Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer in Men With Hip Prostheses: A Cautionary Note.

purposeStereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has been established as a safe and effective treatment for prostate cancer. SBRT requires high accuracy to reduce treatment margins. Metal hip prostheses create artifacts that distort pelvic imaging and potentially decrease the accuracy of target/organ at risk (OAR) identification and radiation dose calculations. Data on the safety and efficacy of SBRT after hip replacement is limited. This single-institution study sought to evaluate the safety and local control following SBRT for prostate cancer in men with hip replacements.

methods23 patients treated with localized prostate cancer and a history of pre-treatment hip replacement, treated with SBRT from 2007 to 2017 at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital were included in this retrospective analysis. Treatment was administered with the CyberKnife

resultsThe median follow-up was seven years. The patients were elderly (median age = 71 years) with a high rate of comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index > 2 in 25%). Four patients had bilateral hip replacements. The majority of patients were low to intermediate risk per the D'Amico classification. Around 13% received upfront ADT. In total, 13 patients were treated with 35 Gy, and 10 were treated with 36.25 Gy. The rates of late > Grade 3 GU toxicity and > Grade 2 GI toxicity were 8.6% and 4.3%, respectively. There were no Grade 4 or 5 toxicities. Six patients (26%) developed a local recurrence at a median time of 7.5 years. Of these six patients, four had unilateral hip replacements and two had bilateral. Three underwent salvage cryotherapy and three received salvage ADT.

conclusionsIn the general population, high-grade toxicities and local recurrences are uncommon following prostate SBRT. However, in this cohort of patients with prior hip replacements, prostate SBRT had higher than expected rates of late toxicity and local recurrence. In the opinion of the authors, such patients should be counseled regarding an elevated risk of late toxicity and local recurrence with prostate SBRT. With its ultrasound guidance, brachytherapy would have the advantage of circumventing the need for MRI/CT-based imaging and thus may represent a preferable radiation alternative in this patient population. If these patients are treated with SBRT, they should be monitored closely for local recurrence so early salvage can be performed. We hope that recent advances in metal artifact reduction techniques and dose-calculation algorithms will improve future outcomes.