Late radiation-related lymphopenia after prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy plus or minus supplemental pelvic irradiation

Severe treatment-related lymphopenia (TRL) occurs in 40% of patients with high grade gliomas (HGG) receiving glucocorticoids, temozolomide, and radiation. This occurs following radiation, persists for months, and is associated with reduced survival. As all three treatment modalities are lymphotoxic, this study was conducted to estimate the radiation dose that lymphocytes receive passing through the radiation field and if this could explain the observed TRL. A typical glioblastoma plan (8-cm tumor, 60 Gy/30 fractions) was constructed using the Pinnacle™ radiation planning system. Radiation doses to circulating cells (DCC) were analyzed using MatLab™. The primary endpoints were mean DCC and percent of circulating cells receiving ≥0.5 Gy. The model was also used to study how changes in target volumes (PTV), dose rates, and delivery techniques affect DCC. The modeling determined that while a single radiation fraction delivered 0.5 Gy to 5% of circulating cells, after 30 fractions 99% of circulating blood had received ≥0.5 Gy. The mean DCC was 2.2 Gy and was similar for IMRT, 3D-conformal techniques, and different dose rates. Major changes in PTV size affected mean DCC and percent of circulating cells receiving ≥0.5 Gy. Standard treatment plans for brain tumors deliver potentially lymphotoxic radiation doses to the entire circulating blood pool. Altering dose rates or delivery techniques are unlikely to significantly affect DCC by the end of treatment. Novel approaches are needed to limit radiation to circulating lymphocytes given the association of lymphopenia with poorer survival in patients with HGG.

In the last few years immunotherapy has become an important cancer treatment modality and while the principles of immunotherapy evolved over many decades, the FDA approvals of sipuleucel-T and ipilimumab began a new wave in immuno-oncology. Despite the current enthusiasm, it is unlikely that any of the immunotherapeutics alone can dramatically change prostate cancer outcomes, but combination strategies are more promising and provide a reason for optimism. Several completed and ongoing studies have shown that the combination of cancer vaccines or checkpoint inhibitors with different immunotherapeutic agents, hormonal therapy (enzalutamide), radiation therapy (radium 223), DNA-damaging agents (olaparib), or chemotherapy (docetaxel) can enhance immune responses and induce more dramatic, long-lasting clinical responses without significant toxicity. The goal of prostate cancer immunotherapy does not have to be complete eradication of advanced disease, but rather the return to an immunologic equilibrium with an indolent disease state. In addition to determining the optimal combination of treatment regimens, efforts are also ongoing to discover biomarkers of immune response. With such concerted efforts, the future of immunotherapy in prostate cancer looks brighter than ever.

Background Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) delivers fewer high-dose fractions of radiation which may be radiobiologically favorable to conventional low-dose fractions commonly used for prostate cancer radiotherapy. We report our early experience using SBRT for localized prostate cancer. Methods Patients treated with SBRT from June 2008 to May 2010 at Georgetown University Hospital for localized prostate carcinoma, with or without the use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), were included in this retrospective review of data that was prospectively collected in an institutional database. Treatment was delivered using the CyberKnife® with doses of 35 Gy or 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions. Biochemical control was assessed using the Phoenix definition. Toxicities were recorded and scored using the CTCAE v.3. Quality of life was assessed before and after treatment using the Short Form-12 Health Survey (SF-12), the American Urological Association Symptom Score (AUA) and Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM) questionnaires. Late urinary symptom flare was defined as an AUA score ≥ 15 with an increase of ≥ 5 points above baseline six months after the completion of SBRT. Results One hundred patients (37 low-, 55 intermediate- and 8 high-risk according to the D’Amico classification) at a median age of 69 years (range, 48–90 years) received SBRT, with 11 patients receiving ADT. The median pre-treatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was 6.2 ng/ml (range, 1.9-31.6 ng/ml) and the median follow-up was 2.3 years (range, 1.4-3.5 years). At 2 years, median PSA decreased to 0.49 ng/ml (range, 0.1-1.9 ng/ml). Benign PSA bounce occurred in 31% of patients. There was one biochemical failure in a high-risk patient, yielding a two-year actuarial biochemical relapse free survival of 99%. The 2-year actuarial incidence rates of GI and GU toxicity ≥ grade 2 were 1% and 31%, respectively. A median baseline AUA symptom score of 8 significantly increased to 11 at 1 month (p = 0.001), however returned to baseline at 3 months (p = 0.60). Twenty one percent of patients experienced a late transient urinary symptom flare in the first two years following treatment. Of patients who were sexually potent prior to treatment, 79% maintained potency at 2 years post-treatment. Conclusions SBRT for clinically localized prostate cancer was well tolerated, with an early biochemical response similar to other radiation therapy treatments. Benign PSA bounces were common. Late GI and GU toxicity rates were comparable to conventionally fractionated radiation therapy and brachytherapy. Late urinary symptom flares were observed but the majority resolved with conservative management. A high percentage of men who were potent prior to treatment remained potent two years following treatment.