Acute toxicity comparison of magnetic resonance-guided adaptive versus fiducial or computed tomography-guided non-adaptive prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

被引:12
作者
Leeman, Jonathan E. [1 ,3 ]
Shin, Kee-Young [2 ]
Chen, Yu-Hui [2 ]
Mak, Raymond H. [1 ]
Nguyen, Paul L. [1 ]
D'Amico, Anthony V. [1 ]
Martin, Neil E. [1 ]
机构
[1] Harvard Med Sch, Brigham & Womens Hosp, Dana Farber Canc Inst, Dept Radiat Oncol, Boston, MA USA
[2] Dana Farber Canc Inst, Dept Data Sci, Boston, MA USA
[3] Brigham & Womens Hosp, Dana Farber Canc Inst, Dept Radiat Oncol, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115 USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
MR-guided; prospective studies; prostate cancer; SBRT; RADIATION-THERAPY; CANCER;
D O I
10.1002/cncr.34836
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
BackgroundStereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is gaining wider adoption for prostate cancer management but there remain significant toxicity risks when delivering prostate SBRT with standard techniques. Magnetic resonance-guided daily adaptive SBRT (MRg-A-SBRT) offers technological advantages in precision of radiation dose delivery, but the toxicity profile associated with MRg-A-SBRT compared to more standardly used fiducial or computed tomography-guided non-adaptive prostate SBRT (CT-SBRT) remains unknown. MethodsA meta-analysis to compare acute toxicity rates associated with MRg-A-SBRT and CT-SBRT for prostate cancer was performed in compliance with PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE (PubMed) and Google Scholar were searched for prospective studies of prostate SBRT that were published between January 1, 2018 and August 31, 2022. Random effects and fixed effects models were used to estimate pooled toxicity rates, and meta-regression was performed to compare toxicity between MRg-A-SBRT and CT-SBRT study groups. ResultsTwenty-nine prospective studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria and included a total of 2547 patients. The pooled estimates for acute grade 2 or higher (G2+) genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity for MRg-A-SBRT were 16% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10%-24%) and 4% (95% CI, 2%-7%) and for CT-SBRT they were 28% (95% CI, 23%-33%) and 9% (95% CI, 6%-12%), respectively. On meta-regression, the odds ratios for acute G2+ GU and GI toxicities comparing MRg-A-SBRT and CT-SBRT were 0.56 (95% CI, 0.33-0.97, p = .04) and 0.40 (95% CI, 0.17-0.96, p = .04), respectively. ConclusionMRg-A-SBRT is associated with a significantly reduced risk of acute G2+ GU or GI toxicity compared to CT-SBRT. Longer follow-up will be needed to evaluate late toxicity and disease control outcomes. Plain language summary Magnetic resonance imaging-guided daily adaptive prostate stereotactic radiation (MRg-A-SBRT) is a treatment that may allow for delivery of prostate radiation more precisely than other radiotherapy techniques, but it is unknown whether this reduces side effects compared to standardly used computed tomography-guided SBRT (CT-SBRT).In this systematic review and meta-analysis combining data from 29 clinical trials including 2547 patients, it was found that the risk of short-term urinary side effects was reduced by 44% and the risk of short-term bowel side effects was reduced by 60% with MRg-A-SBRT compared to CT-SBRT.
引用
收藏
页码:3044 / 3052
页数:9
相关论文
共 32 条
[1]   Rectal spacer hydrogel in 1.5T MR-guided and daily adapted SBRT for prostate cancer: dosimetric analysis and preliminary patient-reported outcomes [J].
Alongi, Filippo ;
Rigo, Michele ;
Figlia, Vanessa ;
Cuccia, Francesco ;
Giaj-Levra, Niccolo ;
Nicosia, Luca ;
Ricchetti, Francesco ;
Vitale, Claudio ;
Sicignano, Gianluisa ;
De Simone, Antonio ;
Naccarato, Stefania ;
Ruggieri, Ruggero ;
Mazzola, Rosario .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2021, 94 (1117)
[2]   1.5 T MR-guided and daily adapted SBRT for prostate cancer: feasibility, preliminary clinical tolerability, quality of life and patient-reported outcomes during treatment [J].
Alongi, Filippo ;
Rigo, Michele ;
Figlia, Vanessa ;
Cuccia, Francesco ;
Giaj-Levra, Niccolo ;
Nicosia, Luca ;
Ricchetti, Francesco ;
Sicignano, Gianluisa ;
De Simone, Antonio ;
Naccarato, Stefania ;
Ruggieri, Ruggero ;
Mazzola, Rosario .
RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 2020, 15 (01)
[3]   Dose accumulation for personalized stereotactic MR-guided adaptive radiation therapy in prostate cancer [J].
Bohoudi, Omar ;
Bruynzeel, Anna M. E. ;
Tetar, Shyama ;
Slotman, Ben J. ;
Palacios, Miguel A. ;
Lagerwaard, Frank J. .
RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2021, 157 :197-202
[4]   SBRT focal dose intensification using an MR-Linac adaptive planning for intermediate-risk prostate cancer: An analysis of the dosimetric impact of intra-fractional organ changes [J].
Brennan, Victoria Sarah ;
Burleson, Sarah ;
Kostrzewa, Caroline ;
Scripes, Paola Godoy ;
Subashi, Ergys ;
Zhang, Zhigang ;
Tyagi, Neelam ;
Zelefsky, Michael J. .
RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2023, 179
[5]   A Prospective Single-Arm Phase 2 Study of Stereotactic Magnetic Resonance Guided Adaptive Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Early Toxicity Results [J].
Bruynzeel, Anna M. E. ;
Tetar, Shyama U. ;
Oei, Swie S. ;
Senan, Suresh ;
Haasbeek, Cornelis J. A. ;
Spoelstra, Femke O. B. ;
Piet, Anna H. M. ;
Meijnen, Philip ;
van der Jagt, Marjolein A. B. Bakker ;
Fraikin, Tamara ;
Slotman, Berend J. ;
van Moorselaar, Reindert J. A. ;
Lagerwaard, Frank J. .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2019, 105 (05) :1086-1094
[6]   Varian ethos online adaptive radiotherapy for prostate cancer: Early results of contouring accuracy, treatment plan quality, and treatment time [J].
Byrne, Mikel ;
Archibald-Heeren, Ben ;
Hu, Yunfei ;
Teh, Amy ;
Beserminji, Rhea ;
Cai, Emma ;
Liu, Guilin ;
Yates, Angela ;
Rijken, James ;
Collett, Nick ;
Aland, Trent .
JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2022, 23 (01)
[7]   Patterns of utilization and clinical adoption of 0.35 Tesla MR-guided radiation therapy in the United States - Understanding the transition to adaptive, ultra-hypofractionated treatments [J].
Chuong, Michael D. ;
Clark, Mary Ann ;
Henke, Lauren E. ;
Kishan, Amar U. ;
Portelance, Lorraine ;
Parikh, Parag J. ;
Bassetti, Michael F. ;
Nagar, Himanshu ;
Rosenberg, Stephen A. ;
Mehta, Minesh P. ;
Refaat, Tamer ;
Rineer, Justin M. ;
Smith, Adam ;
Seung, Steven ;
Zaki, Bassem I. ;
Fuss, Martin ;
Mak, Raymond H. .
CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 2023, 38 :161-168
[8]   The contribution of magnetic resonance imaging to the three-dimensional treatment planning of localized prostate cancer [J].
Debois, M ;
Oyen, R ;
Maes, F ;
Verswijvel, G ;
Gatti, G ;
Bosmans, H ;
Feron, M ;
Bellon, E ;
Kutcher, G ;
Van Poppel, H ;
Vanuytsel, L .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 1999, 45 (04) :857-865
[9]  
Hentschel B, 2011, STRAHLENTHER ONKOL, V187, P183, DOI 10.1007/s00066-010-2179-1
[10]   Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Over 6,000 Patients Treated On Prospective Studies [J].
Jackson, William C. ;
Silva, Jessica ;
Hartman, Holly E. ;
Dess, Robert T. ;
Kishan, Amar U. ;
Beeler, Whitney H. ;
Gharzai, Laila A. ;
Jaworski, Elizabeth M. ;
Mehra, Rohit ;
Hearn, Jason W. D. ;
Morgan, Todd M. ;
Salami, Simpa S. ;
Cooperberg, Matthew R. ;
Mahal, Brandon A. ;
Soni, Payal D. ;
Kaffenberger, Samuel ;
Nguyen, Paul L. ;
Desai, Neil ;
Feng, Felix Y. ;
Zumsteg, Zachary S. ;
Spratt, Daniel E. .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2019, 104 (04) :778-789