- Open Access
Toxicity and quality of life report of a phase II study of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for low and intermediate risk prostate cancer
© The Author(s). 2017
- Received: 30 August 2016
- Accepted: 28 December 2016
- Published: 13 January 2017
Clinical data indicates that delivery of larger daily doses of radiation may improve the therapeutic ratio for prostate cancer compared to conventional fractionation. A phase II study of stereotactic body radiotherapy with real-time motion management and daily plan re-optimization for low to intermediate risk prostate cancer was undertaken to evaluate this hypothesis. This report details the toxicity and quality of life following treatment.
From 2009 to 2013, 60 patients with T1–T2c prostate cancer with a Gleason score of 6 and PSA ≤ 15 or Gleason score of 7 and PSA ≤ 10 were enrolled. Patients with nodal metastases, an American Urological Association symptom score > 18, or gland size > 100 g were not eligible. Patients were treated to 37 Gy in 5 fractions. Early and late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity were graded based on NCI CTCAE v4.0 and quality of life was assessed by the American Urological Association symptom score, International Index of Erectile Function, and Expanded Prostate cancer Index Composite Short Form up to 36 months after treatment.
After a median follow-up of 27.6 months, no grade 3 or greater genitourinary toxicity was observed. Four patients (6.7%) reported a late grade 2 genitourinary toxicity. One patient (1.7%) reported a late grade 3 gastrointestinal toxicity. Five patients (8.3%) developed a late grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicity. The median American Urological Association symptom score increased from 4.5 prior to treatment to 11 while on treatment (p < 0.01), but was 5 at 36 months post-treatment (p = 0.65). Median International Index of Erectile Function scores decreased from 19 to 17 over the course of follow-up (p < 0.01). Only median scores within the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite Short Form sexual domain were significantly decreased at 36 months post-treatment (67.9 vs 45.2, p = 0.02). There was no significant difference in median score within the urinary, bowel, or hormonal domains at 36 months of follow-up.
Stereotactic body radiotherapy for low to intermediate risk prostate cancer is well tolerated with limited toxicity or decrease in quality of life. Longer follow-up is necessary to assess the efficacy of treatment.
Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00941915 Registered 17 June 2009.
- Prostate cancer
- Stereotactic body radiation therapy
- Quality of life
Conventional treatment of localized prostate cancer with radiation alone involves doses to 74 Gy or greater given over 8 to 9 weeks. This regimen is based on four randomized trials showing improved progression free survival compared to lower cumulative doses, however at the cost of increased toxicity [1–4]. Given this concomitant increase in toxicity with dose, as well as the expense and inconvenience of protracted courses, alternative treatment schemes have been investigated.
The relationship of cellular death to radiation dose for rapidly dividing cells is dominated by a linear component, represented by a large α/B ratio, such that changes in fraction size have a small impact on efficacy. More slowly dividing cells, with a relatively small α/β are more sensitive to changes in fraction size when delivered to equivalent total doses. There is clinical data [5, 6] that suggests that prostate cancer has a low α/β compared to surrounding normal tissues and therefore increasing daily radiation fraction size will have a greater effect on the tumor and increase the therapeutic ratio. Hypofractionation, or the delivery of fewer, larger fractions to a lower total dose, may allow for increased tumor control and limit the toxicity and practical disadvantages of dose escalation.
Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) allows for the delivery of large radiation doses through incorporation of coordinate systems and accounting for organ motion via daily imaging. Previous reports have demonstrated the feasibility of this technique and high rates of intermediate term biochemical control for patients with low and intermediate risk prostate cancer [7–12]. Here, we report the acute and long-term toxicity of a phase II, multi-institutional study of SBRT for low to intermediate risk prostate cancer.
Patients and eligibility criteria
Men over the age 40 with prostate adenocarcinoma with a Gleason score ≤ 7, clinical stage T1–T2c, and PSA ≤ 15 ng/ml if their Gleason score was ≤ 6 or PSA ≤ 10 ng/ml if their Gleason score was seven were eligible for this study. Other eligibility criteria included a pathological diagnosis within 365 days of enrollment, history and physical exam including digital rectal exam within 8 weeks of enrollment, and a Zubrod performance status of 0–1. Exclusion criteria included node positive or metastatic disease, AUA score > 18, prostate size > 100 g, previous surgery for prostate cancer, prior pelvic irradiation, or previous or concurrent androgen deprivation therapy.
Patients were recruited at three centers: Duke University Medical Center in Durham, NC, Coastal Carolina Radiation Oncology in Wilmington, NC, and Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, MD. Institutional review board approval was obtained at each center and all participants provided written informed consent before registration.
The clinical target volume (CTV) was the prostate as determined by planning CT scan with 1 to 1.25 mm slice thickness without contrast. All patients completed a bladder and rectal preparation protocol including 1 tablespoon of milk of magnesia the evenings prior to simulation and treatment and a Fleet’s enema with 16–24 oz of water 2–3 h before simulation and treatments. This was shown to minimize intra-fraction motion based on analysis of the first 15 treated patients. Based on this minimal motion, planning based on fused CT/MRI image sets was allowed after this time. The seminal vesicles were not included in the CTV as the risk of this in patients with a combined Gleason score of seven but primary Gleason score of three has been shown to be 4% . The planning target volume (PTV) was created by expanding the CTV by 5 mm in all directions except by 3 mm posteriorly . The total dose was prescribed to cover ≥ 95% of the PTV via intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with a minimum of seven non-opposed fields or two arc rotational fields. For IMRT, fluence mapping of each field was optimized via minimizing a cost function combining PTV coverage and OAR sparing followed by a leaf-motion optimization that converts the fluence map in to a sliding window delivery. And for rotational fields, a similar cost function was used for the optimization, where gantry positions, MLC leaf positions and dose at each gantry position were optimized.
Patients were treated SBRT with 6 to 15 MV beams to a total dose of 37 Gy to cover at least 95% of the PTV volume in 5 fractions. Although not based on an external coordinate system, the term SBRT was used in order to be consistent with CPT coding. Treatment machine QA was performed daily and monthly and patient specific QA performed prior to treatment. The dose was selected as an intermediate between among fractionation schedules published at the time of the study design [9–12]. Stereotactic treatment was accomplished with either implanted transponders (Calypso) or ExacTrac system and/or cone beam CT with fiducial markers. 68% of patients were treated using Calypso transponders. Each of the three institutions were required to verify that the margins were sufficient using the technologies in place at each center be it Calypso, ExacTrac or CBCT. Treatment was delivered every other day with a minimum of 36 h to a maximum of 96 h between consecutive treatments. The total duration of treatment was between 10 and 18 days.
Toxicity and quality of life assessment
Toxicity, as defined by NCI CTCAE v4.0, was assessed at follow-up visits 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months following the end of treatment. Acute toxicity was defined as occurring within 90 days of completing treatment. American Urological Association Symptom Scores (AUASS)  and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF)  scores were collected once prior to treatment and then following treatment at the above time points via questionnaires. Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite Short Form (EPIC-26) bowel, urinary, hormonal, and sexual quality of life (QOL) scores  were obtained by questionnaire once prior to treatment and at 3, 12, 24, and 36 month follow-up appointments.
The primary endpoint of this phase II study was the incidence of acute and late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity with the null hypothesis that SBRT is not tolerable. Secondary endpoints included disease-free survival and patient QOL. Estimated grade 3 rectal toxicity for this regimen was 1.5% based on a BED3Gy of 78 Gy in 39 fractions. With 60 patients there would be 77% power to rule out a >7.1% rate of late Grade 3 toxicity. A rate of ≥ 20% of grade 3 or greater GU or GI toxicity was considered unacceptable and 5% acceptable. Interim analyses of the rates of toxicity were planned after 15 and 30 analyzable patients were recruited.
Frequency distributions of patient demographics and grade 0 to 5 GU and GI toxicity were compared using Χ2 tests. Actuarial toxicity rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. QOL scores were normalized to baseline value prior to treatment. The Wilcoxon ranked sign test was used to analyze the change in QOL scores with time. Median follow-up time was computed from the end of treatment to the last follow-up date.
Baseline characteristics of patients
Age, Median (Range)
Race, Number (Percentage)
PSA, Median (Range)
Stage, Number (Percentage)
Number of Biopsy Cores, Median (Range)
Number of Positive Cores, Median (Range)
Gleason Score, Number (Percentage)
Median Follow-Up, Months
Crude toxicity rates
There was one grade 3 late GI toxicity (fecal urgency), otherwise there was no early or late grade 3 or greater GI toxicity (Table 2). Three (5%) patients developed acute grade 2 GI toxicity and 5 (8.3%) patients developed late grade 2 GI toxicity. The most common GI toxicity was rectal hemorrhage. The actuarial rate of late grade 2 or greater toxicity was 10% (95% CI 2.4–17.5%) at 2 years (Fig. 2b).
Quality of life
In this report of a phase II multi-institutional study of SBRT for low to intermediate risk prostate cancer low rates of genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity were observed with little change in QOL by AUASS as well as IIEF and EPIC-26 scores.
Clinical data [5, 6] suggest that hypofractionated radiation for prostate cancer may improve the therapeutic ratio for this disease. This data has prompted three non-inferiority studies in the last decade investigating treatment in 19 to 28 fractions compared to 39 or more [17–19]. Two of these studies have recently demonstrated hypofractionated treatment to be non-inferior to conventional fractionation with the best estimate hazard ratios for disease free survival favoring hypofractionation [18, 19].
At the same time encouraging results with SBRT for sites outside of the prostate have generated enthusiasm in extending this technique to prostate cancer patients. To this end a number of other phase I and/or II trials have been initiated to demonstrate the feasibility and tolerability of SBRT for prostate cancer.
Previously published rates of toxicity following prostate SBRT
≥ Grade 3
≥ Grade 3
Within or after 1 month
Within or after 3 months
Within or after 9 months
Within or after 6 months
Similar to the limited toxicity in this study, follow-up extending out to 36 months post-treatment showed limited to no change in QOL as measured by either AUASS, IIEF scores, or EPIC-26 scores in either the urinary, bowel, sexual, or hormonal domains. There was a significant decline within the bowel domain of the EPIC-26 scores perhaps in concert with the slight increase in late, as compared to early, grade 2 or grade gastrointestinal. Similar increases in late bowel toxicity have been seen in phase III dose escalation studies of conventionally fractionated radiation and hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated treatment. These results should be interpreted with caution however given the relatively low rate of events in this study and decline in responses to the QOL questionnaires such that less than a third of patients responded to the EPIC-26 questionnaire at 36 months.
It is tempting to comment on the disease status of these patients, however with a short median follow-up of 27.6 months, the ability to make inference on the efficacy of SBRT is limited. Longer follow-up is required for a more robust outcome analysis. If disease control is found to be similar with the observed low rates of toxicity, the option of decreasing treatment time for men with low to intermediate risk prostate cancer will have significant implications for patient convenience and cost.
This study only included men with low to intermediate risk disease and the PSA in those with a Gleason score of 7 was limited to 10 or less. Therefore the results of this study should not be extended to patients with higher risk disease who might require coverage of the seminal vesicles in the treatment volume or those patients treated with concurrent androgen deprivation therapy, both of which were not allowed on this study. In addition it is likely that for at least some men on this study there is little to no advantage to having undergone radiation as compared to active surveillance. The present results should therefore have limited impact on the decision to undergo treatment or not.
In summary for men with low to intermediate risk prostate cancer toxicity following SBRT is low and similar to conventionally fractionated and hypofractionated treatment with limited to no change in QOL. Further follow-up is warranted to address disease control after this treatment.
American Urological Association Symptom Scores
Clinical target volume
- EPIC 26:
Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite Short Form
International Index of Erectile Function
Intensity modulated radiotherapy
Planning target volume
Quality of life
Stereotactic body radiotherapy
The authors would like to acknowledge Joan Cahill for study coordination and data collection.
The authors did not receive any funding/outside support for this study.
Availability of data and materials
The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to patient confidentiality but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
MB analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript. MP, RK, and ZV recruited patients to the study. JW helped design the study and wrote the manuscript. WRL designed the study, recruited patients, and wrote the manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript prior to its publication. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Consent for publication
Written informed consent for publication of clinical images was obtained from the patient. A copy of the consent form is available for review by the Editor of this journal.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Institutional review board approval was obtained at each center and all participants provided written informed consent before registration.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
- Dearnaley DP, Jovic G, Syndikus I, Khoo V, Cowan RA, Graham JD, Aird EG, Bottomley D, Huddart RA, Jose CC, et al. Escalated-dose versus control-dose conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer: long-term results from the MRC RT01 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:464–73.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kuban DA, Tucker SL, Dong L, Starkschall G, Huang EH, Cheung MR, Lee AK, Pollack A. Long-term results of the M. D. Anderson randomized dose-escalation trial for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;70:67–74.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Peeters ST, Heemsbergen WD, Koper PC, van Putten WL, Slot A, Dielwart MF, Bonfrer JM, Incrocci L, Lebesque JV. Dose-response in radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: results of the Dutch multicenter randomized phase III trial comparing 68 Gy of radiotherapy with 78 Gy. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:1990–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Zietman AL, Bae K, Slater JD, Shipley WU, Efstathiou JA, Coen JJ, Bush DA, Lunt M, Spiegel DY, Skowronski R, et al. Randomized trial comparing conventional-dose with high-dose conformal radiation therapy in early-stage adenocarcinoma of the prostate: long-term results from proton radiation oncology group/american college of radiology 95–09. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:1106–11.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Miralbell R, Roberts SA, Zubizarreta E, Hendry JH. Dose-fractionation sensitivity of prostate cancer deduced from radiotherapy outcomes of 5,969 patients in seven international institutional datasets: alpha/beta = 1.4 (0.9-2.2) Gy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82:e17–24.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Shaffer R, Pickles T, Lee R, Moiseenko V. Deriving prostate alpha-beta ratio using carefully matched groups, long follow-up and the phoenix definition of biochemical failure. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;79:1029–36.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Alongi F, Cozzi L, Arcangeli S, Iftode C, Comito T, Villa E, Lobefalo F, Navarria P, Reggiori G, Mancosu P, 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. Radiat Oncol. 2013;8:171.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Hannan R, Tumati V, Xie XJ, Cho LC, Kavanagh BD, Brindle J, Raben D, Nanda A, Cooley S, Kim DW, et al. Stereotactic body radiation therapy for low and intermediate risk prostate cancer-Results from a multi-institutional clinical trial. Eur J Cancer. 2016;59:142–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- King CR, Brooks JD, Gill H, Pawlicki T, Cotrutz C, Presti Jr JC. Stereotactic body radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: interim results of a prospective phase II clinical trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;73:1043–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Madsen BL, Hsi RA, Pham HT, Fowler JF, Esagui L, Corman J. Stereotactic hypofractionated accurate radiotherapy of the prostate (SHARP), 33.5 Gy in five fractions for localized disease: first clinical trial results. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;67:1099–105.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- McBride SM, Wong DS, Dombrowski JJ, Harkins B, Tapella P, Hanscom HN, Collins SP, Kaplan ID. Hypofractionated stereotactic body radiotherapy in low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma: preliminary results of a multi-institutional phase 1 feasibility trial. Cancer. 2012;118:3681–90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Tang CI, Loblaw DA, Cheung P, Holden L, Morton G, Basran PS, Tirona R, Cardoso M, Pang G, Gardner S, Cesta A. Phase I/II study of a five-fraction hypofractionated accelerated radiotherapy treatment for low-risk localised prostate cancer: early results of pHART3. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2008;20:729–37.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Koontz BF, Tsivian M, Mouraviev V, Sun L, Vujaskovic Z, Moul J, Lee WR. Impact of primary Gleason grade on risk stratification for Gleason score 7 prostate cancers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82:200–3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Barry MJ, Fowler Jr FJ, O’Leary MP, Bruskewitz RC, Holtgrewe HL, Mebust WK, Cockett AT. The American Urological Association symptom index for benign prostatic hyperplasia. The Measurement Committee of the American Urological Association. J Urol. 1992;148:1549–57. discussion 1564.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Rosen RC, Cappelleri JC, Smith MD, Lipsky J, Pena BM. Development and evaluation of an abridged, 5-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) as a diagnostic tool for erectile dysfunction. Int J Impot Res. 1999;11:319–26.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wei JT, Dunn RL, Litwin MS, Sandler HM, Sanda MG. Development and validation of the expanded prostate cancer index composite (EPIC) for comprehensive assessment of health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer. Urology. 2000;56:899–905.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Aluwini S, Pos F, Schimmel E, van Lin E, Krol S, van der Toorn PP, de Jager H, Dirkx M, Alemayehu WG, Heijmen B, Incrocci L. Hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for patients with prostate cancer (HYPRO): acute toxicity results from a randomised non-inferiority phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:274–83.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lee WR, Dignam JJ, Amin MB, Bruner DW, Low D, Swanson GP, Shah AB, D'Souza DP, Michalski JM, Dayes IS, Seaward SA, Hall WA, Nguyen PL, Pisansky TM, Faria SL, Chen Y, Koontz BF, Paulus R, Sandler HM. Randomized phase III noninferiority study comparing two radiotherapy fractionation schedules in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(20):2325–32. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.67.0448. PubMed PMID: 27044935; PubMed Central PMCID:PMC4981980.
- Wilkins A, Mossop H, Syndikus I, Khoo V, Bloomfield D, Parker C, Logue J, Scrase C, Patterson H, Birtle A, et al. Hypofractionated radiotherapy versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for patients with intermediate-risk localised prostate cancer: 2-year patient-reported outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:1605–16.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Lukka H, Stephanie P, Bruner D, Bahary JP, Lawton CAF, Efstathiou JA, Kudchadker R, Ponsky L, Seaward SA, Dayes IS, et al. Patient-reported outcomes in NRG Oncology/RTOG 0938, a randomized phase 2 study evaluating 2 Ultrahypofractionated Regimens (UHRs) for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016;94:2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar