Treatment Considerations for Consolidation Durvalumab in Unresectable ES NSCLC 

How do you select patients for consolidation durvalumab?

Videos

The panel discusses treatment considerations for consolidation durvalumab.

Expert Perspectives on Patient Selection for cCRT and sCRT in Unresectable ES NSCLC

How do you select patients with unresectable stage 3 NSCLC forsequential vs concurrent chemoradiotherapy (sCRTandcCRT)? How do available data help inform your treatment decision?

The panel discusses data necessary for selecting patients with unrespectable non–small cell lung cancer for sequential vs concurrent chemoradiotherapy.

Patient with Unresectable Stage IIIB EGFR-Mutant NSCLC with N2 Bulky Disease 

The panel looks at a second patient case study.

Management of Resectable Early Stage NSCLC with Actionable Mutations

Video content above is prompted by the following:

How does your approach differ based on PD-L1 status? Presence of EGFR/ALK alterations?

The panel discusses management of resectable early-stage non–small cell lung cancer.

Considerations for Combination of Adjuvant Chemotherapy and Targeted Therapy in Resectable ES NSCLC

How do you select patients with potentially resectable stage III NSCLC for adjuvant therapy?

The panel discusses the factors that go into selecting patients for adjuvant therapy.

Management of Borderline Resectable NSCLC

In patients deemed borderline resectable, do you re-assess for resectability after neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy?

How do you manage patients who do not undergo surgery after neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy?

How do you managepatientswho do not achieve a pCR or an MPR after neoadjuvant chemo-IO?

How do you manage patients who do not achieve a pCR or an MPR after neoadjuvant

The panel discusses reassessing for respectability after certain treatments.

Treatment Considerations for Neoadjuvant and Perioperative Therapy in ES NSCLC 

Platinum chemotherapy used (carboplatin vs cisplatin)

A variety of treatment options in ES NSCLC are explored by key opinion leaders.

Navigating Neoadjuvant and Perioperative Treatment Strategies in Early Stage NSCLC

How do you select patients with potentially resectable stage III NSCLC for neoadjuvant vs perioperative therapy?

How do you navigate/translate these data to inform your treatment decisions?

The panel discusses a variety of clinical trials and the impact on patient treatment in early stage NSCLC.

Biomarker Testing and the Multidisciplinary Approach in Early-Stage NSCLC

Please comment on the multidisciplinary team approach – how is this implemented in your practice setting for clinical decision making in early-stage NSCLC?

Panelists discuss the utilization of testing and multidisciplinary approaches for testing.

Patient with Stage IIIB NSCLC with No Actionable Mutations and PD-L1 TPS 0%

Briefly provide comments and perspectives on this patient case.

Briefly comment on your approach to biomarker testing in patients with potentially resectable NSCLC?

What type of testing do you recommend? (e.g., single biomarker EGFR vs NGS)

How are you using biomarker testing pre- and post-surgery?

How do you determine eligibility for surgical resection in patients with Stage III NSCLC at your practice and what factors influence patient selection for available surgical procedures? (e.g. mediastinoscopy, EBUS, lobectomy)

Medical experts discuss a specific case for a patient diagnosed with stage IIIB NSCLC.

Cancer Centers of Northern Arizona Healthcare

As genitourinary radiation oncologists, we live in exciting times. The options and alternatives for managing prostate cancer with radiation have significantly expanded beyond a historical choice between external beam and brachytherapy. The therapeutic regimens we have at our disposal allow for many more technical options and diverse schedules with differing radiobiologic underpinnings.

More-accelerated fractionation schedules may represent a significant advance for our patients. The data thus far is promising. Much of these data for hypofractionation (17-28 fractions) and for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) are highlighted by Shah et al in this review article.

Left unanswered are many questions of personalization. We regularly use a variety of measures (stage, grade, prostate-specific antigen, urinary function, anatomy, etc) to help our patients select the best treatment. Which patient is best served by conventional fractionation, hypofractionation, or SBRT? Today, this remains an important unanswered question. But for now, we do know that these various treatment schedules have moved from the pure research setting into routine clinical practice worldwide, and this timely review provides the background for future work.

With improvements in technology allowing for highly conformal radiotherapy to be delivered in conjunction with three-dimensional online image guidance, renewed interest in hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer has emerged. Multiple randomized trials comparing standard fractionation and hypofractionation when treating the prostate +/- seminal vesicles have been performed with comparable clinical outcomes and toxicity, making it a standard of care of option in appropriately selected patients despite limited long-term (> 10 year) outcomes. Limited data are available supporting hypofractionation in post-prostatectomy and whole-pelvis settings. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), as a form of extreme hypofractionation, has been evaluated in multiple prospective trials allowing for the completion of treatment in 5 fractions. Despite limited data comparing SBRT to standard or hypofractionated radiotherapy with regards to long-term clinical outcomes and toxicity profiles, the data are promising and appropriately selected patients can be offered such an approach off-protocol.

Prostate cancer represents the most common non-cutaneous cancer among men in the United States, with an annual incidence of 220,000 cases/year.

 Multiple treatment options exist for men based on patient and disease factors, with radiation therapy representing a treatment option for men with low- and intermediate-risk disease and a preferred treatment option in conjunction with androgen deprivation for high-risk disease.

 One major concern regarding external beam radiation therapy is the duration of treatment, with external beam radiation therapy often exceeding 7 weeks. This represents not only a major time commitment, but also increases the cost of therapy for the patient due to time lost and travel costs.

 Therefore, a growing focus on shorter course regimens such as hypofractionated (> 2.0 Gy/fraction) and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT)—5 fractions or less, has emerged.

While a switch from standard doses per fraction (1.8-2.0 Gy/fraction) to higher doses may seem to be a significant treatment paradigm change, this represents a continuation of research and treatment techniques that have been developed over the past several decades. Previously, radiobiologic studies have documented a low alpha/beta ratio (1.5) for prostate cancer, suggesting a benefit in the therapeutic ratio with increased biochemical control probability in comparison with toxicity to surrounding normal organs with larger doses per fraction (moderate hypofractionation).

 This strategy was initially employed with high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy as the technique allowed for the highly conformal dose distributions necessary to limit doses to at-risk organs.

Multiple studies with long-term follow-up examining high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy as monotherapy or boost have documented excellent clinical outcomes and low rates of toxicity with large doses per fraction.

 Over the past deDavid cade, advances in linear accelerator technology, treatment planning (intensity modulated radiation therapy [IMRT], volumetric modulated arc therapy), and image guidance (cone beam computed tomography with soft tissue/fiducial alignment) have allowed for delivery of highly conformal external beam radiation therapy plans delivering hypofractionated stereotactic treatments with data supporting these approaches in other treatment sites such as lung and spine tumors.

 A question that remains when evaluating such advances is the decision as to when the data are sufficient to make a new treatment/technique a standard of care. With respect to prostate cancer studies in radiation oncology, many consider it impractical and unnecessary to wait 15-20 years to document survival as treatment continues to advance in the interim. Standards of care can often be defined with 5-year toxicity outcomes and 5-10 year biochemical control, allowing for more rapid integration of new techniques into clinical treatment paradigms. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the literature supporting hypofractionated and stereotactic radiation therapy for prostate cancer, and to provide clinical recommendations based on the available data.

Multiple randomized prospective studies have evaluated hypofractionated radiotherapy (greater than 2.0 Gy per fraction) for prostate cancer. Older trials were performed but are limited by their lack of modern treatment techniques and image guidance, and in some cases substandard doses, and therefore outcomes are difficult to interpret.

 More recently, the Conventional or Hypofractionated High Dose Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer (CHHIP) protocol randomized trial included 3163 men and used 3 fractionation schedules: 74 Gy/37 fractions, 60 Gy/20 fractions, and 57 Gy/19 fractions; with 24-month follow up, gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity rates with the hypofractionated regimens were not statistically increased, although long-term oncologic outcomes have not been published.

 Recently, a randomized study from the Netherlands randomized 820 patients to 78 Gy/29 fractions or 64.6 Gy/19 fractions. Preliminary results demonstrated no difference in acute GU toxicity; however, non-inferiority was not confirmed with higher rates of acute grade 2—nor was greater GI toxicity with hypofractionation.

 A randomized trial from Italy enrolled 168 men with high-risk prostate cancer, comparing 80 Gy/40 fractions (2 Gy/fraction) with 62 Gy/ 20 fractions (3.1 Gy/ fraction), with all patients receiving androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for 9 months. With a median follow- up of 70 months, hypofractionation reduced 5-year biochemical failures with no difference in local or distant failures. However, among patients with a pre-treatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) < 20, hypofractionation improved biochemical failure, as well as local and distant failure rates.

 Similarly, a randomized study from Lithuania enrolled patients with localized prostate cancer (91 initial report/124 update) to receive either 74 Gy/37 fractions (2 Gy/fraction) or 57 Gy/17 fractions (3 Gy X 13 fractions, 4.5 Gy X 4 fractions). No acute grade 3 or 4 toxicities were noted with a reduction in Grade 2 GU toxicity (19.1% vs 47.7%, 

 A second study from the institution compared 76 Gy/38 fractions (2 Gy/fraction) with 63 Gy/20 fractions 4 times weekly (3.15 Gy/fraction) with simultaneous integrated boost to the pelvis using standard fractionation in 124 patients.

Toxicity data demonstrated no difference in acute maximum GI or GU toxicity and no difference in quality of life (QOL) by technique.

 A randomized study from Fox Chase Cancer Center enrolled 303 patients (favorable to high-risk) comparing 76 Gy/ 38 fractions (2 Gy/fraction) and 70.2 Gy/ 26 fractions (2.7 Gy/fraction). With a median follow-up of 68 months, no differences in biochemical failure or clinical failure were noted (21.4% vs 23.3%). No difference in late toxicity was noted, except for patients with impaired urinary function pre-treatment, in which hypofractionation was associated with worse urinary function after treatment.

Multiple non-randomized studies have also evaluated hypofractionated radiotherapy 

 One of the largest studies came from the Cleveland Clinic; 770 consecutive patients were treated with 70 Gy/28 fractions (2.5 Gy/fraction) between 1998 and 2005. At a median follow-up of 45 months, the 5-year biochemical control was 83% with rates of 95%, 85%, and 68% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients. Toxicity rates were low, with a 9% rate of acute grade 2 rectal toxicity and 18%/1% acute grade 2/3 urinary toxicity rates. Late grade 2/3 rectal toxicity rates were 3.1%/1.3%, and late grade 2/3 urinary toxicity rates were 5.1%/0.1%.

 A prospective phase II study from Princess Margaret Hospital enrolled 92 patients delivering 60 Gy/20 fractions (3.0 Gy/fraction). With a median follow-up of 38 months, no late grade 3 or greater toxicity was noted, with one acute grade 3-4 toxicity noted. Biochemical control was 97% based on the Phoenix definition.

Limited data are available regarding hypofractionated radiotherapy in the setting of adjuvant treatment following prostatectomy. One concern with hypofractionation in this setting is the potential for increased toxicity due to larger volumes of normal structures (bladder, bowel) receiving high doses. A phase I/II trial from Milan enrolled 50 patients prescribing 58 Gy/ 20 fractions (2.9 Gy/fraction) to the prostate fossa. With a median follow-up of 25 months, acute grade 2-3 GU and grade 2 GI toxicity were low, at 12% and 4% respectively, and comparable to a series of 153 patients receiving conventional fractionation.

 An update of 1176 patients (929 conventional fractionation, 247 hypofractionated with various schemes) found that, with a median follow-up of 98 months, hypofractionated treatment was associated with an increase in late grade 3 or greater GU toxicity (18.1% vs 6.9%) with dose per fraction predictive of toxicity.

 The PRIAMOS-1 trial evaluated hypofractionated radiotherapy to the prostate bed with a dose of 54 Gy in 18 fractions (3 Gy/fraction); 40 patients were enrolled and with short follow-up, no grade 3 or greater toxicities were noted. Eighteen percent of patients developed grade 2 GI toxicity with an increase in grade 1 urge incontinence from prior to treatment (23.1% at 10 weeks following radiation therapy [RT] vs 2.6% prior to RT)

. A series of 108 consecutive patients treated with salvage radiation to the prostate bed evaluated a dose of 65 Gy/ 26 fractions (2.5 Gy/ fraction); with a median follow-up of 32 months, biochemical control was 67% with one acute grade 3 GU event and no acute grade 3 GI or late grade 3 events noted.

Table 1: Modern Series Evaluating Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy

CHHIP indicates Conventional or Hypofractionated High Dose Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer protocol; SV, seminal vesicle; GI, gastrointestinal; GU, genitourinary; NCI, National Cancer Institute; PSA, prostate-specific antigen.

Massaccesi et al presented outcomes of 49 patients treated following prostatectomy with standard fractionation to the pelvis (45 Gy/ 25 fractions) and a concomitant boost to the prostate bed (62.5 Gy/25 fractions). No acute grade 3 or greater toxicity was noted with 10% and 30% of patients having grade 2 acute GU or GI toxicity, respectively.

 A retrospective analysis from the University of Wisconsin evaluated 50 patients treated with 65-70 Gy (2.5 Gy/fraction) following biochemical failure after prostatectomy. With short follow-up of 19 months, no grade 3 or greater acute or late toxicities were observed with a 73% 2 year biochemical control rate.

Similarly, limited data are available regarding hypofractionation when treating the whole pelvis. Many studies have evaluated hypofractionation to the prostate and seminal vesicles with standard fractionation to the pelvis (1.8-2.0 Gy/fraction) using a simultaneous integrated boost strategy with low rates of toxicity.

 However, one QOL study did find reductions in bowel and sexual function with such an approach that improved but persisted at 18-24 months.

 The previously mentioned randomized trial from Vilnius University did include pelvic radiation in both arms, with a hypofractionated regimen of 44 Gy/20 fractions (2.2 Gy/fraction). No differences in acute GI or GU toxicity were noted with this approach.21 A study from Greece enrolled 48 patients and delivered 47.6 Gy to the prostate bed and 37.8 Gy to the pelvis in 14 fractions (3.4 Gy/fraction, 2.7 Gy/fraction, respectively) with a 15th fraction to the prostate bed only. Treatment was delivered with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, and patients received amifostine prior to each fraction. Twenty-three percent of patients required 1-2 week delays due to toxicity with a 19% rate of grade 2 proctitis. At 41 months, biochemical control was 85%.

Based on the randomized as well as prospective data available, hypofractionation (2.5-3.2 Gy/fraction) should be considered a standard-of-care approach for appropriately selected men with low-/intermediate-risk prostate cancer. However, there are insufficient data to recommend hypofractionation in the adjuvant/salvage setting or in cases where pelvic radiotherapy is to be delivered, due to a lack of level I evidence and the potential for higher rates of toxicity with limited long-term outcomes.

SBRT delivers treatment in 5 fractions or less. As noted previously, this treatment technique represents a continuation of the rationale for HDR brachytherapy by using advances in external beam technology and image guidance to provide highly conformal radiation that can be confirmed with three-dimensional image guidance. Multiple techniques exists to deliver SBRT, including linear accelerators with online image guidance and specialized machines used predominantly for SBRT approaches.

Table 2: Studies evaluating SBRT in Prostate Cancer

SBRT indicates stereotactic body radiation therapy; GI, gastrointestinal; GU, genitourinary; UCLA, University of California, Los Angeles; QOL, quality of life.

One of the initial series on prostate SBRT comes from Boike et al, who reported a prospective phase I dose escalation study (45, 47.5, or 50 Gy in 5 fractions) of 45 patients (Gleason 2-6, PSA < 20/ Gleason 7, PSA < 15 , < T2b). With a median follow-up of 30, 18, and 12 months respectively, no biochemical failures were noted. Rates of grade 2+ and grade 3+ GI/GU toxicity were 18%/31% and 12%/4%, respectively

. An update of this trial incorporating 91 patients found 6.6% of patients at the highest dose level having high-grade rectal toxicity, with 5 out of 6 requiring colostomy. Importantly, late rectal toxicity was found to be correlated with the rectal V50 (> 3 cm3) and a V39 Gy > 35% circumference of the rectum, providing clinicians with dosimetric guidelines. Biochemical control was 99% with 42-month follow-up.

 Similar results were seen in a Phase I-II study from Milan, which demonstrated no grade 3 acute GI or GU toxicities with 10%/40% grade 2 rectal/GU toxicity and a Phase I/ II study from the University of Toronto, which demonstrated 98% biochemical control at 5 years with low rates of toxicity.

 A recently published Phase II trial enrolled 102 patients with low-risk prostate cancer; patients were treated with 40 Gy delivered in 5 and 8 Gy fractions every other day with real-time electromagnetic tracking. At 6 years, one patient demonstrated biochemical failure with toxicity profiles demonstrating 3% painless rectal bleeding and 20%/3%/5% rates of Grade 1-2 urinary frequency, dysuria, and retention with limited QOL changes.

A prospective Phase II protocol from Stanford University evaluated 41 patients with low-risk prostate cancer treated with 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions using Cyberknife. With a median follow-up of 33 months, no biochemical failures were noted, with 29% of patients having a PSA bounce. Two patients developed grade 3 chronic GU toxicity while no grade 3 GI toxicities were noted.

An update of this study with median follow-up of 5 years demonstrated a 7% biochemical failure rate with no grade 3+ GI and 1 grade 3 GU toxicity, and with 60% of patients age < 70 able to maintain consistent erections.

 King et al published a pooled analysis of 1100 patients treated in prospective trials at 8 institutions from 2003- 2011 using the Cyberknife technique with 58% low-risk, 30% intermediate-risk, and 11% high-risk. With 3 year follow-up, the 5-year biochemical control was 93% (95% low, 84% intermediate, 81% high) with a PSA bounce noted in 16% of cases.

 Results from prostate SBRT series are presented in 

 While attempts have been made to move beyond limited field (prostate +/- seminal vesicle [SV]) treatment, a recent prospective study that evaluated SBRT with ADT in high-risk patients with 40 Gy delivered in 5 fractions to the prostate, and concomitantly 25 Gy to the pelvis; 16 patients were enrolled with 26% of patients having grade 3+ GI or GU toxicity at 6 months with the phase II terminated.

Limited data are available directly comparing SBRT with standard radiation therapy techniques (IMRT, brachytherapy) and surgical techniques. Recently, a review of the Medicare database compared SBRT with IMRT. At 6 months, SBRT was associated with an increase in GU toxicity (15.6% vs 12.6%), which persisted at 2 years (43.9% vs 36.3%).

 In regards to quality of life, recent studies have documented that with SBRT, QOL declines in GI and GU domains are transient, with return to baseline within 6 months of treatment. A comparison to prostatectomy patients found improvement in urinary QOL with SBRT, as well as bowel QOL decline with SBRT. Late urinary and sexual QOL was significantly lower for surgical patients.

 Also, a QOL comparison of SBRT and EBRT with an HDR boost found that SBRT reduced the decline in GU, GI, and sexual QOL with long-term follow up.

 A recent multi-institutional analysis compared IMRT, brachytherapy, and SBRT, and with 803 patients evaluated, found similar outcomes with respect to urinary and bowel QOL.

 With regards to cost-effectiveness between techniques, Sher et al evaluated SBRT and IMRT and found that SBRT (both robotic and non-robotic) was more cost-effective (>$100,000/QALY) than IMRT in almost all scenarios, even when including the potential for increased toxicity with SBRT, which has been confirmed by several studies.

At this time, SBRT represents a logical progression of hypofractionation and a promising strategy, with excellent clinical outcomes to date, and represents a standard of care for clinicians in high-volume centers. Data on optimal techniques for treatment planning, delivery, and image guidance need to be ascertained in light of the technical complexity associated with the technique.

Multiple randomized and prospective studies are underway to further clarify which patients are ideal candidates for hypofractionated radiation or SBRT and the longterm toxicities associated with such strategies. RTOG 0415 randomized men with prostate cancer (T1-2c, Gleason 2-6, PSA < 10, no lymph node or distant metastases) to 73.8 Gy/41 fractions (1.8 Gy/fraction) versus 70 Gy/28 fractions (2.5 Gy/fractions) with the primary outcome of disease-free survival. The preliminary results of this trial were recently presented, and demonstrated that the hypofractionation arm was non-inferior to conventional fractionation, with disease-free survival rates of 75.6% versus 81.8% at 7 years.

 Studies are also evaluating hypofractionation using proton therapy.

With 220,000 new cases of prostate cancer diagnosed each year, the cost of prostate cancer treatment represents a significant public health issue. Innovations in treatment techniques have the opportunity to not only reduce treatment duration and improvement patient QOL but also can lead to sustainable cost reductions without impairing outcomes or increasing toxicity profiles.1 With respect to hypofractionated radiation therapy, randomized data supports the utilization of the technique as standard of care for treatment of the prostate +/- seminal vesicles with doses less than or equal to 3.2 Gy/fraction. Limited data is available on dosimetric guidelines when utilizing hypofractionated radiotherapy, although guidelines utilized in the randomized studies can serve as a baseline set of criteria. At this time, limited data exist supporting hypofractionated radiotherapy in the post-prostatectomy setting or in the treatment of pelvic lymph nodes. In light of the potential for increased toxicity with these scenarios, further study is required on clinical trial before routine clinical use. SBRT expands upon hypofractionated radiotherapy to offer treatment in 5 fractions and is supported in part by data from HDR brachytherapy, which has long-term outcomes with comparable dose schedules. While mature SBRT outcomes/toxicity data will be valuable, current data support the increasing utilization of the technique. Hypofractionated and SBRT techniques are being refined to help further increase the therapeutic ratio (for example, rectal spacers) and to improve toxicity profiles, increasing the number of patients eligible to receive treatment with such approaches.

Cleveland Clinic, Taussig Cancer Institute, Department of Radiation Oncology (CS, KS, AJ, RT), Cleveland, OH. Cleveland Clinic, Taussig Cancer Institute, Department of Radiation Oncology (AV), Strongsville, OH. 21st Century Oncology (CM), Lehigh Acres, FL. 21st Century Oncology, Michigan Healthcare Professionals (AM, FV), Farmington Hills, MI. 21st Century Oncology (EF), Pembroke Pines, FL Cancer Treatment Centers of America®, Radiation Oncology, Research (SF), Tulsa, OK.. Address correspondence to: Chirag Shah, MD, Department of Radiation Oncology, Cleveland Clinic, Taussig Cancer Institute, 9500 Euclid Ave., Cleveland, Ohio 44195, Phone: 216-445-8180. Fax: 216- 445-1068. E-mail: shahc4@ccf.org

Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2015. CA Cancer 

. 2015;65(1):5-29. doi: 10.3322/caac.21254.

National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Prostate Cancer (Version 1.2015). http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate. pdf. September 28, 2015.

Van de Hout W, Kramer G, Noordijk EM, et al. Cost-utility of short- versus long-course palliative radiotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. 

Lanni TB Jr, Grills IS, Kestin LL, Robertson JM. Stereotactic radiotherapy reduces treatment cost while improving overall survival and local control over standard fractionated radiation therapy for medically inoperable nonsmall- cell lung cancer. 

. 2011;34(5):494-498. doi: 10.1097/ COC.0b013e3181ec63ae.

Dearnaley DP. Hypofractionated radiotherapy in prostate cancer. 

. 2015;16(3):237-8. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)70021-70025.

Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Fractionation and protraction for radiotherapy of prostate carcinoma. 

Edmundson GK, Yan D, Martinez AA. Intraoperative optimization of needle placement and dwell times for conformal prostate brachytherapy. 

Martinez A, Gonzalez J, Spencer W, et al. Conformal high dose rate brachytherapy improves biochemical control and cause specific survival in patients with prostate cancer and poor prognostic factors. 

Demanes DJ, Rodriguez RR, Schour L, et al. High-dose-rate intensity-modulated brachytherapy with external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer: California endocurietherapy’s 10-year results. 

Galalae RM, Kovacs G, Schultze J, et al. Long-term outcome after elective irradiation of the pelvic lymphatics and local dose escalation using highdose- rate brachytherapy for locally advanced prostate cancer. 

Martinez-Monge R, Moreno M, Ciervide R, et al. External-beam radiation therapy and high-dose rate brachytherapy combined with long-term androgen deprivation therapy in high and very high prostate cancer: preliminary data on clinical outcome. 

. 2012;82(3):e469-476. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.08.002.

Videtic GM, Stephans KL. The role of stereotactic body radiotherapy in the management of non-small cell lung cancer: an emerging standard for the medically inoperable patient? 

. 2010;12(4):235-241. doi: 10.1007/s11912-010-0108-1.

Balagamwala EH, Angelov L, Koyfman SA, et al. Single-fraction stereotactic body radiotherapy for spinal metastases from renal cell carcinoma. 

. 2012;17(6):556-564. doi: 10.3171/2012.8.SPINE12303.

Lukka H, Hayter C, Julian JA, et al. Randomized trial comparing two fractionation schedules for patients with localized prostate cancer.

Hoskin PJ, Motohashi K, Bownes P, et al. High dose rate brachytherapy in combination with external beam radiotherapy in the radical treatment of prostate cancer: initial results of a randomized phase three trial. 

Yeoh EE, Holloway RH, Fraser RJ, et al. Hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiation therapy for prostate carcinoma: updated results of phase III randomized trial.

Dearnaley D, Syndikus I, Sumo G, et al. Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: preliminary safety results from the CHHIP randomised controlled trial. 

. 2012; 13(1):43-54. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70293-5.

Aluwini S, Pos F, Schimmel E, et al. Hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for patients with prostate cancer (HYPRO): acute toxicity results from a randomised non-inferiority phase 3 trial. Lancet 

. 2015;16(3):274-283. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70482-6.

Arcangeli S, Strigari L, Gomellini S, et al. Updated results and patterns of failure in a randomized hypofractionation trial for high-risk prostate cancer. 

. 2012;84(5):1172-1178. doi: 10.1016/j. ijrobp.2012.02.049.

Norkus D, Miller A, Kurtinaitis J, et al. A randomized trial comparing hypofractionated and conventionally fractionated three-dimensional external- beam radiotherapy for localized prostate adenocarcinoma: a report on acute toxicity. 

 2009;185(11):715-721. doi: 10.1007/ s00066-009-1982-z

Norkus D, Karklelyte A, Engels B, et al. A randomized hypofractionation dose escalation trial for high risk prostate cancer patients: interim analysis of acute toxicity and quality of life in 124 patients. 

l. 2013;8:206. doi: 10.1186/1748-717X-8-206.

Pollack A, Walker G, Horwitz EM, et al. Randomized trial of hypofractionated external-beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

2013;31(31):3860-3868. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.51.1972.

Kupelian PA, Willoughby TR, Reddy CA, et al. Hypofractionated intensity- modulated radiotherapy (70 GY at 2.5 Gy per fraction) for localized prostate cancer: Cleveland Clinic experience.

Martin JM, Rosewall T, Bayley A, et al. Phase II trial of hypofractionated image- guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy for localized prostate adenocarcinoma. 

Yassa M, Fortin B, Fortin MA, et al. Combined hypofractionated radiation and hormone therapy for the treatment of intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

. 2008;71(1):58-63. doi: 10.1016/j. ijrobp.2007.09.004.

Fonteyne V, Soete G, Arcangeli S, et al. Hypofractionated high-dose radiation therapy for prostate cancer: long-term results of a multi-institutional phase II trial.

. 2012;84(4):e483-490. doi: 10.1016/j. ijrobp.2012.04.012.

Tramacere F, Arcangeli S, Pignatelli A, et al. Hypofractionated dose escalated 3D conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer: outcomes from a mono- institutional phase II study. 

Coote JH, Wylie JP, Cowan RA, et al. Hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy for carcinoma of the prostate: analysis of toxicity.

 2009;74(4):1121-1127. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.09.032.

Cozzarini C, Fiorino C, Di Muzio N, et al. Hypofractionated adjuvant radiotherapy with helical tomotherapy after radical prostatectomy: planning data and toxicity results of a Phase I-II study. 

. 2008;88(1):26-33. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2008.03.02.

Cozzarini C, Fiorino C, Deantoni C, et al. Higher-than-expected severe (Grade 3-4) late urinary toxicity after postprostatectomy hypofractionated radiotherapy: a single institution analysis of 1176 patient. 

l. 2014;66(6):1024-1030. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.06.012.

Katayama S, Striecker T, Kessel K, et al. Hypofractionated IMRT of the prostate bed after radical prostatectomy: acute toxicity in the PRIAMOS-1 trial.

. 2014;90(4):926-933. doi: 10.1016/j. ijrobp.2014.07.015.

Kruser TJ, Jarrard DF, Graf AK, et al. Early hypofractionated salvage radiotherapy for postprostatectomy biochemical recurrence. 

. 2011;117(12):2629-2636. doi: 10.1002/cncr.25824.

Massaccesi M, Cilla S, Deodato F, et al. Hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy with simultaneous integrated boost after radical prostatectomy: preliminary results of a phase II trial. 

Wong GW, Palazzi-Churas KL, Jarrard DF, et al. Salvage hypofractionated radiotherapy for biochemically recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. 

Kong M, Hong SE, Chang SG. Hypofractionated helical tomotherapy (75 Gy at 2.5 Gy per fraction) for localized prostate cancer: long-term analysis of gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity.

. 2014;7:553- 566. doi: 10.2147/OTT.S61465.

Valeriani M, Carnevale A, Osti MF, et al. Hypofractionated intensity-modulated simultaneous integrated boost and image-guided radiotherapy in the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer patients: a preliminary report on acute toxicity. 

. 2013;99(4):474-479. doi: 10.1700/1361.15097.

McCammon R, Rusthoven KE, Kavanagh B, et al. Toxicity assessment of pelvic intensity-modulated radiotherapy with hypofractionated simultaneous integrated boost to prostate for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer.

. 2009;75(2):413-420. doi: 10.1016/j. ijrobp.2008.10.050.

Adkison JB, McHaffie DR, Bentzen SM, et al. Phase I trial of pelvic nodal dose escalation with hypofractionated IMRT for high-risk prostate cancer. 

. 2012;82(1):184-190. doi: 10.1016/j. ijrobp.2010.09.018

Guckenberger M, Lawrenz I, Flentje M. Moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: long-term outcome using IMRT and volumetric IGRT. 

 2014;190(1):48-53. doi: 10.1007/ s00066-013-0443-x.

McDonald AM, Jacob R, Dobelbower MC, et al. Efficacy and toxicity of conventionally fractionated pelvic radiation with a hypofractionated simultaneous versus conventionally fractionated sequential boost for patients with high-risk prostate cancer. 

2013;52(6):1181-1188. doi: 10.3109/0284186X.2012.748987.

Pervez N, Boychak A, Drodge CS, et al. Late toxicity and outcomes in highrisk prostate cancer patients treated with hypofractionated IMRT and longterm androgen suppression treatment. 

Girelli G, Franco P, Sciacero P, et al. Image-guided intensity modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer employing hypofractionation and simultaneous integrated boost: results of a consecutive case series with a focus on erectile function. 

Drodge CS, Boychak O, Patel S, et al. Acute toxicity of hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer. 

. 2015;22(2):e76-84. doi: 10.3747/co.22.2247.

Pervez N, Krauze AV, Yee D, et al. Quality-of-life outcomes in high-risk prostate cancer patients treated with helical tomotherapy in a hypofractionated radiation schedule with long-term androgen suppression. 

 2012; 19(3):e201-210. doi: 10.3747/co.19.915.

Koukourakis MI, Papadopoulou A, Abatzoglou I, et al. Postoperative pelvic hypofractionated accelerated radiotherapy with cytoprotection (HypARC) for high-risk or recurrent prostate cancer. 

Boike TP, Lotan Y, Cho LC, et al. Phase I dose-escalation study of stereotactic body radiation therapy for low and intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

 2011;29(15):2020-2026. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.31.4377.

Kim DW, Cho LC, Straka C, et al. Predictors of rectal tolerance observed in a dose-escalated phase 1-2 trial of stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer.

 2014;89(3):509-517. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.03.012.

Kim DW, Straka C, Cho LC, et al. Stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer: review of experience of a multicenter Phase I/II dose-escalation study. 

. 2014;4:319. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2014.00319.

Alongi F, Cozzi L, Arcangeli S, et al. Linac based SBRT for prostate cancer in 5 fractions with VMAT and flattening filter free beams: preliminary report of a phase II study. 

. 2013;8:171. doi: 10.1186/1748-717X-8- 171.

Loblaw A, Cheung P, D’Alimonte L, et al. Prostate stereotactic ablative radiotherapy using a standard linear accelerator: toxicity, biochemical, and pathological outcomes. 

. 2013;107(2):153-158. doi: 10.1016/j. radonc.2013.03.022.

Mantz C. A Phase II trial of stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy for lowrisk prostate cancer using a non-robotic linear accelerator and real-time target tracking: report of toxicity, quality of life, and disease control outcomes with 5-year minimum follow-up. 

. 2014;4:279. doi: 10.3389/ fonc.2014.00279.

Meknarios C, Vigneault E, Brochet N, et al. Toxicity report of once weekly radiation therapy for low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma: preliminary results of a phase I/II trial. 

. 2011 6:112. doi: 10.1186/1748-717X-6- 112.

King CR, Brooks JD, Gill H, et al. Stereotactic body radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: interim results of a prospective phase II clinical trial.

. 2009 ;73(4):1043-1048. doi: 10.1016/j. ijrobp.2008.05.059.

King C. Stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer: current results of a phase II trial. 

Freeman DE, King CR. Stereotactic body radiotherapy for low-risk prostate cancer: five-year outcomes. 

. 2011 ;6:3. doi: 10.1186/1748- 717X-6-3.

Wiegner EA, King CR. Sexual function after stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer: results of a prospective clinical trial. 

. 2010 ;78(2):442-448. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.07.1748.

Lee YH, Son SH, Yoon SC, et al. Stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a preliminary report. 

. 2014 ;10(2):e46-53. doi: 10.1111/j.1743-7563.2012.01589.x.

Kang JK, Cho CK, Choi CW, et al. Image-guided stereotactic body radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer. 

Madsen BL, Hsi RA, Pham HT, et al. Stereotactic hypofractionated accurate radiotherapy of the prostate (SHARP), 33.5 GY in five fractions for localized disease: first clinical results.

King CR, Brooks JD, Gill H, et al. Long-term outcomes from a prospective trial of stereotactic body radiotherapy for low-risk prostate cancer.

. 2012;82(2):877-882. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.11.054.

Oliai C, Lanciano R, Sprandio B, et al. Stereotactic body radiation therapy for the primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. 

Fuller DB, Naitoh J, Mardirossian G. Virtual HDR cyberknife SBRT for localized prostatic carcinoma: 5-year disease-free survival and toxicity observations.

2014 ;4:321. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2014.00321.

Articles

Despite limited data comparing stereotactic body radiation therapy to standard or hypofractionated radiotherapy with regards to long-term clinical outcomes and toxicity profiles, the data are promising and appropriately selected patients can be offered such an approach off-protocol.

Aditya Juloori, MD