Stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective trials

Taylor R. Cushman, Vivek Verma _, Rahul Khairnar, Joseph Levy, Charles B. Simone 2nd and Mark V. Mishra

PDF  |  Full Text  |  Supplementary Files  |  How to cite

Oncotarget. 2019; 10:5660-5668. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.27177

Metrics: PDF 1081 views  |   Full Text 1803 views  |   ?  


Taylor R. Cushman1, Vivek Verma2, Rahul Khairnar3, Joseph Levy3, Charles B. Simone 2nd4 and Mark V. Mishra4

1 Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA

2 Department of Radiation Oncology, Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

3 Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA

4 Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA

Correspondence to:

Vivek Verma,email: [email protected]

Keywords: prostate cancer; stereotactic body radiation therapy; stereotactic ablative radiation therapy; hypofractionation; toxicities

Received: April 17, 2019     Accepted: August 05, 2019     Published: September 24, 2019


Background: Despite the increasing worldwide utilization of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer, there are no known summative data regarding its safety and efficacy. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a PRISMA-guided systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective prostate SBRT trials.

Results: Fourteen trials with a total of 2,038 patients were included. Median follow-up was 37 months (range 6-55 months). Most patients had cT1-T2a, Gleason ≤7 disease with median pre-treatment PSAs of 5–10; 1,042 (51%) were low-risk, 744 (37%) were intermediate-risk, 158 (8%) were high-risk, and the remainder were unreported. Doses ranged from 33.5–50.0 Gy, most typically in 5 fractions, with nearly all studies delivering nondaily fractionation with some type of daily image guidance. Outcomes were converted into counts at the end of one year. The pooled rate of FFBF was 98% [95% confidence interval, 97–98%]. The pooled rate of late grade ≥3 gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicities were 1% [0–5%] and 2% [1–3%], respectively.

Methods: PubMed and Google Scholar were queried for prospective studies evaluating survival and/or toxicity outcomes in SBRT (≤5 fractions) for localized prostate cancer. Pooled rates of freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) and late grades ≥3 gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities were assessed. Meta-analysis of proportions was logit transformed and pooled using generalized linear mixed models (both fixed and random effects) and subsequently back transformed to standard proportions.

Conclusions: Despite the lack of long-term follow-up and heterogeneity of the available evidence, prostate SBRT affords appropriate biochemical control with few high-grade toxicities. These data have implications for ongoing worldwide utilization of prostate SBRT as well as ongoing prospective investigations.

Creative Commons License All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
PII: 27177