Radiation Oncology (Feb 2023)

Stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer: a study comparing 3-year genitourinary toxicity between CyberKnife and volumetric-modulated arc therapy by propensity score analysis

  • Makoto Ito,
  • Yasuo Yoshioka,
  • Yuuki Takase,
  • Junji Suzuki,
  • Hironori Takahashi,
  • Yoshitaka Minami,
  • Ami Sakuragi,
  • Yukihiko Oshima,
  • Takahito Okuda,
  • Kojiro Suzuki

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-023-02233-4
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 18, no. 1
pp. 1 – 10

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background To investigate whether the rate of stereotactic body radiation therapy-related (SBRT-related) genitourinary (GU) toxicity is lower in patients with prostate cancer treated with CyberKnife. Methods We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer at two institutions between 2017 and 2020. We analyzed 70 patients who were extracted by propensity score matching based on age, pre-treatment International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), and prostate volume. The patients were treated with SBRT, with a total dose of 36.25 Gy in five fractions over five consecutive weekdays, using CyberKnife or volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Results The low-, medium-, and high-risk patients were 2, 19, and 14, respectively, in the CyberKnife group and 4, 17, and 14, respectively, in the VMAT group. The median follow-up time in both groups was 3 years. One patient with CyberKnife died of unrelated causes. No biochemical or clinical recurrence, distant metastases, or death from prostate cancer was observed. The peak values of IPSS in the acute phase (< 3 months) were significantly lower in the CyberKnife than in the VMAT group (CyberKnife:16.2 vs VMAT:20.2, p = 0.025). In multiple regression analyses, the treatment modality (p = 0.03), age (p = 0.01), bladder medication pre-irradiation (p = 0.03), and neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (p = 0.04) contributed to the peak value of the acute-phase IPSS. The incidence of treatment-related grade 2 acute GU toxicity tended to be lower in the CyberKnife than the VMAT group (CyberKnife: 22.9% vs. VMAT: 45.7%, p = 0.077). No difference was noted between the groups with regard to late IPSS or GU toxicity and gastrointestinal toxicity in all phases. Toxicities of grade ≥ 3 have not been observed to date. Conclusions Regardless of treatment modality, SBRT is effective in treating prostate cancer without serious toxicity. However, CyberKnife has an advantage over VMAT in terms of acute prostate symptoms.

Keywords