Single-fraction Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy versus Conventionally Fractionated Radiation Therapy for the Treatment of Prostate Cancer Bone Metastases

Robert W. Gao, Kenneth R. Olivier, Sean S Park, Brian J. Davis, Thomas M. Pisansky, Richard Choo, Eugene D Kwon, Robert Jeffrey Karnes, William S. Harmsen, Bradley J. Stish

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to compare outcomes of patients with prostate cancer with bone metastases treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) versus conventionally fractionated radiation therapy (CFRT). Methods and materials: An institutional, retrospective review was conducted of patients with prostate cancer receiving radiation therapy to bone metastases. In-field failure (IFF) was the primary outcome of the study, and distant failure (DF) and biochemical failure (BF) were secondary outcomes. Results: A total of 249 metastases (191 SBRT; 58 CFRT) in 201 patients with a median follow-up of 2.2 years were analyzed. The SBRT prescription dose was predominantly 18 Gy (45.5%) or 20 Gy (46.6%) in a single fraction. CFRT was given either as 8 Gy in 1 fraction (56.9%) or 20 Gy in 5 fractions (41.4%). Imaging follow up was performed most frequently with 11 C-choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography (79%) or bone scan (10%). The median time to IFF was 1.6 years for CFRT-treated lesions and not met (>4.4 years) for SBRT. The 1- and 3-year IFF estimates were 34.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 19.9-46.2) and 53.3% (95% CI, 34.3-66.8) for lesions treated with CFRT compared with 4.5% (95% CI, 1.4-7.5) and 12.9% (95% CI, 6.6-18-8) for those treated with SBRT (P <.01). On multivariate regression, the hazard ratio (HR) for IFF with CFRT compared with SBRT was 6.8 (95% CI, 3.7-12.5; P <.01). There were nonsignificant reduced rates of BF (HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0-2.1; P =.05) and DF (HR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0-1.8; P =.08) in patients who received SBRT. The 3-year BF and DF estimates in these patients were 88.6% (95% CI, 82.0-92.8) and 82.2% (95% CI, 74.5-87.6), respectively. Conclusions: SBRT for the management of prostate cancer bone metastases significantly reduces radiographic IFF. However, the high rate of subsequent DF and BF highlights the challenges in selecting patients who may benefit from aggressive radiation therapy.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)314-322
Number of pages9
JournalAdvances in Radiation Oncology
Volume4
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2019

Fingerprint

Bone Neoplasms
Prostatic Neoplasms
Radiotherapy
Neoplasm Metastasis
Confidence Intervals
Therapeutics
Bone and Bones
Choline

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Single-fraction Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy versus Conventionally Fractionated Radiation Therapy for the Treatment of Prostate Cancer Bone Metastases. / Gao, Robert W.; Olivier, Kenneth R.; Park, Sean S; Davis, Brian J.; Pisansky, Thomas M.; Choo, Richard; Kwon, Eugene D; Karnes, Robert Jeffrey; Harmsen, William S.; Stish, Bradley J.

In: Advances in Radiation Oncology, Vol. 4, No. 2, 01.04.2019, p. 314-322.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gao, Robert W. ; Olivier, Kenneth R. ; Park, Sean S ; Davis, Brian J. ; Pisansky, Thomas M. ; Choo, Richard ; Kwon, Eugene D ; Karnes, Robert Jeffrey ; Harmsen, William S. ; Stish, Bradley J. / Single-fraction Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy versus Conventionally Fractionated Radiation Therapy for the Treatment of Prostate Cancer Bone Metastases. In: Advances in Radiation Oncology. 2019 ; Vol. 4, No. 2. pp. 314-322.
@article{511d3ff0bc914b7e9e0a2d8f06189482,
title = "Single-fraction Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy versus Conventionally Fractionated Radiation Therapy for the Treatment of Prostate Cancer Bone Metastases",
abstract = "Purpose: This study aimed to compare outcomes of patients with prostate cancer with bone metastases treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) versus conventionally fractionated radiation therapy (CFRT). Methods and materials: An institutional, retrospective review was conducted of patients with prostate cancer receiving radiation therapy to bone metastases. In-field failure (IFF) was the primary outcome of the study, and distant failure (DF) and biochemical failure (BF) were secondary outcomes. Results: A total of 249 metastases (191 SBRT; 58 CFRT) in 201 patients with a median follow-up of 2.2 years were analyzed. The SBRT prescription dose was predominantly 18 Gy (45.5{\%}) or 20 Gy (46.6{\%}) in a single fraction. CFRT was given either as 8 Gy in 1 fraction (56.9{\%}) or 20 Gy in 5 fractions (41.4{\%}). Imaging follow up was performed most frequently with 11 C-choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography (79{\%}) or bone scan (10{\%}). The median time to IFF was 1.6 years for CFRT-treated lesions and not met (>4.4 years) for SBRT. The 1- and 3-year IFF estimates were 34.4{\%} (95{\%} confidence interval [CI], 19.9-46.2) and 53.3{\%} (95{\%} CI, 34.3-66.8) for lesions treated with CFRT compared with 4.5{\%} (95{\%} CI, 1.4-7.5) and 12.9{\%} (95{\%} CI, 6.6-18-8) for those treated with SBRT (P <.01). On multivariate regression, the hazard ratio (HR) for IFF with CFRT compared with SBRT was 6.8 (95{\%} CI, 3.7-12.5; P <.01). There were nonsignificant reduced rates of BF (HR, 1.4; 95{\%} CI, 1.0-2.1; P =.05) and DF (HR, 1.3; 95{\%} CI, 1.0-1.8; P =.08) in patients who received SBRT. The 3-year BF and DF estimates in these patients were 88.6{\%} (95{\%} CI, 82.0-92.8) and 82.2{\%} (95{\%} CI, 74.5-87.6), respectively. Conclusions: SBRT for the management of prostate cancer bone metastases significantly reduces radiographic IFF. However, the high rate of subsequent DF and BF highlights the challenges in selecting patients who may benefit from aggressive radiation therapy.",
author = "Gao, {Robert W.} and Olivier, {Kenneth R.} and Park, {Sean S} and Davis, {Brian J.} and Pisansky, {Thomas M.} and Richard Choo and Kwon, {Eugene D} and Karnes, {Robert Jeffrey} and Harmsen, {William S.} and Stish, {Bradley J.}",
year = "2019",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.adro.2019.02.002",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "4",
pages = "314--322",
journal = "Advances in Radiation Oncology",
issn = "2452-1094",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Single-fraction Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy versus Conventionally Fractionated Radiation Therapy for the Treatment of Prostate Cancer Bone Metastases

AU - Gao, Robert W.

AU - Olivier, Kenneth R.

AU - Park, Sean S

AU - Davis, Brian J.

AU - Pisansky, Thomas M.

AU - Choo, Richard

AU - Kwon, Eugene D

AU - Karnes, Robert Jeffrey

AU - Harmsen, William S.

AU - Stish, Bradley J.

PY - 2019/4/1

Y1 - 2019/4/1

N2 - Purpose: This study aimed to compare outcomes of patients with prostate cancer with bone metastases treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) versus conventionally fractionated radiation therapy (CFRT). Methods and materials: An institutional, retrospective review was conducted of patients with prostate cancer receiving radiation therapy to bone metastases. In-field failure (IFF) was the primary outcome of the study, and distant failure (DF) and biochemical failure (BF) were secondary outcomes. Results: A total of 249 metastases (191 SBRT; 58 CFRT) in 201 patients with a median follow-up of 2.2 years were analyzed. The SBRT prescription dose was predominantly 18 Gy (45.5%) or 20 Gy (46.6%) in a single fraction. CFRT was given either as 8 Gy in 1 fraction (56.9%) or 20 Gy in 5 fractions (41.4%). Imaging follow up was performed most frequently with 11 C-choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography (79%) or bone scan (10%). The median time to IFF was 1.6 years for CFRT-treated lesions and not met (>4.4 years) for SBRT. The 1- and 3-year IFF estimates were 34.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 19.9-46.2) and 53.3% (95% CI, 34.3-66.8) for lesions treated with CFRT compared with 4.5% (95% CI, 1.4-7.5) and 12.9% (95% CI, 6.6-18-8) for those treated with SBRT (P <.01). On multivariate regression, the hazard ratio (HR) for IFF with CFRT compared with SBRT was 6.8 (95% CI, 3.7-12.5; P <.01). There were nonsignificant reduced rates of BF (HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0-2.1; P =.05) and DF (HR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0-1.8; P =.08) in patients who received SBRT. The 3-year BF and DF estimates in these patients were 88.6% (95% CI, 82.0-92.8) and 82.2% (95% CI, 74.5-87.6), respectively. Conclusions: SBRT for the management of prostate cancer bone metastases significantly reduces radiographic IFF. However, the high rate of subsequent DF and BF highlights the challenges in selecting patients who may benefit from aggressive radiation therapy.

AB - Purpose: This study aimed to compare outcomes of patients with prostate cancer with bone metastases treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) versus conventionally fractionated radiation therapy (CFRT). Methods and materials: An institutional, retrospective review was conducted of patients with prostate cancer receiving radiation therapy to bone metastases. In-field failure (IFF) was the primary outcome of the study, and distant failure (DF) and biochemical failure (BF) were secondary outcomes. Results: A total of 249 metastases (191 SBRT; 58 CFRT) in 201 patients with a median follow-up of 2.2 years were analyzed. The SBRT prescription dose was predominantly 18 Gy (45.5%) or 20 Gy (46.6%) in a single fraction. CFRT was given either as 8 Gy in 1 fraction (56.9%) or 20 Gy in 5 fractions (41.4%). Imaging follow up was performed most frequently with 11 C-choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography (79%) or bone scan (10%). The median time to IFF was 1.6 years for CFRT-treated lesions and not met (>4.4 years) for SBRT. The 1- and 3-year IFF estimates were 34.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 19.9-46.2) and 53.3% (95% CI, 34.3-66.8) for lesions treated with CFRT compared with 4.5% (95% CI, 1.4-7.5) and 12.9% (95% CI, 6.6-18-8) for those treated with SBRT (P <.01). On multivariate regression, the hazard ratio (HR) for IFF with CFRT compared with SBRT was 6.8 (95% CI, 3.7-12.5; P <.01). There were nonsignificant reduced rates of BF (HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0-2.1; P =.05) and DF (HR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0-1.8; P =.08) in patients who received SBRT. The 3-year BF and DF estimates in these patients were 88.6% (95% CI, 82.0-92.8) and 82.2% (95% CI, 74.5-87.6), respectively. Conclusions: SBRT for the management of prostate cancer bone metastases significantly reduces radiographic IFF. However, the high rate of subsequent DF and BF highlights the challenges in selecting patients who may benefit from aggressive radiation therapy.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85064255422&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85064255422&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.adro.2019.02.002

DO - 10.1016/j.adro.2019.02.002

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85064255422

VL - 4

SP - 314

EP - 322

JO - Advances in Radiation Oncology

JF - Advances in Radiation Oncology

SN - 2452-1094

IS - 2

ER -