“Long Term Genitourinary Toxicity following Curative Intent Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis” by David R et al.
Radiotherapy (RT) is a well-established treatment option for localized prostate cancer, along with radical prostatectomy and active surveillance. Since most of prostate cancer patients can survive longer than 10 years, knowledge of long-term toxicity of each treatment is crucial to help physician and patient determining the most adapted treatment. Because of the combination of technological advances and intrinsic radiobiological properties of prostate cancer, RT treatment modalities have evolved a lot these past 20 years. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and rotational techniques, compared with 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) have allowed delivering high-dose radiation to the prostate while limiting the radiation dose to the rectum and bladder, thus improving the effective therapeutic ratio.
In order to better characterize the incidence of late genitourinary (GU) toxicity following IMRT, David et al. conducted a systematic review of the literature and performed a meta-analysis of selected studies focusing on the 60-month incidence of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Grade ≥2 GU toxicity, including hematuria, urinary retention, and urinary incontinence. Data was extracted from 6 articles, 1 prospective cohort study and 5 randomized control trials, including the HYPRO, the CHHiP, and the PROFIT trials comparing standard versus moderate hypofractionation [1]. The pooled 60-month cumulative incidence of RTOG and CTCAE Grade ≥2 genitourinary toxicity were 17% (95% CI: 5–20%, n = 678) and 33% (95% CI: 27–38%, n = 153), respectively. The pooled 60-month cumulative incidence of hematuria was 5% (95% CI: -4-14%, n = 48), urinary incontinence 12% (95% CI: 6–18%, n = 194), and urinary retention 24% (95% CI: 9–40%, n = 10). While these data may suggest that the late GU toxicity is not an uncommon finding following IMRT and highlight the paucity of high-quality studies reporting long-term GU toxicity, some specific considerations are nevertheless needed in interpreting these results.
First, differentiating grade 2 versus grade ≥3 severe toxicities is essential in understanding the real impact of a treatment, being grade 2 events moderate by definition and requiring only minimal non-invasive interventions often prescribed at the discretion of the treating physician. In more than half of the trials included in this study, grade 3 or more toxicities were rarely observed, with cumulative incidence rates below 3% [2,3,4,5]. On the other hand, evaluation of long-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs) may be a better discriminator of long-term toxicities and a helpful instrument to confirm safety and enhance patient information. Of note, long-term PROs results in the CHHiP trial confirmed a continued low incidence of moderate or high bother on all urinary, bowel and sexual domains for both fractionation arms [6]. The 5-year prevalence of moderate or worse urinary symptoms was below 10% for the three treatment schedules, confirming moderate hypofractionation as standard of care for intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer.
Second, mechanisms underlying the occurrence of GU toxicity may be complex and multifactorial. While the benefit of IMRT in reducing GU side effects compared to 3D-CRT techniques may be overall less evident than the expected benefit in limiting rectal toxicity [7], it is certain that modern technologies can help to better spare structures involved in long-term urinary toxicity. Optimization of doses delivered to the intraprostatic urethra [8] or to the bladder trigone [9] may represent an appealing strategy to further reduce urinary toxicity. Urethra-sparing techniques currently tested in some trials [10] have shown promising results in terms of GU toxicity and quality of life, despite long-term results for biochemical disease control have not yet been reported.
Third, important developments have been integrated in the standard clinical practice in terms of image guidance. Modern image-guides RT techniques (IGRT) were not routinely implemented in all studies of the present meta-analysis. In the CHHiP trial, use of IGRT was associated with a lower rate of grade ≥2 RTOG GU toxicity at 2-year compared to patients treated without (3.9% vs. 8.4%) [11]. Similarly, in the PACE-B phase III trial randomizing patients between moderate and extreme hypofractionation, use of intrafractional motion control with robotic radiotherapy was clearly associated with a better GU toxicity profile compared to patients treated without this technology [12]. Last but not least, the interim analysis of the phase III MIRAGE trial presented at the ASCO GU 2022 meeting confirmed the added value of online adaptive RT technologies, with a statistically significant reduction in acute grade ≥2 GU toxicity for prostate SBRT delivered with MRI-linacs compared to a standard CT-based solutions [13].
In conclusion, the study by David et al. provides useful benchmarking data on long-term GU toxicity following IMRT. Nevertheless, modern RT is an evolving field with many important technological developments integrated in the last years. Optimization of doses delivered to the intraprostatic urethra and bladder neck, routine integration of IGRT modalities, and adaptive RT solutions will certainly be an important step forward in improving tolerance and reducing the impact on long-term quality of life of prostate cancer patients treated with definitive RT.
Data availability
The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.
References
David R, Buckby A, Kahokehr AA, Lee J, Watson DI, Leung J, et al. Long term genitourinary toxicity following curative intent intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2022. 10.1038/s41391-022-00520-x.
Catton CN, Lukka H, Gu CS, Martin JM, Supiot S, Chung PWM, et al. Randomized trial of a hypofractionated radiation regimen for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:1884–90.
de Crevoisier R, Bayar MA, Pommier P, Muracciole X, Pene F, Dudouet P, et al. Daily versus weekly prostate cancer image guided radiation therapy: phase 3 multicenter randomized trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018;102:1420–9.
Sia J, Joon DL, Viotto A, Mantle C, Quong G, Rolfo A, et al. Toxicity and long-term outcomes of dose-escalated intensity modulated radiation therapy to 74Gy for localised prostate cancer in a single Australian centre. Cancers. 2011;3:3419–31.
Dearnaley D, Syndikus I, Mossop H, Khoo V, Birtle A, Bloomfield D, et al. 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. 2016;17:1047–60.
Staffurth JN, Haviland JS, Wilkins A, Syndikus I, Khoo V, Bloomfield D, et al. Impact of hypofractionated radiotherapy on patient-reported outcomes in prostate cancer: results up to 5 yr in the CHHiP trial (CRUK/06/016). Eur Urol Oncol. 2021;4:980–92.
Sujenthiran A, Nossiter J, Charman SC, Parry M, Dasgupta P, van der Meulen J, et al. National population-based study comparing treatment-related toxicity in men who received intensity modulated versus 3-dimensional conformal radical radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017;99:1253–60.
Leeman JE, Chen YH, Catalano P, Bredfeldt J, King M, Mouw KW, et al. Radiation dose to the intraprostatic urethra correlates strongly with urinary toxicity after prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy: a combined analysis of 23 prospective clinical trials. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2022;112:75–82.
Ghadjar P, Zelefsky MJ, Spratt DE, Munck af Rosenschold P, Oh JH, Hunt M, et al. Impact of dose to the bladder trigone on long-term urinary function after high-dose intensity modulated radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;88:339–44.
Zilli T, Jorcano S, Bral S, Rubio C, Bruynzeel AME, Oliveira A, et al. Once-a-week or every-other-day urethra-sparing prostate cancer stereotactic body radiotherapy, a randomized phase II trial: 18 months follow-up results. Cancer Med. 2020;9:3097–106.
Murray J, Griffin C, Gulliford S, Syndikus I, Staffurth J, Panades M, et al. A randomised assessment of image guided radiotherapy within a phase 3 trial of conventional or hypofractionated high dose intensity modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2020;142:62–71.
ESTRO. Comparison of side effects at 2 years in the randomised PACE-B trial (SBRT vs standard radiotherapy). ESTRO 2021; Madrid, 2021.
Kishan AU, Lamb J, Casado M, Wang X, Ma TM, Low D, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-guided versus computed tomography-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer (MIRAGE): interim analysis of a phase III randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40:255–255.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
TZ and VA: paper writing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Achard, V., Zilli, T. Prostate cancer intensity-modulated radiotherapy and long term genitourinary toxicity: an evolving therapeutic landscape. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 26, 1–2 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-022-00535-4
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-022-00535-4