Patient selection, cancer control, and complications after salvage local therapy for postradiation prostate-specific antigen failure: A systematic review of the literature. Cancer. 2007;110:1417–1428. doi: 10.1002/cncr.22941. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Yuh B., Ruel N., Muldrew S. Complications and outcomes of salvage robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A single-institution experience. BJU Int. 2014;113:769–776. doi: 10.1111/bju.12595. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Kaffenberger S.D., Keegan K.A., Bansal N.K. Salvage robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: A single institution, 5-year experience. J Urol. 2013;189:507–513. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.09.057. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Baty M., Créhange G., Pasquier D. Salvage reirradiation for local prostate cancer recurrence after radiation therapy. For who? When? How? Cancer/Radiothérapie. 2019;23:541–558. doi: 10.1016/j.canrad.2019.07.125. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Crouzet S., Blana A., Murat F.J. Salvage high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) for locally recurrent prostate cancer after failed radiation therapy: Multi-institutional analysis of 418 patients. BJU Int. 2017;119:896–904. doi: 10.1111/bju.13766. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Williams A.K., Martinez C.H., Lu C. Disease-free survival following salvage cryotherapy for biopsy-proven radio-recurrent prostate cancer. Eu. Urol. 2011;60:405–410. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.12.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Tran H., Kwok J., Pickles T. Underutilization of local salvage therapy after radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Urol Oncol. 2014;32:701–706. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2013.12.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Kamran S.C., Harshman L.C., Bhagwat M.S. Characterization of efficacy and toxicity after high-dose pelvic reirradiation with palliative intent for genitourinary second malignant neoplasms or local recurrences after full-dose radiation therapy in the pelvis: A high-volume cancer center experience. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2017;2:140–147. doi: 10.1016/j.adro.2017.01.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Wong E., Hoskin P., Bedard G. Re-irradiation for painful bone metastases - A systematic review. Radiother Oncol. 2014;110:61–70. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2013.09.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Maranzano E., Trippa F., Casale M. Reirradiation of brain metastases with radiosurgery. Radiother Oncol. 2012;102:192–197. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2011.07.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Kelly P., Balter P.A., Rebueno N. Stereotactic body radiation therapy for patients with lung cancer previously treated with thoracic radiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;78:1387–1393. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.09.070. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Merino T., Tran W.T., Czarnota G.J. Re-irradiation for locally recurrent refractory breast cancer. Oncotarget. 2015;6:35051–35062. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.6036. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Kim Y.S. Reirradiation of head and neck cancer in the era of intensity-modulated radiotherapy: Patient selection, practical aspects, and current evidence. Radiat Oncol J. 2017;35:1–15. doi: 10.3857/roj.2017.00122. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Moher D., Liberati A., Tetzlaff J. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA Statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:1006–1012. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Wallace B.C., Schmid C.H., Lau J. Meta-Analyst: Software for meta-analysis of binary, continuous and diagnostic data. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9:80. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-9-80. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.DerSimonian R., Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:177–188. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.van Houwelingen H.C., Arends L.R., Stijnen T. Advanced methods in meta-analysis: Multivariate approach and meta-regression. Stat Med. 2002;21:589–624. doi: 10.1002/sim.1040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Kaplan I., Kapp D.S., Bagshaw M.A. Secondary external-beam radiotherapy and hyperthermia for local recurrence after 125-iodine implantation in adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1991;20:551–554. doi: 10.1016/0360-3016(91)90068-f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Fuller D.B., Wurzer J., Shirazi R. High-dose-rate stereotactic body radiation therapy for postradiation therapy locally recurrent prostatic carcinoma: Preliminary prostate-specific antigen response, disease-free survival, and toxicity assessment. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2015;5:e615–e623. doi: 10.1016/j.prro.2015.04.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Zilli T., Benz E., Dipasquale G. Reirradiation of prostate cancer local failures after previous curative radiation therapy: Long-term outcome and tolerance. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016;96:318–322. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.05.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Janoray G., Reynaud-Bougnoux A., Ruffier-Loubière A. Stereotactic body re-irradiation therapy for locally recurrent prostate cancer after external-beam radiation therapy: Initial report. Cancer/Radiothérapie. 2016;20:275–281. doi: 10.1016/j.canrad.2016.03.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Rutenberg M.S., Meister M., Amin P.P. Salvage external beam radiotherapy for locally recurrent prostate cancer after definitive brachytherapy. Brachytherapy. 2016;15:722–729. doi: 10.1016/j.brachy.2016.08.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Mbeutcha A., Chauveinc L., Bondiau P.-Y. Salvage prostate re-irradiation using high-dose-rate brachytherapy or focal stereotactic body radiotherapy for local recurrence after definitive radiation therapy. Radiat Oncol. 2017;12:49. doi: 10.1186/s13014-017-0789-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Loi M., Di Cataldo V., Simontacchi G. Robotic stereotactic retreatment for biochemical control in previously irradiated patients affected by recurrent prostate cancer. Clin Oncol. 2018;30:93–100. doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2017.11.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Miszczyk L., Stąpór-Fudzińska M., Miszczyk M. Salvage CyberKnife-Based reirradiation of patients with recurrent prostate cancer: The single-center experience. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2018;17 doi: 10.1177/1533033818785496. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Jereczek-Fossa B.A., Rojas D.P., Zerini D. Reirradiation for isolated local recurrence of prostate cancer: Mono-institutional series of 64 patients treated with salvage stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) Br J Radiol. 2018;92 doi: 10.1259/bjr.20180494. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.D’Agostino G.R., Di Brina L., Mancosu P. Reirradiation of locally recurrent prostate cancer with volumetric modulated arc therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019;104:614–621. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.02.041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Olivier J., Basson L., Puech P. Stereotactic re-irradiation for local recurrence in the prostatic bed after prostatectomy: Preliminary results. Front Oncol. 2019;9:71. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2019.00071. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Pasquier D., Martinage G., Janoray G. Salvage stereotactic body radiation therapy for local prostate cancer recurrence after radiation therapy: A retrospective multicenter study of the GETUG. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019;105:727–734. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.07.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Scher N., Bauduceau O., Bollet M. Stereotactic prostate focal reirradiation therapy for local recurrence: Preliminary results of Hartmann Oncology Radiotherapy Group. BJR|Open. 2019;1 doi: 10.1259/bjro.20180027. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Vavassori A., Jereczek-Fossa B.A., Beltramo G. Image-guided robotic radiosurgery as salvage therapy for locally recurrent prostate cancer after external beam irradiation: Retrospective feasibility study on six cases. Tumori. 2010;96:71–75. doi: 10.1177/030089161009600112. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Jereczek-Fossa B.A., Beltramo G., Fariselli L. Robotic image-guided stereotactic radiotherapy, for isolated recurrent primary, lymph node or metastatic prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82:889–897. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.11.031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Zerini D., Jereczek-Fossa B.A., Fodor C. Salvage image-guided intensity modulated or stereotactic body reirradiation of local recurrence of prostate cancer. Br J Radiol. 2015;88 doi: 10.1259/bjr.20150197. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Detti B., Bonomo P., Masi L. CyberKnife stereotactic radiotherapy for isolated recurrence in the prostatic bed. World J Urol. 2016;34:311–317. doi: 10.1007/s00345-015-1613-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Leroy T., Lacornerie T., Bogart E. Salvage robotic SBRT for local prostate cancer recurrence after radiotherapy: Preliminary results of the Oscar Lambret Center. Radiat Oncol. 2017;12:95. doi: 10.1186/s13014-017-0833-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Dipasquale G., Zilli T., Fiorino C. Salvage reirradiation for local failure of prostate cancer after curative radiation therapy: Association of rectal toxicity with dose distribution and normal-tissue complication probability models. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2018;3:673–681. doi: 10.1016/j.adro.2018.06.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.D’Amico A.V., Moul J.W., Carroll P.R. Surrogate end point for prostate cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95:1376–1383. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djg043. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Jackson W.C., Johnson S.B., Li D. A prostate-specific antigen doubling time of <6 months is prognostic for metastasis and prostate cancer-specific death for patients receiving salvage radiation therapy post radical prostatectomy. Radiat Oncol. 2013;8:170. doi: 10.1186/1748-717X-8-170. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Hruby G., Eade T., Kneebone A. Delineating biochemical failure with (68)Ga-PSMA-PET following definitive external beam radiation treatment for prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2017;122:99–102. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2016.11.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Evans J.D., Jethwa K.R., Ost P. Prostate cancer–specific PET radiotracers: A review on the clinical utility in recurrent disease. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2018;8:28–39. doi: 10.1016/j.prro.2017.07.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Emmett L., Metser U., Bauman G. Prospective, multisite, international comparison of 18F-fluoromethylcholine PET/CT, multiparametric MRI, and 68Ga-HBED-CC PSMA-11 PET/CT in men with high-risk features and biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy: Clinical performance and patient outcomes. J Nucl Med. 2019;60:794–800. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.118.220103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Perera M., Papa N., Roberts M. Gallium-68 prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography in advanced prostate cancer-updated diagnostic utility, sensitivity, specificity, and distribution of prostate-specific membrane antigen-avid lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2019;77:403–417. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.01.049. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Beyer D.C. Brachytherapy for recurrent prostate cancer after radiation therapy. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2003;13:158–165. doi: 10.1053/srao.2003.50015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Palma D.A., Olson R., Harrow S. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus standard of care palliative treatment in patients with oligometastatic cancers (SABR-COMET): A randomised, phase 2, open-label trial. Lancet. 2019;393:2051–2058. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32487-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Ost P., Reynders D., Decaestecker K. Surveillance or metastasis-directed therapy for oligometastatic prostate cancer recurrence: A prospective, randomized, multicenter phase II trial. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:446–553. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.75.4853. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Stefanova V., Buckley R., Flax S. Transperineal prostate biopsies using local anesthesia: Experience with 1,287 patients. Prostate cancer detection rate, complications and patient tolerability. J Urol. 2019;201:1121–1126. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000156. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Jalloh M., Leapman M.S., Cowan J.E. Patterns of local failure following radiation therapy for prostate cancer. J Urol. 2015;194:977–982. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.04.111. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Zaorsky N.G., Keith S.W., Shaikh T. Impact of radiation therapy dose escalation on prostate cancer outcomes and toxicities. Am J Clin Oncol. 2018;41:409–415. doi: 10.1097/COC.0000000000000285. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Dinis Fernandes C., van Houdt P.J., Heijmink S.W.T.P.J. Quantitative 3T multiparametric MRI of benign and malignant prostatic tissue in patients with and without local recurrent prostate cancer after external-beam radiation therapy. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018;50:269–278. doi: 10.1002/jmri.26581. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Catton C.N., Lukka H., Gu C.S. Randomized trial of a hypofractionated radiation regimen for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:1884–1890. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.71.7397. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Widmark A., Gunnlaugsson A., Beckman L. Ultra-hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the HYPO-RT-PC randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2019;394:385–395. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31131-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Philippou Y., Parker R.A., Volanis D. Comparative oncologic and toxicity outcomes of salvage radical prostatectomy versus nonsurgical therapies for radiorecurrent prostate cancer: A meta-regression analysis. Eur Urol Focus. 2016;2:158–171. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2015.09.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Pasquier D., Le Deley M.-C., Tresch E. GETUG-AFU 31: A phase I/II multicentre study evaluating the safety and efficacy of salvage stereotactic radiation in patients with intraprostatic tumour recurrence after external radiation therapy-study protocol. BMJ Open. 2019;9 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026666. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.van Son M.J., Peters M., Moerland M.A. MRI-guided ultrafocal salvage high-dose-rate brachytherapy for localized radiorecurrent prostate cancer: Updated results of 50 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol. 2020;107:126–135. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.01.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Trabulsi E.J., Rumble R.B., Jadvar H. Optimum imaging strategies for advanced prostate cancer: ASCO Guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:1963–1996. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.02757. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.