Stereotactic body radiotherapy with periprostatic hydrogel spacer for localized prostate cancer: toxicity profile and early oncologic outcomes

• Main Authors: Mark E. Hwang, Mark Mayeda, Maria Liz, Brenda Goode-Marshall, Lissette Gonzalez, Carl D. Elliston, Catherine S. Spina, Oscar A. Padilla, Sven Wenske, Israel Deutsch
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: BMC 2019-08-01
• Series: Radiation Oncology
• Subjects: Prostate cancer; Stereotactic body radiotherapy; Rectal toxicity; SpaceOAR hydrogel; Dosimetry
• Online Access: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13014-019-1346-5

Abstract Background Multiple phase I-II clinical trials have reported on the efficacy and safety of prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for the treatment of prostate cancer. However, few have reported outcomes for prostate SBRT using periprostatic hydrogel spacer (SpaceOAR; Augmenix). Herein, we report safety and efficacy outcomes from our institutional prostate SBRT experience with SpaceOAR placement. Methods Fifty men with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated at a single institution with linear accelerator-based SBRT to 3625 cGy in 5 fractions, with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) were included. All patients underwent SpaceOAR and fiducial marker placement followed by pre-treatment MRI. Toxicity assessments were conducted at least weekly while on treatment, 1 month after treatment, and every follow-up visit thereafter. Post-treatment PSA measurements were obtained 4 months after SBRT, followed by every 3–6 months thereafter. Acute toxicity was documented per RTOG criteria. Results Median follow up time was 20 (range 4–44) months. Median PSA at time of diagnosis was 7.4 (2.7–19.5) ng/ml. Eighteen men received 6 months of ADT for unfavorable intermediate risk disease. No PSA failures were recorded. Median PSA was 0.9 ng/mL at 20 months; 0.08 and 1.32 ng/mL in men who did and did not receive ADT, respectively. Mean prostate-rectum separation achieved with SpaceOAR was 9.6 ± 4 mm at the prostate midgland. No grade ≥ 3 GU or GI toxicity was recorded. During treatment, 30% of men developed new grade 2 GU toxicity (urgency or dysuria). These symptoms were present in 30% of men at 1 month and in 12% of men at 1 year post-treatment. During treatment, GI toxicity was limited to grade 1 symptoms (16%), although 4% of men developed grade 2 symptoms during the first 4 weeks after SBRT. All GI symptoms were resolving by the 1 month post-treatment assessment and no acute or late rectal toxicity was reported > 1 month after treatment. Conclusions Periprostatic hydrogel placement followed by prostate SBRT resulted in minimal GI toxicity, and favorable early oncologic outcomes. These results indicate that SBRT with periprostatic spacer is a well-tolerated, safe, and convenient treatment option for localized prostate cancer.